Category: Contemporary Philosophy

Roque Ferriols was a renowned Filipino philosopher, educator, and writer who is best known for his work on the philosophy of language and literature. His philosophical ideas were deeply influenced by his Catholic faith and his experiences of living in a multicultural society.

Ferriols believed that language is a fundamental tool for human communication and that it plays a critical role in shaping our understanding of the world. He argued that language is not only a means of expressing our thoughts and ideas but also a means of constructing reality. For Ferriols, language is not a neutral tool but a medium that carries with it the values, beliefs, and biases of the individuals who use it.

Ferriols also emphasized the importance of culture in shaping our understanding of the world. He believed that culture is not a fixed entity but a dynamic and evolving phenomenon that is constantly being reshaped by the individuals who participate in it. According to Ferriols, culture is not something that is simply passed down from one generation to another but is something that is constantly being renegotiated and redefined.

In his book, “The Structure of Filipino Values,” Ferriols outlined his theory of Filipino values, which he believed were deeply rooted in the country’s cultural history. He argued that Filipino values were shaped by a variety of factors, including the country’s history of colonialism, its indigenous culture, and its exposure to various foreign cultures.

One of Ferriols’s most significant contributions to philosophy was his concept of “deep structure.” He argued that there is a fundamental structure to all languages that is independent of the particular words and syntax used in any given language. According to Ferriols, this deep structure is what enables us to understand and communicate with one another, even if we do not speak the same language.

Ferriols was also interested in the philosophy of literature and the role of literature in shaping our understanding of the world. He believed that literature was not simply a form of entertainment but a means of exploring the human condition and the various experiences that shape our lives. According to Ferriols, literature has the power to challenge our assumptions and broaden our perspectives, enabling us to see the world in new and profound ways.

In his later years, Ferriols became increasingly concerned with the role of technology in shaping our understanding of the world. He believed that technology was both a powerful tool for human progress and a potential threat to our individual and collective humanity. He argued that technology could lead us to become disconnected from one another and from the natural world, and that it was important to use technology in ways that were consistent with our values and beliefs.

In conclusion, Roque Ferriols was a philosopher who believed in the power of language, culture, and literature to shape our understanding of the world. He believed that there was a deep structure to all languages that enabled us to communicate with one another and that culture was a dynamic and evolving phenomenon that was constantly being reshaped by the individuals who participated in it. Ferriols also emphasized the importance of literature in exploring the human condition and challenging our assumptions about the world. His ideas continue to influence the fields of linguistics, cultural studies, and literary theory.

Alexander Sheppard is a contemporary philosopher of aesthetics whose work has focused on the nature of aesthetic experience and the role of emotions in aesthetic appreciation. Sheppard’s work is interdisciplinary, drawing on philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience to develop a nuanced understanding of the complexities of aesthetic experience.

Aesthetic Experience

One of Sheppard’s central contributions to the field of aesthetics is his analysis of the nature of aesthetic experience. According to Sheppard, aesthetic experience involves a complex interplay between perception, emotion, and cognition. When we engage with an artwork, we are not just perceiving the physical properties of the artwork, but we are also experiencing a range of emotions that are evoked by the artwork.

Sheppard argues that aesthetic experience is characterized by a kind of attention that is different from everyday perception. This aesthetic attention involves a heightened awareness of the details of the artwork, as well as a sense of immersion in the experience of the artwork. Sheppard suggests that this aesthetic attention is accompanied by a sense of disinterestedness, which allows us to appreciate the artwork for its own sake, rather than for any practical or utilitarian purposes.

Emotion and Aesthetic Appreciation

Sheppard’s work has also focused on the role of emotions in aesthetic appreciation. Sheppard argues that emotions play a crucial role in our aesthetic experiences, shaping our perceptions of artworks and contributing to our overall aesthetic evaluations. He suggests that emotions can be thought of as “aesthetic affordances,” which are the ways in which emotions enable us to engage with artworks in particular ways.

