Contemporary Analytic Philosophy Research Articles

Thomist Libertarianism is Committed to Mysterianism

Abstract In recent years, a large amount of scholarship has been written about St Thomas Aquinas’s views on free will and determinism. This paper is an attempt to bring some Thomist views of libertarian free will into dialogue with analytic philosopher Peter van Inwagen and his ‘mysterianism’ about free will. The thesis of this paper is that Thomist libertarians about free will are committed to Peter van Inwagen’s mysterianism about free will. The paper intends to accomplish this aim by showing how recent accounts of Thomist libertarianism cannot defeat the intuitive strength of van Inwagen’s ‘Replay argument’. The significance of this conclusion is that some Thomists are committed to mysterianism and that mysterianism is a legitimate position a Thomist can hold. This also provides evidence that the Thomist tradition can grow and be nourished by engagement with contemporary analytic philosophy.

Mahayana Philosophy: Problems and Research

The introduction to the topic of this issue is an overview of the research articles authored by Russian, Lithuanian, and Indian scholars on various problems of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. While explaining the status of the terms “Mahāyāna” and “Hīnayāna,” the author emphasizes that since they are represent the apologetic conceptualizations of Mahayanists, the appellation “Hīnayāna” (“Lesser Vehicle”, etc.) is not recognized either by those Buddhists who are supposed to be characterized by it, or by scholars striving for a neutral appellation. This creates difficulties, including the need for a generally accepted designation for this Buddhist tradition. However, despite the apologetic nature of the Mahāyāna - Hīnayāna opposition, the difference between the two is captured very plausibly. The first one teaches about the individual way of achieving liberation from the cycle of endless rebirths (saṃsāra) through a personal, individual self-perfection (the path of the arhat) leading to enlightenment (bodhi) and nirvāṇa (extinction of passions). The second one develops a full-fledged religion with its own pantheon and rituals, in which nirvāṇa and individual liberation, while remaining, more or less theoretically, the ultimate goal, are pushed to a distant plane. At the same time, the idea of compassion and the ideal of bodhisattva who, having taken a vow to help all living beings to get rid of sufferings, continues to remain in saṃsāra, is put forward in the center. However, despite this major difference a Buddhist discipline known as Abhidharma which consists in analysis and classification of discrete states of consciousness (dharmas), identified in meditation, remains a reference point in both traditions. Three authors touch upon it (Helen Ostrovskaya, Pradeep Gokhale, and Vladimir Korobov). Two of them (Ostrovskaya and Gokhale) focus on the problems of murder and death, and the third one (Korobov) dwells on the methodology of Abhidharma. Vladimir Ivanov offers a new interpretation of the structure of Śāntarakṣita’s treatise “Tattva-saṃgraha” with Kamalaśīla’s “Pañjikā” commentary. Yangutov and Lepekhov explore the specificity of Buddhism reception in China, Tibet, Mongolia, and Russia. Nesterkin publishes for the first time B. Baradiin’s theses for Agvan Dordjiev’s lecture, which exemplifies the Buryat Buddhist Renovationists’ interpretation of Buddhism. Burmistrov analyzes the views of Indian historians of philosophy on the history of Buddhism, Volkova - the concepts of Buddhist ethics in contemporary analytical philosophy.

Do analytic philosophers in China think differently? A survey and comparative study

Analytic philosophy has been developing in China for over a century, and philosophers shaped by the analytic tradition have grown into an important philosophical community in China. The views of contemporary analytic philosophers in China on central philosophical issues and their similarities and differences with analytic philosophers in English-speaking countries have not been systematically investigated. Bourget and Chalmers have conducted two large-scale online questionnaire surveys on analytic philosophers in English-speaking countries. Inspired by their studies, a survey on analytic philosophers in China was performed. It is found that philosophers in China had no agreement on most issues. According to the comparative analysis with the results of Bourget and Chalmers’ second survey, there were significant differences in views as well as thinking styles between analytic philosophers in China and English-speaking countries. And these differences may be partially explained by cultural factors and academic environments.

