Several epistemologists (Levi, Harman, Pollock) have recently urged the adoption of what I call a “no-fault” approach to the justification of beliefs. I argue that these views fall prey to objections raised by Alvin Goldman against internalism, specifically: they assume an initial set of regulative principles. It is also suggested that the way to avoid Goldman’s objections is through a psychologistic account of initial warrant.

Several epistemologists (Levi, Harman, Pollock) have recently urged the adoption of what I call a “no-fault” approach to the justification of beliefs. I argue that these views fall prey to objections raised by Alvin Goldman against internalism, specifically: they assume an initial set of regulative principles. It is also suggested that the way to avoid Goldman’s objections is through a psychologistic account of initial warrant.

When one of this journal’s editors asked me to edit an issue and told me I would select the topic, the idea of dedicating papers to the question of individuals immediately came to mind. Pragmatism has such a social orientation in the current literature that it seems that individuals get left behind. But the question of the nature of individuals, and especially how much of the good life should be left to individual contemplation, has occupied pragmatists at least since Emerson. (...) I have selected and arranged the contributions so that, to me, they speak to each other. And I see no need to offer a traditional preface to the volume in which I tell readers what the authors will tell them in their own words better than I. Instead I offer my own thoughts on the nature of exemplary individuals and on why the question is important in contrasting Dewey and James on religious experience and questions of metaphysics. And although I do not spend any real time in the essay on Emerson and Thoreau, I would align them more with James than Dewey. I tried hard not to use the word ‘community’ in my essay. Why focus on James? Personally I have always wanted to write something dealing with the Varieties of Religious Experience. It was suggested to me by my favorite undergraduate teacher Robert O’Connell in 1969 and I got around to reading it in 1990. It’s an especially odd book, the most personal writing of an author inclined to honest expression. Even James expressed embarrassment at the amount of emotion it contained. Once again, thanks to the editors for allowing me to select and arrange these papers. And thanks to the contributors for allowing me to work with them. (shrink)

One way to make the logical elements in Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery more interesting to children is to get them to enjoy working with sentences beforehand. I have found that puzzles which illustrate logical principles can be used to build initial interest in working with sentences that carries over into the chapters in Harry. Puzzles can also be used as a reward. After a particularily good class, instead of homework the fifth grade students I work with are given a puzzle - (...) something to think about for next time. There are some themes in Harry which can be supplemented with logical riddles; and I will mention one and describe how to do this below. But before I get into a description of the mechanics of using logic puzzles with Harry, some comments about the psychological benefits of puzzles might be useful. (shrink)

This is a supplemental text for all philosophy courses that facilitates, invigorates, and enhances student learning by teaching students to read and write effectively.

This paper examines the phenomena of falling in love and of love using Baudelaire’s poem, “Which is the Real One,” as impetus. The author asks why love is often focused toward an individual and why an individual often makes such a monumental difference when love should be a more universal experience. The focus of the Romantic poets on the individual is criticized, and Taoist and anti-romantic conceptions of love are considered.