• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.237-270
• /
• 2013

Determinism and compatibilism have thought that libertarianism contradicts the scientific view. This paper demonstrates that the hypothesis that free will exists does not cause any problems and contradictions, while maintaining pro-scientific view. Rather, determinism lacks scientific and demonstrative bases. At first, I reject dualistic self by assuming identity theory of the self and physical body & brain. Free will is a functional concept or property that can have multiple realization. Therefore we can recognize whether aliens or robots have free will through observation on their acts. 'Free will' is a functional kinds term like 'digestion'. As we know we have digestive function, we can know that we have free will even before knowing the necessity of its existence by understanding micro structure of human free will. The judgement that an individual has free will function depends on whether it has particular actions. Those actions are controlling and restraining actions in context, predicting future, making elaborate conditional sentences, etc. Real being of free will is the physical occupant of the function that makes those actions. Determinism is based on various kinds of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Determinists often confuse necessity of physical law and determinism. Another decisive misunderstanding is that free will postulates same conditions and different results from the same point of time. However, free will postulates that the two points of time are different. Because determinism is unnecessary redundant hypothesis influenced by religions, according to Ockham's Razor, determinism should be eliminated.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.40 no.6 s.111
• /
• pp.671-693
• /
• 2005

This paper is to explore critically environmentalism, especially in terms of environmental justice, suggested or implied in theory of liberalism which has been the ideological foundation of contemporary society. It begins with a brief look at liberal perspective in a broad sense, then interprets in-depth the classical liberalism of J. Locke, libertarianism (esp. R. Nozick) and utilitarianism (including cost-benefit analysis) from the environmental point of view. And finally it considers liberal pluralism and other alternative theories of pluralism, especially communitarianism (esp M. Walzer), postmodern pluralism (esp. I. Young), and cultural pluralism (esp. C. Taylor) in order to overcome limitations of liberal environmentalism and to find out some clues for theory of environmental justice. In conclusion, this paper argues that we need to transfer from liberalism (including liberal pluralism) to critical pluralism in oder to develop a proper understanding of environmental problems and to conceptualize a desirable theory of environmental justice.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.123
• /
• pp.165-187
• /
• 2012

Our freedom is natural, however we are amazed at the fact that we don't sometimes have the freedom. we have to have a freedom and must be a freedom. But we think our life is restrained. Why do we think that? This is due to epistemological thinking. Also critic of Sartre' freedom is due to that. Especially Merleau-Ponty's researchers say that Sartre is an epistemologist on the problem of the freedom and his freedom is an absolute freedom. Aim of this paper is to find out problem of the critic. To achieve this, first we need to exmaine what absoulte freedom is. It is abstract and ideological. According to Merleau-Ponty, it dosen't exist. This paper argues that Sartre's freedom is not epistemoligical but ontological. It is going to come out in relation between '$l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre-en-soi$' and '$l^{\prime}{\hat{e}}tre-en-soi$'. Then, on the problem of the freedom, we can discover that Sartre and Merleau-Ponty are no different from each other. Finally, As I argue about Merleau-Ponty's freedom, I will show that it is 'a freedom of situation' and 'a freedom of choice'. Also, This freedom is Sartre's freedom. Sartre showes a situation is my freedom.

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.33 no.spc
• /
• pp.709-719
• /
• 1998