Analytic patristics

AbstractGeorges Florovsky, in 1936, called for a revival of the teaching of the Church Fathers. At the same time, Fr. Joseph Bocheński formulated the program for the renewal of Thomism by means of formal logic. In this paper, I propose to integrate these two projects. Analytic Patristics aims at expressing and developing patristic thought with the tools of analytic philosophy. The broad program of the logic of religion formulated by Bocheński included semiotics, methodology, and the formal logic of religion. I present here three examples of the integration of analytic philosophy and patristics in these three areas. I discuss first Basil Lourié’s paraconsistent interpretation of Dionysius the Areopagite’s theory of the divine names, then Richard Swinburne’s efforts to revive Orthodox natural theology, and finally Beau Branson’s reconstruction of Gregory of Nyssa’s metaphysics of the Trinity. These examples perfectly illustrate how analytic philosophy can contribute to the development of patristics, and how the tradition of the Church Fathers can inspire contemporary analytic philosophy of religion.

Panpsychism and the mind-body problem in contemporary analytic philosophy

ABSTRACTNot so long ago, the idea that analytic philosophers would be taking panpsychism seriously would have been hard to believe. That is because in its early, logical positivist, stage, the analytic movement earned the reputation of being militantly anti-metaphysical. But analytic philosophy has come a long way since the heyday of logical positivism; and, in fact, the dialectic of recent debates on the mind–body problem among analytic philosophers has pushed many of them in the direction of panpsychism. In this paper, I want to explain how this has come about and take a look at some of the versions of panpsychism that have emerged. This will involve running through a quick history of debates on the mind–body problem since about 1960, focusing on how panpsychism has been proposed as a promising, though not unproblematic, way of breaking an apparent impasse that has emerged between more standard physicalist and dualist theories of mind. Along the way, I will also have occasion to comment on the prospects of panpsychism as a respectable scientific theory and how a number of scientists stand on this.

The Unity of Religious Experience: An Analytic Reading of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Second Speech On Religion

Abstract In this paper, I present a conception of individual religiousness in terms of religious experience. Using ideas of the early Friedrich Schleiermacher, I will claim that religious experiences are contemplative experiences of the totality of being. This understanding of religious experiences presents an alternative to how religious experience is often epistemologically thought about in the more contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Furthermore, it has systematic advantages: It can construe religious plurality in terms of different ways to experience the totality of being, it stays neutral to metaphysical and moral debates such as whether there is a God whose laws we should obey, and it allows for an explanation of how religious intuitions and religious emotions relate to one another as well as of why religiousness and art often go hand in hand. Even though understanding religiousness in terms of contemplative experience also bears revisionary potential, I will discuss how more doxastic elements of religious people’s lives can be reintegrated into this picture.

Who Are You Really? A Philosopher’s Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons

