Suchergebnisse

"In recent years, the relation between contemporary academic philosophy and evolutionary theory has become ever more active, multifaceted, and productive. The connection is a bustling two-way street. In one direction, philosophers of biology make significant contributions to theoretical discussions about the nature of evolution (such as "What is a species?"; "What is reproductive fitness?"; "Does selection operate primarily on genes?"; and "What is an evolutionary function?"). In the other direction, a broader group of philosophers appeal to Darwinian selection in an attempt to illuminate traditional philosophical puzzles (such as "How could a brain-state have representational content?"; "Are moral judgments justified?"; "Why do we enjoy fiction?"; and "Are humans invariably selfish?"). In grappling with these questions, this interdisciplinary collection includes cutting-edge examples from both directions of traffic. The thirty contributions, written exclusively for this volume, are divided into six sections: The Nature of Selection, Evolution and Information, Human Nature, Evolution and Mind, Evolution and Ethics, and Evolution, Aesthetics, and Art. Many of the contributing philosophers and psychologists are international leaders in their fields."--Provided by publisher

This volume draws together Richard Joyce's work from the last decade on moral skepticism, the view that there is no such thing as moral knowledge. Joyce's radical view is that in making moral judgments speakers attempt to state truths but that the world isn't furnished with the properties and relations necessary to render such judgments true

In The Myth of Morality, Richard Joyce argues that moral discourse is hopelessly flawed. At the heart of ordinary moral judgements is a notion of moral inescapability, or practical authority, which, upon investigation, cannot be reasonably defended. Joyce argues that natural selection is to blame, in that it has provided us with a tendency to invest the world with values that it does not contain, and demands that it does not make. Should we therefore do away with morality, as we did away with other faulty notions such as witches? Possibly not. We may be able to carry on with morality as a 'useful fiction' - allowing it to have a regulative influence on our lives and decisions, perhaps even playing a central role - while not committing ourselves to believing or asserting falsehoods, and thus not being subject to accusations of 'error'

This commentary reflects on the imperial qualities of modern sovereignty and law, through the lens of Jacques Derrida's notion of sovereign "autopositioning." It argues that modern sovereignty is essentially imperial and yet carries an inextinguishable anti-imperial thrust. These characteristics highlight the self-grounded force of sovereign claims and at the same time expose the contingency of those claims. The commentary argues that this relationship between force and contingency creates a need for vigilant critique of and a space for resistance to, sovereign claims.

Whether an individual can apologize for an action he or she never performed, or as representative of a group, can apologize for a government or people of the past, in light of political and religious leaders accepting collective responsibility for historical events.

1. Modern sovereignty and the nation-state : a failure of grounds -- 2. Autopositioning : the groundless ground of modern sovereignty -- 3. The constitutive function of relation -- 4. The relation of sovereigns at the national and international levels : India and the WTO -- 5. The relation of sovereigns at the national and local levels : traditional knowledge and local community autonomy in India.