THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO REEXAMINE THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE "COGITO" ARGUMENT, TO NOTE SOME WELL-KNOWN CRITICISMS MADE OF IT, AND TO SUGGEST A FAIRER EVALUATION OF THE CARTESIAN CONTRIBUTION. THE INTERPRETATION OFFERED IS THAT THE "COGITO" IS AN IMPLICATION, TO BE SURE, BUT ONE THAT IS EXPERIENCED RATHER THAN CONCLUDED FROM AN INFERENCE. THUS THE "COGITO" IS SEEN TO HAVE AN EXPERIENTIAL BASIS AND A NUMBER OF TRADITIONAL CRITICISMS ARE SHOWN TO BE INVALIDATED IN THE LIGHT (...) OF THIS INTERPRETATION. (shrink)

The distinquished American philosopher and historian of ideas, George H. Sabine, once remarked that the two great social ideals of liberty and equality, the subjects of this essay, are in effect but “shorthand for redressing quite definite grievances or bringing about quite definite results.” He went on to suggest that the social philosophies embodying these ideals are in large measure “occasional performances” which flourish in periods of social unrest where the “cake of custom” is broken and must be adjusted to (...) new contexts and problems. Sabine also suggested that for this reason history is an indispensable tool of analysis for most of the issues in social philosophy. (shrink)

In preparing these remarks, I have felt keenly an appreciation for and philosophic kinship with Walter Muelder’s position, partly because I have found his paper to contain a clear demarcation of a personalistic humanism from its Marxist counterpart—and personalism here need not be limited to philosophers holding a Personalism with a capital “P”; and partly because I think he and I are philosophic kin, although not quite brothers. I say this because, on the one hand, I do not think his (...) critique of Marxist humanism cuts quite deeply enough, on target as I think it is; and, on the other, his proposals about socialism and collectivism for the future go rather too far toward what I would take to be a depersonalization of social existence. Let me begin with the first of these two observations. (shrink)

All cognitive consciousness, Professor Earle's realism asserts, is acquaintance with reality. Cognition is intrinsically "outside itself," for to be conscious is to have a part of reality as an object. Cognizing consciousness is any mode of intentionality which presents its subject with an object. Hence mind does not infer its way outside itself: it is always outside itself looking at an object. And all such objects without qualification have their own distinctive mode of being, and are independent of the subject (...) and its act of awareness. (shrink)

As so many have observed, ours is an anti-metaphysical age. Seldom in Western history have so many forces with so many weapons gathered to challenge the authority and rule of the queen of the sciences, metaphysics. This queen has not only been placed under the severest of limitations but has in many quarters been deposed. Both her dignity and authority have been lost. One may, of course, wonder whether her deposition in the presence of these hostile forces was not premature (...) and unwarranted—whether indeed her rule might not have been clarified and strengthened by healthful response to them. Neither queens nor philosophy are the same after the shock of forceful men; but the question remains, should they continue their reigns? (shrink)

The purpose of this brief paper is to show that the primary problem of technology, like all problems related to possibilities and actions, is the conceptual adequacy of the intentions and values it implies, and not, as many critics have suggested, its social effects. Presupposed for this statement and evaluation is an interpretation of experience called here experiential idealism. On the basis of this position some suggestions are made about the meaning of technology and its correlative possibilities and constraints.

In at least two of his writings, F. S. C. Northrop some time ago suggested an interpretation of the spiritual foundations of Oriental and Occidental civilization which he used as a basis for understanding, among other things, their differing approaches to moral and legal order. Rooted primarily in Biblical and Greek sources, the West, he said, has concentrated on and developed the theoretic component of experience. This component is one wherein the nature of things is taken to be, not the (...) directly observable material of sense and immediate experience, but rather that which is designated by theory through the rational construction of hypotheses and theories. Nature, so to speak, is not the nature found in the directly experienced, but that postulated or inferred by reason and science as lying “behind” or “above” direct experience and accounting causally for it. (shrink)

Dans le judaïsme, l'homme commence ses prières quotidiennes en remerciant Dieu de ne pas l'avoir fait femme. Il n'est pas étonnant alors de trouver les femmes juives reléguées au fond de la synagogue et exclues de tous les rites, ainsi que de toute prise de décision au sein de la communauté. Les domaines, que la tradition veut bien leur accorder, sont le foyer et la famille. Ainsi écartées (a priori) de la vie de la cité au sein de l'univers juif, (...) elles le sont aussi de l'historiograph... (shrink)

The influence of Patricia and Paul Churchland's work on contemporary philosophy and cognitive science has been profound. The Churchlands have challenged nearly all prevailing doctrines concerning knowledge, mind, science, and language.

