Eva Peterková | University of Ostrava (original) (raw)
Uploads
M.A. THESIS by Eva Peterková
Resume: Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a... more Resume: Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessary connexion between cause and effect, as well as a sceptic about objective existence of any secret powers of nature. However, in recent decades, there are many articles and books that with this traditional interpretation diverge. These interpreters, including in particular Galen Strawson, John P. Wright, Peter Kail and to some extent also Simon Blackburn, denote Hume a realist regarding causal powers in nature, so-called capital-C Causes. This new interpretation is being called The New Hume Debate, according to the book, which maps fundamental articles of this debate. The aim of this paper is not only to provide a general characteristic of this new interpretation and its main arguments, but especially to highlight some problems which the new interpretation has to face.
Tato diplomová práce nazvaná „Common sense nebo vědecký realismus? Debata Thomase Reida a Josepha... more Tato diplomová práce nazvaná „Common sense nebo vědecký realismus? Debata Thomase Reida a Josepha Priestleyho“ se věnuje doktrinálnímu sporu mezi Thomasem Reidem a Josephem Priestleym. Cílem práce je rekonstrukce hlavních argumentů této debaty, která je v dějinách filosofie stále opomíjená, i přesto, že na jedné straně představuje vlivnou kritiku materialismu a determinismu a na straně druhé jednu z prvních kritik pojmu common sense. Záměrem je také poukázat na zajímavosti této debaty. Především na fakt, že ačkoli mají oba filosofové rozdílné doktríny, tak tyto doktríny vycházejí ze stejného základu a rozdílná interpretace tohoto základu, jímž jsou Regulae philosophandi Isaaca Newtona, ovlivnila filosofii jak jednoho, tak i druhého a měla vliv na celou diskusi. / The present diploma thesis titled „Common sense or scientific realism? Debate of Thomas Reid and Joseph Priestley“ deals with the doctrinal dispute between Thomas Reid and Joseph Priestley. The objective of this paper is a reconstruction of the main arguments of this debate, which is still neglected in the history of philosophy, despite the fact that on the one hand, it shows an influential critique of materialism and determinism, and on the other hand, it presents one of the first instances of criticism of the concept of common sense. The work also aims to highlight interesting points of this debate; especially the fact that although both philosophers have different doctrines, these doctrines are based on the same foundation. Different interpretations of this foundation, which are Isaac Newton’s Regulae philosophandi, influenced their philosophy and had an impact on the whole debate.
Papers by Eva Peterková
Teorie vědy / Theory of Science
This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley’s approach to the research of the human mind.... more This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley’s approach to the research of the human mind. It is demonstrated in two consecutive steps how Priestley changes his view of matter and spirit, and how he moves to materialism. In the first step, he redefines the notion of matter and gives it new attributes – the forces of attraction and repulsion. In the second step, using these new attributes, he explains the ability of perception and thinking. In these steps, he also uses findings of the contemporary natural philosophy, especially the mechanics. For Priestley, man and his mind are part of nature. This means that the man and the human mind are a certain mechanism that works according to natural laws and can also be explained by these laws.
Reflexe, Feb 1, 2022
Book review on Petr Glombíček, Ke genealogii zdravého rozumu. Praha (Togga) 2020, 303 str.
Filozofia, 2021
David Hume (1711-1776) is often considered as a sceptic about the existence of causal powers or t... more David Hume (1711-1776) is often considered as a sceptic about the existence of causal powers or the necessary connection between cause and effect, and his work is interpreted in various books on the history of philosophy in this way. In the last century, however, new interpreters have emerged who are destroying this traditional image of Hume's philosophy. These philosophers, known as "The New Humeans", also consider Hume to be a sceptic, but not as to the objective existence of causal forces, but only as to the recognizability of those forces. The presented article deals with the main arguments of the new interpretation and connects them with Hume's work. The conclusion of the article presents our own argument on the issue.
Filozofia, 2020
The paper deals with Thomas Reid's comments against Joseph Priestley's materialism. Priestley's m... more The paper deals with Thomas Reid's comments against Joseph Priestley's materialism. Priestley's mechanical materialism is based on the philosophy of Isaac Newton, especially Newton's rules of reasoning. Priestley rejected substantive dualism and argumented in favor of a single material substance on the basis of these rules. The paper first presents the form of Priestley's materialism and then analyzes the individual remarks of Reid. The emphasis is on the notions of truth and causality, which both philosophers interpret differently. The last part of the article analyzes whether Reid's remarks are relevant or not.
