Non-reductive Physicalism, Irreducibility of the Mental and the Problem of Mental Causation : A study of Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's positions in the philosophy of mind

In this study I consider what kind of perspective on the mind body problem is taken and can be taken by a philosophical position called non-reductive physicalism. Many positions fall under this label. The form of non-reductive physicalism which I discuss is in essential respects the position taken by Donald Davidson (1917-2003) and Georg Henrik von Wright (1916-2003). I defend their positions and discuss the unrecognized similarities between their views. Non-reductive physicalism combines two theses: (a) Everything that exists is physical; (b) Mental phenomena cannot be reduced to the states of the brain. This means that according to non-reductive physicalism the mental aspect of humans (be it a soul, mind, or spirit) is an irreducible part of the human condition. Also Davidson and von Wright claim that, in some important sense, the mental aspect of a human being does not reduce to the physical aspect, that there is a gap between these aspects that cannot be closed. I claim that their arguments for this conclusion are convincing. I also argue that whereas von Wright and Davidson give interesting arguments for the irreducibility of the mental, their physicalism is unwarranted. These philosophers do not give good reasons for believing that reality is thoroughly physical. Notwithstanding the materialistic consensus in the contemporary philosophy of mind the ontology of mind is still an uncharted territory where real breakthroughs are not to be expected until a radically new ontological position is developed. The third main claim of this work is that the problem of mental causation cannot be solved from the Davidsonian - von Wrightian perspective. The problem of mental causation is the problem of how mental phenomena like beliefs can cause physical movements of the body. As I see it, the essential point of non-reductive physicalism - the irreducibility of the mental - and the problem of mental causation are closely related. If mental phenomena do not reduce to causally effective states of the brain, then what justifies the belief that mental phenomena have causal powers? If mental causes do not reduce to physical causes, then how to tell when - or whether - the mental causes in terms of which human actions are explained are actually effective? I argue that this - how to decide when mental causes really are effective - is the real problem of mental causation. The motivation to explore and defend a non-reductive position stems from the belief that reductive physicalism leads to serious ethical problems. My claim is that Davidson's and von Wright's ultimate reason to defend a non-reductive view comes back to their belief that a reductive understanding of human nature would be a narrow and possibly harmful perspective. The final conclusion of my thesis is that von Wright's and Davidson's positions provide a starting point from which the current scientistic philosophy of mind can be critically further explored in the future.

Hyvän hoidon reuna-alueilla : Potilasvahinko lääketieteellisen toiminnan valossa.

Vuonna 2006 Suomessa korvattiin 2331 potilasvahinkoa. Niistä maksettiin korvauksia yhteensä noin 27 miljoonaa euroa. Tässä tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan potilasvahinkoja lääketieteellisen toiminnan valossa. Tutkimuksessa pyritään vastaamaan kysymykseen: Millä eri tavoilla lääkärin toiminta voi epäonnistua potilasvahinkotapauksissa? Tutkimuksessa määriteltiin neljä kategoriaa, joiden avulla analysoitiin esimerkkitapauksia. Kategoriat käsittelivät hoitojärjestelmää, lääkärin toimintaan vaikuttavia normeja, toiminnan intentionaalisuutta sekä toiminnan suhdetta sen lopputuloksiin ja seurauksiin. Ensimmäisessä tutkimusluvussa määriteltiin kategoriat, joiden avulla lääketieteellistä toimintaa voi arvioida. Ensimmäiseksi analysoitiin hoitojärjestelmää, lääkärin toiminnan kontekstia. Hoitojärjestelmästä nostettiin esille potilas-lääkärisuhde, lääkärien välinen yhteistyö, potilaasta saatavat tiedot, toiminnan mahdollistavat resurssit sekä niin kutsuttu systeemivirhe. Hoitojärjestelmän toimiminen on hyvän hoidon ensimmäinen edellytys. Se vaatii eri terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöiden saumatonta yhteistyötä.Toinen kategoria käsitteli lääkärin toimintaan vaikuttavia normeja. Georg Henrik von Wrightin teoksen Norm and Action normien jaottelua sovellettiin lääkärin toimintaan. Normien pääryhmään kuuluvat säännöt, määräykset ja ohjeet. Lisäksi voidaan määritellä pienempiä normiryhmiä, jotka sijaitsevat pääryhmien välimaastossa. Näihin pienempiin ryhmiin sijoittuvat tottumukset, moraaliset periaatteet sekä ideaalit säännöt. Kolmannessa kategoriassa käsiteltiin intentionaalisuutta osana toimintaa. Teorian päälähde oli G. E. M. Anscomben teos Intention. Toiminnan intentionaalisuutta analysoitiin Anscomben tunnetun, vesikaivon myrkytystä koskevan, esimerkin avulla. Siinä tekoon liittyvä sisäinen tieto on keskeinen intentiota määrittävä tekijä. Viimeisessä kategoriassa arvioitiin toimintaa von Wrightin mukaan. Esille nousi erityisesti kyky toiminnan perusedellytyksenä sekä toiminnan lopputulos ja seuraukset. Potilasvahingoissa on tärkeää arvioida myös potilasvahingon seurauksia, ei vain epäonnistuneen toimenpiteen lopputulosta. Toimintaa analysoitaessa oli myös otettava huomioon kenen näkökulmasta seurauksia arvioitiin, Potilas, lääkäri ja esimerkiksi osastonylilääkäri saattavat nähdä potilasvahingon seuraukset hyvin eri tavoilla.Toisessa tutkimusluvussa arvioitiin neljää Terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskuksen ja lääninhallitusten sosiaali- ja terveysosastojen kantelu- ja valvontaratkaisuista valittua esimerkkitapausta. Ensimmäinen käsitteli lääkärin toiminnan epäonnistumista synnytyksessä, toinen psyykkisistä ongelmista ja alkoholiriippuvuudesta kärsivän lääkärin ammatinharjoittamisoikeuksien rajoittamista, kolmas lääketutkimuksen johtajan vakavia virheitä ja neljäs Terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskuksen pysyvän asiantuntijan ristiriitaisia asiantuntijalausuntoja. Lääkärin toiminnan epäonnistuminen vaikuttaa helposti hoitojärjestelmään, jonka toimiminen perustuu työntekijöiden yhteistyöhön. Hoitovirheissä rikotaan yleensä lääketieteen sääntöjä. Potilasvahingon sattuessa lääkärin asema muuttuu normiauktoriteetista normisubjektiksi. Lääkäri saattaa toiminnallaan rikkoa myös moraalisia sääntöjä tai lääkärin ihannetta. Puhtaissa vahinkotapauksissa toiminnan lopputulos ei vastaa lääkärin intentiota, potilaan parantamista. Kaikissa potilasvahinkotapauksissa ei voida puhua vahingoista, vaan kyseessä voi olla myös tarkoituksellinen teko. Toiminnan lopputuloksella voi olla laajat seuraukset, jotka tulisi myös ottaa huomioon toimintaa arvioitaessa.

