An outline of the life of Heraclides and his fragmentary writings (on the theory of matter, astronomy, ethical and religious topics) is followed by an attempt to reconstruct his thought. He emerges as not so much a profound thinker as a many-sided writer of considerable literary gifts and occasional flashes of brilliance.

It seems natural enough to suppose that there must be some very close connection between our feelings of sympathy and our moral principles. A large part, at any rate, of the badness of bad men seems to consist in their lack of real concern for other people, and a large part of the goodness of good men consists in the regard they have for their fellows. Could a man who never felt with of for another be regarded as good, or (...) even as a moral being at all ? We should be inclined to say that this was impossible were it not that some philosophers appear to maintain that reason is the fundamental moral requirement and that unsympathetic beings might act rightly from some purely rational principle. Kant, for example, in a well-known passage, contrasts the man who helps others because he is sympathetically inclined towards them with the man who is too unhappy to feel with them but nevertheless helps them because he thinks he ought to. It is the second of these men, in his view, whose action is most clearly moral. In reply to this we may say that although a man's personal griefs at a particular time may render him at that time unable to feel with others even though he helps them as he ought, nevertheless he could not have performed such an act of heroic beneficence if his heart had never warmed towards anybody. (shrink)

It is proposed in this paper to develop a method by which the most general problem of the algebra of propositions is solved. This problem is to construct all propositions whose truth is independent of the form of the variables. As might be expected this method will enable us to determine without the use of matrices the consistency and independence of propositions, except in the case of those fundamental properties, which taken together define consistency itself. In the discussion which follows (...) no limitations are placed on the meaning of the terms and the word proposition is used simply in the sense of a variable. If we were to say, for example, that our variables must be restricted to zero or one values, we would be introducing a limitation which would reduce the generality of our science. A logic may be false in the sense that its postulates lead to contradictory theorems, or it may be false in the sense that it lacks generality, and the situation is not saved by calling it a two-valued, or a three-valued logic, or a logic of “propositions,” or by designating it by some other euphuism. (shrink)

The Peanese convention for the use of dots as brackets has the disadvantage that it gives only an awkward method for representing chains of indefinite length, such as the compound implicationSuch chains occur frequently in logical investigations of a metatheoretic nature, and it is convenient to have a systematic method of abbreviating them. The most obvious method of doing this would be to leave the parentheses out entirely, and to understand that in such cases the implication sign or other operation (...) appearing on the extreme left is the most inclusive; but this method, which has been followed by Quine, is at variance with our ordinary algebraic usage, in which we write a − b + c − d for ((a − b) + c) − d, and consequently leads to confusion. It is desirable to have a modification of the Peanese convention which gives a simple method of representing such chain implications, and at the same time avoids this difficulty.Such a modification is easily obtained by generalizing somewhat a procedure of Church. The latter author uses only a single dot, which he writes on the right of an operator to signify a bracket extending from that point to the end of the formula (or parenthesized expression). If dots are used only on the right of operations this is all that can be desired. But the essential idea of this device can be extended to the case where dots are used also on the left, as follows: let us suppose that a group of dots on the right of an operation or prefix denotes the beginning of a bracket which extends to the right until it meets a group with an equal or larger number of dots on the left of an operation; and that the scope of a group of dots on the left of an operation shall extend to the left until it reaches a larger group of dots on the right of some operation. (shrink)

In Germany the claim is sometimes made that National Socialism incorporates the best of Plato’s political theory. In this country, too, Bertrand Russell and Mr. R. H. Crossman have emphasized, but with a different intention, the fascist elements in Plato's thought. It has to be admitted that whereas it would be merely laughable to claim that Jesus or Kant were exponents of the fascist philosophy, there is no such glaring incongruity with regard to Plato. It may be of some interest, (...) therefore, to examine anew the alleged likeness between the basic principles of fascism and the thought of Plato. No one would deny a strong likeness between some details of Plato’s. (shrink)

It is easy to understand why Hegel's philosophy should be little studied by English-speaking philosophers today. Those who at the beginning of the twentieth century initiated the movement we are now caught up in presented their earliest philosophical arguments as criticisms of the prevailing Anglo-Hegelian views. It may now be thought illiberal to take much interest in this perhaps excusably slaughtered royal family, and positively reactionary to hanker after the foreign dynasty from which it sometimes claimed descent. Hegel was a (...) systematic philosopher with a scope hardly to be found today, and men who, as we say, wish to keep up with their subject may well be daunted at the idea of having to understand a way of looking at philosophy which they suspect would not repay them for their trouble anyway. Furthermore, since Hegel wrote, formal logic has advanced in ways he could not have foreseen, and has, it seems to many, destroyed the whole basis of his dialectical method. At the same time, the creation of a science of sociology, it is supposed, has rendered obsolete the philosophy of history for which Hegel was at one time admired. In countries where there are Marxist intellectuals, Hegel does get discussed as the inadvertent forerunner of historical and dialectical materialism. But in England, where there is no such need or presence, there do not seem to be any very strong ideological reasons for discussing him. In what follows I shall be asking you to direct your thoughts to certain forgotten far-off things which I hope you will find historically interesting even if you do not agree with me that they give important clues for an understanding of human nature and human society. (shrink)

It is not easy for an Englishman to acquire a competent knowledge of French philosophy. For one thing there are so many French philosophers writing so many books, and for another the multiplicity of men is matched by the variety of views. In a country where a knowledge of philosophy is expected of any cultivated man, and where the flourishing of philosophy in school and university curricula is regarded as a condition of intellectual freedom, this variety is accepted as part (...) of the cultural background. Professor Bréhier's Transformation de la Philosophie Française must, even so, be of great value to French readers, because of the author's capacity-so admirably shown already in a History of Philosophy that is unquestionably the best now obtainable-to pick out what is essential in a welter of theories, arguments, and mere pronouncements. To English readers, whose knowledge of the background is necessarily limited, this book is particularly valuable, not only for the clarification it brings, but also for a bibliography that is closely related to the text. M. Bréhier observes that French philosophers of the generation that followed and criticized Durkheim, Bergson and Brunschwicg showed themselves acutely conscious of the discontinuities of things, and puritanically averse to the construction of philosophical systems. M. Bréhier, however, does not take this anti-systematic, pluralist tendency at its own valuation. French philosophy, he thinks, is in a phase that makes it comparable to medieval philosophy. It was characteristic of medieval philosophy that it comprised no individually constructed systems like those, for example, of Descartes, Leibniz, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, which have grown up and died away in Europe since the Renaissance. The main reason for this was that Christianity itself provided a common system which was never to be questioned, so that philosophers concerned themselves not with systems, for that would have led to heresy, but with particular problems. Part of M. Bréhier's parallel with modern times is that some Christians and all Marxists aim to produce the same condition. (shrink)

This account of poverty and deviance during recent times in the city of Antwerp compares situations of the 1930's with present times. Undoubtedly social security prevented, since the end of the war, that many people feit into poverty. Still in the presence of massive unemployment, public relieve organisations, such as the 0.C.M.W. are more and more confronted with what is called precarity.About 25% of the Antwerp population is estimated to be living in a precair situation. After glancing on the near (...) future and warningfor a number of social challenges, the article insists very much on preventional politics and coordinated total development projects in the depressed areas. (shrink)

It is argued that dispositional explanations are radically incomplete causal explanations that are employed when (1) a description of the stimuli is insufficient to account for the object's response and (2) not enough is known about the object to specify what its specific causal contribution is. ryle's failure to refer to the causal contribution of the organism in his account of dispositions is regarded as a serious weakness.

