Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 96 Heft: 1 Seiten: 246-249.

Kant's lectures on anthropology capture him at the height of his intellectual power. They are immensely important for advancing our understanding of Kant's conception of anthropology, its development, and the notoriously difficult relationship between it and the critical philosophy. This 2003 collection of essays by some of the leading commentators on Kant offers a systematic account of the philosophical importance of this material that should nevertheless prove of interest to historians of ideas and political theorists. There are two broad approaches (...) adopted: a number of the essays consider the systematic relations of the anthropology to critical philosophy, especially speculative knowledge and ethics. Other essays focus on the anthropology as a major source for the clarification of both the content and development of Kant's work. The volume also serves as an interpretative complement to the translation of the lectures in the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. (shrink)

Disagreement as we find it in both the history and the contemporary practice of philosophy is an inadequately understood phenomenon. In this paper I outline and motivate the problem of disagreement, arguing that "hard cases" of disagreement confront us with an unresolved, and seemingly unresolvable, challenge to the rationality of philosophical discourse, thereby raising the specter of a worri-some form of metaphilosophical skepticism. A variety of responses and attempted evasions are considered, though none are found to be particularly satisfying: Thus, (...) the specter remains unexorcised. El desacuerdo que encontramos tanto en la historia como en la práctica contemporánea de la filosofía es un fenómeno mal entendido. En este trabajo hago un esbozo y aduzco los motivos del problema del desacuerdo, argumentando que los "casos difíciles" de desacuerdo nos confrontan con un problema sin resolver y al parecer sin posibilidad de resolverse, que pone en duda la racionalidad del discurso filosófico, y con lo cual surge el espectro de una preocupante forma de escepticismo metafilosófico. Examino varias respuestas y tentativas de evasiones, aunque ninguna de ellas es particularmente satisfactoria. Así, el espectro sigue sin ser exorcizado. (shrink)

Shapiro has recently argued that Dworkin posed a new objection to legal positivism in Law's Empire, to which positivists, he says, have not adequately responded. Positivists, the objection goes, have no satisfactory account of what Dworkin calls “theoretical disagreement” about law, that is, disagreement about “the grounds of law” or what positivists would call the criteria of legal validity. I agree with Shapiro that the critique is new, and disagree that it has not been met. Positivism can not offer an (...) explanation that preserves the “face value” of theoretical disagreements, because the only intelligible dispute about the criteria of legal validity is an empirical or “head count” dispute, i.e., a dispute about what judges are doing, and how many of them are doing it. Positivism, however, has two other explanations for theoretical disagreement, which “explain away” rather than preserve the “face value” disagreement. According to positivists, either theoretical disagreements are disingenuous, in the sense that the parties, consciously or unconsciously, are really trying to change the law, that is, they are trying to say, as Dworkin puts it, “what it should be” not “what the law is”; or they are simply in error, that is, they honestly think there is a fact of the matter about what the grounds of law are, and thus what the law is, in the context of their disagreement, but they are mistaken, because, in truth, there is no fact of the matter about the grounds of law in this instance precisely because there is no convergent practice of behavior among officials constituting a Rule of Recognition on this point. The “Disingenuity” and “Error Theory” accounts of theoretical disagreement are explored, with attention to the theoretical desiderata at stake in choosing between competing explanatory theories. Particular attention is given to the best explanation for Riggs v. Palmer in light of the actual historical context of the decision and other opinions by the Riggs judges in contemporaneous cases. (shrink)

Many philosophers, especially in the wake of the 17th century, have favored an inegalitarian view of shape and color, according to which shape is mind-independent while color is mind-dependent. In this essay, I advance a novel argument against inegalitarianism. The argument begins with an intuition about the modal dependence of color on shape, namely: it is impossible for something to have a color without having a shape. I then argue that, given reasonable assumptions, inegalitarianism contradicts this modal-dependence principle. Given the (...) plausibility of the latter, I conclude that we should reject inegalitarianism in favor of some form of egalitarianism—either a subjective egalitarianism on which both shape and color are mind-dependent or an objective egalitarianism on which both shape and color are mind-independent. (shrink)

Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest Western philosphers and one of the greatest theologians of the Christian church. In this book we at last have a modern, comprehensive presentation of the total thought of Aquinas. Books on Aquinas invariably deal with either his philosophy or his theology. But Aquinas himself made no arbitrary division between his philosophical and his theological thought, and this book allows readers to see him as a whole. It introduces the full range of Aquinas' thinking; (...) and it relates his thinking to writers both earlier and later than Aquinas himself. (shrink)

_Philosophical Theology and Christian Doctrine_ surveys and comments on recent work by philosophers of religion in the analytic tradition on the doctrines of the Christian creed. Topics covered include creation, Incarnation, Trinity, salvation and eschatology, and the ultimate future of creation. Comprehensive survey of core Christian doctrines.

