Journal Description
Philosophies
Philosophies
is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal promoting re-integration of diverse forms of philosophical reflection and scientific research on fundamental issues in science, technology and culture, published bimonthly online by MDPI. The International Society for the Study of Information (IS4SI) is affiliated with Philosophies and their members receive a discount on the article processing charge.
- Open Access— free for readers, with article processing charges (APC) paid by authors or their institutions.
- High Visibility: indexed within Scopus, ESCI (Web of Science), PhilPapers, and other databases.
- Journal Rank: JCR - Q2 (History and Philosophy Of Science) / CiteScore - Q1 (Philosophy)
- Rapid Publication: manuscripts are peer-reviewed and a first decision is provided to authors approximately 37.5 days after submission; acceptance to publication is undertaken in 6.7 days (median values for papers published in this journal in the second half of 2025).
- Recognition of Reviewers: reviewers who provide timely, thorough peer-review reports receive vouchers entitling them to a discount on the APC of their next publication in any MDPI journal, in appreciation of the work done.
Impact Factor:
0.7 (2024)
Latest Articles
Latency and Human Agency: A Theory of Temporal Regimes of Technological Mediation
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 88; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030088 (registering DOI) - 30 May 2026
Abstract
Digital systems are ordinarily evaluated in terms of speed, throughput, efficiency, and optimization. Such evaluations are indispensable, but they remain philosophically incomplete because they treat latency as a merely technical property of systems rather than as a condition of mediated action. This article
[...] Read more.
Digital systems are ordinarily evaluated in terms of speed, throughput, efficiency, and optimization. Such evaluations are indispensable, but they remain philosophically incomplete because they treat latency as a merely technical property of systems rather than as a condition of mediated action. This article argues that latency should be understood as a phenomenological condition of technological mediation because the interval between human initiative and technical response influences how action is experienced, how continuity is sustained, and how agency is lived and distributed across human and technical components. The article argues that latency is a constitutive condition of mediated agency and that changes in temporal coupling reorganize how technology appears in experience. On this basis, it distinguishes delayed mediation, immediate mediation, and anticipatory mediation as three regimes through which the temporal structure of response alters the phenomenological status of action. When delay is perceptible, technology tends to appear as obstacle, procedure, or object of attention; when delay withdraws, mediation can recede into the continuity of action and be incorporated into embodied practice; when responsiveness gives way to prediction, mediation begins to pre-structure the field of action before initiative is fully articulated. The argument reinterprets Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, postphenomenology, Stiegler, and Rosa through the lens of latency, while selected findings from human–computer interaction and agency research are used as a limited scientific dialogue concerning continuity, disruption, direct manipulation, presence, and the sense of agency. The article argues that existing literature has illuminated mediation, embodiment, interface responsiveness, acceleration, and anticipation, but has not systematically theorized latency itself as a temporal condition of agency. Anticipation is therefore treated not as a competing topic but as the limiting case at which latency analysis opens toward the use of the future in present action, as discussed by Rosen and Poli. The conclusion argues that the philosophical problem raised by digital speed is not simply acceleration as such, but the preservation of the human interval of hesitation, interpretation, judgment, and responsibility within increasingly responsive technical worlds.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
On the Structural Distinction Between Entropy and Time in Dynamical Theories
by
Bin Li
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030087 - 27 May 2026
Abstract
►▼
Show Figures
The relation between entropy and time is central to debates on thermodynamic irreversibility and the arrow of time. This paper clarifies that relation by distinguishing several roles often associated with entropy in such debates: temporal ordering, temporal orientation, temporal flow and measurement, and
[...] Read more.