오늘날 세계는 물질적으로 풍요롭게 되었지만, 생태위기의 발생과 더불어 환경문데를 둘러싼 불평등이 감소하기 보다는 오히려 증대하고 있다. 21세기를 위한 새로운 패러다임으로서 생태학은 이러한 불평등을 극복하기 위한 지식 및 실천으로서 '환경정의'의 개념 또는 이론을 필요로 한다. 진정한 환경정의론은 한편으로 생태학의 규범적 측면들을 발전시키면서 다른 한편으로 이의 이데올로기의 동원을 막을 수 있는 이론적 및 실천적 토대가 될 것으로 기대된다. 환경정의에 관한 개념적 연구는 주로 사회정의에 관한 철학적 전통, 특히 자유론, 공리주의, 계약론을 포괄하는 자유주의적 정의론, 맑스주의적 정의론 및 포스트모던 정의론 등에서 도출된 주요 개념들을 자연환경에 확대시키고자 한다. 환경정의에 관한 몇몇 학자들, 대표적으로 벤쯔(Wenz), 하비(Harvey), 로와 그리슨 (Low and Gleeson) 등은 다양한 전통을 위에서 제시한 (환경)정의론들을 면밀히 고찰하여, 이들 각각의 한계를 제시하거나 문제점들을 지적하고, 나아가 이들을 종합하고자 했다. 이들의 연구는 환경정의에 관한 다양한 이론들의 특성을 이해하는데 많은 도움을 주지만, 그 자체로 일관성 있는 이론으로 발전하지는 못했다. 이 글에서 제시되는 환경정의론은 인간들 간의 관계, 자연과 인간들 간의 물질적 관계, 그리고 상징적 관계 등에 상응하도록 정의를 3가지 차원, 즉 분배적 정의, 생산적 정의, 승인적 정의로 구분하고자 한다. 이들은 각각 필요의 원칙, 노동의 원칙, 그리고 의사소통의 원칙에 기초하며, 또한 각각 자유주의적, 특히 롤즈의 정의론, 맑스주의 정의론, 그리고 비판이론이나 포스트모던 정의론에서 많은 시사점들을 얻을 수 있다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.146
• /
• pp.193-217
• /
• 2018

Following the lead of Isaiah Berlin, many liberals favor a negative conception of liberty because it limits the amount of interference and coercion that the state has in individual's lives. Such moves leave individuals to place value on their life choices or step back and revise them if desired. It is one thing, however, to argue that modern republicanism characterized by liberty as non-domination contains an alternative conception of liberty.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.23-40
• /
• 2004

실체 유물론과 인과 결정론이 개인의 자유와 동일성을 실질적으로 열어주려면 사건 원인 외에 행위자 원인의 여지를 허용해야 한다. 그 두 가지 원인은 법칙적 일반적 결정의 개념과 합리적 개성적 결정의 개념을 지니고 있다. 개성의 인과적 역할은 법칙화할 수 없는 물질성의 여지를 남긴다. 바로 그 가능성이 인간의 자유와 동일성의 실질적 복권의 가능성이다.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.123
• /
• pp.111-134
• /
• 2012

The article aims to elaborate on the fundamental insights of Hegel's political philosophy from a 'public freedom theory and public philosophy' perspective. The article is based on the understanding that Hegel's theory of freedom desires public freedom, and explains the contemporary meanings of the theory of freedom. The article critiques two subjects based on the interpretation of Hegel's public philosophy-the first is atomistic individualism and the other is the absolute alterity theory supported by Levinas and Derrida. In other words, through this article the author emphasizes that Hegel's public freedom theory clearly illustrates the limitations of atomistic individualism, and goes on to provide a subject theory that includes a dual/multiple theory on 'the other' that is distinct from the Levinas-Derrida approach.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.116
• /
• pp.79-110
• /
• 2010

In this paper I will consider the Rousseauistic origin of Knat's theory of Freedom. Kant's autonomous freedom which is the main theme of the Critique of practical Reason have three characteristic elements, namely spontaneity, self-lawmaking and universal validity. Rousseau mentions three kinds of freedom in his works. Natural freedom which is treated in Discourse on the origin of inequality is freedom which a man in natural state have. I proved that natural freedom is the origin of Kant's theory of spontaneity that is a essential part of autonomous freedom. Social freedom which is treated in Social contract is deeply connected with general will. General will is the power of self-lawmaking. We can easily conclude that Rousseau's social freedom is the origin of Kant's theory of self-legislation which is another essential part of autonomous freedom. The last essential part of Kant's autonomous freedom is universality that is inseparably connected with Rousseau's moral freedom which is largely mentioned in Emlie.

• Journal of the Computational Structural Engineering Institute of Korea
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.371-377
• /
• 2009

In this paper, the dynamic characteristic of vibrating system which has translational and rotational degrees of freedom is studied. The moment of inertia of the system is modeled here as the inerter and the equivalent model to the system is proposed using dynamic stiffness method. It is shown that the size of inerter plays a major role to determine the dynamic characteristic of the system. This two degree of freedom system(DOF) is applied as a dynamic vibration absorber(DVA) to the elimination of single peak of main body. The solution for the undamped DVA is presented in analytical form while the damped DVA is designed using fixed point theory. The numerical examples are presented for verifying the methods.