Ethical issues are of foremost importance in modern bio-medical science. Ethical guidelines and socio-cultural public awareness exist for modern samples, whereas for ancient mummy studies both are de facto lacking. This is particularly striking considering the fact that examinations are done without informed consent or that the investigations are invasive due to technological aspects and that it affects personality traits. The aim of this study is to show the pro and contra arguments of ancient mummy research from an ethical point (...) of view with a particular focus on the various stakeholders involved in this research. Relevant stakeholders in addition to the examined individual are, for example, a particular researcher, and the science community in general, likely descendents of the mummy or any future generation. Our broad discussion of the moral dilemma of mummy research should help to extract relevant decision-making criteria for any such study in future. We specifically do not make any recommendations about how to rate these decision-factors, since this is highly dependent on temporal and cultural affiliations of the involved researcher. The sustainability of modern mummy research is dependent on ethical orientation, which can only be given and eventually settled in an interdisciplinary approach such as the one we attempt to present here. (shrink)

Logics L F (M) are considered, in which M ("most") is a new first-order quantifier whose interpretation depends on a given filter F of subsets of ω. It is proved that countable compactness and axiomatizability are each equivalent to the assertion that F is not of the form $\{(\bigcap F) \cup X:|\omega - X| with $|\omega - \bigcap F| = \omega$ . Moreover the set of validities of L F (M) and even of L F ω 1 ω (M) depends (...) only on a few basic properties of F. Similar characterizations are given of the class of filters F for which L F (M) has the interpolation or Robinson properties. An omitting types theorem is also proved. These results sharpen the corresponding known theorems on weak models (U, q), where the collection q is allowed to vary. In addition they provide extensions of first-order logic which possess some nice properties, thus escaping from contradicting Lindstrom's Theorem [1969] only because satisfaction is not isomorphism-invariant (as it is tied to the filter F). However, Lindstrom's argument is applied to characterize the invariant sentences as just those of first-order logic. (shrink)

Logics $L^F(M)$ are considered, in which $M$ ("most") is a new first-order quantifier whose interpretation depends on a given filter $F$ of subsets of $\omega$. It is proved that countable compactness and axiomatizability are each equivalent to the assertion that $F$ is not of the form $\{(\bigcap F) \cup X: |\omega - X| < \omega\}$ with $|\omega - \bigcap F| = \omega$. Moreover the set of validities of $L^F(M)$ and even of $L^F_{\omega_1\omega}(M)$ depends only on a few basic properties of (...) F. Similar characterizations are given of the class of filters $F$ for which $L^F(M)$ has the interpolation or Robinson properties. An omitting types theorem is also proved. These results sharpen the corresponding known theorems on weak models $(\mathfrak{U}, q)$, where the collection $q$ is allowed to vary. In addition they provide extensions of first-order logic which possess some nice properties, thus escaping from contradicting Lindstrom's Theorem [1969] only because satisfaction is not isomorphism-invariant (as it is tied to the filter $F$). However, Lindstrom's argument is applied to characterize the invariant sentences as just those of first-order logic. (shrink)