The journal of symbolic logic began publishing in 1936. From the outset, the Journal included a Reviews Section, edited by Alonzo Church. The very first issue carried three pages of reviews, written by Bernays, Church, Rosser, and Quine.As the first issue stated, “It is intended that this section of the Journal shall serve as a complete bibliography of current literature in the field of symbolic logic, from January 1, 1936. To this end an effort will be made to include in (...) it, at least by title, all publications in this field, both books and articles in journals, and as far as possible these will be accompanied by signed reviews.” Thus the purpose of the Reviews Section was two-fold. For one, there was its bibliographical function: to provide a complete, suitably indexed, listing of all the publications—both books and journal articles—in symbolic logic, wherever and in whatever language published. And secondly, the reviews were to provide critical, analytical commentary on these publications, whenever possible.The Reviews Section should be viewed as a continuation and expansion of Church's A bibliography of symbolic logic. The Bibliography was a listing, with some annotations, of the publications in symbolic logic prior to 1936. It was published as volume 1, number 4 of the Journal. Church made the listing as complete as he could, of course. (shrink)

Positivism is the view that the only way to obtain knowledge of the world is by means of sense perception and introspection and the methods of the empirical sciences. Positivists believe that it is futile to attempt to deduce or demonstrate truths about the world from alleged self-evident premisses that are not based primarily on sense perception. They consider, on the contrary, that knowledge of things can only be advanced by framing hypotheses, testing them by observation and experiment, and reshaping (...) them in the light of what these reveal. Thus they regard metaphysics, in so far as it is the effort to find out about the world by methods other than those employed in the empirical sciences, as a hopelessly misdirected activity. The method of hypothesis, they hold, is applicable to any field of factual enquiry, although they admit that differences of subject-matter may call for very considerable variations of emphasis. Such variations, however, important though they be, are, on their view, matters of detail, and do not detract from the essential sameness of the effective method. This method was first consciously analysed by reference to the sciences of nature, where its use has led to impressive results both in the theoretical and practical sphere. (shrink)

Abstract. There is an ongoing debate in the philosophical and jurisprudential literature regarding the nature and possibility of Contract theory. On one hand, are those who argue (or assume) that there is, or should be, a single, general, universal theory of Contract Law, one applicable to all jurisdictions and all times. On the other hand, are those who assert that Contract theory should be localized to particular times and places, perhaps even with different theories for different types of agreements. This (...) article considers one facet of this debate: evaluating the relevance of the fact that the remedies available for breach of contract can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another. This wide variation in remedies for breach of a (contractual) promise is one central difference between promises in morality and enforceable agreements in law. The article asserts that variation of remedies strongly supports the conclusion that there is (and can be) no general, universal theory of Contract Law. (shrink)

Gary Kemp defends Realist approaches to the paradox of analysis. Other, prima facie equally viable approaches to this problem are the Nominalist one of Langford and Camap and the Conceptualist one of Prior and Stalnaker. In the context of a fuller survey focus is set on the realist attempt. This puts one in a better position to arbitrate between these approaches and give a more final assessment of the realist one, including an assessment of Kemp's defence of it. The Conceptualist (...) one, as it turns out, triumphs over the others, and is the basis for a Wittgensteinian vie w of the a priori which is analyzed in the second part of the paper. (shrink)

Gary Kemp defends Realist approaches to the paradox of analysis. Other, prima facie equally viable approaches to this problem are the Nominalist one of Langford and Camap and the Conceptualist one of Prior and Stalnaker. In the context of a fuller survey focus is set on the realist attempt. This puts one in a better position to arbitrate between these approaches and give a more final assessment of the realist one, including an assessment of Kemp's defence of it. The Conceptualist (...) one, as it turns out, triumphs over the others, and is the basis for a Wittgensteinian vie w of the a priori which is analyzed in the second part of the paper. (shrink)

There are a number of fragments attributed to Theophrastus, as well as titles in Diogenes Laertius' catalogue of his writings , of which it is uncertain whether they should be placed among his logical or rhetorical works. In this note I want to give my reasons for excluding one of them from my forthcoming edition of his logical fragments. It is not my intention here to discuss all the questions it raises; I hope to come back to them in a (...) later volume of my commentary. (shrink)

Beginning with a review the logically first stages in the project of Random Dynamics, hoping for all laws nature being emergent, we also review what can be considered a consequence of Random Dynamics, a model—by myself and Masao Ninomiya—, which in principle predicts the initial conditions in such a way as to minimize a certain functional of the history of the Universe through both past and future. This functional is indeed the imaginary part of the action, which exists (only) in (...) our model of complex action. The main point of the present is to suggest this complex action model to be also helpfull in solving some problems for quantum mechanics. Especially as our model almost makes it possible in principle to calculate the full history of the universe, it even makes it in principle calculable, which one among several measurement results in a quantum experiment will actually be realized!Our “complex action model” thus is a special case of superdeterminism—in Bells way—and does not have true causality, but rather even in some cases true backward causation. In fact we claim in our model that the SSC(Superconducting Supercollider) were stopped by the US Congress due to the backward causation from the big amounts of Higgs particles, which it would have produced, if it had been allowed to run. The noumenon (“das Ding an sich”) in our model is the Feyman path integrand or better some fundamental quantities determined from second order effects of the latter integrand. The quantum mechanics interpretation here is strongly similar to the much criticized “transactional interpretation” by John Cramer (Rev. Mod. Phys. 58:647–688, 1986), but we might respond to some of the criticism. (shrink)

Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, thinker, dramatist and controversialist of many-sided interests, is the most representative figure of the German Enlightenment. His defence of Spinoza, who had traditionally been condemned as an atheist, provoked a major controversy in philosophy, and his publication of H. S. Reimarus' radical assault on Christianity led to fundamental changes in Protestant theology. This volume presents the most comprehensive collection to date in English of Lessing's philosophical and theological writings, several of which are here translated for the first (...) time. They are edited and translated by H. B. Nisbet, who also provides an introduction that sets them in their historical and philosophical contexts. (shrink)

By a “world-outlook” I mean a systematic account of the nature of the world which claims, by showing the place of man in the scheme of things, to indicate the point and purpose of his life. The theory of the world is often called a metaphysical theory and the theory of conduct an ethical or moral theory. In my opinion the clarification and criticism of world-outlooks is a fundamental part of philosophy. Indeed, I hardly think that philosophy would have existed (...) as something distinct from science or poetry but for the tendency to attempt some explanation of the world as the scene of human endeavour. When Kant referred to “the inevitable problems of pure reason” about “God, freedom, and immortality,” he was referring in a summary way to the fundamental philosophical task of analysing and criticizing world-outlooks, a task that may be undertaken even by those philosophers who do not believe that any world-outlook is or could be adequate. It is clear, of course, that the civilized religions, since they seek to show how human conduct fits in with some Divine Plan or Cosmic Conflict, have world-outlooks. It is, however, misleading to look upon religions and world-outlooks as the same thing, as some people do. For in ordinary usage religion involves belief in supernatural beings and conduct regulated in the light of this belief, but according to some world-outlooks there are no supernatural beings, while according to others beings may exist deserving that description but human conduct need take no account of them. (shrink)

