The postmodern debate has been heavily influenced by often contradictory conclusions about the foundations of knowledge: hermeneutics challenges epistemology, politics challenges science, identity theory challenges critical theory, pragmatism challenges formalism, and so on. Horace Fairlamb contends that philosophy's foundationist quest has usually been misconceived as a choice between a 'super-science' and theoretical anarchy. Through an examination of the history of foundationism, and detailed analysis of the work of leading theorists including Fish, Foucault, Derrida, Gadamer and Habermas, Dr Fairlamb argues (...) for a less reductive and less arbitrary conception of knowledge and meaning. The result in this 1994 book is a sophisticated critique of contemporary theory with implications for philosophers as well as literary theorists, and an important contribution to the re-evaluation of theoretical discourse. (shrink)

Though Adam Smith believed that the spontaneous forces of the market set prices at the most productive level, he doubted that market forces price wages as fairly as the prices of other commodities. In fact, various observations by Smith suggest that the market tends to undervalue wages almost as naturally as it naturalizes the prices of most commodities under nonmonopolistic conditions. Those observations imply the germ of a capitalist theory of exploitation.

Epistemology has traditionally sought to discover the foundations of knowledge. Recently, anti‐foundational philosophers have construed epistemo‐logy's failure to discover an ultimate ground to indicate the bankruptcy of foundational theory. On closer examination, however, the history of epistemology reveals the aim of foundational theory to be different both from the reductive ideal of its traditional defenders and from the unsystematic relativism that its recent critics offer instead. An alternative history of foundational theory reveals a progress toward multiple necessary foundations which is (...) the task of epistemology to articulate. (shrink)

This volume presents the first comprehensive survey of the entire corpus of John Dewey’s work—almost one thousand items—and groups all these writings in twelve logical categories, so that the user can gain insight into_ _interrelationships among areas of Dewey’s thought and into Dewey’s total contribution to American letters. By arranging and analyz­ing_ _the complete body of Dewey’s published writings within the twelve areas, each with an introductory essay and bibliography, the book thus combines a thorough study of Dewey’s thought with (...) valuable reference material. The distinguished scholars contributing essays to the volume are: Herbert W. Schneider, Lewis E. Hahn, Gail Kennedy, Darnell Rucker, Wayne A. R. Leys, Bertram Morris, S. Morris Eames, Horace L. Friess, William W. Brickman, George E. Axtelle, Joe R. Burnett, Max H. Fisch, and Ou Tsuin-chen. (shrink)

This volume presents the first comprehensive survey of the entire corpus of John Dewey’s work—almost one thousand items—and groups all these writings in twelve logical categories, so that the user can gain insight into_ _interrelationships among areas of Dewey’s thought and into Dewey’s total contribution to American letters. By arranging and analyz­ing_ _the complete body of Dewey’s published writings within the twelve areas, each with an introductory essay and bibliography, the book thus combines a thorough study of Dewey’s thought with (...) valuable reference material. The distinguished scholars contributing essays to the volume are: Herbert W. Schneider, Lewis E. Hahn, Gail Kennedy, Darnell Rucker, Wayne A. R. Leys, Bertram Morris, S. Morris Eames, Horace L. Friess, William W. Brickman, George E. Axtelle, Joe R. Burnett, Max H. Fisch, and Ou Tsuin-chen. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 61.1 (2000) 153-156 [Access article in PDF] JHI 2000 Donald R. Kelley It was just sixty years ago that this Journal first made its appearance. Two hundred thirty-nine issues later it continues in a world transformed by war, overpopulation, cultural shocks, scientific and technological transformations, globalization, the avalanche of information produced by electronic exchange, and "the acceleration of just about everything." Yet despite (...) these factors and the strains of postmodernism and cultural alterity, 1 it has not entirely lost touch with its intellectual innocence, faith in humanistic learning, and reliance on enlightened reason. This continuity itself may seem something of a novelty in an age of distrust of history and "rage against reason," but for some of us it reflects the critical spirit and intellectual context out of which such ostensibly subversive attitudes emerge, and reemerge. To some extent, moreover, the diversity of opinions about intellectual traditions is the result of specializations, and special interests, which have changed the climate of opinion since the time of Arthur O. Lovejoy, principal founder of the JHI. Lovejoy's vision was super- as well as inter-disciplinary; that is, he intended to include in the agenda of "history of ideas" particular areas of history of philosophy, literature, art, science, social science, etc., as well as the larger intellectual and cultural areas into which these disciplinary histories extend. 2 These days, however, all these disciplinary traditions have their own more specialized journals and do not need to seek a vehicle in publications of more general interest. What remains then, for the most part, is the interdisciplinary arena in which larger questions of human experience should be posed--and for Lovejoy, as for so many epigones and critics, the main "larger question" is not only one of value but also of specifically historical inquiry. 3 [End Page 153]The first issue of the JHI appeared under the editorship of Lovejoy (with Philip Wiener, who did most of the editorial work, as "managing editor"), assisted by a committee that included two historians, three philosophers, four literary scholars, and one political theorist; namely, Crane Brinton, Gilbert Chinard, Morris Cohen, Francis Coker, Richard McKeon, Perry Miller, Marjory Nicolson, J. H. Randall, J. Salwyn Schapiro, and Louis Wright. The first volume featured contributions from each of these, including Wiener, except for Miller (vol. 2), Shapiro (vol. 3), McKeon (vol. 8), and Coker. 4 During the first five years there were also reviews of books by Dilthey (by Horace L. Friess), Croce (Schapiro), Mannheim (Randall), Perry Miller (Herbert W. Schneider), Van Wyck Brooks (Miller) and Alfred Kazin (F. O. Matthiessen). In this period the disciplinary distribution of articles was not markedly different from that of the past five years, nor was the ranking of fields by number of submissions. 5 Most important, the original interdisciplinary thrust of Lovejoy's agenda, if not his attachment to the spiritualist currency of "unit-ideas," has survived growing specialization.At first the history of ideas was pursued largely in the shadow of the history of philosophy; for in this field, according to Lovejoy, "is to be found the common seed-plot, the locus of initial manifestation in writing, of the greater number of the more fundamental and pervasive ideas, and especially of the ruling preconceptions, which manifest themselves in other regions of intellectual history." 6 Lovejoy's concern was always with concepts, especially "-isms," and yet in some ways he anticipated the "linguistic turn" of the later years of this century, pointing out in particular "the role of semantic shifts, ambiguities, and confusions, in the history of thought and taste," for "nearly all of the great catchwords have been equivocal--or rather, multivocal." 7 If ideas could be given stable definitions, they were nonetheless often, in the context of language, in conflict, even in the mind of a single thinker; for such was the "anomaly of knowledge." 8 So Lovejoy was at pains to distinguish the various meanings of [End Page 154] catch-words like "nature," "perfectibility," "romanticism," "progress," and "pragmatism," not to mention more inflammatory terms of wartime ideological debate.But... (shrink)