This paper grapples with Bernard Williams’s prima vista enigmatic assertion that ‘[w]hether it is a matter of good philosophical sense to treat a practice as a violation of human rights, and whether it is politically good sense, cannot ultimately constitute two separate questions’. Though Williams’s approach to thinking about human rights has a number of affinities with other ‘political’ and ‘minimalist’ understandings, we highlight its distinctive features and argue that it has significant implications for our understanding of human rights along (...) a number of key dimensions. We then proceed to explain how Williams’s way of thinking about human rights coheres with certain aspects of the reasoning of one of the most important international human rights courts, to wit, the European Court of Human Rights. This lends further plausibility to the view that a politically realistic understanding of human rights, of the kind urged by Williams, should be taken seriously, since it is a plausible candidate for the explanation of important aspects of human rights practices. We close by examining the suggestion that thinking in these terms is worryingly conservative. (shrink)

Based on the "Guide to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990", this volume reviews the regulation of assisted conception including complex moral issues such as abortion, embryo research and cloning.

The following draws out a few points that suggest an inner coherence in the midst of the rich diversity of questions Avtar Brah addresses. One critical factor is that Brah's work appears at a specific historical ‘moment’ — a simultaneously political, historical and theoretical conjuncture — the diasporic. The diaspora — as an emergent space and an interpretive frame — unpicks the claims made for the unities of culturally homogeneous, racially purified identities, and constitutes the moment of the problematic of (...) the subject — when critical thought comes face to face with the perplexing interface between the social and the psychic. Brah confronts the necessarily complex and contradictory specificities of differentiated subjectivities in the diasporic frame within a distinct ‘methodology’ — analytic and interpretive. The very structures ‘out there’, which have so often been thought of as determining, are understood as themselves providing frameworks of meaning, as having an internal psychic and discursive dimension. Avtar Brah is one of the few who have begun to capture such a double inscription through ongoing research. Such is particularly evident in ‘The Scent of Memory’, and it is through a reading of that essay that Brah's distinct ‘methodology’ is presented — an approach which is sensitive to the always already contradictory condition of ‘reality’. What I suggest of Brah's ‘methodology’ is that it is a practice that has significant consequences for the meaning and value placed on social contexts, for the ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ of information and knowledge in interpretation and analysis, a practice that we might call diasporic reasoning. (shrink)

Lament is a Christian practice modeled for us by Jesus. In this article, I argue that lament is a spiritual discipline that assists the sufferer to reconstruct meaning after the disorienting effects of the suffering. Drawing on the psychological literature on stress-related growth, I show how the structure of the psalms of lament facilitates the process of growth through meaning-making. Lament is a stylized form of speech consisting of five common elements that define a specific trajectory. The elements are an (...) address to God, complaints, request, motivation, and confidence in God. The trajectory of lament involves a psychological move from distress to praise, and from disorientation to new orientation. I argue that the meaning that is achieved is not primarily rational or propositional, but instead is anchored in the intimate, dialogical relationship with God. (shrink)

First published in 2004. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This second selection of articles by Rupert Hall to be published by Variorum focuses on the interactions between "pure" science, "applied" science and craftsmanship, laying emphasis on the period from the 17th century to the Industrial Revolution.

If one believes that the brain is, in some as yet unspecified way, the organ of mind and behaviour, then all human behaviour has a neurobiological basis. Neuroscience research over the past several decades has provided more specific reasons for believing that many addictive phenomena have a neurobiological basis. The major psychoactive drugs of dependence have been shown to act on neurotransmitter systems in the brain (Nutt 1997; Koob 2000); common neurochemical mechanisms underlie many of the rewarding effects of these (...) drugs and the phenomena of tolerance and withdrawal symptoms (Hyman & Malenka 2001; Koob 2000), and there is evidence for a genetic vulnerability to addiction (Nestler 2001; Uhl 1999) that is mediated by genes that regulate the metabolism of psychoactive drugs and the brain neurotransmitter systems on which they act (Uhl 1999). (shrink)