In a given polity, interactions between the Governed and the Governing Strata are symbiotic. The Governed desire, and indeed need, infrastructure services organized. If such basic foundations are not provided, the economic activity so deeply cherished by both groups cannot be realized. The Governing Strata cannot function without the Governed. After all, without the Governed, there will not be a polity; hence nothing to govern. Regardless of the politico-economic system in effect, this co-dependence is inevitable, inescapable, indenturing both groups to (...) each other. This is the case, regardless of the designation, functions, or the style of the governance system. It matters not if the designation or philosophy of the said governance is a variation of pluralism or authoritarianism by a minority. (shrink)

Benedict Spinoza (1634–1677) is feted as the philosopher par excellence of the popular democratic multitude by Antonio Negri and others. But Spinoza himself expresses a marked ambivalence about the multitude in brief asides, and as for his thoughts on what he calls “the rule of (the) multitude,” that is, democracy, these exist only as meager fragments in his unfinished Tractatus Politicus or Political Treatise. This essay addresses the problem of Spinoza’s multitude. First, I reconstruct a vision of power that is (...) found in the Ethics but that tends to be overlooked in the scholarly literature: power is not just sheer efficacy or imposition of will, but rather involves a capacity for being-affected; I call this the conception of power as sensitivity. The second part of my argument shows how, given Spinoza’s emphatic political naturalism, the conception of power as sensitivity can be extended to his political philosophy to shed light on what Spinoza calls potentia multitudinis, or “the power of the multitude”—a term found solely in the Political Treatise and nowhere else in his oeuvre. This juxtaposition reveals significant qualifications to the liberatory potential of the multitude currently claimed in the scholarly literature. (shrink)

The past few decades of moral psychology research have yielded empirical anomalies for rationalist theories of moral judgments. An increasing number of psychologists and philosophers argue that these anomalies are explained well by sentimentalism, the thesis that the presence of an emotion is necessary for the formation of a sincere moral judgment. The present review reveals that while emotions and moral judgments indeed often co-occur, there is scant evidence that emotions directly cause or constitute moral judgments. Research on disgust, anger, (...) sympathy, and guilt indicates that people only reliably experience emotions when judging conduct that is relevant to the welfare of the self and valued others. Moreover, many recent studies have either failed to replicate or exposed crucial confounds in the most cited evidence in support of sentimentalism. Moral psychologists should jettison sentimentalism, and focus instead on how considerations of harm and welfare—the core concepts of rationalist theories— interact with empirical beliefs to shape moral judgments. (shrink)

Berkeley is viewed as a great "humanist" philosopher, defending the primary reality of the plain man's rich, varied, sensible world, and attempting in terms of that world to offer a rationale of science which will dispense with "matter and motion" metaphysic. Ardley feels that Berkeley's themes of the abstract character of mathematics and physics, and the primary importance of immediate experience anticipate Whitehead's "critique of scientific materialism"; and that his philosophy has the virtue of "fruitful engagement with the modern physical (...) sciences."--B. H. (shrink)

Larry Wright is concerned to provide a general account of what it means to ascribe a goal to an action or a function to a thing, an account which will do justice to such distinctions as that between a thing’s function and its accidental effects. His analysis for "S does B for the sake of G" is " B tends to bring about G; B occurs because it tends to bring about G.".

It has often been said that the Zhuangzi 莊子 advocates political abstention, and that its putative skepticism prevents it from contributing in any meaningful way to political thinking: at best the Zhuangzi espouses a sort of anarchism, at worst it is “the night in which all cows are black,” a stance that one scholar has charged is ultimately immoral. This article tracks possible political allusions within the text, and, by reading these against details of social, political, and historical context, sheds (...) light on another strand of the Zhuangzi—one that questions prevailing normative values because it is fiercely critical of scholarly complicity with violent imperial territorial consolidation. (shrink)

At long last, this seminal work is available in English. Originally published in German in 1923, it became almost immediately a center of interest and stormy controversy in both Marxist and non-Marxist circles. With the passage of time, the controversy has abated somewhat, the interest has heightened, and Lukács has become recognized generally as one of the most influential and creative Marxists of the post-World War I world. The tour de force in History and Class Consciousness is its insistence on (...) the indissoluble link between Hegel and Marx and on the centrality of the concept of alienation in Marx's thought--an insistence which was dramatically verified nine years later with the publication of Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and again in 1939 with the appearance of Marx's Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Of perhaps more lasting value are the dazzling expositions on the nature and role of class consciousness, on the open-endedness of history, on the dialectical method as the essence of authentic and orthodox marxism, on the concept of totality, and on fetishism and reification as the inevitable consequences of commodity production relations. Lukács might have rested his laurels on these features of the book and basked in the glory of their popularity. Instead, he chose to emphasize the negative features which he feared might lead the unwary reader down an un-Marxist or anti-Marxist path. Accordingly, he refused to permit republication or translation and those who wanted to read the work had to resort to mimeographed or photographic reproductions, or "pirate" editions. Despite these difficulties, the book managed to circulate widely among serious Marxists and students of Marxism and to exercise an influence which continues to this day. Both critics and admirers of Lukács considered his ban on the book to be "tactical" and his criticisms of it to be tongue-in-cheek, or opportunistic. But when Lukács finally authorized a new edition in 1967 and wrote a new preface for it, there could no longer be any doubt that he truly believed that the book contained grievous failings and that it was these failings which accounted for the book's popularity. Being still in transition from Hegel to Marx, Lukács had not succeeded in wholly reconstructing Hegel along revolutionary materialist lines, as Marx himself had succeeded in doing. In particular, Lukács had succumbed to the identical subject-object relation, which distorted his view of the relationship of man to nature, destroyed the basis for a solid Marxist ontology in which work mediated between man and nature, and disrupted the unity of theory and practice. From the standpoint of Marxism, Lukács' criticisms are unassailable, but this, by no means, entails that his evaluation of the book as a whole has to be accepted. It remains an impressive attempt, during a revolutionary period, to select those elements in Marxism which serve as effective theoretical tools to guide the revolution along a truly socialist path.--H. B. (shrink)

An engaging book if for no other reason than that it deliberately attempts to be refreshingly different from the mine-run of present-day books on ethics. It is also in many ways a persuasive book, although one suspects that the persuasiveness may be a function of a number of apparently novel distinctions and concepts, which upon reflection turn out to be somewhat uncritical. Still a third feature of the book is that, by way of illustrating the decisive role in ethics of (...) what Cua terms "the paradigmatic individual," two chapters are devoted to an examination of Confucius and Confucian ethics. Needless to say, this third feature is one which most contemporary writers on ethics would not have the competence thus to feature in their books, and which unhappily, this present reviewer does not have the competence even to comment on in his review! (shrink)

