In 1845, Robert Graham’s death created a vacancy for the traditionally dual appointment to the University of Edinburgh’s chair of botany and the Regius Keepership of the Edinburgh Royal Botanic Garden. John Hutton Balfour and Joseph Hooker emerged as the leading candidates. The contest quickly became embroiled in long running controversies over the nature and control of Scottish university education at a time of particular social and political tension after a recent schism in Church of Scotland. The politics (...) of the appointment were complicated by the fact that the Edinburgh Town Council chose the chair while the keepership was under the patronage of the Westminster government . Balfour eventually emerged triumphant after a bitter campaign marked on all sides by intense politicking. The struggle to replace Graham provides a case study in how Victorian men of science adapted their aspirations to the practical realities of life in industrial, reforming, imperial, multinational Britain. (shrink)

This article considers the theological influences on the Balfour Declaration which was made on the 2 November 1917 and for the first time gave British governmental support to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It explores the principal personalities and political workings behind the Declaration before going on to argue the statement cannot be entirely divested from the religious sympathies of those involved, especially Lord Balfour. Thereafter, the paper explores the rise of Christian Restorationism in the (...) context of Scottish Presbyterianism, charting how the influence of Jonathan Edwards shaped the thought of Thomas Chalmers on the role of the Jews in salvation history which in turn influenced the premillennialism of Edward Irving and his Judeo-centric eschatology. The paper then considers the way this eschatology became the basis of John Darby’s premillennial dispensationalism and how in an American context this theology began to shape the thinking of Christian evangelicals and through the work of William Blackstone provide the basis of popular and political support for Zionism. However, it also argues the political expressions of premillennial dispensationalism only occurred in America because the Chicago evangelist Dwight L. Moody was exposed to the evolving thinking of Scottish Presbyterians regarding Jewish restoration. This thinking had emerged from a Church of Scotland ‘Mission of Inquiry’ to Palestine in 1839 and been advanced by Alexander Keith, Horatius Bonar and David Brown. Finally, the paper explores how this Scottish Presbyterian heritage influenced the rise of Zionism and Balfour and his political judgements. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Zhuangzi: A New Translation of the Sayings of Master Zhuang as Interpreted by Guo Xiang by Richard John LynnZiqiang Zhao (bio)Zhuangzi: A New Translation of the Sayings of Master Zhuang as Interpreted by Guo Xiang. By Richard John Lynn. New York: Columbia University Press, 2022. Pp. ixxxix + 712. Hardcover $140.00, isbn 978-0-231-12386-0. The Zhuangzi occupies an important place in the history of Chinese literature, philosophy, (...) and religion. English translations of the Zhuangzi have roughly a 140-year history. There have been twelve full English translations, from the first full translation by Frederic Henry Balfour (1846-1909), published in 1881, to the translation by Richard John Lynn considered here. Within this framework, Lynn's translation of the Zhuangzi undoubtedly represents great progress in the English translations of the Zhuangzi and Zhuangzi studies. Based on Guo Xiang's 郭象 (252–312) commentaries, Lynn's is a new type of translation, aptly titled Zhuangzi: a New Translation of the Sayings of Master Zhuang as Interpreted by Guo Xiang (hereafter New Translation). Lynn's New Translation consists of seven main sections, namely, a "Translator's Note," "Introduction," the main body of the translation–the thirty-three Chapters of the Zhuangzi further divided into "The Sayings of Master Zhuang: The Inner Chapters," "The Sayings of Master Zhuang: The Outer Chapters, and "The Sayings of Master Zhuang: The Miscellaneous Chapters"-- four Appendices, two Glossaries, Bibliography, and an Index. In the "Translator's Note," Lynn explains the arrangement and format of the translation, the preliminary research work, the translation techniques, and the selection of Guo Xiang's commentaries as the base text. The translator devotes nearly ninety pages to the introduction of the translation. In this section, Lynn explains what distinguishes his translation from previous translations. He then introduces the specific content of the introductory section, which consists of twenty parts. This section attempts to explain the social context in which the basic assumptions and intentions of Guo Xiang's thoughts were established, the reasons for the formation of Guo Xiang's commentary and Guo Xiang's rise to power that provided an opportunity to "be in the position of recorder for the senior tutor to carry out the duties of 'capital commandant' as his deputy" (p. xxvii). This begins with trying to sort out the controversy over Guo Xiang's annotations and attempts to resolve it. Next, there are attempts to define the basic features of Guo Xiang's thought, locate them in the context of a particular era, and analyze them from the perspective of contemporary [End Page 1] philosophy. Finally, there is an exploration of the relationship between the Zhuangzi and Guo Xiang's commentary, as well as Guo Xiang's relation to Buddhism. Lynn also examines the history and recension of the Zhuangzi, and briefly introduces the basic features of the Zhuangzi. This part of the introduction consistently discusses Guo Xiang's commentary on the Zhuangzi through a logical and clear exposition. It offers readers an opportunity to understand Guo Xiang's commentary in a way which makes it easier for them to follow the rationale behind the translation. The next section is the main body of the translation of the Zhuangzi and Guo Xiang's commentary. Lynn translates the Inner, Outer, and Miscellaneous chapters of the Zhuangzi following Guo Xiang's distinctive reading. The titles are all in pinyin, and are explained in English translation in brackets, except for Chapter 21, Chapter 23, Chapter 25, and Chapter 32. The translation itself adopts the same form as Guo Xiang's annotated text. The text from the Zhuangzi is in bold and above the corresponding commentary. Importantly, the Zhuangzi itself is translated according to Guo Xiang's commentary, and not the other way around. Lynn also explains or introduces some proper nouns, names of people etc., by adding notes. These notes not only reflect the ideas contained in the Zhuangzi in a more detailed and concrete way, but also facilitate the reader's understanding of its connotations. In the process of translation, translators adopt strategies, and Lynn is no exception. Specifically, for the translation of each chapter title, Lynn adopted both "domestication" and "foreignization" strategies (Baker... (shrink)

