Prominent figures in the philosophical literature on attention hold that the connection between attention and selection is essential (Mole, 2011), necessary (Wu, 2011; 2014), or conceptual (Smithies, 2011). I argue that selection is neither essentially, necessarily, nor conceptually tied to attention. I first isolate the target conception of selection that I deny is so tightly coupled with attention: graded intramodal selection within consciousness. I analyse two visual cases: analysis of the first case shows that there can be attention without a (...) connection to tasks or action; analysis of the second case shows that there can be attention without a phenomenal foreground/background structure. Finally, I extend the argument into the domain of the body by considering a form of meditative absorption in body sensations to recapitulate the conclusions drawn from the two visual cases. (shrink)

Is attention a cognitive process? I reconstruct and critically assess an argument first proposed by Christopher Mole that it cannot be so. Mole’s argument is influential because it creates theoretical space for a unifying analysis of attention at the subject level (though it does not entail it). Prominent philosophers working on attention such as Wayne Wu and Philipp Koralus explicitly endorse it, while Sebastian Watzl endorses a related version, this despite their differing theoretical commitments. I show that Mole’s argument is (...) invalid, amend it to secure its validity, but argue that it still fails. I consider the extent to which the failure of Mole’s argument spreads to the versions offered by Wu, Koralus and Watlz. Mole’s argument fails because it equivocates between the set of conditions that suffice for constituting attention and the subset of those conditions which are salient, but insufficient, for constituting it. Reflection on this distinction has consequences for the individuation not just of attentional processes but all cognitive processes. (shrink)

Faith, broadly construed, is central to the political, social and personal life of any rational agent. I argue for two main claims: first, that a typology of faith based on the fine-grained Indic categories of bhakti, śraddhā, prasāda, abhisaṃpratyaya and abhilāṣa dissolves many of the philosophical problems associated with the nature of faith; second, that this typology of faith has elements that cannot be encompassed in a belief-desire psychology. The upshot is that the structure of the mind is more complicated (...) than belief-desire psychology admits and that understanding the nature of faith has a role to play in charting the structure of the mind. (shrink)

Abstract:This article is a case study in feminist reclamation in Ruist (Confucian) philosophical traditions. While most feminist reclamation has been concentrated in the history of Western philosophy, this article considers what is involved in feminist reclamation in an East Asian context, taking one of Ruism's greatest critics as its subject. The article argues that the early twentieth-century Chinese anarcho-feminist He Yin Zhen 何殷震 (aka He Ban 何班 and He Zhen 何震) (ca. 1884–1920) should be considered a Ruist (Confucian) philosopher, providing (...) reasons ranging from the historical to the decolonial. Because of her sensitivity to issues of gender, hierarchy, and oppression, and her critical interventions in Ruist philosophy, it argues that He Yin Zhen's work enriches the Ruist canon and could transform Ruist philosophizing for the future. (shrink)

O objetivo deste trabalho consistirá em, sob um determinado recorte, expor e comparar os pensamentos de Charles Sanders Peirce e Bertrand Russell. Far-se-á uma comparação entre as concepções de Peirce e Russell sobre filosofia, matemática e lógica. Essa exposição comparativa terá o objetivo de mostrar e ressaltar as diferenças dos dois autores estudados. Tendo-se em vista esse objetivo, o presente trabalho será dividido em duas seções: na primeira seção, tratar-se-á exclusivamente de Peirce, e será feita uma breve exposição de suas (...) concepções de filosofia, matemática e alguns elementos de lógica; na segunda seção, tratar-se-á de Russell nos temas de filosofia, matemática e lógica, notando-se que, ainda nesta segunda seção, será efetuada, para cada um dos temas tratados, uma comparação entre as ideias de Peirce e de Russell. (shrink)

Given a compact Polish space E and the hyperspace of its compact subsets , we consider Gδσ-ideals of compact subsets of E. Solecki has shown that any σ-ideal in a broad natural class of Gδ ideals can be represented via a compact subset of ; in this article we examine the behaviour of Gδ subsets of E with respect to the representing set. Given an ideal I in this class, we construct a representing set that recognises a compact subset of (...) E as being “small” precisely when it is in I, and recognises a Gδ subset of E as being “small” precisely when it is covered by countably many compact sets from I. (shrink)