WHO ARE YOU REALLY? A Philosopher's Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Persons by Joshua Rasmussen. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023. 304 pages. Paperback; $30.00. ISBN 9781514003947. *In this text, philosopher Joshua Rasmussen attempts to understand the nature of human persons (Part One) and their origin (Part Two) through a study of human consciousness. While his book is an exercise in philosophical analysis, he offers reflections on the plausibility of his arguments in light of recent findings in psychology and theoretical physics. *In the first two chapters, Rasmussen establishes the framework for his analysis. Of particular significance is his use of introspection to argue against reductionist accounts of consciousness. By introspection, he means attention to first-person experience of the data of consciousness, such as thoughts and feelings (pp. 8-10). Such attention shows that the best explanation of consciousness will be one that accounts for the reality of mental states. Since we can have what Rasmussen calls a direct, introspective awareness of mental states, we can know these states are real (pp. 30, 40). *The next four chapters build upon this realist account of the contents of consciousness by attending to thoughts, perceptions, intentions, and values. In each case, Rasmussen concludes that the best way to account for the existence of these mental states is by changing our orientation from a "mindlessness frame" to a "mind-first" frame (p. 123). So, for example, introspection reveals that thoughts are real, but are not the same as, nor are they simply reducible to, brain states (pp. 57-59). Likewise, introspection reveals that the elements necessary for a free choice--i.e., agency, intention, and options--are present in acts of willing, and that the reality of these mental acts is confirmed insofar as they affect material states (p. 116). In summary, the existence of these various mental states requires a mental context, which is the mind. But since mental states also change, there must be a constant that anchors the mental context, and that anchor is what Rasmussen means by a person. "Qualities in consciousness depend on the existence of someone with a mind" (p. 142, emphasis mine). *There is much that is relevant in these chapters to those interested in how science might inform philosophy of mind. In his analysis of thoughts, Rasmussen notes physicist Alex Rosenberg's objection to the existence of a mind (p. 74). Rosenberg's critique provides Rasmussen with an example of how science can help philosophy clarify the question. In this case, the question is what kind of material must exist for thoughts to exist. Introspection reveals the need to posit some "material" that cannot be accounted for only by reference to the data of physics. In his analysis of the will, Rasmussen notes that recent studies in neuroscience have found evidence that conscious acts precede the quantifiable brain activity associated with those acts, thus supporting the notion of a free will. Another study found that conscious acts have a significant effect on the brain without contradicting physical laws (pp. 118-19). These and other studies confirm that mental acts, such as conscious intending, affect material states, such as brain activity. *In the final two chapters of Part One, Rasmussen explains the integration of these conscious acts in terms of what he calls the "conscious substance theory." In short, a person is a substance that unifies both mental and material aspects, such that the causal operator is neither a mental nor a material bit, but rather is itself a capacity of the conscious substance. Furthermore, this conscious substance explains the unity of the person (p. 172). On the one hand, a person can be understood only insofar as the conscious states of that person are affirmed as real. As real as these states are, however, they are all just various parts of what makes a person. The nature of a person is not these parts, but rather is the substance that unifies all these parts. Rasmussen here presents what is perhaps his most interesting example of scientific research relevant to understanding his theory of the person. Physicist Carlo Rovelli explains that matter is best understood as informational, not spatial. This allows for the possibility that both minds and bodies are just different aspects of an underlying quantum field (p. 165), a possibility to which he returns later in the book. *In Part Two, Rasmussen attempts to explain the origin of persons by delineating the conditions for its source (chaps. 9-11) and then explaining what might fulfill those conditions (chaps. 12-13). First, he argues that anything capable of generating a conscious substance must itself be conscious (p. 207), it must be a unity that integrates conscious acts (p. 216), and it must be identical over time (pp. 231, 233). Then, Rasmussen employs a notion of emergence to explain the origin of persons in light of these three conditions. He considers and rejects both "weak" and "incongruent" notions of emergence that would simply reduce consciousness to third-person, mindless bits of matter (pp. 240, 243). Consciousness must be the result of "strong" emergence of a sort that he calls "substance emergence," meaning that the material from which a conscious substance emerges must itself have the capacity for consciousness. Substance emergence is not incongruent, since the substance in question is congruent with conscious acts; nor is it weak, since the emergent content of consciousness (e.g., a mental image) is not logically predictable based solely on the conscious substance from which the content emerges (p. 246). *The book's argument culminates in chapter thirteen, in which Rasmussen posits what he calls the "source substance" as the origin of persons. The source substance is fundamental, such that it does not emerge from any prior substance; it is conscious, giving it the capacity to generate consciousness; it generates things according to principles and patterns that are intelligible; and it is the substance out of which persons emerge. Rasmussen attempts to show the plausibility of the theory in several ways. First, the "informational theory of matter" based on the work of Rovelli (see above) makes sense if the source of all matter is itself a conscious substance and the informational states that constitute matter are themselves the contents of consciousness belonging to the source (pp. 256-58). Rasmussen then explains how a mind-first (as opposed to a mindless) ontology has the advantage of not requiring multiple kinds of substances to explain matter, since a source substance that is conscious can generate both mental and material aspects of reality. Rasmussen sees further support for this possibility in recent psychological studies of perception, which understand "particles" to be properties of conscious beings (pp. 260-61). He notes also that a mind-first notion of reality makes sense given that the world is not fundamentally chaotic, but rather is intelligible. Finally, the existence of persons is more plausible if the foundation from which persons emerge is itself personal. Rasmussen concludes the book with a consideration of what he calls the "destruction problem." If mindless matter (which includes the body) cannot construct a conscious substance, then by symmetry the absence of mindless matter cannot destroy a conscious substance. Therefore, persons can exist even after the body associated with that person ceases to exist (p. 277). *Rasmussen intends the book to be accessible to the lay person while maintaining the interest of the specialist, and he partially succeeds in both respects. Some readers might be encouraged by Rasmussen's repeated assertion that it's hard work to ask and answer these deep questions, as well as by his assurances that it will be worth the effort to go where few have dared to tread, though others are just as likely to find these refrains grating and condescending. Those skeptical of Rasmussen's conclusions will appreciate his willingness to take nothing for granted, including his own existence. The result, however, is that the book wades into debates that are unlikely to help the casual reader follow the argument. Those less interested in the baroque concerns of contemporary analytic philosophy can follow the trajectory of the book's argument by reading only the introductory and summary portions of each chapter. *All readers will be served well by the book's most significant contribution to the study of consciousness, which is Rasmussen's insistence upon the indispensable role of attention to the data of consciousness. Much discussion in modern philosophy of mind not only ignores these data but also actively dismisses them, resulting in what philosopher Bernard Lonergan called the "truncated subject." Rasmussen is to be commended for his effort to understand human consciousness through his relentless attention to its contents. *Unfortunately, the effort is severely hampered by a conflation between knowing and looking that permeates the book. Rasmussen's theory of the nature and origin of persons would be immensely strengthened if understanding (i.e., intellect in action) were to be distinguished from adequate seeing, and if the real (i.e., verified intelligibility) were to be -distinguished from that which is adequately seen. Then his -theory of the person qua conscious substance could be affirmed as real even though it cannot be seen. Furthermore, the emergence of such a substance could be understood by analogy with the paradigmatic instance of emergence, that is, the emergence of the act of understanding out of acts of perception. If readers are unable to complement Rasmussen's argument with their own grasp of these distinctions, they are likely to either reject the book's foundational assertions about the reality of their own conscious acts or simply trust Rasmussen that his conclusions are correct. Thus, in the opinion of this reviewer, the book will best serve the reader, casual or specialist, who is able to evaluate the cogency of Rasmussen's argument without relying on the ocular version of knowing that permeates it. *Reviewed by Scott Halse, Lecturer in philosophy and humanities at Vanier College, Montreal, QC H4L 3X9.

