The Evidential Problem of Evil The evidential problem of evil is the problem of determining whether and, if so, to what extent the existence of evil (or certain instances, kinds, quantities, or distributions of evil) constitutes evidence against the existence of God, that is to say, a being perfect in power, knowledge and goodness. Evidential […].

Timothy Knepper’s book is divided into two parts, the first and more critical of which seeks to uncover the limits and weaknesses of analytic and continental philosophy of religion, while the second and more constructive section seeks to develop an alternative and more fruitful way of practising philosophy of religion, “one that is historically grounded and religiously diverse” (p. xiii). Much of the impetus behind the book derives from feelings of dismay and dissatisfaction, familiar especially to religious studies scholars, over (...) the fact that “philosophy of religion often takes as its primary object of inquiry either ahistorical theism or postmodern philosophy, not the religions of the world in their historical complexity and cultural diversity” (p. ix). I found this to be a clear, well-argued and often provocative book, but also one flawed in some respects in its attempt to renew and reconceive the philosophy of religion.The starting-point of Chapter 1 (The End and Ends of Philosoph. (shrink)

Theodicy, the enterprise of searching for greater goods that might plausibly justify God’s permission of evil, is often criticized on the grounds that the project has systematically failed to unearth any such goods. But theodicists also face a deeper challenge, one that places under question the very attempt to look for any morally sufficient reasons God might have for creating a world littered with evil. This ‘anti-theodical’ view argues that theists (and non-theists) ought to reject, primarily for moral reasons, the (...) project of ‘justifying the ways of God to men’. Unfortunately, this view has not received the serious attention it deserves, particularly in analytic philosophy of religion. Taking my cues from such anti-theodicists as Kenneth Surin, D.Z. Phillips and Dostoyevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, I defend several reasons for holding that the way of thinking about God and evil enshrined in theodical discourse can only add to the world’s evils, not remove or illuminate them. (shrink)

This paper is a critique of Witgensteinian approaches to philosophy of religion. In particular, it provides a close critique of the views of D. Z. Phillips.

D.Z. Phillips’ work in the philosophy of religion continues to be criticised, often on the basis of serious misunderstandings. By engaging with criticisms of Phillips’ Wittgenstein-influenced approach, especially those recently exemplified by Graham Oppy and Nick Trakakis, this article seeks to clarify what Phillips’ approach does and does not involve. Focusing on the relation between talk of God’s reality and talk of matters of fact, and on the question whether God is a ‘metaphysical reality’, the extent to which Phillips (...) himself emphasised the need for close attention to how language is used in real-life situations is highlighted, and the persistent mischaracterisation of Phillips as a ‘non-realist’ is rejected. (shrink)

Tacitus gives lavish treatment to the mutiny of the German legions in the aftermath of Augustus' death in a.d. 14 and provides an excellent centrepiece in a speech by Germanicus to the troops of the Lower German army at Ara Ubiorum . After the harsh treatment of a delegation from Rome, Germanicus responded to requests that he send Agrippina and Caligula to safety. As the family was leaving the camp the troops surrounded Germanicus, who moved them to repentance by his (...) speech. Previous writers have already discussed particular debts to Livy and to Virgil, but none has, I think, pointed to the most likely source for Germanicus' opening remarks: ‘Non mihi uxor aut filius patre et re publica cariores sunt…’. Goodyear dismisses the sentiment as a variety of the ‘commonplace’. that the state was more important than the individual and refers the reader to Béranger. However, none of these passages is as close or as pointed as the examples I consider below. (shrink)

What happened in the aftermath of Caligula's assassination in January A.d. 41 in relation to the client kings of the period has been the subject of a stimulating note by A. A. Barrett. He has argued that a rescission of Caligula's acta invalidated the legal position of the client kings appointed by Caligula, and that Claudius’ regularising of their position has been misunderstood by the ancient literary sources and has given rise to several apparent inconsistencies in their accounts.