This anthology of readings in the survey of Western philosophy--from the Ancient Greeks to the 20th Century--is designed to be accessible to today's readers. Striking a balance between major and minor figures, it features the best available translations of texts--complete works or complete selections of works-- which are both central to each philosopher's thought and are widely accepted as part of the canon. The selections are readable and accessible, while still being faithful to the original. Includes Introductions to each historical (...) period and to each philosopher, and an abundance of drawings, diagrams, photographs, and a timeline. This Combined Volume contains the most important works from Baird's Philosophic Classics, Volumes I-V. ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY. Plato. Aristotle. HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY. Epicurus. Epictetus. Plotinus. MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY. Augustine. Boethius. Anselm (and Guanilo). Moses Maimonides. Thomas Aquinas. William of Ockham. Pico Della Mirandola. MODERN PHILOSOPHY. Ren Descartes. Thomas Hobbes. Blaise Pascal. Baruch Spinoza. John Locke. Gottfried Leibniz. George Berkeley. David Hume. Immanuel Kant. NINETEENTH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHY. G.W.F. Hegel. John Stuart Mill. Soren Kierkegaard. Karl Marx. Friedrich Nietzsche. TWENTIETH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHY. Edmund Husserl. Bertrand Russell. Martin Heidegger. Ludwig Wittgenstein. A.J. Ayer. Jean-Paul Sartre. Willard Van Orman Quine. Jacques Derrida. For anyone interested in Philosophy, History of Philosophy, or History of Intellectual Thought. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Nietzsche in the Light of his Suppressed Manuscripts WALTER KAUFMANN SINCE THE EIGHTEEN-NINETIES there has been considerable discussion about the adequacy of the editing of Nietzsche's late works, and occasionally bitter polemics about suppressed material have appeared in German newspapers and periodicals as well as in a few books. In the mid-fifties the controversy was revived in the wake of a new three-volume edition of Nietzsche's works, edited (...) by Karl Schlechta, ~ but the acrimonious debate was not very illuminating, and the sensational claims that traveled across the ocean were largely misleading. More and more often it was asked how reliable our printed texts are; also, what new revelations may be expected from unpublished manuscripts. I shall try to answer both questions. The discussion will revolve largely around a recent German work by Erich F. Podach 2 who makes sensational claims about The Antichrist and, above all, Ecce Homo, and who wants to supersede all previous editions of these works, including Schlechta's. 3 II Erich Podach holds a unique place in the Nietzsche literature: nobody else has contributed five genuinely important books. Yet Podach is not a philosopher, and he has never shown any profound understanding of Nietzsche 's thought. The point is that all of his books make use of unpublished documents. His study of Nietzsches Zusammenbruch (1930) was translated i Werke in drei Biinden (Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1954-1956), 1282, 1276, and 1476 pp..2Friedrich Nietzsches Werke des Zusammenbruehs (Heidelberg: Wolfgang Rothe Verlag, 1961), 432 pp. and 24 plates with 29 facsimiles of MS pages. 3My article was completed before two reviews of Podach's book appeared in The Philosophical Review, April 1964, pp. 282-285, and in The Journal ot Philosophy, April 23, 1964, pp. 286-288. Both reviews are by Henry Walter Brann; both accept uncritically Podach's editing and Podach's claims; and both add original errors. Brann says that Podach tells "the amazing story of the most brazen literary fraud committed in recent times," and he quotes Podach as saying that "Nietzsche is the most brazenly falsified figure of recent literary and cultural history with regard both to his life and to his works." (The last sentence is rendered into smoother English in The Philosophical Review, and the two reviews arc altogether slightly different.) I shall try to show how Podach and Brann themselves have contributed to this "amazing story" by trying to convince us that one of Nietzsche's best hooks was not written by him. [2051 206 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY into English in 1931. Gestalten um Nietzsche (1932) 4 is his most interesting book and deserves to be translated: it offers chapters on Nietzsche's mother, Rohde, Gast, Bernhard and Elisabeth F6rster (Nietzsche's sister and her husband), and Julius Langbehn. In 1937 Podach published Der kranke Nietzsche : Briefe seiner Mutter an Franz Overbeck, and after that Friedrich Nietzsche und Lou Salom& All of these volumes are important for the biography of Nietzsche. The fifth book aims to offer philologically reliable texts of Nietzsches Werke des Zusammenbruchs, i.e., Nietzsche contra Wagner, Der Antichrist, Ecce Homo, and Dionysos-Dithyramben. All of these were first published after Nietzsche had become insane (in January, 1889), and while no philosophically important changes were made, the early editors were not greatly concerned about philological exactitude. Nietzsche contra Wagner, for example, as published first in 1895 and reprinted many times since, differs quite strikingly from the final version of which Nietzsche himself was reading proofs in January, 1889, when he collapsed. Yet a very few copies of the original version were actually printed in 1889. This version contained a third chapter, "Intermezzo," deleted in 1895 and ever since, and this, a page and a half long, ended with the poem variously called, in later collections of Nietzsche's verse, "Venice" or "Gondola Song." The reason for this omission was not at all sinister. Nietzsche was working on several books late in 1888. Initially, this section formed part of Ecce Homo; then he inserted it in Nietzsche contra Wagner; then he wrote his publisher that after all he preferred to move it back into Ecce Homo; but when soon thereafter he received proofs of... (shrink)

Hegel and Prussianism, by T. M. Knox.--Reply, by E. F. Carritt.--Rebuttal, by T. M. Knox.--Final rejoinder, by E. F. Carritt.--Hegel rehabilitated? By S. Hook.--Hook's Hegel, by S. Avineri.--Hegel again, by Z. A. Pelczynski.--Hegel and his apologists, by S. Hook.--Hegel and nationalism, by S. Avineri.--The Hegel myth and its method, by W. Kaufmann.--For further reading (p. 172).