The relation between entropy and time is central to debates on thermodynamic irreversibility and the arrow of time. This paper clarifies that relation by distinguishing several roles often associated with entropy in such debates: temporal ordering, temporal orientation, temporal flow and measurement, and thermodynamic asymmetry. The paper does not deny that entropy increase, together with a low-entropy past and suitable coarse-graining, may explain the thermodynamic arrow or help orient an already ordered sequence of states. It also does not deny that thermodynamic or statistical structure may contribute to the selection or measurement of physically meaningful temporal flow in special frameworks. It addresses a narrower question: whether standard entropy notions can themselves supply temporal ordering or serve as general temporal parameters. Using thermodynamic, Boltzmann, Gibbs, and coarse-grained entropy within a minimal dynamical-systems framework, we show that they do not satisfy this role in general. Entropy functionals may be non-injective along trajectories; fine-grained Gibbs entropy is invariant under Hamiltonian flow; coarse-grained entropy depends on descriptive partitions; and entropy monotonicity depends on boundary conditions rather than an intrinsic temporal orientation. An open-system example is included only to illustrate that subsystem entropy may decrease while the dynamical time parameter continues to order the evolution. The novelty is therefore not in the bare claim that entropy and time are non-identical, nor in the attribution of a crude entropy-equals-time thesis to the literature, but in the explicit role-separation argument showing why entropy can characterize asymmetry, help orient an already ordered history, or contribute to temporal-flow selection only after suitable dynamical, statistical, or ordering structure is already given. Entropy remains central to statistical-mechanical accounts of irreversibility, but under standard definitions, it cannot itself supply temporal ordering.
Full article

Figure 1
Open AccessArticle
The Evolution of Democracy as an Entropic, Fragile, Emergent System: Industrial and AI Revolutions
by
Ehsan Jozaghi
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030086 - 27 May 2026
Abstract
This paper develops a systems theoretical account of democracy as an emergent equilibrium ecosystem within complex evolutionary adaptive systems rather than a purely institutional or normative construct. Drawing on general systems and complexity theories, it argues that democratic stability depends on maintaining balance
[...] Read more.
This paper develops a systems theoretical account of democracy as an emergent equilibrium ecosystem within complex evolutionary adaptive systems rather than a purely institutional or normative construct. Drawing on general systems and complexity theories, it argues that democratic stability depends on maintaining balance across economic, security, and informational domains. The Industrial Revolution illustrates how technological and economic transformations simultaneously enabled democratic expansion and generated instability. This paper’s central contribution is to conceptualize the technological revolutions (e.g., Industrial and AI) as an entropic force that accelerates systemic instability through inequality, amplifications (e.g., mass and algorithmic media), and informational fragmentation (e.g., polarization and radicalization). In response, democratic resilience is reframed as integration (economic, governance/security, and informational/social) and harm reduction, both of which serve as adaptive mechanisms within complex evolutionary systems. Democracy is thus understood not as a fixed institutional form but as a dynamic, fragile, evolutionary equilibrium continuously shaped by technological and entropic systemic pressures.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Foundations of Artificial Intelligence)
►▼
Show Figures

Figure 1
Open AccessArticle
Why Do You Ask Why?: A Critical Phenomenology of Disability and the Burden of Justification
by
Maiko Sakai and Yui Yuda
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030085 - 27 May 2026
Abstract
This paper examines how asking “why” may function as a form of censorship that regulates the actions and desires of disabled people. We describe how one author’s life was transformed by 24 h personal assistance, which let her pursue activities “unnecessary for sustaining
[...] Read more.
This paper examines how asking “why” may function as a form of censorship that regulates the actions and desires of disabled people. We describe how one author’s life was transformed by 24 h personal assistance, which let her pursue activities “unnecessary for sustaining life” and “be picky about her daily routines.” Building on phenomenological research, we argue that the lack of discretion in homemaking alienates disabled people. While Independent Living with a personal assistant enables homemaking that reflects personal preferences, pursuing “unnecessary activities” or “pickiness” can be difficult because of the pressure to explain reasons to caregivers. The author developed a habit of explaining her reasons—often initially or excessively—from a lifetime of interactions with non-disabled people who constantly demanded justification. This demand for explanation places a burden of justification on disabled people, censoring their “pickiness” or comfort by dismissing it as an “unnecessary luxury.” This “censorship of reasons” maintains the fluid flow of actions conducted by non-disabled people within an ableist society. The recognition of this creates a space for reexamining able-bodied normalcy and the excessive fluidity expected within ableist social structures.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Critical Phenomenologies of Illness and Normality)
Open AccessArticle
The Evolutionary Tools of Free Intelligence in the Wild
by
Angelo Compierchio, Phillip Tretten, Prasanna Illankoon and Giada Di Pietro
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 84; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030084 - 27 May 2026
Abstract
Today, it is common practice to distinguish something as intelligent or unintelligent based on its origin or behavior. One of the biggest discoveries of evolutionary biology is rapid evolution, which permeates every layer of the natural world. This is where natural glimpses of
[...] Read more.
