In this unique volume, some of today's most eminent political philosophers examine the thought of John Rawls, focusing in particular on his most recent work. These original essays explore diverse issues, including the problem of pluralism, the relationship between constitutive commitment and liberal institutions, just treatment of dissident minorities, the constitutional implications of liberalism, international relations, and the structure of international law. The first comprehensive study of Rawls's recent work, The Idea of Political Liberalism will be indispensable for political philosophers (...) and theorists interested in contemporary political thought. (shrink)

[opening paragraph]: As some of us in the brain and cognitive sciences struggled in relative obscurity over the last two decades to gain some sound empirical understanding of conscious experience, a succession of celebrated philosophers and scientists told us that our work was doomed to failure. They expended extraordinary ingenuity trying to prove their case, at least as much as those of us toiling in the trenches devoted to the job of gaining a little bit of clarity. Fortunately, `impossibility proofs' (...) of this kind tend to have a short half-life. They succeed each other year after year; in the same way that impossibility proofs were flourished triumphantly by critics to demonstrate, once and forever, that we could never understand planetary motion, biological evolution, quantum mechanics -- or whatever next topic science, in its Brobdignagian march, was threatening to clarify. Arthur C. Clarke once proposed a law stating that for every major advance in knowledge one can find at least one celebrated scientist who was able to `prove', shortly before it was achieved, that it could not be done. In the case of conscious experience the quest to prove impossibility is especially passionate, as if a reasonable scientific approach to human experience were the enemy of all that is good and decent. (shrink)

If determinism is a threat to freedom, that threat derives solely from its alleged eradication of power. The source incompatibilist mistakenly supposes that special views about the self are required to insure that we are the ultimate source of and in control of our decisions and actions. Source incompatibilism fails whether it takes the form of Robert Kane’s event-causal libertarianism or the various agent-causal varieties defended by Derk Pereboom and Randolph Clarke. It is argued that the sort of control (...) free agents need to possess and exercise can be secured without metaphysical excess. If there is a free will problem, it is the one G. E. Moore addressed in 1912. He concluded that persons can act otherwise in a deterministic world. We should continue to try to figure out whether he was right or wrong. (shrink)

I offer replies to my critics: I discuss Hussain's objections to my attribution of a form of normative subjectivism to Nietzsche, Clark's reservations about the importance I grant the problem of suffering, and Clark's and Soll's criticisms of my account of the will to power.

of Bernard E. Rollin , , from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.

Bernard Reginster's book The Affirmation of Life purports to fill a gap in our understanding of Nietzsche's philosophical project by explaining why Nietzsche regards the affirmation of life as his defining philosophical achievement. Reginster is not alone in emphasizing the centrality of life affirmation to Nietzsche's thought. What makes Reginster's book new and original is his systematic approach—his attempt to isolate a core of Nietzsche's philosophy and show how everything else, especially the affirmation of life, is related to it. (...) This article challenges the systematicity Reginster finds in Nietzsche's work; above all, it rejects Reginster's claim that what has led to nihilism is the condemnation of suffering, a view Nietzsche is said to inherit from Schopenhauer. I raise questions about how much of Schopenhauer's view Nietzsche in fact retains and about how well Reginster's account of affirmation fits with Nietzsche's account of the will to power, which, as I have argued elsewhere, has played an essential part in producing all the things Nietzsche values. (shrink)

Standard definitions of validity are designed to preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. However, it seems possible to construct arguments that contain sentences in the imperative mood. Such sentences are incapable of being true or false, so the standard definitions cannot capture the validity of these imperative arguments. Bernard Williams offers an argument that imperative inference is impossible: two imperatives will always have different permissive presuppositions, so a speaker will have to change his mind before uttering a (...) second imperative, and so imperatives cannot ever be accumulated into a set of premises. I offer four objections to Williams’ argument: (1) Permissive presuppositions are analogous to conversational implicature, and so should be ignored when formulating imperative arguments. (2) There are other valid argument forms, which Williams does not consider, that do not suffer from different permissive presuppositions. (3) There are explanations for the change in permissive presuppositions in Williams’ example other than a change of mind, so the different permissive presuppositions do not have to prevent accumulation. Finally, (4) Williams accepts enough logical relations between imperatives (contradiction and a form of negation) for a definition of a valid imperative inference to follow naturally. (shrink)

Was Luther avowing a genuine moral incapacity when he claimed that he could do no other? Bernard Williams has distinguished moral from psychological incapacity in terms of deliberation. There are three particular difficulties for the notion: in addition to (1) scepticism about whether the agent is genuinely incapable, there are (2) the possibility of conflicting moral incapacities, and (3) apparent cases where there is no actual or possible deliberation. If (1) can be countered, (2) can be met by ceteris (...) paribus clauses, and it is shown that these do not remove the element of necessity. And (3) can be met by showing how possible deliberation is involved in putative counter‐examples. Williams' account needs to be augmented to deal with cases of the morally unthinkable, and refined to allow for incipient attempts to do the morally impossible. (shrink)

This paper draws upon the meta-ethical insights of Bernard Lonergan and Raimond Gaita to bolster the foundational claims of Linda Zagzebski’s exemplarist moral theory. I aim to refine Zagzebski’s approach by pointing out how a community’s inevitable prioritization of a given paradigm of moral exemplarity plays a decisive role in the trajectory of its ethical reasoning. I conclude by arguing that within the Christian community, encounters with sanctity should determine the identification of virtues rather than vice versa.

