Hiromatsu on Mach’s Philosophy and Relativity Theory

In his project of going beyond the “modern worldview,” Hiromatsu Wataru attached great importance to Ernst Mach’s philosophical thought and Einstein’s theory of relativity as challenging the premises of modern philosophy, which he characterized as substantialist and bound by the subject / object schema. This paper surveys Hiromatsu’s analysis of Mach’s phenomenalist element-monism, specifically his critique of Mach’s insufficient break with modern philosophy; his inquiry into Einstein’s relativity theory with a focus on its intersubjective cognitive structure; and the way he extends his views on these themes to a general ontological-epistemological theory of the “fourfold structure.” Finally, it examines questions about Hiromatsu’s arguments regarding the tension between the dimensions of synchronic structure and structuring movement. An earlier version of this paper can be found as “Philosophers” in John T. Blackmore, Itagaki Ryōichi, and Tanaka Setsuko, eds., Ernst Mach’s Influence Spreads, 425–76

Reading Hiromatsu’s Theory of the Fourfold Structure

Hiromatsu Wataru’s philosophical thought revolves around an analysis of what he calls the “fourfold structure.” According to Hiromatsu, all phenomena in the world are structured in such a fourfold manner that “a given presents itself as something to someone as Someone,” and these four moments of the phenomenon are not independent elements, but exist only as terms of the functional relationship. This paper surveys and critically examines this theory of the fourfold structure, and shows, in particular, how this theory, while largely presented as synchronic structural analysis, contains some conceptual motifs going beyond the synchronic framework. Specifically, with a focus on the process in which there arises a meaning common to different phenomenal givens and to different knowers, my analysis suggests the way in which phenomena are dynamically structured and thereby displaced in meaning as well as in the knowers’ role relationship

Heisenberg on Science, Language, and the Question of Objectivity

Far from regarding physical science as a universal model of human knowledge, Werner Heisenberg relativized the scientificity of natural science, situating this domain of knowledge in a wide range of our modes of experiencing the world. In this paper, with a focus on his critical analysis of the notion of objectivity in quantum theory and other fields, I survey Heisenberg’s view of the world as divided into six distinct areas of reality, including – but not centered on – physical science. I also seek to show how this conception of the structure of reality, specifically of the relation between different areas of reality, is mediated by his mis- or reinterpretation of Bohr’s idea of complementarity.Far from regarding physical science as a universal model of human knowledge, Werner Heisenberg relativized the scientificity of natural science, situating this domain of knowledge in a wide range of our modes of experiencing the world. In this paper, with a focus on his critical analysis of the notion of objectivity in quantum theory and other fields, I survey Heisenberg’s view of the world as divided into six distinct areas of reality, including – but not centered on – physical science. I also seek to show how this conception of the structure of reality, specifically of the relation between different areas of reality, is mediated by his mis- or reinterpretation of Bohr’s idea of complementarity.Far from regarding physical science as a universal model of human knowledge, Werner Heisenberg relativized the scientificity of natural science, situating this domain of knowledge in a wide range of our modes of experiencing the world. In this paper, with a focus on his critical analysis of the notion of objectivity in quantum theory and other fields, I survey Heisenberg’s view of the world as divided into six distinct areas of reality, including – but not centered on – physical science. I also seek to show how this conception of the structure of reality, specifically of the relation between different areas of reality, is mediated by his mis- or reinterpretation of Bohr’s idea of complementarity.Far from regarding physical science as a universal model of human knowledge, Werner Heisenberg relativized the scientificity of natural science, situating this domain of knowledge in a wide range of our modes of experiencing the world. In this paper, with a focus on his critical analysis of the notion of objectivity in quantum theory and other fields, I survey Heisenberg’s view of the world as divided into six distinct areas of reality, including – but not centered on – physical science. I also seek to show how this conception of the structure of reality, specifically of the relation between different areas of reality, is mediated by his mis- or reinterpretation of Bohr’s idea of complementarity.Far from regarding physical science as a universal model of human knowledge, Werner Heisenberg relativized the scientificity of natural science, situating this domain of knowledge in a wide range of our modes of experiencing the world. In this paper, with a focus on his critical analysis of the notion of objectivity in quantum theory and other fields, I survey Heisenberg’s view of the world as divided into six distinct areas of reality, including – but not centered on – physical science. I also seek to show how this conception of the structure of reality, specifically of the relation between different areas of reality, is mediated by his mis- or reinterpretation of Bohr’s idea of complementarity

Niels Bohr's complementarity: its structure, history, and intersections with hermeneutics and deconstruction

Through detailed textual and conceptual analysis, and with special attention to the potentially conflicting elements of Bohr's thought, this volume's fresh approach analyzes the relations between realism and antirealism through the prism of complementarity

Reading Nagai\u27s Theory of the <I>

After outlining Hitoshi Nagai\u27s theory of the as the "unique point of origin" of the world, including hisaccount of the relation between the \u27s degeneration and the problem of the Other, this paper makes aninquiry into my own \u27reading\u27 of this theory. The analysis indicates how I inevitably \u27translate\u27 the theory ineither of two ways, that is, either reading what Nagai calls as the for Makoto Katsumori or attributingit to the speaker himself, thus giving rise to two alternative modes of degeneration of the . A furtherdiscussion suggests that, by paradoxically combining these two ways of reading, I, as the , receive Nagai\u27sdiscourse as a speech given by an Other, namely, another