Today, it is common practice to distinguish something as intelligent or unintelligent based on its origin or behavior. One of the biggest discoveries of evolutionary biology is rapid evolution, which permeates every layer of the natural world. This is where natural glimpses of microevolutionary forms can be observed, revealing living organisms’ adaptive capacities converging towards intelligent behavior. In comparison, according to a Kantian postulate, encompassing ethical and anthropological conditions, nature acts for man until he is capable of acting with free intelligence; that is, until reason is fully realized to guide men towards performing morally good actions. This deliberation concerns humans acting with commendable conduct in a unified concept of will through reason to grasp not simply intelligence but a logical faculty that shapes our sense of duty. In Kant’s view of nature, this study posits in non-human animals’ signs of free intelligence in accidental relations with external agents, reaching an admirable display of ingenious abilities, as displayed in Kanzi and the South African beetle. Although it is difficult at times to distinguish purely reflex actions, humans’ reasoning strategies are not capable of reaching Kant’s practical maxims as a tool for achieving the greatest well-being necessary for all mankind.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent Inquiry into Intelligence)
►▼
Show Figures

Figure 1
Open AccessArticle
Happiness in the AI Age: Ricoeur and the Question of the AI Humanoid as the Technological Other
by
Anné Hendrik Verhoef and Edmund Terem Ugar
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030083 - 25 May 2026
Abstract
In this paper, we examine the evolving conception of the “other” in relation to human happiness, drawing on Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical account and empirical findings from the Harvard Study of Adult Development. Ricoeur situates happiness in three interrelated threads: individual fulfilment, friendship with
[...] Read more.
In this paper, we examine the evolving conception of the “other” in relation to human happiness, drawing on Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical account and empirical findings from the Harvard Study of Adult Development. Ricoeur situates happiness in three interrelated threads: individual fulfilment, friendship with those near to us, and just relations with distant others. The Harvard Study corroborates the significance of relationality for well-being, showing that strong social ties enhance longevity and life satisfaction. However, contemporary digitalisation and the proliferation of AI humanoid social robots challenge traditional notions of the “other.” Individuals increasingly form “meaningful” attachments, emotional bonds, and even romantic relationships with technological artefacts, raising the question of whether these non-human entities can contribute to happiness in a Ricoeurian sense. While the above dynamics are now proliferating, we argue that AI and social robots cannot be considered as the “other” in the Ricoeurian sense. Although these technologies can be considered as a virtual other, we do not defend that position in the current paper. In this paper, we explore the tensions regarding the authenticity, moral status, and ethical implications of AI and social robots in relation to human happiness. We conclude by proposing a re-evaluation of relationality, moral consideration, and the ethical frameworks underpinning human–technology interactions in the pursuit of human flourishing and happiness in the Ricoeurian sense.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Ongoing Processes in the Growing Block Universe
by
Anna-Lisa Nußbaum
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 82; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030082 - 22 May 2026
Abstract
Ongoing processes appear to be both open-ended and, in an important sense, complete. In the context of the Growing Block Theory of time, this combination generates a tension: if a process is genuinely ongoing, it seems incomplete; yet if it is complete, it
[...] Read more.
Ongoing processes appear to be both open-ended and, in an important sense, complete. In the context of the Growing Block Theory of time, this combination generates a tension: if a process is genuinely ongoing, it seems incomplete; yet if it is complete, it appears closed and no longer directed at a non-existent future. This paper argues that this tension is only apparent. Building on Stout’s conception of occurrent continuants and on the distinction between temporal existence and temporal location central to Growing Block accounts, I examine two hybrid views according to which a process, considered as ongoing, and processes, considered as having gone on, fall under different categories of persistence. I argue that both versions of the hybrid view ultimately fail to account for the relation between dynamic existence and temporal location in a growing universe. As an alternative, I propose understanding ongoing processes as temporally expanding wholes with open boundaries. In this view, an ongoing process is always complete, though not completed, because its boundary at the edge of becoming is dynamically open rather than a genuine temporal part. This account preserves the motivations behind hybrid views while avoiding their ontological costs.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Foundations in Flux: Process Metaphysics and Its Scientific Applications)
►▼
Show Figures

Figure 1
Open AccessArticle
Problem of Free Will in Determinism and Indeterminism
by
Jovan M. Tadić
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030081 - 19 May 2026
Abstract
This paper re-examines the problem of free will in light of both deterministic and indeterministic assumptions about the structure of the world. On the philosophical side, it analyzes van Inwagen’s arguments that free will is incompatible with determinism—because our actions would then be
[...] Read more.