John Deely's new introduction to semiotics deserves the attention of philosophers because of his ambitious attempt to ground semiotics in a general philosophical framework rather than in linguistics or literary theory. By uniting the signs of brute animal communication, the signs of language, and the perceptual signs of cognition within a single framework of the logic of relations, Deely has rightly grounded semiotics in logic and epistemology rather than in the theory of language. Language is but one sign system, and (...) must not be regarded as the paradigm for semiotics; yet this fallacy of pars pro toto is all but universal, not only in the sémiologie of French structuralism, but also in recent Anglo-American analytic philosophy, as evident in D. S. Clarke's Principles of Semiotic. Deely's semiotic maxim, by contrast, is suitably general: "There is nothing in thought or in sensation which is not first possessed in a sign". According to Deely, semiotics brings all of cognition and communication, from the simplest organisms to human beings, into a single point of view. (shrink)

Maudemarie Clark adalah salah satu dari sekian akademisi yang cukup tekun menggeluti teks-teks Nietzsche dalam 20 tahun terakhir ini. Buku pertamanya berjudul Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy juga diterbitkan oleh Oxford University Press pada tahun 1990. Sejak saat itu, Clark sering menuliskan kajian-kajiannya mengenai Nietzsche pada berbagai antologi buku maupun jurnal, termasuk Journal of Nietzsche Studies (New York: Penn State University Press). Salah satu kekhasan pendekatan Clark adalah pendekatan kombinasinya yang bercorak analitis. Ia menamakannya kombinasi karena ia mengambil unsur-unsur pendekatan (...) tradisional (Walter Kaufmann dan John Wilcox) dan pendekatan Nietzsche Baru (Alexander Nehamas dan Sarah Kofmann) seraya menganalisisnya dengan gaya analitis (seperti Arthur Danto dan Bern Magnus). Dan hasilnya adalah suatu kajian simpatik mengenai filsafat Nietzsche yang berkaitan erat dengan perkembangan sains, pendidikan, etika, dan politik terkini. Dua tema terakhir itulah (etika dan politik) yang menjadi tema besar buku terbarunya, Nietzsche on Ethics and Politics (NEP). Tentu saja kajian Clark ini menarik karena bertentangan dengan pandangan umum yang sering dikenakan kepada Nietzsche: imoralis dan apolitis. NEP sendiri sebetulnya terdiri dari empat belas artikel yang telah disusun secara terpisah oleh Clark entah sebagai artikel jurnal, konferensi, ataupun kuliah. Namun, untuk memudahkan pembaca, Clark menggolongkan keempat belas artikel tersebut ke dalam tiga topik besar, yakni etika, politik, dan metafisika. Melalui dua tema tersebutetika dan politikClark menghadirkan tafsiran tak lazim atas teks-teks Nietzsche. Meski demikian, tafsiran ter sebut bukanlah hal yang baru di kalangan akademisi Nietzschean yang berkembang pesat dalam satu dekade terakhir ini. Misalnya, tafsir yang memprioritaskan nilai-nilai aristokratis ketimbang institusi/tatanan politik aristokratis sekurang-kurangnya telah muncul sejak tahun 1990-an seperti yang dipaparkan oleh Ted Sadler dalam buku Nietzsche: Truth and Redemption (London: Athlone Press, 1995). Dalam buku tersebut, Sadler mengistilahkannya dengan roh aristokratis yang dibedakan dengan dua jenis roh lainnya: roh kelas jelata dan roh kelas menengah. Selain itu, format NPE sebagai kumpulan esai-esai Clark lebih menekankan kekayaan sudut pandang ataupun kritik atas tafsiran umum mengenai etika dan politik Nietzschean ketimbang kedalaman argumentasi akan suatu isu tertentu. Penekanan tersebut tampak ketika Clark membahas pandangan-pandangan para komentator Nietzsche kontemporer (khususnya Anglo-Amerika), seperti: Lawrence J. Hatab, Bernard Williams, Allan Bloom, Keith Ansell-Pearson, Julian Young, dan Brian Leiter. Meski demikian, NPE menawarkan posisi tafsir yang cukup kokoh karena Clark menunjukkan secara langsung teks-teks Nietzsche yang menjadi sumber rujukannya. Tentu saja iklim tersebut baik guna membuka polemik dan variasi pemahaman yang lebih teruji seiring waktu. (Yulius Tandyanto, Mahasiswa, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta.). (shrink)

ONE Introduction Rene Descartes is, in many ways, a victim of his own success as a philosopher. He notoriously wrote a small number of readily accessible, ...

