This collection of essays reveals the natural coincidence of the interests of contemporary analytic philosophers with the central concepts of a philosophy of education which extends its focus to education in its most advanced stages—"higher" education and the development of rationality. It is against this sort of background that the discussion of the notions of creativity, socialization, believing and knowing, critical thinking, emotion and desire, virtue and duty, is set forth. At the hands of contributors who are among the leading (...) British philosophers topics that may be somewhat played out in the philosophical journals acquire an invigorating freshness when posed anew in the narrower context of philosophy of education. (shrink)

A commentary on the arguments whereby Hume endeavored to delimit the role of reason in morality. Harrison’s procedure is largely one of logical analysis: he identifies individual arguments, examines inferences, asks whether there are reasons to believe premises. Throughout, he displays a balanced, appreciative approach, and when obliged to draw attention to Hume’s mistakes, he does so only reluctantly. Over half of the book is taken up in a careful examination of the text which, in terms of clarity and penetration, (...) goes beyond previous studies of Hume’s ethics. Additionally, Harrison offers chapters on Hume’s general epistemology and on the classical is/ought passage. In the latter he declares that Hume quite obviously thought that the derivation of an ought from an is was impossible, and then goes on, in what he labels an independent treatment of the problem, to offer a subtle exploration on the contours of our usage of the language of evaluation and obligation. But perhaps the most valuable contribution of the book is the closing section in which Harrison endeavors to arrive at a depiction of Hume’s alternative to rationalism. He puts forward five distinct interpretations of Hume’s positive moral philosophy, each of which has textual support as well as its own advocates. Harrison finds no grounds for affirming that any one of these interpretations defeats the others. Concluding with the judgment that Hume was confused in expounding his own position, the author notes that "Hume himself would not have approved of a reverence which substituted a superficial acceptance for a thorough grasp and realistic appraisal of his opinions." Despite the opposition which his work may provoke from those who defend some single interpretation of Hume’s moral philosophy, Harrison’s study may be expected to become a standard reference work on Hume’s ethics.—J.T.K. (shrink)

In the dispute as to whether the ultimate foundation of the ethical is principles or persons, this study vigorously advances the latter position. The author develops the thesis that morality is fundamentally a matter of caring about others. He derives this claim from the premise that engaging in the proscription of certain harmful acts "will depend ultimately upon your relation to the person against whom these acts are directed". The author contends that if one were utterly indifferent to the well-being (...) of the person affected by the acts in question, one would not condemn them morally. He goes on to claim that this caring qualifies as moral only if it is an unselfish concern for what happens to the person in question. He does not so much argue as illustrate this view by adducing from literature examples of human desperation and suffering to which compassion is the only natural response. Our condemnation of, e.g., a brutal assault shows, he says, that we care disinterestedly about the well-being of others. This immediate concern for the other is contrasted with attention to the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions--something the author characterizes as pharisaical. He attacks not only any theory which would reduce morality to a refinement of self-interest but likewise any which would preposit to this personal concern any alternative frame of reference--the rules of moral language, norms backed by social pressure, or the objectives of social harmony. Morality, he argues, is not a system of social control --it is not properly controlling nor systematic. (shrink)

The author develops an historical thesis about Hume’s moral theory in the Treatise and advances his own estimate, which goes well beyond Hume’s, of the connection between sympathy and morality. In a masterly analysis of the Treatise doctrines of sympathy and the indirect passions, Mercer reveals insurmountable difficulties in Hume’s endeavor to give morality a basis in the passions. He characterizes the technical notion of sympathy operating in the Treatise as narrow, egocentric, and amoral; and singles out both a natural (...) proclivity to prejudice and a blindness to value as its inherent limitations. (shrink)

Smart divides his study into two parts. The first is a phenomenologically-oriented investigation of worshipping. He maintains that ritual and convention are at the core of worship, but that what worship tries to express is quite the opposite of convention, that is, the numinous. The focus of worship is also treated as a combination of opposites: it is a superior Power that inspires awe, but at the same time it is personal, addressable, receptive of men’s praise. Smart holds that there (...) is an internal relation between the concepts of God and of worship, and sets the relation up in such a way that worship is construed as a response to what the worshipper sees or perceives. The possible import of reflection regarding an object’s worthiness of worship is not emphasized, nor is the suggestion entertained that there might be a radical distinction between responding to the Numen and worshipping. (shrink)

The editor of this text has brought together fifteen selections representing some of the major contributions philosophers have made to the study of the aims of education. This anthology is organized into three parts: classical, modern and analytic philosophies of education. Each selection is preceded by the editor’s one page introduction, which unfortunately is far too short to prepare the student to deal technically with the material. In the part devoted to classical writings on education, texts from Plato and Aristotle (...) are offered with no regard to the cultural setting, while the excerpts from Locke, Rousseau and Kant seem to be presented principally with a concern for moral education. The five modern selections are far more interesting, particularly those from Dewey and Russell. The material from Maritain and Whitehead is preponderantly practical, though Sidney Hook’s defense of Dewey will afford the student an appreciation of careful argument. By far the most engaging part of the book is the last, comprising significant selections from Scheffler, Ryle and Jane Roland Martin. A portion of R. S. Peters’ Authority, Responsibility and Education is reprinted, but surprisingly enough, Peters’ far better book, Ethics and Education, is neglected. Cahn presents a short essay of his own, "Is There an Analytic Philosophy of Education?" which he probably would have modified had he been acquainted with Peters’ recent work. The likely use of this anthology is the teacher education course commonly referred to coincidentally by the same title. It is to Cahn’s credit that he has attempted to expose the education student to genuine philosophy, yet this anthology presents a mere mass of material without an effort at providing direction, structure or synthesis. The serious philosophical work of systematically analyzing education, culture, self and meaning still remains as much a task as it did before, though now thanks to Cahn some of the working materials for such an endeavor have been made more available.—J. T. K. (shrink)