Depuis 2012, nous disposons enfin en français d'une traduction satisfaisante des livres publiés par Hannah Arendt aux Etats-Unis de 1951 à 1972. Il est ainsi possible à tout citoyen francophone curieux de cette pensée d'accéder directement à l'une des oeuvres politiques les plus originales du XXe siècle. Pensée toujours vivante et qui, dans un moment de changement d'époque, peut nous aider non à trouver les solutions, mais, ce qui est plus essentiel, à nous poser des questions pertinentes. Les commentaires sur (...) l'oeuvre d'Arendt se sont tellement multipliés depuis trente ans que le travail critique a peut-être fini par empêcher l'accès direct à sa pensée. Cet ouvrage poursuit donc un objectif : fournir un guide de voyage à travers l'oeuvre politique d'Arendt. La première partie est consacrée à la genèse, comme penseur politique, de Hannah Arendt depuis sa naissance en Allemagne en 1906 jusqu'à la publication aux Etats-Unis des Origines du totalitarisme en 1951. La deuxième partie constitue le coeur du livre. Le premier chapitre propose une vision d'ensemble des oeuvres en naviguant d'un ouvrage à l'autre et en saisissant le développement d'une pensée s'élaborant à partir des événements. Les sept chapitres suivants permettent au lecteur de s'orienter dans chacun des sept livres. Le dernier chapitre propose un glossaire, le lecteur voyageant, à nouveau, à travers les sept livres avec, pour fil directeur, un choix des notions et distinctions qu'ils abordent. La troisième et dernière partie ouvre une réflexion sous forme de questionnement. En quoi la matière apportée par l'oeuvre de Hannah Arendt peut-elle nous aider à penser nos choix et nos actions? (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Never Mind the Gap: Neurophenomenology, Radical Enactivism, and the Hard Problem of Consciousness” by Michael D. Kirchhoff & Daniel D. Hutto. Upshot: I show that the gap problem is of no threat to the enactivist approach; moreover, if the enactivism model is thoroughly thought over through extending ontology, it may turn out that the gap should be naturally built in the wholeness of the world at the level of its self-cognition.

Dans cet article nous nous efforçons de confronter la métaphysique de l'Ecole avec la pensée heideggerienne. Pour y arriver, nous avons pris, comme point de départ la doctrine de l'illumination de S. Augustin et de S. Bonaventura D'après cette doctrine, le „lumen naturale” est l'espace infini dans lequel l'esprit humain a son séjour, c'est l'horizon sans limites de l'être. Or, Heidegger prétend dépasser cet horizon. Il déclare explicitement: „Le lumen naturale, la lumière de la raison, ne fait que jouer dans (...) l'Ouvert. Elle rencontre certes l'Ouvert de la clairière, elle la constitue si peu qu'elle en a bien plutôt besoin pour pouvoir se répandre sur ce qui est présent dans l'Ouvert.” (La fin de la philosophie et la tâche de la pensée dans Kierkegaard Vivant, p. 193). Ce dépassement paraît absurde tant qu'on s'en tient à des images spatiales. Mais ce n'est pas ainsi qu'on pourrait comprendre l'intention de Heidegger. Il s'agit bien plutôt, pour lui, de découvrir si la tradition n'a pas inconsciemment conçu cet espace illimité d'une façon déterminée. Cela paraît bien être le cas. L'espace infini est conçu comme un champ de présence intemporelle et immobile. Or Heidegger rejette l'idée d'un regard éternel sur un monde immobile. Pour lui, la lumière de la raison est plutôt l'é-vénement originel qui constitue l'histoire. Il nous paraît impossible de ne pas admettre - dans une certaine mesure au moins -ces idées de Heidegger. Inversément, on pourrait se demander si le philosophe allemand à bien fait de ne jamais thématiser le caractère absolu de la lumière intellectuelle qui nous paraît aussi indéniable que son caractère historique. Un autre problème important, lié au précédent, est celui de la transcendance à laquelle menait la doctrine de l'illumination et sur laquelle Heidegger garde le silence. Nous nous demandons si l'idée heideggerienne du lien originel et réciproque entre l'être et l'homme n'exige pas le dépassement vers une transcendance de cette appartenance mutuelle. Il nous paraît difficile de le nier. (shrink)