Discusses philosophers such as John Burke, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Fisher Ames, Sir Walter Scott, George Canning, John C. Calhoun, John Marshall, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, John Randolph, James Fenimore Cooper, Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, James Russell Lowell, Henry Adams, George Gissing, Arthur Balfour, W.H. Mallock, Irving Babbitt, Paul Elmer More, George Santayana, Sir Henry Maine, and others.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hume Studies Volume XXIV, Number 2, November 1998, pp. 295-311 Hume's Wide View of the Virtues: An Analysis of his Early Critics JAMES FIESER Hume discusses about 70 different virtues in his moral theory. Many of these are traditional virtues and have clear moral significance, such as benevolence, charity, honesty, wisdom, and honor. However, Hume also includes in his list of virtues some character traits whose moral significance is (...) not immediately obvious, such as wit, good manners, and dialogue. Mid-eighteenth century critics of Hume's moral theory almost unanimously felt that his notion of virtue was too broad and that Hume should have distinguished between genuine moral virtues, on the one hand, and mere intellectual abilities on the other. According to the critics, grouping the two together devalues the true virtues. Hume was aware that his broad understanding of the virtues was controversial and we know from his letters that he read at least some of these critiques. He nevertheless vigorously defended his position. Although Hume sees this as an issue worthy of defending, contemporary Hume scholarship has neither discussed the nature of the eighteenth century criticisms nor given adequate attention to the success or failure of Hume's position. I address these issues here. I begin by presenting Hume's defense of his wide view of the virtues as it appears in both the Treatise and the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals.1 Then I chronologically present early criticisms of Hume's view, including those by Francis Hutcheson, James Balfour, John Leland, and James Beattie. From these early discussions I suggest that we find three criteria to distinguish between genuine moral virtues, such as justice, and James Fieser is at the Department of Philosophy, University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin TN 38238 USA. email: jfieser@utm.edu 296 James Fieser less morally urgent intellectual abilities, such as industriousness. The three criteria are: (1) moral virtues are a matter of choice and intellectual abilities are not; (2) moral virtues by themsleves aim at a good end and intellectual abilities by themselves do not necessarily do so; and (3) moral virtues are such that the failure to obtain them incites blame, whereas the failure to obtain intellectual abilities does not incite blame. Although I believe that the first criterion fails, I argue that the second and third criteria provide reasonable ways of distinguishing moral virtues from intellectual abilities. Hume's Argument Hume's first account of the wide scope of the virtues appears in Book III, Part iii, of the Treatise, published in 1740. His main criterion in determining the virtue of an agent's character trait is whether the action it produces has consequences that trigger symapthetic feelings of moral pleasure2 in the minds of spectators (T 574-575). In Section 4, entitled "Of Natural Abilities," he argues that the distinction between natural abilities and moral virtues is unfounded since both groups of mental qualities bring forth the same sympathetic moral feelings in the spectator (T 606-614). Anticipating objections, Hume considers several possible points of distinction between natural abilities and moral virtues, but then rejects them all. First, he considers that the precise feelings elicited in the spectator designate two separate classes. Hume's reply is that the precise feelings elicited by each virtue (for example, benevolence, charity, justice) are also distinct in minute ways. Nevertheless, we still classify all such elicited responses as feelings of moral approval. Second, he considers that natural abilities are involuntary whereas moral virtues are the result of free will. Hume's reply is that many involuntary abilities, such as fortitude, have classically been catalogued as virtues. He adds that there is no conceivable reason why any involuntary quality of an agent mazy not produce sympathetic pleasure in the spectator. Third, Hume considers that habits relevant to moral virtues can be altered through reward and punishment, whereas habits relevant to natural abilities are more fixed and cannot be altered by these means. Hume's reply is that if we are not biased by such moral systems, then this distinction would not even arise. In An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), published eleven years later, Hume presents the broad... (shrink)

