I claim that, in the Topics, Aristotle advises dialectical questioners to intentionally argue fallaciously in order to escape from some dialectically awkward positions, and I work through the consequences of that claim. It will turn out that, although there are important exceptions, the techniques for finding arguments described in Topics I–VII are, by and large, locations that Aristotle thought of as appropriate for use in philosophical inquiry. The text that grounds this claim, however, raises a further problem: it highlights the (...) solitary nature of philosophical inquiry, which puts into question the philosophical relevance of Topics VIII. I find that the Topics provides inadequate grounds for thinking that Aristotle saw Topics VIII as describing standards or techniques of argument that were appropriate for philosophy, and so these texts cannot be used by contemporary commentators to shed light on Aristotle's philosophical practice. Finally, although Aristotle saw philosophy as a solitary activity, he th.. (shrink)

Mindfulness exercises are presented as being compatible with almost any spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs. In this paper, we argue that they in fact involve imagining and conceptualising rather striking and controversial claims about the self, and the self’s relationship to thoughts and feelings. For this reason, practising mindfulness exercises is likely to be in tension with many people’s core beliefs and values, a tension that should be treated as a downside of therapeutic interventions involving mindfulness exercises, not unlike a (...) side effect. Clients ought to be informed of these metaphysical aspects of the exercises, and mental health providers ought to take them into account in assessing which course of treatment to recommend. Given these concerns, the casual way in which mindfulness exercises are presently distributed by mental health providers to the general public is inappropriate. (shrink)

Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) offer recommendations for potentially effective, but potentially burdensome, molecularly targeted treatments to a patient's treating physician. In this paper, we discuss the question of who is responsible for ensuring that there is an adequate evidence base for any treatments recommended to a patient. We argue that, given that treating oncologists cannot usually offer a robust evaluation of the evidence underlying an MTB's recommendation, members of the MTB are responsible for ensuring that the evidence level is adequate. (...) We explore two models for how to share responsibility between MTB members. According to the first model, each MTB member, as well as the treating physician, should be held maximally and equally responsible for the recommendations. We argue that this insufficiently accounts for differences in roles and expertise of MTB members. We propose instead that responsibility is delegated via relationships of trust. We argue if these relationships of trust are to be instances of reasonable trust, (a) MTBs should offer a clinical representative to whom a treating physician may delegate the responsibility of ensuring there is sufficient evidence for treatment recommendations, (b) the relationships of trust between the representative and the other MTB members should be clearly defined, and (c) MTB members should be carefully selected. Treating oncologists retain a responsibility to consider general limitations of the evidence for targeted treatments in assessing whether the treatment recommendation offered by an MTB's representative is adequate for a given clinical situation. (shrink)

This book provides a collection of essays representing the state of the art in the research into argumentation in classical antiquity. It contains essays from leading and up and coming scholars on figures as diverse as Parmenides, Gorgias, Seneca, and Classical Chinese "wandering persuaders." The book includes contributions from specialists in the history of philosophy as well as specialists in contemporary argumentation theory, and stimulates the dialogue between scholars studying issues relating to argumentation theory in ancient philosophy and contemporary argumentation (...) theorists. Furthermore, the book sets the direction for research into argumentation in antiquity by encouraging an engagement with a broader range of historical figures, and closer collaboration between contemporary concerns and the history of philosophy. (shrink)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong argues that moral disagreement and widespread moral bias pose a serious problem for moral intuitionism. Seneca’s view that we just recognise the good could be criticised using a similar argument. His approach to argumentation offers a way out, one that may serve as a model for a revisionary intuitionism.