Originally published in 1965. This is a textbook of modern deductive logic, designed for beginners but leading further into the heart of the subject than most other books of the kind. The fields covered are the Propositional Calculus, the more elementary parts of the Predicate Calculus, and Syllogistic Logic treated from a modern point of view. In each of the systems discussed the main emphases are on Decision Procedures and Axiomatisation, and the material is presented with as much formal rigour (...) as is compatible with clarity of exposition. The techniques used are not only described but given a theoretical justification. Proofs of Consistency, Completeness and Independence are set out in detail. The fundamental characteristics of the various systems studies, and their relations to each other are established by meta-logical proofs, which are used freely in all sections of the book. Exercises are appended to most of the chapters, and answers are provided. (shrink)

Written over the last 18 months of his life and inspired by his interest in G. E. Moore's defence of common sense, this much discussed volume collects Wittgenstein's reflections on knowledge and certainty, on what it is to know a proposition for sure.

Markov, A. A. On constructive mathematics.--Ceĭtin, G. S. Mean value theorems in constructive analysis.--Zaslavskiĭ, I. D. and Ceĭtlin, G. S. On singular coverings and properties of constructive functions connected with them.--Maslov, S. Ju. Certain properties of E. L. Post's apparatus of canonical calculi.--Zaslavskiĭ, I. D. Graph schemes with memory.

In REG 73 and 75 I discussed various points connected with the Peace of Philocrates, a number of which have been assailed by M. M. Markle in CQ N.S. 24 in an article entitled ‘The Strategy of Philip in 346 B.C.’. Time passes, and, although de Ste. Croix in his Origins of the Peloponnesian War , p.105, felt able to declare that ‘a book shortly to be published by M. M. Markle makes a valuable and original contribution to our understanding (...) of the Peace of Philocrates’, and Markle himself confirms that a book is indeed forthcoming, some comment on his preliminary comments may be permitted. (shrink)

Molly Farneth’s Hegel’s Social Ethics hearkens back to the tradition of Josiah Royce, which has continued in the work of Richard Bernstein and Jeffrey Stout. At the same time, it reflects the impact of three decades of interpretive work which has offered an alternative to the 19th and early 20th century reading of Hegel as a metaphysical systematizer. In this new reading he was from the beginning a social critic and political theorist who looked to lay the groundwork for post‐Enlightenment (...) vision of the social world as evolving toward one of social cooperation based on mutual recognition. Farneth has developed this reading of Hegel into one of powerful resources for democratic pluralism. (shrink)

There is frequently an appearance of conflict between medicine and economics. This arises first because the nature of health and health care requires the doctor to make decisions on behalf of the patient and thus serves to explain why medical ethics exist. But secondly it is due to the relative lack of acceptance of the ethics of the common good within medical ethics. As a result while economics in the field of health has as an objective the maximisation of the (...) health of the community, subject to resource constraints, medical ethics pushes individual doctors to try to maximise the health of their patients. There is no reason to believe that the latter will sum to the former. To make the maximisation of health of the community the goal of the medical profession requires institutional changes, particularly with regard to budgeting, which will cajole and if necessary coerce doctors to adopt the good of the community as their objective. (shrink)

The papers in this volume, first published in 1982, deal with a number of different aspects of Marx's ideas and the varying constructions put on them by later Marxists. Based on a lecture series, they examine Marxist views of the nature of philosophy, of history and historical explanation, the role and importance of politics, and of literature and the place of ethics. Among the Marxists considered are Lukacs, Sartre, Habermas, Althusser and Macherey. A continuous concern through the volume is the (...) relation within Marxist thought of fact and value, with the implications that will have for our actions. (shrink)

Dr. Leaf's article in the Journal of Hellenic Studies has recalled our attention to the venerable problem of the Rhesus. I hasten to give my adhesion to his main contention that the play is a pièce d'occasion justifying or sanctifying the foundation of the city of Amphipolis. But, as he remarks, seeing that the oracle ordering the removal of the bones of Theseus from Skyros to Athens preceded the actual removal by some years, so this play may be intended to (...) prepare for the actual removal of the bones of Rhesus from Troy by Hagnon, and may be prior to it by several years. For this official theft—doubtless arranged beforehand—we have only the authority of Polyainos' Strategemata, but it is a story which seems likely in itself, and goes far to explain the previously obscure lament of the Muse at the end of the play. My object is to examine the play afresh and see whether anything prevents our believing that it was written and exhibited somewhere near 440 B.C., in which case of course it is almost certainly the work of Euripides and not far from his Cyclops in date. (shrink)

