How is freedom valuable? And how should we go about defining freedom? In this essay, I discuss a distinction between two general ways of valuing freedom: one appeals to the good (e.g., to freedom's contribution to well-being); the other appeals to how persons have reason to treat one another in virtue of their status as purposive beings (to the right). The analysis of these two values has many relevant implications and it is preliminary to a better understanding of the relationships between freedom and justice. First, it contributes to shed light on the relationship between trust and the value of freedom, and on two attitudes towards freedom - promoting and respecting freedom. Second, it disambiguates between two versions of the claim that freedom has non-specific/content-independent value: one appeals to the good, the other to the right. And third, I show that certain implications concerning the definition of freedom follow from assuming an account of the value of freedom that exclusively appeals to the right, illustrating how the value of freedom can shape what freedom is.
A crucial trend of nineteenth-century mathematics was the search for pure foundations of specific mathematical domains by avoiding the obscure concept of magnitude. In this paper, we examine this trend by considering the "fundamental theorem" of the theory of plane area: "If a polygon is decomposed into polygonal parts in any given way, then the union of all but one of these parts is not equivalent to the given polygon." This proposition, known as De Zolt's postulate, was conceived as a strictly geometrical expression of the general principle of magnitudes "the whole is greater than the part." On the one hand, we illustrate this striving for purity in the foundations of geometry by analysing David Hilbert's classical proof of De Zolt's postulate. On the other hand, we connect this geometrical problem with the first axiomatizations of the concept of magnitude by the end of the nineteenth century. In particular, we argue that a recent result in the logical analysis of the concept of magnitude casts new light on Hilbert's proof. We also outline an alternative development of a theory of magnitude that includes a proof of De Zolt's postulate in an abstract setting.
Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often considered the most plausible internalist approach towards epistemic justification. However, mentalist evidentialism does not amount to a comprehensive theory of epistemic justification. In their attempt to complete their epistemological system and to answer the question of why experiences are justifiers, Conee and Feldman supplement mentalist evidentialism with explanationism. They take principles of best explanation to be the fundamental epistemic principles. In this paper, I show that explanationist mentalist evidentialism is plagued by severe shortcomings. What is more, I argue for an alternative in the spirit of Conee and Feldman's internalism that avoids the problems of explanationism, offering a straightforward commonsense account of epistemic justification. The fundamental epistemological principles are phenomenological principles.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：