In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 122.4 (2001) 527-531 [Access article in PDF] A Virgilian Crux: Aeneid 8.342-43 Neil Adkin When Evander conducts Aeneas around the future site of Rome, the objects of interest he points out to his guest include the following: "hinc lucum ingentem, quem Romulus acer asylum / rettulit, et gelida monstrat sub rupe Lupercal" (8.342-43). John Conington (1883, 119) complained that rettulit had "not been satisfactorily explained." (...) A century later, Gerhard Binder (1971, 118 with n. 27) repeated the complaint: "Über Vergils rettulit ist viel gerätselt worden." Binder's study was then followed by the unprecedented appearance of three different commentaries on this book of the Aeneid in three successive years. 1 None of them was however able to offer a satisfactory explanation of rettulit: the latest discussion of this passage is obliged to reiterate Conington's original complaint. 2 The purpose of the present article is to suggest a possible solution to this vexatious and long-standing crux.Servius Danielis was himself perplexed by this Virgilian passage, for which he felt the need to offer two alternative explanations: "retulit aut restituit aut nominavit" (Aen. 8.342). The second of these was accepted by Heyne (1833, 221: "retulit est appellavit"); however Conington rightly objected that there is no evidence for such a meaning of referre. The first exegesis proposed by Servius has on the other hand found widespread support. 3 It must however be pointed out that those who accept the equation of referre with restituere appear to have forgotten that the object of rettulit is not asylum, but lucum: while the "re-establishment" of an asylum makes excellent sense, the same can hardly be said of "re-establishing" a grove of trees. Servius himself detected an allusion to the asylum founded at Athens by the Heraclidae: "ideo ergo ait 'quod Romulus acer asylum retulit,' hoc est fecit ad imitationem [End Page 527] Atheniensis asyli" (Aen. 8.342). This interpretation of referre as signifying "to reproduce from a model" has similarly been widely accepted. 4 Such a construe is however open to the same objection that can be raised against restituere: while this rendering would have been admirably suited to asylum as direct object, the notion of "reproducing" a grove "from a model" is likewise far less satisfactory. 5 In support of both these explications it has been customary to adduce Aeneid 5.596-98: "hunc morem cursus atque haec certamina primus / Ascanius, Longam muris cum cingeret Albam, / rettulit." The supposed parallel is however illusory, since here referre simply governs a direct object, whereas in book 8 the same verb is instead employed in conjunction with the predicative apposition asylum. K. W. Gransden's commentary on this latter book (1976, 129) accordingly proposed the novel rendering "instituted as," which was however rejected by P. T. Eden's postscript (1986, 439) to his own commentary as "emphatically not a meaning of refero." Eden's commentary itself had taken rettulit as equivalent to reddidit. 6 This view that referre is here being used in the sense of "to render" had already been tentatively advanced by Conington himself; it too has received a certain measure of support. 7 In his latest contribution to the debate, however, Eden (1986, 440) changes his mind and instead adopts the unsatisfactory notion of Fordyce's commentary that rettulit signifies "reproduced from a model." Eden's reason for this volte-face is the following: "even if... the construction here of referre with a double accusative is an analogical imitation of reddere with the same construction, it cannot therefore also be presumed to share its meaning." Perhaps it is nonetheless possible to indicate how this objection of Eden's can be circumvented by a novel hypothesis which would at last appear to provide a key to this troublesomely enigmatic text. [End Page 528]Quintilian (Inst. 8.6.37) illustrates the rhetorical figure of metalempsis or transumptio with a reference to Odyssey 15.299 where thoos ("quick") is employed in the sense of oxus ("sharp"). Heinrich Lausberg (1990, 295) explains the figure as follows: "Die... (shrink)

In epistemology and in philosophy of language there is fierce debate about the role of context in knowledge, understanding, and meaning. Many contemporary epistemologists take seriously the thesis that epistemic vocabulary is context-sensitive. This thesis is of course a semantic claim, so it has brought epistemologists into contact with work on context in semantics by philosophers of language. This volume brings together the debates, in a set of twelve specially written essays representing the latest work by leading figures in the (...) two fields. All future work on contextualism will start here. Contributors: Kent Bach, Herman Cappelen, Andy Egan, Michael Glanzberg, John Hawthorne, Ernest Lepore, Peter Ludlow, Peter Pagin, Georg Peter, Paul M. Pietroski, Gerhard Preyer, Jonathan Schaffer, Jason Stanley, Brian Weatherson, Timothy Williamson. (shrink)

Das Lehrbuch führt voraussetzungsfrei in alle bedeutenden Gebiete der Erkenntnistheorie ein. Es stellt eine Mitte zwischen der zeitgenössischen angelsächsischen Epistemologie und den klassischen Fragen der Erkenntnistheorie her und schlägt auch Brücken zu Nachbardisziplinen. Im letzten Teil wird gezeigt, wie mit den erarbeiteten Methoden grundlegende erkenntnistheoretische Rätsel, wie das Induktionsproblem und das Realismusproblem, aufgelöst werden können. Jedes Kapitel entspricht einer grundlegenden Lehreinheit, die durch Hinzunahme der Exkurse zu einer umfassenderen Einführung erweitert werden können.

