Writing from a scientifically and philosophically informed perspective, the authors provide a critical overview of the conceptual difficulties encountered in many current neuroscientific and psychological theories.

Writing from a scientifically and philosophically informed perspective, the authors provide a critical overview of the conceptual difficulties encountered in many current neuroscientific and psychological theories.

The book "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience" is an engaging criticism of cognitive neuroscience from the perspective of a Wittgensteinian philosophy of ordinary language. The authors' main claim is that assertions like "the brain sees" and "the left hemisphere thinks" are integral to cognitive neuroscience but that they are meaningless because they commit the mereological fallacy—ascribing to parts of humans, properties that make sense to predicate only of whole humans. The authors claim that this fallacy is at the heart of Cartesian (...) dualism, implying that current cognitive neuroscientists are Cartesian dualists. Against this claim, we argue that the fallacy cannot be committed within Cartesian dualism either, for this doctrine does not allow for an intelligible way of asserting that a soul is part of a human being. Also, the authors' Aristotelian essentialistic outlook is at odds with their Wittgensteinian stance, and we were unconvinced by their case against explanatory reductionism. Finally, although their Wittgensteinian stance is congenial with radical behaviorism, their separation between philosophy and science seems less so because it is based on a view of philosophy as a priori. The authors' emphasis on the a priori, however, does not necessarily commit them to rationalism if it is restricted to conceptual or analytical truths. (shrink)

The McNaughton rules for determining whether a person can be successfully defended on the grounds of mental incompetence were determined by a committee of the House of Lords in 1843. They arose as a consequence of the trial of Daniel McNaughton for the killing of Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel’s secretary. In retrospect it is clear that McNaughton suffered from schizophrenia. The successful defence of McNaughton on the grounds of mental incompetence by his advocate Sir Alexander Cockburn involved a profound (...) shift in the criteria for such a defence, and was largely based on the then recently published scientific thesis of the great US psychiatrist Isaac Ray, entitled A Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity. Subsequent discussion of this defence in the House of Lords led to the McNaughton rules, still the basis of the defence of mental incompetence in the courts of much of the English-speaking world. This essay considers one of these rules in the light of the discoveries of cognitive neuroscience made during the 160 years since Ray’s treatise. A major consideration is the relationship between the power of self-control and irresistible impulse as conceived by Cockburn on the one hand, and by cognitive neuroscience on the other. The essay concludes with an analysis of the notion of free will and of the extent to which a subject can exert restraint in the absence of particular synaptic connections in the brain. (shrink)

"Neuroscience and Philosophy" begins with an excerpt from "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience," in which Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker question the ...

History of Cognitive Neuroscience documents the major neuroscientific experiments and theories over the last century and a half in the domain of cognitive neuroscience, and evaluates the cogency of the conclusions that have been drawn from them. Provides a companion work to the highly acclaimed Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience – combining scientific detail with philosophical insights Views the evolution of brain science through the lens of its principal figures and experiments Addresses philosophical criticism of Bennett and Hacker?s previous book (...) Accompanied by more than 100 illustrations. (shrink)

Democracy has been a flawed hegemony since the fall of communism. Its flexibility, its commitment to equality of representation, and its recognition of the legitimacy of opposition politics are all positive features for political institutions. But democracy has many deficiencies: it is all too easily held hostage by powerful interests; it often fails to advance social justice; and it does not cope well with a number of features of the political landscape, such as political identities, boundary disputes, and environmental crises. (...) Although democracy is valuable it fits uneasily with other political values and is in many respects less than equal to the demands it confronts. In this volume prominent political theorists and social scientists present original discussions of such central issues. Democracy's Values deals with the nature and value of democracy, particularly the tensions between it and such goods as justice, equality, efficiency, and freedom. (shrink)

The main thesis of this book is that Wittgenstein’s early philosophy is an exemplification of Newtonian physics, whereas the later philosophy exemplifies contemporary, relativistic physics. The reader may recall Wittgenstein’s insistence, during both major periods of his thought, upon the separation of philosophy from science. However, Bolton’s unstated premise is that Wittgenstein’s thought was unconsciously determined by two different conceptions of physics. Whatever one may think of this, it leaves a question unanswered. Since both periods of Wittgenstein’s thought follow the (...) development of relativistic physics, why was he initially influenced by Newtonian physics or its expression in modern philosophy? Was this a contingent error of the youthful Wittgenstein, or an expression of historical inevitability? We find no discussion of this difficult problem in Bolton’s book. Instead, he claims, and to some extent shows, that Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, crystallizes the axioms of modern philosophy, which is essentially Newtonian. At the historical level, this thesis is either wrong or uninformative. It is wrong because not all of modern philosophy can be explained on the basis of the peculiarities of modern or Newtonian physics. It is uninformative because to the extent that all modern philosophers took Newtonian physics for granted, the latter cannot account for the sharp differences between, say, John Locke and Hegel. Nevertheless, Bolton provides interesting and plausible reasons for regarding the Tractatus as an expression of that aspect of modern philosophy which may profitably be called "Newtonian." He fails to convince at least one reader that the repudiation of the Tractatus is a repudiation of modern philosophy for anyone other than Wittgenstein and his followers. On the other hand, once we discount, or even disregard, Bolton’s historical thesis, the more traditional virtues of his book come sharply into focus. Having recently reviewed the 686 page commentary by Baker and Hacker on the first third of the Investigations, as well as Wright’s 481 page essay on Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics, the author of this note is in a good position to appreciate the economy and lucidity of Bolton’s summary analysis of the main points in the Tractatus. As an example of my disagreement with Bolton’s interpretation, I begin with a brief citation from p. 86. (shrink)

