First published in 1961, this book considers Hume’s request to be judged solely by the acknowledged works of his maturity. It focuses on Hume’s first _Inquiry_ in its own right as a separate book to the likes of his other works, such as the _Treatise _and the _Dialogues, _which are here only used as supplementary evidence when necessary. This approach brings out, as Hume himself quite explicitly wished to do, the important bearing of his more technical philosophy on matters of (...) religion and of world-outlook generally: "Be a philosopher; but amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.". (shrink)

Includes essays on parapsychology and life after death by J. B. Rhine, David Hume, George Price, Plato, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, among others.

AFTER DISTINGUISHING PARAPSYCHOLOGY FAVORABLY FROM VARIOUS PRESENTLY POPULAR YET WHOLLY DISREPUTABLE EXERCISES IN FRAUD AND SELF-DECEPTION, THIS PAPER CONSIDERS THREE ASPECTS IN WHICH IT DIFFERS FROM ALL ESTABLISHED HIGH-STATUS SCIENCES. FIRST, THE FIELD HAS TO BE DEFINED NEGATIVELY. SECOND, THERE IS AFTER OVER A CENTURY OF INVESTIGATION STILL NO REPEATABLE DEMONSTRATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF ANY PSI-PHENOMEN. THIRD, WE HAVE NO EVEN HALFWAY PLAUSIBLE THEORY WITH WHICH TO ACCOUNT FOR THE MATERIALS WHICH PARAPSYCHOLOGY IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN. THE (...) CONCLUSION IS THAT PARAPSYCHOLOGY HAS NOT YET GRADUATED AS A SCIENCE, AND LIKELY NEVER WILL. (shrink)

In this brief but powerful book, acclaimed political philosopher C.B. Macpherson sets out in bold relief the essence of liberal democracy, both as it is currently conceived and as it might be reimagined. The Wynford edition includes a new Introduction by Frank Cunningham.

I want to discuss philosophically, to glance at the logic of, the parts of this expression “the justification of punishment” and then to draw from this discussion one or two morals for discussions of the justification of punishment. This paper is based on one originally given to the Scots Philosophy Club at its Aberdeen meeting in 1953, as the third part of a symposium on The Justification of Punishment.

At the beginning of Book X of his last work The Laws Plato turns his attention from violent and outrageous actions in general to the particular case of undisciplined and presumptuous behaviour in matters of religion: “We have already stated summarily what the punishment should be for temple-robbing, whether by open force or secretly. But the punishments for the various sorts of insolence in speech or action with regard to the gods, which a man can show in word or deed, (...) have to be proclaimed after we have provided an exordium. Let this be it: ‘No one believing, as the laws prescribe, in the existence of the gods has ever yet performed an impious action willingly, or uttered a lawless word. Anyone acting in such a way is in one of three conditions: either, first, he does not believe the proposition aforesaid; or, second, he believes that though the gods exist they have no concern about men; or, third, he believes that they can easily be won over by the bribery of prayer and sacrifice”. (shrink)

Locke's contribution to the discussion was fourfold: First , he saw the importance of the problem; Second , he realized that the puzzle cases, the “strange suppositions,” were relevant; Third , he maintained “same” had a different meaning when applied to “person” from its meaning in other contexts; and, Fourth , he offered his much criticized solution of the problem.

In this classic primer to the philosophy of religion, Antony Flew subjects a wide range of philosophical arguments for the existence of the Christian God to intense critical scrutiny. However, the rumour in some circles is that Flew - long-time advocate of atheistic humanism - has become a theist. Judge for yourself.

1. The need for honesty ; 2. The call for criticism ; 3. Our reasons f.

The author, who pioneered this argument in 1961, here places it in the context of traditional discussions of the problem, and answers various criticisms that have been made.

In the winter of 1969 the Harvard Educational Review published a long article by Professor Arthur Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley. In this article Jensen reviewed the psychological evidence bearing upon the question ‘How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?’ The original publication occasioned an enormous coast to coast brouhaha of protest and denunciation; including tyre-slashing, slogan-painting, telephoned abuse and threats, and strident demands to ‘Fire’ or even to ‘Kill Jensen’. The author has now republished (...) this offending article, along with several shorter contributions in the same area, under the title Genetics and Education. He has also supplied, in addition to a full collection of References for the papers included, a Bibliography of the controversy, two Indices, and a 67 page Preface. (shrink)

Aristotle and Aquinas - Pascal - Descartes and the Cartesian revolution - Hume - The logical and the psychological - Plato and Locke; Kant - Leibniz - The soul.

Because we need to know how clearly about our social thinking and how to resist the allure of self-deception, everyone skeptical about or confused by the findings of the social sciences will appreciate Antony Flew's crisp analysis of the methodological flaws and systematic misunderstandings corrupting their content and application. Thinking About Social Thinking seeks to establish what can and cannot be learned from such studies, indicating where good work has been ignored, or much-needed work has yet to be done. Flew's (...) clear and incisive arguments are illustrated with abundant examples and references -- many entertaining, others surprising. Flew issues a refreshing, impassioned warning against the perils of complacent, muddled thinking and false but comfortable conclusions. (shrink)

A philosopher sets forth and illustrates the principles of logical thinking and reasoning and considers the use of language as a vehicle of thought.

This is a rejoinder to some of the contentions of Part II of Jeffrey Friedman's monster article (or mini?book?) about ?The New Consensus.? After questioning his supposedly ?non?tendentious understanding of Marx,? it proceeds to deny that what Friedman calls Positive Libertarianism is any more a sort of libertarianism than imaginary or non?existent cows are a kind of cows; and to insist that what Friedman calls morality is light years removed from the dutiful, domestic decencies of what would normally be considered (...) moral conduct. Next it examines Friedman's misunderstandings of option rights, which actually presuppose only the weakest possible claims to equality. Finally it concludes with criticism of his bizarre and perverse assumption that concern about the consequences of our actions has little or nothing rather than almost everything to do with their morality. (shrink)