The question I shall deal with is often put in the form “What is the meaning of life?” I shall consider this form later on, but I do not want to begin with it, partly because it assumes that life has a meaning which can be called “the” meaning, an assumption which will have to be looked into, and partly because I want to start with something which looks very much more vague.

Der Autor beginnt mit einer Erörterung der Leibnizschen These, man müsse substantielle Formen annehmen, wenn man die inertia erklären wolle, und fragt dann, in welcher Weise man den Begriff der substantiellen Form zu dem in Beziehung zu setzen habe, was Leibniz über materielle Substanzen sagt. Der zentrale Begriff ist hier der Begriff der Repräsentation von einem bestimmten Gesichtspunkt oder einer bestimmten Lage aus, welche die Substanz von ihrer materia prima gewinnt. Bei der Erörterung der Frage, wie Leibniz' Substanzbegriff mit den (...) anderen Teilen seiner Philosophie zusammenstimmt, merkt der Verfasser an, Leibniz sei versucht zu sagen, materielle Dinge seien nur Phänomene. Aber diese Auffassung würde die konkreten Teile der Leibnizschen Philosophie zerstören. Davon abgesehen macht Leibniz es aufgrund seines Bestehens auf dem vollständigen In-sich-selbst-Enthaltensein (self-containedness) der Substanz schwer, die Einheit einer zusammengesetzten Substanz zu erklären. Anschließend behandelt der Autor einige Auffassungen, die er für Mißverständnisse Leibnizens hält. Wenn man behauptet, Raum und Zeit seien Ordnungen, so besagt das nicht, daß Monaden keine raum-zeitlichen Beziehungen zukommen. In gleicher Weise folgt aus der Behauptung, materielle Dinge seien phaenomena bene fundata, nicht, daß sie nur Repräsentationen im Geiste seien. Zum Schluß legt der Verfasser dar, daß Leibniz' scheinbar paradoxe Behauptung, Substanzen handelten nicht aufeinander, mit den'Lehren der modernen Wissenschaft übereinstimmt. (shrink)

Philosophical Studies Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 163, l. 24 for ‘Pocreon’ read “Creon’ and p. 165, l.4 for “Nereus” read “Nessus”, l. 16 for “Corrolate” read “Correlate” and l. 27 for “ Trachinae ” read “ Trachiniae ”. Proffessor Mackinnon should also have been described as Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge and Fellow of Corpus Christi College.

In previous articles I have been concerned with various aspects of science; and I have now to endeavour to look at scientific activity as a whole, and to view it in its relation to other activities of man. I have been trying to avoid those pleasant sweeping generalizations which strike the imagination and which are so easy to write and to read about: such as that science is our only avenue to truth; or that science is abstract and tells us (...) nothing about the concrete nature of things; or that knowledge of particular facts is the object of science, generalizations being merely a means thereto; or that generalizations are the object of science, investigation of particular facts being merely a means thereto; all of which can be defended by a rich array of arguments, none of which can finally stand confrontation with the actual nature of scientific activity as a whole. The situation seems to be much more complicated than any such generalizations would suggest. (shrink)

The author discusses what he feels to be a significant way of testing beliefs, Namely, The process in which people judge attitudes and the beliefs supporting those attitudes favourably or unfavourably in the light of the social situations which they take to be the outcome of the attitudes, And of the potentialities for the future which they take to be foreshadowed by those situations. (staff).

-/- I noted two directions in which the scientific worker is seeking to advance. He is trying to give a more complete account of the actual detail of what is happening, and he is seeking wider and wider generalizations. As an observer, he must note what he observes, and, it would seem, omit nothing. But in seeking generalizations he must select, from among the features he observes, only those which he takes to be of general significance. Thence arises at least (...) the appearance of a conflict in his activities. If he is too intent on the details of what he observes, his generalizations suffer; but if he leaves aside details too readily, his generalizations suffer equally. There is danger both in omitting and in not omitting. (shrink)