"Williams's masterful translation satisfies (at last!) a long-standing need. There are lots of good translations of Augustine's great work, but until now we have been forced to choose between those that strive to replicate in English something of the majesty and beauty of Augustine's Latin style and those that opt instead to convey the careful precision of his philosophical terminology and argumentation. Finally, Williams has succeeded in capturing both sides of Augustine's mind in a richly evocative, impeccably reliable, elegantly readable (...) presentation of one of the most impressive achievements in Western thought--Augustine's Confessions." --Scott MacDonald, Professor of Philosophy and Norma K. Regan Professor in Christian Studies, Cornell University. (shrink)

A recent publication (I by Simon Brodbeck, 2022) proposes to resolve a long-standing theological conundrum of Hindu mythology on the basis of a literary-holist or “synchronic” reading of the Sanskrit Mahābhārata, seeking thereby to displace earlier scholarship treating this theme. This review essay provides a thorough analysis of the arguments of Divine Descent and the closely linked matter of the two competing methodologies in the reading of the Sanskrit epics: the “synchronic” or holist approach championed by Brodbeck and the “analytic” (...) approach, which views the Mahābhārata as a historically layered text. Ultimately, I argue here that the latter “analytic” solutions to the conundrum, which it was Brodbeck’s purpose to challenge, account for the matter far more persuasively. In particular, I make special reference to a 1960 study by Paul Hacker as a work of persisting value for understanding the historic development of the avatāra system over time. (shrink)

First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

La antropología filosófica de L. Wittgenstein está siendo discutida intensamente desde diferentes puntos de vista. El libro reflexiona alrededor de la propuesta de P. M. S. Hacker de su trabajo ‘El enfoque antropológico y etnológico de Wittgenstein’. El autor se interroga si cuando adoptamos una visión antropológica ubicamos nuestra posición externamente, para ver las cosas objetivamente. Para ello, se analiza el problema vinculado a la gramática y su constitución conceptual. Plantea hasta que punto compartimos los conceptos que usamos en (...) nuestro enfoque antropológico. V. Sanfélix entiende que L. Wittgenstein ha ido desarrollando un historicismo sin historia y una etnología sin etnografía e indica que la utilidad de esta “etnología fantástica” ayuda a ganar una visión sinóptica de la gramática de nuestros conceptos. A. Tomasini Bassols reflexiona alrededor la plataforma sobre la que elabora la antropología filosófica y si se puede sostenerse que la obra de Wittgenstein contiene una antropología filosófica. L. Hertzberg examina el modo como Hacker analiza los conceptos. Repasa la distinción “analítico/sintético” y el “historicismo sin historia”. M. Holguín razona acerca de la “historia natural”. Desde su punto de vista, Hacker justifica los calificativos de aproximación “antropológica” o “etnológica” con el fin de describir una nueva perspectiva que le permite abordar los problemas conceptuales. W. Jacorzynski reconsidera el enfoque etnológico de Wittgenstein y se para a considerar el análisis conductual, la regularidad/uniformidad, la historicidad (“sin historia”), la autonomía y la arbitrariedad de la gramática. J. Sádaba profundiza acerca del esquema general desde donde se interpreta nuestra actividad existencial sin que por ello se proponga describir historiográficamente los recorridos de la humanidad. J. Padilla Gálvez ubica el programa antropológico en una fenomenología epistemológica que se caracteriza por el estudio del análisis del lenguaje usado y conjetura que el proyecto fenomenológico quedaría corto si analiza exclusivamente la gramática ya que esta carece de perspicuidad. Por esta razón, el programa requiere de un análisis amplio cuyo proyecto se complemente con la “representación perspicua”. (shrink)

First published in 1966, this book was written to serve as an introductory textbook in the philosophy of education, focusing on ethics and social philosophy. It presents a distinctive point of view both about education and ethical theory and arrived at a time when education was a matter of great public concern. It looks at questions such as 'What do we actually mean by education?' and provides a proper ethical foundation for education in a democratic society. The book will appeal (...) to both teachers and students of philosophy as well as education. (shrink)

First published in 2000. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The arguments usually propounded to show that the Greater Alcibiades was not written by Plato seem to me, by themselves, inconclusive. I believe that it would be better to begin by arguing that we are given a suggestion of a generic or universal likeness between one innermost ‘self’ and another, and a method of acquiring wisdom and of apprehending God that are hardly in keeping with Plato's dialogues. My present purpose, however, is to draw attention to a striking parallelism between (...) the Alcibiades and early works of Aristotle, as well as certain other compositions that probably belong to the same period as the latter. (shrink)