Clanek se snaži přibližit přistup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumani lidske mysli. Postupně jsou uka... more Clanek se snaži přibližit přistup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumani lidske mysli. Postupně jsou ukazany dva kroky, ve kterých Priestley měni svůj pohled na hmotu a ducha a dochazi k materialismu. V prvnim kroku redefinuje pojem hmoty a přisuzuje hmotě zcela nove vlastnosti – sily přitahovani a odpuzovani. V druhem kroku pomoci těchto nových vlastnosti vysvětluje schopnost vnimani a mysleni. V těchto krocich navic využiva poznatky tehdejsi přirodni filosofie, zejmena mechaniky. Clověk a jeho mysl jsou podle Priestleyho soucasti přirody. To znamena, že clověk a lidska mysl jsou urcitým mechanismem, který pracuje podle přirodnich zakonů a lze jej pomoci těchto zakonů take vysvětlit.
Filozofia, 2020
The paper deals with Thomas Reid’s comments against Joseph Priestley’s materialism. Priestley’s m... more The paper deals with Thomas Reid’s comments against Joseph Priestley’s materialism. Priestley’s mechanical materialism is based on the philosophy of Isaac Newton, especially Newton’s rules of reasoning. Priestley rejected substantive dualism and argumented in favor of a single material substance on the basis of these rules. The paper first presents the form of Priestley’s materialism and then analyzes the individual remarks of Reid. The emphasis is on the notions of truth and causality, which both philosophers interpret differently. The last part of the article analyzes whether Reid’s remarks are relevant or not.
Článek se snaží přiblížit přístup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumání lidské mysli. Postupně jsou uká... more Článek se snaží přiblížit přístup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumání lidské mysli. Postupně jsou ukázány dva kroky, ve kterých Priestley mění svůj pohled na hmotu a ducha a dochází k materialismu. V prvním kroku redefinuje pojem hmoty a přisuzuje hmotě zcela nové vlastnosti – síly přitahování a odpuzování. V druhém kroku pomocí těchto nových vlastností vysvětluje schopnost vnímání a myšlení. V těchto krocích navíc využívá poznatky tehdejší přírodní filosofie, zejména mechaniky. Člověk a jeho mysl jsou podle Priestleyho součástí přírody. To znamená, že člověk a lidská mysl jsou určitým mechanismem, který pracuje podle přírodních zákonů a lze jej pomocí těchto zákonů také vysvětlit. / This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley's approach to the research of the human mind. It is demonstrated in two consecutive steps how Priestley changes his view of matter and spirit, and how he moves to materialism. In the first step, he redefines the notion of matter and gives it new attributes – the forces of attraction and repulsion. In the second step, using these new attributes, he explains the ability of perception and thinking. In these steps, he also uses findings of the contemporary natural philosophy, especially the mechanics. For Priestley, man and his mind are part of nature. This means that the man and the human mind are a certain mechanism that works according to natural laws and can also be explained by these laws.
Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessa... more Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessary connexion between cause and effect, as well as a sceptic about objective existence of any secret powers of nature. However, in recent decades, there are many articles and books that with this traditional interpretation diverge. These interpreters, including in particular Galen Strawson, John P. Wright, Peter Kail and to some extent also Simon Blackburn, denote Hume a realist regarding causal powers in nature, so-called capital-C Causes. This new interpretation is being called The New Hume Debate, according to the book, which maps fundamental articles of this debate. The aim of this paper is not only to provide a general characteristic of this new interpretation and its main arguments, but especially to highlight some problems which the new interpretation has to face.
The notion of common sense has been widely used in everyday speech and had its place within numer... more The notion of common sense has been widely used in everyday speech and had its place within numerous philosophical doctrines in the past. One of the most comprehensive analysis of common sense was done by Thomas Reid. The problem is that Reid’s characteristics of common sense very often differ and that is why they are in most cases confusing. The aim of this paper is to organize Reid’s definitions of common sense and to show where we can find inconsistencies. Emphasis will be placed on distinction between common sense and principles of common sense and if Reid’s doctrine of common sense serves its purpose – to be an argument against the scepticism of David Hume.