This paper re-examines the problem of free will in light of both deterministic and indeterministic assumptions about the structure of the world. On the philosophical side, it analyzes van Inwagen’s arguments that free will is incompatible with determinism—because our actions would then be fixed by a remote past and the laws of nature—and with indeterminism, on the grounds that indeterministic outcomes reduce to mere chance. On the neuroscientific side, it revisits Libet-style experiments, often interpreted as showing that unconscious brain activity initiates voluntary actions before conscious intention, and critically reviews recent reinterpretations of the readiness potential and the limitations of such paradigms for assessing free will. The paper then diagnoses a shared structure in these challenges: they presuppose a strict dichotomy between Laplacean determinism and a thin, law-governed conception of chance that leaves no conceptual space for non-chance indeterminism or for agent-level causal contributions. A simple quantum thought experiment is used to show how microscopic indeterminism can have direct macroscopic effects, undermining the assumption that the macroworld is effectively deterministic. Finally, the implications of computational and dynamical models of cognition are considered, arguing that their built-in constraints should be read as limits of the models rather than as metaphysical results. The conclusion advocates a naturalistic agnosticism: current physics, neuroscience, and cognitive science neither establish nor refute free will, but underdetermine its status while still placing substantive constraints on any viable theory of it.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Mortality, Meaning, and the End of Philosophy
by
Michael Papademas
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 80; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030080 - 19 May 2026
Abstract
This paper examines the transhumanist prospect of abolishing death and argues that technological immortality would undermine the conditions that make meaning and philosophy possible. Mortality is a biological limit but also the existential horizon against which identity, value, and narrative coherence are constituted.
[...] Read more.
This paper examines the transhumanist prospect of abolishing death and argues that technological immortality would undermine the conditions that make meaning and philosophy possible. Mortality is a biological limit but also the existential horizon against which identity, value, and narrative coherence are constituted. If death were eliminated, the structures that orient personhood, ethics, and motivation would be destabilized, along with the urgency and depth that characterize human life. The argument directly relates to current debates in AI ethics, bioethics, and technoethics, as the pursuit of digital or biotechnological immortality raises questions about personhood, embodiment, responsibility, and the moral limits of technological intervention. The central claim is that the very practice of philosophy presupposes mortality as its constitutive horizon, such that removing it would deprive philosophy of its central subject matter. The argument unfolds in three steps. First, it shows that life’s narrative coherence depends on finitude, for without an end, a life cannot take shape. Second, it claims that moral and communal values such as legacy, sacrifice, and generational concern rest on mortality. Third, it considers how the scarcity of time gives urgency to reasoning and commitment. Without temporal limits, projects can always be deferred, eroding their significance. Philosophy has long drawn its seriousness from the confrontation with death, from Platonic Socrates’ practice to modern existentialism. I conclude that transhumanist immortality would not extend philosophy but radically transform or undermine it, since the existential tension supplied by mortality has been indispensable to philosophy.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Moral Metaphilosophy: The Study of Moral Violations in, Against, and Through Philosophy
by
Michael Lewin and Polina Lewin
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 79; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030079 - 14 May 2026
Abstract
Metaphilosophy is often understood as an inquiry into the nature, goals, and methods of philosophy and is sometimes construed as an epistemology of philosophy. Moral questions concerning philosophical practice, however, are no less important and constitute a distinctive field that may be called
[...] Read more.
