In The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir revealed that it is just this freedom of withdrawal from self that woman cannot gain because of the constant effort of establishing and guarding her identity against an enforced background of passivity, ornamentality and self-enclosure. Even as a small child, woman is taught how to.

In this paper I will suggest an interpretation of Spinoza's ontological argument on which the argument, properly construed, is valid, and Spinoza, if granted the claim that it is possible that God exists, is successful in obtaining the conclusion of the argument. The interpretations given by H.A. Wolfson, G.H.R. Parkinson, and William A. Earle will then be argued to be deficient on textual and logical grounds. Leibniz’ assessment of the argument, namely that it “permits us only to conclude that (...) God's existence follows if his possibility is already proven,” is thus held to be correct. (shrink)

In Chapter II of his work The Philosophy of Spinoza, Wolfson accepts Descartes' distinction between the geometrical method of philosophizing and the geometrical form of literary exposition. The geometrical method of philosophizing is a method of demonstration and is essentially identical with “valid syllogistic reasoning as practised throughout the history of philosophy.” The geometrical form of literary exposition is one modelled after the literary form of Euclid's Elements. Wolfson proceeds to present two theses which serve as the premises (...) of a conclusion respecting the relation between form and content in Spinoza's Ethics. The first thesis is that as a consequence of Spinoza's “mathematical way of looking at things” the geometrical method “is adopted by Spinoza and used consistently in his discussions of metaphysical matters throughout his chief philosophic work.” The second thesis is to the effect that there is no logical connection between the geometrical method of philosophizing and the geometrical literary form of exposition, i.e., a geometrizing philosopher, e.g., Descartes, need not employ the geometrical literary form. From these theses, serving as premises, Wolfson concludes that “there is no logical connection between the substance of Spinoza's philosophy and the form in which it is written” and, hence, “his choice of the Euclidian geometrical form is to be explained on other grounds.” Wolfson proceeds to present four possible reasons which, either individually or conjointly, may lie behind Spinoza's employment of the geometrical literary form: on pedagogical grounds, in reaction against certain literary forms which had developed since the Renaissance, to avoid arguing against his opponents, and for the sake of novelty. (shrink)

A partir de uma análise da obra de Francis Kaplan L'Étique de Spinoza et Ia méthode Géométrique, complementada com análises de comentadores clássicos do Espinosismo, como por exemplo, Victor Delbos e Harry Austryn Wolfson, entre outros, o autor procura traçar um historial da utilização do método ou da ordem geométrica, por parte de diversos pensadores, visando apontar, reconhecer ou apenas supor, uma possível influência sobre Bento de Espinosa. /// Starting from Francis Kaplan's analysis in his work L'Étique de Spinoza (...) et Ia méthode Géométrique, complemented with classic commentator's of spinozisme, as for example, Victor Delbos and Harry Austryn Wolfson, the author of the present article attempts to trace a report of the use of the geometrical method or of the geometric order, on the part of several thinkers, seeking to reveal, to recognize or just to suggest, a possible influence on Benedictus de Spinoza. (shrink)

In Spinoza’s ontology, there are only two categories of existing items: an independent entity that is one substance, and dependent entities that are infinite modes; “nothing exists external to the intellect except substances and their affections”(Proof of 1.P.4). Nevertheless, Spinoza introduces a third notion, ‘attribute’, that is defined as “what the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence” (1.d.4). Spinoza’s metaphysics is known for the doctrine of substance monism that indicates that only one substance exists. Spinoza, however, explicitly states (...) that “substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.” These remarks create a perplexing puzzle regarding the ontological status of attributes in Spinoza’s philosophy. In the literature, in general, there are two opposite interpretations: the realist view (i.e., Curley (1988)) according to which attributes are real substances; and the anti-realist interpretation (i.e., Wolfson (1934)) that holds that attributes are not metaphysically real. In this paper, I provide some textual evidence from Spinoza’s works that contradicts both mentioned the realist and the anti-realist interpretations. As an alternative, I put forward a new account according to which attributes are real and objective; nevertheless, they should not be understood as distinct things in Spinoza's metaphysics. (shrink)

