The philosophical analysis that grew up in Cambridge under the leadership of Whitehead, russel and Moore, the sophisticated, modernized versions of Catholic ...

by Ralph Ross, Herbert W. Schneider, Theodore Waldman THOMAS HOBBES has again become the center of lively discussion among philosophers, historians, ...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 541 But the end result is what La Capra terms "a philosophical conservatism," a call to create a morality to counteract the disintegrating forces in modern society. Here too Durkheim joins hands with Weber, Freud, and Malinowski. "Excessive individualism was symptomatic of social disintegration" (p. 145). Its antidote is the formation of cooperative groups. So for Weber the individual, in order to be a genuine man, must (...) always stand in a state of tension between self-interest and selflessness. So too for Freud and Malinowski unbridled individualism, incest and rebellion, are the major threats facing society. In contrast to Weber, who foresaw that "not summer's bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness.... "Durkheim's work stands in the more benign, less beclouded light of Cartesianism. La Capra stresses the philosopher rather than the sociologist in Durkheim, but in a comparative analysis with his great contemporaries that judgement may well stand. LUCIANC. MARQUIS Pitzer College and Claremont Graduate School The Li/e and Mind o/John Dewey. By George Dykhuizen. Introduction by Harold Taylor; edited by Jo Ann Boydston. (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1973. Pp. xxv + 429. $15.00) This detailed and documented account of the "life and mind" of John Dewey is the fruit of years of careful research by Professor Dykhuizen of the University of Vermont, and it is also the product of cooperation by many institutions and individuals whose records have been made available to the author. The book is a synthesis of biography, history, and philosophy; it is good reading matter as well as an excellent reference work, truly a magnum opus, a worthy record of the inseparability of Dewey's life and mind. The story begins in the obscurities of rural life and schooling in the 1860s, and it culminates in the complicated international affairs of the world since 1914. It is appropriate and inevitable that the public activities of Dewey should dominate the account of the last thirty years of his life. But it is remarkable that a philosopher should be devoted to so many and varied public affairs without being distracted by them. This fact is explained by the character of his philosophy: his philosophical devotion to "inquiry" made almost any public problem grist for his mill. He faced problems professionally as an analyst, not in order to solve them but in order to understand them concretely as obstacles to action. The biography gives abundant evidence of this fact, both in technical philosophical issues and in "the problems of men." Dewey confessed that his science of inquiry was unfortunately entitled "Logic." When he began his inquiries into the process of thinking, the German term logische Studien was still commonly used for any work on the theory of knowledge, and Dewey was not prepared for the revival and reconstruction of formal logic during his mid-career. I am reminded of a remark by his colleague, Professor Woodbridge, who said: "At first I could not figure out what Dewey's logic was about; then it suddenly occurred to me that he was telling us 'How We Think'." For Dewey and Mead the problem of knowledge was almost entirely the problem of thinking, "reflective thinking." At Columbia we tried to make textbooks on reflective thinking, much to Dewey's amusement and scorn: "You should use reflective thinking, not teach it as subject-matter. And as for formal logic, you should save that for graduate school; it corrupts young minds who mistake it for knowledge." Despite his emphasis on "reflective thinking" he disliked the term "reflection"; it had been too much abused by philosophers who engaged in speculation, meditation, and other forms of "day-dreaming." Dewey's preference for "imagination" instead of "consciousness" is related to this circumstance. He regarded "consciousness" as an abstraction; whereas imagining is a cenlxal 542 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY aspect of thinking. It implies not merely getting a suggestion in relation to a problem, but getting a suggestion whose consequences could be anticipated. Unless a suggestion anticipates consequences, it is not an idea; it has no meaning, no means to suggest for the problem or plan. Accordingly, for Dewey "acting consciously... (shrink)

Includes published writings of John Dewey, from 1882-1939. Dewey's writings address his views on topics of education, philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, art, logic, social theory.