According to Ross Cameron's version of the moving spotlight theory of time, (1) Past and future entities exist; (2) the properties and relations they have are those they have now; but nevertheless (3) there are no fundamental past- or future-tensed facts; instead, tensed facts are made true by fundamental facts about the possession of temporal distributional properties and facts about how old things are. I argue that the account isn't sufficiently distinct from the B-theory to fit the usual A-theorist's tastes (...) and arguments, since i) like the traditional spotlight it consists of a B-theoretic metaphysics with one small A-theoretic element tacked on, and since ii) in a sense it does not admit fundamental change. I also argue that the proposed grounding of tensed facts in tenseless facts does not work in certain cases. (shrink)

I argue, firstly, that the accounts of 'accident' in Aristotle's Met. V 30 and in Top. I 5 cannot be used to elucidate each other: the Metaphysics passage tries to disentangle the uses of a Greek word, the Topics passage introduces technical terms for Aristotle's semantics. I then argue that the positive definition in Top. I 5 is to be understood in the following way: X is an accident of Y iff X belongs to Y and if there is a (...) Z such that X can belong to Z and also not belong to Z. Thus, being white is an accident of snow. I finally argue that certain shortcomings in the Topics account lead Aristotle to redefine accident in the Posterior Analytics. (shrink)

Almost everyone involved in the legal profession today is aware of the wide, and perhaps insurmountable, chasm between the scholarly research that takes place in elite law schools and the actual work of practicing lawyers and judges. To a greater extent than other academic professions like medicine and public health, law professors too often have little to say to working lawyers and judges, even those judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps this has been the case from the beginning, but (...) the gap appears more dramatic in recent decades, as legal scholarship has departed from traditional doctrinal analysis and moved in more interdisciplinary and abstract theoretical directions. (shrink)

In Republic V, Plato distinguishes two different cognitive powers, knowledge and belief, which operate differently on different types of object. I argue that in Republic VI Plato modifies this account, and claims that there is a single cognitive power, which under different circumstances behaves either as knowledge or as belief. I show that the circumstances which turn true belief into knowledge are the provision of an individuation account of the object of belief, which reveals the ontological status and the nature (...) of the object. Plato explores many alternative candidates of individuation accounts of objects of true belief, which he discards. I conclude with a Platonic sketch of a teleological account of individuation which would satisfy his requirements of turning true belief into knowledge. (shrink)

In Republic V, Plato makes the astonishing claim that knowledge is a different and independent power from belief, in the way, for example, that sight differs from hearing. I will argue that this is a fundamentally different conception of knowledge than the, also Platonic, conception of knowledge as 'true belief with an account'. I examine the reasons why Plato holds this position, and the ontology and epistemology which sustain its claims.

The Making of Modern Law: Foreign, Comparative and International Law, 1600-1926, brings together foreign, comparative, and international titles in a single resource. Its International Law component features works of some of the great legal theorists, including Gentili, Grotius, Selden, Zouche, Pufendorf, Bijnkershoek, Wolff, Vattel, Martens, Mackintosh, Wheaton, among others. The materials in this archive are drawn from three world-class American law libraries: the Yale Law Library, the George Washington University Law Library, and the Columbia Law Library.Now for the first time, (...) these high-quality digital scans of original works are available via print-on-demand, making them readily accessible to libraries, students, independent scholars, and readers of all ages.+++++++++++++++The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition identification: +++++++++++++++Yale Law LibraryLP3Y049870019040101The Making of Modern Law: Foreign, Comparative, and International Law, 1600-1926Leipzig: G. J. Goschen'sche, 19042 v. 16 cmGermany. (shrink)

I contend that “philosophos” is meant to carry the connotation of a Pythagorean: Euenus is a native from Paros which had a strong Pythagorean community down to the end of the fifth century. Moreover, “philosophos” was used to refer to the Pythagoreans, as can be seen from the story related by Cicero from Heraclides Ponticus (Tusc. Disp. V, iii, 7-8; cp. DL, 1.12; 8.8). I argue (against Burkert) that even if this story is part of the lore surrounding Pythagoras and, (...) hence, without historical value as for Pythagoras, it may still be used as evidence for the use of “philosophos” among latter-day Pythagoreans. (shrink)

Let A and B be subsets of the reals. Say that A κ ≥ B, if there is a real a such that the relation "x ∈ B" is uniformly Δ 1 (a, A) in L[ ω x,a,A 1 , x,a,A]. This reducibility induces an equivalence relation $\equiv_\kappa$ on the sets of reals; the $\equiv_\kappa$ -equivalence class of a set is called its Kleene degree. Let K be the structure that consists of the Kleene degrees and the induced partial order (...) K ≥. A substructure of K that is of interest is P, the Kleene degrees of the Π 1 1 sets of reals. If sharps exist, then there is not much to P, as Steel [9] has shown that the existence of sharps implies that P has only two elements: the degree of the empty set and the degree of the complete Π 1 1 set. Legrand [4] used the hypothesis that there is a real whose sharp does not exist to show that there are incomparable elements in P; in the context of V = L, Hrbacek has shown that P is dense and has no minimal pairs. The Hrbacek results led Simpson [6] to make the following conjecture: if V = L, then p forms a universal homogeneous upper semilattice with 0 and 1. Simpson's conjecture is shown to be false by showing that if V = L, then Godel's maximal thin Π 1 1 set is the infimum of two strictly larger elements of P. The second main result deals with the notion of jump in K. Let A' be the complete Kleene enumerable set relative to A. Say that A is low-n if A (n) has the same degree as $\varnothing^{(n)}$ , and A is high-n if A (n) has the same degree as $\varnothing^{(n + 1)}$ . Simpson and Weitkamp [7] have shown that there is a high (high-1) incomplete Π 1 1 set in L. They have also shown that various other Π 1 1 sets are neither high nor low in L. Legrand [5] extended their results by showing that, if there is a real x such that x # does not exist, then there is an element of P that, for all n, is neither low-n nor high-n. In § 2, ZFC is used to show that, for all n, if A is Π 1 1 and low-n then A is Borel. The proof uses a strengthened version of Jensen's theorem on sequences of admissible ordinals that appears in [7, Simpson-Weitkamp]. (shrink)

This is a review of the new translation-cum-commentary of Lucretius, De rerum Natura by Klaus Binder, published by dtv, Munich 2017. The review stresses the importance of Lucretius work for the Enlightenment. The translation is o. k. on the whole, however the translator should have avoided rendering the Latin >religio< by >Aberglauben< (superstition). >superstition< was the word chosen by the English translator in the Loeb-Library, W. H. D. Rouse. Rouse was a Headmaster of the Perse School in Cambridge and he (...) may have chosen this rendering in 1924 to avoid getting into trouble with the Church of England. (shrink)

This is Volume V in the series Midwest Studies in Philosophy In 1979 the University of Minnesota Press assumed publication of the annual Midwest Studies in ...

In this chapter, Grace Andrus de Laguna and Theodore de Laguna critically examine the pragmatist theory of knowledge and offer their own alternative to it.