Philosophy is a discipline characterized throughout its history by certain problems that seem to resist solution. How one is to begin a philosophical inquiry is one such problem. I examine this problem as it arises in Plato's Meno and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. My thesis is that this problem, which suggests that there is no way to proceed, conceals within itself its own solution. There is no way to proceed because this problem marks the site where philosophical inquiry is to (...) flourish. I call this flourishing activity dialectics. ;In my exposition of Plato's Meno I endeavor to show that when read within the context of the dialogue Meno's presentation of the problem of inquiry, which means to stifle all inquiry, really is nothing more than a recollection of what Meno has just experienced. Not knowing that the true end of the discussion has been to reveal to Meno the nature of his own ignorance, Meno is unable to recognize this end when he comes to it. A philosophical inquiry is prevented from proceeding because its true task is to recollect what first remains concealed as the unfounded assumptions from which it begins. In this dissertation I attempt to elucidate such an understanding of inquiry. ;With my exposition of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit I observe that we readers begin with an unexplained and unexamined ability to attend to the dialectic of natural consciousness. I then attempt to explain why this need not beg questions about how one is to begin a philosophical inquiry. I contend that the true task of a philosophical inquiry is not to grasp the truth but to comprehend those truths that we already possess. Thus our task as readers is to comprehend this dialectic which guides our reading. My thesis is that the Phenomenology of Spirit is about the reader. It is our experience as readers along the path of the exposition that is recollected with the presentation of each natural consciousness in turn. The exposition comes to an end when we are able to recollect in Absolute Knowing the entire course of our own knowing. (shrink)

This is the reading of the manuscripts with the punctuation given it in the Delphin, Loeb, and Teubner editions. But the future does not give the sense required. Adrastus is gazing with horror at the two young men who have arrived on his doorstep, realizing that they are the lion and the boar of Apollo's oracle . The whole force of the blow lies in the fact that they have actually arrived. The Delphin editor solves the problem by saying that (...) adfore means adesse, the Loeb by translating ‘that they had come’. Gruter suggested ac fore, and Garrod accepted this, putting a comma after ductos. But I do not see how this helps. I suggest that the reading of the manuscripts is correct, provided that we take adfore with quos … ediderat; i.e. put a comma after ductos and supply esse. The presence of three verbs, adfore, portendi, and ediderat, may seem a little clumsy, but each has its point; and the future is now natural, depending upon portendi: ‘he realized that the clear will of heaven had brought to his house the sons-in-law of whom Apollo had announced that their future arrival was destined by fate.’. (shrink)

This text attempts to show why the academic split between ethics and social sciences has been disastrous and argues that advances in vigour and sensitivity are made possible by closing this artificial divide.

I Wish to reply to some of the objections raised by Mr. A. Hudson-Williams in Class. Quart., vol. xlvi , p. 27, to my notes on Martial in vol. xliv. In two places, on pp. 17 and 22, he corrects an error of mine, and in one or two other of his remarks he may well be right; but in many cases he does nothing more than repeat the traditional interpretation of a passage without commending it any more effectively than (...) the editors do. I do not think there would be much profit in restating my view on all these passages, but there are some points I wish to make in reply. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This is a collection of brilliant and often lucid philosophical writings that will appeal to and engage students new to philosophy. Spanning the entire history of philosophy, the collection contains material from the Upanishads, Socrates, Aquinas, the British Empiricists, the Continental Philosophers and some of the leading analytic philosophers.

The publication of John Stuart Mill's Three Essays on Religion in 1873 prompted a remarkable diversity of responses. Anonymous authors in the prominent literary and theological reviews of the day joined philosophers, from empiricists to idealists, and theologians, from Anglicans to Unitarians, in commenting on the Essays . The judgements passed upon Mill himself ranged from 'honest' to 'impudent'. Dr Sell here gathers and introduces a representative selection of the reviews, essays and extracts that met this important work. The writers, (...) although diverse, are at least united in one view - that what Mill had written mattered - and their debate continued for many years - the contributions cover a quarter of a century of controversy. -- Three Essays on Religion is at the heart of the 19th-century challenge to Christianity - the responses gathered here show its enormous impact and influence --useful supplementary reading for a variety of philosophy and theology courses. (shrink)

Historians and sociologists chart the consequences of the expansion of knowledge; philosophers of science examine the causes. This book bridges the gap. The focus is on ‘academisation’ — the paradox whereby, as the general public becomes better educated to live and work with knowledge, the ‘academy’ increases its intellectual distance from the public, so that the nature of social and natural reality becomes more rather than less obscure.

"Focuses on the phenomenon of self-deception, and proposes a radical revision of our commonplace understanding of it as a token of irrationality.

Darwin's mockingbird -- Do species change? -- Does evolution make big changes? -- Design -- Peaks and valleys -- Islands in the 21st century -- Has there been enough time? -- Did humans evolve? -- Are we still evolving? -- Conclusions.