Metaphilosophy is often understood as an inquiry into the nature, goals, and methods of philosophy and is sometimes construed as an epistemology of philosophy. Moral questions concerning philosophical practice, however, are no less important and constitute a distinctive field that may be called ‘moral philosophy of philosophy’ or ‘moral metaphilosophy’. This article maps the field by identifying, addressing, and classifying various forms of moral transgressions in, against, and through philosophy. Hermeneutical rational injustices include the devaluation, discrediting, misrepresentation, and non-objective critique within philosophical discourse. Violations within academic philosophical practice encompass such phenomena as intellectual theft; gatekeeping; academic cliques; scholarly neglect; discrimination and favoritism; prestige bias, excellence bias, and other forms of bias oriented toward perceived institutional, professional, evaluative, or symbolic “topness”; unfair peer review; problematic evaluation criteria and rankings; abuses of power; unjust distributions of resources; and the inversion of virtues into vices. External injustices and transgressions concern the public discrediting of philosophy, violence against philosophers, the problematic relation between philosophy and politics, and the impact of extra-academic vices on philosophy. Bringing these issues to light, thereby underscoring the importance of moral metaphilosophy, can help protect philosophers from various forms of harm inflicted by themselves, colleagues, institutions, and other actors across academic and non-academic contexts, thereby rendering philosophical practice fairer and more worthwhile.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Spinoza’s Climatology of Affects and the Diagram of Painting
by
Sonja Lavaert
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030078 - 13 May 2026
Abstract
In his lectures from November 1980 to March 1981, Deleuze describes the immanent and compositional nature of Spinoza’s philosophy expressed in the content, the method, and the form of his writings. Spinoza himself uses in the Ethics and the TP the images of
[...] Read more.
In his lectures from November 1980 to March 1981, Deleuze describes the immanent and compositional nature of Spinoza’s philosophy expressed in the content, the method, and the form of his writings. Spinoza himself uses in the Ethics and the TP the images of the climatologist studying the weather and the geometric drawing of lines and surfaces for his technical, artisanal, and neutral approach to the affects and political life. His ontology is characterized by the absence of hierarchical order and by nature as the principle and source of diversity. This approach is reminiscent of art, which also orders the chaos of human existence and makes it productive in a free and immeasurable way. Deleuze conceives of Spinoza’s ontology as a practical philosophy, leading him to the examples and the analysis of paintings (and, vice versa, from the art of painting to Spinoza’s philosophy), to which he dedicates his subsequent lectures from March to June 1981. In this article I reflect on the link between Deleuze’s lectures on Spinoza and on painting, and therefore also between Spinoza’s compositional thought itself and painting.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Deleuze: Teacher of Spinoza’s Philosophy)
Open AccessArticle
How Can a Machine That Is Conscious and Chooses Freely Be Built?
by
Abraham Meidan
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030077 - 13 May 2026
Abstract
This paper does not attempt to resolve the metaphysical question of whether consciousness and free will really exist, nor whether machines could literally possess them. Instead, it pursues a more modest and, I suggest, more fruitful aim: to show that it is
[...] Read more.
This paper does not attempt to resolve the metaphysical question of whether consciousness and free will really exist, nor whether machines could literally possess them. Instead, it pursues a more modest and, I suggest, more fruitful aim: to show that it is possible, in principle, to construct machines that think they are conscious and think they choose freely, in essentially the same way that human beings do. To address this question, I identify functional requirements for systems that think they are conscious and think they choose freely. These include subjective self-report, opacity of underlying mechanisms, semantic competence, memory-based self-models, deliberation among alternatives, counterfactual reasoning, and practical unpredictability. I then sketched preliminary computational architectures showing how these capacities could, in principle, be realized using existing or foreseeable technologies. No single component is novel; what matters is their integration into a unified, self-referential system.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Cognition and Intelligence in Natural and Artificial Systems
by
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 76; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030076 - 12 May 2026
Abstract
Cognition and intelligence are central concepts in cognitive science, biology, philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence, yet these disciplines offer conflicting accounts of what each of them means and how the two notions are related. In many accounts the two notions are used
[...] Read more.
Cognition and intelligence are central concepts in cognitive science, biology, philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence, yet these disciplines offer conflicting accounts of what each of them means and how the two notions are related. In many accounts the two notions are used interchangeably, while in others intelligence is defined independently of cognitive processes. Dominant human-centered traditions identify cognition with mental processes associated with brains, whereas life-centered perspectives attribute cognitive capacities to all living systems. This article proposes a relational, life-centered, info-computational framework in which cognition is the ongoing autopoietic and sense-making organization of living systems, while intelligence is the degree of competence with which such organization achieves goal-directed problem solving under novelty, perturbation, and uncertainty. Cognition exists in degrees across living systems, from basal cellular sensing and regulation to increasingly complex cognitive organizations, while intelligence correspondingly appears in degrees in the ability to solve cognitive problems. Current artificial systems can exhibit engineered or derivative intelligence and may implement cognition-like functions, but they are not cognitive in the biological sense. The resulting framework clarifies how human-centered, life-centered, computational, and artificial intelligence can be related.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent Inquiry into Intelligence)
►▼
Show Figures

Figure 1
Open AccessArticle
Brain Death Pregnancy and Dignity: Ethical Issues Between “Brain Death” and the Fetus
by
Marco Tuono
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030075 - 11 May 2026
Abstract
In this article, we analyze the bioethical issue of brain-dead pregnancy, both from the perspective of its implications for the brain death criterion and with reference to the ethical question of maintaining life support measures for brain-dead pregnant women with the aim of
[...] Read more.
