Plato seems to have claimed that epistemological relativism is self-defeating in two ways. As reformulated by Siegel: arguments for relativism must be advanced as either relativistically or non-relativistically sound. In either case they are dialectically ineffective for the relativist. Second, relativism is either relativistically or non-relativistically true. Either choice commits the relativist to major concessions to her opponent, or so the story goes. But the relativist can advance her arguments as non-relativistically sound, for the consumption of the non-relativist. Moreover, relativists (...) can claim that relativism is true not only for the relativist, but for her non-relativist opponent as well. Relativism is not self-defeating in either of these ways, for much the same reasons that skepticism is not self-defeating. But we cannot live as relativists, because relativism leads to epistemic paralysis, as the example of prediction shows. (shrink)

Plato seems to have claimed that epistemological relativism is self-defeating in two ways. As reformulated by Siegel: arguments for relativism must be advanced as either relativistically or non-relativistically sound. In either case they are dialectically ineffective for the relativist. Second, relativism is either relativistically or non-relativistically true. Either choice commits the relativist to major concessions to her opponent, or so the story goes. But the relativist can advance her arguments as non-relativistically sound, for the consumption of the non-relativist. Moreover, relativists (...) can claim that relativism is true not only for the relativist, but for her non-relativist opponent as well. Relativism is not self-defeating in either of these ways, for much the same reasons that skepticism is not self-defeating. But we cannot live as relativists, because relativism leads to epistemic paralysis, as the example of prediction shows. (shrink)

Commentators are divided on the interpretation of Metaphysics Z4 1029b13–22. For one thing, it is unclear whether the passage rejects a claim about the essence of surface, or about the essence of pale. It is usually thought that the claim is disavowed because it involves a circular definition. However, this is conjectural, since Aristotle does not explicitly say anything about circularity in the lines in question. I argue here for an alternative account, which reads the disputed lines as an extension (...) of the immediately preceding remarks. If correct, this also solves the problem as to just what Aristotle is denying. As will emerge, my story is helped by St. Thomas’ reading of lines 21–22, an account that has been curiously ignored in the recent literature. (shrink)

Commentators are divided on the interpretation of Metaphysics Z4 1029b13–22. For one thing, it is unclear whether the passage rejects a claim about the essence of surface, or about the essence of pale. It is usually thought that the claim is disavowed because it involves a circular definition. However, this is conjectural, since Aristotle does not explicitly say anything about circularity in the lines in question. I argue here for an alternative account, which reads the disputed lines as an extension (...) of the immediately preceding remarks. If correct, this also solves the problem as to just what Aristotle is denying. As will emerge, my story is helped by St. Thomas’ reading of lines 21–22, an account that has been curiously ignored in the recent literature. (shrink)

Axiom 4 of the Ethics of Spinoza runs:The knowledge (cognitio) of an effect depends upon and involves the knowledge of the cause.Since this is in the ancestry of some of Spinoza’s most important and characteristic claims, a clarification of its meaning would be highly desirable (in the literature it is left unhelpfully vague.) I argue that A4 is a causal likeness principle, according to which causal relationships always feature a property which in some sense is “passed” from the cause to (...) the effect. This interpretation provides a key to understanding some darker passages. (shrink)

Axiom 4 of the Ethics of Spinoza runs:The knowledge (cognitio) of an effect depends upon and involves the knowledge of the cause.Since this is in the ancestry of some of Spinoza’s most important and characteristic claims, a clarification of its meaning would be highly desirable (in the literature it is left unhelpfully vague.) I argue that A4 is a causal likeness principle, according to which causal relationships always feature a property which in some sense is “passed” from the cause to (...) the effect. This interpretation provides a key to understanding some darker passages. (shrink)

It has been claimed that the earliest expression of a robust scepticism is in the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad, and even commentators who would not go that far have thought the passage an important guide to epistemological attitudes in Homeric antiquity. It will be argued here that a close examination of the text does not support such conclusions. On the other hand, there are respectable reasons for an interpretation in which religious factors are operative, rather than epistemic ones. (...) The conclusion to be drawn is that the epistemic reading is groundless. (shrink)

It has been claimed that the earliest expression of a robust scepticism is in the Catalogue of Ships in theIliad, and even commentators who would not go that far have thought the passage an important guide to epistemological attitudes in Homeric antiquity. It will be argued here that a close examination of the text does not support such conclusions. On the other hand, there are respectable reasons for an interpretation in which religious factors are operative, rather than epistemic ones. The (...) conclusion to be drawn is that the epistemic reading is groundless. (shrink)

In three places Spinoza presents an argument from (a) determinism and (b) God’s “eternity” to (c) “actualism”, i.e., the doctrine that this is (in some sense) the only possible world. That he does so shows that he distinguishes (a) from (c), which he has been thought to conflate. On one reading of ‘eternal’, he is claiming that an infinite past entails no other world was a “real” possibility. As might be expected, the argument is a failure, but it may help (...) explain why Spinoza holds that there are no contingencies. (shrink)

In three places Spinoza presents an argument from (a) determinism and (b) God’s “eternity” to (c) “actualism”, i.e., the doctrine that this is (in some sense) the only possible world. That he does so shows that he distinguishes (a) from (c), which he has been thought to conflate. On one reading of ‘eternal’, he is claiming that an infinite past entails no other world was a “real” possibility. As might be expected, the argument is a failure, but it may help (...) explain why Spinoza holds that there are no contingencies. (shrink)

After pointing out a meaning difference between "that which is possible not to be at some time is not" and "that which is possible not to be exists for only a finite time", we consider the assumptions necessary in a Thomistic context to derive the conclusion that if everything is contingent then at one time nothing was in existence. The needed key is in limiting the amount of matter which has ever existed, or, since "matter" is not a count-noun, that (...) some 'basic' particulars are finite in number; i.e., particulars which must exist if any physical particulars are to exist. (Though it is not essential to the argument, it is convenient and probably not far off historically to regard "things which are possible not to be" as physical objects.) Given some other assumptions it is then shown the desired conclusion will follow in both a "Genesis" and a "Doomsday" version. We then try to match the argument developed with the Thomistic corpus. (shrink)