Ce fut un projet ambitieux que de réunir des géants de la philosophie contemporaine pour dèbattre les enjeux de la rationalité d'aujourd'hui. Non seulement ne fallait-il pas craindre d'aborder des questions de taille, qui sont d'une extrême importance, mais encore ne devait-on pas hésiter à composer avec des intérêts fort divergents. De ce fait, les résultats dont fait état ce livre représentent une variété de points de vue, hétérogènes certes, mais qui contribuent tous, de prés ou de loin, à une (...) même question concernant la «possibilité d'une théorie de la rationalité», selon les paroles mêmes de l'éditeur. Bien sûr que le livre ne répond pas en exhibant une théorie toute faite, mais on peut dire que le volume que nous discuterons est une mine d'or, riche en indications pour une éventuelle théorie de la rationalité, et ce malgré certains handicaps qui auraient pu entraver le projet dès le départ. J'en signale deux. (shrink)

A Kaufmann model is an \(\omega _1\) -like, recursively saturated, rather classless model of \({{\mathsf {P}}}{{\mathsf {A}}}\) (or \({{\mathsf {Z}}}{{\mathsf {F}}} \) ). Such models were constructed by Kaufmann under the combinatorial principle \(\diamondsuit _{\omega _1}\) and Shelah showed they exist in \(\mathsf {ZFC}\) by an absoluteness argument. Kaufmann models are an important witness to the incompactness of \(\omega _1\) similar to Aronszajn trees. In this paper we look at some set theoretic issues related to this motivated (...) by the seemingly naïve question of whether such a model can be “killed” by forcing without collapsing \(\omega _1\). We show that the answer to this question is independent of \(\mathsf {ZFC}\) and closely related to similar questions about Aronszajn trees. As an application of these methods we also show that it is independent of \(\mathsf {ZFC}\) whether or not Kaufmann models can be axiomatized in the logic \(L_{\omega _1, \omega } (Q)\) where _Q_ is the quantifier “there exists uncountably many”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:246 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY f~ntlSetifr ~uftanbebrtn~en, [o,ba{~hie @i~e~t heeler~anbluu~ ~uaIet~ bee ~[u~e[t bee ~emu~tfein~ (~m ~e~riffe eiuer ~inie)i[t, u,b baburd~a[rerer[t em Dbieft (el, be[timmter ~a,,m) erfannt r0irb.") The notion of constructing a concept is a technical one for Kant ("r ~e@rlffabet f on ft r u i r en, beiflt: hie i~m focre[p0nblereube ~In [ c @a u u,@ a ~ c i o ~i bar[tdlen." Op. cit., B741)--to (...) construct a concept of space would be to produce a representation of a determinate region of space in accordance with some determining principle. 9Maimon, Salomon (1753-1800): Self-educated philosopher from Lithuania who appeared on the Berlin scene in the later 1780's. His Versuch ~ber die Transzendentalphilosophie (1790) was a critical study of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft; Kant had already seen some of it in manuscript, sent to him by Marcus Herz. In his letter of May 26, 1789 (~362), he describes to Herz how he had been on the point of returning the manuscript unread, with a note saying that he was too busy, but that on glancing at it he had realized its quality and had seen that none of his opponents had understood the Kritilc as well as had M. u Herz, Marcus (1747-1803): Student and subsequently close friend of Kant's. Medical doctor and, from 1786, Professor of Philosophy in Berlin. i Selle, Christian Gottlieb (1748-1800) : Medical doctor in Berlin, involved in experiments in animal magnetism. Kiesewetter regarded the experiments as fraudulent, but absolved S. of complicity. J Berlinische Monatr A liberal journal, founded in 1783, in which Kant frequently published. The editor in question was Johann Erich Biester (1749-1816), who was also Librarian of the Royal Library inBerlin. k Elsner, Christoph Friedrich (1749-1820): Professor of Medicine at K6aigsberg, who attended Kant in his final illness. A FURTHER NOTE ON PAUL MARHENKE'S "THE PHENOMENALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF KANT'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE" IN AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE to a paper, "The Phenomenalistic Interpretation of Kant's Theory of Knowledge," which was found in the effects of the late Paul Marhenke, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, and which was printed in the April, 1964 issue of this Journal I mentioned that an intensive inquiry failed to reveal when this paper was written or for what occasion. I have recently received a note from Professor Jacob Loewenberg, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at Berkeley, informing me that the paper was written while Paul Marhenke was a student at Berkeley and was written for Professor Loewenberg's Seminar on Kant, during the session of 192526. Professor Loewenberg writes that "the seminar dealt with certain selected topics crucial in or growing out of the Critique of Pure Reason. Among those who in addition to Paul were in the seminar, I remember distinctly (largely because of their superior performance) Donald C. Williams and the late A. P. Ushenko. I am not quite sure whether or not Philip Wiener was also enrolled." University o] California, San Diego A YRD-~[STROLL A I~EPLY TO WALTER KAUFMANN WALTER KAUFMANN,in his article, "Nietzsche in the Light of his Suppressed Manuscripts" 1 converts a review of Erich F. Podach's book, Friedrich Nietzsche's 1This Journal, II, 2 (Oct., 1964), pp. 205-225. NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 247 Werke des Zusammenbruchs into a bitter personal attack on Podach and an even more vitriolic assault on me. Every author and scholar is entitled to his own opinion, and had Kaufmann soberly stated his case by simply announcing that, to his mind, the re-editing of Nietzsche's works according to the genuine manuscripts now available in Weimar has not changed one iota of the true character of the philosopher's last books, then his efforts would certainly have been unexceptionable. Prof. Kaufmann could simply have said, "Much ado about nothing! Podach's findings will, by no means, alter the image of Nietzsche among philosophers. Period." Indeed, this is precisely what Kaufmann's elaborate tirades and invectives come to if one reduces them to their... (shrink)

