Book Information Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights. By Ayelet Shachar. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 2001. Pp. xiv + 193. Hardback, Aus.$140. Paperback, $48.95.
Horace, edited with Explanatory Notes by Thomas Chase, LL.D. Philadelphia, Eldredge and Brother. Revised Edition, 1892; 1 doll. 10c. Text pp. 1—252, Notes 253—458.The Odes and Epodes of Horace, translated into English Verse with an Introduction and Notes and Latin Text by John B. Hague, Ph. D. New York: G. B. Putnam's Sons, 1892.
I examine G.B. Bagci’s arguments for the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics as ideally suited for Whitehead’s philosophy. Much of Bagci’s claims are in response to Michael Epperson, who argues in the same vein in favor of decoherence accounts. Pace Epperson, I do not think that decoherence is the final arbiter here, and instead I contrast GRW with several other accounts addressing foundational problems of quantum theory, which also account for relativistic covariance, while GRW does not. I argue that (...) such latter research programs align themselves in a more convincing manner with Whitehead’s scheme, in epistemic as well as metaphysical senses, than GRW. (shrink)
El momento donde los humanos caen en el estado de "bestioni" ("grandes bestias") es pensado claramente por G. B. Vico como el de una segunda caída: una caída en lo anterior a todos los vínculos, ya sea entre aquellos que existen entre los humanos mismos o entre aquellos con la divinidad. El Diritto universale y la Scienza Nuova se dan entonces como tarea el pensar las modalidades (simbólicas, poéticas, políticas…) del porvenir del humano, bajo el fondo de una reactivación de (...) la fuerza de lo verdadero ("vis veri") y de una relación con la divinidad. Así se ve aparecer el espacio familiar, luego el espacio político con sus diversas disposiciones sucesivas, sin que por eso desaparezca la dimensión animal del humano. The moment when humans fall into a state of "bestioni" ("big beasts") is clearly envisioned by G. B. Vico as a second fall: a fall into something previous to all bonding, be it among humans themselves or with the divinity. The Diritto universale and the Scienza Nuova assume then the thinking of new forms (symbolic, poetic, political…) of human's future, under the reactivation of truth as a force ("vis veri") and a relationship with the divinity. Thus emerges the family space, then the politics space with its successive and diverse dispositions, but always keeping the human's animal dimension. (shrink)
I examine G.B. Bagci’s arguments for the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics as ideally suited for Whitehead’s philosophy. Much of Bagci’s claims are in response to Michael Epperson, who argues in the same vein in favor of decoherence accounts (Omnès; Zureck). Pace Epperson, I do not think that decoherence is the final arbiter here, and instead I contrast GRW with several other accounts addressing foundational problems of quantum theory (Finkelstein; Green; Peres and Terno; etc.), which also account for (...) relativistic covariance, while GRW does not. I argue that such latter research programs align themselves in a more convincing manner with Whitehead’s scheme, in epistemic as well as metaphysical senses, than GRW. (shrink)
This article examines the ways in which E. B. Bax and R. G. Collingwood attempted to avoid relativism and irrationalism without postulating a pure and universal reason. Both philosophers were profound historicists who recognized the fundamentally particular nature of the world. Yet they also attempted to retain a universal aspect to thought - Bax through his distinction between the logical and alogical realms, and Collingwood through his doctrine of re-enactment. The article analyses both their metaphysical premises and their philosophies of (...) history. Finally an attempt is made to use their arguments as starting-points from which to arrive at a historicist resolution of the problems of relativism and irrationalism. (shrink)
Professor N. G. L. Hammond has of late published some of his thoughts on the activities of Philip II in 347 and 346 B.C. In addition he has treated aspects of Philip's earlier involvement in Thessalian, Thracian, and Phokian affairs. In the process he has in many instances disagreed with a number of current findings. Among those challenged are some of mine. Healthy scholarly debate is always desirable, and in this f spirit I should welcome an opportunity to contest Professor (...) Hammond's views on several points, the most important being the basic factor of methodology and the interpretation of various factual details. (shrink)
Girolamo Saccheri (1667--1733) was an Italian Jesuit priest, scholastic philosopher, and mathematician. He earned a permanent place in the history of mathematics by discovering and rigorously deducing an elaborate chain of consequences of an axiom-set for what is now known as hyperbolic (or Lobachevskian) plane geometry. Reviewer's remarks: (1) On two pages of this book Saccheri refers to his previous and equally original book Logica demonstrativa (Turin, 1697) to which 14 of the 16 pages of the editor's "Introduction" are devoted. (...) At the time of the first edition, 1920, the editor was apparently not acquainted with the secondary literature on Logica demonstrativa which continued to grow in the period preceding the second edition \ref[see D. J. Struik, in Dictionary of scientific biography, Vol. 12, 55--57, Scribner's, New York, 1975]. Of special interest in this connection is a series of three articles by A. F. Emch [Scripta Math. 3 (1935), 51--60; Zbl 10, 386; ibid. 3 (1935), 143--152; Zbl 11, 193; ibid. 3 (1935), 221--333; Zbl 12, 98]. (2) It