In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 91 The passage which permitted such an interpretation is the following: This self-command is very different at different times.... Can we give any reason for these variations, except experience? Where then is the power of which we pretend to be conscious? Is there not here, either in a spiritual or a material substance, or both, some secret mechanism or structure of parts, upon which the effect depends...?" (...) (Enquiry, p. 68). This rhetorical question is, on the contrary, intended as the part of the third argument for the thesis "that even this command of the will gives us no real idea of force or energy" (Enquiry, p. 67). There is no evidence in the Enquiries that Hume concluded that self is a substance. On p. 45, Anderson "suggests that Hume employs 'impression'...in a less frequent usage, however.., to be a pressure, or pattern of light, or other means whereby objects are applied to the external organs of sense"t On p. 65 and also on p. 173, it is argued fallaciously that, "Hume considers mathematical ideas, like all other ideas, to be existences. If this be true, then the necessary relations ~mpposed to obtain among mathematical ideas cannot be discerned even though these ideas themselves be fully known." Now it is a matter of debate whether Hume believed that all mathematical ideas are derived from impressions (see my controversy with Flew on this issue, in Ratio, Vol. VI, No. 2, "Hume on Pure and Applied Geometry," and Flew's article, "Did Hume Distinguish Pure and Applied Geometry?," Ratio, Vol. VIII, No. 1). But even if we assume that this is his belief, it does not follow at all that the logical relations among these ideas are contingent. As Pap argued a long time ago, "A sensationalist might maintain that all the concepts that constitute a given proposition are derived from experience and might nevertheless admit that proposition itself is a priori in the sense of requiring no empirical verification in order to be assertable as true." Thus, Hume the sensationalist admitted that a priori knowledge is possible in mathematics, which is conversant exclusively about "relations of ideas" and not about "matters of fact." Finally, in the last chapter, it is argued that, "Hume's own suggestion concerning these three natural relations (resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect) is that they are fundamentally material--that they consist in a certain characteristic movement of the animal spirit in the brain" (p. 163)I1 That, "The necessity is the relationship between cause and effect, Hume's remarks suggest, is ultimately their identity in essence. One passage which we have noted indicates that cause and effect are inseparable, and by use of Hume's own maxims we may strictly infer from their inseparability their identity" (p. 165)II And that, "Although Hume's doctrine of matter is ultimately of central importance in his system, his beginnings in moral philosophy doubtless led him to turn his attention away from the topic of matter" (p. 175). This book, though replete with quotations from Hume's works and exhibiting a great amount of microscopic observations, represents a mistaken view of Hume's epistemology. ~ARHANG ZABEEIq Roosevelt University, Chicago Hegel's Phenomenology. Dialogues on the Life of Mind. By Jacob Loewenberg. (La Salle, Ill. : The Open Court Publ. Co., 1965.Pp. xv + 377.) Hegel's Phenomenology o] Spirit, intriguing in its richness, has long remained one of the most forbidding of philosophical classics. Unfortunately, commentaries, though altogether indispensable, are sparse. Heretofore, the reader found himself referred mainly to two foreign language studies, G. A. Gabler's Kritik des Be~usst~ein~ of 1835, and J. Hyppolite's Gen~se et structure de la Phdnomdnologie de l'esprit; no full-scale work in English was available. And 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY even the reader prepared to turn to these works might register disenchantment: Gabler deals with two fifths of the book only, and Hyppolite is at times too close to the text to be much help. What remains is comment in the framework of more general studies of Hegel's philosophy (Royce, Haering, Kroner, Stace, Findlay and others). In this situation Loewenberg's contribution marks a... (shrink)