There is perhaps no greater constant in religious intuition and experience than the presence of light. In spiritual traditions East and West, light is not only ubiquitous but something that assumes strikingly similar forms in altogether different historical and cultural settings. This study examines light as an aspect of religiously valued experiences and its entailments for mystical theology, philosophy, politics, and religious art. The essays in this volume make an important contribution to religious studies by proposing that it is misleading (...) to conceive of religious experience in terms of an irreconcilable dichotomy between universality and cultural construction. An esteemed group of contributors, representing the study of Asian and Western religious traditions from a range of disciplinary perspectives, suggests that attention to various forms of divine radiance shows that there is indeed a range of principles that, if not universal, are nevertheless very widely occurring and amenable to fruitful comparative inquiry. What results is a work of enormous scope, demonstrating compelling cross-connections that will be of value to scholars of comparative religions, mysticism, and the relationship between art and the sacred. Contributors: * Catherine B. Asher * Raoul Birnbaum * Sarah Iles Johnston * Matthew T. Kapstein * Andrew Louth * Paul E. Muller-Ortega * Elliot R. Wolfson * Mimi Hall Yiengpruksawan * Hossein Ziai. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.2 (2003) 273-274 [Access article in PDF] Christoph Lüthy, John E. Murdoch, and William R. Newman, editors. Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Pp. viii + 610. Cloth, $186.00. The nineteen papers of this weighty (handsomely produced, but expensive) volume are mostly devoted to the views of one thinker or group of persons on "corpuscularism" (see 17ff.), in (...) either physics or mathematics, with few synthetic or diachronic studies. Only a quarter of the volume is devoted to the medieval period: Danielle Jacquart on minima in the Salerno school of medicine (twelfth century); the late George Molland on Roger Bacon's and Grosseteste's "corpuscular tendencies"; Charles Lohr on Ramon Lull; John Murdoch on minima naturalia in the medieval and Renaissance periods; and the greater part of William Newman's study of corpuscularian conceptions in "Aristotelian alchemy" from Geber to Sennert. The early-modern part includes studies on mostly expected figures: Francesco Patrici, Giordano Bruno, the Northumberland circle, Francis Bacon, David Gorlaeus (a little-known Dutch theology student; 1591-1612, sic), Daniel Sennert, Honoré Fabri, Galileo, Gassendi, Charleton, Boyle, Locke, and Homberg. Alan Gabbey more generally distinguishes different patterns of explanations in mechanical philosophy.As far as I can judge, the authors are knowledgeable and competent, and the studies make important contributions. But just because this is a high-quality volume produced with the ambition of making a step toward rewriting the history of a major chapter in the history of science, its two significant and principled deficiencies must be pointed out.The volume follows the intention of "show[ing] the debt of early-modern matter theory to previous traditions and thereby [explaining] its bewildering heterogeneity" (back cover). Now, the study of the corpuscular traditions in the pre-modern period is certainly an important desideratum (although this volume again attends chiefly to the early modern corpuscularians). But the motivation and perspective here announced—the medieval period [End Page 273] is to be studied because early modern science is indebted to it—are astoundingly Whiggish. Worse: the study of the entire Arabic-Islamic tradition is dismissed, on the grounds that "Islamic atomism does not seem to have been of any influence upon Christian fourteenth-century atomism" (8): this is not only Whiggism, but also frank and explicit euro- and Christian-centrism, which in the beginning of the twenty-first century is simply stunning. The method amusingly consists in affirming the consequent: presupposing that "Islamic atomism" did not influence the West and early-modern science, no scholar was asked to examine whether or not this was indeed the case, with the congenial result that the volume seemingly confirms the initial presupposition. Q.E.D. Similarly and no less regrettably, the fact that (ps.-) Geber's Summa Perfectionis is not, as Lasswitz had thought, the translation of an Arabic work is here used as grounds on which to dismiss altogether his claim concerning the importance of the Arabic input (13, but see also 293). This way, incomprehension between civilizations is reinforced instead of being reduced, and I believe we did not need September 11 to know this.The thusly dismissed Mu'tazilite school of Islamic theology had important repercussions in Judaism, so that referring to it as "Islamic atomism" is misleading (see notably Hagai Ben-Shammai, "Studies in Karaite Atomism," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6 [1985]: 243-93). The volume's forty-page cumulative bibliography, for which the editors are to be congratulated, reflects the volume's parochial viewpoint: H. A. Wolfson's important The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), with some 150 pages on atomism, is not included; nor is the (English version of the) landmark study by the late S. Pines, Studies in Islamic Atomism (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1997; the original 1936 German version is mentioned). Wolfson's study, incidentally, shows that the editors' presupposition (8) that the Kalâm tradition could have influenced the West only via the Latin translation of Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed is unwarranted, for Isaac... (shrink)