What makes conscious experience a difficult or confusing subject for science to deal with is its personal or individualistic character (that is to say the fact that a given experience is an experience apparently tied to a particular individual). It is in this respect very different from the other phenomena studied by science, where while the phenomena may be observed by a particular individual they are considered to be in principle independent of that individual. To say that an individual’s experience (...) is merely the functioning ofthat individual’s brain does not fully resolve the problem, since experiences are so very different in nature from brain processes. (shrink)

Originally published 1967, this title reveals how the missionaries, so often misguided and short-sighted, were in fact pioneers of modernization, science and freedom. The structure of the book allows for comparative analysis and the volume illustrates how some of the social consequences of action through the schools could be foreseen. In addition light is thrown on the results of Imperial rule during the nineteenth century and on the nature of the impact of Western education in Asia and Africa.

Many discussions of Merleau-Ponty’s treatment of the bodily experience of space turn to his opus Phenomenology of Perception, where he most explicitly takes up the theme. Yet in Merleau-Ponty’s own view this treatment, while providing rich and valuable insights into spatial experience, remains unsatisfying: ultimately Phenomenology of Perception does not escape a dualism that, despite the work’s inestimable contributions to the philosophy of embodied experience, situates it within a flawed tradition running back through Husserl, Kant, and Descartes. As Merleau-Ponty himself (...) puts it, “The problems posed in Ph.P. are insoluble because I start there from the ‘consciousness’-‘object’ distinction.” 1 Only in his later philosophy, particularly with his development of the ontology of the flesh, did he approach the fulfillment of his goal to leave this distinction and all its Cartesian corollaries behind once and for all. (shrink)

As the title suggests, we are here addressing the most fundamental questions: Who is man? What is art? What is the bond that unites man, nature and art? The argument at the heart of this book is that what should be common to all men and women-a natural affinity with the sacred that holds out the promise of spiritual experience in everyday life- is in fact made all but impossible by the very nature of modern society. For what the modern (...) world has set in place is nothing other than a pattern of life that prevents us from being what we truly are. The destruction of man that is part and parcel of the scientific, industrial view of our destiny cannot do otherwise than in turn destroy those values and meanings that have always been the bedrock of normal human existence. At a time when the inadequacy of modernism has become apparent, the author returns to the challenge of the English radical tradition of thought (Blake, Cobbett, Carlyle, Ruskin, Morris, Gill and others), with its critique of the industrial-now post-industrial-way of life. Through a series of highly original studies of several major English artists and craftsman, and by addressing key themes that relate to the spiritual, cultural and environmental crisis that now confronts us, the author offers a positive development of the radical perspective. Can modern man survive the process of self-mutilation he has embarked upon? In this unique study of our present predicament, the author suggests we cannot do so by turning our back on the perennial wisdom that has always informed the wisest philosophies of life, with their intuition of the sacred nature of reality. (shrink)

Claudia Card’s The Unnatural Lottery is a fluently written and intricately argued study of the importance of historical difference for moral thought and action. It moves from theoretical and methodological arguments, in which the philosophical interest of the work largely resides, into a series of applications, mainly in the field of sexual politics, which are always at least thought-provoking.

In this paper, I argue that neither the #257 argument nor the #258 argument in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations undermines the coherence of the Cartesian Model, according to which a sensation word, such as `headache' or `tickle', gets its meaning in virtue of an act of `inner' association or ostensive definition. In addition, I argue against the standard assumption that the diarist's language of #258 is logically private.