That the Eudemian Ethics is a genuine work of Aristotle, belonging to a middle stage in his development, is now widely accepted on the various grounds advanced by Jaeger and others from 1909 onwards. I want to show that, quite apart from those considerations, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of E.E. on the ground of peculiarities in its vocabulary, as these can be explained in various ways. A presentation of the evidence as regards special vocabulary may in (...) any case be of interest, and may throw some light eventually on its position among Aristotle's writings, if it belongs among them; and for this reason I add a further section on words in E.E. uncommon in Aristotle. (shrink)

It is well known that, for example, the Continuum Hypothesis can’t be proved or disproved from the standard axioms of set theory or their familiar extensions. Some think it follows that CH has no determinate truth value; others insist that this conclusion is false, not because there is some objective world of sets in which CH is either true or false, but on logical grounds. Claims of indeterminacy have also been made on the basis of such considerations as the existence (...) of non-standard models of arithmetic, with similar rejoinders. We’ll read some representative examples of the various positions and replies. (For background on second-order logic, see Stewart Shapiro. (shrink)

I argue here that Kierkegaardian faith is essentially, albeit paradoxically, worldly---that Kierkegaardian faith is a form of world-affirmation. A correlate of this claim is that faithlessness of any kind is ultimately a form of aesthetic resignation grounded in a deep seated world-alienation. The paradox of faith’s worldliness is found in the fact that, for Kierkegaard, faith both excludes and includes resignation in itself. I make sense of this paradox by appealing to Kierkegaard’s idea of “an annulled possibility,” and conclude that (...) faith’s love of the world is an affirmation via a double negation. (shrink)

If there is anything true in this book, it is surely common sense. The author's intentions are to produce enough light for the reader to see the issues and find his own way out.

Ongoing developments in evolutionary and systems biology highlight the deficiencies of reductionistic and mechanistic explanations of the "organic" world. Whitehead's ontology provides the basis for a unified theory of social organization that connects the emergence of primitive life to the development and diversification of human societies along a continuum of creative ontogeneration. The metaphysical characteristic of "creativity" is precisely the manifestation of the ontogenerative relationship between possibility and actuality. Actualization is change. While all actualization necessarily exhibits some degree of continuity (...) with the past, it is driven by the inertiac availability of specific relevant forms of possibility, through which it has access to an array of "novel" forms for actualization. This relation to novelty explains everything from the emergence ofprokaryotes on earth 3.6 billion years ago to the possibility of ideological resistance in human societies today. (shrink)

First published in 2002. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The major question—what is categorial analysis and how can it be reliably performed?—lies beyond the scope of this paper. Indeed, I would presume that very little can be said significantly about it in general. One's convictions on the subject have to be shown by actual performance, which is my intention in the present instance. But it may help the process of communication if I try to indicate at the beginning the general frame in which this analysis of value occurs.

The aim of this paper is to develop a consistent reading of Deleuze and Guattari’s account of capitalism by taking seriously their use of Kant’s philosophy in formulating it. In Sect. 1, I will set out the two different roots of the term axiomatic in Deleuze and Guattari’s thought. The first of these is the axiomatic approach to formalising fields of mathematics, and the second the Kantian account of the indeterminate relationship between the transcendental unity of apperception and the transcendental (...) object. In Sect. 2, we will see how this transcendental aspect of Deleuze and Guattari’s account of axiomatics is expressed in the notion of binding, which Deleuze and Guattari take to be a process that forces us to understand a field of entities in a certain manner, namely as clearly delimited and deployed in a homogeneous space. I will argue that this process of binding operates as a transcendental condition for capitalism for Deleuze and Guattari. Section 3 addresses some of the details of the capitalist axiomatic itself, drawing out why a Kantian reading of Deleuze and Guattari’s account of the axiomatic provides a response to some of the criticisms of it. Section 4 then analyses Deleuze and Guattari’s account of the outside of capitalism, using the double signification of the noumenal to understand the complex relationship between what they call the war machine and its representation within the axiomatic. (shrink)

