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.

Uskonnonopetuksen tunnustuksellisuus koulun kiistakysymyksenä : Evankelinen herätysliike oppivelvollisuuskoulun kristillisyyden asialla 1912-1926

In the early years of independence the Finnish school system went through a major change. Both the Compulsory school attendance act (1921) and the Religious freedom act (1923) were legislated almost simultaneously. Although the legislators were deciding on the whole content of the citizenship education given in the compulsory school, their attention was mainly concentrated on the issue of the religious education. The former study concerning the subject shows that this issue was strongly influenced by the political power struggle between the conservative and the socialist parties. One of the underlying factors was also the Church s decreased authority concerning the elementary school. The aim of this research was to study the Finnish evangelical movement s attitude and opinions on the issue of religious education and on its status and nature. Their opinions on the issue were especially investigated from the point of view of their own evangelical lower elementary school teachers seminar, which was deeply connected with the matter of confessionalism. The source material of this research of educational history consist of documents of the school administration and the Lutheran Evangelical Association as well as of vast collection of educational, Church s and evangelical movement s journals. According to the results of this study, the evangelical movement plead very strongly for denominational religious education. However, the confessionalism they were pursuing differed from the common understanding of the concept at that time. This became evident both because of their demands for increased education on the Christian doctrine and because of their sharp criticism against loosely confessional, generally Christian religious education. The evangelical movement s strict opinion was combined with their effort to emphasize the Lutherian doctrine in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland. The founding of the Evangelical seminar for lower elementary school teachers in Karkku was a significant indication of the evangelical movement s dedication to strive towards school s Christianity. The objective of the evangelical seminar was to change the school by means of training evangelical minded teachers. The seminar was only a part of much larger plans of evangelical education and home missionary work. However, maintaining the seminar proved to be impossible, especially as the National Board of Education was absolutely against it, claiming that it would endanger the unity of the compulsory school. The National Board of Education indicated that the objectivity of citizenship education would be forfeit, if every marginal ideological movement could educate their own teachers.

Rätt som argument : Leo Mechelin och finska frågan 1886-1912

Right as an Argument. Leo Mechelin and the Finnish Question 1886-1912 At the turn of the 20th century the Finnish Question rose up as a political and juridical issue at the international arena. The vaguely précised position of Finland in the Russian empire led to diverse conclusions concerning the correctness of the February manifesto of 1899. It was predominantly among a European elite of politicians, cultural workers and academics the issue rose some interest. Finns were active making propaganda for their cause, and they put an emphasis on the claim that the right was on the Finnish side. In the study Elisabeth Stubb compare the Finnish, Russian and European statements about the Finnish Question and analyse their use of right as an argument. The Finnish Question offers at the same time a case study of a national entity which possesses a political sphere of life but is not fully independent, and its possibilities to drive its interests in an international context. Leo Mechelin (1839-1914), the leader of the Finnish propaganda organization abroad, is used as a point of departure. The biographical stance is formed into a triangle, where Leo Mechelin, the idea of right and the Finnish Question abroad are the three cornerstones. The treatment of one cornerstone sheds a ligth on the two others. The metaphor of triangulation also worked as a method to reach "a third stance" in a scinetific and political issue that usually is polarised into two opposite alternatives. An adherence to a strict legal right could not in the end offer a complete, unquestionable and satisfactory solution to the Finnsih Question, it was dependent on "the right of state wisdom and sound insight". The Finnish propaganda abroad used almost completely alternative ways of making politics. The propaganda did not have a decisive effect on countries' official politics, but gained unofficial support, especially in the public opinion and in academic statements. Mechelin claimed that the political field was dependent on public opinion and scientific research. Together with the official politics these two fields formed a triangle that shared the task of balancing the political arena and preventing it from making unwise decisions of taking an unjust turn. The international sphere worked as a balancing part in the Finnish Question. Mechelin tried by claiming the status of state for Finland's part to secure the country a place at the official international arena. At the same time, and especially when the claim was not fully adopted, he emphasised, and in a European context worked for, that right would become the guiding light not only for international relations, but also for the policy making in the inner life of the state.