`Folk Psychology' - our everyday talk of beliefs, desires and mental events - has long been compared with the technical language of `Cognitive Science'. Does folk psychology provide a correct account of the mental causes of our behaviour, or must our everyday terms ultimately be replaced by a language developed from computational models and neurobiology? This broad-ranging book addresses these questions, which lie at the heart of psychology and philosophy. Providing a critical overview of the key literature in the field, (...) including the seminal work of Fodor and Churchland, the author explores the classic `Frame Problem' and assesses the future prospects of cognitive science. The scope of the frame problem, touching on connec. (shrink)

This volume contains papers that represent Leibniz’s early thoughts on the problem of evil, centering on a dialogue, the Confessio philosophi, in which he formulates a general account of God’s relation to sin and evil that becomes a fixture in his thinking. How can God be understood to be the ultimate cause, asks Leibniz, without God being considered as the author of sin, a conclusion incompatible with God’s holiness? Leibniz’s attempts to justify the way of God to humans lead him (...) to deep discussion of related topics: the nature of free choice, the problems of necessitarianism and fatalism, the nature of divine justice and holiness. All but one of the writings presented here are available in English for the first time. (shrink)

This volume is a critical edition of the ten-year correspondence between Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, one of Europe’s most influential early modern thinkers, and Bartholomew Des Bosses, a Jesuit theologian who was keen to bring together Leibniz’s philosophy and the Aristotelian philosophy and religious doctrines accepted by his order. The letters offer crucial insights into Leibniz’s final metaphysics and into the intellectual life of the eighteenth century. Brandon C. Look and Donald Rutherford present seventy-one of Leibniz’s and Des Bosses’s letters in (...) the original Latin and in careful English translation. Few of the letters have been translated into English before. The editors also provide extensive annotations, deletions, and marginalia from Leibniz’s various drafts, and a substantial introduction setting the context for the correspondence and analyzing the main philosophical issues. (shrink)

Unlike some other reproductions of classic texts (1) We have not used OCR(Optical Character Recognition), as this leads to bad quality books with introduced typos. (2) In books where there are images such as portraits, maps, sketches etc We have endeavoured to keep the quality of these images, so they represent accurately the original artefact. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we feel they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.

I should like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor H. Schultink, whose criticisms and careful reading helped me to improve considerably upon the clarity of exposition while I wrote this study, and whose seemingly innocent requests to elaborate confronted me time and again with the need of revising or abandoning ideas I thought stood on firm ground. His support, and Dr. M. C. van den Toom's gratefully acknowl edged willingness to read and evaluate the manuscript enabled me to (...) present this work as a thesis in the University of Utrecht. In more than one way, lowe a debt to Albert Kraak, Professor of Linguistics in the University of Nijmegen. His inspiring enthusiasm awakened my interest in linguistics when I was a student of his. He in troduced me to transformational grammar at a time when it seemed almost improper to talk about it, and the stimulating experience of writing a book on Dutch syntax together with him taught me invaluable lessons. I should also like to thank my friend and colleague Henk Verkuyl, to gether with whom I prepared an article on the subject of measuring duration in Dutch. Without our stimulating discussions on the subject, the fourth chapter of this study could never have been written in the present form. I am also indebted to him for criticisms and helpful suggestions. At an early stage I profited greatly from discussions with Pieter A. M. (shrink)

A broad evolutionary perspective is essential to fully reverse figure and ground in the rationality debate. Humans' evolved psychological architecture was designed to produce inferences that were adaptive, not normatively logical. This perspective points to several predictable sources of errors in modern laboratory reasoning tasks, including inherent, systematic biases in information-processing systems explained by Error Management Theory.