This anthology collects some of the most important papers on what is believed to be the major force in evolution, natural selection. An issue of great consequence in the philosophy of biology concerns the levels at which, and the units upon which selection acts. In recent years, biologists and philosophers have published a large number of papers bearing on this subject. The papers selected for inclusion in this book are divided into three main sections covering the history of the subject, (...) explaining its conceptual foundations, and focusing on kin and group selection and higher levels of selection.One of the book's interesting features is that it draws together material from the biological and philosophical literatures. The philosophical literature, having thoroughly absorbed the biological material, now offers conceptual tools suitable for the reworking of the biological arguments. Although a full symbiosis has yet to develop, this anthology offers a unique resource for students in both biology and philosophy.Robert N. Brandon is Professor in the Philosophy Department, Duke University. Richard M. Burian is Professor of Philosophy and Department Chairman, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.A Bradford Book. (shrink)

You might think a simple “No” would suffice as an answer. But there are features of Kant’s ethics that appear to be strikingly similar to virtue oriented views, so striking that some Kantians themselves have argued that Kant’s ethics in fact shares these features with virtue ethics. In what follows, I will argue against this view, though along the way I will acknowledge the features of Kant’s view that make it appear more like a kind of virtue ethics than it (...) really is. My plan is to first set out the distinctive features of what is nowadays called “virtue ethics”, those features that make it a genuine alternative to other normative theories. I then consider the features Kant’s view might share in common with virtue ethics and the case for saying that it is, therefore, fundamentally the same sort of theory. I follow these two sections with an argument against this position. I want to warn you at the outset, however, that my argument itself will be quite unsurprising, since it is an argument that has been central to the way in which most philosophers have understood Kant’s ethics. Any novelty I can claim here is in my account of what makes virtue ethics a genuine alternative to other normative theories, and my defense of this argument against those, in particular Barbara Herman, who have apparently found the argument unpersuasive. (shrink)

The influence of Patricia and Paul Churchland's work on contemporary philosophy and cognitive science has been profound. The Churchlands have challenged nearly all prevailing doctrines concerning knowledge, mind, science, and language.

Much recent work on Kant's argument that the Categorical Imperative is the fundamental principle of morality has focused on the gap in that argument between the conclusion that rational agents conform to laws that apply to every rational agent, and the requirement contained in the Universal Law of Nature formula.1 While it seems plausible – even trivial– that a rational agent, insofar as she is a rational agent, conforms to whatever laws there are that are valid for all rational agents, (...) there does not appear to be any obvious route from this seemingly trivial claim to the controversial and substantive principle of acting only on maxims that one can at the same time rationally will every rational agent to act on.2 In what follows, I argue that the connection between rational agency and mere conformity to universally valid laws is not as trivial as it may seem. Many readers, I suspect, assume that Kant makes the trivial claim about rational agency because rational agency is rational, and being rational requires conforming to those laws that apply to all rational beings. For instance, this assumption is implicit in Onora O'Neill claim that "the interest of a Kantian universality test is that it aims to ground an ethical theory on notions of consistency and rationality rather than upon considerations of desire and preference."3 But, as I contend in what follows, the requirement to conform to laws valid for all rational agents is based on the fact that rational agency is, not rational, but agency. Indeed, the arguments leading to the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative rely on the idea of rational willing as a kind of causation in order to show this. And, as it turns out, the claim that the concept of causation contains the idea of conformity to universally valid laws is not a trivial claim. (shrink)

In this paper Wimsatt's analysis of units of selection is taken as defining the units of selection question. A definition of levels of selection is offered and it is shown that the levels of selection question is quite different from the units of selection question. Some of the relations between units and levels are briefly explored. It is argued that the levels of selection question is the question relevant to explanatory concerns, and it is suggested that it is the question (...) relevant to ontological concerns. (shrink)

Robert Brandon is one of the most important and influential of contemporary philosophers of biology. This collection of his recent essays covers all the traditional topics in the philosophy of evolutionary biology and as such could serve as an introduction to the field. There are essays on the nature of fitness, teleology, the structure of the theory of natural selection, and the levels of selection. The book also deals with newer topics that are less frequently discussed but are of (...) growing interest, for example the evolution of human language and the role of experimentation in evolutionary biology. A special feature of the collection is that it avoids jargon and is written in a style that will appeal to working evolutionary biologists as well as philosophers. (shrink)

This paper gives an account of evolutionary explanations in biology. Briefly, the explanations I am primarily concerned with are explanations of adaptations. These explanations are contrasted with other nonteleological evolutionary explanations. The distinction is made by distinguishing the different kinds of questions these different explanations serve to answer. The sense in which explanations of adaptations are teleological is spelled out.

Drift is to evolution as inertia is to Newtonian mechanics. Both are the "natural" or default states of the systems to which they apply. Both are governed by zero-force laws. The zero-force law in biology is stated here for the first time.

In this paper I argue that we can best make sense of the practice of experimental evolutionary biology if we see it as investigating contingent, rather than lawlike, regularities. This understanding is contrasted with the experimental practice of certain areas of physics. However, this presents a problem for those who accept the Logical Positivist conception of law and its essential role in scientific explanation. I address this problem by arguing that the contingent regularities of evolutionary biology have a limited range (...) of nomic necessity and a limited range of explanatory power even though they lack the unlimited projectibility that has been seen by some as a hallmark of scientific laws. (shrink)