When we think of the problem of ‘universals’, we tend first of all to identify this issue with medieval philosophy. In that period the arguments ran hot and heavy, and the result was that philosophers almost came to be classified according to the position each took about the relation between the individual and universal concepts. Of course, the fact is that the problem of universals has been important in every philosophical age in western thought. Metaphysics as an enterprise may rise (...) and fall in popularity, but the problem of universals is always with us. Yet, like most philosophical problems of importance, it has not always meant one thing. (shrink)

To answer such a question cannot be simple. No single philosophical strain has ever captured America for long. The domination of Hegel and Kant in Germany, of Empiricism or Wittgenstein in England, have no counterpart in America. Existentialism swept France after World War II, and Russia operated for years with a monolithic Marxism. It is true that American philosophers follow fashions and that certain schools of thought dominate for a time. But the basic pluralism present in America makes it almost (...) impossible for one theory to gain total control. Forms of Hegelianism did dominate for a time, until American Pragmatism developed as a revolt against them. Yet as American as Pragmatism was in its origins, it never captured the entire philosophical scene either. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND THE INTERPRE.TATION OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE FREDERICK SONTAG Pomona OoUego Olaremont, Oalifornia " It is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to the Revolution, without treating insurrection as an art." Lenin, paraphrasing Karl Marx WHENEVER Liberation Theology ·and its contributions to theologicail discussion al'e ·concerned, no aspect has been more controversirul than its association with violence. There is no question that Marxism/Leninism depends on the use of (...) violence. But all liberation theories must take violence into consideration. On the one hand, the ties that hold humans in bondage may be so strong that only violent means ca.n be effective to release us. On the other hand, it is well known that violenre often breeds its own do·wnfall and results in ten·or more often than peace. Since the beginning of time, probably every prrogram seeking to release human beings to their furhl. potential has had to consider the use of violence to achieve its ends, even while awal'e of its potential dangers. Yet this issue takes on a new urgency in our time because of two s[gnificant changes in our situation: (I) Most communist proposals which have resulted in world~wide change have militantly asserted the necessity to use force if we are to be set free; (2) In recent times Liberati.on Theofogy has been espoused by some Christian theologians even while the adoption of pacifism or the abhorrence of violence by most Christian groups is well known. The question of religion's intrusion into the politicaiJ. reailm is problem 271 FREDERICK SONTAG enough, but add to this the question of the use of violence and the discussion becomes very heated indeed. Although many traditions have well-developed positions regarding violence and non-violence, Christianity will be our frame of reference in discussing these issues, since Liberation Theology has, in fact, developed in a Christian context. First of all we havie to ask whether the use of violence to ruchieve politicaJ ends is a;lways ruled out or whether some circumstances might justify it as an ruooeptable tool for Christian use. Where Christianity is concerned, it is always instructive to begin by looking at the life and work of Jesus. Trruditionally, Jesus is seen as rejecting the use of violence and as having suffered vioilence himself. Can anything so change this image as to make violence acceptable on Christian grounds? In ·considering this, we first have to note that Jesus himself lived under po1itiool oppression. We must oons~der the Jewish expectations for the ' Messiah ' and how this role came to be projecbed onto Jesus; their hope for release from Roman oppressors was what plruced mroh high political expectations on Jesus. Christians recognized Jesus as a' Messiah', even though he obvious1ly did not fulfill the role of a political liberato·r. Afiter his death and for centuries fater, Jewish political fortunes went from bad to worse. The people's expectations of gaining release by the hand of Jesus did not result in a change in their political fortunes. Christians diid enter into politics and governments in!Later years, and some welcome changes can be attributed to Christian influence. But still, none of these improvements can be directly attributed to Jesus' efforts in his own fileis a prime :requfoement for success. We 'are aware of the Marxist/Leninist insistency on toeing the line on dogma, for conformity to doctrine. But can the Christian,aiccept the uniformity of interpretation which effective acbion seems to require? If the Christian liberation theofogian argues that aU Christians cannot be required to aiocept some one program of wction, he or she is limited by the division that plurality brings. On the other LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND POLITICAL VIOL]j]NCE '277 hand, the Christian revotutionary activist should not be told that his program is " unchristian " as judged by some singular, authoritative standard. Of course, the chief complication in saying this lies with a hieI"archical church which includes authorities to formulate doctrine. The Christian who wants to act differently from what the srbructure of such a chureh allows will either: (1) have to find a way to act independently and still stay within that community; or (2) convince... (shrink)

Today all, religious life exists under die threat of destruction., and the human spirit is in peril. A defense of the divine traditions in every land is needed. The ten essays contained in this book, written by an international group of distinguished scholars, explore the thesis that the defense of God depends on what men and women say and do, an awesome responsibility. The idea of a defense of God is complicated., for God is not readily defended in a world (...) that contains radical evil, the force that lays waste the human spirit and mocks the sacred. God, moreover, says little in his own defense. The authors of these essays express a wide variety of ways that God should-and should not-be ôdefended, ö as well as pose the central question of how God might be understood. They concur that both religion and the defense of God are vital concerns. New considerations about the nature of God and about how God relates to evil emerge. This collection of essays succeeds in contributing to the defense of God, because in discussing different and often conflicting views of God significant religious insights are to be found. (shrink)

A collection of essays written over the years by Frederick Sontag, American Life addresses various ethical, philosophical, and religious topics in American history and explores how these experiences can be used to face problems in the future.