Analytic theology

AbstractAnalytic theology is often described as something like the application of analytic philosophy's tools to theological studies, but what this means can be unclear. In this paper, I offer a primer on analytic theology which clarifies this common description of the field. Particularly, following Sarah Coakley, I sketch an account of analytic theology on which it consists of a relation of familial resemblance. That is, analytic theologians are those who investigate theological loci in ways akin to those seen in contemporary analytic philosophy. In so doing, I also briefly describe how analytic theology is conceptually distinct from both philosophical theology and analytic philosophy of religion. I then provide a threefold typology for understanding analytic theology's literary landscape whereby its practitioners can generally be understood to produce works which are either philosophically‐inclined, theologically‐inclined, or mixed in their inclination. Finally, I offer a brief survey of new frontiers being explored by analytic theologians.

Defending the Hypothetical Author

Abstract In contemporary analytic philosophy of art, the intentionalist debate is about whether the author’s intention is relevant to the interpretation of her work. Various positions have been proposed, and in this paper I defend what I call hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism, the position that interpretation is based on the intention attributed to the author constructed from the work. There are three aims to achieve: (1) to give a general account of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism; (2) to present a moderate version of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism; (3) to defend the moderate version of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism against actual intentionalism and actual author-hypothetical intentionalism. Against the current trend that focuses on actual authors, I hope to show that the hypothetical author account is still a sustainable contender in the intentionalist debate.