In this article, we analyze the bioethical issue of brain-dead pregnancy, both from the perspective of its implications for the brain death criterion and with reference to the ethical question of maintaining life support measures for brain-dead pregnant women with the aim of delivering a fetus. In doing so, we will demonstrate that, after having addressed the main critical positions, brain death cannot be considered the death of a human being because its justification (the brain as the body’s “critical organ”) has ceased to exist. “Brain-death survivors” (Shewmon) demonstrate levels of bodily integration even in the absence of the brain’s contribution. We will also evaluate the ethical consequences of carrying a brain-dead patient to term, a procedure to which we give our ethical assent. In doing so, we will be guided by the principle of dignity.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Ethics and Philosophy)
Open AccessArticle
The Ethics of Intergenerational Justice: From the Gortyn Code to Climate Courts
by
Dimitrios Dimitriou, Aristi Karagkouni, Maria Sartzetaki, Evangelia Schoinaraki, Antonia Moutzouri and Vasileios Benteniotis
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030074 - 9 May 2026
Abstract
Intergenerational equity has become central to contemporary sustainability discourse and climate litigation, as courts increasingly confront whether present generations may legitimately deplete ecological resources in ways that impose irreversible burdens on those yet to come. This article argues that the normative structure underlying
[...] Read more.
Intergenerational equity has become central to contemporary sustainability discourse and climate litigation, as courts increasingly confront whether present generations may legitimately deplete ecological resources in ways that impose irreversible burdens on those yet to come. This article argues that the normative structure underlying contemporary intergenerational climate claims reflects a recurring institutional logic identifiable much earlier in legal history. Focusing on the Gortyn Code (5th century BCE), one of the earliest and most extensive surviving Greek law codes, the analysis reveals how rules governing property, inheritance, guardianship, and family relations constructed an architecture of intergenerational continuity through enforceable constraints on present authority over inherited assets. The Code restricted alienation of inherited assets, structured succession through fixed distributive formulas, and imposed mechanisms designed to preserve the material foundations of future social existence. These provisions are then interpreted in relation to contemporary sustainability frameworks, emphasizing trusteeship, burden inheritance, and ecological thresholds. The article considers recent climate litigation to illustrate how modern courts increasingly translate intergenerational commitments into enforceable duties through functionally equivalent reasoning. The findings suggest that climate adjudication represents a modern manifestation of a deeper logic already visible in the Gortyn Code, one that emerges regardless of whether the resource at stake is owned or unowned, and that this parallel carries implications for the design and institutional anchoring of intergenerational obligations in contemporary climate governance.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue More-than-Human Ethics: Rethinking Nature, Dwelling, and Responsibility)
Open AccessArticle
AI-Enabled Innovation in Education and Work: Philosophical Reflections on Digital Transformation and Human Adaptation
by
Badriah Alanazi and Abdullah Alsaleh
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 73; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030073 - 5 May 2026
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly mediate how individuals learn, work and make decisions, raising foundational philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge, agency and autonomy. This article integrates philosophical analysis with illustrative empirical cases from Romania to examine how AI restructures human epistemic
[...] Read more.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly mediate how individuals learn, work and make decisions, raising foundational philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge, agency and autonomy. This article integrates philosophical analysis with illustrative empirical cases from Romania to examine how AI restructures human epistemic and practical activity. A central empirical observation, the engagement–performance paradox, reveals that AI-driven learning environments can produce dramatic increases in learner interaction while generating only marginal improvements in understanding. Interpreted through post-phenomenology, virtue epistemology and theories of autonomy, this paradox highlights the emergence of epistemic superficiality: a condition in which algorithmically mediated engagement replaces reflective, conceptually grounded learning. Complementary findings from AI-supported workplace contexts further illustrate how intelligent systems automate aspects of decision-making, thereby reshaping autonomy, responsibility and the phenomenology of action. Synthesizing these insights, the article argues that AI functions as a structuring force that co-authors human agency by reorganizing the conditions under which cognition and action occur. The study contributes to contemporary debates in the philosophy of technology, epistemology and AI ethics by proposing the concept of structured agency as a lens for understanding how AI-mediated environments transform the foundations of knowledge, autonomy and human flourishing.
