The Conception of Anthropological Complementarism. An Introduction

The aims of 'Anthropological Complementarism' in a nutshell(sect. 1). Against a watered-down conception of psychophysical complementarity (sect. 2). Linguistic and logical problems of identity and non-identity (sect. 3). A 'noematic' approach to consciousness (sect. 4). A plea for a pure noematics (sect. 5). My own consciousness as experienced by myself is not a part of nature (sect. 6). The major ontological tenets of mine (sect. 7). Complementarism proper (sect. 8). Suitable and unsuitable methods in philosophy (sect. 9). How to determine the methods suitable for philosophical inquiries (sect. 10). Linguistic and phenomenological methods (sect. 11). 'Linguistic phenomenology' (sect. 12). A note on philosophical truth (sect. 13)

In Search of an Integrated Logic of Conviction and Intention

According to a two-level criterion for combination tests in the field of ordinary language (C-CT), moral 'ought'-sentences may be taken to imply 'I intend'-sentences partly semantically and partly pragmatically. If so, a trenchant linguistic analysis of the concept of moral obligation cannot do without a non-classical logic which allows to model these important kinds of ordinary-language implications by means of purely syntactical derivations. For this purpose, an integrated logic of conviction and intention has been tentatively devised by way of a doxastically, buletically, and pragmatically extended calculus of natural deduction. This system of buletic logic cannot even be launched without one or two derivation rules of deductive closedness. However, these very closedness rules appear to be responsible for buletic paradoxes which are analogous to paradoxes long since known from other, less exotic branches of logic but at first sight look much more virulent. After having scrutinized two potential strategies for coping with the paradoxes of buletic logic, finally we can convince ourselves that these paradoxes, as well as their familiar non-buletic counterparts, are but apparent paradoxes, provided we consistently lean on C-CT and do not let pragmatical considerations intrude into purely logical ones

'Reflexive Monism' versus 'Complementarism': An analysis and criticism of the conceptual groundwork of Max Velmans's 'reflexive model' of consciousness

From 1990 on, the London psychologist Max Velmans developed a novel approach to (phenomenal) consciousness according to which an experience of an object is phenomenologically identical to an object as experienced. On the face of it I agree; but unlike Velmans I argue that the latter should be understood as comparable, not to a Kantian, but rather to a noematic ‘phenomenon’ in the Husserlian sense. Consequently, I replace Velmans’s reflexive model with a complementaristic approach in a strict sense which leaves no room for either monistic or dualistic views (including Velmans’s ontological monism and his dual-aspect interpretation of complementarity) and hence requires us to radically reinterpret the concept of psychophysical causation