Hamilton's reputation as a philosopher was early established by an article "On the Philosophy of the Unconditioned" which appeared in The Edinburgh Review for 1820. It was mainly a critique of Victor Cousin's "absolutism" and was reprinted in Discussions on Philosophy and Literature, a volume which also included his "Philosophy of Perception" plus two philosophical appendices added to later editions. He edited Thomas Reid's Philosophical Works, and his editorial footnotes and long Dissertations at the end are crucial sources of his (...) own philosophical thought. After his death his university lectures on metaphysics and logic were collected and published by H. L. Mansel and John Veitch. They were never prepared for publication by the author but are nevertheless important sources. They mesh well with Discussions and Notes and Dissertations, though the latter work shows certain changes in his thinking, including his increasing worry that Reid was not a natural realist. (shrink)

Among contemporary religious believers, some follow in the footsteps of Newton, allowing their religious understanding to fill in gaps left by the sciences. Others take a more Wittgensteinian approach, discretely separating religious from scientific ways of thinking. Because neither of these relatively irenic positions captures the important element of cultural reform that is prevalent in so much of the religious life of the past, George Lakoff's recent work in cognitive studies is used to suggest ways that religious ideas may be (...) used to challenge and enrich scientific thought. A scrutiny of Richard Dawkins's biological analyses of human behavior reveals the distorting limitations of exclusively scientific understanding, thereby clearing conceptual space for genuinely religious values, actions, responsibilities, and forms of human life. (shrink)

IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, the advance of modern particle physics and the discovery of an inherent probabilism at the heart of the natural order has thrown scientific determinism into doubt. The central question that issues from such findings in physics is whether nature is inherently indeterminate or simply defectively known. If the answer is the former, then this development calls into question the central theoretical justification for the Kantian project. For although Kant makes rhetorical allusion to Nicholas Copernicus, his theory (...) plainly stands in defense of Sir Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics. (shrink)

This is a one page handout presenting R.R. Marrett's objections to Frazer from an article reviewing books by Frazer and also one by Malinowski (and others not referred to here).

This is a one page handout presenting objections from Gluckman's book Politics, Law, and Ritual in Tribal Society.

This is a one page handout presenting some objections A.R. Radcliffe-Brown makes to Frazer on rites and Frazer's evolutionism.

Use of the word "Counter-Enlightenment" has become increasingly frequent in scholarly and journalistic writing. The word was almost certainly invented by the late Sir Isaiah Berlin, and it is owing to his enormous prestige and on-going influence that it has gained its current familiarity. In Berlin's view, two of the most important sources of the supposed Counter-Enlightenment are J. G. Hamann and J. G. Herder. But as I show, Berlin's numerous accounts of their thought are profoundly flawed and reflect not (...) Herder's or Hamann's own thought, but rather that of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century German historians, who wished to legitimate their own anti-democratic, and hence anti-Enlightenment, ideology through the construction of a false historical genealogy. (shrink)

Probably the most famous story about the armchair anthropologist Sir James Frazer is about how, when asked by William James about doing fieldwork, he said, “But Heavens forbid!” I propose that it was rational for Frazer to avoid fieldwork given his theory of what is rational for so-called savages: to kill returning tribesmen and visitors, to protect against disease.

There are some further responses I have to Mary Beard on the relationship between Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough and British colonialism: her claim that it provided an image of the empire as a whole. The paper contains two objections, very minor ones perhaps, and some highly speculatively defences. But I find the defences difficult to present in the traditional manner, so I have written the responses as a pastiche imitating a widely read European writer.

This paper interprets Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough as presenting an objection to diffusionism: the diffusionist theory cannot account for the isolation of the rite Frazer focuses on, in the societies studied by classicists.

Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough presents a puzzle regarding how primitive peoples believe they can control something which civilized people regard as beyond their control: the weather. I clarify the puzzle and consider Frazer’s solution to it, as well as other solutions.

Why is there a norm of reciprocity in certain societies – the recipient of a gift should give a gift in return? Or what is its function? Sir James Frazer provides an unobvious answer to the function of such a norm in one society: it serves to establish who is alive.

This paper examines the debate between Marilyn Strathern and I.C. Jarvie. Writing in 1987, Strathern argues that the time is ripe for reincorporating Sir James Frazer. Jarvie thinks Strathern does so in a way that treats revolutions in anthropology as not involving scientific progress. There is a familiar defence against this charge while pursuing the same, or much the same, line of argument.