Full article
Open AccessArticle
Real Time as Ontological Choice: A Comparative Inquiry into Al-Ghazālī and Lee Smolin’s Temporal Models
by
Adil Guler
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 72; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030072 - 2 May 2026
Abstract
►▼
Show Figures
This article develops a comparative metaphysical inquiry into real time through a dialogue structured by formal analogy between al-Ghazālī’s theology of continuous creation (tajdīd al-khalq) and Lee Smolin’s relational, law-evolving physics. Against both timeless determinism and accounts of becoming that deny
[...] Read more.
This article develops a comparative metaphysical inquiry into real time through a dialogue structured by formal analogy between al-Ghazālī’s theology of continuous creation (tajdīd al-khalq) and Lee Smolin’s relational, law-evolving physics. Against both timeless determinism and accounts of becoming that deny any further ontological grounding, it argues that real time may be understood as a structured horizon of actualization in which openness is progressively articulated into determinate actuality under constraint. Employing a non-reductive method of formal analogy, the analysis maps shared problem-structures—discreteness, contingency, openness, and directionality—while foregrounding controlled disanalogies, especially the contrast between volitional grounding in al-Ghazālī and system-level, naturalistic actualization in Smolin. The article proposes three interpretive claims: (i) both frameworks may be read as relocating order within time rather than above it; (ii) the comparison brings into focus the philosophical problem of actualization, rather than mere succession, in accounts of real temporality; and (iii) stability and regularity are more plausibly understood as articulated within time than as timeless givens. The result is a layered account of temporal order in which volitional maintenance, ontological stabilization, and mathematical framing intersect, suggesting a way of viewing real time as ontologically significant and epistemically consequential within the present comparison.
Full article

Graphical abstract
Open AccessArticle
Logos, Culture, and the Constitution of Philosophy: The 1910 Ern–Frank Dispute in Russia
by
Abbas Jong
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030071 - 1 May 2026
Abstract
This article examines the 1910 philosophical dispute between Vladimir Ern and Semyon Frank in post-1905 Russia as a dispute over the criterion of philosophy itself. The controversy arose in a field where the meaning of “Russian philosophy,” the authority of neo-Kantian nauchnost’
[...] Read more.
This article examines the 1910 philosophical dispute between Vladimir Ern and Semyon Frank in post-1905 Russia as a dispute over the criterion of philosophy itself. The controversy arose in a field where the meaning of “Russian philosophy,” the authority of neo-Kantian nauchnost’ [scientificity], the religious-ontological program of Put’, and the problem of culture had become closely interconnected. The article argues that the central issue concerned what makes a claim philosophical: participation in an antecedent order of being, or conceptual articulation, proof, and universally valid justification. Ern’s intervention is presented as an attempt to reconstitute philosophy through Logos. For Ern, modern rationalism separates the discursive-logical from the “fullness of reason,” producing ratio as an autonomous and ultimately meonic form of thought; Logos, by contrast, names the ontological principle through which thought remains inwardly bound to being. Frank’s response locates the issue in the concept of philosophy itself. While acknowledging intuition, ontologism, and the insufficiency of one-sided rationalism, he insists that every appeal to being becomes philosophical only when it enters the medium of concepts, reasons, and proof. The article argues that the controversy turns on two irreducible conditions internal to philosophy itself: thought must remain faithful to being, yet it must do so in a form through which its claims become philosophically valid. Read in this way, the Ern–Frank exchange discloses a constitutive tension between ontology and conceptual justification, and between historical embodiment and universal validity.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contingency, Crisis, and the Political: Political Ontology in the Post-Truth Epoch)
Open AccessArticle
Spinoza and Signs: Semiology and Empiricism in Deleuze’s Course on Spinoza
by
Thomas Detcheverry
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 70; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030070 - 29 Apr 2026
Abstract
This article addresses an apparent tension in Deleuze’s philosophy: while his own work consistently valorizes the encounter and the role of signs in the genesis of thought, his interpretation of Spinoza seems to offer a radical critique of signs as sources of imagination,
[...] Read more.