Charging others with hypocrisy often acts as a way of rejecting the practical reasons they attempt to give (Herstein, 2017). There are some merits to a practice of rejecting reasons. To accept others’ provided reasons as valid is to affirm their authority in the relevant normative domain (Isserow and Klein, 2017). Conversely, to reject these reasons as invalid is to undermine the reason-givers’ authority in the domain. However, this practice can be rife with abuse—if we allow charges of ‘Hypocrite!’ to (...) take hold too broadly, we risk compromising the entire enterprise of reason-giving. I propose that one form of such abuse has already entered into our normative vocabulary with the concept of ‘hypocritical advice.’ At best, this term plays a superfluous role in our normative vocabulary; at worst, its vagueness perpetuates a vicious practice of reason-rejecting. Regardless of the severity of its impact on normative discourse, I will argue herein that we should do away with talk of ‘hypocritical advice.’ -/- I begin by echoing a standard distinction between second- and third-personal reasons and the corresponding types of authority that ground agents’ abilities to give reasons of each kind (sec. 2). After briefly discussing the connection between authority and hypocrisy (sec. 3), I argue that most purported cases of hypocritical advice-giving rest on a confusion between an utterance as communicating second- or third-personal reasons (sec. 4). Against recent suggestions that reasons given unambiguously as advice can be hypocritical, I demonstrate that the basis for rejecting third-personal reasons given in hypocritical advice is an interestingly different one than for rejecting second-personal reasons given through blame (sec. 5). I close with some final considerations against keeping ‘hypocritical advice’ in our normative vocabulary. (shrink)

From unemployment to Brexit to climate change, capitalism is in trouble and ill-prepared to cope with the challenges of the coming decades. How did we get here? While contemporary economists and policymakers tend to ignore the political and social dimensions of capitalism, some of the great economists of the past - Adam Smith, Friedrich List, John Maynard Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, Karl Polanyi and Albert Hirschman - did not make the same mistake. Leveraging their insights, sociologists John L. Campbell and John (...) A. Hall trace the historical development of capitalism as a social, political, and economic system throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. They draw comparisons across eras and around the globe to show that there is no inevitable logic of capitalism. Rather, capitalism's performance depends on the strength of nation-states, the social cohesion of capitalist societies, and the stability of the international system - three things that are in short supply today. (shrink)

The UK launch of the Science Enterprise Challenge in 1999 has stimulated interest in the evolutions of science-based firms and this paper argues that Popper’s seminal diverse contributions to philosophy are directly relevant to them. It begins by commenting on the applications of both Kuhn’s and Popper’s concepts to technological (as against) scientific evolutions. It then suggests how Popper’s approaches are applicable to the development and assessment of new technology within the framework of Freeman’s stakeholders approach. Monsanto’s development of GMOs (...) is used as an illustrative case. (shrink)

The focus of these remarks is on the impact that Personal Knowledge and Philosophical Investigations had in shaping Bill Poteat’s philosophical voice. Of the two works, I claim that, for good or ill, it was Personal Knowledge that had the more profound influence on Poteat. Of course, both sources had profound influence. What makes Personal Knowledge more profound is that his use of it, at least in those early years, was more indirect than his direct and explicit use of Wittgenstein’s (...) ideas. Following Bill’s lead, there is much thatPolanyians can learn from Wittgenstein and vice versa. (shrink)

In this essay I argue: that Sartre's account of freedom falls back into the Cartesian problems it is explicitly designed to escape ; that Sartre simply pushes the old Cartesian problem of how a spontaneity can act on an object back to the level of pre-reflective original freedom, without solving it; that Merleau-Ponty's account does indeed move us beyond the Cartesian dilemmas by rooting freedom in its pre-reflective ground of meaning, which, in essence, is the body's pre-reflective relationality to the (...) world; and that Sartre's account of freedom rests only on the obstacle/task dialectic while Merleau-Ponty's account seems to rest on the richer dialectics of both obstacle/task and giving/receiving. (shrink)