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 389 From the perspective of this reviewer, the presently most obvious fault in this lecture lies in Putnam's criticisms of "the coherence theorists, Ludwig, et al." (p. 97). In this criticism, it is apparently assumed that the adequacy of their proposed solution to the problem considered must be judged solely on the basis of what is presently known. Since Putnam himself acknowledges that no satisfactory interpretation of (...) quantum mechanics exists, this seems unwarranted. The superficiality of the criticism of this position makes this particularly notable. He states, for example, "to say that a wave gives an incomplete description of the state of a system is to say that systems whose state can be described by that wave function may really be in several quite different physical conditions." He then adopts the doubtful strategy of appealing to the meaning of completeness and incompleteness (they are not a matter of degree) in justification of the position that it is improper to say that a wave gives an incomplete descriptionl Despite the fact that, taken as a whole, his brief criticism of the coherence theory is somewhat ungracious. Putnam has set forth the principle issues sur~ rounding the problem with discerning lucidity. Paul K. Feyerabend, in "Problems of Empiricism," places a revisionist's version of empiricism in a carefully developed historical perspective. Empiricism as it has been known is both incomplete and weakened by undesirable assumptions. The incompleteness is to be removed by regarding empiricism as a cosmological hypothesis concerning the relation between man and the universe. The version of empiricism thus admitted has the character of a scientific theory. The undesirable assumptions are views no longer tenable of the nature and content of what is given in sense. Feyerbend understands sensations and perceptions as indicators on a par with indications of physical instruments, and likewise in need of interpretation. A philosophical method is proposed which requires theoretical pluralism instead of the theoretical monism that is (inappropriately) the ideal of much of contemporary empiricism (p. 149). The function of theoretical alternatives is to provide the means of criticizing accepted theory, to which he accords careful historical treatment. "Low level theories" are to guide us to crucial experiments, while "high level theories" are to represent the basic element of the universe. Here again the reader will find a theme which emerges erpeatedly in these lectures. This theme might be stated as follows. Both macrocosmic and microcosmic systems must ultimately be involved in scientific explanation. The crucial problem that emerges is how these two are to be related or in some degree integrated. By the way in which he develops the role of alternative theories, Feyerabend has affirmed one of the principle theoretical components of what Hegel was minded to call metaphysics. An additional observation, for which what I have said should furnish some justification: Many points made throughout this exposition (115 pp. in length) might properly be regarded as together constituting a rapprochement of empiricism and rationalism. It may very well occur to the thoughtful reader that Feyerabend, in his reconstruction of empiricism, has come very near to conceding all that a critical rationalist could ask. Other lectures included in the book are, "The Thermodynamics of Purpose," by David Hawkins, "The Physics of the Large," by Philip Morrison, and "The Ethical Dimension of Scientific Research," by Nicholas Rescher. In the last-mentioned lecture, Professor Rescher points up some generally little understood ethical problems confronted by the scientist in the practice of his profession. DARREL E. CICIRISTENSEN Wo]lord College BOOK NOTES Colin Cherry, On Human Communications: A Review, a Survey, and a Criticism. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. Pp. xiv + 337. (This is an unabridged and unaltered edition of the work first published by the M.I.T. Press in 1957.) $10.00. "In preparation of the current volume, I have examined the original carefully and have decided not to withdraw from anything said there, but merely to add some comments, to up- 390 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY date some figures, and to extend the bibliography.... Since detailed reference is impossible, I have decided to restrict the new Bibliography to useful sources of reference, a few of the more significant... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 83 three different manuscripts, none of them Descartes's original (which is lost). An edition utilizing all three sources seemed to be called for. 2. The Crapulli edition offers (a) a careful introductory study of the three sources; (b) the Regulae in the newly established Latin text, with the Dutch translation on facing pages and the variants in the footnotes; (c) notes containing the editorial apparatus; and (d) (...) an Appendix giving the contemporary texts relating to the Regulae more fully than does AT. 3. The Crapulli edition is superior by virtue of the meticulous care and balanced judgment that went into it, and because of its use of all three sources. One unexpected result is a much smoother, more idiomatic and therefore more readable Latin text. However, meaning is affected only in a few instances, despite the large number of new readings. Excepting trivial emendations (changed word order, better grammar, etc.) I find some twenty-two materiM changes. 0nly seven or eight of them alter the meaning significantly; none of them affects a vital text. Three examples must suffice (I cite page and line in AT, Volume X, and italicize CrapuUi's reading): 368.13 inductio/deductio; 448.26 relatum/rotatum; 46725 discursu/ decursu. 