This article addresses an apparent tension in Deleuze’s philosophy: while his own work consistently valorizes the encounter and the role of signs in the genesis of thought, his interpretation of Spinoza seems to offer a radical critique of signs as sources of imagination, superstition, and servitude. The article argues that this tension is only apparent provided that Deleuze’s reconstruction of a Spinozist empiricist semiology is carefully examined. By analyzing Spinoza’s definition of the sign, its classification into scalar and vectorial types, and its grounding in an ethology of the body and affects, the article shows that Deleuze sharply distinguishes between signs that constitute vague experience and certain privileged signs—joyful passions and the “good encounter”—that make the formation of reason possible. The critique of the sign thus targets a specific regime of imaginative thought, while the valorization of the encounter concerns the empirical conditions for engendering thinking. This reconstruction ultimately reveals an isomorphism between Spinoza’s rationalism and Deleuze’s project of transcendental empiricism.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Deleuze: Teacher of Spinoza’s Philosophy)
Open AccessArticle
Wiring Diagrams for Structural Semiotics: A Categorical Approach to the Canonical Narrative Schema
by
Michael Fowler
Philosophies 2026, 11(3), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies11030069 - 29 Apr 2026
Cited by 1
Abstract
►▼
Show Figures
Structural semiotics, as developed by A. J. Greimas and the Paris School, provides a powerful framework for analyzing narrative meaning through actantial roles, modalities, and hierarchical narrative structures. Despite its longstanding engagement with formal reasoning and diagrammatic tools, it has seen relatively few
[...] Read more.
Structural semiotics, as developed by A. J. Greimas and the Paris School, provides a powerful framework for analyzing narrative meaning through actantial roles, modalities, and hierarchical narrative structures. Despite its longstanding engagement with formal reasoning and diagrammatic tools, it has seen relatively few explicit mathematical formalizations. This article proposes a diagrammatic reconstruction of key Greimassian concepts using the language of symmetric monoidal and hypergraph categories. We treat the actantial model as a typing schema and introduce wiring diagrams as a formal semantics for representing narrative configurations, modal transformations, and actantial redistribution. Modal operations such as knowing-how-to-do, wanting-to-do, and causing-to-do are modeled as typed morphisms, while Frobenius structures account for duplication, erasure, and persistence of actants across narrative time. We show how operadic nesting captures hypotaxis, and how diagrammatic factorization yields higher-level abstractions corresponding to the hypotactical clusters of the canonical narrative schema. The approach is illustrated through a detailed analysis of Aesop’s The Fox & the Crow, culminating in a formal account of discoursivization via actorialization, spatialization, and temporalization. Rather than replacing structural semiotics, this work provides it with a compositional and mathematically explicit toolkit that clarifies existing concepts and opens new possibilities for comparative, computational, and interdisciplinary analysis.
Full article

Figure 1
Journal Menu
► ▼ Journal Menu-
- Philosophies Home
- Aims & Scope
- Editorial Board
- Topical Advisory Panel
- Instructions for Authors
- Special Issues
- Topics
- Sections
- Article Processing Charge
- Indexing & Archiving
- Most Cited & Viewed
- Journal Statistics
- Journal History
- Journal Awards
- Society Collaborations
- Conferences
- Editorial Office
- 10th Anniversary
Journal Browser
► ▼ Journal BrowserHighly Accessed Articles
Latest Books
E-Mail Alert
News
Topics
Topic in
Arts, Genealogy, Histories, Philosophies, Religions
Reimagining Totemism: Mystical Experience, Life Values, and Contemporary Art Practices
Topic Editors: Zhilong Yan, Lidija Stojanović, Aixin ZhangDeadline: 31 October 2026
Conferences
Special Issues
Special Issue in
Philosophies
Mereology in Metaphysics, Science and Logic
Guest Editor: Joshua SpencerDeadline: 31 May 2026
Special Issue in
Philosophies
Metaphysics and Mind in Chinese Philosophy
Guest Editor: Jenny HungDeadline: 15 June 2026
Special Issue in
Philosophies
The Sanity and Selfhood of Other Minds
Guest Editor: Rein RaudDeadline: 30 June 2026
Special Issue in
Philosophies
Knowledge and Conditionals—Reliability, Probability, Counterfactuals, and Relevance
Guest Editor: Lars Bo GundersenDeadline: 30 June 2026