Thematically organized around the major concerns of Basil Bernstein's work as a sociologist, this book includes chapters from some of the leading sociologists and educational scholars. Each section attempts to provide a critical evaluation of Bernstein's work, framed within four interrelated contexts: his sociological theory, sociology of language and code theory, sociology of education and social reproduction, and the influence of his sociology on educational research. In a separate section, Bernstein himself responds to the earlier chapters. The book examines Bernstein's (...) sociology of schools in relation to his general sociological theory and in doing so demonstrates that sociology is an essential lens for understanding the structure and processes of schooling. It also provides a critical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of Bernstein's work, as well as a correction to current work in education, which eschews theory in favor of practicality. (shrink)

We start with a nearly arbitrary standard classical first order "language" $C\sb{o},$ which is expanded to $C\sb{M,T}$ = "$C\sb{o}+M+T$", where for any variable x, M and T are unary formulas. We start also with a model ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ which together with $C\sb{o}$ represents a fixed non-problematic interpreted first order language. For each $\mu,\tau\subseteq U\sb{o},$ the universe of discourse for ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ the model ${\cal T}\sb{\mu,\tau}$ over $C\sb{M,T}$ is given so that its reduct to $C\sb{o}$ is just ${\cal T}\sb{o},$ and so (...) that for any $C\sb{M,T}$-variable x, the set-extensions of M and T are $\mu$ and $\tau$ respectively. For each $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e, $\vec e$ is its distinctly chosen representative in $U\sb{o},$ and $\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack$ is a constant $C\sb{o}$-term which names $\vec e.$ ;The goal is to find $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*,$ such that $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*$ plausibly and "self-referentially" approximate meaningfulness and truth respectively for any interpreted language represented by ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*},$ by satisfying at least the following conditions. ; $\tau\sb*\subseteq\mu\sb*,$ and for each $C\sb{M,T}$-sentence $\sigma$ such that ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack,$ $$\eqalign{&\ {\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*} \models\sigma\Longleftrightarrow{\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack,\ {\rm and}\cr&\ {\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\\leftrightarrow T\lbrack\!\lbrack\sigma\rbrack\!\rbrack\rbrack\!\rbrack.\cr}$$ ; There is a class of expression representatives $\mu\sp{D}\subseteq\mu\sb*$ containing every $C\sb{o}$-expression representative, such that the set $\tau\sp{D}=\mu\sp{D}\ \cap\ \tau\sb*$ itself satisfies the following properties. ;First, for each $\vec\sigma$ such that $\sigma$ is a $C\sb{M,T}$-sentence, if for all $\mu,\tau\subseteq U\sb{o}$ satisfying $\mu\supseteq\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\supseteq\tau\sp{D},$ it is the case that ${\cal T}\sb{\mu,\tau}\models\sigma,$ then $\vec\sigma\in\tau\sp{D}.$ ;Second, whenever $\vec\sigma\in\tau\sp{D},$ then also $\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.$ ;Third, $\tau\sp{D}$ is "upwardly closed" with respect to the strong-Kleene rules for the truth-value evaluation of Boolean combinations of formulas. For example, for $C\sb{M,T}$-sentences $e\sb1$ and $e\sb2$: $$\eqalign{&\ \vec e\sb1\in\tau\sp{D}\Longleftrightarrow)\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr&\ {\rm If}\ \vec e\sb1\in\tau\sp{D}\ {\rm or}\ \vec e\sb2\in\tau\sp{D},\ {\rm then\ so\ is}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr&\ {\rm If}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}\ {\rm and}\ \sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D},\ {\rm then}\ )\sp{\vec{\enspace}}\ \in\tau\sp{D}.\cr}$$ ; For each $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e not involving T, ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack$; in particular, for any $C\sb{M,T}$-expression e whatsoever, ${\cal T}\sb{\mu\sb*,\tau\sb*}\models M\lbrack\!\lbrack\\neg M\lbrack\!\lbrack e\rbrack\!\rbrack\rbrack\!\rbrack.$ ; ;In this dissertation, it is shown for the first time that there are in fact $\mu\sb*$ and $\tau\sb*$ which simultaneously satisfy all three conditions , , and , even when the consequent of the Godel fixed point theorem must hold. (shrink)

This book examines the eighteenth-century novel in the context of emerging theories of happiness in early Enlightenment Europe. This important and richly interdisciplinary book offers both a new understanding of the cultural work the eighteenth-century novel performed, as well as an original interpretation of the Enlightenment’s ethical legacy.

Sensory qualities are objective properties; indeed, on the evidence, they are physical properties. However, what makes a physical property the sensory quality it is is its relationship to sensory experiences of perceivers. For instance, the redness of a surface is a physical property of the surface; what makes that physical property surface red is the fact that it disposes surfaces to look red to appropriate visual perceivers in appropriate viewing circumstances. What it is like for something to look red—that is, (...) the actual phenomenal character of visual experiences as of something red—is also a physical property; on the evidence, it is a physical property of the brain. (shrink)