4. Scholars and translators will henceforth have to work with Crapulli's version, using their judgment where he, too, had to resort to conjecture. But Scholars are unlikely to abandon the habit of citing AT as well--it would make the use of earlier work difficult. Unfortunately Crapulli does not give a tabular concordance between his edition and AT (though he indicates the AT pagination), and the complex organization of his book makes correcting one's AT volume extremely time-consuming and tedious. It would be appropriate for the editors of the revised AT edition to provide such a concordance. Meanwhile a short list of the more significantnew readings may be obtained from this reviewer. Ga~ott SEnsA Emory University Convenzione e Ipotesl nella Formazione della Filosofia Naturale di Thomas Hobbes. By Arrigo Pacchi. (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1965,Pp. xiii + 250. L. 2,500.) This volume is a detailed, critical examination of the various drafts of Hobbes's De Corpore from 1636to 1655,taking into account a series of his unpublished manuscripts that are devoted to the subject matter of that treatise. Most important among these (with presumed dates) are : De Principlls Cognitionis et Actionis (1636); Logica (1645); Philosophia Prima (De Motu, Loco, et Tempore) (1646); First Draft of De Corpore (1648-49); Revision of this version (1651); Published version, De Corpore (1655). The first of these is known only through an English summary, discovered by Mario M. Rossi and discussed by him in his L'evoluzione del pensiero di Hobbes aUa luee di un nuovo manoo scritto, in "Civilt~ Modero~", 1941. Arrigo Pacchi accepts, with most interesting implications, Rossi's interpretation that this essay must have been il risultato di quel periodo di raccoglimento che fece seguito al viaggio di Hobbes in Europa nel 1634-36,periodo nel quale il pensatore inglese cerc5 di dare una prima forma alle intuizioni che avevano occupato la sua mente durante l'intera traversata del continente, e che egli aveva (solo verbatmente, forse) communicato a Mersenne. In questa fase, il pensiero di Hobbes denuncla ancora una stratifieazione degli influssi successlvamente recevuti, dagli scolastici di Oxford a Bacone, dagli aristotelici padovani a Galileo, pur dimostrando gi~ l'indubbia originalit ~ di talune prese di poslzione che caratterizzerano la filosofia hobbesiana nell'intero arco della sua evoluzione (pp. 42-43). Pacchi then explores the various attempts of Hobbes to arrive at an adequate empirical basis for the principles of modern science, especially for the analysis of "motion, time, and 84 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY space" as presented by Galileo. The implications of Scholastic nominalism, of Grosseteste)s "metaphysics of light", of the Renaissance idea (adopted by Francis Bacon) that the mind is a mirror of nature, and the new French geometry, are all considered by Hobbes. They yield two very different philosophies of science, with both of which Hobbes works: (a) the hypothetical nature of scientific knowledge; (b) the conventional nature of its basic concepts. After several years of experimentation... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews A History of Western Civilization. By Ralph M. Mclnerny and A. Robert Caponigri. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963-1971. 5 Vols. Vol. I. From the Beginnings of Philosophy to Plotinus. By Ralph M. McInerny. Pp. xvii+382. $10.00. Vol. II. Philosophy from St. Augustine to Ockham. By Ralph M. McInerny. Pp. xv.1.1.386. $12.00. Vol. HI. Philosophy from the Renaissance to the Romantic Age. By A. (...) Robert Caponigri. Pp. xii+582. $12.00. Vol. IV. Philosophy from the Romantic Age to the Age of Positivism. By A. Robert Caponigri. Pp. xv-t-327. $12.00. Vol. V. Philosophy from the Age of Positivism to the Age of Analysis. By A. Robert Caponigri. Pp. xv+363. $12.00. These five large volumes deserve special recognition for excellence of content, range of history, and usefulness of design. Though they are intended particularly for English-speaking students and though the references are largely to recent works in English accessible to students and teachers, the range of subject-matter is international and comprehensive (for the West) and the detailed treatment of philosophers and philosophical literature is amazing for scholarly, objective clarity and wealth of information. The authors state their general aim: Our basic reason for undertaking the authorship of this work is to promote the return of the history of philosophy to its rightful place of honor and usefulness in the academic program.... Philosophy cannot be pursued in an historical vacuum.... For this reason, in these volumes the chief architectural principle has been to place philosophy as firmly as possible in the cultural context, seeing it in this living relation to all interests of culture and the hfe of the spirit. Introduction, p. xiii. Such history is so evidently needed and so generally welcome that all will surely join in urging the publisher to make these volumes available in paperback for textbook use as soon as possible. About all we can attempt here is to call attention to a few features of this history that are usually neglected in less detailed, less comprehensive histories. Vol. I foUows the usual pattern of Ancient History. Plato and Aristotle dominate, as they must. Plato's Dialogues are analyzed in considerable detail and are arranged around "the crisis in Plato's thought" as a convenient way to separate the Socratic [1071 10S HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY dialogues from the varied compositions that seem to get away from both Socrates and Plato. Aristotle is treated well but tersely in view of the encyclopedic range of his interests and ideas. His "first philosophy" is properly so called here instead of by the unfortunate name, "metaphysics." At the end of the volume there are a few pages on Neoplatonism after Plotinus, chiefly to indicate that it wandered from philosophy. Vol. II is especially noteworthy for its description of philosophy in a great variety of distracting environments. Augustine, for example, is presented here primarily as a philosopher, even