Esercizi Filosofici 16, 1 (2021)

In this paper, I show how it is possible to allow for the existence of artifacts within a neo-Aristotelian conceptual framework. In order to do this, I show the main features of the mainstream Quinean approach to ontology, I then expose the main features of the neo-Aristotelian metaphysics and introduce some key notions such as sortal concepts and criteria of identity, and finally, I propose a criterion of identity for artifacts based on Evnine’s doctrine of amorphism. I also propose a solution to a possible objection to amorphism.

This contribution aims to explore scepticism’s implications with respect to the notions of ontological dependence and independence, referring especially to Peter Unger’s New Scepticism. First, a reconstruction is offered of the fundamental theoretical perspective acting as the backdrop of Unger’s scepticism, in relation to his volume Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism (1975). Then, light will be shed on the implications that this perspective has on the ontological level, referring also to some of Unger’s sceptical and nihilistic philosophy’s subsequent developments. At last, a critical interpretation is suggested of the author’s proposed solution to the radical outcome of his philosophy, in light of the notions of ontological dependence and independence.

One way to understand the nature of our moral disagreements is to study the meaning of moral discourse. Nonetheless, Metaethical Theories that account for these disagreements face important challenges. For instance, if our theory of moral terms assigns them a reference too specifically related to a contextual parameter, we might be ruling out the substantiality of moral disagreements (e.g., while ‘To eat people is wrong’ is plausibly true relative to our culture, it’d be false for a community of cannibals). This paper (1) explores the theoretical room for a contextualist account of moral terms that models the substantiality of moral disagreements; (2) sketches the characterization of the contextual parameter these terms’ meaning is sensitive to; and (3) shows the tools this account has to avoid reducing moral disagreements to merely linguistic ones.

Commenting on some Heraclitean fragments, Heidegger examines the meaning of Being as λόγος, affirming the possibility to have access to it through an authentic hearkening. The most interesting aspect about this analysis is that it is outlined a tight ontological dependence — a sort of belonging that comes to be translated as obedience — of the human being with respect to Being. However, the German philosopher doesn’t explicitly provide for human agency. This paper aims to give an account of the reading on Heraclitus that Heidegger presents in the ‘40s and ’50, underlying its critical elements in terms of their implications.