seems curious that modern writers believe that demonstration of the "nondeducibility" of the parallel postulate vindicates Euclid whereas at first Saccheri seems to have thought that demonstration of its "deducibility" is what would vindicate Euclid. Saccheri is perfectly clear in his commitment to the ancient (and now discredited) view that it is wrong to take as an "axiom" a proposition which is not a "primal verity", which is not "known through itself". So it would seem that Saccheri should think that he was convicting Euclid of error by deducing the parallel postulate. The resolution of this confusion is that Saccheri thought that he had proved, not merely that the parallel postulate was true, but that it was a "primal verity" and, thus, that Euclid was correct in taking it as an "axiom". As implausible as this claim about Saccheri may seem, the passage on p. 237, lines 3--15, seems to admit of no other interpretation. Indeed, Emch takes it this way. (3) As has been noted by many others, Saccheri was fascinated, if not obsessed, by what may be called "reflexive indirect deductions", indirect deductions which show that a conclusion follows from given premises by a chain of reasoning beginning with the given premises augmented by the denial of the desired conclusion and ending with the conclusion itself. It is obvious, of course, that this is simply a species of ordinary indirect deduction; a conclusion follows from given premises if a contradiction is deducible from those given premises augmented by the denial of the conclusion---and it is immaterial whether the contradiction involves one of the premises, the denial of the conclusion, or even, as often happens, intermediate propositions distinct from the given premises and the denial of the conclusion. Saccheri seemed to think that a proposition proved in this way was deduced from its own denial and, thus, that its denial was self-contradictory (p. 207). Inference from this mistake to the idea that propositions proved in this way are "primal verities" would involve yet another confusion. The reviewer gratefully acknowledges extensive communication with his former doctoral students J. Gasser and M. Scanlan. ADDED 14 March 14, 2015: (1) Wikipedia reports that many of Saccheri's ideas have a precedent in the 11th Century Persian polymath Omar Khayyám's Discussion of Difficulties in Euclid, a fact ignored in most Western sources until recently. It is unclear whether Saccheri had access to this work in translation, or developed his ideas independently. (2) This book is another exemplification of the huge difference between indirect deduction and indirect reduction. Indirect deduction requires making an assumption that is inconsistent with the premises previously adopted. This means that the reasoner must perform a certain mental act of assuming a certain proposition. It case the premises are all known truths, indirect deduction—which would then be indirect proof—requires the reasoner to assume a falsehood. This fact has been noted by several prominent mathematicians including Hardy, Hilbert, and Tarski. Indirect reduction requires no new assumption. Indirect reduction is simply a transformation of an argument in one form into another argument in a different form. In an indirect reduction one proposition in the old premise set is replaced by the contradictory opposite of the old conclusion and the new conclusion becomes the contradictory opposite of the replaced premise. Roughly and schematically, P,Q/R becomes P,~R/~Q or ~R, Q/~P. Saccheri’s work involved indirect deduction not indirect reduction. (3) The distinction between indirect deduction and indirect reduction has largely slipped through the cracks, the cracks between medieval-oriented logic and modern-oriented logic. The medievalists have a heavy investment in reduction and, though they have heard of deduction, they think that deduction is a form of reduction, or vice versa, or in some cases they think that the word ‘deduction’ is the modern way of referring to reduction. The modernists have no interest in reduction, i.e. in the process of transforming one argument into another having exactly the same number of premises. Modern logicians, like Aristotle, are concerned with deducing a single proposition from a set of propositions. Some focus on deducing a single proposition from the null set—something difficult to relate to reduction. (shrink)
RESUMO Este artigo pretende mostrar o fundamento geométrico-matemático que permitiu a Giambattista Vico estabelecer um vínculo entre a criação humana e a criação divina. A pesquisa centrou-se no uso formal que o autor fez das ciências matemáticas para compreender o mundo. Considerando o pitagorismo presente na filosofía viquiana até 1710, o esforço busca mostrar a sobrevivência deste nos trabalhos posteriores do autor. Para isso, destacamos o novo papel que a geometria cumpriu inteligentemente na storia ideale eterna da Providência na "Scienza (...) Nuova". ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to show the geometric-mathematical basis that allowed Giambattista Vico to establish a bond between human and divine creation, focusing on the formal use of mathematical sciences in his comprehension of the world. Considering the Pythagorean character of his philosophy, up to year 1710, this study reveals its survival in Vico's later works by stressing the role of geometry in the witty understanding of Providence's storia ideale eterna in the "Scienza Nuova". (shrink)
A referente resenha busca fazer uma análise mais detalhada acerca do livro: "O Movimento Sofista" de George Kerferd. Objetivamos explicitar os pontos basilares ressaltados pelo autor em contrapartida a análise tradicional dos sofistas ao decorrer da história.