19th Century Philosophy


Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 6 / 6 

Methodologically speaking, I wonder why Matilal and S's article has not been enough for  further studies of this sort to be the rule on Mind (and other philosophical journals). Does this failure depend on their style? (Or should we just start working as a task-force and submit many articles of this kind?)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7866 Reply


Can there be linguistics without ontology?

The context principle and some Indian controversies over Meaning is a milestone in Indian studies, and in the history of their interaction with mainstream (i.e. Western) philosophy. Since it was published in 1988 on Mind (one of the top-5 journals in Philosophy, inaccessible for most authors), virtually everyone (in Indian philosophy) has read it.

Have you also re-read it?

I re-read it after some years this Summer and I have to admit that it was again a surprise. The article starts with a discussion of the Context principle in Frege and Quine (does the principle mean that words HAVE no meaning outside a sentence, or that their meaning can only be UNDERSTOOD within a sentence?). In this connection, Matilal and Sen discuss a strong and a weak interpretation of the Context principle (according to whether it should answer the first or the second question). They end up saying that the strong interpretation clashes with Frege's later work (see belo ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7865 Reply

I did my dissertation, in philosophy of education, on Royce and the problem of religious inclusion in public education. I think Royce is a fascinating figure in American Philosophy, that is of continuing importance today. Do you agree or disagree? I would like to know of anything anyone is doing related to his work in this forum. 
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7631 Reply

Everyone who has dipped into Nietzsche has heard about his "Will to Power", however it is interpreted by philosophers in many different ways and there seems to me, to be no real agreement as to what "Will to Power" is in Nietzsche's philosophy.  Heidegger states it is the essentia of beings in Nietzsche's metaphysics, taking Nietzsche to be the one initiating the commencement of metaphysics by introducing a metaphysical concept that is based in valuative thought, i.e. will to power is the will to create value and bestow meaning upon the world.  And by doing so, negating all past meta-narratives done by previous philosophers as being just another mode of will to power.  Other philosophers do not take "Will to Power" as seriously and consider it a brief footnote in Nietzsche that was aborted and not systematically thought out. 

Nietzsche, does talk about Will to Power in the Nachlass notes in some detail, but should we take these notes seriously since he abandoned his project of his so calle ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/3078 Reply


I will be writing a paper on Hegel and I was wondering maybe someone could share their thought about:

  • what ideas of Hegel have been refuted?
  • what do you find most interesting in his philosophy ?
  • and is it a good idea to strugle with Hegel?

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/1703 Reply

That's an interesting myth-busting. However, the subject might gain from a deeper discussion. I don't really understand what Hegel's rhetoric would be in such a context: why does he even take the Timaeus' series, and why the change in it? If he's not happy with aprioristic thinking, why does he use it? Is it a form of sarcasm, or a reductio ad absurdum?

 1 - 6 / 6