Hyveiden harjoittaminen : edellytykset ja esteet

In the first half of the 20th century, most moral philosophers took the concept of virtue to be secondary to moral principles or emotions, though in various and mutually conflicting ways. In the early 1960s interest in the virtues was restored by the analytic philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe and Georg Henrik von Wright, the younger colleagues and friends of the late Wittgenstein. Later, Alasdair MacIntyre became a leading virtue ethicist. In 1981, MacIntyre introduced in After Virtue the concept of practices, which he based on the Aristotelian distinction between praxis and poiesis. This dissertation examines MacIntyre s characterization of the interconnectedness between practices and virtues, especially in relation to skills, education, and certain emotions. The primary position of the virtues is defended against the tendency in modern moral philosophy to overemphasize the role either of principles and rules or of emotions. The view according to which rational action and acting according to the virtues is best conceptualized as following rules or principles is criticized by arguments that are grounded by some Wittgensteinian observations, and that can be characterized as transcendental. Even if the virtues cannot be defined by, and are not based entirely on, emotions, the role of certain emotions on the learning and education of skills and virtues are studied more carefully than by MacIntyre. In the cases of resentment, indignation, and shame, the analysis of Peter Strawson is utilized, and in the case of regret, the analysis of Bernard Williams. Williams analysis of regret and moral conflict concludes in a kind of antirealism, which this study criticizes. Where education of practices and skills and the related reactive emotions are examined as conditions of learning and practicing the virtues, institutions and ideologies are examined as obstacles and threats to the virtues. This theme is studied through Karl Marx s conception of alienation and Karl Polanyi s historical and sociological research concerning the great transformation . The study includes six Finnish-published articles carrying the titles Our negative attitudes towards other persons , Authority and upbringing , Moral conflicts, regret and ethical realism , Practices and institutions , Doing justice as condition to communal action: a transcendental argument for justice as virtue , and Alienation from practices in capitalist society: Alasdair MacIntyre s Marxist Aristotelianism . The introductory essay sums up the themes of the articles and presents some central issues of virtue ethics by relating the classical Socratic questions to Aristotelian practical philosophy, as well as to current controversies in metaethics and moral psychology.

Proofs, Paradoxes, and Probabilities : The Logical Turn of Philosophy in Finland

This monograph describes the emergence of independent research on logic in Finland. The emphasis is placed on three well-known students of Eino Kaila: Georg Henrik von Wright (1916-2003), Erik Stenius (1911-1990), and Oiva Ketonen (1913-2000), and their research between the early 1930s and the early 1950s. The early academic work of these scholars laid the foundations for today's strong tradition in logic in Finland and also became internationally recognized. However, due attention has not been given to these works later, nor have they been comprehensively presented together. Each chapter of the book focuses on the life and work of one of Kaila's aforementioned students, with a fourth chapter discussing works on logic by authors who would later become known within other disciplines. Through an extensive use of correspondence and other archived material, some insight has been gained into the persons behind the academic personae. Unique and unpublished biographical material has been available for this task. The chapter on Oiva Ketonen focuses primarily on his work on what is today known as proof theory, especially on his proof theoretical system with invertible rules that permits a terminating root-first proof search. The independency of the parallel postulate is proved as an example of the strength of root-first proof search. Ketonen was to our knowledge Gerhard Gentzen's (the 'father' of proof theory) only student. Correspondence and a hitherto unavailable autobiographic manuscript, in addition to an unpublished article on the relationship between logic and epistemology, is presented. The chapter on Erik Stenius discusses his work on paradoxes and set theory, more specifically on how a rigid theory of definitions is employed to avoid these paradoxes. A presentation by Paul Bernays on Stenius' attempt at a proof of the consistency of arithmetic is reconstructed based on Bernays' lecture notes. Stenius correspondence with Paul Bernays, Evert Beth, and Georg Kreisel is discussed. The chapter on Georg Henrik von Wright presents his early work on probability and epistemology, along with his later work on modal logic that made him internationally famous. Correspondence from various archives (especially with Kaila and Charlie Dunbar Broad) further discusses his academic achievements and his experiences during the challenging circumstances of the 1940s.