Hans Poser

Complexity theories are on the way to establish a new worldview—processes instead of objects, history and uniqueness of everything instead of repetition and lawlikeness are the elements. These theories from deterministic chaos via the dissipative structures, the theory of catastrophes, self organization and synergetics are mathematical models, connected with a new understanding of science. They are characterized by new fundamental commitments of sciences. But at the same time, they are characterized by epistemic boundaries.

What I intend to show is that the Leibnizian language studies—the formal ones as well as those on natural languages—from his early plans for academies and language societies on up to his studies of etymology and to his interest in foreign languages and in logical, geometrical, arithmetical, and other formal calculi, has to be seen as an important contribution to the idea of enlightenment. Their importance was such that Christian Wolff was able to transform the Leibnizian ideas into the mighty movement of Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics, a movement paralleled to the tradition of Thomasius. Both tradiions later found their unification in Kant’s critical philosophy.

Mit dem Konzept des kategorialen Rahmens hat Stephan Körner eine Möglichkeit geschaffen, metaphysische Systeme zu vergleichen. Da kein metaphysisches System auf Modalbegriffe verzichten kann, wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit am Beispiel der Kritik Kants an der Wolffschen Schule gezeigt, daß Körners Konzept zu ergänzen ist um die jeweilige modale Kennzeichnung auf den Ebenen der ontologischen, logischen und epistemischen Modalitäten. So muß die Kantische Kopernikanische Wende als eine Kritik an der Wolffschen Modaltheorie gesehen werden, verbunden mit dem Entwurf einer eigenen Modalkonzeption, die als neue Elemente erstens die Begründung der ontologischen Modalitäten auf epistemische statt auf logische Modalitäten und zweitens die Einführung der Wirklichkeit als gleichberechtigten Modus enthält. Der Weg dieser Kritik führt über eine Verwerfung des Wolffschen complementum possibilitatis und des ontologischen Gottesbeweises und zeigt, wie schrittweise eine Reflexion auf die Möglichkeit der Erkenntnis zu einer Umkehr des tradierten modaltheoretischen Begründungszusammenhangs führt.

Nothing is as complex as the world – but soon we must master this complexity to be able to live in it. Our means to do so are the languages. However, they are so manifold and so differently in vocabulary, structure and in the way linked with the world that it is difficult to ascribe to them a common relation. Noam Chomsky’s empirical search for a deep structure grammar had no success. For Leibniz our actual world is infinitely complex, beginning with the monad and its subordinated “worlds in the worlds”. Thus exactly our problem constellation of today can already be found there–namely how to master infinite complexity by languages. But what connects these languages? This will be discussed from (1) the representational function of signs concerning the connection between res / signum / notio / idea, via (2) the Ars characteristica and its formal-linguistic sign systems; the next step counts (3) for the natural languages and their functions, marked above all by an adaptation to new problems. The last step deals with the functions of languages, finally leading to the unity of reason.

Modal concepts as possibility, necessity, contingency and reality belong to the most important means of reflection. They constitute philosophical systems - but they are not used in a systematic way to characterize technology. The central ontological problem consists in the fact that technology is based on new ideas, which at the beginning are a mere possibility, because the intended artifacts and processes never existed up to that moment. Even the blueprint expresses a possibility. But these possibilities must be realizable, since technological artifacts or processes have to work properly in the world following physical andcausal necessity. Moreover, boundary conditions, sometimes seen as feasibility (a very special kind of conditioned possibility), have to take into account conditions of the real world (as material, energy, local conditions), cognitive conditions (theoretical knowledge, know how – i.e. dispositions, which are possibilities, too), social and cultural conditions (norm, values i.e. deontic possibilities). They all constitute the realm of technological possibility. Within this region the development of technology takes place. But at the same time they have influenced our thinking and our culture from the very beginning.

Rudolf Carnap había publicado en el año 1928 su obra Pseudoproblemas en la filosofía, donde intentaba mostrar que la lucha entre idealismo y realismo carecía de sentido, al no ser posible de ninguna manera demostrar o refutar una de las dos posiciones. Poco después, en los años cincuenta del pasado siglo XX Ludwig Wittgenstein tuvo una gran repercusión al proponer como “solución” la idea de que los problemas de este tipo descansan sobre un hechizo de la mente, el cual se origina por una mezcolanza de diferentes juegos lingüísticos –descansando el uno sobre objetos físicos, el otro sobre sensaciones y estados anímicos.

Mit dem Konzept des kategorialen Rahmens hat Stephan Körner eine Möglichkeit geschaffen, metaphysische Systeme zu vergleichen. Da kein metaphysisches System auf Modalbegriffe verzichten kann, wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit am Beispiel der Kritik Kants an der Wolffschen Schule gezeigt, daß Körners Konzept zu ergänzen ist um die jeweilige modale Kennzeichnung auf den Ebenen der ontologischen, logischen und epistemischen Modalitäten. So muß die Kantische Kopernikanische Wende als eine Kritik an der Wolffschen Modaltheorie gesehen werden, verbunden mit dem Entwurf einer eigenen Modalkonzeption, die als neue Elemente erstens die Begründung der ontologischen Modalitäten auf epistemische statt auf logische Modalitäten und zweitens die Einführung der Wirklichkeit als gleichberechtigten Modus enthält. Der Weg dieser Kritik führt über eine Verwerfung des Wolffschen complementum possibilitatis und des ontologischen Gottesbeweises und zeigt, wie schrittweise eine Reflexion auf die Möglichkeit der Erkenntnis zu einer Umkehr des tradierten modaltheoretischen Begründungszusammenhangs führt.

Analogy as a scientific method has been criticized during the last decades; only for heuristic purposes it has been accepted. On the other side especially proportional analogies have a long tradition in European thought since Plato and Aristotle, for, as Aristotle puts it, analogies allow a connection between different and unbridgeable ontological areas. As examples for such connections the analogia entis of Thomas of Aquino and the Kantian Analogies of Experience are discussed. They give us hints for a new view of analogies, which during the Middle Ages were not only of heuristic value, but were accepted as a proof: Analogies do not only produce hypotheses, moreover, they build up new views of the world, they are the background of paradigms, for they create structures by introducing similarities and proportions.

The mind-body problem is a central problem of modern philosophy. Leibniz’s Monadology as a model of a solution is picked up again and again even today. In order to characterize three of these completely different new monadologies of today, the basic difficulty of the mind-body-problem is outlined as a background, followed by a short sketch of the Leibnitian solution. - The first new monadology, here, is the metaphysical solution of U. Meixner, who chooses consciousness as a fundament, seeing a monad as a stream of consciousness. This is contrasted with a second new monadology, namely N. Rescher’s process-theoretical approach, which takes the monad not as a substance, but as a process. The third new monadology is the quantum monadology of T. Nakagomi, where the monad is embedded in a quantum ontological concept that elaborates a reconciliation of the macroscopic, material world with a quantum theoretical world of consciousness, both sides seen as an interpretation. Finally there are some reflections on a merger of elements of these three concepts of monadology for an approach of today.