Resume: Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a... more Resume: Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessary connexion between cause and effect, as well as a sceptic about objective existence of any secret powers of nature. However, in recent decades, there are many articles and books that with this traditional interpretation diverge. These interpreters, including in particular Galen Strawson, John P. Wright, Peter Kail and to some extent also Simon Blackburn, denote Hume a realist regarding causal powers in nature, so-called capital-C Causes. This new interpretation is being called The New Hume Debate, according to the book, which maps fundamental articles of this debate. The aim of this paper is not only to provide a general characteristic of this new interpretation and its main arguments, but especially to highlight some problems which the new interpretation has to face.
Tato diplomová práce nazvaná „Common sense nebo vědecký realismus? Debata Thomase Reida a Josepha... more Tato diplomová práce nazvaná „Common sense nebo vědecký realismus? Debata Thomase Reida a Josepha Priestleyho“ se věnuje doktrinálnímu sporu mezi Thomasem Reidem a Josephem Priestleym. Cílem práce je rekonstrukce hlavních argumentů této debaty, která je v dějinách filosofie stále opomíjená, i přesto, že na jedné straně představuje vlivnou kritiku materialismu a determinismu a na straně druhé jednu z prvních kritik pojmu common sense. Záměrem je také poukázat na zajímavosti této debaty. Především na fakt, že ačkoli mají oba filosofové rozdílné doktríny, tak tyto doktríny vycházejí ze stejného základu a rozdílná interpretace tohoto základu, jímž jsou Regulae philosophandi Isaaca Newtona, ovlivnila filosofii jak jednoho, tak i druhého a měla vliv na celou diskusi. / The present diploma thesis titled „Common sense or scientific realism? Debate of Thomas Reid and Joseph Priestley“ deals with the doctrinal dispute between Thomas Reid and Joseph Priestley. The objective of this paper is a reconstruction of the main arguments of this debate, which is still neglected in the history of philosophy, despite the fact that on the one hand, it shows an influential critique of materialism and determinism, and on the other hand, it presents one of the first instances of criticism of the concept of common sense. The work also aims to highlight interesting points of this debate; especially the fact that although both philosophers have different doctrines, these doctrines are based on the same foundation. Different interpretations of this foundation, which are Isaac Newton’s Regulae philosophandi, influenced their philosophy and had an impact on the whole debate.
Teorie vědy / Theory of Science
This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley’s approach to the research of the human mind.... more This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley’s approach to the research of the human mind. It is demonstrated in two consecutive steps how Priestley changes his view of matter and spirit, and how he moves to materialism. In the first step, he redefines the notion of matter and gives it new attributes – the forces of attraction and repulsion. In the second step, using these new attributes, he explains the ability of perception and thinking. In these steps, he also uses findings of the contemporary natural philosophy, especially the mechanics. For Priestley, man and his mind are part of nature. This means that the man and the human mind are a certain mechanism that works according to natural laws and can also be explained by these laws.
Reflexe, Feb 1, 2022
Book review on Petr Glombíček, Ke genealogii zdravého rozumu. Praha (Togga) 2020, 303 str.
Filozofia, 2021
David Hume (1711-1776) is often considered as a sceptic about the existence of causal powers or t... more David Hume (1711-1776) is often considered as a sceptic about the existence of causal powers or the necessary connection between cause and effect, and his work is interpreted in various books on the history of philosophy in this way. In the last century, however, new interpreters have emerged who are destroying this traditional image of Hume's philosophy. These philosophers, known as "The New Humeans", also consider Hume to be a sceptic, but not as to the objective existence of causal forces, but only as to the recognizability of those forces. The presented article deals with the main arguments of the new interpretation and connects them with Hume's work. The conclusion of the article presents our own argument on the issue.
Filozofia, 2020
The paper deals with Thomas Reid's comments against Joseph Priestley's materialism. Priestley's m... more The paper deals with Thomas Reid's comments against Joseph Priestley's materialism. Priestley's mechanical materialism is based on the philosophy of Isaac Newton, especially Newton's rules of reasoning. Priestley rejected substantive dualism and argumented in favor of a single material substance on the basis of these rules. The paper first presents the form of Priestley's materialism and then analyzes the individual remarks of Reid. The emphasis is on the notions of truth and causality, which both philosophers interpret differently. The last part of the article analyzes whether Reid's remarks are relevant or not.
