This uniquely fascinating volume is not merely a learned treatise in historical semantics; it is itself a stupendous display of world harmony as a creed-a vivid demonstration that "all is all.".

Inspired with Jude P. Dougherty’s works in which he stresses the overruling importance of the classical, humanistic education and the central place and role of religion in the Western culture, the author presents Christopher Dawson’s analysis of the Western civilization and his demonstration of the central role of Christianity in it. The author traces the premises on which was based Dawson’s opinion that modern Western man might be absorbed by his technical inventions, to the point of losing his soul.

The appeal of the moral principle according to which we should treat like cases alike is so great that it verges on the axiomatic, or on the platitudinous. Recently, however, the principle has been challenged in deeply interesting ways. These ways are interesting because they do not invite skepticism about morality at large, but about the specific claim that what is good (or bad) for an agent in a given situation must be good (or bad) for any other similarly situated (...) agent. I here assess the post-challenge viability of the principle. In a sense, the principle survives, but this is neither an unqualified victory nor an inspiring result. The examination of these matters contains an important (and under-investigated) lesson about the nature of moral experience. (shrink)

We argue that Hilary Putnam's pragmatism provides an epistemological perspective which can help us understand--and can positively inform--the development of informal logic.

We defend the reliability of Hurlburt's Descriptive Experi-ence Sampling method against some of Schwitzgebel's attacks. But we agree with Schwitzgebel that the method could be used much more widely than it has been, helping to answer questions about the nature and structure of consciousness in addition to cataloguing the latter's contents. We sketch a number of potential lines of further enquiry.

Derek Parfit has recently defended the view that no one can ever deserve to suffer. Were this view correct, its implications for the thorny problem of the justification of punishment would be extraordinary: age-old debates between consequentialists and retributivists would simply vanish, as punishment would only—and simply—be justifiable along Benthamite utilitarian lines. I here suggest that Parfit’s view is linked to uncharacteristically weak arguments, and that it ought to be rejected.

The Adoption Problem (AP) was a postponed issue for some years (Kripke, 2024; Padró, 2015; Birman, 2024). This problem highlights certain difficulties surrounding the adoption of rules of inference: If anti-exceptionalism is wrong, is it possible to adopt an alternative logic? What is the point of the revision of logic in epistemology? During 2022 Kripke, Padró and Barrio held seminars on AP. The latter two edited the first thematic section on this subject in the journal Análisis Filosófico. It contains “What (...) the Adoption Problem Does Not Show” by Camilo Fiore, subject of this critical note, in which Fiore holds two theses: 1) AP is compatible with the thesis that logica utens is revisable; 2) to assess whether an agent can revise their logic, it is best to consider a different definition of adoption, e.g. weak adoption, according to which Universal Instantiation and Modus Ponens are sometimes adoptable. It then states that (1) and (2) are independent. In this article I will criticize the independence between (1) and (2). To this end, I will point out that thesis (1) and (2) are supported by the examples of Carrie and Barry, respectively, and that the type of logical revision involved in both is the same and local. Therefore, (1) and (2) are not independent. Next, I argue that it is impossible to satisfy another kind of logical revision, e.g. global revision. Therefore, the interdependence between (1) and (2) is not due to the examples proposed. (shrink)

Applied ontology is the attempt to put to use the rigorous tools of philosophical ontology in the development of category systems which can be of use in the formalization and systematization of knowledge of a given domain. In what follows we shall sketch some elements of the ontology of legal and socio-political institutions, paying attention especially to the normativity involved in such institutions. We shall see that there is more than one type of normativity, but that this fact that has (...) often been ignored in standard attempts by philosophers to build ontologies of legal and other socio-political entities. In order to provide a sound system of categories for legal and socio-political institutions and entities, however, the manifold of normativity needs to be addressed. The classical examples of normative statements have been moral propositions; they do not merely describe states of affairs; they tell us how states of affairs ought to be. The distinction between how things are and how they ought to be is the basis of the distinction between fact and value. Analytic philosophers for a long time shunned discussions of normativity and ethics. They considered ethical statements as pseudo-propositions, or as expressions of pro- or con-attitudes of no theoretical significance.1 Nowadays, in contrast, prominent analytic philosophers discuss normative problems and there are important books written by such philosophers on topics such as law and justice. Here we pay attention to three seminal thinkers in this development: H. L. A. Hart, John Rawls, and John R. Searle in concerning ourselves especially with the way in which they deal with the issue of normativity. Hart is, within the context of recent analytic philosophy, the most important philosopher of law, Rawls the most.. (shrink)

While it is no doubt a good pedagogical principle to stress the most convincing proof in the first learning of a philosophic thesis, yet a man with any pretence to philosophic effeciency should certainly have at his beck and call several proofs to do service in various situations. Mr. Brown indicates a few subsidiary proofs in connection with the subject of materialsm, a consideration of grave import in the philosophical world today.

This book addresses the examination of notions related to space in geography as conditions of social praxis. The author analyzes the critical currents of geography that take a stand in the face of the political consequences of the so-called traditional geography, discuss the criteria from which criticism is exercised in geographic research and reflect on nature and geopolitics from the perspective of criticism of political economy. In this way, in the texts that make up this volume, the necessary debate is (...) invited to overcome the chaos in which the use of categories such as "territory," "region," "place" and "scale" are found in social theory. (shrink)

David Boonin, The Problem of Punishment. There are two reasons why David Boonin's recent book, The Problem of Punishment,1 offers me a unique oppor...