This paper explores how we could approach the decolonising of the debate on sexual violence within the South African post-colony. For this purpose, a historical event is analysed: two presbytery hearings of 1843 and 1845, both involving Xhosa convert John Beck Balfour, at the Scottish mission station of Burnshill based in Xhosaland (later called British Caffraria). The hearings involve (extra-)marital and sexual behaviour. Walter Mignolo’s notions of border thinking and colonial difference, further complicated with the idea of colonial-sexual (...) differentiation, are employed to show aspects of what is at stake in a decolonising reading of Xhosa convert sexual behaviour. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Joseph Priestley's Criticisms of David Hume's Philosophy RICHARD H. POPKIN ONE OF HUME'S MOST FAMOUS CRITICS, the great scientist Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), is scarcely mentioned or studied in the Hume literature.' Perhaps because of the course philosophy followed after Hume, the Scottish Common Sense critics and the German ones connected with Kant are given almost all of the attention. In this paper 1 shall try to correct this oversight, (...) and examine the background of Priestley's critique of Hume, both in terms of Priestley's scientific and religious views and in terms of Hume's influence at the time. I shall then evaluate the merits of Priestley's critique and attempt to determine whether it deserves further study or should be returned to the obscurity it has been in for almost two centuries. 2 Joseph Priestley was a nonconforming minister whose progressively radical views caused him to lose various posts. Eventually he became a millenarian, convinced that crucial signs of the end of the world were at hand: the events of the French Revolution; the purported discovery of the Lost Tribes in Afghanistan by Sir William Jones; plans or hopes for the Jews to return to Palestine and join forces with the Christians. After years of religious wanderings Priestley ended up a millenarian Unitarian, much in the tradition of Sir Isaac Newton, whose religious writing he used extensively, and of Newton's successor, William Whiston? Priestley taught science in various schools and was immensely influenced by David Hartley's Observations on Man. He found in Hartley's theory of association of ideas a naturalistic way of explaining human mental life. And in Hartley's millenarian views he located the sort of theology he was seeking. Priestly later reedited Hartley, including introductory essays about some of the more difficult aspects of his mechanistic psychology.' (Coleridge, who was deeply impressed by ' T. E. Jessop, A Bibliography of David Hume and of the Scottish Philosophy from l-)'ancis Hutcheson to Lord Balfour (New York, 1966), lists the titles of Priestley's works relevant to Hume. However, there appear to be no discussions of Priestley on Hume listed in this work or in Roland Hill, A Bibliography of David Hume from 1930 (York, 1971). E. C. Mossner, The Life of David Hume (Edinburgh, 1954), mentions Priestley's criticisms of Hume, but only as these were made in connection with criticisms of Beattie. Joseph Priestley, Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley to the Year 1795, written by Himself, with a Continuation to the time of his decease by his son, Joseph Priestley, ed. T. Cooper (London, 1806). It is also of some interest that Priestley attacked Reid, Beattie, and Oswald a few years before challenging Hume. He seemed to think that he had disposed of the Scottish Philosophy for all time. Thus Priestley was certainly no part of the mainstream of Hume's opponents in Britain. See Memoirs, pp. 78-79n, and n. 16 below. ' On Priestley's career, see his Memoirs. Modern biographies deal principally with his scientific achievements and ignore or play down his theological concerns. For an extended discussion of Priestley's millenarian views, see Clarke Garrett, Respectable Folly (Baltimore, 1975), pp. 126-143. " Priestley, Hartley's Theory of the Human Mind, on the Principle of the Association of Ideas... (London, 1775). [437] 438 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Hartley, probably read Priestley's edition of his works.) For the most part, Priestley wrote long and controversial works on theology. His scientific achievements stem from his friendship with Benjamin Franklin and Richard