Natural kinds and a posteriori necessities: Putnam pro Kripke, Putnam versus Kripke

Most contemporary analytic philosophers of language and mind accept the view that there is a wide class of terms, “natural kind terms”, which includes names of substances (the most common example is “water”), of species of animals, and of many other kinds of things in nature, whose meaning and reference is determined in the way explained by the theory developed in the 1970s by Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam. The theory is often referred to as “the Kripke-Putnam theory” and is supposed to have such achievements as the overthrow of the earlier dominant Fregean theory of word-meanings (dubbed “descriptivism” by Kripke) as determined by the concepts in our minds, providing support for the “externalist” approach to linguistic meanings (in line with Putnam’s claim that “"Meanings" just ain’t in the head”), and the discovery that there is a wide class of truths (such as that water is H20) that are both a posteriori and necessary. Although the priority in the development of this theory belongs to Kripke, it could hardly gain such a wide acceptance without contributions by Putnam, which turned out to be very influential. However, the habitual idea of “the Kripke-Putnam theory”, as one theory, tends to play down the differences between Putnam’s and Kripke’s approaches and to hush up the fact that in his late works, of 1983 and 1990, Putnam revised and abandoned pretty much of his “Kripkean” views of 1970-ies; in particular, repudiated the pride of Kripke’s theory, the idea of necessary a posteriori truths. This article makes critical analysis and evaluation of Putnam’s ideas and arguments usually credited as important contributions to “the Kripke-Putnam theory”, and highlights the main points of the revision in late Putnam’s works. The case is made that Putnam's famous argument for externalism about meanings, the Twin-Earth thought experiment, is question-begging, fails to do justice to likely changes in the meanings of words with the development of knowledge, and conflicts with the linguistic practice in the relevantly similar case of “jade”. Putnam's argument for externalism from the division of linguistic labour is not cogent too, because “semantic deference” is itself a matter of what is there in “heads” - of some (non-expert) heads deferring to other (recognised as expert) heads. Eventually, on close inspection and in the light of Putnam's later reexplanation and revision, his account of meaning and reference turns out to be a sophisticated variety of conceptualism/internalism.

The experience of dysmenorrhea

Dysmenorrhea, or menstrual pain, is regularly suffered by 45 to 95% of menstruating women. Despite its prevalence, and despite the philosophical importance of pain as a general phenomenon, dysmenorrhea has been all but completely overlooked in contemporary analytic philosophy of mind. This paper aims at rectifying this situation. We single out three properties of what is often considered the paradigmatic case of painful experience, what we call injury-centered pains, and argue that dysmenorrhea does not have any of them, and hence that it does not neatly conform to the injury-centered model of pain. This calls into question the centrality of the injury-centered model, and suggests novel research avenues within theoretical debates on affectivity.

Thomist Libertarianism is Committed to Mysterianism

AbstractIn recent years, a large amount of scholarship has been written about St Thomas Aquinas's views on free will and determinism. This paper is an attempt to bring some Thomist views of libertarian free will into dialogue with analytic philosopher Peter van Inwagen and his ‘mysterianism’ about free will. The thesis of this paper is that Thomist libertarians about free will are committed to Peter van Inwagen's mysterianism about free will. The paper intends to accomplish this aim by showing how recent accounts of Thomist libertarianism cannot defeat the intuitive strength of van Inwagen's ‘Replay argument’. The significance of this conclusion is that some Thomists are committed to mysterianism and that mysterianism is a legitimate position a Thomist can hold. This also provides evidence that the Thomist tradition can grow and be nourished by engagement with contemporary analytic philosophy.

