Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Doctoral Thesis (9)
- Part of a Book (8)
- Review (8)
- Postprint (6)
- Other (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Journal/Publication series (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (67) (remove)
Keywords
- Kant (3)
- Wittgenstein (3)
- naturalism (3)
- Dilthey (2)
- Experience (2)
- Jaspers (2)
- Meditation (2)
- Mood (2)
- Mysticism (2)
- Philosophical anthropology (2)
Institute
- Institut für Philosophie (67) (remove)
Recent research related to the concept of interest is reviewed. It is argued that current constructs of motivation fail to include crucial aspects of the meaning of interest emphasized by classical American and German educational theorists. In contrast with many contemporary concepts (e.g., intrinsic learning orientation), interest is defined as a content-specific motivational characteristic composed of intrinsic feeling-related and value-related valences. Results from a number of studies are presented that indicate the importance of interest for the depth of text comprehension, the use of learning strategies, and the quality of the emotional experience while learning. The implications of these results and possible directions for future research are discussed.
Content: Introduction: Do the Arts Really Matter? Aesthetic Cognition and Human Development The Significance of Arts in Everyday Life: Evidence from Case StudiesArts and Quality of Experience: A Systematic Analysis The Conditions of Optimal Experience The Representation of Experience in Personality Consequences for Teaching the Arts
This article presents results from a meta-analysis of studies on the relation between subject-matter-related interest and school achievement. For the time period between 1965 and 1990 a total of 21 studies reporting 127 independent correlations (i. e., correlations based on independent samples) were identified. For the overall relation between interestand achievement a mean correlation of .30 was found. Male students exhibited significantly higher interest-achievement correlations than female students. In addition, significant differences among school subjects were observed. Grade level, however, did not produce a significant moderator effect. Finally, the results are discussed on the basis of theories of interest and methodological considerations.
In this work the concept of 'context' is considered in five main points. First, context is seen as always necessary for an adequate explication of the concepts of meaning and understanding. Context always plays a role and is not merely brought into consideration when handling a special class of statements or terms, or when there is doubt and clarification is necessary. Second, context cannot be completely reduced to some system of representation. The reason for this is the presence of humans, which is always an important component of a context. Humans experience situations in ways that are not always reducible to symbolic representation. Third, contexts are in principle open. In normal cases they cannot be determined or described in advance. A context is not to be equated with a set of information. Fourth, we understand the parameters of a context pragmatically, which is why we are not led into doubt or even to meaning skepticism by the open nature of a context. This pragmatic knowledge belongs to the category of an ability. Fifth, contexts are, in principle, accessible. This denies the idea that some contexts are incommensurable. There are a number of pragmatic ways of accessing unfamiliar contexts. Some of these are here examined in light of the so-called 'culture wars' in the U.S.A.
Resolute readings of later Wittgenstein and the challenge of avoiding hierarchies in philosophy
(2011)
This dissertation addresses the question: How did later Wittgenstein aim to achieve his goal of putting forward a way of dissolving philosophical problems which centered on asking ourselves what we mean by our words – yet which did not entail any claims about the essence of language and meaning? This question is discussed with reference to “resolute” readings of Wittgenstein. I discuss the readings of James Conant, Oskari Kuusela, and Martin Gustafsson. I follow Oskari Kuusela’s claim that in order to fully appreciate how later Wittgenstein meant to achieve his goal, we need to clearly see how he aimed to do away with hierarchies in philosophy: Not only is the dissolution of philosophical problems via the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions to be taken as independent from any theses about what meaning must be – but furthermore, it is to be taken as independent from the dissolution of any particular problem via this method. As Kuusela stresses, this also holds for the problems involving rule-following and meaning: the clarification of the grammar of “rule” and “meaning” has no foundational status – it is nothing on which the method of clarifying the grammar of expressions as such were meant to in any way rely on. The lead question of this dissertation then is: What does it mean to come to see that the method of dissolving philosophical problems by asking “How is this word actually used?” does not in any way rely on the results of our having investigated the grammar of the particular concepts “rule” and “meaning”? What is the relation of such results – results such as “To follow a rule, [...], to obey an order, [...] are customs (uses, institutions)” or “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” – to