Price, who encouraged him to write a history of discoveries in electricity. Franklin provided the resources for making the equipment. On the basis of the new material in his work, Priestley was nominated to the Royal Society by Franklin and Price. s Priestley's most famous scientific works came thereafter--his discovery of oxygen and his work on how the human body used oxygen. Later still, he became entangled in a controversy with Lavoisier over the phlogiston theory, Priestley upholding it, the French chemist opposing it. 6 Priestley was also active in politics, supporting radical causes. He supported John Wilkes, of whom Hume thoroughly disapproved, and was an early... (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism dismantles the main philosophical teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche, who professed self-construction of meaning in life through (...) one’s own will to power. However, it is impossible to self-construct meaning in life in the absence of cause and effect in physics. Moreover, superdeterminism strongly suggests the existence of a supremely intelligent God, who predetermined everything that happens in the universe, including the lives and thoughts of all human beings. Meaning in life is God given under the philosophy of superdeterminism. God is anything but dead. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. In a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics, what we might traditionally call dynamic behavior or (...) causal relationships is reinterpreted as static patterns across the dimension of time described as correlations. If particles are statically patterned to behave a certain way through the dimension of time, one does not need a causal mechanism to account for their behavior. It is the wrong assumption that cause and effect in physics are real that leads to the imaginary belief in the real existence of quantum fields. A superdeterministic interpretation of the universe is one where all events, whether past, present or future, are predetermined and already exist in our static block universe and correlations between those events can produce patterns of behavior in those events through the dimension of time. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The scientifically verified bomb tester experiment also confirms the absence of cause and effect in physics. In this experiment, a (...) photon is directed towards a photon detecting “bomb” that will explode if it comes into contact with the photon preventing the photon from being detected at a later point. Remarkably, the experiment allows for determining whether a bomb is functional or not without detonating it. This is achieved by placing the bomb in one of the paths of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. If a bomb is live, its mere presence without detonation alters the photon's quantum superposition, changing the interference pattern observed. This experiment demonstrates that a “probabilistic cause” can have a real effect on whether a photon is detected later on despite possibilities not being real by definition. In other words, the bomb tester experiment proves a real effect without any interaction with a real cause confirming that cause and effect are merely illusory appearances of underlying correlations. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism rejects the main philosophical teachings of Ludwig Feuerbach, who argued that belief in a fictitious God (...) only distracts humanity from its potential to make the world a better place. Feuerbach was incorrect in his assertion that material reality does not support the existence of an immaterial God, because experimentally verified scientific data supporting Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity and the correlations observed in the spin measurement results of entangled particles provided circumstantial scientific evidence of the existence of God, who created our superdeterministic universe outside of spacetime. Moreover, God must have predetermined Christianity to be the predominant world religion allowing the reasonable inference of the truth of the Christian claim about the nature of God and the afterlife. Because God saw fit to predetermine Christianity as His world religion, it seems very unlikely that God would have predetermined the future of humanity to forget Christianity and opt-in for the atheism Feuerbach suggested. (shrink)