This collection is a festschrift prepared for Williams on his retirement from the White’s Professorship of Moral Philosophy at Oxford. The topics covered include equality, consistency, comparison between science and ethics, integrity, moral reasons, the moral system, and moral knowledge. Most of the chapters combine exegetical and critical ambitions. With contributions by J. E. J. Altham, Jon Elster, Nicholas Jardine, Ross Harrison, Christopher Hookway, John McDowell, Martin Hollis, Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, and Charles Taylor, and replies by Bernard Williams.

In Supersizing the Mind, Andy Clark argues that the human mind is not bound inside the head but extends into body and environment.

By the time of his death in 2003, Bernard Williams was one of the greatest philosophers of his generation. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy is not only widely acknowledged to be his most important book, but also hailed a contemporary classic of moral philosophy. Presenting a sustained critique of moral theory from Kant onwards, Williams reorients ethical theory towards ‘truth, truthfulness and the meaning of an individual life’. He explores and reflects upon the most difficult problems in contemporary (...) philosophy and identifies new ideas about central issues such as relativism, objectivity and the possibility of ethical knowledge. This edition also includes a new commentary on the text by A.W.Moore and a foreword by Jonathan Lear. (shrink)

By the time of his death in 2003, Bernard Williams was one of the greatest philosophers of his generation. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy is not only widely acknowledged to be his most important book, but also hailed a contemporary classic of moral philosophy. Presenting a sustained critique of moral theory from Kant onwards, Williams reorients ethical theory towards ‘truth, truthfulness and the meaning of an individual life’. He explores and reflects upon the most difficult problems in contemporary (...) philosophy and identifies new ideas about central issues such as relativism, objectivity and the possibility of ethical knowledge. (shrink)

This edition includes, in addition to the most pertinent sections of The Fable's two volumes, a selection from Mandeville's An Enquiry into the Origin of Honor and selections from two of Mandeville's most important sources: Pierre Bayle and the Jansenist Pierre Nicole. Hundert's Introduction places Mandeville in a number of eighteenth-century debates--particularly that of the nature and morality of commercial modernity--and underscores the degree to which his work stood as a central problem, not only for his immediate English contemporaries, but (...) for such philosophers as Hume, Rousseau, and Kant. The selections are substantive enough to faithfully represent Mandeville the social theorist, and compact enough to be used in courses that can afford to spend no more than a week on his work. (shrink)

With a new foreword by Jonathan Lear 'Remarkably lively and enjoyable…It is a very rich book, containing excellent descriptions of a variety of moral theories, and innumerable and often witty observations on topics encountered on the way.' -_ Times Literary Supplement_ Bernard Williams was one of the greatest philosophers of his generation. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy is not only widely acknowledged to be his most important book, but also hailed a contemporary classic of moral philosophy. Drawing on (...) the ideas of the Greek philosophers, Williams reorients ethics away from a preoccupation with universal moral theories towards ‘truth, truthfulness and the meaning of an individual life’. He explores and reflects upon the most difficult problems in contemporary philosophy and identifies new ideas about central issues such as relativism, objectivity and the possibility of ethical knowledge. This edition also includes a commentary on the text by A.W.Moore. At the time of his death in 2003, Bernard Williams was hailed by the Times as 'the outstanding moral philosopher of his age.' He taught at the Universities of Cambridge, Berkeley and Oxford and is the author of many influential books, including _Morality; Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry_ and _Truth and Truthfulness_. (shrink)

From the Disney 'Teacher of the Year' and New York Times bestselling author comes a road map to enrich students' learning experiences, revised and updated for today's teachers and parents. After publishing the New York Times bestseller The Essential 55 (over 1 million copies sold), award-winning teacher Ron Clark took his rules on the road and traveled to schools and districts in 50 states. He met amazing teachers, administrators, students, parents, and all kinds of people involved in bringing up great (...) kids. These are the eleven qualities he describes in The Excellent 11: Enthusiasm, Adventure, Creativity, Reflection, Balance, Compassion, Confidence, Humor, Common Sense, Appreciation, and Resilience. Ron has filled this book with hundreds of suggestions, stories, and wonderfully funny anecdotes. You'll be smiling as you read--and finding the inspiration to change lives, one student at a time"--Back cover. (shrink)