It is well known that Maimonides rejects the Kalam argument for the existence of God because it assumes the temporal creation of the world, a premise for which he says there is no “cogent demonstration (burhan qat'i) except among those who do not know the difference between demonstration, dialectics, and sophistic argument.”Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), I:71:180. All references are to this translation; parenthetic in-text references are to part, chapter, (...) and page. By contrast, he claims to establish belief in the existence of God “through a demonstrative method as to which there is no disagreement in any respect” (I:71:182). Taken at his word, Maimonides’ proofs for the existence of the deity, like Aquinas’s five ways, have traditionally been read as models of medieval natural theology: of the power of human reason to independently establish revealed truth. In recent years, however, the same demonstrations have assumed a second kind of significance. For scholars, like myself, who argue that Maimonides holds severe views about the limitations of human knowledge of divine science and metaphysics, these demonstrations are the strongest conceivable counterevidence.The locus classicus for this view is Shlomo Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge According to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. I Twersky, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), I:82–109. See also his “Les Limites de la Métaphysique selon Al-Farabi, ibn Bajja et Maimonide; Sources et Antitheses de ces Doctrines chez Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Chez Themistius,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13 (1981): 211–25; “Dieu et L’Etre Selon Maimonide: Exégese d’Exode 3,14 et doctrine connexe,” in Celui qui est: Interprétations juives et chrétiennes d’Exode 3, 14, ed. A. de Libera et E. Zum Brunn (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf [Collection “Patrimoines”], 1986), 15–24; and “The Relation between Maimonides’ Halakhic and non-Halakhic Works,” in Maimonides and Philosophy, ed., S. Pines and Y. Yovel (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987). Pines concludes, on the basis of the limitations of the intellect with respect to knowledge of metaphysics, that Maimonides, like Kant, gives priority to the practical over the theoretical. For arguments drawing different ‘skeptical’ conclusions, see my “Maimonides in the Skeptical Tradition,” ms.; “Maimonides on the Growth of Knowledge and the Limitations of the Intellect,” to appear in Tony Levy, ed., Maimonide: Traditions philosophiques et scientifiques médievales arabe, hébraique, latine; “Logical Syntax as a Key to a Secret of the Guide of the Perplexed,” (in Heb.), Iyyun 38 (1989): 137–66; “Maimonides on Language and the Science of Language,” in Maimonides and the Sciences, ed., H. Levine and R. Cohen (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 173–226; and The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide (forthcoming). If Maimonides really held that humans cannot apprehend metaphysical truths about the deity, how could he have demonstrated (or even thought he could demonstrate) the existence of God? If he does demonstrate it, then humans evidently do have knowledge of metaphysics. As one distinguished scholar has recently protested, it is nothing less than “perverse” to interpret Maimonides as “meaning that the existence of God is unknowable when he in fact prides himself on having demonstrated the existence of God in four different ways.”Herbert A. Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge,” Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992–1993): 49–103, 86. See also Alfred L. Ivry, “The Logical and Scientific Premises of Maimonides’ Thought,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, ed. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush (Amsterdam: Harwood Publishers, 1998), pp. 63–97, 70. (shrink)

Este artículo examina la concepción del espacio infinito y del tiempo en Hasdai Crescas, Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola y Giordano Bruno. Si la presencia de Crescas es explícita en el _Examen vanitatis_ (1520) de Pico, su recepción por Bruno, que nunca lo menciona, fue postulada por Harry A. Wolfson en 1929. Más recientemente, David Harari y Mauro Zonta han afirmado el papel intermediario de un autor judío desconocido. Sin embargo, una comparación de la crítica de Aristóteles efectuada por Crescas (...) y Bruno pone de manifiesto que, excepto dos puntos, Bruno pudo alcanzar sus posiciones con independencia de Crescas, a partir de su propia lectura crítica de Aristóteles y de su conocimiento de los desarrollos de la escolástica medieval y del concepto neoplatónico del tiempo. La significativa calificación por Crescas del espacio y del tiempo como atributos de Dios en un sentido puramente metafórico, una cuestión que Pico deja a un lado, deja paso en Bruno a la calificación del espacio infinito, de la duración y también de la materia como atributos reales de Dios, que es a la vez mente e intelecto, espacio y materia, en tanto que unidad indiferente de los opuestos. (shrink)

