Modern moral philosophy in the British analytic tradition has, with very few exceptions, failed to produce work of any moral significance. There are two main reasons for this. There is first a characteristic failure or refusal to do justice to the complexity and specificity of moral problems and second, a tendency to present the nature and goals of morality in highly general, abstract terms. The paper attempts to establish this by concentrating on the work of R. M. Hare and G. (...) J. Warnock which may be taken as fairly representative of purely formal moral theories and substantive moral theories respectively. The paper argues for a return to the concrete and specific, and ends with a short fiction which, it is hoped, will give some support to the main points. (shrink)

This article offers certain criticisms of some of the main arguments and suggestions put forward by G. A. Cohen in his 1980 Isaac Deutscher Memorial Lecture. As against Cohen I argue: (i) that it is strategically irrelevant for committed socialists or Marxists to argue that capitalism is unjust; (ii) that the political quiescence of the proletariat has less to do with its sense of justice or other ideological factors than with non?ideological factors such as its realization that the struggle for (...) Communism may not be worth it; (iii) that Communism is, anyway, impossible, and (iv) that the tension in Marx and Cohen between the view that capitalism is unjust and that capitalist exploitation is necessary for the productive progress required for the ?ultimate liberation of humanity? cannot be relieved. (shrink)

This paper examines the thinking of Bernard of Clairvaux about love in relationship to the ideas of his two famous contemporaries, Peter Abelard and Héloise. It looks at Bernard's intellectual debt to William of Champeaux on issues of sin and grace, and to William of Saint-Thierry for ideas about how amor evolves into caritas. Bernard makes a stronger link between amor and dilectio, and introduces use of the Song of Songs, to explain how worldly love can develop into spiritual (...) love. The author also considers the evolution of the ideas about love of Peter Abelard, observing that he draws on the same definition of Cicero in the Sic et Non and Theologia as underpins a rather crude attempt to define love in the Epistolae duorum amantium, which the author of the article thinks to be a record of the early letters of Abelard and Héloise. Whereas Abelard always contrasts worldly and spiritual love, the effort of Heloise to connect amor and dilectio parallels that of Bernard. /// O presente artigo debruça-se sobre o pensamento de S. Bernardo de Claraval acerca do amor em relação com as ideias desenvolvidas pelos seus dois famosos contemporâneos, Pedro Abelardo e Heloísa. Além disso, o artigo toma também em consideração a dívida intelectual de S. Bernardo em relação a Guilherme de Champeaux a propósito de temas como o pecado e a graça, bem como a Guilherme de Saint-Thierry relativamente a ideias acerca de como amor se transforma em caritas. Bernardo estabelece um vínculo forte entre amor e dilectio, e introduz o uso do Cântico dos Cânticos para explicar de que modo o amor mundano se pode transformar em amor espiritual. O artigo toma também em considerçãdo a evolução das ideias acerca do amor de Pedro Abelardo, referindo o facto de que ele se inspira na definição do Cicero no Sic et Non e Theologia, sublinhando a sua tentativa de definição do amor nas Epistolae duorum amantium, as quais são aqui consideradas como um arquivo das primeiras cartas entre Abelardo e Heloísa. Finalmente, o artigo chama também a atenção para o facto de que Abelardo tende a contrasrar o amor mundano e o amor espiritual, ao passo que o esforço de Heloísa em conectar amor e dilectio paralela o próprio esforço de S. Bernardo. (shrink)

This article reviews the recent edition by David Luscombe, accompanied by an English translation of The Letter Collection of Abelard and Heloise. In particular it considers Luscombe’s claim that the exchange begins with quarrelling about love, but concludes with shared reflection on religious life. It examines the unity of the letter collection as preserved in manuscripts, with particular attention to the way it is often reproduced, as in this volume, without the final text, the Institutiones nostre, which sets out the (...) actual observances of the Paraclete in the time of Heloise, adapted from early Cistercian observances. This is despite the fact that it follows Abelard’s Rule in the fullest surviving manuscript of the exchange, Troyes, Mediatheque MS 802. The article also re-examines issues of philosophical vocabulary raised by the Epistolae duorum amantium, preserved in the library of Clairvaux, responding to Luscombe’s summary of debate about whether these might be the letters that both Abe lard and Heloise say they exchanged at the time of their affair. (shrink)

