Asian journal of philosophy最新文献

{"title":"X-phi about time: a reply to Hodroj, Latham, and Miller’s “The moving open future, temporal phenomenology, and temporal passage”","authors":"Natalja Deng","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00276-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00276-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hodroj, Latham, and Miller use X-phi methods to investigate why people tend to represent time as dynamic (i.e., as (robustly) passing), even though, as deflationists maintain, they do not perceive time as passing. More specifically, what the authors investigate is the hypothesis that people believe time is dynamic because they believe the future is objectively open (moving open future hypothesis, MOFH); they find no evidence for the relevant associations. They conclude that a different (temporally aperspectival replacement, TARH) hypothesis based on non-X-phi proposals by Hoerl (Hoerl, 2018) and Sattig (Sattig, 2019a, 2019b) is worth investigating further by X-phi methods. The authors’ empirical methodology in this and other papers is especially welcome given widespread suspicion of purely a priori methods (those of “armchair” or “free-range” metaphysics). Yet, it is not always obvious how best to interpret these kinds of findings. In this reply, I express some worries about the paper’s framing regarding its empirical findings, including their relation to the debate about temporal perception. I also consider whether the responses recorded in these surveys are best interpreted as indicating that people stably (even tacitly) represent time in ways articulated by metaphysicians. I take it to be another facet of the value of X-phi work on time that it raises these interpretative (and related metametaphysical) issues, whose relevance to disputes over proper methodology in the philosophy of time is easy to overlook.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Universe C and the open future—critical comment on Hodroj, Latham and Miller: The moving open future, temporal phenomenology and temporal passage","authors":"Akiko Frischhut","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00277-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00277-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this critical response to Hodroj, Latham and Miller’s article ‘The moving open future, temporal phenomenology and temporal passage’, I contend that the ‘moving open future hypothesis’ has not yet been conclusively disproven. I first raise some methodological concerns, such as the limited sample population and linguistic diversity, which may impact the study’s conclusions. However, my primary critique revolves around vignette Universe C, which implicitly commits to future events existing, thereby undermining the concept of an objectively open future. This approach restricts the understanding of an open future, which should consider the complete absence of future facts. By failing to adequately capture this ‘thicker’ representation of openness, the study does not convincingly establish that there is no link between beliefs in temporal passage and a genuinely open future. Future avenues for research should focus on refining the vignettes to better reflect the nuances of temporal beliefs and investigate the temporally aperspectival replacement hypothesis.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143809132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inquiry and conversation: Gricean zetetic norms and virtues","authors":"Leonardo Flamini","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00274-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00274-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, philosophers have shown an increasing interest in the normativity of inquiry. For example, they discuss which doxastic or epistemic state makes an inquiry permissible or impermissible. Moreover, since our inquiries are typically considered goal-directed activities that aim at answering questions, philosophers have offered general principles to capture their instrumental normativity. However, it is notable that these principles – being general – lack specificity: They do not tell us how we should specifically behave to conduct an effective inquiry. The primary goal of this paper is to provide a first formulation of more specific norms of inquiry. To further this goal, I will consider the prominent theory of conversation promoted by Roberts (Roberts, C. (1996). Information Structure: Towards an Integrated Theory of Formal Pragmatics. In J. Yoon &amp; A. Kathol, OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49: Papers in Semantics (pp. 91–136). The Ohio State University., Roberts, C. (2006). Context in Dynamic Interpretation. In L. R. Horn &amp; G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 197–220). Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch9), which describes conversation as an instance of inquiry. Based on this perspective and the idea that Grice’s maxims (Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole &amp; J. L. Morgan. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.) individuate the norms of effective conversation, I will reformulate Gricean maxims in zetetic norms and argue for their intuitive appeal in regulating our inquiries. Moreover, I will point out how these “Gricean zetetic norms” can be fruitful in opening new lines of research about the zetetic domain. In particular, I will show how they can be used to identify and ground the existence of some zetetic virtues – virtues of inquiry: Zetetic parsimony, reliability, focus, and lucidity. Finally, I discuss how compatible these “Gricean zetetic virtues” are with the intellectual virtues we can find in the epistemological literature.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00274-y.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143778014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Do geometrical diagrams resemble geometrical objects?","authors":"Axel Arturo Barceló Aspeitia","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00267-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00267-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Geometrical diagrams represent their subjects partially through visual resemblance. I defend this hypothesis against a critique by Panza, who argues that historical evidence indicates that the objects of Euclidean Geometry derive at least some of their spatial features from Euclidean diagrams. However, it is a widespread intuition that resemblance-based depictions reproduce the visual features of their subjects. Therefore, according to Panza, Euclidean diagrams cannot be resemblance-based. I will argue that this common intuition is misguided. As long as the depiction and its subject resemble each other visually, it does not matter which one comes first. Thus, for Euclidean diagrams to be resemblance-based, it is irrelevant whether they reproduce the visual features of geometrical objects, or vice versa, as long as they resemble each other. To support my argument, I will outline a resemblance-based account of depiction that does not assume that the visual appearance of depictions is derived from the visual appearance of their subjects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00267-x.