in terms of his faith and theology. For example: At the same time I was preparing for baptism at Milan, I tried to write books on the arts (disciplinae).... I was able to finish only a work on grammar.... six volumes on music... I had only begun them at Milan. Of the other five arts begun in Africa... on dialectic, on rhetoric, on geometry, on arithmetic, on philosophy. Retractationes. The passage certainly assumes that there are seven such arts, but it is noteworthy that "philosophy" takes the place usually occupied by astronomy. It has been plausibly suggested that this is a quite conscious substitute by Augustine prompted by his abhorrence of what we would nowadays call astrology (pp. 13-14). In his concluding remarks on Augustine, Professor McInerny says: Augustine's influence on subsequent ages is due entirely to the force of his thought.... The influence he had on the thought of his own times is as nothing compared with the undiminishinginfluence he has had through the centuries, even to our own day (p. 47). Another comment by Professor McInerny is worth noting here: "Our lack of sympathy with the latter-day notion of Christian philosophy." If that phrase accurately described the philosophical contribution of... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews St. Auc~stine and Being: A Me$aphyM,cal Essay. By James F. Anderson. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965.Pp. viii [i] + 76. Guilders 9.90.) Contemporary students of medieval philosophy, especially those influenced by the writings of Gilson, usually view Augustine as primarily an essentialist in metaphysics, while Aquinas is viewed as some sort of existentialist. This is taken to mean that, whereas Augustine seems to identify being with essence (...) or wha~ a thing is, Aquinas distinguishes between what a thing is and its act of existence. The major contribution of Aquinas to later philosophy is often depicted as this distinction between essence and existence. Perhaps the major interest and value of Professor Anderson's essay is that it contests this currently predominant opinion of the essentialist character of Augustinian metaphysics and calls for a re-evaluation of the supposedly revohi~ionary character of the Thomistic concentration upon the act of existence. It is quite evident that Augustine broke with Plotinus when he asserted that the first principle of all things was God, being itself (ipsum esse), rather than the One, which transcends being. The controversy arises over Augustine's view of the nature of being (esse). For Gilson the notion of being remained for Augustine Neoplatonic, while for Anderson Augustine introduced an existential aspect to the notion of being lacking in Neoplatonic thought. Citing the same texts for support Gilson maintains that Augustine interprets the name of God given in Exodus as "I am he who never changes," while Anderson maintains that Augustine interprets Exodus as asserting that God is being, in the sense of existence, itself. The major point of disagreement between Gilson and Anderson is not whether Augustine regarded being as pre~ dominant, but how Augustine interpreted the notion of being. In some texts Augustine maintsSns that being and immutability mean the same thing, in others he argues that a thing truly is 'because it is immutable, and in yet others he argues that a thing is immutable because it truly is. The first opinion seems to be the one frequently favored as an interpretation of Augustine by Gilson. The second is usually regarded as Neoplatonic. The third is the opinion which Professor Anderson argues was most accurately Augustine's. According to Professor Anderson the first two opinions reflect for Augustine a merely factual connection between being and immutability, whereas the third reflects a metaphysical entailment. I should like to mention three points in Professor Anderson's discussion which seem to me weak. Firstly, as Augustine remarks that being is the name for unchangeableness we cannot take this as asserting a merely factual relationship. Secondly, to say that 'being' and 'immutability ~mean the same thing to Augustine or that being and immutability are identical to him does not necessitate, as Professor Andersen claims, denying the primacy of being. If 'being' and 'immutability' mean the same thing, then it is very peculiar to ask which is primary. If it is remarked that 'triangleI means the same thing as 'three sided figure', what sense does it make to ask which notion is primary? I suspect that Professor Anderson's contention makes sense only if one believes that there is a difference in the meanings of 'being' and 'immutability ', but whether or not there was such a difference for Augustine is precisely the point at issue. Professor Anderson asserts that it would be a "metaphysical inconsistency" to claim that God is both being and immutability, but it is not clear why such a claim would be inconsistent if the two terms in fact mean the same thing (p. 30). Thirdly, if, as is in fact the case, Augustine's remarks on the relationship between immutability and being are inconsistent perhaps we should accept the possibility that Augustine himself never came to a clear view on this matter rather than attempt to surmise what Augustine "must have meant." Of course, such inconsistency in Augustine's writings would tend to support the thesis of Gilson that Augustine has difficulties reconciling his theology and metaphysics. Moreover, the analogy Professor Anderson suggests between the Augustinian mutability-immutability contrast and the Thomistic potency-act contrast could only be a very rough one... (shrink)