Clanek se snaži přibližit přistup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumani lidske mysli. Postupně jsou uka... more Clanek se snaži přibližit přistup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumani lidske mysli. Postupně jsou ukazany dva kroky, ve kterých Priestley měni svůj pohled na hmotu a ducha a dochazi k materialismu. V prvnim kroku redefinuje pojem hmoty a přisuzuje hmotě zcela nove vlastnosti – sily přitahovani a odpuzovani. V druhem kroku pomoci těchto nových vlastnosti vysvětluje schopnost vnimani a mysleni. V těchto krocich navic využiva poznatky tehdejsi přirodni filosofie, zejmena mechaniky. Clověk a jeho mysl jsou podle Priestleyho soucasti přirody. To znamena, že clověk a lidska mysl jsou urcitým mechanismem, který pracuje podle přirodnich zakonů a lze jej pomoci těchto zakonů take vysvětlit.
Filozofia, 2020
The paper deals with Thomas Reid’s comments against Joseph Priestley’s materialism. Priestley’s m... more The paper deals with Thomas Reid’s comments against Joseph Priestley’s materialism. Priestley’s mechanical materialism is based on the philosophy of Isaac Newton, especially Newton’s rules of reasoning. Priestley rejected substantive dualism and argumented in favor of a single material substance on the basis of these rules. The paper first presents the form of Priestley’s materialism and then analyzes the individual remarks of Reid. The emphasis is on the notions of truth and causality, which both philosophers interpret differently. The last part of the article analyzes whether Reid’s remarks are relevant or not.
Článek se snaží přiblížit přístup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumání lidské mysli. Postupně jsou uká... more Článek se snaží přiblížit přístup Josepha Priestleyho ke zkoumání lidské mysli. Postupně jsou ukázány dva kroky, ve kterých Priestley mění svůj pohled na hmotu a ducha a dochází k materialismu. V prvním kroku redefinuje pojem hmoty a přisuzuje hmotě zcela nové vlastnosti – síly přitahování a odpuzování. V druhém kroku pomocí těchto nových vlastností vysvětluje schopnost vnímání a myšlení. V těchto krocích navíc využívá poznatky tehdejší přírodní filosofie, zejména mechaniky. Člověk a jeho mysl jsou podle Priestleyho součástí přírody. To znamená, že člověk a lidská mysl jsou určitým mechanismem, který pracuje podle přírodních zákonů a lze jej pomocí těchto zákonů také vysvětlit. / This article attempts to introduce Joseph Priestley's approach to the research of the human mind. It is demonstrated in two consecutive steps how Priestley changes his view of matter and spirit, and how he moves to materialism. In the first step, he redefines the notion of matter and gives it new attributes – the forces of attraction and repulsion. In the second step, using these new attributes, he explains the ability of perception and thinking. In these steps, he also uses findings of the contemporary natural philosophy, especially the mechanics. For Priestley, man and his mind are part of nature. This means that the man and the human mind are a certain mechanism that works according to natural laws and can also be explained by these laws.
Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessa... more Most of us perceive Hume as a sceptic regarding objective existence of causal powers or a necessary connexion between cause and effect, as well as a sceptic about objective existence of any secret powers of nature. However, in recent decades, there are many articles and books that with this traditional interpretation diverge. These interpreters, including in particular Galen Strawson, John P. Wright, Peter Kail and to some extent also Simon Blackburn, denote Hume a realist regarding causal powers in nature, so-called capital-C Causes. This new interpretation is being called The New Hume Debate, according to the book, which maps fundamental articles of this debate. The aim of this paper is not only to provide a general characteristic of this new interpretation and its main arguments, but especially to highlight some problems which the new interpretation has to face.
The notion of common sense has been widely used in everyday speech and had its place within numer... more The notion of common sense has been widely used in everyday speech and had its place within numerous philosophical doctrines in the past. One of the most comprehensive analysis of common sense was done by Thomas Reid. The problem is that Reid’s characteristics of common sense very often differ and that is why they are in most cases confusing. The aim of this paper is to organize Reid’s definitions of common sense and to show where we can find inconsistencies. Emphasis will be placed on distinction between common sense and principles of common sense and if Reid’s doctrine of common sense serves its purpose – to be an argument against the scepticism of David Hume.