Is it feasible to treat Quine’s philosophy as a systematic, integrated whole? Superficially, at least, that philosophy is likely to impress one as being not so much a system, as a kaleidoscope of theories and pronouncements, worked out in response to individual issues and questions, and more or less as occasion would seem to demand, and with little indication as to how the various philosophical doctrines go together to make up what one could properly call an entire philosophy. Here, however, (...) is a book by a French scholar and philosopher, which describes itself as an attempt to see Quine "in perspective." Rather than in perspective, it is more as if Quine’s sundry doctrines and positions were being considered in their relation to one another and as reinforcing one another, and even as undergoing change and development in response not just to external criticism, but to internal stresses and strains as well. (shrink)

The rapid development of physics, the result of observations made and ideas introduced within the last few decades, has brought about a change in the whole system of physical concepts. This fact is common knowledge, and has already attracted the attention of philosophers. It is less well known that geometry too has had its crises, and undergone a reconstruction. For centuries, so-called “geometrical intuition” was used as a method of proof. In geometrical demonstrations, certain steps were allowed because they were (...) “self-evident,” because the correctness of the conclusion was “shown by the adjoined diagram,” etc. A crisis occurred in geometry because such intuition proved to be untrustworthy. Many of the propositions regarded as self-evident or based upon the consideration of diagrams turned out to be false. And so Euclidean geometry was reconstructed by methods free from all intuitive elements and strictly logical in nature. Moreover, for more than a century, various other geometries have been devised purely as logical constructions. Since they start with assumptions different from those of Euclid, and lead to conclusions partly in contradiction with his theorems, they are called “non-Euclidean.” Nevertheless, each one of these geometries is a closed system of propositions exempt from contradiction. Recently, some of them have even found application in physics. (shrink)

Analytical philosophy abounds in tours de force [[sic]], but these are usually directed against other genres of philosophy, particularly the brand which passes under the various titles of "speculative," "systematic," or "substantive" philosophy. What distinguishes Fain's tour de force is that he turns the cutting edge of analytical philosophy on itself and, in so doing, seeks to revalidate speculative philosophy on analytical grounds. The main attack is against the stereotypes of a dichotomy between history and the philosophy of history, of (...) analytical philosophy presented as the true basis of philosophy of history, and of speculative philosophy of history as some kind of pseudo-discipline which is neither philosophy nor history. At the same time, the author rejects the standard division of philosophy of history into analytical and speculative approaches. His positive arguments center around the crucial role of narration in history. It is not the historical facts which give intelligibility to history, but the story-line or plot which combines them into a coherent narrative. Narration is counterposed to the analytical philosopher's emphasis on descriptive explanation of the facts. Fain argues that narration not only does not preclude consideration of history as a science, but that science itself often requires narration for purposes of intelligibility. He downgrades the importance of the debate which has raged for the last three decades over the nature of historical explanation. Absorption with the pros and cons of the covering law model of historical explanation has tended to preempt the whole field of philosophy of history and to obscure other more basic issues such as the relationship of history to science. On the other hand, Fain could not resist the temptation to append an epilogue on Hempel's covering law model, thus denying in practice what he proclaimed in principle. The examples of speculative philosophy are drawn mainly from the works of Hegel, Marx, and Collingwood. They are expounded and criticized within the context of Fain's definition of philosophy of history as "the formulation and the critique of criteria of intelligibility of historical concepts." Although he finds shortcomings in the story-lines of all three from the standpoint of intelligibility, the author concludes with a call for historians and philosophers to debate the story-line that a history of mankind should adopt. The bibliography is informative and selective.--H. B. (shrink)

Spanish readers are fortunate in having a publishing house which is committed to reproduce in Spanish the complete works of Georg Lukács. The complete edition will consist of twenty-four, or more, volumes, of which ten are already in print, covering mainly Lukács works on esthetics and literary criticism. The Hegel volume was originally published in German in 1948. The main draft was written as early as the fall of 1938, but the outbreak of World War II delayed publication. Lukács at (...) that time was in the Soviet Union where, following Stalin's lead, Hegel was characterized as an apologist for the Prussian feudal opposition to the French revolution. Considering the winning of the war as more important than provoking a controversy over Hegel, Lukács put his manuscript aside for the duration. In The Young Hegel, Lukács settles his account with Hegel, much as Marx and Engels in The German Ideology--with one significant difference. The objective of Marx and Engels was the abolition of Hegelianism. Their polemic, therefore, was directed against Hegel and the neo-Hegelians. Lukács, on the other hand, sought the restoration of the Hegelian dimension of Marxism, and, while accepting the Marxian critique of Hegelianism, directed his attack against the detractors of Hegel--against the Stalin line within Marxism and against those like Dilthey and Kierkegaard outside of Marxism who transformed Hegel into an "irrationalist." Lukács is consequently much more positive in his treatment of Hegel than Marx and Engels. In History and Class Consciousness, Lukács emphasized the necessity of understanding Hegel in order to properly understand Marx. In The Young Hegel, the emphasis is on the dialectical opposite--Hegel is understood through the eyes of Marx, through the critique of Marx and through a Marxian interpretation by Lukács. Lukács' unique contribution in the present work is the detailed study of the close union of philosophy and economics in the genesis of Hegel's thought. Indeed, the original subtitle of the German edition reads: Über die Beziehungen von Dialektik und Ökonomie. The Spanish edition has a two-and-a-half page preface, written specially for it by Lukács in 1963, in which he states his conviction of the importance in the thought of Hegel and other great philosophers of concern with economic problems, both from the standpoint of economic theory and actual economic conditions. An English edition has been promised by Merlin Press in London, but no date of publication has yet been announced.--H. B. (shrink)

This book is a rare piece of writing in any language. Its first merit is that it puts in 360-odd pages a concise and highly readable history of economic thought from Ricardo and Adam Smith to modern times as seen through the critical spectacles of classical Marxist political economy. Its second merit is that it does not dismiss capitalist economics as mere apologetics or mystification, but--in the genuine spirit of Marx's principles of criticism--it also seeks out the positive aspects of (...) methodology and understanding which can help clarify the workings and malfunctions of late twentieth century capitalism. Nor does the author bow before any mystic infallibility of current Soviet economic theory. Among the most interesting treatments are those of the theories of Böhm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, Marshall, Veblen, Hobson, Hilferding, Kalecki, Keynes, Harrod-Domar, Kaldor, Sraffa, Galbraith, Myrdal, Strachey, and Bettelheim. Aguilar is a professor of economics at the University of Mexico and displays impressive scholarship and perception in his chosen field. His call is for Latin American intellectuals to free themselves from the restrictions of the economic theories of capitalist economics and to dedicate themselves to the development of the theoretical foundations necessary for the liberation of Latin America not only from economic domination, but also from the cultural, social, and political tutelage of their economic masters. Marx's model of capitalism and Lenin's model of imperialism have not lost their power in Latin America as grounds for explaining the continued economic, cultural, social, and political backwardness of this huge area. The present work demonstrates the intellectual sweep of this power. The book is well-footnoted, but, deplorably, lacks an index.--H. B. (shrink)