Dieser Aufsatz betrifft Leibniz' Gedanken über Metaphysik in der Zeit von Dezember 1675 bis Dezember 1676, d. h. von den letzten Monaten seines Parisaufenthaltcs bis zum Beginn seines Aufenthaltes in Hannover. In dieser Zeit entwarf Leibniz Pläne für eine Abhandlung über Gott und die Welt und erwog die Möglichkeit, dieser Abhandlung eine deduktive Form zu geben. Der vorliegende Aufsatz entwickit und erläutert eine vermutete deduktive Version ¿ es metaphysischen Systems, die in den verstreuten Schriften dieser Periode entdeckt werden kann. Es (...) zeigt sieht, daß viel von Leibniz' reifer Philosophie bereits in diesem System enthalten ist. Jedoch findet sich kein Hinweis auf den dynamischen Charakter der Substanz und keine klare Formulierung der These, daß jeder Substanz ein vollständiger Begriff zukommt. Man findet vielleicht einige Andeutungen der späteren These, aber diese sind eher als Vorausdeutungen auf Leibniz' spätere Philosophie zu verstehen denn als konstitutive Teile des Systems von 1675/76. (shrink)

Plotinus (204/5–270 CE) was the first and greatest of Neoplatonic philosophers. His writings were edited by his disciple Porphyry, who published them sometime between 301 and 305 CE in six sets of nine treatises each (Enneads), with a biography of his master in which he also explains his editorial principles.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.1 (2001) 149-151 [Access article in PDF] Reinhard Brandt. Kritischer Kommentar zu Kants Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (1798). Kant-Forschungen, Band 10. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1999. Pp. 543. Cloth, DM. The appearance of a commentary on Kant's Anthropology is very timely, indeed indispensable, given the advent of a new phase in Kant scholarship, attentive to the writings surrounding the main critical texts as (...) a way of gaining a more comprehensive understanding of his thought. This new approach has been partly precipitated by the 1997 release of Volume 25 of the Academy edition containing the student transcriptions of Kant's anthropology lectures spanning a period of twenty-four years. The Anthropology is especially important for understanding Kant's moral philosophy. From 1773 forward, Kant himself never taught morality without concurrently offering his course in anthropology. His own students were thus cognizant of Kant's conception of human nature. Yet during the last 200 years few have paid attention to what sort of being, in Kant's view, was called upon to fulfill the moral vocation. As Brandt points out, the Anthropology has previously provoked no notable study, no discussion among either advocates or detractors.The precise nature of the relation between the Anthropology and Kant's critical philosophy remains an open question. Brandt himself is skeptical about the importance of the Anthropology for moral philosophy. He argues against seeing an integrated relation between the Anthropology and the critical system. For Brandt, the two stand alongside each other. The pragmatic anthropology serves merely as an "encyclopedia of the Kantian philosophy on an empirical level," providing an empirical discussion of its problems (8). He also argues that the pragmatic anthropology is neither identical with the anthropology required as a discipline supplementary to pure moral philosophy (14) [End Page 149] nor with the transcendental anthropology providing the self-knowledge of understanding reason (17). The seeming hallmarks of Kant's thought, such as the triadic structure of cognition, feeling, and desire, are simply an omnipresent "psychological division of European cultural history" (99-100) and so unpersuasive as evidence for a systematic connection of the texts. Anthropology has no "idea of reason" as its "basis." It begins in empirical psychology (especially Baumgarten's) and in Kant's effort to separate it from this discipline as a distinct, "pragmatic discipline" with the goal of "facilitating the prudent action of future world citizens" (9, 11). Brandt's interpretation probably influences his selection of passages from the critical philosophy referenced in his Kommentar.The commentary sets Kant's Anthropology in the historical context of Western thought, identifying related passages in texts which Kant is known to have read, as well as materials unfamiliar to him, but still pertinent for a given theme. Over 400 primary sources (from Homer and the philosophers of antiquity, to such recent writers as Richard Rorty) are referenced, as well as over 300 authors in the secondary literature. The commentary is critical, including in its textual analysis differences between the 1798 and 1800 published editions of the Anthropology, and comparisons with the manuscript in Kant's own hand (now located in Rostock). Marginalia are noted, and in some cases passages struck from Kant's manuscript are reproduced in the Kommentar; one such particularly long passage pertains to Kant's discussion of sensibility as contrasted with the understanding (175-181). Parallel passages are identified in Kant's other writings, including his published works, Reflexionen, correspondence, and other lecture notes. These include references to the anthropology lecture notes compiled in Volume 25, thus making the commentary helpful for someone investigating shifts and developments in Kant's treatment of a given topic. The historical context is also quite helpful for understanding the very concepts of "anthropology" (49-63), "pragmatic" (53), and "application" (57). Brandt concludes that with regard to its sources, Kant's anthropology is a "literary anthropology" (85) and that its central thematic is "the human being as an acting being" (89).Brandt offers very interesting and helpful discussions of various topics, with helpful citations, which... (shrink)