Virtual reality and the problem of illusion

The paper touches upon the problem of differentiating between virtual reality and original reality. The article makes a contribution to the modern ontology, as it discusses the problem of the status of virtual reality, which is formed by modern technical and mathematical means using cognitive technologies. The work is based on the concepts of E.Husserl and H.Putnam, as well as theories of psychophysiology and cognitive sciences. Arguments are provided for the following opposing statements: that it is possible to differentiate between them and that it is not. To specify the distinctive features of virtual reality, the latter is described as a system of perceived existing things and in comparison to other forms of such systems: subjective and objective, individual and social, natural and cultural, material and ideal, original and fictional, abstract and transcendental, evident and illusionary, true and false, erroneous and imitative, deceitful and mistaken, performative and simulating, conditional and unconditional ones. This part of the article qualifies virtual reality as illusion created via imitation. It is further revealed that the key distinctive feature of original reality, which is defined in the modern phenomenology as the maximal level of evidence, is applicable to virtual reality as well. The major argument in favor of the provable difference between virtual and original reality, which the contemporary analytic philosophy offers, can be confuted by means of a thought experiment based on the doubling of virtual reality. The final part of the article discusses psychological (experiment-based cognitive) arguments in favor of differentiating between virtual and original reality successfully: effect of presence and immersion. Both effects are typical of the reality types under comparison, as well as of experiencing these realities. The paper concludes that neither philosophy nor cognitive sciences can offer a compelling argument to differentiate between original reality and virtual reality.

Philosophy From the texture of Everyday Life: The Critical-Analytic Methods of Foucault and J. L. Austin

In a 1978 lecture in Tokyo, Foucault drew a comparison between his own philosophical methodology and that of ‘Anglo-Saxon analytic philosophy’, claiming the label ‘analytic philosophy of politics’ for his own approach. This may seem like a somewhat surprising comparison given the gulf between contemporary analytic and continental philosophy, but I argue that it is a very productive one which indeed might help us reconsider this gulf. I proceed through a comparison between Foucault and the speech act theory of J. L. Austin, one of the analytic philosophers Foucault had in mind in his Tokyo lecture. By focusing on the methodological commonalities between Foucault and Austin, this article identifies the core of a philosophical methodology that cuts across the analytic/continental divide in philosophy in general while constituting a powerful alternative to the methods applied by analytic political philosophers specifically. This approach, which I term ‘analytic critique’, is one that starts from a critical analysis of what happens in ordinary lived experience and ‘bottom-up’ in an avowedly politically engaged way – thereby challenging the conceptual and political aloofness of contemporary political philosophy in the liberal-Rawlsian tradition. Foucault’s appropriation of the label ‘analytic philosophy’, it is argued, ought to function as a call to more imaginative methodological-theoretical engagement across the traditional division between continental and analytic approaches.

Teleology and Basic Actions: A reading of the chapter on Teleology in Hegel's Subjective Logic in the terms of action theory

AbstractIn this paper I argue that there is textual evidence that the chapter on Teleology in Hegel's Science of Logic, read under certain premises, also discusses something that in contemporary analytic philosophy is called a ‘basic action’. The three moments of Teleology—(a) ‘The Subjective Purpose’, (b) ‘The Means’ and (c) ‘The Realized Purpose’—can be interpreted as (a) a certain intentional content in the mind of a subject, which can be expressed in the form of an imperative, (b) the immediate taking in possession of the body, which can be described as a basic action, and (c) the description of the relation of the event brought about by the basic action with other events in the world, which can be described in the terms of event-causality. This reading reveals an astonishing parallel to Donald Davidson's distinction between proper basic actions and their different descriptions in the form of events. In this way we can make Hegel's, at first glance, confusing identification of subjective purpose (intention), means (basic action) and realized purpose (event) comprehensible. Through that, the actual aim is to show that what I call basic actions are in fact an example of a more general thought that Hegel calls a teleological relation.

A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy

Contrary to the majority of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion, James Sterba argues in his book Is a Good God Logically Possible? (2019) that Alvin Plantinga with his famous free will defense has not succeeded in solving the logical problem of evil. However, Sterba is not alone in disputing this generally accepted view in analytic philosophy of religion. D. Z. Phillips (1934–2006) has argued that the logical problem of evil has not been solved and he further holds that it has not even got off the ground. The aim of this article is to explore Phillips’ criticism of the free-will defense and mainstream theodicies. His critique is relevant for Sterba’s atheistic stance because Phillips’ arguments are partly applicable to forms of philosophical atheism that share the same assumptions with philosophical theism. In the first part of the article, I will briefly describe the starting points of the best-known solutions to the problem of evil in analytic philosophy of religion and refer to some aspects of Sterba’s arguments. After that I will explore Phillips’ ethical and conceptual criticism against frameworks used in the discussion of theodicy. Finally, I will pay attention to Phillips’ Wittgensteinian view of the task and the aim of philosophy in order to clarify some problematic aspects of his thought.