This is a new translation of one of Plekhanov's major works on historical materialism. It is based on the Russian edition of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, edited by V. A. Fomina. The appendix contains two valuable additional essays by Plekhanov: The Materialist Conception of History and The Role of the Individual in History, both of which are reprints with some minor revisions of translations of 1940. Plekhanov's footnotes are given on the page (...) and explanatory notes by the editor have been added in the back of the book. Plekhanov is generally credited with having been the first to apply the term "dialectical materialism" to the philosophical materialism of Marx and Engels. In the opinion of many non-Marxist and some Marxist scholars, this was the crucial initial step in the elaboration of a deviationist doctrine which not only departed from Marx's and Engels' original thought, but which eventually overshadowed it. Plekhanov, in this view, served as the link between Engels and Lenin in which a tendency in Engels toward a mechanistic materialism, manifested in his Anti-Dühring and The Dialectics of Nature, was developed into a dominant theme. Dialectical materialism became the term applicable to the science of the laws of motion of man, society, and nature--of all reality. Historical materialism, or, as Marx and Engels called it, the materialist conception of history, became but a subordinate branch of dialectical materialism, dealing specifically with the laws of motion of man and society. It became a philosophy of history derived from a broader philosophy of nature, or of the cosmos. Reality became an autonomous existent--independent of the human species. And epistemology became a copy theory of man's never-ending and never-achieved struggle to know and reflect that which pre-exists outside of him. Regrettably, the introduction by the editor ignores these evaluations and interpretations and sticks to the more traditional Marxist areas of discussing Plekhanov's masterful refutation of economic determinism, his exaggeration of the importance of geographic conditions, and Lenin's criticisms of his theoretical weaknesses. Plekhanov's treatment of the materialist conception of history still stands as one of the most brilliant and coherent presentations of this seminal doctrine. It is a pity and a historical deprivation that he became so preoccupied with the polemics of the day as to never sit down to write a systematic exposition of Marxism.--H. B. (shrink)

There are few books in any language which attempt to survey the whole range of Lukács' work. English readers may, therefore, consider themselves fortunate to have available the present volume and, doubly fortunate, to have forthcoming in late 1970 or early 1971 yet another book by one of the present contributors, István Mészáros, titled the Life and Work of Georg Lukács. The work under review is based on a series of lectures in 1968 at the Graduate School of Contemporary European (...) Studies at the University of Reading. The Introduction by Parkinson is largely expository and concentrates on Lukacs' celebrated Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein. The individual essays which follow are critical examinations of Lukács' views in the fields of philosophy, sociology, and literary criticism. The essays are generally of a high caliber and the differences which the authors express in relation to various aspects of Lukács are themselves testimony to the complexity and depth of his thought. The most comprehensive, and, in many ways, the most interesting approach to Lukács is in the lead-off essay by Mészáros which, in the context of dealing with his concept of the dialectic, seeks to disclose the basic structure of Lukács' thought and to establish its continuity from the young Lukács to the mature Lukács. Mészáros finds from the very beginning not only a revolutionary turn in Lukács' structure of thought, but along with it--or within it--or perhaps even conditioning it--a complex and far-ranging "ought". The "ought-ridden" character of Lukács' thought, Mészáros claims, is both the source of some of his great intellectual achievements and of some of his great failures, particularly when he substitutes ideology and moral postulates for mediated, concrete reality. Those interested in the development of the concept of the dialectic from Hegel to Marx and from Marx to the present will find Mészáros' discussion of Lukács' categories of "totality" and "mediation" informative and thought-provoking. H. A. Hodges examines Lukács' critique of philosophical irrationalism and singles out for special study his comments on the degree to which Dilthey and Mannheim contributed toward this trend. Parkinson, in addition to writing the introduction, has an essay on the nature of Besonderheit, the central category of Lukács' aesthetics. He translates Besonderheit as "speciality" or "the special." Roy Pascal digs into Lukács' concept of totality as developed in the Ästhetik and as applied in his critique of Walter Scott and of Kafka. In addition, there is an essay by David Craig on how, in Lukács' view, history molds literature, and another essay by Stanley Mitchell on Lukács' concept of the "beautiful." All in all, while the book does not represent a definitive or inclusive introduction to the work of Lukács, it does constitute an important landmark in presenting many important dimensions of his thought, as well as some highly critical appraisals of its validity and importance.--H. B. (shrink)

It may be an exaggeration to claim the twentieth century as Vico's, but the present volume attests that Vico's thought "is alive and doing well." Thirty-nine scholars from Italy, England, France, Germany, the United States, and Australia submitted original essays for the occasion, and the editor furnished not only an essay, but also a preface and an epilogue. The essays are divided into four groups: Comparative Historical Studies; Vico's Influence on Western Thought and Letters; Vico and Contemporary Social and Humanist (...) Thinking; Vico and Modern Philosophy, Pedagogy, and Aesthetics. With a few notable exceptions, the main effort is to show the pervasive influence of Vichian concepts in the modern world. If this does not always come off, there remains the striking parallelism of Vico's thinking with modern streams in such varied fields of the social sciences as philosophy of history, linguistics, epistemology, phenomenology, existentialism, Gestalt psychology, sociology, cultural, philosophical, and structural anthropology, and, of course, the anti-Cartesian stance of much of contemporary philosophy. Space does not permit the listing of the individual contributors and the titles of their essays. Suffice it say that they constitute a useful beginning for the interpretation of modern thought in terms of Vichian origins and for the reinterpretation of Vico's thought in terms of contemporary extensions of basically similar views. The volume also contains a four-and-a-half page bibliography of works on Vico in English. Regrettably, there is no listing of translations into English of Vico's own works. Even more regrettable is the omission of works on Vico in any other language--a sad capitulation to the provincialism and chauvinism which sometimes passes as American scholarship.--H. B. (shrink)

This volume starts where the four-volume work by Johannes Hoffmeister, Briefe von und an Hegel, left off. It consists of excerpts from letters, diaries, memoirs, newspaper and journal articles, etc., much of which has never been published before. What emerges is a conflicting picture of Hegel, the man--from which the reader can take his choice. The comments are from contemporaries: relatives, friends, acquaintances, students, colleagues, admirers, critics, and last, but not least, enemies. The chapters are organized chronologically by city of (...) residence, beginning with Stuttgart, 1770-1788, and covering the periods in Tübingen, Bern, Frankfurt, Jena, Bamberg, Nürnberg, Heidelberg, and Berlin. There is a special chapter on the period immediately following Hegel's death, and a final chapter on After-Effects. The biggest chapter by far is the one on the Berlin period, which spans the longest space of time and also covers the time when Hegel's fame had reached its zenith. All told there are 769 excerpts from the pens of such varied personalities as Karl, Christiane, and Marie Hegel, Hölderlin, Goethe, Schelling, Karl Rosenkranz, Eduard Zeller, Fichte, Schleiermacher, Schiller, Schlegel, Brentano, Savigny, Michelet, Schopenhauer, Victor Cousin, Heine, Feuerbach, Bouterwek, Varnhagen v. Ense, K. F. Zeller, Arnold Ruge, Ranke, Eduard Gans, and many others. This book will undoubtedly figure prominently in future biographies of Hegel. However, it is not only for the Hegel specialist. Those who are interested in that specific period of German culture and those who simply enjoy anecdotal historical commentary will find much of interest and amusement here.--H. B. (shrink)