In his seminal 1935 study of the internal senses in medieval2 thought, Harry Austryn Wolfson presented a detailed account of the development of the "classification and terminology" of the Greek, Arabic, Hebrew and Latin traditions on sensory powers which he called, "post-sensationary faculties,"~ that is, powers which are posterior to the five external senses. In explaining the complex development of teachings on the internal senses from Aristotle's texts, Wolfson recounted the Aristotelian understanding of Galen who specifically locates the (...) OHXVOTl'ttKOV or cogitative faculty in the middle ventricle of the brain and John of Damascus whose equally Aristotelian account follows the Stagirite in attributing judgments of goodand bad as well as combination and separation of ideas to the omvoTl'ttKTJ 'lfUXTt or the cogitative soul and to ouxvma or cogitation.4 One of the many fruits of Wolfson's discussion was an explanation of the development of the Avicennian doctrine of estimation as arising"out of a desire to supplement a deficiency which seemed to exist in Aristotle's account of the actual motion of pursuit and avoidance which is observed in both man and animal. "5 With wahm used to describe instinctive behavior consequent upon non-rational animal imagination analogous to human reasoning or deliberation, Wolfson wrote, the Arabic fikr now was tobe associated with imagination and no longer was to be seen as simply the power of combining and separating ideas. "In the case of ouivotcx combined with imagination, it is the combination and separation of images, i.e., the construction out of images of things existent, new composite images of things nonexistent, or the breaking up of images of things existent into images of things nonexistent."6 From this moment on, and not without some foundation in Aristotle's own texts as indicated, fikr/ cogitatio and their related derivative terms are used to characterize human rational powers which are essentially activities involving the bodyand bodily instruments insofar as imagination is necessarily bodily. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Plotinus and the Parmenz'des B. DARRELL JACKSON IN 1928 E. R. DODDSARGUED that the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides are the primary source of Plotinus' doctrines of the One and of Nous. I Dodds' main evidence was a list of parallels between the Parmenides and the Enneads? He argued further that the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Parmenides as positive metaphysics was neo-Pythagorean in origin. Several Plotinus scholars have (...) accepted and extended Dodds' view of the importance of the Parmenides for Plotinus. This group includes ]~mile Br6hier, ~ A. H. Armstrong, 4 Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, 5 and Paul Henry. n But Dodds' position is by no means universally accepted. Elmer O'Brien has recently argued that the Plotinian One was derived ultimately from Philo and mediated to Plotinus through Albinus and Numenius. 7 He says that Dodds' case, though good, is not convincing. It. A. Wolfson has been the great advocate of the Philonic origin of Plotinus' views. According to Wolfson, the doctrines attributed by Plotinus to Plato are not Plato's but mainly Philo's. 8 Others see Plotinus in varying degrees of dependence upon Plato. Philip Merlan holds that Plotinus is more in debt to the immediate successors of Plato and to Aristotle's interpretation of Plato than to the Platonic writings themselves. 9 C. J. de Vogel sees Plotinus as dependent upon Plato for a hierarchy of being which was accepted and elaborated by various middle Platonists and Gnostics. 1~According to de Vogel, the Parmenides wus not importan% in this hierarchy tradition, n In this article I shall re-examine Dodds' position. I believe the case for Plotinus' dependence upon the Parmenides can be strengthened. I shall try to do this by examining the systematic relation of Plotinus' thought to the Parmenides. Dodds x"The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic 'One'," The Classical Quarterly, XXII (1928), 129-142. 2Ibid., 132 f. *In the introductions to Enneads V.3 (esp. pp. 43 f., 46 f.), V.5 (pp. 87 ft.), VI.4-5 (pp. 161163,165-168),and VI.7 (pp. 49, 60) in his Bud~ edition and translation of the Enneads (Paris, 1931-38). 4The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus (Cambridge, at the University Press: 1940), pp. 14-28. In his article "Plotinos", Vol. 21, pt. 1 of Paulys Real-Encyclopgdie der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1951, cols. 552-554. eIntroduction to the second edition of Stephen MacKenna's translation of the Ennead.~ (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., n. d.), pp. xli-xliv. Elmer O'Brien (ed. and trans.), The Essential Plotinus (New York: Mentor, 1964),p. 15. 8"Albinus and Plotinus on Divine Attributes," Harvard Theological Review, XXXXV (1952), 115. 9From Platonism to Neoplatonism (2n ed. rev.; The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960). 10"On the Neoplatonic Character of Platonism and the Platonic Character of Neoplatonism," Mind, LXIII (1953), 43-64. 11Ibid., 58. [3]5] 316 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY considered only parallel terminology. I shall in addition look at parallel argumentation and conclusions. Furthermore, since Dodds accounts only for Plotinus' first two hypostases, I shall consider the relation of the third hypostasis (soul) to the Parmenides. My primary interest is not the source of Plotinus' interpretation of the Parmenides but the way he carries that interpretation out. TM The former issue has often been focal in the literature on this subject. ~8It is certain thay many of the ideas used by Plotinus were already in circulation. But it is equally certain that in his combination of these ideas of a hierarchy, of transcendence, etc., Plotinus is original. I shall argue that this originality of combination is largely determined by an interpretation of the Parmenides. I should add that I am not concerned with whether Plotinus' interpretation is correct. ~4 In the following pages I shall attempt to show three things: (1) how Plotinus explicitly interprets the Parmenides, (2) to what extent he draws upon the language of the Parmenides, and (3) to what extent Plotinus' system may be understood by its relation to the Parmenides. I. Plotinus' Interpretation of the Parmenides The obvious place to begin an analysis of Plotinus' relation to the Parmenides is Enneads V... (shrink)