this method? From this vantage point, I concern myself with two aspects of the readings of Gustafsson and Kuusela. In Gustafsson, I concern myself with his idea that the dissolution of philosophical problems in general “relies on” the very agreement which – during the dissolution of the rule-following problem – comes out as a presupposition for our talk of “meaning” in terms of rules. In Kuusela, I concern myself with his idea that Wittgenstein, in adopting a way of philosophical clarification which investigates the actual use of expressions, is following the model of “meaning as use” – which model he had previously introduced in order to perspicuously present an aspect of the actual use of the word “meaning”. This dissertation aims to show how these two aspects of Gustafsson’s and Kuusela’s readings still fail to live up to the vision of Wittgenstein as a philosopher who aimed to do away with any hierarchies in philosophy. I base this conclusion on a detailed analysis of which of the occasions where Wittgenstein invokes the notions of “use” and “application” (as also “agreement”) have to do with the dissolution of a specific problem only, and which have to do with the dissolution of philosophical problems in general. I discuss Wittgenstein’s remarks on rule-following, showing how in the dissolution of the rule-following paradox, notions such as “use”, “application”, and “practice” figure on two distinct logical levels. I then discuss an example of what happens when this distinction is not duly heeded: Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker’s idea that the rule-following remarks have a special significance for his project of dissolving philosophical problems as such. I furnish an argument to the effect that their idea that the clarification of the rules of grammar of the particular expression “following a rule” could answer a question about rules of grammar in general rests on a conflation of the two logical levels on which “use” occurs in the rule-following remarks, and that it leads into a regress. I then show that Gustafsson’s view – despite its decisive advance over Baker and Hacker – contains a version of that same idea, and that it likewise leads into a regress. Finally, I show that Kuusela’s idea of a special significance of the model “meaning as use” for the whole of the method of stating rules for the use of words is open to a regress argument of a similar kind as that he himself advances against Baker and Hacker. I conclude that in order to avoid such a regress, we need to reject the idea that the grammatical remark “The meaning of a word is its use in the language” – because of the occurrence of “use” in it – stood in any special relation to the method of dissolving philosophical problems by describing the use of words. Rather, we need to take this method as independent from this outcome of the investigation of the use of the particular word “meaning”.
How does perceptual experience make us knowledgeable? This book argues that the answer lies in the nature of perceptual experience: this experience involves conceptual capacities and is a relation between perceiver and world. The author develops her position via a critical examination of conceptualist and relationist theories of perception. A discussion of recent work in vision science rounds up this contribution to the philosophy of perception.
In Sources of the Self Charles Taylor makes clear that both hypergoods and moral sources are essential to the moral life. Although hypergoods and moral sources are not the same thing, Taylor’s descriptions of these concepts are quite similar, and so their distinction requires interpretation. I propose that we interpret the difference on the basis of another distinction that is central to Taylor’s thinking: that between immanence and transcendence. Whereas a moral source transcends us, a hypergood is the value of our immanent way of relating to that moral source. This interpretation requires that we first differentiate between a narrow and a wide sense of “moral source.”
critique of neuroscience
(2016)
Bennett and Hacker criticize a number of neuroscientists and philosophers for attributing capacities which belong to the human being as a whole, like perceiving or deciding, to a “part” of the human being, viz. the brain. They call this type of mistake the “mereological fallacy”. Interestingly, the authors say that these capacities cannot be ascribed to the mind either. They reject not only materialistic monism but also Cartesian dualism, arguing that many predicates describing human life do not refer to physical or mental properties, nor to the sum of such properties. I agree with this important principle and with the critique of the mereological fallacy which it underpins, but I have two objections to the authors’ view. Firstly, I think that the brain is not literally a part of the human being, as suggested. Secondly, Bennett and Hacker do not offer an account of body and mind which explains in a systematic way how the domain of phenomena which transcends the mental and the physical relates to the mental and the physical. I first argue that Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology provides the kind of account we need. Then, drawing on Plessner, I present an alternative view of the mereological relationships between brain and human being. My criticism does not undercut Bennett and Hacker’s diagnosis of the mereological fallacy but rather gives it a more solid philosophical–anthropological foundation.