This presentation uses the by-now customary division of philosophy of history into speculative and critical philosophy, devoting a volume to each. The text is mainly excerpts from the philosophers under study, with brief interpretative comments preceding the text and selected bibliographies following. The excerpts are generally well chosen and can be read with profit by those seeking an introduction to philosophy of history, as well as by more advanced students. The interpretations in a number of cases suffer from one-sidedness, especially (...) in the cases of Hegel and Marx. There are also some careless errors, the most glaring being the switching of the meaning of the German terms, Historie and Geschichte. The speculative philosophies of history are excerpted from Augustine, Vico, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Spengler, and Toynbee. There is also an interesting excerpt from Herder. The critical philosophies of history consist of selections from Comte, Mill, Dilthey, Collingwood, Walsh, Hempel, Dray, Mandelbaum, Weingartner, Beard, Becker, Nagel, Aron, Hook and Berlin. The inclusion of such a diversified and conflicting group of philosophies under the common heading of "critical philosophy" makes for an uneasy and tight fit. The final essay in Volume II is by Georges Florovsky, "The Study of the Past" and it appears in a chapter entitled "Conclusion"--all of which is a little puzzling, since Florovsky is presenting a theology of history as distinct from a philosophy of history.--H. B. (shrink)

This is a useful addition to the metaphysical library. It is written from the optimistic view that metaphysics stands on the verge of a new age of creativity, made possible by the "resituation of reason" in modern metaphysics, by the rethinking of the nature of man and subjectivity, and by the new methodologies for the study of man suggested by linguistic analysis and phenomenology. The history focuses on what Strawson calls "descriptive" metaphysics. It presents a useful summary of metaphysical thought (...) from the pre-Socratics through to the modern age, the groupings being the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Medieval Metaphysics, Post-Medieval, and finally Contemporary Metaphysics. The only philosopher short-treated in the presentation is Spinoza, who gets only one paragraph sandwiched between fourteen pages on Descartes and six on Leibniz. The final chapter on Contemporary Metaphysics is by far the liveliest and most controversial. It is given over to an examination of the metaphysical contributions of pragmatists like James, phenomenologists like Husserl and Heidegger, and logical and linguistic analysts like Russell and Strawson. Regrettably, Whitehead receives no mention at all. Yet it is hard to see how any account of contemporary metaphysics--particularly a renaissance of metaphysics--can be considered complete without some reference to Whitehead's metaphysical scheme. In relation to the present work, his phenomenology and his approach to language would seem to be particularly pertinent.--H. B. (shrink)

This is a collection of essays, all of which have appeared earlier as individual pieces. What they have in common is a relentless effort to "demythologize" Marx and Marxism and to ridicule American intellectuals who continue to be attracted to Marxist principles and doctrine. Most disturbing to Feuer is that "the fallacies of an older generation" are being repeated among the younger. The book is at its weakest when Feuer is at his most Freudian. The crudity of attributing Marx's concept (...) of class struggle to his hatred of his mother taxes the credulity. Nor does he become more credible when he blames Marx for the ill-fated and tragic life of his daughter Eleanor. The biggest mystery of all is what such Freudian studies have to do with the merit or demerit of Marx's theories of man, history and society. The mystery is further compounded by Feuer's abrupt and dogmatic dismissal of recent scholarly works which have traced Marx's intellectual debts to Hegel and which have emphasized a fundamental continuity between Marx's concept of alienation in his early works and its re-expression later in political economy terms such as exploitation and fetishization. Feuer adds nothing to these carefully documented studies and detracts much from his own argument by the baldly unsupported assertion that "the truth is" to the contrary. Finally, it hardly enhances Feuer's objectivity to brush aside all of the recent books on Marxism on the grounds that they "add little to the earlier interpretations and criticisms made by Sidney Hook and Max Eastman."--H. B. (shrink)

This text was originally delivered as the Marshall Lectures in Cambridge in 1967-1968 and one would expect that Alfred Marshall, the great economist of the liberal tradition, would come off the better in comparison with Karl Marx. The expectation is not disappointed, but in the end Kerr finds both Marshall and Marx equally irrelevant to the problems of the contemporary world. The liberalism and socialism which helped shape the modern world now stand historically exhausted. The formative influence in the world (...) is no longer the struggle between classes or between socialism and capitalism. The struggle now is within one pluralistic world, whose industrial nature embraces the socialist as well as the capitalist sectors. The nature of the struggle is no longer for the possession of property, but for power--power to set the rules, fix the rewards, and influence the style of life. Those who engage in the struggle are not economic classes, but social groups and individuals. There is a challenge to the whole society, but by its very nature it cannot succeed. The challenge comes from the under-class and from the outer-class. All other elements, including the workers, the managers, leaders, white-collar employees and self-employed, make up the inner-class and conduct the struggle for power within the framework of acceptance of the existing social order. The two points to emphasize here are that the under-class and outer-class do not have the combined strength to win out, except with the support of some dominant groups of the inner-class--a fairly hopeless prospect. Secondly, no group can win conclusively, since authority in a highly industrialized society can never be held equally by all, or entirely by one. We can only conclude from Kerr's exposition that mankind is forever stuck with what Hegel called a "bad infinity." Post-capitalism and post-socialism have no place to go and a new "end of history" has been attained. Kerr concludes wistfully that we "can only envy the optimism of Marx and Marshall that surround their views of the evolution of the working class."--H. B. (shrink)

Marxists tend to write not only with conviction, but with passion, flowing from an active commitment to the emancipation of mankind. In the hands of a dogmatist, such conviction and passion can serve to forge new chains. In the hands of a creative thinker, they can give wings to the freedom struggle. Mészáros' book is a "winger"--one of the most far-ranging books on the subject of Marx's theory of alienation since Lukács' seminal Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein and his chapter on alienation (...) in Der junge Hegel. This is not at all surprising since Mészáros is a former student of, and assistant to, Lukács and freely acknowledges his intellectual indebtedness to his old teacher. The present work concentrates on a close examination of the various aspects of alienation as Marx dealt with them in the Paris Manuscripts of 1844. Mészáros makes clear, however, that the framework of interpretation and evaluation of the Paris Manuscripts is the totality of Marx's works. Within this context, the Manuscripts are presented as Marx's first great "synthesis in statu nascendi," in which he discovered the dialectic of alienated labor as the motive force in history, driving toward its own self-Aufhebung. Mészáros cites chapter and verse on the continuity of this original synthesis in the later works of Marx. Not only did Marx not abandon the concept of alienation after 1845, nor its centrality, but he did not, as has been often alleged, abandon the terms Entfremdung or Entäusserung either. Mészáros' justification for advancing the Marxian concept of alienation today is the bold assertion that the transcendence of labor's self-alienation is on the order of the day; it is the essential ingredient in rescuing mankind from self-destruction, and not a remote concept for the intellectual gratification of isolated intellectuals. Modern usage of the term 'alienation' has proliferated to the extent that it is used to apply to just about any and every manifestation of out-of-jointness between the individual and society, or between one individual and another. There is here a curious confirmation of Marx's thesis. His point was that capitalism inevitably extends alienation more and more pervasively into more and more aspects of life as it extends itself. Alienation is not a byproduct of capitalism; it is integral to the process of capitalism itself. From this, it is easy to derive the "necessity" of its transcendence. In addition to dealing with the origins and structure of Marx's theory of alienation, the author devotes separate chapters to the Economic Aspects, Political Aspects, Ontological and Moral Aspects, and the Aesthetic Aspects. The latter two chapters, in particular, display the influence of Lukács and the originality of Mészáros' points of departure. The last three chapters of the book take up The Controversy about Marx, The Individual and Society, and the Crisis of Education. Mészáros is sometimes unclear and stylistically ponderous, and he occasionally stretches Marx too much and too far, or gets pedantically over-involved in detail, but these are small flaws in a work which throws much light with rigorous scholarship on such an important subject in such a manifold of interrelated aspects.--H. B. (shrink)