This article argues that the hypothetical 'I Can' position of Sir David Ross is incompatible with his determinism.

This work is conceived as a modem study of the relationships of the concept of human freedom with the moral concepts of responsibility and obligation and other closely allied notions. One pitfall into which writers on my sub jects have occasionally fallen has been that of spending too much time in critically examining positions and arguments which no sane philosopher has ever offered. In order to guard against the danger of debating with "straw men," I have attempted to engage in (...) critical conversations with several twentieth century writers on my theme. I have attempted to pay special at tention to a handful of writers who have written extremely important and influential discussions and who are representatives of a diversity of per spectives on the issues involved. In particular, I have taken note of the work of two determinists, Sir David Ross and Hastings Rashdall, a libertarian, C. A. Campbell, and a reprel>entative of the more recent linguistic-analytic approach, P. Nowell-Smith. Many other important writers have been brought in at crucial points in the conversation. But this is not a history of the problem in the 20th century. Rather, it is a critical, systematic study of a problem or set of related problems. This work may be divided roughly into two parts, a metaphysical-psycho logical part comprising the first three chapters, and a metaethical-ethical part consisting of the last three chapters. (shrink)

The origin and development of Punnett’s Square for the enumeration and display of genotypes arising in a cross in Mendelian genetics is described. Due to R. C. Punnett, the idea evolved through the work of the ‘Cambridge geneticists’, including Punnett’s colleagues William Bateson, E. R. Saunders and R. H. Lock, soon after the rediscovery of Mendel’s paper in 1900. These geneticists were thoroughly familiar with Mendel’s paper, which itself contained a similar square diagram. A previously-unpublished three-factor diagram by Sir Francis (...) Galton existing in the Bateson correspondence in Cambridge University Library is then described. Finally the connection between Punnett’s Square and Venn Diagrams is emphasized, and it is pointed out that Punnett, Lock and John Venn overlapped as Fellows of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Copious illustrations are given. (shrink)

Throughout his early career, Sir Edward Coke joined many of his contemporaries in his concern about the uncertainty of the common law. Coke attributed this uncertainty to the ignorance and entrepreneurship of practitioners, litigants, and other users of legal power whose actions eroded confidence in the law. Working to limit their behaviours, Coke also simultaneously sought to strengthen royal authority and the Reformation settlement. Yet the tensions in his thought led him into conflict with James I, who had accepted (...) many of the criticisms of the common law. Sir Edward Coke and the Reformation of the Laws reframes the origins of Coke's legal thought within the context of law reform and provides a new interpretation of his early career, the development of his legal thought, and the path from royalism to opposition in the turbulent decades leading up to the English civil wars. (shrink)

Newman’s dramatic poem, “The Dream of Gerontius”, was set to music by Edward Elgar in 1900. This essay brings out the sympathy of mind and heart between poet and composer, and perhaps between them both and the listener of today, as well as the universality and depth of the human stake in some kind of personal and peopled life after death.

Fletcher, Laadan Sir Francis Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin. He was born in Birmingham, and educated at King Edward's School before studying medicine at King's College, London and also graduating from Trinity College, Cambridge. Two years later he travelled in North Africa and in 1850, in hitherto unexplored regions of South Africa; and, in 1855, published a very successful book giving an account of his experiences. He was probably inspired by the celebrated travels of his cousin.

