"First published 1957 " Campion Collection.

Ian Ramsey; VII*—Facts and Disclosures, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 72, Issue 1, 1 June 1972, Pages 115–134, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristot.

Ian Ramsey; VII*—Facts and Disclosures, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 72, Issue 1, 1 June 1972, Pages 115–134, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristot.

In a time when more and more people are discovering they can have a rational morality without an orthodox God, these twenty-four essays reappraise the whole character of Christian ethics and criticize the traditional underpinning of morality by religion. Edited by Ian T. Ramsey, professor of philosophy at Oxford University, the volume is a valuable sequel to the well-known New Essays in Philosophical Theology. The contributors include atheists, agnostics, and Christians. Among them are Ninian Smart, R. B. Braithwaite, Ronald (...) Hepburn, and Iris Murdoch. The essays do not attempt to examine specific Christian questions in any sort of theological detail; rather, their primary concern is with problems that arise principally in a philosophical context. But they are concerned with issues that lie behind the present bewilderment in Christian morality. Stressing the diversity of moral situations, the papers show that these are far from being homogeneous and rule-determined. Moral decision demands personal involvement, activating the possibility of good and bad reasons for making such a decision. The essays point out the character of moral disagreements and also remind us that morality is not only of individual but also of social significance. The last section of the book examines the present concept of natural law; its possible erosion by developments in anthropology, psychology, and philosophy; and whether the possibility exists for a theory of morality that unites both natural-law theory and Christian ethics. Ian T. Ramsey (1915 - 1972) was former Bishop of Durham, County Durham, England, and also served as Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oxford University, He was also the author of Religious Language, Models for Divine Activity, and Words About God. (shrink)

In this paper I would like to consider Hell as a concept around which there cluster various different difficulties, and to see how and on what conditions some of these difficulties could be overcome, the whole paper illustrating, albeit by reference to a particular topic, and so with obvious restrictions, the character of theological argument, the nature of theological assertions, and the kind of empirical grounding that must be given to them.

In this paper I would like to consider Hell as a concept around which there cluster various different difficulties, and to see how and on what conditions some of these difficulties could be overcome, the whole paper illustrating, albeit by reference to a particular topic, and so with obvious restrictions, the character of theological argument, the nature of theological assertions, and the kind of empirical grounding that must be given to them.

With Discourse of Miracles and part of A Third Letter Concerning Toleration.

Should we explicate truth in terms of meaning, or meaning in terms of truth? Ramsey, Prior and Strawson all favoured the former approach: a statement is true if and only if things are as the speaker, in making the statement, states them to be; similarly, a belief is true if and only if things are as a thinker with that belief thereby believes them to be. I defend this explication of truth against a range of objections.Ramsey formalized this (...) account of truth as follows: B is true =df ∃P; in §i, I defend this formula against the late Peter Geach's objection that its right‐hand side is ill‐formed. Davidson held that Ramsey and co. had the whole matter back to front: on his view, we should explicate meaning in terms of truth, not vice versa. In §ii, I argue that Ramsey's approach opens the way to a more promising approach to semantic theorizing than Davidson's. Ramsey presents his formula as a definition of truth, apparently contradicting Tarski's theorem that truth is indefinable. In §iii, I show that the contradiction is only apparent: Tarski assumes that the Liar‐like inscription he uses to prove his theorem has a content, but Ramsey can and should reject that assumption. As I explain in §iv, versions of the Liar Paradox may be generated without making any assumptions about truth: paradox arises when the impredicativity that is found when a statement's content depends on the contents of a collection of statements to which it belongs turns pathological. Since they do not succeed in saying anything, such pathological utterances or inscriptions pose no threat to the laws of logic, when these are understood as universal principles about the ways things may be said or thought to be. There is, though, a call for rules by following which we can be sure that any conclusion deduced from true premisses is true, and hence says something. Such rules cannot be purely formal, but in §v I propose a system of them: this opens the way to the construction of deductive theories even in circumstances where producing a well‐formed formula is no guarantee of saying anything. (shrink)

The paper critically scrutinizes the widespread idea that Russell subscribes to a "Universalist Conception of Logic." Various glosses on this somewhat under-explained slogan are considered, and their fit with Russell's texts and logical practice examined. The results of this investigation are, for the most part, unfavorable to the Universalist interpretation.

It seems beyond doubt that a thinker can come to know a conclusion by deducing it from premisses that he knows already, but philosophers have found it puzzling how a thinker could acquire knowledge in this way. Assuming a broadly externalist conception of knowledge, I explain why judgements competently deduced from known premisses are themselves knowledgeable. Assuming an exclusionary conception of judgeable content, I further explain how such judgements can be informative. (According to the exclusionary conception, which I develop from (...) some remarks in Ramsey, a judgement's content is given by the hitherto live possibilities that it excludes or rules out.) I propose that the value of logic lies in its allowing us to combine different sources of knowledge, so that we can learn things that we could not learn from those sources individually. I conclude by arguing that while single-conclusion logics possess that value, multiple-conclusion logics do not. (shrink)

This essay assesses the account of truth presented in Wiggins's 2002 paper ‘An indefinibilist cum normative view of truth and the marks of truth'. I agree with Wiggins that we should seek, not to define truth, but to elucidate it by unfolding its connections with other basic notions. However, I give reasons for preferring an elucidation based on Ramsey's account of truth to Wiggins's Tarski-inspired approach. I also cast doubt on Wiggins's thesis that convergence is a mark of truth, (...) arguing instead that a claim which is up for assessment as true or false must be one to which different speakers/hearers can attach, and know that they are attaching, the same sense. I use this principle to rule out an account of indicative conditionals, and bring some considerations to bear on the question of whether those conditionals have truth values. An appendix revisits a debate about the determinateness of distinctness. (shrink)

This paper assesses the prospects of a pragmatist theory of content. I begin by criticising the theory presented in D.H. Mellor’s essay ‘Successful Semantics’. I then identify problems and lacunae in the pragmatist theory of meaning sketched in Chapter 13 of Dummett’s The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. The prospects are brighter, I contend, for a tempered pragmatism, in which the theory of content is permitted to draw upon irreducible notions of truth and falsity. I sketch the shape of such a (...) theory and illustrate the role of its pragmatist elements by showing how they point towards a promising account of the truth conditions of indicative conditionals. A feature of the account is that it validates Modus Ponens whilst invalidating Modus Tollens. (shrink)

For Ian Ramsey, talk about God raises many philosophical problems: ‘If we are not to use anthropomorphic concepts like love, power, wisdom, we cannot talk about God; but if we do use them, how do we manage to talk of God and not man?’ ‘Believers wish on the one hand to claim that he is indescribable and ineffable, and yet on the other hand to talk a great deal about him. Nay more, when they speak of God they say (...) that he is transcendent and immanent, im passible yet loving, and so on. But if we speak like this, are we talking significantly at all? Here is the Falsification Problem: What kind of talk can this talk about God be, if it permits us to use such conflicting descriptions of God and to continue to use these descriptions in the face of any and all empirical phenomena?’. (shrink)