Coriolano Alberini was an outstanding philosopher of history in Argentina and a major influence on his country's philosophical thought. A keen student of Kant and Herder, a vigorous opponent of positivism, and a strong admirer of Bergson and Ortega y Gasset, Alberini's distinctive feature was an approach to history which stressed action over speculation. His passion was to promote the development of Argentina's national independence and a genuine national culture. The present volume of his writings was compiled and edited posthumously. (...) The titles of the seven essays show Alberini's absorption with the shaping of his national culture and the preponderant influence on it of European ideas. Of special interest are his articles on the idea of progress in Argentine philosophy, and the influence on Argentine culture of French, German, and English thought. The piece on German influence is published in Spanish for the first time in this volume. In English the titles of the essays are as follows: The Metaphysics of Alberdi; German Philosophy in Argentina; French Thought in Argentine Culture; English Philosophic Thought in Argentina; The Idea of Progress in Argentine Philosophy; Philosophy and International Relations; Genesis and Evolution of Argentine Philosophic Thought; Philosophic Culture in Argentina.--H. B. (shrink)

The emphasis in this approach to philosophy of history is on the system philosophers. The emphasis itself follows from the theme of the book, which is that man's vision of historical reality is ultimately reducible to religious or secular notions of progress, or to cyclical recurrence of some kind. All other outlooks on history are taken to be merely variations on these two basic themes. As a result, the modern existentialist, phenomenological and analytic approaches to history are all lumped together (...) in one short chapter at the end of the book. The linguistic approach goes unmentioned altogether. There is a special chapter on Theology of History and the Augustinian Spirit. The philosophers examined are Augustine, Vico, Kant, Turgot, Saint-Simon, Marx, Nietzsche, Danilevsky, Spengler, Sorokin, Hegel, Dilthey, Croce, Toynbee, Teilhard de Chardin, Maritain, Dawson, and Marrou. The bibliographical references are valuable. Unfortunately, the author accepts uncritically interpretations which have been vigorously challenged in the last thirty years, most notably in the cases of Hegel, Marx, and Dilthey.--H. B. (shrink)

This slim volume by an Austrian Marxist attempts two major types of correction to contemporary Marxism. One is an historical correction which seeks to restore what was originally present in the basic vision of Marx and Engels. The other is an innovative correction which seeks to revise the historical doctrine in the face of new conditions which contradict its original conclusions or premisses. The historical correction is the restoration of the human element as the crucial factor in the law of (...) motion of society. Without the human element, there are only tendencies in the movement of history. The human element adds direction--converts a tendency into a specific direction. Previous social movements were spontaneous, but the leap from capitalism to socialism absolutely requires the conscious activity of man. The revisionist correction is two-pronged, but its necessity arises from the same consideration of how to effect the move from capitalism to socialism. The capitalist model has not acted in accordance with Marx's conception of the absolute or relative impoverishment of the working class. Social distribution of surplus value in the industrial powers of the western world has been sufficient to develop a materially satisfied working class. The appeal to the working class, therefore, has to change to a new stress on culture, democracy and, above all, morality. At the same time, the economic arena must not be abandoned. The concept of structural reform, advanced by the late Palmiro Togliatti, should be supported. This means that the working class should join in capitalist planning to avoid depression; that it should insist on a larger role in the operation of the plants and in their relations to the financial and political institutions; and that it should struggle for nationalizing measures which take the decisive means of production out of the hands of the big capitalists. Structural reform could hardly be expected to bring on revolution, but it does move the working class forward toward the decisive content of the socialist revolution, which for Marek is the socialization of the means of production. It thereby tends to heighten the class consciousness which Marek considers vital. This book represents an effort to restore coherence to Marxism by confrontation with historical reality. The failure of the effort does not render it futile, especially as a more extensive attempt by the author is evidently already in preparation. Students of Marxism who do not accept the theoretical exposition of the present volume will still find it useful as a reference for rarely quoted statements by leading Marxists, beginning with Marx himself.--H. B. (shrink)

Festschriften may have gone out of style, but not out of print. The desire to pay tribute to an important thinker remains strong and no one has found a more suitable vehicle. Hence the present volume in honor of Max Fisch, who retired recently from the University of Illinois after a long and distinguished career in the academic world, which began in 1926. The volume consists of fourteen essays by former graduate students of Fisch, as well as two short pieces (...) by Fisch himself, a biographical sketch by Max Harold Fisch, a preface by D. W. Gotshalk, a chronological bibliography of Fisch's writings, and a list of theses directed by Fisch from 1947 to 1968 at the University of Illinois. The essays cover such diverse philosophers as Aristotle, Hartshorne, Merleau-Ponty, Agassiz, Harvey, Hegel, and Peirce and range from subjects like Freedom and the Justification of Morality to Logic, Frequency Theory of Probability, Language and the Self--and even beyond, to subjects such as The Origin of the Species and a Taoist Treatise on the Nourishment of Life. Curiously, despite Fisch's pioneer work in bringing Vico to the attention of American readers, none of the essays center on Vichian thought; nor do any of the theses listed in the back of the book take Vico as the subject of the dissertation.--H. B. (shrink)

This book represents the text used by Ortega for presentation of his lecture course on metaphysics at the University of Madrid in 1932-1933. Stylistically, the manuscript is illustrative of his pedagogical method, rather than his method of philosophical exposition. In its own way it demonstrates how the literal transcription of what is effective orally can become in written form tiresomely repetitious and frustratingly slow in development. The thesis of the lectures is that metaphysics is implicit in man's basic orientation toward (...) life. Orientation implies a previous state of disorientation. The authentic self is aware of the need for orientation and makes the move consciously. Ingredient in the consciousness of the authentic self is an awareness of self as solitary and alone, thrown into a chaotic and hostile world in which it must unendingly make its life by what it does. The unauthentic self, on the other hand, lives a fictitious existence, accepting sociality as the basis of existence and therefore uncritically accepting the social and cultural norms of the times. The unauthentic self is always oriented, but falsely so, since it does not find its own way to its orientation. At the end of the lectures, Ortega seems close to the point of merging the authentic and unauthentic "I's" into one self, although he never quite gets there. But whether the two "I's" retain their categorial separateness or whether they are transformed into two modes of being of the same self, the same question remains: On what grounds is public life less authentic than private life, and the external less real than the internal? Further, the asocial, solitary "I" which must think through its orientation in solitude, i.e., independently of society, must use the most social of all tools to carry through its project, namely, language. The last three lectures contain a brief evaluation of idealism and realism and the inadequacies of both doctrines in explaining reality.--H. B. (shrink)