This essay is a logico?philosophical critique of the Marxian system of sociology with special reference to the theory of social change. To every change in the natural order (taken in conjunction with the technological order) corresponds an appropriate change in the human order, that is, in the system of social relations. This, it is shown, is the fundamental Marxian thesis regarding social equilibrium. And accordingly the key idea regarding social change is that a gradually maturing inherent disproportion between the two (...) orders is the basic condition of social change, eventually leading to the establishment of a new social equilibrium at a higher level. A close examination of the concept of mode of production and changes therein is attempted in the course of elucidating the above thesis. It is argued that the technological interpretation of the concept of mode of production conflicts with the Marxian anthropology and that we should have a structural interpretation according to which it will refer to the economy as a whole and will include among other elements production relations. This interpretation leads the discussion into one of the central problems of Marxism, namely, the relation between the mode of production and the social system. It is argued that the social system is basic to Marx and after a close analysis of the concept of system it is shown that the Marxian theory of base and superstructure rests mainly on confusion of conceptual orientations. This, it is shown, is connected with a fundamental idea of Marxism, viz., that of a system without a transcendent centre. This essay endeavours to prove that such an idea is logically untenable. Hence the Marxian Laws of Transformation of Quantity into Quality and Negation of Negation are examined and shown logically untenable. The last section discusses the question about the determinant of technological change and eventually of social change. Three possible Marxian solutions are examined: (a) in terms of needs ? it is argued that this is inconsistent with Marx's theory of man and labour; (b) in terms of science and new ideas ? it is shown that this ultimately goes contrary to Marxian materialism and positivism; and finally, (c) the systemic solution in terms of the dialectic of nature and man is subjected to logical scrutiny and it is shown that this cannot be consistent and valid without involving a trans?historical standpoint; for, it is argued, the idea of the self?directing Humanity on which it rests is a self?contradictory notion. (shrink)

This book presents consciousness models from Eastern and Western perspectives that accommodate current scientific research in the natural sciences and humanities, from neurological experiments through philosophical enquiries to spiritual approaches. It offers up to date research from key disciplines in consciousness studies ranging from neurology, quantum mechanics, algorithmic science, mathematics, and astrophysics to literary studies, philosophy, and (comparative) theology. The volume examines the dichotomy between Western and Eastern perceptions of consciousness – where consciousness is perceived as brain activity by Western (...) scientists, and as a divine presence by various religions, especially in the East. The essays contextualize each other and reciprocally illuminate the potential and limits of the respective approaches. The texts aim at a transdisciplinary and transcultural exchange of ideas in consciousness studies and address a readership from interested lay-readers to experts of the field. The volume is of interest to researchers of consciousness studies. (shrink)

Literary renditions of cities have always gravitated towards the spatial imagination and its ethical counterpart outside the textual space. This paper explores the multicultural geography of the North Indian city Allahabad observed through Neelum Saran Gour’s postcolonial narratives Allahabad Aria and Invisible Ink, projecting the narrative alignment of spatial aesthetics and cultural ethics. Interrogating the spatial dimensions of a “narrative world” within narrative theory and its interdisciplinary crossover with cultural geography, the article seeks to examine Gour’s literary city not (...) simply as an objective homogeneous representation, but as a “kshetra” of spatio-cultural cosmos of lived traditions, memories, experiences and collective attitudes of its people, in the context of E. V. Ramakrishnan’s theoretical reflections. The article proposes new possibilities of adapting the Indian concept “kshetra” to spatial literary studies; its aim is also to suggest a new source of knowledge about the city of Allahabad through a community introspection of “doing culture” in the texts, bringing into view people’s shared experiences, beliefs, religious practices and traditions as offshoots of the postcolonial ethos. The article aims to re-contextualize the city’s longstanding multicultural ethics in the contemporary times of crisis, which may affect a shift in the city’s relevance: from regional concern to large-scale significance within ethnically diverse South Asian countries and beyond. (shrink)

Study of Samayasāra, treatise on Jaina philosophy by Kundakunda.