Does the Analogy of an Ideal State Disprove God’s Existence? James Sterba’s Argument and a Thomistic Response

This paper provides an analysis of James Sterba’s argument from evil in the world and the author’s Thomistic counterargument. Many authors of contemporary analytic philosophy of religion discuss the concept of “horrendous evils”, which is a representative name for pointless evil and suffering in the world. Sterba claims that the existence of such evil is not logically compatible with the existence of the all-good theistic God. If such a God existed, according to Sterba, he would have intervened in time and prevented and not permitted horrendous evil consequences; in other words, he would have acted as an ideal state. The author of this paper argues that the analogy of an ideal state does not disprove the existence of God of theism. Furthermore, people would prefer if God was not like an ideal state. Applying the characteristics of an ideal state to a theistic God is not reasonable because it relies on anthropomorphism. Such anthropomorphism is incoherent with some basic theistic beliefs. The author of this paper applies Thomistic concepts to the problem of horrendous evils.

Avicenna on empty intentionality: a case study in analytical Avicennianism

ABSTRACT Appealing to some analytic tools developed by contemporary analytic philosophers, I discuss Avicenna’s views regarding the problem(s) of linguistic and mental reference to non-existents, also known as the problem(s) of ‘empty intentionality’. I argue that, according to Avicenna, being in an intentional state directed towards an existing thing involves three elements: (1) an indirect relation to that thing, (2) a direct relation to a mental representation of that thing, and (3) a direct relation to the essence of that thing. Empty intentionality does not involve the first element. Moreover, depending on the nature of the non-existent we are thinking about, the third element may not be involved either. Thus, the necessary element of being in an intentional state towards something is to be related to a mental representation of that thing. The nature of this representation may vary depending on the nature of the non-existent towards which our thought is directed.

Noteworthy Problems with God’s Immutability, Impassibility, and Simplicity. Should We Treat These Divine Attributes and the Hellenic Conditions of Christian Theism as a Dogma?

The article presents problems that the concepts of God’s immutability, impassibility, and simplicity pose for Christian theism. Through the critical analysis, the author indicates the roots of these ideas (mostly, but not only, in ancient Greek philosophy) and the consequences of absolutizing them for the image of God and His relationship to the world. The more general purpose of the paper is to highlight the danger of the strong dependence of religious depictions on philosophical grounds. As concluded in the article, it is a mistake to absolutize the particular solutions that appeared at the junction of fides et ratio at one of the historical stages. The awareness of this becomes extremely important when reflecting on the divine immutability, impassibility, and simplicity. The author shows some proposals to reformulate their understanding in light of contemporary analytic philosophy. Partial reinterpretation in this regard may help to rethink the concept of the Creator’s interaction with creation and to reconcile the biblical image of God with the philosophical one.

Substance, name and thing in aristotle’s «computer» ontology

In this article, we will discuss the elements of classical and nonclassical ontological systems in Aristotle’s doctrine of the substance, categories and language. It is amazing that the classic heritage of ancient philosophical thought include ontological models similar to the contemporary analytic philosophy. Aristotle was the first to speculate on the substance in terms of language categories. It is the transition from the subject individual to a logical entity and then to a part of speech. The nature of knowledge is based on a single representation of the universal. According to Aristotle, only a plurality of randomly designated unique individual things exists. However, the species and genera build some logical relations between them. Therefore, the language updating of the knowledge of the world is possible only with respect to species and genera, i.e., a logical structure as thing in itself (not described) does not have any features but exists independently in the reality. On the one hand, Aristotle supports the classical nominalistic ontology (the material world is a complexity of things existing in the reality of single non-attributive objects). On the other hand, Aristotle’s ontology is a complex of objects believed existing by a statement. That is, the objects can be from imaginary or impossible worlds, but the language descriptions credit them with the function of propositional value. In both cases, language is just a method of consistent description.