Sheppard also argues that emotions are an important source of aesthetic value. He suggests that emotions such as awe, wonder, and beauty are integral to our experience of certain artworks, and that they contribute to our overall evaluation of the artwork. Sheppard’s work challenges the idea that aesthetic appreciation is a purely intellectual or cognitive process, and instead emphasizes the important role of emotions in shaping our aesthetic experiences.

Neuroaesthetics

Sheppard’s work is informed by recent advances in neuroscience and psychology, particularly in the field of neuroaesthetics. Sheppard suggests that neuroaesthetics can help us to better understand the neural processes that underlie aesthetic experience, and to develop a more comprehensive account of the nature of aesthetic experience.

One of the key insights from neuroaesthetics is that aesthetic experience is not just a matter of perception, but also involves the activation of emotional and cognitive processes in the brain. Studies have shown that when we engage with artworks, we experience a range of neural responses that are associated with emotions, attention, and reward. Sheppard suggests that these neural responses are an important part of our aesthetic experiences, and that they help to shape our overall evaluations of artworks.

Conclusion

Alexander Sheppard’s work has made significant contributions to the field of aesthetics, particularly in his analysis of the nature of aesthetic experience and the role of emotions in aesthetic appreciation. Sheppard’s interdisciplinary approach has drawn on philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience to develop a nuanced understanding of the complexities of aesthetic experience. His work challenges traditional views of aesthetic appreciation as a purely cognitive process, emphasizing the important role of emotions in shaping our aesthetic experiences. Sheppard’s work has helped to establish a new direction in the field of aesthetics, one that recognizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and that is informed by recent advances in neuroscience and psychology.

Biography

William Rowe (1931-2015) was an American philosopher who made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion, epistemology, and metaphysics. He was born in Indiana, USA and earned his BA from Butler University in 1953. After completing his undergraduate studies, he went on to pursue graduate studies at Yale University where he earned a PhD in philosophy in 1962.

Rowe began his academic career as an assistant professor of philosophy at Purdue University in 1960. He then taught at the University of Michigan from 1962 to 1996, where he was eventually appointed as the William H. P. Faunce Professor of Philosophy. After retiring from the University of Michigan, he continued to teach at Purdue University until 2013.

Rowe’s work in philosophy of religion was particularly influential. He was interested in exploring the relationship between faith and reason, and in examining the arguments for and against the existence of God. One of his most well-known contributions to this field was his work on the problem of evil.

In his 1979 paper, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,” Rowe introduced what he called the “evidential problem of evil.” This problem arises from the observation that the existence of evil in the world seems to be incompatible with the traditional conception of God as an all-powerful and all-good being. Rowe argued that the existence of evil provides strong evidence against the existence of such a God.

Rowe’s work on the problem of evil was groundbreaking because he shifted the focus of the debate from the logical problem of evil (which concerns whether the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of God) to the evidential problem of evil (which concerns whether the existence of evil provides evidence against the existence of God). This shift opened up new avenues for exploring the implications of the problem of evil and has influenced the way that subsequent philosophers have approached the issue.

In addition to his work in philosophy of religion, Rowe also made important contributions to epistemology and metaphysics. He was interested in questions about the nature of knowledge and justified belief, and in exploring the metaphysical implications of scientific discoveries.

One of Rowe’s most influential works in epistemology was his 1986 book, “The Cosmological Argument.” In this book, Rowe examined the traditional argument for the existence of God based on the cosmological argument, which holds that the existence of the universe requires a sufficient explanation in terms of a first cause or ground of being. Rowe argued that this argument is flawed because it relies on an unwarranted assumption about the principle of sufficient reason, which holds that everything that exists must have a sufficient explanation.

Rowe’s work in metaphysics was also notable for its rigorous analysis and attention to detail. He was particularly interested in questions about the nature of causation and the relationship between mental and physical states. In his 1991 book, “Philosophy of Mind,” Rowe argued that there is a fundamental gap between the subjective experience of consciousness and the objective description of the brain states that underlie it. He also explored the implications of this gap for the problem of mental causation.

Throughout his career, Rowe was recognized as a leading figure in the field of philosophy. He was a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Guggenheim Fellow, and a recipient of the Aquinas Medal from the American Catholic Philosophical Association. He was also a dedicated teacher and mentor, and many of his students went on to become prominent philosophers in their own right.