Many scholars in the past half century have taken issue with some of Kaufmann's interpretations, but the book ranks as one of the most influential accounts ever ...

In these studies of the relationships between poetry, religion, and philosophy, and of the background and development of existentialism, Walter Kaufmann has produced a book which is challenging and important on many different levels. --.

The continuing discovery of important Hegel manuscripts and advances in the criticism of Hegel's works have set the stage for a major reevaluation of one of the greatest philosophers of all time. This volume constitutes the comprehensive reinterpretation of Hegel that has long been needed.The first chapters are devoted to the influences of other German philosophers on Hegel, his early publication as they are relevant to his later writings, and his Phenomenology--in itself and as a key to understanding his terminology (...) and dialectic. Examined next are the further elaboration of his thought in Logic; his famous system, as presented in various editions of the Encyclopedia; and his little-known views on history. A final chapter details in letters and contemporary reports Hegel's intellectual development. (shrink)

In these studies of the relationships between poetry, religion, and philosophy, and of the background and development of existentialism, Walter Kaufmann has produced a book which is challenging and important on many different levels. --.

I offer an argument for what mental action may be like in nonhuman animals. Action planning is a type of mental action that involves a type of intention. Some intentions are the causal mental antecedents of proximal mental actions, and some intentions are the causal mental antecedents of distal mental actions. The distinction between these two types of “plan-states” is often spelled out in terms of mental content. The prominent view is that while proximal mental actions are caused by mental (...) states with nonconceptual content, distal mental actions are caused by mental states with conceptual content. I argue that, when we are investigating animal cognition, we need a nonconceptual account for the content of intentions involved in mental actions such as action planning: non-immediate intentions. This in order to defend the claim that creatures that lack conceptual capacities are capable of entertaining plan-states, and thus of exercising mental agency in the form of action planning. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 62.3 (2001) 523-541 [Access article in PDF] Antiquarianism, the History of Objects, and the History of Art before Winckelmann Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann [Figures] To the Memory of Franklin LeVan Baumer. In light of postmodernist and poststructuralist trends in the humanities which have contested notions of originality and of authorship, it might seem surprising that one outstanding myth of the eighteenth century has (...) not yet been thoroughly challenged. This is the claim made by Johann Joachim Winckelmann in the foreword to the Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums, originally published in 1764, that he had created a new history of art which was distinct from a history of artists and also different from what had previously been written about antiquities (Altertümer): The history of the art of antiquity, which I have undertaken to write, is no mere account of the chronological order and change of art, but I take the word history in the wider sense, that it has in the Greek language, and my intention is to offer an attempt at a system.... But the essence of art is in every part the most eminent aim, in which the history of artists has little influence, and this [sort of history of artists], which has been compiled by others, is therefore not to be sought here... those who have treated antiquities, examine either only such where erudition was to be applied, or, if they speak of art, this happens in part with common eulogies, or their judgment is built on peculiar, false grounds. 1 [End Page 523]Wolf Lepenies once described this claim as one of the many foundational myths of the Enlightenment and presented instead some parallels between the writing of art history and natural history in the eighteenth century. 2 As interest in the historiography of art has revived, publications have continued to pour forth on Winckelmann. 3 Yet the critique suggested by Lepenies has largely not been followed. Winckelmann's claim to originality remains a starting or major turning point for most accounts of the history of the discipline of art history. 4 [End Page 524]It may be that Winckelmann's claim has remained largely unchallenged because his differentiation of his accomplishment from that of Gelehrsamkeit in particular coincides with and helps to support another distinction made at his time, that between "philosophy," or criticism, and erudition, the latter being at best necessary but inferior. 5 This distinction, which was fostered by the philosophes and their counterparts in other countries, has been frequently heard in scholarly debates, and it is echoed in current discussions where empirical scholarship is disparaged in favor of what is often now called Theory. 6 Thus while in the twentieth century the Enlightenment came in for heavy going starting with at least the critique of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, 7 this is one Enlightenment opinion which, despite the rise of critical theory among other trends in recent scholarship, has gained in fashion, especially in the English-speaking world.But the contrast between philosophy, or critique, and erudition makes a distinction that is ultimately untenable, even if it is also one that has continued to dominate many views of the history of eighteenth-century scholarship. The case at hand suggests that supposed innovations of the eighteenth century in the historiography of art, as in many other fields of study, are much more bound up with late humanism and encyclopedism than their promulgators might have wished to admit. Scholars of a number of disciplines have begun to revise interpretations of the role of the so-called antiquarians of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries--those who dealt with Altertümer. 8 Some recent studies of the historiography of art have pointed to some connections between the antiquarian tradition and that of the historiography of art. 9 These approaches, however, have primarily dealt with Italian and French writers and, moreover, have left Winckelmann's position largely untouched. 10 Winckelmann's situation in the [End Page 525] broader European historical and geographical context also remains... (shrink)