Former Chief Justice of the King's Bench Sir John Fortescue (c.1395-c.1477) was a key Lancastrian figure. In the first half of the 1470s he presented the Yorkist King Edward IV with his work, The Governance of England. Many scholars have analysed this work as part of the so-called 'English tradition' of constitutional and political theory and as representative of the age of the Wars of the Roses. Only rarely did they contextualize the Governance within the framework of parliamentary politics. (...) As shown in this article, Fortescue in the Governance was both warning the Yorkist regime against dangers to its legitimacy and offering means of resolving these dangers. In all of these concerns Fortescue was in tune with parliamentary politics, where similar concerns were manifest. One of the means through which Fortescue was offering to alleviate the danger of imminent corruption of the constitutional regime in England was through his own legal prestige. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Learning to BreatheFive Fragments Against RacismB. Venkat Mani (bio)For Dr. JLW, for all Black academics and students1. Air HungerI know you, Derek Chauvin. You may think that we first met on May 25, 2020, in Minneapolis. I was called George Perry Floyd. For you, I was just another Black man, a potential criminal. For me, you were not a police officer, but the knee that stands for racism. You (...) kneeled on my windpipe for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. Those were neither my first nor my last memories.You may choose not to recognize me, as you always have. But I do. I recognize every bone, muscle, tendon, pointy curve of the cap, every contour of your strong, heavy, determined, calculating, conniving knee that presses on my windpipe with a false sense of racist superiority. 9 minutes and 29 seconds. As often as you can.We have a history. You have never missed the opportunity of kneeling on my windpipe. You hauled me into your slave ships from various African ports along the Atlantic, then you kneeled on my windpipe all over your cotton and tobacco plantations in the Americas. We met again on schooners from Indian shores journeying across the Indian and Pacific oceans. With slavery banned in the British empire, you turned me into an indentured laborer. You made me put my thumb imprint on a document you created, in a script I could not read, of a language I could not speak. Then you threw me thousands of miles away in Mauritius, Fiji, and numerous Caribbean islands, pressing on my windpipe on sugarcane plantations. My wife, children, sisters, mothers, aunts, brothers, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, we all have lived through those fatal 9 minutes and 29 seconds: on water and land. Repeatedly. Consistently. Incessantly.You want specific dates? April 8, 1857, Barrackpore, Northern India. My name was Mangal Pandey, you called me a Sepoy. You hanged me for standing up against my subjugation by your British East India Company. Against your rule over my land and my people. With your many titles [End Page 41] and names: Major-General Sir Henry Havelock, Lieutenant-General Sir Colin Campbell, Brigadier-General Charles Windham, you rampaged through the streets of Delhi, Meerut, Lucknow, killing anyone in your way so I could be a jewel in Victoria's crown. January 29, 1863, Bear River, Idaho. I was one among the Shoshone of Bia Ogoi, you were Colonel Patrick Connor. You came to us on a frigid morning and killed us by the hundreds. November 15, 1884, the Congo Conference, Berlin. You were called Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and were acting at the behest of sharecropping interests of King Leopold the Second. Your name for me was a "savage." You set up a society to civilize me while you plundered my bounty. You started drawing lines through land, rivers, mountains, deserts. For you, it was the Scramble for Africa. For me, bloody murder. You knelt on my windpipe, smoking a pipe with tobacco my people had grown. April 13, 1919, Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. You were called Brigadier General Reginald Edward Harry Dyer. For you, I was just a troublemaking native disrupting the civilized business of the Empire. You surrounded our peaceful gathering in Amritsar and opened fire. Your Nobel Laureate Rudyard Kipling claimed that "you did your duty as you saw fit." By killing us in thousands until the bullets ran out. Rikki Tikki Tavi. May 31, 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Inspired by Jim Crow, your knees came running to us in mobs to massacre us. October 19, 1926, Imperial Conference, London. Your name was Field Marshall the Right Honorable Jan Christian Smuts. For you, I was one among the many "colored" subjects from the Cape Colony. You spoke vehemently against mixing my people with your people. Eloquently, I was told, in favor of apartheid.You know very well, Chauvin, that our acquaintance neither begins in 1857 nor ends in 1926. I could take you on a grand tour of the world and give you all the dates when you appeared in different forms. Your self-induced conviction of racial supremacy over me remained the same... (shrink)

In the afterword for his book, Malory states that it “was ended the ix yere of the reygne of Kyng Edward the Fourth” , but we have no copy of the book from his own hand. For almost five hundred years the book was known ultimately only from the edition by William Caxton, who indicated in his preface that he printed it “after a copye unto me delyverd” and in his colophon that he finished the printing “the last day (...) of Juyl, the yere of Our Lord MCCCCLXXXV”; we do not have the manuscript copy from which Caxton and his compositors produced the book. Then in 1934 Walter F. Oakeshott discovered in the Fellows Library at Winchester College, England, a manuscript of Malory's book, roughly contemporary with Caxton's edition, prepared by two scribes, lacking nineteen leaves—including the beginning and the ending—and differing rather considerably from Caxton's text. (shrink)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an open access, dynamic reference work designed to organize professional philosophers so that they can write, edit, and maintain a reference work in philosophy that is responsive to new research. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up to date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they (...) are made public. (shrink)