We are little accustomed in modern times to think of philosophy in terms of play. With few exceptions, philosophers in the last few centuries are conspicuous for their gravity. If a lighter touch enters their writings it is rather as a douceur with which to punctuate argument. To charge a philosopher with playing games is to condemn his activity as trivial and futile.

The old controversy between the classical education in the humanities and the modern kind of education in the sciences is frequently before us in these times. Russia is rapidly gaining ascendancy in scientific achievement; England and the United States of America are urged to meet the challenge by increasing the pressure of a scientific training for all capable of it. Is such a policy really desirable? From one point of view it might seem merely a matter of changing the subjects (...) to be studied at school and university. Instead of the talented youth reading Plato and Thucydides, he is to be directed to the Infini-tesimal Calculus and the Quantum Theory of Radiation. The former studies, the argument would run, are agreeable but barren; the latter are austere but fruitful. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

1.—In the early decades of the Eighteenth Century a French Jesuit, one Fr. Jean Hardouin, was engaged in propounding a startling theory concerning the credentials of ancient literature. He declared that nearly all the reputed writings of antiquity, secular and sacred alike, were in fact composed by a monkish group of literary forgers in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. The only works he admitted as authentic were the Latin Scriptures, Homer, Herodotus, and a few others of minor import. In defence (...) of this thesis he argued that it was admitted on every hand that some of the reputed writings of antiquity were not authentic. He was but carrying out a more rigorous examination than had ever before been made. The result of this severely critical scrutiny was to strip away most of the picture we had commonly but erroneously accepted of the antique world and to leave behind what was, by comparison, but a skeleton. This skeleton, alone, could be taken as real; our former beliefs were but a systematic imposture. We had, all unknowing, built up an enchanted vision of the ancient world; at a wave of the critic’s hand the enchantment is banished. (shrink)

The work of Galileo has been strangely neglected in the English-speaking world. His trial by the Roman Inquisition has always had notoriety, but has hitherto been seriously known only through the English translation from the German of Karl von Gebler’s brilliant study, Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia. Although Galileo is, above all men, the founder of the modern scientific age, his chef d’oeuvre, the Dialogues on the Two Great Systems of the World, has been practically unknown to English readers; (...) the English translation of 1661 by Thomas Salusbury being exceedingly rare. (shrink)

WHATEVER one may think of the merits and demerits of the Cartesian system one must acknowledge the great vitality of the Cartesian principles. They were launched with a passion, a sincerity, an engagement rarely equalled. The principles in some way met a deeply-felt need stirring in many breasts in the 17th century; a half-unconscious aspiration which many struggled to articulate and expressed in a variety of ways. Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, each in his own way helped to formulate and create the (...) new order, and in doing so stimulated the general appetite for it so that it grew apace. Descartes prepared the ground, Galileo planted the tree, Bacon looked after the ‘public relations’. The scientific age is the outcome of their work. These men were themselves too close to things to see clearly the consequences of what they were doing; some of these consequences would have greatly surprised them. Could Descartes, for instance, personally the most ‘existentialist’ of philosophers, have foreseen that his principles would give rise to a diametrically opposite regime: that forcing the radical separation and disengagement of man and the material world would lead to a state of brittle ‘facts’ and shallow ‘emotions’, and would provoke the contemporary ‘existentialist’ reaction? (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to propose a miming interpretation of the marriage arrangements of Republic, Book v. On this reading, Plato’s marital communism is not one of his more startling eccentricities. It is, on the contrary, an ambitious but light-hearted parable or fable, designed to throw further light on the proper relations between the public and the private in human affairs.

The purpose of this article is to propose a miming interpretation of the marriage arrangements of Republic, Book v. On this reading, Plato’s marital communism is not one of his more startling eccentricities. It is, on the contrary, an ambitious but light-hearted parable or fable, designed to throw further light on the proper relations between the public and the private in human affairs.

In recent years, due largely to the efforts of Karl Popper, the principle of falsification has come to the fore in discussions on the logic of the sciences and metaphysics. In its narrow form the principle may be put thus: a scientific theory can never be proved true, it can only be proved false. But it is commonly expanded into a wider form. This is done on the supposition that scientific knowledge is common–sense knowledge writ large. The principle now becomes: (...) an assertion has a meaning and is significant only in so far as it is susceptible to empirical testing and so to being possibly shown false. In this general form the principle is proposed as a criterion for all genuine knowledge. (shrink)

In recent years, due largely to the efforts of Karl Popper, the principle of falsification has come to the fore in discussions on the logic of the sciences and metaphysics. In its narrow form the principle may be put thus: a scientific theory can never be proved true, it can only be proved false. But it is commonly expanded into a wider form. This is done on the supposition that scientific knowledge is common–sense knowledge writ large. The principle now becomes: (...) an assertion has a meaning and is significant only in so far as it is susceptible to empirical testing and so to being possibly shown false. In this general form the principle is proposed as a criterion for all genuine knowledge. (shrink)

1.—Some years ago we were indebted to Mr Kuhn for a refreshing work on the philosophical interpretation of Copernican astronomy. Now he has launched into a more ambitious programme: he has sketched the ground-work for a veritable aggiornamento in our appraisal of the physico-mathematical sciences. The author works in historical depth but on a very narrow front. This latter contraction is responsible for much of the force and clarity of the thesis. But the reader should be sensible from the start (...) of this restriction in the field of acute attention. Although the author tends to use the term ‘science’ without qualification, in truth what he has to say is of only minor relevance to the descriptive or classificatory sciences. The persuasive power of his thesis is virtually confined to the exact operations of the physicist, the astronomer, and the chemist. Kuhn and Canon Raven, in his biologically oriented Gifford Lectures, are both concerned with the appraisal of the history of the natural sciences. Yet their treatments are bewilderingly different, until we understand how each has restricted his canvas. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to propose a miming interpretation of the marriage arrangements of Republic, Book v. On this reading, Plato’s marital communism is not one of his more startling eccentricities. It is, on the contrary, an ambitious but light-hearted parable or fable, designed to throw further light on the proper relations between the public and the private in human affairs.

The fourth centenary of the birth of Galileo Galilei was celebrated at the University of Notre Dame by a Congress in April 1964. The present volume is a collection of essays on Galilean topics: some are papers delivered at the Congress; some are essays contributed by invitation by other contemporary Galilean scholars; and some are English translations of notable papers of Galilean interest from scholars of a former generation. A lengthy appendix to the volume includes a bibliography of writings on (...) Galileo published between 1940 and 1964, thus bringing up to date the old Carli-Favaro Bibliografia Galileiana and the Boffito supplement. (shrink)