In speaking of empirical science as a self-correcting process one implies that a proposition accepted in accordance with the rules of procedure may have to be eliminated later according to these very rules. Taking this for granted one realizes that a particular empirical science, say physics, should be defined in terms of rules of method rather than as a system of propositions representing our knowledge at a given time. Obviously both the science of Galileo and Newton and the science of (...) Einstein and Bohr are called ''physics'' and we do not regard this as a mere equivocation. It may, however, be objected that a definition of a science in terms of rules of method is incompatible with the view that a science consists of a set of propositions. To meet this objection I propose that we distinguish between the structure of a science as defined in terms of the rules of method and the corpus of this science at a given time, i.e., the set of propositions accepted at this time in accordance with the rules of method of this science. The relation between the structure of a science and the corpus of a science is similar to that obtaining between the structure of a legal order, e.g., American law, which is defined by the rules of the process of legislation in the broadest sense and the legal norms which are the corpus of law at a given time. It should then be noted that the assertion that a certain proposition belongs to a given science is incomplete without a time-index. The scientist changes the corpus of his science either by introducing new propositions to it or by eliminating propositions which were previously accepted and did not stand further control. The significance of whatever else he does in the course of his inquiry can be determined only in the light of this selection. There are two stages in this process of selection. The first is exclusively concerned with meanings as such. The scientist has to ascertain that a given aggregate of words represents a proposition, that this proposition contains only objective meanings, that it is not self-contradictory, that it belongs to the subject-matter of the particular science. The second phase of the selection, exhibited in scientific procedure in the strict sense, applies only to such propositions which have passed this preexamination. We shall call those rules of method in terms of which the first stage of selection is defined rules of the language of science and those rules in terms of which the second stage is defined rules of the procedure of science. In this paper I shall try to show how important it is to distinguish clearly between these two types of rules. I shall first deal with the rules of the language of science and confine myself to sciences dealing with the physical world. (shrink)

v. 1. Thales to Ockham.--v. 2. Bacon to Kant.

John Searle has recently developed a theory of reasons for acting that intends to rescue the freedom of the will, endangered by causal determinism, whether physical or psychological. To achieve this purpose, Searle postulates a series of “gaps” that are supposed toendowthe self with free will. Reviewing key steps in Searle's argument, this article shows that such an undertaking cannot be successfully completed because of its solipsist premises. The author argues that reasons for acting do not have a subjective, I-ontology (...) but a first-person plural, Weontology that better accounts for agency and responsibility. (shrink)

In this paper I want to do the following things. First I want to show that in the part of the Theaetetus where the relationship between knowledge and perception is examined, the concept of knowledge that is in question is very clearly characterized. We are left in no doubt as to what is to count as knowing. Secondly I want to unravel in some detail the case that Socrates puts on Protagoras’ behalf where he draws on what Protagoras actually wrote (...) (151 E-152C); as opposed to what he may have taught secretly to his pupils (152C-160D). Thirdly I wish to argue that if we let the dialogue speak for itself, it is manifest that this case put up on Protagoras’ behalf at 151 E-152C is not overthrown; it is not even shaken. (shrink)