In his précis of a recent book, Richard Joyce writes, “My contention…is that…any epistemological benefit-of-the-doubt that might have been extended to moral beliefs…will be neutralized by the availability of an empirically confirmed moral genealogy that nowhere…presupposes their truth.” Such reasoning – falling under the heading “Genealogical Debunking Arguments” – is now commonplace. But how might “the availability of an empirically confirmed moral genealogy that nowhere… presupposes” the truth of our moral beliefs “neutralize” whatever “epistemological benefit-of-the-doubt that might have been extended (...) to” them? In this article, I argue that there appears to be no satisfactory answer to this question. The problem is quite general, applying to all arguments with the structure of Genealogical Debunking Arguments aimed at realism about a domain meeting two conditions. The Benacerraf-Field Challenge for mathematical realism affords an important special case. (shrink)

In the mid twentieth century the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously asserted that games are indefinable; there are no common threads that link them all. "Nonsense," says the sensible Bernard Suits: "playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." The short book Suits wrote demonstrating precisely that is as playful as it is insightful, as stimulating as it is delightful. Suits not only argues that games can be meaningfully defined; he also suggests that playing games is a (...) central part of the ideal of human existence, so games belong at the heart of any vision of Utopia. Originally published in 1978, The Grasshopper is now re-issued with a new introduction by Thomas Hurka and with additional material (much of it previously unpublished) by the author, in which he expands on the ideas put forward in The Grasshopper and answers some questions that have been raised by critics. (shrink)

How I became a philosopher -- To love, to love me, to love us.

It is widely agreed that the intelligibility of modal metaphysics has been vindicated. Quine's arguments to the contrary supposedly confused analyticity with metaphysical necessity, and rigid with non-rigid designators.2 But even if modal metaphysics is intelligible, it could be misconceived. It could be that metaphysical necessity is not absolute necessity – the strictest real notion of necessity – and that no proposition of traditional metaphysical interest is necessary in every real sense. If there were nothing otherwise “uniquely metaphysically significant” about (...) metaphysical necessity, then paradigmatic metaphysical necessities would be necessary in one sense of “necessary”, not necessary in another, and that would be it. The question of whether they were necessary simpliciter would be like the question of whether the Parallel Postulate is true simpliciter – understood as a pure mathematical conjecture, rather than as a hypothesis about physical spacetime. In a sense, the latter question has no objective answer. In this article, I argue that paradigmatic questions of modal metaphysics are like the Parallel Postulate question. I then discuss the deflationary ramifications of this argument. I conclude with an alternative conception of the space of possibility. According to this conception, there is no objective boundary between possibility and impossibility. Along the way, I sketch an analogy between modal metaphysics and set theory. (shrink)

We tend to suppose that the ancient Greeks had primitive ideas of the self, of responsibility, freedom, and shame, and that now humanity has advanced from these to a more refined moral consciousness. Bernard Williams's original and radical book questions this picture of Western history. While we are in many ways different from the Greeks, Williams claims that the differences are not to be traced to a shift in these basic conceptions of ethical life. We are more like the (...) ancients than we are prepared to acknowledge, and only when this is understood can we properly grasp our most important differences from them, such as our rejection of slavery. The author is a philosopher, but much of his book is directed to writers such as Homer and the tragedians, whom he discusses as poets and not just as materials for philosophy. At the center of his study is the question of how we can understand Greek tragedy at all, when its world is so far from ours. Williams explains how it is that when the ancients speak, they do not merely tell us about themselves, but about ourselves. _Shame and Necessity_ gives a new account of our relations to the Greeks, and helps us to see what ethical ideas we need in order to live in the modern world. (shrink)

Descartes has often been called the 'father of modern philosophy'. His attempts to find foundations for knowledge, and to reconcile the existence of the soul with the emerging science of his time, are among the most influential and widely studied in the history of philosophy. This is a classic and challenging introduction to Descartes by one of the most distinguished modern philosophers. Bernard Williams not only analyzes Descartes' project of founding knowledge on certainty, but uncovers the philosophical motives for (...) his search. With acute insight, he demonstrates how Descartes' _Meditations _are not merely a description but the very enactment of philosophical thought and discovery. Williams covers all of the key areas of Descartes' thought, including God, the will, the possibility of knowledge, and the mind and its place in nature. He also makes profound contributions to the theory of knowledge, metaphysics and philosophy generally. With a new foreword by John Cottingham. (shrink)

The distinction between perception and cognition frames countless debates in philosophy and cognitive science. But what, if anything, does this distinction actually amount to? In this introductory article, we summarize recent work on this question. We first briefly consider the possibility that a perception-cognition border should be eliminated from our scientific ontology, and then introduce and critically examine five positive approaches to marking a perception–cognition border, framed in terms of phenomenology, revisability, modularity, format, and stimulus-dependence.