Mews offers an intellectual biography of two of the best known personalities of the twelfth century. Peter Abelard was a controversial logician at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame in Paris when he first met Heloise, who was the brilliant and outspoken niece of a cathedral canon and who was then engaged in the study of philosophy. After an intense love affair and birth of a child, they married in secret in a bid to placate her uncle. Nevertheless, the vengeful (...) canon Fulbert had Abelard castrated, following which he became a monk at St. Denis, while Heloise became a nun at Argenteuil. Mews, a recognized authority on Abelard's writings, traces his evolution as a thinker from his earliest work on dialectic (paying particular attention to his debt to Roscelin of Campiegne and William of Champeaux) to his most mature reflections on theology and ethics. Abelard's interest in the doctrine of universals was one part of his broader philosophical interest in language, theology, and ethics, says Mews. He argues that Heloise played a significant role in broadening Abelard's intellectual interests during the period 1115-17, as reflected in a passionate correspondence in which the pair articulated and debated the nature of their love. Mews believes that the sudden end of their early relationship provoked Abelard to return to writing about language with new depth, and to begin applying these concerns to theology. Only after Abelard and Heloise resumed close epistolary contact in the early 1130s, however, did Abelard start to develop his thinking about sin and redemption--in ways that respond closely to the concerns of Heloise. Mews emphasizes both continuity and development in what these two very original thinkers had to say. (shrink)

This volume brings together a seminal set of essays by Dr Mews, exploring the literary achievement and intellectual development of Peter Abelard (1079-1142) and re-evaluating the chronology and authorship of many of his writings.

This text looks at the early correspondence between Abelard and Heloise, revealing the emotions and intimate exchanges that occurred between them. The perspectives presented here are very different from the view related by Abelard in his History of My Calamities, an account which provoked a much more famous exchange of letters between Heloise and Abelard after they had both entered religious life. Offering a full translation of the love letters along with a copy of the actual Latin text, the authors (...) provide an in-depth analysis of the debate concerning the authenticity of the letters and look at the way in which the relationship between Heloise and Abelard has been perceived over the centuries. They also explore the political, literary, and religious contexts in which the two figures conducted their affair, and offer new insights into Heloise as an astonishingly gifted writer, whose literary gifts were ultimately frustrated by the course of her relationship with her teacher. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Philosophy of Peter Abelard by John MarenbonConstant MewsJohn Marenbon. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Pp. xx + 373. Cloth, £40.Peter Abelard (1079–1142) has long provoked conflicting responses from readers. Even in his own lifetime opinions varied from the adulation of loyal disciples to a chorus of hostility from St. Bernard and others. Inevitably these debates have colored subsequent perception (...) of Abelard’s achievement. It was only through the pioneering efforts of Victor Cousin that Abelard’s writings on logic, as distinct from those on theology and scriptural exegesis, first began to see the light of day. As John Marenbon documents in a fascinating appendix to a magisterial volume, Cousin’s emphasis on Abelard as a dialectician tended to reinforce existing stereotypes about him as a critical rather than as a constructive thinker.Marenbon sets out to counter such perceptions. His book is structured in three separate sections: a historical survey of Abelard’s life and writings on logic and theology; [End Page 621] an analysis of his ideas on substance, language, epistemology and universals; and a study of the ethical foundations of his thought. This tripartite structure shapes his analysis in profound ways. The initial section has the merit of synthesizing recent research (including my own) about our understanding of the chronological evolution of Abelard’s writings with lucidity and perspicacity. The real originality of this book, however, emerges in its second section with the chapter ‘Logic, philosophy and exegesis.’ Here Marenbon presents a succinct account of the ontological framework inherited by Abelard through Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry’s introduction to it, the Isagoge, as well as Abelard’s response to it. Marenbon’s comment (109) that nominalists did not think that there was no thing which was not a particular, but instead expounded the Isagoge and Categories as having to do with words rather than things sets the tone for his analysis of Abelard’s ontology, presented as being much more subtle than a naive rejection of universal things. His thesis is that this ontology combines three separate principles: nominalism, ‘strong naturalism’ (defined as Aristotle’s belief that every member of a given natural kind has the same basic structure of genera, species and differentiae), and a strict view of the separateness of particular things.To a modern eye, these principles might seem to be mutually exclusive. Marenbon shows how Abelard constructs an ontology taking its point of departure from the particularity of things, and so transforms Porphyry’s hierarchy of being into one which is based on individuals. Unlike earlier scholars, (notably Jean Jolivet, author of a brilliant study of Abelard’s semantics and its implications for theology), Marenbon is able to profit from a far deeper awareness of the evolution of Abelard’s thinking about specific logical problems. He is thus able to describe, sometimes in minute detail, how Abelard wrestled with intellectual inconsistencies inherited from the differing strands in his own tradition. Thus he shows how, after the Dialectica and early glosses on Porphyry and Aristotle, Abelard moves away from a simplistic semantics of denomination, by which words denote corresponding forms, and starts to interpret certain accidents (like whiteness) as not having a separate reality. This evolution in Abelard’s semantic thought is mainly known only through passages revised in his Christian Theology. Marenbon suggests that Abelard may have been influenced here by transferring ideas about the three divine persons as differing in attribute to the ordinary world.One difficulty with the structure Marenbon has chosen is that the reader sometimes has to keep backtracking in Abelard’s career. Thus while he provides an outstanding exegesis of Abelard’s theory of cognition (making full use of the long neglected De intellectibus), developed in the 1120s, he then backtracks to the issue of universals. The evolution of Abelard’s thinking on this topic is related, however, to that in other domains. While Marenbon avoids historicizing interpretations (having assigned historical analysis to the first part of his book), it does seem that the evolution of Abelard’s thought was influenced by a desire to distance himself from the categories of thought of his various teachers.Marenbon... (shrink)

