Written for the general reader and the student of moral philosophy, this book provides a clear and unified treatment of Kant's theory of morals. Bruce Aune takes into account all of Kant's principal writings on morality and presents them in a contemporary idiom. Originally published in 1980. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these (...) important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

A comprehensive introductory study of the key concepts and problems in traditional and contemporary metaphysics. Aune presents and defends a point of view that is naturalistic, nominalistic and pragmatic-an approach that has the overall advantage of providing a coherent, structured view of the topics he discusses.

Philosophers writing on the subject of human action have found it tempting to introduce their subject by raising Wittgenstein's question, 'What is left over if you subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?' The presumption is that something of particular interest is involved in an action of raising an arm that is not present in a mere bodily movement, and the philosopher's task is to specify just what this is. Unfortunately, such (...) an approach does not take us very far, since a person could properly be said to raise his (or her) arm while asleep or hypnotized even though he (or she) would not be performing an action in the sense of 'action' with which philosophers are particularly concerned. To avoid this kind of difficulty I shall approach the subject of human action is a more academic way: I shall expound some important rival theories of human action, and introduce the relevant issues by commenting critically on those theories. One of the issues I eventually introduce is a metaphysical one. A theory of action makes sense, I contend, only on the assumption that there are such 'things' as actions (or events). After considering some key arguments bearing on the issue I conclude that, as matters currently stand in philosophy, a metaphysically noncommittal attitude toward actions and events seems justified. (shrink)

Many philosophers believe that the traditional problem of our knowledge of the external world was dissolved by Wittgestein and others. They argue that it was not really a problem - just a linguistic `confusion' that did not actually require a solution. Bruce Aune argues that they are wrong. He casts doubt on the generally accepted reasons for putting the problem aside and proposes an entirely new approach. By considering the history of the problem from Descartes to Kant, (...) class='Hi'>Aune shows that analogous arguments create difficulties for the contemporary philosophical consensus. He makes it clear that the problem remains acute, particualarly for our understanding of scientific evidence. The solution he proposes draws upon contemporary philosophy of science and probability theory. (shrink)

Admirers of Plato are usually lovers of literary art, for Plato wrote dramatic dialogues rather than didactic volumes and did so with rare literary skill. You would expect such a philosopher to place a high value on literary art, but Plato actually attacked it, along with other forms of what he called mimêsis, and argued that most of it should be banned from the ideal society that he described in the Republic. What objections did Plato have with mimêsis? Do those (...) objections apply to the sort of art we value today? Are they well founded? These are the questions that I shall be discussing in my talk today. (shrink)

The A Priori, Universality, and Necessity 23 Axioms and Primitive Rules of Inference 26 General Doubts about Intuitive Knowledge 28 Logical Truths and Rules of Inference 32 Alleged Self-evident Factual Truths 36 Three Final Examples, Two Old and One New 40 An Indirect Argument for Rationalism 43..

This paper propounds and defends a distinction between analytic and synthetic truth that is suggested by some well-Known remarks by c. S. Peirce. Important objections by quine and others to the usual distinction are discussed, And a definition of cognitive synonymy for predicates is offered. It is argued that the determinateness of a predicate's sense requires an analytic-Synthetic distinction for a large class of statements including that predicate. It is conceded that the predicates of everyday language probably do not possess (...) a fully determinate meaning, But at best this shows, It is argued, That a satisfactory analytic-Synthetic distinction has the character of a conceptual ideal. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: A‐theories, T‐theories, and P‐theories Problems with A‐theories and T‐theories Predication Advantages of P‐theories A New Look at Some Old Examples What are Concepts? Some Problems about DSTs More about Concepts The Plausibility of the P‐theory.

The article begins by developing a distinction between two sorts of epistemic justification--Namely, A proposition's being justified and a person's being justified in accepting a proposition. It concludes that the latter sort of justification is what is crucial for knowing. The article also makes various observations about the alleged foundation of knowledge and about chisholm's rules of evidence.

Chisholm holds that each person's empirical knowledge is a structure resting on a foundation of self-presenting propositions. He also holds that a person's knowledge of the past and the external world cannot be inferred from his self-presenting propositions by the rules of deduction and induction; special rules of evidence are needed. I argue that Chisholm has not made a compelling case for either view and that there is good reason to doubt that either view is correct.