It is commonly observed that behind many of the political and cultural issues that we face today there are impoverished conceptions of freedom, which, according to D. C. Schindler, we have inherited from the classical liberal tradition without a sufficient awareness of its implications. Freedom from Reality presents a critique of the deceptive and ultimately self-subverting character of the modern notion of freedom, retrieving an alternative view through a new interpretation of the ancient tradition. While many have critiqued the inadequacy (...) of identifying freedom with arbitrary choice, this book seeks to penetrate to the metaphysical roots of the modern conception by going back, through an etymological study, to the original sense of freedom. Schindler begins by uncovering a contradiction in John Locke's seminal account of human freedom. Rather than dismissing it as a mere "academic" problem, Schindler takes this contradiction as a key to understanding the strange paradoxes that abound in the contemporary values and institutions founded on the modern notion of liberty: the very mechanisms that intend to protect modern freedom render it empty and ineffectual. In this respect, modern liberty is "diabolical"--a word that means, at its roots, that which "drives apart" and so subverts. This is contrasted with the "symbolical" (a "joining-together"), which, he suggests, most basically characterizes the premodern sense of reality. This book will appeal to students and scholars of political philosophy (especially political theorists), philosophers in the continental or historical traditions, and cultural critics with a philosophical bent. (shrink)

The moral and philosophical interrogation of white privilege remains an imperative in post-apartheid South Africa. Whereas the critique of whiteness involves both philosophical and psychological scrutiny, subsequent calls for white political silence and withdrawal have yet to be subjected to adequate psychological analysis. This paper offers such an analysis by questioning, firstly, the idea of appropriate emotions for white South Africans (shame, guilt, regret), posing instead the problems of mimed affect and neurotic goodness. White approaches to guilt-alleviation and political passivity (...) are queried, secondly, via the claim that such agendas lead all too easily to types of white exceptionalism and condescension, respectively. The ethical problems of political silence and withdrawal – implied superiority, non-participation and an unequal ‘rights of silence’ – provide a third area of questioning. The paper ends by introducing the Lacanian ideas of subjective destitution and identification with the symptom. These concepts throw a critical light on disavowals of white privilege and provide a novel means of thinking how white narcissism might be relinquished. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that forecasting presents us with a paradox. Our ability to make reasonable and accurate medium to long term social and technological forecasts is demonstrably dismal. The gap between what actually happens and what was predicted is usually huge. Promoters and technological forecasters continue to provide us with wide varieties of technological futures. The paper introduces a tentative typology of technology futures as a framework for empirical work on failed technology futures. Sociological, psychological and historical explanations (...) are considered for the forecasting paradox. But primarily I argue this is an ethical question. Forecasting is akin to promising and it is in this light it ought to be assessed. Forecasters are accountable for their forecasts in the same way I may be held accountable for my promises. (shrink)

It is sometimes suggested that the logic of religious language differs from other kinds of language. Or it is said that each ‘language-game’ has its own ‘logic’ and that, whatever usual language-games are played in the context of religion, there is something that could be called the ‘religious language-game’ which does not correspond to any other and, therefore, has its own peculiar logic. In either case, religious people are urged to make clear what this logic is, so that their utterances (...) may be understood and evaluated. (shrink)

Placing Goodenough and Deacon’s “From Biology to Consciousness to Morality” against the background of the ethical naturalism of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British moral theory, Yeager highlights the contribution the authors make to the moral sense tradition as well as indicating the limitations of such accounts of moral agency, judgment, and conduct. Yeager also identifies two strands of the essay that seem to open toward a more comprehensive account than the authors actually give. The first concerns the “interplay between self-interest and (...) pro-sociality,” and the other concerns the ethical implications of coevolution. On the latter point, the work of G. H. Mead is offered as an illuminating contrast. (shrink)