This article argues for two theses. The first is that many of the sociological factors endemic in the philosophical community function as barriers to the recruitment of members of minority groups in the profession and to their functioning as public intellectuals. The division into familial groups, the fights for security and success, and the weakness of the federal organization of the American Philosophical Association all contribute to these barriers. The second is that sociology has a place in philosophy, even though (...) it should not be confused with it. This means that philosophers need to consider social phenomena. (shrink)

This paper discusses the role of Hume’s “Natural History of Religion” (NHR) in his campaign against the rational acceptability of religious belief by discussing and rebutting some objections have been lodged to my previous presentations of my reading of the NHR. In earlier work I argued that the causal account of religious belief offered therein, if accepted as the best account, rationally destabilizes that belief. By this, I mean that acknowledging that the account is the best of the belief provides (...) a reason to suspend the belief unless and until some further epistemic justification is given for that belief. As such, the account leaves those who think that the belief can be given some epistemic justification unmoved, but has a particular force against the fideist who holds that justification is not required. In this paper I show in more detail than in previous work its relevance to a particular form of fideism, and rebut objections to my reading offered by Jennifer Marušic. (shrink)

It is not uncommon to hear that poor school performance, welfare dependancy, youth unemployment, and criminal activity result more from shortcomings in the personal makeup of individuals than from societal forces beyond their control. Are American values declining as so many suggest? And are those values at the root of many social problems today?Shaped by experience and public policies, people's values and social norms do change. What role can or should a democratic government play in shaping values? And how do (...) these values conditon the efficacy of public policy?In this book, six distinguished social scientists identify trends in America's values and their consequences, and consider public policy tools with which some of those values might be changed.Daniel Yankelovich begins with a discussion of how American values have shifted in the last half-century, and argues that affluence is the driving force behind these changes in values. James Q. Wilson argues that destructive habits which can lead to social pathologies, like crime and drug use, are set early in life; he examines how public policy might intervene when children are young to promote better values. David Popenoe maintains that America has veered too far towards industrialist values, and explores the resulting decline of families and many attendant social ills. Nathan Glazer describes the history and present status of the dispute over multicultural education. Jane Mansbridge examines the process of building cooperation, consensus, and public spirit. And George Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen discuss the problem of gang criminality.Inthe past, social scientists have often sidestepped questions about values as undefinable, unquantifiable, and somehow unscientific. The essays in this volume address these questions at last.Henry J. Aaron, director of the Economic Studies program at Brookings, is the authorof numerous books, including most recently Serious and Unstable Condition: Financing America's Health Care (1991), and coeditor of Setting Domestic Priorities (1992). Thomas E. Mann is director of the Brookings Governmental Studies program, coeditor of Media Polls in American Politics (1992), and coauthor of the Renewing Congress series (1993). Timothy Taylor is managing editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives at Stanford University. (shrink)

Provides an ontological characterization of texts, explores the issues raised by the identity of various texts, and presents a view of the function of authors and audiences, and of their relations to texts.

Recent discussions of this issue have centered on the definition of the of philosophy in American public life and the ways of increasing philosophy's influence in the public arena.' This emphasis is prompted by the fact philosophers are worried about the future of the profession. After a tremendous expansion in the sixties, there has been a steady decline in the number college-teaching positions open to newly graduated philosophers. The market is bloated and Ph.D.'s in philosophy have increasing difficulty securing permanent (...) jobs. The American Philosophical Association has tried to address this situation in various ways and discussions of the state and future of the profession, once rare, are becoming common. I am quite sure that part of the motivation for this panel involved these reasons. Today, however, I am not going to address the issue of jobs, or the ways which we can increase the influence of philosophy. Rather, I am going concentrate on only two questions: First, Does philosophy have a place contemporary American public life? Second, Should philosophy have a place American public life? Because my answer to the first question is going to be negative, I am also going to discuss some of the reasons why I believe philosophy does not play a role in American public life. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: General Philosophical Goals The American Philosophical Community General Consequences and Effects on Latinos Economic Survival and Intellectual Flourishing.

Ensayos acerca de las preocupaciones del autor en dos sentidos: la demostraci n y el sometimiento a examen por medio de un di fano m todo intelectual al empe o marcado por una vocaci n de autenticidad: no seremos cabalmente quienes por raz n hist rica debemos ser mientras no asumamos las tareasdel pensamiento con una constructiva originalidad y con un permanente af n cr tico, serio y esclarecedor.