There has long been scholarly disagreement about how well book one of the Republic fits together with the books that follow. An extreme view finds book one seriously at odds with the rest of the Republic in both philosophical content and argumentative method. The position taken here is that the dialogue is highly unified in both philosophical content and argumentative method. The central doctrines of the later books are contained in book one in compressed form, and the argumentative method of (...) book one, taken as a whole, does not differ substantially from the argumentative method of the later books. (shrink)

According to Blanshard, the aim of philosophy is to understand the world. This understanding is achieved, he thinks, only when we can offer a special kind of answer to the question Why? as it may be directed to any thing or event that puzzles us. The answer given will provide an explanation of the puzzling thing or event. The relevant kind of explanation is "logical," and the answer given must be "ultimate," that is, self-evidently true or such that it can (...) be seen to follow from something that is self-evident. (shrink)

This paper criticizes the epistemological doctrine of moderate rationalism that has been defended in recent years by such writers as Laurence BonJour, Alvin Plantinga, and George Bealer. It is argued that this new form of rationalism is really no better than the old one and that the key claim common to both---that intuition or rational insight provides a satisfactory basis for a priori knowledge---is untenable. Most of the criticism is directed specifically against Laurence BonJour’s recent “dialectical” defense of the doctrine. (...) Since BonJour’s defense is essentially an attempt to show how a priori knowledge is possible, an alternative, empiricist view of a priori knowledge is presented that eludes his objections and is supported by the criticism brought against moderate rationalism. (shrink)

Although philosophy has undergone a number of revolutions since the turn of the century, the existence of universals is still debated largely in the terms employed by Moore and Russell around 1910. A recent article by Alan Donagan illustrates this nicely, for Donagan expounds and defends what he takes to be the principal argument for universals given by Russell in The Problems of Philosophy. I shall comment critically on the case Donagan makes for Russell's metaphysical realism, but my main concern (...) is to establish a point of more general interest—namely, that the most plausible strategy for defending a commitment to universals actually raises more problems than it promises to solve. (shrink)

Chisholm holds that each person's empirical knowledge is a structure resting on a foundation of self-presenting propositions. He also holds that a person's knowledge of the past and the external world cannot be inferred from his self-presenting propositions by the rules of deduction and induction; special rules of evidence are needed. I argue that Chisholm has not made a compelling case for either view and that there is good reason to doubt that either view is correct.

In the past couple of decades several different accounts of the logic of practical reasoning have been proposed.1 The account I have recommended on a number of occasions is clearly the simplest, because it requires no special logical principles, holding that, in respect of deduction, practical reasoning is adequately understood as involving only standard assertoric principles. My account has recently encountered various objections, the most dismissive of which is that it is too simple to deal with complicated cases of practical (...) inference. I am not daunted by these objections. My aim here is to offer some observations that will make the merits of my account easier to appreciate. (shrink)

This document provides a system of punctuation that is based on the syntax of English sentences. It accords with the practice of leading publishers, and it conforms to the recommendations of such publications as The New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage. Skillful writers often punctuate in ways that violate this system of punctuation, but they have earned the right to do so: they know what they are doing and why. If you master the system presented in (...) this document, you will not make errors of punctuation that teachers and editors will want to correct. You will also have the ability to justify your occasional departures from the rules: you will understand why your usage is preferable in the circumstances. (shrink)

The fundamental debate in contemporary epistemology has been between foundationalists, coherentists, and contextualists. The parties in the debate generally contend that we have knowledge, that having knowledge requires justified belief, and that justified belief consists either in being rationally inferable from some special set of propositions, in cohering in a special way with other beliefs accepted by the subject, or in bearing some special relation to a context in which they are formed or the subject is situated. In this book (...) Elgin opposes views of these kinds and defends a different sort of epistemological theory. Unlike most epistemologists, her theory is not concerned with knowledge; it is concerned with “tenable opinion.” In her view, actual knowledge is more than one can hope for in most cognitive endeavors. (shrink)

Madel argues against the "empiricist analysis" of personal identity, claiming that "the correct view... is the one associated with the names of Reid and Butler above all: that personal identity is strict and unanalysable." He also claims that "the fundamental error in nearly everything which has been written in this field has been the failure to take note of the importance of the first person perspective" and that his own view of personal identity is much closer to the "ordinary, nonphilosophical (...) conception" than any of its rivals. His view, which is far from easy to understand, involves the theses that the pronoun "I" is a referential term that is "completely unanalysable and irreducible... in our conceptual scheme"; that "I" refers to something "which is known by acquaintance, and cannot be analysed or described" ; that personal identity is "essentially unanalysable"; that "the issue of personal identity cannot admit of degrees"; and that "the issue of personal identity cannot be settled by convention". (shrink)

Since 1963, when Edmund Gettier published his famous counterexamples to the traditional analysis of knowing, a cottage industry has grown up devoted to the task of repairing, revising, or further dismantling that analysis. In this book Robert Shope provides a very helpful critical discussion of the industry's output during its first decade of operation. The magnitude of this output is indicated by his bibliography, which includes 225 items, and by the variety of examples that he discusses--each example having both a (...) number and a name, e.g., " Judy's Mole." In his final chapter Shope offers his own definition of what he called "justified factual knowledge" and argues that it solves both the Gettier problem and a basic problem related to the social conditions of knowing. As I see it, Shope's final chapter marks an important advance in our understanding of the subject. (shrink)

