Originally published in 1934, this book presents the content of an inaugural lecture delivered by the British philosopher Charles Dunbar Broad (1887-1971), upon taking up the position of Knightbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge University. The text presents a discussion of the relationship between determinism, indeterminism and libertarianism. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in the writings of Broad and the history of philosophy.

This book examines the history of the concept of irony from the first appearance of?eironeia? in Plato to the modern era. It isolates and discusses the basic features of irony and the variable features that determine the kind and in part the effect or quality. It distinguishes carefully between the two main types : instrumental irony (of which verbal irony is the most common form) and observable irony (which includes dramatic irony, irony of events, general irony and other situational ironies). (...) A distinction is also drawn between open and closed irony. (shrink)

It is obvious that two contingent statements, each of which denies the existence of something, can be inconsistent with one another: for example, ‘There are no non-black ravens, and there is at least one raven’, and ‘There are no black ravens’. But it is also obvious that these two statements are inconsistent only because one of them, as well as denying the existence of something, asserts the existence of something. The mere denials of existence, ‘There are no non-black ravens’ and (...) ‘There are no black ravens’, are consistent with one another. Indeed, it must hold quite generally that two contingent statements cannot be inconsistent, where each is a mere denial of existence in the sense that it denies existence and does not also assert existence. For in order to be inconsistent with a mere denial of existence, a second statement must assert existence, whatever else it may do; and if it asserts existence, it is not itself a mere denial of existence. (shrink)

The Swedish philosopher Hägerström, who was professor in Uppsala during the first quarter of the present century, devoted much attention to the philosophical and psychological analysis of moral and legal phenomena. Hägersträm is a difficult writer. He had steeped himself in the works of German philosophers and philosophical jurists, and his professional prose-style both in German and in Swedish had been infected by them so that it resembles glue thickened with sawdust. But he enjoys a very high reputation in his (...) own and adjacent countries, and it seems to me that this is well deserved. I think, therefore, that it may be interesting and useful to try to provide English philosophers with an outline in my own words of Hägerström's doctrines, as I understand them, about the topic named in the title of this paper. (shrink)

Despite the prominence of healthcare-relatedconcerns in public debate, the ground remainsinfertile for the idea of conscripting citizensinto medical research. Reluctance to entertainthe thought of a system where nearly everyonecould be selected for service might reflectuncertainty about what the project wouldinvolve. There might also be a fear that themore crucial issue is how to protect researchsubjects within current, voluntary systems. Nodoubt reluctance to explore a system ofuniversal service results from the common hopethat each of us might avoid research in anycapacity besides (...) researcher. A system of fullcivic participation might, however, avoid manyof the usual objections. Ethics regulations,including informed-consent guidelines, couldfor the most part remain in force. Though thesystem would compel people to serve, it couldremain responsive to principles of autonomy andjustice if it centered on broad publiceducation, community representation, and alottery-type selection process. The systemcould draw from the largest possiblecross-section of society, and offer conscriptsthe widest possible range of service. In thisway, a compulsory system might reconcile theexpectations about healthcare with researchneeds. (shrink)

In Reconstruction in Philosophy, John Dewey issued an eloquent call for contemporary philosophy to become more relevant to the pressing problems facing society. Historically, the philosophy of a period had been appropriate to social conditions, but despite the vast changes in the contemporary world and the complex challenges confronting it philosophy had remained ossified. Karl Popper also was dissatisfied with contemporary philosophy, which he regarded as too often focusing upon “minute” problems. Both Dewey and Popper, however, were optimistic that the (...) situation could be turned around. In this essay D.C. Phillips argues that the resources they mustered give no basis for this optimism; in particular, Phillips emphasizes that philosophy cannot have traction with closed‐minded or fanatical individuals. Dewey passed over cases where his ideas about democratic processes and free intellectual exchange faced intractable difficulties, according to Phillips, and he further suggests that Popper “waffled” over the so‐called “myth of the framework.”. (shrink)

Propositions are the result of hypostatization in accordance with the principle of the identification of indiscernibles wherever differences among inscribed or uttered statemental units are systematically ignored. Criteria for identity of propositions are, thus, to be found in each context of discourse about statemental units where qualitatively different units are treated as interchangeable. Ayer's notion of proposition as opposed to statement, Goodman's notion of replication, and the notion of constructional definition or reduction are discussed in the light of this thesis. (...) The so-called "problem of identifying propositions" is shown to be a bogus problem because the propositions simpliciter to be identified are incoherently conceived, though in the course of discussion the prospect appears that many different and limitedly applicable sets of criteria for identification of propositions relative to different discourses can be given. (shrink)

The historical antecedents of Frege's treatment of binocular vision in "The thought" were the physiological writings of Johannes Mueller, Hermann von Helmholtz, and Emil du Bois-Reymond. In their research on human vision, logic was assigned an unexpected role: it was to be the means by which knowledge of a world extended in three dimensions arises from stimuli that are at best two-dimensional. An examination of this literature yields a richer understanding of Frege's insistence that a proper epistemology requires us to (...) recognize the existence and importance of nonsensible sources of knowledge. (shrink)