Tejera, strongly influenced by Dewey, operates on the working hypothesis that art is both a kind of experience and a kind of making, and addresses himself to the "inextricably related" problems of the ends and the creation of art. Creativity becomes the key; man is viewed as "the creative animal," and artistic creation is seen as a sort of natural human activity, to be understood in relation to all other human activities. Most traditional problems of aesthetics are taken up at (...) some point, but it is not quite clear how all the parts fit together. The book contains forty-five prints and, considered in terms of its physical format, is something of a work of art in its own right.—A. E. J. (shrink)

Contrary to Favrholdt's opinion, a book that "contains many mistakes" may nevertheless be a good book; it may even be a masterpiece. Thus, although Favrholdt's Interpretation contains many mistakes, it is nevertheless a good book. Unlike most commentaries on the Tractatus, Favrholdt makes a concerted effort to come to grips with the work as a whole. He tries to show that the thesis of extensionality is fundamental, and that the rest of the Tractatus is a working out of the consequences (...) of that thesis. Several of his interpretations are highly questionable, and he has a tendency to give up too easily on some crucial points. But he does give us an original and highly provocative treatment.—A. E. J. (shrink)

Essays on various aspects of contemporary American philosophy by nine contemporary American philosophers. The essays vary in type, ranging from quick surveys of current positions through surveys used as foils for personal opinions and defenses of particular meta-philosophical positions to contributions to particular fields which say nothing about current trends. Presumably aimed at a continental audience, the book should prove helpful to anyone who knows nothing about contemporary American philosophy.—A. E. J.

Each member of pragmatism's triumvirate is the subject of a separate study which sketches his intellectual biography, surveys his philosophical position, and takes account of the typical criticisms. The accounts are not subtle.--A. E. F.

In the 1963 Philosophical Lecture, Henriette Hertz Trust, of the British Academy, Hare defends the distinction between descriptive and evaluative meaning. He attacks descriptivists on the grounds that they confuse a logical connection between the word "good" and other words with a logical connection between the word "good" and certain things. The paper presupposes an acquaintance with the debate over descriptivism, and it is never clear precisely what view Hare is attacking.—A. E. J.

This addition to the plethora of elementary logic texts has little to recommend it. Part I, "Language and Logic," and Part III, "Deductive Logic and Science," suffer from an overly dogmatic treatment of controversial issues. Part II, "Logic in Argument," tries to do too much in too little space, and this effort at compression leads to a lack of clarity, imprecision, and, occasionally, downright falsehood. Singular statements are not symbolized by existential quantification, nor does " " ever mean "Every metal (...) is liquid". An "algebraic" method of proof is introduced, but is not adequately explained and its advantages over the other proof methods introduced, if any, are not brought out.—A. E. J. (shrink)

A very well-written introduction to formal logic. Among the more unusual features: Polish notation is used for the logic of statements, Principia notation for the logic of predicates; traditional logic is axiomatized, with conversion by limitation of A propositions, conversion of I propositions, and the Barbara syllogism serving as axioms; a strong emphasis on evaluation of arguments, with "genuineness," not merely formal validity, being the desideratum. The virtue of the book is its rigor, both logical and stylistic, but this rigor (...) may make some sections overly mystifying to the beginning student.—A. E. J. (shrink)

Building on Aristotle and Dewey, Mesthene argues that language plays the role of agent in the process of coming to know. He suggests a metaphysical hypothesis to account for the intelligibility of the world and elucidate the role of language in the knowing process. Mesthene's hypothesis is both interesting and important but stands in need, as the author admits, of a good bit of further investigation. J. H. Randall contributes a foreword to this volume.—A. E. J.

A study of four contemporary philosophers Naess believes "will take their place side by side in future histories of philosophy": Carnap, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Sartre. Although Naess's own philosophy is more in the tradition of Carnap than of the others, this does not affect the quality of his exposition. He attempts to understand each philosopher in his own terms, and his treatment of them is notable for its insight and accuracy. There is no attempt at a systematic comparison of the (...) four, but similarities and differences are noted in the appropriate places. A good example of tolerance in philosophy.—A. E. J. (shrink)