A common assumption is that psychological egoism, the view that a person can do an act only if she believes that the act is in her interest, combined with ought-implies-can, the view that a person morally ought to do an act only if she can do it, entails the view – call it OIB – that a person morally ought to do an act only if she believes that the act is in her interest. I argue that psychological egoism and (...) ought-implies-can, interpreted fairly, use “can” in different ways; consequently, they do not entail OIB. They entail something similar to OIB, but not OIB itself. From these facts several significant results follow, each concerning arguments or assumptions about psychological, ethical, or rational egoism. For instance, they undermine the view that psychological egoism rules out those other two forms of egoism. (shrink)

There are two main groups of essays in this volume. The first centres on Locke's theories of religion and their relation to contemporary scientific thought and the work of Descartes, Leibniz and Hume. The second group explores the relation between biology and physiology, and the science of man.

Will enable the ordinary person to discover his or her own unique life myth and live it from moment to moment.

The principle of "organism"—of intrinsic and dynamic unity—and the existence of "organized bodies"—of living things—in the physical world represented crucial preoccupations for philosophers of nature and experimental naturalists across the eighteenth century. How to make sense of these in a manner consistent with a unified scientific understanding of the physical world became the inevitable challenge that accompanied these recognitions. In just this theoretical enterprise, Leibniz emerges to historical scrutiny as an indispensable and pervasive influence. Thus, we are very fortunate to (...) have the body of scholarship that François Duchesneau has devoted to this topic over the course of his illustrious career. In this... (shrink)

I told the workers they had to be prepared for the tortures of success. Success in our business, the trade union business, means getting workers to middle-class status. You succeed and Huelga is just going to be an exciting recollection. The guy who carried a banner in 1966—well, in five years you're going to have a hard time getting him to a union meeting: Revolutions become institutions, that's a truism of our business.

It is in the complex interplay of silence, speech, and action that Zumbrunnen teases out the meaning of democracy for Thucydides in both its domestic and international dimensions and shows how we may benefit from the Thucydidean text in ...

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism dismantles the philosophical teachings of Jean-Paul Sartre, who professed that humans are condemned to be free, (...) burdened with the responsibility of creating their own essence through their choices. However, it is impossible for human beings to self-construct their own essence through their choices in the absence of cause and effect in physics. Moreover, superdeterminism strongly suggests the existence of a supremely intelligent God, who predetermined everything that happens in the universe, including the lives and thoughts of all human beings. Human essence is God given under the philosophy of superdeterminism co-existing with human existence in our static block universe. (shrink)

In reply to the readily inferable denial, in para. 304 of the papal exhortation Amoris Laetitia, that there are any exceptionless negative moral norms, this article (1) recalls and reaffirms the philosophical and doctrinal tradition’s thesis that there are such norms. It then (2) sketches what is involved in identifying a kinds of act by its object; (3) reflects briefly on the three successive and different iterations of the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on capital punishment; and (...) (4) draws attention to the Catechism’s notable but little discussed, non-pacifist teaching against all intending to kill, even in just war. ------------------------------------ Received: 30/04/2024. Reviewed: 25/09/2024. Accepted: 7/10/2024. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism dismisses many commonly held beliefs as illusions of our static block universe. People widely believe in (...) many things which simply are not true under Dr. Hansson’s version of superdeterminism. Rather, these false beliefs are merely illusions caused by our static block universe without cause and effect in physics. These illusions include cause and effect in physics, locality, motion, an open future, free will on Earth, the independent existence of objects, time as a flowing river or background ticking clock, conservation of physical reality in time, and temporal privilege. However, the idea of illusions in our block universe is quite old with its roots in Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity first published in 1905. So, we need to recognize that our common sense is being fooled by illusions created by our static block universe. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism based on Dr. Hansson’s proof relies on a superdeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. This interpretation says (...) that quantum level behavior is predetermined in our static block universe without cause and effect in physics to exactly match the predictions of QFT for the behavior of real physical entities, like particles, without the real existence of quantum fields. The superdeterministic interpretation should be favored over the QFT, Copenhagen or Many Worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics, because Dr. Hansson proved that cause and effect in physics are not real and those other interpretations rely on cause and effect in physics. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism is also supported by recent research in quantum physics experimentally verifying the reality of negative time (...) delay. The exiting of a photon peak prior to the entrance of the same peak into a medium is best explained by this apparent effect-like event occurring prior to and correlated with the cause-like event in a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. Our superdeterministic universe can be predetermined to exhibit everything a quantum field theory interpretation of negative time delay predicts without any reliance on unobservable quantum fields. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism counters the Problem of Evil with the Evolution Theodicy. The Problem of Evil challenges the compatibility (...) of the existence of evil with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, who could and should prevent all evil. The Evolution Theodicy says that evil as necessary for the creation of life from natural processes cannot be avoided by God. If the only available natural process for creating life within a static block reality is Darwinian evolution which leads to evil, then that is the process God must use for the great good that created life exist. (shrink)