Similarities between existentialism and greek thought (particularly socrates and plato) that existentialism suggests "a way beyond" the traditional notions in greek ethical thought. This is done primarily by the stress which existentialism gives to the 'future', due to its emphasis on the notions of 'contingency' and 'freedom'.

The importance of emotion to philosophy is once again being recognized. In both the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions, the aim was to neutralize or eliminate the role of emotion. Reviewing various theories about emotion, we come to Freud and Jung. The balance of the book explores a theory of knowledge and decision based on their philosophical concepts. This restores emotion to its central position in philosophy.

Speaking for the theology of the East, Masao Abe says: ‘I do not see the ontological ground on which being has priority over non-being’. Professor Abe is speaking of Tillich's assertion that there is an ‘ontological priority of being over nonbeing’, but Abe's question is more or less directed to the whole Western metaphysical tradition and illustrates the fundamental philosophical point at issue between the East and West. Nonbeing can be ruled out of consideration as Parmenides and Wittgenstein have done (...) . Or, like Plato and Tillich, being can be said to embrace both itself and nonbeing, even if this is not explained in detail very clearly. Yet the challenge of the East still stands: What embraces both being and nonbeing may not be ‘Being’ but ‘that which is neither being nor non-being’. If the East and the West are to meet metaphysically, we can no longer simply assume the priority of being over nonbeing. We must begin by considering the alternative of the East and then justify any choice between competing first principles by prior metaphysical argument. (shrink)

God appears in many ways. Thus, it is our task to discern the many faces of God—or to find an acceptable picture of God among the many Gods. People have, I suspect, always been aware of the multiplicity of the ways in which they have seen God, but today our task is more difficult and also more challenging. For centuries we pursued the holy grail: the notion that soon, eventually, we would discover God himself among the Gods, validate the one (...) face among the many. It was a modern, rationalist hope, but it has tended to end in either atheism or in the destruction of the religious life. (shrink)

That is the crucial question: Did God intend direct and final communication with us? There is little evidence that Jesus' appearance cleared anything up or gave us God directly. Wittgenstein, who wanted language to be clear, knew well enough that neither the Hebrew nor the Christian God's words could fall within his constructed linguistic net.

For some time it seemed as if Christianity itself required us to say that ‘God is in history’. Of course, even to speak of ‘history’ is to reveal a bias for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century forms of thought. But the justification for talking about the Christian God in this way is the doctrine of the incarnation. The centre of the Christian claim is that Jesus is God's representation in history, although we need not go all the way to a full trinitarian (...) interpretation of the relationship between God and Jesus. Thus, the issue is not so much whether God can appear or has appeared within, or entered into, human life as it is a question of what categories we use to represent this. To what degree is God related to the sphere of human events? Whatever our answer, we need periodically to re-examine the way we speak about God to be sure the forms we use have not become misleading. (shrink)

IN ADDITION TO SENSORY PERCEPTION AND POSSIBLE SPECIAL INSIGHT, FEUERBACH RAISES THE QUESTION OF THE ’NATURE’ OF MAN. THAT IS, DO WE HAVE ONLY ONE FIXED NATURE, OR IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAN HAS NO ONE NATURE WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AND FIXED IN A UNIVERSAL MANNER AS THE ATOM CAN BE? IF SO, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS ARE DEALING WITH A MORE FLUID COMMODITY THAN THEY HAD HOPED FOR. IF THERE IS NO HUMAN NATURE, SOCIAL SCIENTISTS WILL REACH A FIXED DECISION (...) AND CONCLUSION ONLY TO HAVE IT OUTMODED BY A SHIFT IN HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. THUS, IF MEN LACK DEFINITIVENESS, THERE IS NO RIGID OPPOSITION OF NATURE VERSUS SUPERNATURE. SOME ’NATURES’ COULD OVERLAP AND INTERPENETRATE INTO SUPERNATURE. MY OWN RESPONSE TO THESE ISSUES IS TO SAY THAT WE MUST NOT BEG THE QUESTION BY ASSUMING CERTAIN MODES OF PERCEPTION AS ALONE VALID, OR RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME HUMAN BEINGS ARE PERCEPTIVE WHERE OTHERS ARE NOT. (shrink)

Aristotle and the biologists who follow him have led us down a primrose path for centuries. The biological possibility of classifying species led Aristotle to assume that logic and the human mind did or should move in the same way. All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is a mortal—is true. And the human mind can also follow the universal rules of genus and species. The problem is, however, that the world was so created that human value (...) systems do not parallel this neat structure. Not all of anything is all of something else, other than biologically or logically. Where values are concerned, God evidently opted for a dual system, one where different orders operate according to different principles. Spinoza thought all possible orders were parallel in structure. This is the rationalist’s assumption, and it would be easier for us if it were true. But God opted for greater complexity, or so it seems. (shrink)

If "being" is usually defined in terms of something roughly equivalent to the Aristotelian categories, are we forced to say that whatever escapes classification by these categories is to that extent beyond or above being? For instance, if "perfection" is used outside of the categories which apply to particular beings and is attributed to a first principle of all things, is "perfection" in this application so different from "perfection" as it applies within the categories that the two applications share nothing (...) in common? (shrink)

"The Problems of Philosophy series is designed to familiarize the beginning student in philosophy with basic problem in each of the central fields of philosophy: Ethics, Political Philosophy, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Aesthetics, and the Philosophy of Religion. Each volume in the series emphasizes the contributions of eight or nine philosophers whose works are both important in their own right and representative of principal positions in philosophy."-Publisher.