In 1978 the American Research Center in Egypt published a report on a project in "Medieval Islamic Logic" it was cosponsoring with the Smithsonian Institute. The report announced the project's goal to be "to produce critical editions of the Arabic text of Averroes' Middle Commentaries on Aristotle's logical works." The first of these editions, the Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, appeared in 1979, and since that time the editions have appeared with impressive regularity: the MC on Aristotle's Categories in 1980; (...) the MC on Aristotle's De Interpretatione in 1981; the MC on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics in 1982; and the MC on Aristotle's Prior Analytics in 1983. The editor of all these commentaries is Charles E. Butterworth, with editorial assistance from Ahmad Abd al-Magid Haridi. The editions of these eight commentaries, when they are all published, will constitute the Arabic version of the middle commentaries of volume 1 of Harry A. Wolfson's carefully planned Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem. (shrink)

В статье философия характеризуется на основе дискурсной парадигмы анализа: как текст, интеллектуальная деятельность и коммуникация. Характеризуются два равнозначных аспекта философского дискурса - когнитивный и коммуникативный. Обсуждается феномен философских контроверз, специфика философского спора, выразительные (знаковые) средства философского дискурса, роль мировоззренческого дискурса в современной общественно-политической ситуации в стране.

_Zettel, _ an en face bilingual edition, collects fragments from Wittgenstein's work between 1929 and 1948 on issues of the mind, mathematics, and language.

Curley begins by showing that two of the main interpretations of Spinoza are wrong. He considers the "Bayle-Joachim interpretation" and the "Wolfson interpretation." In general, his criticism of these interpretations is brief, and in some instances, incorrect, as for example, the notion that Joachim believes in an Eleatic view as the final statement for particulars in Spinoza's metaphysics. Curley uncovers the traditional obscurities of Spinoza's metaphysics through a model metaphysic of his own upheld by logical atomism. "Just as Joachim (...) saw Spinoza through lenses ground by Hegel and Bradley, so I have seen him through those ground by Russell, Moore, and Wittgenstein." Through these modern lenses, the author takes a fresh look at the basic problems of Spinoza's system, e.g., the causality of God, the relation between substance as infinite and its modes which are finite, and the traditional problems concerning the attributes which go back as far as Spinoza's correspondence with Tschirnhaus and Schuller. The book should prove interesting to those whose philosophical "bent of mind" is modern British.--D. J. (shrink)

1.1. Universitet. Chto on myslit? -- 1.2. Universitet. Chto on mozhet? -- 1.3. ... i chego ne mozhet? -- 2.1. Nauka. Zachem ėto nuzhno? -- 2.2. Obrazovanie. Kakoe obrazovanie? -- 2.3. Akademicheskie vobody. Dli︠a︡ chego? -- Zakli︠u︡chenie -- Chto pochitatʹ ob Universitete?

