Reality and Humean Supervenience confronts the reader with central aspects in the philosophy of David Lewis, whose work in ontology, metaphysics, logic, probability, philosophy of mind, and language articulates a unique and systematic foundation for modern physicalism.
Hindu Theology and Biology: The Bhāgavata Purāṇa and Contemporary Theory is a conceptually ambitious book, because it seeks to articulate a program and a position so novel that there is scarcely any extant literature to draw on. The reader with a background in the study of Hinduism and Indian philosophy is likely to be puzzled by the juxtaposition of topics indicated by the title of the book. But what Jonathan Edelmann is setting out to do is to create an (...) area of work in the study of Hindu thought that is almost entirely missing in comparison to the work that has been done on Christianity : how should a person or community committed to a particular sacred... (shrink)
The purpose of this paper is two fold: first, I look to show Oaklander’s (The ontology of time. New York: Prometheus Books, 2004) theory of time to be false. Second, I show that the only way to salvage the B-theory is via the adopting of the causal theory of time, and allying this to Oaklander’s claim that tense is to be eliminated. I then raise some concerns with the causal theory of time. My conclusion is that, if one adopts eternalism, (...) the unreality of time looks a better option than the B-theory. (shrink)
Stephen H. Daniel's novel approach interprets the thought of Jonathan Edwards thorough semiotics, the theory of signs. He explicates the theory of signs that pervades Edwards' thought and associates it with elements of post-modernist semiotics in Foucault, Kristeva, and Peirce. He contends that Edwards himself developed a viable alternative to the classical-modern philosophical outlook by drawing explicitly upon the pre-modernist Renaissance propositional logic of Peter Ramus.
I show that given Jonathan Bennett's theory of 'even if,' the following statement is logically true iff the principle of conditional excluded is valid: (SE) If Q and if P wouldn't rule out Q, then Q even if P. Hence whatever intuitions support the validity of (SE) support the validity of Conditional Excluded Middle, too. Finally I show that Bennett's objection to John Bigelow's theory of the conditional can be turned into a (perhaps) more telling one, viz. that on (...) Bigelow's theory 'if P then Q' and 'if P and Q then R' do not jointly entail 'if P then R'. (shrink)
Wegner's The Illusion of Conscious Will (2002) ignores an important aspect of the history of the concept: the determinism of Jonathan Edwards (1754) and the later response to this determinism by William James and others. We argue that Edwards's formulation, and James's resolution of the resulting dilemma, are superior to Wegner's.
A good presentation of an exciting "educator, citizen, reformer in Midwestern America before and after the Civil War," active in the abolitionist movement and founder of two American colleges.--F. E. B.
Maxwell Suffis discusses what he calls the problem of fundamental difference: Why do things belong to different ontological categories? Suffis focuses on two attempts to answer the question: 1. Jonathan Schaffer's Neo-Aristotelian conception of grounding (according to which things belong to different ontological categories because they are grounded by different levels of things), and 2. Kris McDaniel's ontological pluralism, "the doctrine that there are ways of being" (according to which things belong to different ontological categories because things having one (...) mode of being depend for their being on other things having a different mode of being). In my essay I first briefly expound both theories of Schaffer and McDaniel. Then I address two criticisms presented by Suffis against McDaniel: (a) that Schaffer's conception of grounding can equally well capture the case of almost-nothings, and (b) that it can do so with greater parsimony. I conclude that Suffis's essay contains no argument to reject McDaniel's view that idioms of existential quantification are systematically variably axiomatic (i.e. systematically ambiguous) and that it fails to clarify the sense in which Schaffer's view (entailing that the whole universe grounds everything else there is) is more parsimonious. (shrink)
This volume contains the editor’s informative “Preface to the Period”, the Quaestio that Edwards submitted in 1723 to complete his master’s degree at Yale, and 19 sermons. Some of the sermons were first preached during 1723 and 1724 in Bolton, Connecticut, but most were composed between 1726 and 1729 in Northampton, Massachusetts while Edwards was junior minister in the church of Solomon Stoddard, his grandfather; a few originated after Stoddard’s death in February, 1729, when Edwards became sole minister of the (...) Northampton congregation. (shrink)
Goodman’s book is neither a survey, nor a comprehensive history of American philosophy before pragmatism emerged in the late nineteenth century in the works of Charles S. Peirce and William James, nor does it explore undiscovered depths of American thought possibly overlooked or lost to time. Rather, Goodman’s treatment of five men—-Jonathan Edwards, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau—attempts to follow James’s understanding of what philosophies are and to “convey each writer’s feel for the (...) ‘whole push’ of things”. In that regard, Goodman succeeds and gives the reader a sense of each man’s motivations. Each is given his own chapter, including an interlude and an... (shrink)