Abstract In this paper, we present an abductive argument for the existence of God from the experience of awe at natural beauty. If God’s creative work is a viable explanation for why we experience awe at natural beauty, and there is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the origins of such experiences, then we have defeasible evidence that God exists. To evaluate the argument's tenability, we assess the merits of the two main naturalistic frameworks that can be marshaled to answer the question of why human beings experience awe at natural beauty, Wilson's biophilia hypothesis, and Keltner and Haidt's prototype approach to awe. We show shortcomings of both accounts in explaining the relevant experiences and argue that the reliance of these accounts on an adaptationist reading of our aesthetic appreciation of nature entails a commitment to questionable hidden premises: that affordances themselves can figure in the subject's perceptual experience, and that experiences of awe have adaptive value. We maintain that the argument's “empirical” premise is tenable and conclude with directions for future research regarding the argument's “theological” premise.

Bien que le délire soit l'un des concepts centraux de la psychopathologie, il échappe encore à la conceptualisation précise. Dans cet article, je présente quelques problèmes fondamentaux concernant la classification et la définition du délire, ainsi que son statut ontologique. Par le biais de l'examen de ces problèmes, je cherche à faire la lumière sur l'ambiguïté du terme clinique « délire » et son ampleur, ainsi qu’à fournir des indices sur la raison pour laquelle les philosophes se joignent de plus en plus aux efforts des psychiatres, psychologues et chercheurs en neurosciences pour parvenir à une compréhension globale du délire.

Although delusion is one of the central concepts of psychopathology, it stills eludes precise conceptualization. In this paper, I present certain basic issues concerning the classification and definition of delusion, as well as its ontological status. By examining these issues, I aim to shed light on the ambiguity of the clinical term ‘delusion’ and its extension, as well as provide clues as to why philosophers are increasingly joining the ranks of psychiatrists, psychologists, and neuroscientists in the effort to come to a comprehensive understanding of delusion.

Obwohl der Wahn eines der zentralen Konzepte der Psychopathologie ist, konnte ein genauer Begriff bisher nicht erstellt werden. In dieser Arbeit stellen wir grundlegende Probleme bezüglich der Klassifizierung und Definition des Wahns, sowie seinen ontologischen Status dar. Unsere Problemuntersuchung hat zum Ziel, die Mehrdeutigkeit des medizinischen Begriffs „Wahn“ und seine Erweiterungen zu erläutern, sowie mögliche Antworten auf die Frage zu finden, warum Philosophen sich zunehmend Psychiatern, Psychologen und Neurowissenschaftlern anschließen, um ein umfassendes Verständnis des Wahns zu erlangen.

Apesar de o delírio ser um dos conceitos centrais da psicopatologia, ainda escapa à conceptualização precisa. Neste artigo, apresento alguns problemas fundamentais a respeito da classificação e definição do delírio, bem como sobre seu estatuto ontológico. Por meio do exame desses problemas, tenho como objetivo esclarecer a ambiguidade do termo clínico “delírio” e sua extensão, bem como fornecer pistas sobre o motivo de filósofos cada vez mais se juntarem a psiquiatras, psicólogos e neurocientistas na tarefa de chegar a uma compreensão global do delírio.

Aunque el delirio sea uno de los conceptos centrales de la psicopatología, este aún se escapa de la conceptualización precisa. En este artículo, presento cuestiones fundamentales relacionadas a la clasificación y definición del delirio, así como también acerca de su estado ontológico. A través del examen de estas cuestiones, mi objetivo es dilucidar la ambigüedad del término clínico ‘delirio’ y su extensión, así como proporcionar pistas sobre por qué los filósofos se unen cada vez más a los psiquiatras, psicólogos y neurocientíficos en el esfuerzo por llegar a una comprensión global del delirio.

虽然谵妄症是精神病症的主要概念，但是它的概念依然不是很清楚。本论文对谵妄症的分类和定义方面的一些基本问题进行探讨，并且分析了它的本体论的一些问题。通过调查分析这些问题，作者尝试澄清谵妄症这个临床术语的模糊性和它的外延，了解驱使精神分析学，心理学，神经科学，众多学科的学者联合起来，试图对谵妄症进行一个全面的理解的哲学背景。

I assess Tamar Gendler's (2007) account of self-deception according to which its characteristic state is not belief, but imaginative pretense. After giving an overview of the literature and presenting the conceptual puzzles engendered by the notion of self-deception, I introduce Gendler's account, which emerges as a rival to practically all extant accounts of self-deception. I object to it by first arguing that her argument for abandoning belief as the characteristic state of self-deception conflates the state of belief and the process of belief-formation when interpreting David Velleman's (2000) thesis that belief is an essentially truth-directed attitude. I then call attention to the fact that Velleman's argument for the identity of motivational role between belief and imagining, on which Gendler's argument for self-deception as pretense depends, conflates two senses of 'motivational role'-a stronger but implausible sense and a weaker but explanatorily irrelevant sense. Finally, I introduce Neil Van Leeuwen's (2009) argument to the effect that belief is the practical ground of all non-belief cognitive attitudes in circum-stances wherein the latter prompt action. I apply this framework to Gendler's account to ultimately show that imaginative pretense fails to explain the existence of voluntary actions which result from self-deception.