Il «nuovo» pensiero non è più cronologicamente nuovo ad oltre ottant’anni dalla sua nascita e, tuttavia, forse oggi manifesta un carattere di novità e di urgenza maggiore di allora, come si suol dire una «rinascita» che giustifica l’interrogativo sul suo «futuro». La particolare situazione in cui ci troviamo a pensare e soprattutto a vivere, le nuove domande che le mutate condizioni storico-culturali pongono alla filosofia, possono trovare un modello di risposta se ci si volge indietro a quella particolare stagione della (...) filosofia tedesca che abbraccia i primi tre decenni del Novecento e che fu tragicamente strozzata e azzittita dal nazionalsocialismo. Non si tratta di affermare un ysteron-proteron, sarebbe troppo semplicistico, decisamente acritico e storicamente e filosoficamente inaccettabile. Accade però, nella storia, che dei fermenti non riescano a produrre frutti perché la temperie del tempo non lo permette oppure perché «inattuali», non pienamente adeguati al tempo, e rimangono quindi latenti finché non si verificano le condizioni ottimali per il loro sviluppo, divenendo in tal modo «adeguati » al tempo. È appunto quanto si è verificato con tutti gli autori che si ritrovano accomunati da un «dialogisches Prinzip», se vogliamo riprendere l’espressione di Martin Buber e che si è concretizzato nelle varie figure rappresentative e nei vari pensatori a cui lo stesso Rosenzweig farà riferimento nel suo breve excursus storico, come, neues Denken, Begegnungsphilosophie, Beziehungsphilosophie, Sprachdenken. (shrink)

Resenha: KARASCH, Mary C. Before Brasília: frontier life in Central Brazil. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2016.

Reflections on death, chiefly reminiscences on the death of some Malayalis, author's associates, including Malayalam authors.

L'ed. delle Obligationes si basa su quattro mss.: Praha, Knihovni Metropolitni Kapituly, M.CXLV ; Oxford, New College, E 289 ; Praha, Státní Knihóvna CSR, VIII E 11 ; Salamanca, Biblioteca de la Universidad, 2358 . Nell'introduzione l'A. prende in esame la tradizione manoscritta delle opere di Giovanni Tarteys, fornendo anche una breve notizia biografica di questo magister artium attivo ad Oxford tra la fine del Trecento e gli inizi del Quattrocento. Segue un'analisi comparata del De Obligationibus di Giovanni con le (...) trattazioni analoghe di altri maestri, tra i quali Rodolfo Strode, Gualterio Burley, Paolo da Venezia e Giovanni Wyclif. Discussi infine i criteri di edizione. (shrink)

Tejera, strongly influenced by Dewey, operates on the working hypothesis that art is both a kind of experience and a kind of making, and addresses himself to the "inextricably related" problems of the ends and the creation of art. Creativity becomes the key; man is viewed as "the creative animal," and artistic creation is seen as a sort of natural human activity, to be understood in relation to all other human activities. Most traditional problems of aesthetics are taken up at (...) some point, but it is not quite clear how all the parts fit together. The book contains forty-five prints and, considered in terms of its physical format, is something of a work of art in its own right.—A. E. J. (shrink)

Contrary to Favrholdt's opinion, a book that "contains many mistakes" may nevertheless be a good book; it may even be a masterpiece. Thus, although Favrholdt's Interpretation contains many mistakes, it is nevertheless a good book. Unlike most commentaries on the Tractatus, Favrholdt makes a concerted effort to come to grips with the work as a whole. He tries to show that the thesis of extensionality is fundamental, and that the rest of the Tractatus is a working out of the consequences (...) of that thesis. Several of his interpretations are highly questionable, and he has a tendency to give up too easily on some crucial points. But he does give us an original and highly provocative treatment.—A. E. J. (shrink)

Each member of pragmatism's triumvirate is the subject of a separate study which sketches his intellectual biography, surveys his philosophical position, and takes account of the typical criticisms. The accounts are not subtle.--A. E. F.

This book looks at facets in the history of capitalism from the Enlightenment period, through the emergence of the American Empire in the Pacific, and to the contemporary era of neoliberal globalization. This re-telling of history is done by drawing from the works of E. San Juan, Jr., considered arguably one of the great contemporary cultural and literary critics of our time. In this author's view, San Juan's lifetime of works offer a living documentation of, among others, the history and (...) thought of the modern world highlighted by the rise of capitalism through the contemporary era of neoliberal globalization, and shepherded to its hegemonic status by what stands today as the preeminent empire of the United States. The book underscores the symbiosis between contemporary capitalism as an economic system based on accumulation on the one hand, and the American imperial state on the other, just as it revisits the colonial project that was carried out in capitalism's wake, the violence and subjugation inflicted on its victims, and how this colonial project has morphed into a new form of colonialism maintained and enforced through the rules and institutional mechanisms of what is popularly known as neoliberal globalization that also provides the ideological and legal rationale for the commodification and the ultimate grab of the global commons reminiscent of the classical, albeit cruder, form of colonialism. (shrink)