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143740796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overlap, overdetermination, and the necessity of origin","authors":"Adam Russell Murray","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00257-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00257-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Proponents of the necessity of material origins hold roughly that an entity’s originating matter could not have been radically different from its actual originating matter. Sungil Han defends the considerably stronger position that an entity’s originating matter could not have been at all different from its actual originating matter. I raise some worries for Han’s key premise as it pertains to biological origins, and discuss certain methodological limitations of Han’s project as it pertains to the origins of artifacts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143740827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Précis","authors":"J. L. Schellenberg","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00270-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00270-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article summarizes my work on the hiddenness argument, with careful attention to alternative formulations of the argument and how its central moves are best interpreted.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143716708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Frege’s principle of logical parsimony, the indispensability of “ξ = ζ” in Grundgesetze, and the nature of identity","authors":"Matthias Schirn","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00245-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00245-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In Section 2, I analyze Frege’s principle of logical and notational parsimony in his opus magnum <i>Grundgesetze der Arithmetik</i> (vol I, 1893, vol. II, 1903). I argue <i>inter alia</i> that in order to carry out the proofs of the more important theorems of cardinal arithmetic and real analysis in <i>Grundgesetze</i> Frege’s identification of the truth-values the True and the False with their unit classes in <i>Grundgesetze</i> I, §10 need not be raised to the lofty status of an axiom. Frege refrains from doing this but does not provide any reason for his restraint. In Section 3, I argue that he considered the primitive function-name “<i>ξ</i> = <i>ζ</i>” indispensable in pursuit of his logicist project. I close with remarks on the nature of identity. I suggest that there is no need to interpret identity in a non-standard fashion in order to render it logically palatable and scientifically respectable. </p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00245-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143667910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An evaluation of Schellenberg’s arguments regarding divine hiddenness and the no-delay condition concerning relationship with God","authors":"Andrew Ter Ern Loke","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00269-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00269-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper demonstrates that Schellenberg is mistaken about the burden of proof concerning his Divine Hiddenness Argument against the existence of God and that his argument is unsound. In particular, I explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that there is no non-resistant nonbeliever who would end up not having a relationship with the perfect God who knows of good reasons for the delay in starting the relationship even if we do not know what those reasons are. I also explain that Schellenberg has failed to refute the possibility that God delays the starting of the relationship for the purpose of achieving a deeper relationship for the good of the creature in a way that respects the creaturely free will. Given that the Divine Hiddenness Argument is unsound, it should not be a hindrance to believing in God and having a relationship with God.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00269-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143667909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are current AI systems capable of well-being?","authors":"James Fanciullo","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, Simon Goldstein and Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini have argued that certain existing AI systems are capable of well-being. They consider the three leading approaches to well-being—hedonism, desire satisfactionism, and the objective list approach—and argue that theories of these kinds plausibly imply that some current AI systems are capable of welfare. In this paper, I argue that the leading versions of each of these theories do not imply this. I conclude that we have strong reason to doubt that current AI systems are capable of well-being.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143621995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Non-realist cognitivism, partners-in-innocence, and No dilemma","authors":"Evan Jack,&nbsp;Mustafa Khuramy","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Non-Realist Cognitivism is a meta-ethical theory that is supposedly objectionably unclear. Recently, Farbod Akhlaghi (2022) has provided a novel exposition of Parfit’s Non-Realist Cognitivism that employs truthmaker theory to clarify it. He illustrates that such clarification leads the non-realist cognitivist into a dilemma: either the theory has to accept truthmaker maximalism, rendering the theory inconsistent, or it has to let go of truthmaking altogether. He also attempts to undercut a “partners-in-innocence” strategy that the non-realist cognitivist utilizes to motivate the key assumption of Non-Realist Cognitivism: that normative truths are truthmaker gaps. In this paper, we do three things in reply to Akhlaghi. First, we show how most of his attempts to disqualify candidate partners-in-innocence fail, or at best miss the point. Second, we provide a case for a partner-in-innocence Akhlaghi never covers, though inadvertently mentions. Third, we outline how the non-realist cognitivist could reply to Akhlaghi’s dilemma in a way that allows Non-Realist Cognitivism to come out unscathed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143621994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}