Regardless of one’s philosophical sympathies, Professor Brand Blanshard is surely to be respected for the acuity with which he has resisted the onslaught of the “analytic” movement in America. As pointed out by Professor Bruce Aune, “For the past sixty years, the emphasis of Anglo-Saxon philosophy has been analytical rather than speculative. Mr. Blanshard has persistently opposed this emphasis….” Predictably, Aune goes on to convey his opposition to Blanshard’s speculative aim, indicating that he remains “unmoved by the (...) doctrine of internal relations.” Surely this is a very curious and interesting point; exactly what do the critics of Professor Blanshard mean by their assessment of the doctrine of internal relations as speculative rather than analytic? Do they mean to suggest that he reaches his systematic conclusions without an intensive analysis of concepts? While Blanshard’s aim is admittedly the speculative one of a totally coherent and intelligible world-picture, this does not mean that the justification for those conclusions supportive of his speculative aim is one which is unmindful of the demands of logical analysis. Let us, then, reexamine Blanshard’s doctrine of internal relations, as he himself has done in a recent paper, with an eye to determining whether it is fundamentally opposed, as suggested by Aune, to the emphasis of logical analysis. (shrink)

I hope to persuade Charles Fried to think again about his developing views on distributive justice. Since I live at a certain remove from Cambridge, the best I can offer is a hypothetical dialogue with an imaginary person whose views seem, to me at least, of a Friedian inspiration. My central question deals with the way Fried establishes his rights to things he candidly concedes he does not deserve. To present my problems, I shall begin with a simpler case than (...) those – involving kidneys and talents – that Fried makes central to his discussion. Rather than starting with these rather special goods, I find it clarifying to focus first on more garden variety commodities – which, to emphasize their character, I shall call apples. (shrink)

Based upon the author's twenty-five years of experience leading seminars concerning the history of liberal education, this collection presents a uniquely comprehensive and salient set of documents, ranging from Plato to Martha Nussbaum, while incorporating the neglected portrayal and discussion of women within the history of the liberal arts.

In three parts, this volume in the AP-LS series explores the phenomena of captivity and risk management, guided and informed by the theory, method, and policy of psychological jurisprudence. The authors present a controversial thesis that demonstrates how the forces of captivity and risk management are sustained by several interdependent "conditions of control." These conditions impose barriers to justice and set limits on citizenship for one and all. Situated at the nexus of political/social theory, mental health law and jurisprudential ethics, (...) the book examines and critiques constructs such as offenders and victims; self and society; therapeutic and restorative; health; harm; and community. So, too, are three "total confinement" case law data sets on which this analysis is based. The volume stands alone in its efforts to systematically "diagnose" the moral reasoning lodged within prevailing judicial opinions that sustain captivity and risk management practices impacting: (1) the rights of juveniles found competent to stand criminal trial, the mentally ill placed in long-term disciplinary isolation, and sex offenders subjected to civil detention and community re-entry monitoring; (2) the often unmet needs of victims; and (3) the demands of an ordered society. Carefully balancing sophisticated insights with concrete and cutting-edge applications, the book concludes with a series of provocative, yet practical, recommendations for future research and meaningful reform within institutional practice, programming, and policy. (shrink)

Underlying solar energy development is a fundamental issue of values and individual choices. Where solar energy comes to include such ideas as appropriate decentralized technology, self-sufficiency and autonomy, and a responsibility to conserve and preserve the environment, solar energy can become a channel for exploring alternative values. The requirement here is to view solar energy not as just anotherenergy source maintaining an ever increasing fiow of consumption goods. Rather, solar energy should be viewed as an opportunity for the development of (...) values which expand individual choices through the creative process of the community paradigm. (shrink)

This book examines the more traditional Christian explanation for why God permits evil in this world and offers an alternative explanation. Key Bible passages are discussed with an application of the alternative position to the great question of why God allows so much evil in this world.

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

The question whether the study of education and teacher education belong at a liberal arts college deserves careful consideration. In this essay Bruce Kimball analyzes and finds unpersuasive the three principled rationales that are most often advanced on behalf of excluding educational studies, teacher education, or both from a liberal arts college. Specifically, Kimball argues that no principled definition of the conventional liberal arts disciplines excludes the study of education without barring other fields now regarded as legitimate, and consistency (...) demands that all such fields be excluded if any are. In addition, teacher education, even if considered as merely “craft know-how” or as professional training, cannot be excluded from liberal arts colleges without arbitrarily classifying it as suspect and subjecting it to strict scrutiny. But the question of whether educational studies or teacher education fit any asserted definition of liberal education does not finally resolve the question of whether they belong in a liberal arts college. Kimball concludes by suggesting that there are moral and prudential reasons for liberal arts colleges to offer teacher education and, concomitantly, the study of education, even apart from the unpersuasive objections that they do not fit a definition of liberal education. (shrink)

The words ψεύδεα... ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοια at Theogony 27 are almost always translated as "lies resembling truth." But in early Greek epic the sense of ὁμοιοζ was indefinite; it meant "equivalent with respect to a quality," with the quality regularly specified in the context. Rarely if ever was the equivalence a deceptive resemblance. Therefore in Theogony 27 the Muses' words mean "lies equivalent to truth." Since the nature of the equivalence is left unelaborated, the line poses a riddling paradox. In addressing (...) Hesiod the Muses mysteriously claimed to tell only the truth, because even their lies were somehow equivalent to truth. (shrink)