Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Postprint (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- ontology (5) (remove)
Institute
The aim of this paper is to discuss the relation between our experience in everyday life and ontological reflection. While many accounts in contemporary ontology still defend the idea that the world consists only of material objects, some new views on everyday metaphysics or social ontology which try to articulate the specific properties of the objects used and found in ordinary life have been established during the last years. In the critical ontology of Nicolai Hartmann, the social and cultural dimension of our life is situated in the sphere of spiritual being [Geistiges Sein]. By investigating the methodical relation of phenomenology and critical ontology as well as specific entities (objective spirit, cultural objects), it is established that Hartmann offers a wide and methodologically reflected view which could be able to satisfy the practical significance of these entities.
The aim of this paper is to discuss Nicolai Hartmann’s conception of personhood as developed in his philosophy of spiritual being. Many contemporary accounts of personhood are systematically focused on rational phenomena as self-consciousness or practical reasoning, which are understood as ‘conditions of personhood’. Apart from having some technical problems, those accounts limit our self-under-standing as persons on distinct rational properties and often fail to consider the sociocultural aspects of the personal situation. Nicolai Hartmann — although respecting the role of reason — understands personhood particularly as participation in a shared spiritual sphere called Objektiver Geist (objective spirit), which includes various intersubjective phenomena as languages, religion, moral, arts, and the
sciences. Being part of this sphere seems to be more fundamental than having distinct rational properties, which requests a spiritual frame to be exerted. Further it is shown that Hartmann’s ontology of person also includes a notion of being affected by the existential weight of situations and other person’s actions — an idea often maintained by phenomenological positions. By regarding rational, intersubjective and affective aspects, Hartmann’s philosophy of person succeeds in offering a broad articulation of our self-understanding and may also be seen as providing a background to understand certain phenomena that are part of the personal situation.
Volunteered geographical information (VGI) and citizen science have become important sources data for much scientific research. In the domain of land cover, crowdsourcing can provide a high temporal resolution data to support different analyses of landscape processes. However, the scientists may have little control over what gets recorded by the crowd, providing a potential source of error and uncertainty. This study compared analyses of crowdsourced land cover data that were contributed by different groups, based on nationality (labelled Gondor and Non-Gondor) and on domain experience (labelled Expert and Non-Expert). The analyses used a geographically weighted model to generate maps of land cover and compared the maps generated by the different groups. The results highlight the differences between the maps how specific land cover classes were under-and over-estimated. As crowdsourced data and citizen science are increasingly used to replace data collected under the designed experiment, this paper highlights the importance of considering between group variations and their impacts on the results of analyses. Critically, differences in the way that landscape features are conceptualised by different groups of contributors need to be considered when using crowdsourced data in formal scientific analyses. The discussion considers the potential for variation in crowdsourced data, the relativist nature of land cover and suggests a number of areas for future research. The key finding is that the veracity of citizen science data is not the critical issue per se. Rather, it is important to consider the impacts of differences in the semantics, affordances and functions associated with landscape features held by different groups of crowdsourced data contributors.
Der Begriff Altruismus geht auf Auguste Comte, den Gründer der Soziologie zurück. Es bezeichnet zugleich Uneigennütziges als auch selbstloses Verhalten von Individuen und wird daher oft dem egoistischen Verhalten gegenübergestellt. Die zahlreichen Anhänger des rationalen-egoistischem Paradigma lehnen die Idee der altruistischen Natur des Menschen meist ab, wohingegen die Anhänger des Altruismus nicht nur schwerer zu finden sind, sondern vor allem die Idee einer rein egoistischen Natur ablehnen. Diese Arbeit untersucht die Altruismus-Begriffe der Soziologen Emile Durkheim und James Coleman, welche die Kontroverse zwischen den unterschiedlichen Paradigmen wiederspiegeln. Ziel dieser Arbeit wird es sein, die unterschiedlichen Altruismus-Konzepte von Durkheim und Coleman zunächst vorzustellen, anschließend einander gegenüberzustellen und darauf folgend zu untersuchen, welche Auswirkung ihre unterschiedlichen Weltanschauungen, Prämissen und Methodologien auf ihr Verständnis von der Logik des selbstlosen Gebens haben. Durch den Vergleich soll versucht werden die Grenzen beider Theorien aufzuzeigen und damit auch ein Ausweg aus dem methodologischem Disput, welcher folglich zur Überwindung der Altruismus-Egoismus Kontroverse beitragen soll.