From early in his philosophical career, Spinoza took a central part of his project to involve identifying the nature and scope of human power. For, he argues, "The better the mind understands its own powers, the more easily it can direct itself and propose rules to itself" (TIE[40]). Thus, the practical goals of living well, and of building a stable, well- functioning social order, are both intimately connected to the metaphysics of power. This entry provides an overview of Spinoza’s account (...) of power, both in his metaphysics and in his politics. (shrink)

The philosophy of superdeterminism is based on a single scientific fact about the universe, namely that cause and effect in physics are not real. In 2020, accomplished Swedish theoretical physicist, Dr. Johan Hansson published a physics proof using Albert Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity that our universe is superdeterministic meaning a predetermined static block universe without cause and effect in physics. The philosophy of superdeterminism based on Dr. Hansson’s proof strongly supports human worth meaning the inherent value, specialness and importance (...) possessed by every individual, regardless of their circumstances or contributions. We are immortals in our block universe and the children of a Creator God, who commands that every human being be loved. No human being has any actual power to deprive you of your inherent human worth. And those human beings who degrade other human beings are promised eternal punishment in Hell by our Creator God. (shrink)

"Singular thing" (res singulares) is one of the terms Spinoza uses to denote finite particulars. The term figures prominently in most of his philosophical works. However, its precise meaning evolves from its earliest appearance in the TIE to its final appearance in the Ethics. In the Ethics, the definition of the term (i) stipulates that singular things are finite and (ii) specifies the conditions under which many things compose one singular thing. However, in Spinoza’s earlier writings, the term is not (...) restricted to finite and mutable things, nor is it associated with the composition of one (singular) thing from many distinct things. This short entry traces those shifts in meaning. (shrink)

Many of Spinoza’s arguments, ranging from his metaphysics to his political philosophy, draw on claims about the relationship between part (pars) and whole (totus). This entry surveys Spinoza’s views about the metaphysics of parts and wholes, as well as the various ways that mereological concepts figure in different elements of his system.

Both of Spinoza’s major political works make frequent use of the concept of right (jus). However, his understanding of right–both natural right and political right–is not moralistic. That is, to have (a) right is not an intrinsic moral status, such that others have a moral obligation either to provide some benefit or to avoid interference with the rightsholder. For Spinoza, if someone lacks the actual power to take some action or secure some benefit, they also lack the right to take (...) that action or obtain that benefit. The same point applies to political authorities: when a political authority lacks the power to enact some law, it is simply false that they have the right to enact that law. Spinoza holds that in our political thinking, we must confront the actual distribution of power in the world, not "a Fantasy, possible only in a Utopia, or in the golden age of the Poets" (TP1.1). This entry examines three components of Spinoza’s view of right: his doctrine of natural right; his account of how people transfer their natural right to a central authority to form a civil order; and his notion of being sui juris, in command of one’s own right. (shrink)

It is argued that a shared agency account of large-scale knowledge transmission provides a viable way forward for understanding a variety of phenomena, including the transmission of knowledge via diverse technologies such as Wikipedia, Google Search, and Siri. In fact, the lessons learned arguably apply more generally than this. If the arguments of the paper are sound, much of what is said here will apply to large-scale knowledge generation as well, including knowledge generation via large-scale technologies. Finally, the paper considers (...) generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Med-PaLM, and asks whether these can be understood as either transmitting knowledge or generating it. Several models are considered for each of these possibilities. (shrink)

Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend what you believe is a necessary means to an end that you intend. Suppose rationality requires you to F. Does this fact constitute a reason for you to F? Does it even follow from this fact that you have a reason to F? I examine these questions and reach a sceptical conclusion about them. I can find no satisfactory argument to show (...) that either has the answer ‘yes’. I consider the idea that rationality is normative for instrumental reasons, because it helps you to achieve some of the things you ought to achieve. I also consider the idea that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. I reject both. (shrink)

Abstract: Contrary to received opinion, Descartes' view on the merits of the ontological proof may actually agree with that of Thomas Aquinas, whose rejection of the a priori existence proof has stocked the armories of anti-Anselmians ever since. In a rarely noted passage of the First Replies, Descartes claims not to differ in any respect from Thomas on the proof, a claim that gains sense in light of recent work on the Fifth Meditation. That work in turn reveals a well-founded, (...) if surprising, understanding of the Cartesian proof and of Cartesianism's true relation to Thomism. (shrink)