This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Knowing God, Knowing Emptiness examines the viability of the epistemology proposed by Bernard Lonergan in his seminal work Insight, particularly with regard to its possible application in the field of interreligious dialogue. It applies Lonergan's epistemological categories to Karl Rahner's Foundations of Christian Faith, and Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

In a recent paper “Safety, Sensitivity, and Differential Support” (Synthese, December 2017), Jose Zalabardo argues that (contra Sosa in Philos Perspect 33(13):141–153,1999) sensitivity can be differentially supported as the correct requirement for propositional knowledge. Zalabardo argues that safety fails to dominate sensitivity; specifically: some cases of knowledge failure can only be explained by sensitivity. In this paper, I resist Zalabardo’s conclusion that domination failure confers differential support for sensitivity. Specifically, I argue that counterexamples to sensitivity undermine differential support for sensitivity. (...) Using Zalabardo’s modal framework, I consider a less demanding modal condition, what I call weak sensitivity, and I explain how weak sensitivity avoids an influential counterexample to sensitivity. However, I argue that we can subvert that counterexample only by abandoning Zalabardo’s case for domination failure. So either way, we cannot differentially support sensitivity. (shrink)

The political theory of Richard Vernon has been a guiding light for students of politics for over five decades. From the situated ethics of shared citizenship to the normative character of individuals' connections to members of other societies and generations, Vernon has cleared a distinctive course in his contributions to the many complex dimensions of political morality. Justice, Rights, and Toleration centres on the core ideas that animate Vernon's engagement with the problems of political theory. Contributors to this volume - (...) all former students and colleagues of Vernon - offer critical engagement with the fundamental themes threaded throughout the thinker's work on the perennial political challenges in liberal democratic societies, including the understanding of citizenship and political membership, justice within and between nations and generations, the rights of children and parents, and the idea of toleration. Vernon articulated a clear vision of the nature of these problems as well as a nuanced approach to addressing them, one rooted in the ideas of democratic dialogue and justice. The essays in this volume are a testament to the breadth of the pressing issues on which Vernon's work continues to advance critical insights. Justice, Rights, and Toleration provides a worthy tribute to the wide range of Richard Vernon's interests and the inspiration to be found in his deep yet subtle body of work in political theory. (shrink)

Excerpt from An Etienne Gilson Tribute: Presented by His North American Students With a Response by Etienne Gilson The statement of these basic positions does not, of course, sweep away the special difficulties of predicating science or scientific of God. And these difficulties we ought now to gather together from St. Thomas' various Statements of them. There is the argument, for example, that science shares the lot of all intellectual k'nowledges in the accidentality of its being; whereas God is Without (...) accidents. Moreover, since science is the fruit of a certain process from principles to conclusions,6 it necessarily signifies something caused. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

This question takes us to the very center of the cooperation of the human powers in the act of choice. If prudence is wanting, that act of dominion is neither truly human nor truly praiseworthy. Unless there can be truly praiseworthy human excellence in the absence of love the answer to our question ought to be affirmative. Surely the affirmative answer is favored by I Cor. 13:13 and John 14:23. Is the dominion then still human? A negative answer to the (...) question of our title is favored by what seems an Aristotelian firmness. Prudence, then, with that negative answer is nothing but knowledge? Yet Thomas Aquinas says in a very simple text: “love moves within prudential actuality”. These words in answer to the question of our title invite their metaphysical exegesis by penetrating causal relations within the prudential judgment. (shrink)