William Rowe’s legacy in philosophy continues to be felt today. His contributions to the philosophy of religion, epistemology, and metaphysics have helped to shape the ongoing conversation in these fields and have influenced generations of philosophers who have followed in his footsteps.

Rowe’s Evidential Problem of Evil

William Rowe is known for his work on the problem of evil, which is one of the central challenges to the existence of God in Western philosophy. Rowe’s particular contribution to this debate is known as the “evidential problem of evil,” which challenges the idea that the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God is compatible with the existence of evil in the world.

The evidential problem of evil is distinct from the logical problem of evil, which argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God. The evidential problem of evil, on the other hand, recognizes that it is not logically impossible for God and evil to coexist, but it argues that the existence of evil makes the existence of God highly unlikely or improbable.

Rowe formulated the evidential problem of evil in his 1979 paper, “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” In this paper, Rowe distinguishes between two types of evil: “natural” evil and “moral” evil. Natural evils are those that result from natural disasters, diseases, and other non-human causes, while moral evils are those that result from the actions of moral agents, such as humans.

Rowe’s argument focuses on natural evil, which he argues is particularly problematic for the traditional conception of God as all-powerful and all-good. Rowe argues that the existence of natural evil is not necessary for any greater good, and that it is unlikely that God would allow such evil to exist if he were all-powerful and all-good.

Rowe presents a thought experiment in which he imagines a fawn caught in a forest fire. The fawn suffers greatly before finally dying from its injuries. Rowe argues that there is no greater good that is served by the fawn’s suffering and death, and that it is difficult to imagine why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow such a thing to happen. Rowe concludes that the existence of natural evil provides strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God.

It is worth noting that Rowe’s argument is not intended to be a conclusive proof against the existence of God. Rather, it is an argument that provides evidence against the existence of God. Rowe acknowledges that there may be other arguments and evidence that support the existence of God, but he argues that the existence of natural evil is a significant piece of evidence against God’s existence.

Rowe’s argument has been subject to a number of objections and criticisms. Some critics have argued that Rowe sets the bar too high for what constitutes a “greater good,” and that there may be reasons for allowing natural evil that we are not aware of. Others have argued that Rowe’s argument relies on a particular interpretation of what it means for God to be all-powerful and all-good, and that there may be other ways of understanding these concepts that are consistent with the existence of natural evil.

Despite these criticisms, Rowe’s evidential problem of evil has been highly influential in shaping the debate about the existence of God. It has forced philosophers and theologians to grapple with the difficult question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with the idea of a benevolent and all-powerful God, and it has spurred further research and discussion in philosophy of religion.

William Rowe’s Epistemology

William Rowe’s epistemology was characterized by a focus on skepticism and the limits of human knowledge. He believed that our cognitive limitations and lack of access to certain types of information make it difficult for us to know the world as it truly is. In this essay, I will provide an overview of Rowe’s epistemology and his views on skepticism and knowledge.

One of Rowe’s key contributions to epistemology was his defense of what he called “commonsense skepticism.” This form of skepticism is based on the idea that we cannot be certain about many of our beliefs, particularly those that are based on sense perception. Rowe argued that our senses can be deceived, and that we cannot be certain that the world we perceive is the world as it truly is.

Rowe’s defense of commonsense skepticism was based on a number of arguments. One argument was the problem of the external world. This problem arises from the fact that we cannot be certain that the world we perceive is the real world, as opposed to a dream or an illusion. Rowe argued that our inability to know whether or not we are in a dream or an illusion means that we cannot be certain about many of our beliefs about the world.

Another argument Rowe made in defense of commonsense skepticism was the argument from illusion. This argument is based on the fact that our senses can be deceived, such that we perceive things that are not really there. For example, we might see a stick that appears bent when it is placed in water, even though we know that the stick is not actually bent. Rowe argued that the fact that our senses can be deceived means that we cannot be certain about many of our beliefs based on sense perception.