The article deals with the Greek idea of circular thought and especially with the question of its presence and meaning in the philosophy of Parmenides of Elea. A new interpretation of the fragment DK 28 B 5, which is crucial to this issue, is proposed. It is suggested that the circularity of thought refers to the deductive mode of the arguments in the “Aletheia” and to the proleptic character of some of the Parmenidean statements. Both fragment B 5 (to be (...) placed probably at the beginning of the deduction of the “Aletheia”) and B 8.50-51 (the end of the “Aletheia”) may be successfully interpreted on the basis of this idea. The proposed interpretation makes clear why the circularity of thought does not oppose the linearity of the reasoning and why the logical character of cognition does not contradict its immediacy for Parmenides. (shrink)

보에티우스 [철학의 위안] 5권에서 논의되는 신의 예지와 인간의 자유의지 사이의 양립가능성 문제에 대한 첫 번째 응답은기술적 영역에 속하는 사안을 중심으로 구성된다. 이 논문은 지금까지 주목받지 못한 이 기술 논변이 구체적으로 어떤 통찰을전해주고 있는지, 또 이어지는 전체 논증에서 어떤 역할을 하고있는지 분석한다. 기술적 영역은 특정한 조건이 주어지면 기술의 투입을 통해 의도했던 효과가 발생하기에 충분할 정도의 구조를 갖추고 있다는 점에서 필연성에 대한 앎을 허락하지만, 이필연성이 인간적 판단과 의지라는 조건에 의존하는 만큼 반드시그런 결과가 나와야만 할 필연성은 없는 영역이다. 보에티우스는 이 모델을 토대로 미래 (...) 결과에 대한 앎은 성립하지만, 그 앎이 미래 사건이 자유롭지 않게 만드는 필연성을 부여하는 것은아니라는 점을 보여준다. 기술 논변은 짧은 논증 속에서 자신에게 기대되는 역할을 성공적으로 수행한 것으로 평가할 수 있다. (shrink)

n this note I wish to reopen discussion of the role of Cornelius Nepos in Catullus' dedicatory poem. The Callimachean features of Catullus' assessment of his own work have been well documented. However I believe that, since this is a poem where Catullus evaluates not only his own work, but also that of Nepos, a closer examination of the latter is called for.

Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in the study of emotion and cognition, and an increasing rejection of the traditional philosophical prejudice against emotions as irrational or disruptive. The essays in this collection explore various facets of the relationships among emotion, action, rationality, and self-knowledge, with particular attention to three main sets of issues: the relationships between emotions and action, the roles emotion and action play in the development of self-awareness, and the rationality of emotions and emotional action.

After an undergraduate degree with a major in mathematics, I turned to philosophy—in part because philosophy had all the interest of math (and logic) plus an indefinitely wide range of subject matter. I began philosophy at an intersection of metaphysics and philosophy of science. My dissertation, Ontological and Linguistic Aspects of Temporal Becoming, was on the philosophy of time. A convinced physicalist, I defended the idea that past, present and future (the A-series) are merely “mind-dependent.” I spent a year as (...) a Mellon postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, working mainly with Adolf Grünbaum, who was very generous to me with his time. Other members of the philosophical community in Pittsburgh suggested that there was no philosophical interest in nowness; the word ‘now’ exhausted whatever there was of real interest concerning the status of the present. I therefore turned my attention from the status of the present (nowness) to the word ‘now’. (shrink)

On or shortly after 4 February 43b.c.Cicero delivered theNinth Philippicin an effort to persuade the Senate to honour Ser. Sulpicius Rufus. He argued that Sulpicius, who had died of natural causes while acting as the Senate's envoy, was nevertheless entitled to the same recognition aslegatikilledob rem publicam. In the course of the speech Cicero discussed various historic precedents, including Cn. Octavius who was assassinated in Syria in 162b.c.while doing the Senate's bidding and was consequently honoured with a statue on the (...) rostra. The statue was still extant in 43b.c.and Cicero reminded his audience that it was now the only memorial to this great family. Cicero's observation has unanimously been interpreted as signifying that the family of the consul of 165b.c.was extinct in February 43b.c.In fact, Cicero actually meant that the statue on the rostra was now the sole surviving monument associated with the family of Cn. Octavius because the other two monuments that had served as a concrete reminder of the family had latterly been destroyed. (shrink)