This article has been invited by The European Legacy editors as a response to Ayumu Tamura’s “Did Descartes Read Sextus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism?” which continues the promising lines of enquiry he...

An article of mine in The Heythrop Journal a decade ago discussed Descartes’ “Olympica” dream-sequence, the original of which is lost, but the details of which are preserved in a French version in...

Hesiod’s fable of the hawk and the nightingale, addressed to kings, notoriously has no moral. Its depiction of a hawk carrying off a nightingale, preaching the futility of either resistance or pleading, appears to communicate the counsel, commonly designated as “Machiavellian,” that a ruler must know how to imitate a beast as well as a man. Such instruction—which advises that unjust actions are justifiable and necessary for a ruler—is clearly at odds with Hesiod’s explicit exhortations to his brother Perses to (...) work hard and avoid hubris, and his caution that unjust kings or lords will be punished by Zeus. I argue that Hesiod’s addressing the fable to kings “who themselves have understanding” explains the lack of a moral. To substantiate my claim I compare Hesiod’s and Machiavelli’s ranking of intellects, and illuminate Hesiod’s position with particular reference to and comparison with Machiavelli’s Prince, and examples drawn from the Old Testament and Old Irish law. (shrink)

Of the truly great thinkers in the western tradition, Nietzsche is the most extreme and the most dangerous.1 Nietzsche of course repeatedly professed his own dangerousness, and predicted that his n...

International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Volume 19, Issue 4, Page 603-617, October 2011.