Together with its introduction, Language, Mind and Epistemology examines Davidson's unified stance towards philosophy by joining American and European authors ...

In this paper first order theories for nonmonotone inductive definitions are introduced, and a proof-theoretic analysis for such theories based on combined operator forms a la Richter with recursively inaccessible and Mahlo closure ordinals is given.

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Geschichtlichkeit" verfügbar.

Let T be Kripke–Platek set theory with infinity extended by the axiom (Beta) plus the schema that claims that every set-bounded Σ-definable monotone operator from the collection of all sets to Pow(a) for some set a has a fixed point. Then T proves that every such operator has a least fixed point. This result is obtained by following the proof of an analogous result for von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory in an earlier work by Sato, with some minor modifications.

Der Wahn untergräbt den westlichen Begriff des Souveräns wie er Israel als Widersacher des ewigen Friedens der Völker attackiert. Wenn dagegen der Judenstaat das Leben derer verteidigt, die unausgesetzt der antisemitische Haß bedroht, verteidigt er zugleich jenen Begriff. Es bleibt das Staunen, mit welcher Bestimmtheit die Erkenntnisse von Hobbes, Marx und Freud die Denunziation des Wahns explizieren können, die Israels Defense Forces täglich in die Praxis umsetzen müssen. Ihm verdankt sich dieses Buch.

Der Autor interpretiert Nicolas Poussins Gemälde »Et in Arcadia ego« (1638–1640) mit der Inschrift »Auch in Arkadien gibt es mich, den Tod« als Darstellung eines Erkenntnisprozesses und schlägt vor, das zuvor moralisch verstandene »Memento mori« als Aufforderung zur Selbsterkenntnis zu begreifen. Damit formuliert er eine Gegenposition zum Programm des »Transhumanismus«, der die Abschaffung des Todes anstrebt. Sodann geht er von Freuds Hinweis auf die Verleugnung des je eigenen Todes aus und interpretiert die Struktur dieser Einstellung mit Freuds spätem Begriff der (...) »Ichspaltung«. Dabei zeigt sich, dass die mit der Ichspaltung verbundene Allmachtsphantasie auf Verleugnung statt auf Anerkennung von Unverfügbarkeit abzielt, deren Repräsentant der Tod ist. »Memento mori« wird so zu einer emotional erkennenden Erfahrung von Unverfügbarkeit als zentralem Aspekt der Conditio humana. (shrink)

Publications of Austrian philosophers of science.

This paper reviews an ongoing debate about moral standards for vocational education in German speaking countries. At the centre of the controversy is the question of universalistic versus domain‐specific moral orientations, namely the question of whether business people ought to develop different moral points of view in different situations (such as ‘private’ versus ‘professional’). Of pivotal importance in this context is also a prominent ethical approach (by Karl Homann, a philosopher in the tradition of liberal economists) which serves as a (...) foundation for those who advocate domain specificity and which is strongly criticized by their counterparts. This approach is also presented, since the author believes that it does not entail all of what its protagonists claim. Moreover, as argued in the last section, the purported dichotomy of universalism versus domain specificity may even be entirely overcome. The point is that Homann's ethics perhaps do not fit into the framework of Kohlberg's six stages and might therefore be reconstructed as entailing moral segmentation. However, it is well accommodated by a more comprehensive stage taxonomy suggested by the author. (shrink)

Suppose two people are about to drown. We are in a position to save only one, so the other will have to die. One of the two has just culpably killed an innocent person, but has no intention of killing anybody else and there is no reason to expect that he will. Everything else being equal, should we give them an equal chance of being saved by flipping a coin? In this paper I argue that we should not. I argue (...) that the implications of a person's moral culpability for (recent or prospective) harm to a particular victim should transfer to other conflict situations in which the wrongdoer might find him or herself. This requires establishing the extent to which a person's contributing to harming another person — and his moral culpability for that harm — impinges on our decision making in situations where it is possible only to assist either the wrongdoer or some other person that is not his victim. (shrink)

Proceedings of a symposium held Sept. 24-28, 1996 in Vienna, Austria.