Section I argues, against Peter Mew, that, since people create nothing ex nihilo, everything now privately owned incorporates something that once was not, and that this has important consequences for distributive justice. Section II defends the ?diachronic? approach to distributive justice against Mew's charge that it is ?otiose?, and section III claims that beliefs about distributive justice have a big effect on political conflict in the real world. Section IV enters a few disagreements with Mew's account of the political (...) ?quiescence? of the Western proletariat. Section V relieves the tension between the Marxist commitment to the advancement of productive power and the Marxist commitment to those at whose expense that advancement occurs. (shrink)

This is a brief, accessible introduction to the lives and though of two of the most controversial personalities of the Middle Ages. Their names are familiar, but it is their "star quality" argues Mews, that has prevented them from being seen clearly in the context of 12th-century thought--the task he has set himself in this book.

As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical caxc. The suffering and death that are occurring there now axe not inevitable, 1101; unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned at least nine million people into destitute refugees; nevertheless, it is not beyond Lhe capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to (...) very small proportions. The decisions arid actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering. Unfortunately, human beings have not made the necessary decisions. At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any signihczmt way. Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written t0 their parliamentaxy representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing thc refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs. At thc government level, no govcrmmcnt has given the sort of massive aid that would enable the refugees to survive fm: more than a few days. Britain, for instance, has given rather more than most countries. It has, to date, given £14,750,000. For comparative purposes, B1~itain’s share of thc nonreccverabla development costs of the Anglo-French Concorde project is already in excess of £275,000,000, and on present estimates will reach £440,000,¤00. The implication is that the British government values a supersonic transport more than thirty times as.. (shrink)

This paper argues that a set of questioning attitudes are among the foundations of human and animal minds. While both verbal questioning and states of curiosity are generally explained in terms of metacognitive desires for knowledge or true belief, I argue that each is better explained by a prelinguistic sui generis type of mental attitude of questioning. I review a range of considerations in support of such a proposal and improve on previous characterizations of the nature of these attitudes. I (...) then broaden their explanatory scope to include a number of forms of exploratory search. The paper has three main goals: to characterize the nature of the questioning attitudes, outlining their causal role and type of content; to argue that they are fundamental components of the mind, being widespread among animals and not constructed during ontogeny out of other attitudes; and to suggest that they explain a great deal more behavior than one might think. (shrink)