In Neutrality and the Academic Ethic, distinguished philosopher Robert L. Simon explores the claim that universities can and should be politically neutral. He examines conceptual questions about the meaning of neutrality, distinguishes different conceptions of what neutrality involves, and considers in what sense, if any, institutional neutrality is both possible and desirable. In Part II, a collection of original and previously published essays provides different views on these and related issues.

The best of twentieth century philosophy questions the basic assumptions of modernity. These works reject the classical enterprise of epistemology by undermining the twin notions of foundationalism and essentialism, as well as the perceptual metaphors for the mind upon which they have rested. In addition, they expose the supposedly value-neutral, ahistorical methods of philosophy, including conceptual analysis. The demise of the analytic/synthetic distinction, the rejection of the appeal to the given, the failure of reference theories of meaning, and the incoherence (...) of correspondence theories of truth that go beyond Tarskian minimalism made the undermining of epistemology inevitable. Increasingly, there is the recognition that historicist claims about human knowledge and inquiry are simply unassailable and that justification is a holistic, social phenomena. (shrink)

Many believe some version of all three of the following. It is strongly presumptively wrong to kill children intentionally. Modern war involves killing children intentionally. Most modern wars are morally justified. These three sentences comprise an inconsistent triad. War Realism denies 1. Just War Theory denies 2. Pragmatic or Conditional Pacifism denies 3. Scrutiny reveals that one can justify, depending on the rest of what one believes, any one of the three positions but they cannot all be true. I suggest (...) that the solution lies with pragmatic pacifism and relies upon James's sentiment of rationality. (shrink)