Rowe’s defense of commonsense skepticism was not intended to undermine all of our beliefs. Rather, he believed that we could still have knowledge in certain areas, particularly in the natural sciences. However, he argued that we needed to be more cautious about our beliefs, and that we should not claim to have certain knowledge where we do not.

Another aspect of Rowe’s epistemology was his rejection of the principle of sufficient reason. This principle states that everything must have a sufficient reason or cause. Rowe believed that this principle was not necessary, and that it led to an infinite regress of explanations. He believed that some things, such as the existence of the universe, could be explained by brute facts, or facts that have no explanation.

Rowe’s rejection of the principle of sufficient reason was related to his views on skepticism. He believed that our lack of knowledge about certain things, such as the ultimate nature of the universe, meant that we could not claim to have certain knowledge about the world. Rather, we needed to be more cautious about our claims to knowledge.

In addition to his defense of skepticism, Rowe also made contributions to the theory of knowledge. He argued that knowledge requires justification, and that justification requires some sort of evidence or reason. He believed that knowledge was not just a matter of true belief, but also required some sort of epistemic warrant.

Rowe also made contributions to the problem of induction, which is the problem of how we can justify our belief in causal connections based on past experience. He argued that there was no deductive or inductive justification for our belief in causal connections, but that this belief was nevertheless justified by its role in our successful interaction with the world.

Overall, Rowe’s epistemology was characterized by a focus on skepticism and the limits of human knowledge. He believed that our cognitive limitations and lack of access to certain types of information make it difficult for us to know the world as it truly is. However, he also believed that we could still have knowledge in certain areas, and that this knowledge required justification and evidence. His contributions to epistemology continue to be influential in contemporary philosophy.

William Rowe’s Metaphysics

One of Rowe’s most famous contributions to metaphysics was his argument from evil. This argument is based on the problem of how to reconcile the existence of evil with the belief in an all-powerful and all-good God. Rowe argued that the existence of gratuitous or unnecessary evil, such as the suffering of innocent children, is incompatible with the belief in such a God.

Rowe’s argument from evil was based on the idea that an all-good God would not allow gratuitous evil to exist, and that an all-powerful God would have the ability to prevent it. He argued that the existence of such evil therefore calls into question the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God. Rowe’s argument from evil was highly influential, and has been the subject of much debate and discussion in the philosophy of religion.

Another aspect of Rowe’s metaphysics was his views on existence. He argued that existence is not a predicate or property that can be added to objects, but rather a necessary condition for anything to be a candidate for having properties. This view was based on the idea that existence is not a property that can be added to an object in the way that other properties, such as color or shape, can be. Rather, existence is a necessary condition for anything to have properties at all.

Rowe’s views on existence were related to his arguments against the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is based on the idea that everything that exists must have a cause, and that this cause must be God. Rowe argued that this argument was flawed because it relied on the assumption that existence is a predicate or property that can be added to objects. He believed that existence was not a property, and therefore the cosmological argument was invalid.

In addition to his work on the problem of evil and the nature of existence, Rowe also made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion more broadly. He was a critic of the traditional conception of God as an all-powerful and all-good being, and argued that such a conception was incompatible with the existence of gratuitous evil. He also criticized the idea of divine intervention in the world, arguing that there was no empirical evidence to support such a belief.

Rowe’s views on the relationship between God and the world were based on his belief in a form of metaphysical naturalism. This view holds that the natural world is all there is, and that there are no supernatural entities or forces. Rowe argued that this view was compatible with a belief in God, but that such a belief had to be understood in a non-traditional way.

According to Rowe, God could be understood as a necessary being, whose existence is necessary for the existence of the natural world. He argued that this view was compatible with a belief in God, but that it did not require the traditional conception of God as an all-powerful and all-good being. Instead, God could be understood as a necessary aspect of the natural world, whose existence was required for the world to exist at all.

Overall, Rowe’s metaphysics was characterized by a focus on the problem of evil, the nature of existence, and the relationship between God and the world. His arguments against the traditional conception of God were highly influential, and have contributed to ongoing debates in the philosophy of religion. His contributions to metaphysics more broadly continue to be relevant to contemporary discussions in the field.