What place does freedom have in Confucianism? We find a wide spectrum of views on the matter: some deny that Confucians value or even conceive of freedom, while others celebrate uniquely exalted fo...

Olympiodorus' Commentary on Plato's Phaedo I.3-6 has been the linchpin of the reconstructions of the supposed Orphic doctrine of original sin. While Olympiodorus links the Titans' dismemberment of Dionysus and anthropogony, he does not include any element of inherited guilt, either in his narration of the myth or in his interpretation. Moreover, his telling of the myth, which makes the anthropogony the sequel to the dismemberment of Dionysus, is an innovation made for the purposes of his own argument. Rather than (...) preserving in fossilized form a sacred myth more than a millennium old, Olympiodorus concocts an innovative tale of his own. (shrink)

Opening Democracy in Contemporary Confucian Philosophy, David Elstein identifies himself, correctly, to be filling a gap in English-language scholarship. That gap, as the title partly suggests, is a lack of Anglophone accounts of contemporary Sinophone Confucian views of democracy. We have in English a robust discussion of the relationship between Confucianism and democracy, but there is very little connection between that discourse and the same discussion occurring amongst scholars in Chinese. Thus one of the main aims here is to communicate (...) the Sinophone discussion to readers otherwise cut off from it, and to evaluate its arguments.Elstein selects six thinkers from Taiwan and Mainland China for his... (shrink)

At a minimum, a fiduciary is one who is entrusted to act for the benefit of others. But as the essays in this volume indicate, fiduciary relationships can be conceived or argued to be thicker and/or more robust. In addition to a relation of trust and action on behalf of another, fiduciary relationships are often thought to include some or all of the following additions: asymmetries of power, knowledge, skill or ability; discretion or reasonable judgment on the part of the (...) fiduciary; loyalty of the fiduciary to the interests of the trustor, or potential beneficiary; and the ethical obligation to act in good faith, with due care, or with professional or special knowledge in advancing the interests of the trustor. Due to the vulnerability of dependents, their trust in fiduciaries, and ethical obligations of trustees to act beneficently, fiduciary relationships lie at the heart of much ethical reflection, discourse and argumentation. This is especially so for professional fields in which fiduciaries have special knowledge and skill, and consequently special powers. Yet, apart from the specialized sub-disciplines of business ethics, legal ethics and medical ethics, fiduciary roles and relationships have not received much scrutiny and discussion in philosophy. In our view, this deficiency is best remedied by treating fiduciary ethics as a more general sub-field within ethics and deserving of attention in its own right. (shrink)

In recent decades a small wave of scholars has argued that classical Confucian moral teachings are characterized by the lack of a concept of free will. Li Zehou, in contrast, places free will at the center of his reading of classical Confucian ethics. Is this too interpretive? Does it do violence to the concept of free will, or to classical Confucian morality? Could it even be un-Confucian?Li Zehou puts forth his systematic ethics as part of “a world philosophy that incorporates (...) Kant’s philosophy with Confucius’”, in which a revised Kantian conception of free will plays a central role. He asserts that his revision of the Kantian conception of the will is based in classical Confucianism, and... (shrink)

Sir Thomas Berkeley has scarcely more than a liminal status among literary scholars and historians, even those who study fourteenth-century England. We may rather dimly remember him as an aristocratic spear carrier in Shakespeare's Richard II, a reflection of real activities known to historians. Or we may recall that he sponsored an extraordinarily prolific and important translator, the Cornishman John Trevisa.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:207 THE CARELESS SKEPTIC THE 'PAMPHILIAN' IRONIES IN HUME'S DIALOGUES In "Hume and the Legacy of the Dialogues" E. C. Mossner sets out a widely accepted interpretation of one of Hume's major intentions in that great work. He argues that Hume's main use of irony therein is to dissimulate with respect to his true religious convictions. The purpose is to provide Hume with a defense against the expected negative (...) reaction to the powerful attack on religion mounted 2 in the Dialogues. The attack, as is well known, is set out in the arguments of Philo against natural and revealed religion as espoused by Cleanthes and Demea, and Philo's views are taken to be those of Hume. It is argued or assumed that since such attacks were in Hume's day imprudent, they must be made by indirection, that is, by a device such as irony. Thus the Dialogues have surface meanings in which the religious views under attack are said (by Pamphilus) to win out; they also have other meanings, underlying or implicit, in which the religious views are conclusively refuted. That they are refuted is a conclusion drawn by the interpreters, in the present case Mossner and those who share his views. These destructive refutations are derived from explication and assessment of the ongoing argument as embodied in the explicit statements of the contestants, and are thus not explicitly linked to Hume. In consequence, quite often from one standpoint (a trivial one of external comment by an immature and prejudiced onlooker) the design argument wins; and from another, more sophisticated one, it loses. The upshot is that "Philo, who as Hume's spokesman for mitigated 208 skepticism will perforce be the victor in the philosophic debate, will nevertheless be 'artfully' depicted as being vanquished by the antagonist." The strategy Mossner finds in the Dialogues thus has the youthful Pamphilus, a ward of Cleanthes, and one who takes no actual part in the adversarial discussions, interposing (in brief asides) comments that superficially but subtly belittle Philo's philosophical position. Philo is characterized, for instance, as having a "careless scepticism," in contrast with Cleanthes, who has an "accurate philosophical turn [of mind]" (D 128). Similarly, at the end of the Dialogues, Pamphilus awards the victory to Cleanthes. In support of his thesis that Philo is a devious Hume's mouthpiece, Mossner brings forth two kinds of evidence, roughly characterizable as external and internal. One kind of external evidence is exemplified in Hume's correspondence with Gilbert 4 5 Elliot of Minto, and Adam Smith; the letters involved are interpreted as showing that Philo represents Hume. Another kind involves comparing the amount of space devoted to the arguments of the three adversaries. The internal evidence is derived from the explication and appraisal of the explicit statements of the contestants; and it is essentially identified with the arguments and conclusions of Philo, except where Cleanthes can be said to make claims which square with those made by Hume in other works such as the Treatise. Thus Hume's views and the related arguments are interpreted as those of Philo, in part because they are considered to be more valid and sound than those of Cleanthes, and in part because they are held to square with the views and arguments affirmed in Hume's other writings. Hume's views, as indicated above, are taken to be those of 209 Philo except where Philo appears to agree with Cleanthes and to accept a form of the design argument. Hume is Cleanthes when Cleanthes sets forth doctrines of the Treatise and the Enquiry that are in accordance with the received (more or less) positivistic interpretation of Hume's skepticism. It is this view that requires that in those places in Parts III, X, and XII, where Philo appears to avow a form of the design argument or to let it stand unrefuted, he be (ironically) dissimulating. Thus the surface victories of Cleanthes and natural religion, which the adversarial flow of the statements of Philo and Cleanthes exhibits, are refuted by the propositions derived from the assessed form and content of the philosophical debate. The basic irony, therefore, lies in aspects of the... (shrink)