This volume is a welcome, exciting, and unusually informative addition to what now seems a definite trend toward introducing Latin-American philosophers to the English-reading world. The preface contains a brief review of milestones in this development, which the interested reader will find handy as reference. The principal features common to post-revolutionary Latin-American intellectual history are very present in Lipp's examination of Argentine thought; namely, the dedication to some principle of activism, the search for an authentic national character, a national ethos (...) fashioned in the crucible of European traditions and the specific conditions confronting the new nations, the linkage of philosophy to the economic, social, and political conditions of the time and the rejection of abstract speculative philosophy as inconsistent with, and alien to, the needs of the struggling young societies. Lipp's chosen area is the study of twentieth-century Argentine intellectual development as seen through the prewar period of positivism, the postwar reaction against positivism, and the contemporary period. Each period is studied by examining the work of an outstanding Argentine philosopher: positivism and naturalism through Jose Ingenieros, the ethics of human freedom and personalism through Alejandro Korn, and transcendentalist anthropology through the works of Francisco Romero. There is something fresh and appealing in the philosophical expressions of these youthful, undeveloped, or under-developed societies which should find responsive echoes among student youth in this country. Ingenieros' book, The Mediocre Man, inspired generations of Latin-American students to revolt and reform the universities and their respective societies. Korn's strongly ethical views led him to sympathize openly with student revolt and to oppose the divorcing of philosophy from historic reality. Romero put his life where his philosophy was and went to jail for his opposition to Peron. Romero's dream of a humanized transformation of society and Korn's view of man as a "rebellious animal" who strives for human freedom through rebellion and creativity are but two sparks of the book's vitality that recommend it to the English-speaking reader.--H. B. (shrink)

This volume is a translation from the French original which appeared in 1965. It is a concise and critical examination of Soviet philosophical thought since the death of Stalin. The study is restricted to dialectical materialism probably on the supposition that this crucial area would provide significant clues to the status of Marxist philosophy as a whole in the post-Stalin period. The author discloses that Soviet philosophers, even before the 20th Congress, had already begun to criticize as thought-stifling Stalin's dogmatic (...) views on diamat. De-Stalinization has encouraged the renewed serious study of Hegel and the rediscovery of the importance of the categories for philosophical synthesis. But the author finds Soviet philosophic thought still barren of originality. Soviet philosophy is found to be the least critical of all philosophies. The easiest way to discredit Soviet philosophy, the author asserts, would be to translate one of their contemporary texts on the history of philosophy! Planty-Bonjour does not make any comparisons between the interplay of philosophers and working scientists in the western world and in the U.S.S.R. He reports that diamat is of no particular use to working Soviet scientists and that it has lost practically all control over scientific activity. The main body of the book is devoted to a critique of the Soviet notion of category and to the dialectification of the categories. In the author's view, Soviet philosophers are inevitably led to a dead-end by the incompatible and nonjustified concepts that the real is rational and that the real is matter. This incompatibility makes diamat inherently incoherent. Hegel's dialectic cannot serve as a means of avoiding the problem of transcendence toward which the basically realistic attitude of Soviet philosophy is leading. A genuine dialogue between Soviet philosophers and spiritualist philosophers is possible only if the former drop the dialectic of nature and allow the realistic tendency in their philosophy to develop.--H. B. (shrink)

In his first book on Marx, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, published in 1961, Tucker developed three main themes: Marx's philosophy is deeply rooted in the traditions of German philosophy from Kant to the neo-Hegelians; there is a fundamental continuity between the thought of the young Marx of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and the mature Marx of the Critique of Political Economy and Das Kapital; the missing clue for a full understanding of Marx, particularly of the apparently contradictory (...) presence of strong moral overtones in Marx's writings and the absence of any supporting philosophy of ethics, is that Marx was basically a utopian religious moralist with an eschatology that envisaged the redemption of man. These three themes are briefly and forcefully restated in the present book without change or qualification and serve as the springboard for extending Tucker's interpretation of Marx and Engels into new areas. The reference to Marx and Engels introduces another element common to both works. Unlike most non-Marxist scholars, Tucker treats Marx and Engels as harmonious collaborators in the fashioning of a single doctrine. The first hundred pages are studded with references to the joint views of both men and their differences in belief are mentioned perfunctorily. Six of the seven chapters in the book have appeared previously as individual essays. The new chapter is on the relevance of Marxism to the modernization theories of the contemporary social sciences. Two other chapters examine Marx and Engels' position on distributive justice and on the state and politics. The latter half of the book takes up Marxism as an ideology of revolutionary movements, with special stress on the appeal of Marxism to the intelligentsia of under-developed countries and on the theoretical contributions of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao tse-Tung. The sixth chapter is on the de-radicalization of Marxism in the USSR and the final chapter finds an enduring value in Marx's utopian "futurology" of a transformed mature humanity living in a transformed world.--H. B. (shrink)

This is the second installment of Miss Coburn's great edition of Coleridge's notebooks, and covers the years 1804-1808. As before, the text and Miss Coburn's invaluable notes are bound separately. The Notebooks cannot be reviewed, and can scarcely be described. Anyone interested in Coleridge as poet, critic, theologian, speculative thinker will find a universe in this astonishing collection of an incredibly comprehensive mind's very substance.--H. B.

Bradley's essay, first published in 1874, is considered the earliest significant application of British idealism to philosophy of history and an exemplar of Anglo-American analytical philosophy of history. The editor of the present edition goes much further. He credits Bradley with being one of the chief sources of the twentieth-century idea of history and more particularly, of Collingwood's expression of that idea. Rubinoff makes out a good case for the identity between Collingwood and Bradley. Collingwood's concept of history as the (...) re-enactment of past thought has its counterpart in Bradley's "identification of consciousness," and Collingwood's idea of history as an attempt to organize the thought of the past into a dynamically developing scale of forms parallels Bradley's theory of reality as a concrete universal which appears in finite centers. Bradley evidently had no knowledge of Dilthey, yet his reactions to history were essentially the same. Both viewed history as an autonomous discipline requiring its own methodology, and both rejected the "dehumanized" approach of positivism, on the one hand, and the relativism and skepticism of primitive historicism on the other hand. Similarly, both had recourse to the concept of re-experience of past experience by the historian. The line from Bradley to Collingwood is clear enough. What seems cloudy is Rubinoff's claim that Dilthey lapsed back into positivism by presupposing the uniformity of human nature as the ground for understanding self and others, while Bradley escaped this lapse by making the historian the criterion of historical knowledge. It seems more accurate to describe Dilthey's concept as the continuity of human nature, not its uniformity. Uniformity would suggest that primitive man could understand modern society. Dilthey could hardly have been suggesting such a possibility! And, clearly, Bradley's concept of the historian as criterion of historical knowledge is only comprehensible within the framework of the continuity of human nature.--H. B. (shrink)