The article examines the reasons for silence in Thomas More, starting from his History of King Richard the III, considering then his actions as speaker of the House of Commons and later as Chancellor, and, finally, his refusal to take the oath to uphold the Acts of Succession and Supremacy. Another relevant subtopic takes a cue from Seneca's assertions about silence to allow the author, after careful reading of a paper published by F. Mitjans on Moreana, to correct an assertion (...) made, in an earlier essay, in regard to the Seneca details in Lockey's copy of Holbein's More family portrait, as well as to present a more analytical assessment of the relevance of Seneca's presence in More's works. It turns out that More cites Seneca more often than has been thought, but with certain fairly crucial reservations, which should—at least in part—explain More's apparent reluctance to quote Seneca's name: another case of silence, which needs to be probed. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 258 - 271 This contribution to the symposium on Annalisa Coliva’s _Extended Rationality_ is largely sympathetic with the moderate view of the structure of epistemic warrant which is defended in the book. However, it takes issue with some aspects of Coliva’s Wittgenstein-inspired ‘hinge epistemology’, focussing especially on her conception of propositional warrant, her treatment of epistemic closure, her antirealist conception of truth, and the significance of her answer to so-called Humean scepticism.

Apparently, aiming to comply with the norm ‘Believe that P if and only if the proposition that P is true’ can hardly differ from aiming to comply with the norm ‘Believe that P if and only if the proposition that P is epistemically justified’. So one may be tempted to agree with Richard Rorty that the distinction between truth and justification is pragmatically useless because it cannot make any difference ‘when the question is about what I should believe now’. I (...) resist this conclusion by arguing that the distinction between truth and justification is pragmatically useful even if the two properties are indeed normatively coincident. The argument I offer turns on the claim that truth plays an explanatory role that justification is inherently incapable of playing. However, my contention is not just that the distinction between truth and justification is pragmatically useful because truth is a bona fide explanatory notion. It is that the distinction between truth and justification is pragmatically useful because the realization that the former plays an explanatory role that the latter is inherently incapable of playing gives access to reasons which would otherwise escape our attention. If truth is a bona fide explanatory notion, the distinction between truth and justification is pragmatically useful because it is precisely when the question is about what I should believe now that attending to such a distinction will often make a difference – and it will make a difference even if the two properties are in fact normatively coincident. (shrink)

Motivated by the analysis of a general optimal portfolio selection problem, which encompasses as special cases an optimal consumption and an optimal debt-arrangement problem, we are concerned with the questions of how a personality trait like risk-perception can be formalized and whether the two objectives of utility-maximization and risk-minimization can be both achieved simultaneously. We address these questions by developing an axiomatic foundation of preferences for which utility-maximization is equivalent to minimizing a utility-based shortfall risk measure. Our axiomatization hinges on (...) a novel axiom in decision theory, namely the risk-perception axiom. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 487 61oign6 de Locke, qui a fait entrer les math6matiques dans la logique, il est leur successeur attitr6. II a 6pous6 une doctrine pacifiste encore plus imp6rative que celle de Voltaire. N'a-t-il pas lui aussi cherch6 a cultiver son jardin pour en faire un paradis terrestre, et ce n'est certes pas sa faute ni celle de la raison humaine sice paradis s'estompe darts un avenir toujours plus (...) 61oign6 pour n'~tre en d6finitive qu'un mirage. P. Gay qui est ~t sa fa~on un bon disciple de Locke est un pragmatiste plus qu'un rationaliste. Le programme des philosophes n'Stait pas seulement raisonnable, il ~tait pratique. MSme si ceux-ci se sonl: paffois montr6s, ridicules pour avoir m~connu la grande part de l'irrationnel daus l'esprit humain, ils ont du moins le m~rite d'avoir fair appel au bon sens de la collectivit6, ce bon sens qui fondait route la m6thode de Descartes. Pour P. Gay, comme pour les hommes du xvm e sidle, le philosophe est avant tout le sage et le savant, l'homme de bien et le citoyen, tel qu'il est dit daus l'Encyclopddie. C'est le "militaire phflosophe" dont l'auteur est inconnu, le "philosophe ignorant" de Voltaire, le "philosophe sans le savoir" de Sedaine. Une nouvelle conception de l'homme se fait jour, celle d'un 8tre ~ la lois rationnel et sensible. Par derriere de nombreux avatars se retrouve une philosophic g6n~rale commune: celle de Locke et de Condillac, de Hume, d'Helv6tius et de Diderot, celle-l~t m6me qu'E. C.assirer a su mettre en lumi~re en insistant sur son c6t6 formel, et que le philosophe sovi6tique J. Luppol a quelque peu fauss6e par une interpr6tation marxiste et par trop dogrnatique de l'histoire. Elle s'exprime clairement dans le Discours pr~lirninaire de d'Alembert. Le sensationnalisme a promu l'id~e de la souverainet~ de l'esprit critique et par l~t m~me a r6pudi6 la toute-puissance de la Raison. La nouvelle m6thode pr6conis ~e permet une dialectique nouvelle, qui est pr~cis6ment celle de l'homme moderne. EUe entraine une conception diff6rente du monde et de l'homme, une interpretation nouvelle de leurs rapports. La psychologie est amen~e ~ faire ses premiers pas en tant que science; mais c'est une analyse impitoyable du moi profond en marge d'une exploration de la vie sociale et du monde ext~rieur qui a fray6 la voie ~t la modernitY, et nous a donn~ le sentiment de notre libertY. C'est ainsi qu'il convient de faire entrer le Rousseau des Confessions aussi bien que du Contrat social dans la grande famille d~sunie qui fait le sujet du livre de P. Gay. Pour nous, en nous pla~ant ~t un point de rue quelque peu different de celui de notre auteur, et tout en reconnaissant avec lui que le dix-huiti~me si~cle a port~ une atteinte mortelle ~ la m~taphysique, nous croyons pouvoir dire que le dix-huiti~me si~cle n'est pas tant le si~cle qui a reni~ Dieu, mais le si~cle qui s'en est fait une conception plus moderne en le repoussant darts un pass~ lointain et t~n~breux ou en le situant, non sans ivresse, darts un avenir tr~s incertain. R. NIKLAUS Exeter, England La Filosofia Politica di Schelling. By Claudio Cesa. (Bari, Laterza, 1969. Pp. 252. n.p.) Was Schelling an original political philosopher? This does not seem to be the opinion of the author of this very careful research, which is beyond any doubt the 488 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY most extensive study of this aspect of Schelling's thought, at least until 1806. However, even if Schelling was not, as it is frequently stated, indifferent to the problems and the vicissitudes of politics, his theoretical thinking on this subject never went beyond temporary systematizations, to be given up, or modified, after a while. The author shows how Schelling, especially in this fieM, was influenced either by his environment in general, or by some personalities he happened to contact: first... (shrink)