Festschrift for Ē. Ḍī. Pī. Kalansūriya, Sri Lankan philosopher; contributed articles on Buddhist philosophy and Sri Lankan history.

Festschrift for Ē. Ḍī. Pī. Kalansūriya, Sri Lankan philosopher; contributed articles on Buddhist philosophy and Sri Lankan history.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions THE UNITY OF WISDOM AND TEMPERANCE The attempt of Socrates to establish the unity of the virtues has long been an object of philosophic suspicion. Particular attention has been directed to the argument at Protagoras 332a-333b, in which Socrates seeks to demonstrate the unity of wisdom and temperance, by showing that they must be identified as the contrary of folly. The argument proceeds on the assumption (...) that wisdom and temperance are distinct, and so terminates in a contradiction between 'Whatever admits of a contrary admits of one only' and 'Folly, which is one thing, has two contraries, wisdom and temperance.' Scholars have generally rejected Socrates' proof of the second of the contradictory propositions. However, in a recent paper, Professor David Savan has claimed that the contradiction is derived in a formally valid way from premisses which either need no argument or are accepted by Protagoras} My intent in this paper is to cast doubt on this claim, and so to restore the status quo. According to the critics, the weak point in the argument is Socrates' defence of the statement 'Foolish acts and temperate acts are contraries.' But Saran holds that this statement follows from three conditionals, all stated by Socrates and accepted by Protagoras. These conditionals, referred to by Savan as F G and H, will here be termed P1-3. P1 If an act is right and advantageous, then it is temperate. Symbolically: (r.a) D t P2 If an act is wrong, then it is foolish. w~f P3 If an act is foolish, then it is not temperate. fD -t From these, Saran argues, "it follows that 'An act is right' and 'An act is temperate ' are truth functionallyequivalent, as are 'An act is wrong' and 'An act is foolish'.... Since right and wrong are either contraries or contradictories, temperate and foolish acts must also be either contraries or contradictories" (p. 24). Savan then argues that Protagoras, on the basis of his remarks earlier in the dialogue, must take right and wrong to be contradictories, so that temperate and foolish actions are also contradictories, rather than contraries. I want first to consider whether the material equivalences alleged to follow from P1-3 do in fact follow. They may be symbolized: Clr~t C2w =f It is immediately clear that neither C1 nor C2 follows from P1-3. But this is not surprising, because some expression of the relation between 'right' and 'wrong' 1D. Saran, "Socrates'Logic and the Unity of Wisdom and Temperance," in R. J. Butler (ed.), AnalyticalPhilosophy,2nd series(Oxford: BasilBlackwell,1965),pp. 20-26. [157] 158 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY must appear among the premises. Since Savan raises the question whether 'right' and 'wrong' are contraries or contradictories only after he claims to establish C1 and C2, we may suppose that the argument should hold whichever relation we assume. If 'right' and 'wrong' are contraries we add the premise: P4A r D --w And ifthey are contradictorieswe add the stronger premise: P4B r -- --w But neither C1 nor C2 follows from PI-3 together with either P4A or P4B. However, it may be urged, the argument fails only because 'advantageous' has been treated as an independent term. P1 should be replaced by: PI* r ~ t We now find that PI*-3 and P4B are sufficientto derive C1 and C2. But PI*-3 and P4A do not suffice.The most we can establish, using only P4A, is the disjunction : C1 vC2r -- t-v-w -- f And this is useless for the purposes of Socrates' argument. One further way of strengthening the premises might be suggested. Instead of dropping 'advantageous' from the argument, one might take it as related both to 'right' and to 'foolish.' That is, one might introduce additional premises from the pairs: P5A r ~ a P5B r - a and: P6A a D -f P6B a ---- -f P5A, added to P1-3 and P4B, will suffice for the derivation of C1 and C2. But no combination of premises not including P4B will do; from P1-3, P4A, P5B and P6B, one can derive C1 but not C2. It is, therefore, necessary to modify Savan's claim in two fairly important... (shrink)