Metsäpirulainen : Liikemies Erik Johan Längman (1799-1863) talousjärjestelmän murroksessa

The Forest devil. Businessman Erik Johan Längman (1799 1863) in the transition of economic system In Finnish historiography, Erik Johan Längman (1799-1863) bears a bad reputation of his own level: a mean, profit-seeking businessman who did not care too much about methods in his operations. Although little known, Längman has been praised as one of the pioneers of modern industry in the Grand Duchy of Finland, which belonged to the Russian Empire. From the mid 1830s Längman owned iron mill and several sawmills around the country. The growing demand of the markets in the 1830s, especially in Great Britain, marked a strong stimulus to Finnish lumber industry. At the same time claims for stricter rule over the sawmill industry were raised by high officials. The momentum of the conflict, the Forest Act of 1851, brought an end to illegal overproduction. In this biography, particular emphasis is laid on the entrepreneurial behaviour of Längman, but also on the effect the entrepreneurs had on the Crown s policies. On the other hand, how did the limitations imposed by the Crown guide the actions of the sawmill owners? The solutions adopted by the sawmill owners and the manoeuvring of the government are in a constant dialogue in this study. The Finnish sawmill industry experienced a major change in its techniques and methods of acquiring timber during the 1830s. Längman particularly, with his acquisition organisation, was able to find and reach faraway forests with unexpected results. The official regulating system with its strict producing quotas couldn t follow the changes. When the battle against the sawmill industry really started on, in 1840, it didn t happen for the benefit of iron industry, as argued previously, but to save Crown forests from depletion. After the mid 1840s Längman and the leader of the Finnish nationalistic movement, J. V. Snellman questioned the rationality of the entire regulation system and in doing so they also posed a threat against the aristocratic power. The influential but now also badly provoked chairman of the economic division of senate, Lars Gabriel von Haartman, accused the sawmill-owners harder than ever and took the advantage of the reactionary spirit of imperial Russia to launch the state forest administration. Längman circumvented the conditions of privileges, felled Crown forests illegally and accusations were brought against him for destroying his competitors. The repeated conflicts spoke primarily about a superior business idea and organisational ability. Although Längman spent his last years mostly abroad he still had interests in Finnish timber business when the liberation of sawmill-industry was established, in 1861. Surprisingly, the antagonism around the Crown forests continued, probably even more heated.

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.

Kysymys esineellisyydestä : Georg Lukácsin esineellistymisteoria ja Martin Heideggerin fundamentaaliontologia

Käsilläolevan tutkielman aiheena on esineellistymisen käsite. Sitä tarkastellaan yhtäältä sellaisena kuten se esitetään Georg Lukácsin (1885-1971) teoksessa Historia ja luokkatietoisuus (1923), toisaalta kuten sitä koskeva teoria on luettavissa esiin Martin Heideggerin (1889-1976) läpimurtoteoksesta Oleminen ja aika (1927). Molemmat ajattelijat pyrkivät teoksissaan rakentamaan kokonaisvaltaista tulkintaa länsimaisen ajattelun ja toiminnan taipumuksesta tulkita todellisuus esineellisenä (dinglich), so. eletystä elämästä ja toiminnasta irrallisena olioiden (Dinge) maailmana. Sekä Lukács että Heidegger pyrkivät osoittamaan, että esineellistyneen todellisuuden ontologisena perustana toimii inhimillisen praktisen toiminnan kenttä, josta käsin esineellistävät ja objektivoivat suhtautumistavat todellisuuteen voivat vasta jälkikäteisesti syntyä. Molemmille ajattelijoille esineellisyyden muodostuminen ontologiaa hallitsevaksi tulkinnaksi todellisuuden luonteesta edellyttää myös tietynlaisia sosiaalisen olemisen rakenteita. Tutkielmassa tehdään vertailevaa käsiteanalyysia Lukácsin ja Heideggerin teoreettisten diskurssien välillä. Tavoitteena on rakentaa mahdollisuutta lukea mainittuja filosofeja saman, modernille olemassaololle keskeisen ontologisen sekä eksistentiaalisen ongelman tarkastelijoina. Toisaalta vertaileva lähestymistapa pyrkii myös tuomaan esiin olennaisia ja perustavia eroja Lukácsin marxilaisen ja Heideggerin fundamentaaliontologisen orientaation välillä. Tutkielmassa pyritäänkin osoittamaan, että Heideggerin fundamentaaliontologia ei tarkastele kauppatavaran rakennetta eikä sosiaalisen vaihdon prosesseja marxilaisesta näkökulmasta riittävällä tavalla, kun taas Lukácsin teoreettinen projekti tulee edellyttäneeksi tuottavaan subjektiviteettiin pohjautuvan ontologisen perusasenteen. Tämä ontologinen positio voidaan puolestaan kritisoida hedelmällisesti heideggerilaisesta näkökulmasta. Viime kädessä tutkielma pyrkii avaamaan esineellistymisteorioiden vertailun kautta kysymyksen länsimarxilaisen materialistisen dialektiikan ja Heideggerin fenomenologisen ontologian välisestä suhteesta.