Martin Davies draws parallels between Herz's personal life and Prussian politics and culture to make sense of the end of the eighteenth century when Enlightenment tradition and Romantic thought coincided.

Por una parte, la carta que Kant escribe a Marcus Herz el 2l de febrero de 1772 es famosa, pues ella es quizá el único documento de valor que informa sobre una década previa al criticismo durante la cual Kant dejo de publicar. Ésta es la década que va desde 1770, fecha de la De Mundi Sensibilis atque Intelligibilis Forma et Principiis: Dissertatio, y la primera edición de la Crítica de la razón pura (1781). La carta de algún (...) modo es un vistazo al “taller del pensador”, donde Kant narraría las preocupaciones filosóficas de su pensamiento. Por otra parte, la carta es ambigua todavía, porque la crítica aún no se pone de acuerdo sobre su sentido. Mis páginas defienden que esta carta es un ejemplo del carácter híbrido del pensamiento de Kant en ese período, un pensamiento que, sin mayor influencia del escepticismo, aún se debate entre anticipaciones críticas y meras repeticiones dogmáticas. (shrink)

This edition of _Prolegomena_ includes Kant’s letter of February, 1772 to Marcus Herz, a momentous document in which Kant relates the progress of his thinking and announces that he is now ready to present a critique of pure reason.

Kant's correspondence with his colleague and zealous disciple, Marcus Herz, was prophetic: only a few will understand the Critique of Pure Reason. Unfortunately, the problems are intractable and the necessary conceptual scheme to deal with the problems requires a "complete change of thinking in this part of human knowledge". But eventually people will "get over the initial numbness" Kant reassures another correspondent, Christian Garve. Fortunately, he suggests, there is a central question at the foundation of his difficult thought (...) - a question that is the key to his ideas. So what is this important question that Kant insists has been "stated clearly enough"? And how clear is it? I explore these issues in my paper. (shrink)

Kant's letters to Marcus Herz and J. C. Lavater.--Critique of pure reason; selections.--Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals.--Critique of practical reason; selections.--Critique of judgement; selections.--Metaphysics of morals: the metaphysical principles of virtue; selection.--Bibliography (p. 31).

Wenn es eine Lehre gibt, welche neben der Raum-Zeittheorie der Inauguraldissertation von 1770 für die Genese der Kritik der reinen Vernunft von zentraler Bedeutung ist, dann ist es die von Kant in den frühen Anthropologievorlesungen der siebziger Jahre vorgetragene Theorie eines spontanen, freien und selbstbewußten Ich. Aus welchen systematischen Erwägungen heraus hat er diese Ich-Theorie entwickelt? Was hat ihn dazu veranlaßt, seine Philosophie auf einem spontanen, freien und selbstbewußten Ich zu gründen, welches als eine einfache, numerisch identische, immaterielle und freie (...) Substanz verstanden wird, von der wir eine anschauende Erkenntnis im inneren Sinn haben? Aufgrund welcher konzeptionellen Änderungen wird diese Theorie gegenüber seiner Dissertation überhaupt erst ein sinnvolles Unternehmen? Es wird im Rahmen einer detaillierten Rekonstruktion der Problemlage, mit der sich Kant zwischen 1770 und 1772 konfrontiert war, gezeigt, daß er wesentliche Anregungen durch seinen früheren Schüler Marcus Herz erhalten hat, der in seiner Schrift Betrachtungen aus der spekulativen Weltweisheit einige grundlegende Lehrstücke der Dissertation kritisiert und mit Moses Mendelssohn für die Notwendigkeit eines „ersten Subjekts" plädiert. Nicht Rousseau, sondern Herz und Mendelssohn haben also in ihrer direkt auf die Dissertation bezogenen Kritik Kant davon überzeugt, daß das epistemisch aufgewertete Ich als Grund einer neuen Theorie des Verhältnisses von Denken und Gedachtem fungieren muß, um die Einheit unserer Erfahrung erklären zu können. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to make sense of the immediate philosophical aftermath of Kant's Inaugural Dissertation. I will try to show what Kant himself took to be the problems left unsettled in the dissertation, and how he tried to deal with them. At the end of the paper, I will briefly sketch how he may have proceeded after the famous letter to Marcus Herz of 1772, and what path he would have had to take to recognize (...) the need for a transcendental deduction. (shrink)

“THE ONLY THING NECESSARY IS NOT THEORETICAL LEARNING, but the Bildung of human beings, both in regard to their talents and their character.” Kant’s epigrammatic observation in his 1778 letter to Christian Wolke, director of the Philanthropin, adumbrates not only his mature sense of “enlightenment” but also the pedagogical role of his critical philosophy and his own life’s work. Over a decade earlier, his reading of Rousseau’s Emile: or, On Education had “set him straight” about what constitutes the true dignity (...) of humanity, namely, that it did not consist in the advance of knowledge by scholarly inquiry as he had believed. The primary thing was, instead, the “restoration of the rights of humanity,” an objective articulated in Kant’s mature moral thought as that pedagogical method which facilitates the self-consciousness and efficacy of the moral law in the individual. In another 1778 letter, this time to his former student, Marcus Herz, Kant states that the “main purpose of his academic life,” which he “at all times keeps before him,” is to “cultivate good characters.” In both his lectures on anthropology and on pedagogy, Kant repeatedly emphasizes the need for education and, by extension, for attending to the education of the educator. Human beings are nothing save what education makes of them, but they can only be educated by other human beings who must themselves first be educated. As early as his 1775/ 76 anthropology lectures, Kant observes that “if teachers and priests were educated, if the concepts of pure morality would prevail among them, then... the whole could afterwards be educated.” The resulting task is clear: it is incumbent on every generation to work on the plan of a more purposive education,” a task Kant describes as the “greatest and most difficult problem that can be assigned to humankind.”. (shrink)

This volume provides English translations of texts that form the essential background to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Presenting the projects of Kant's predecessors and contemporaries in eighteenth-century Germany, it enables readers to understand the positions that Kant might have identified with 'pure reason', the criticisms of pure reason that had developed prior to Kant's, and alternative attempts at synthesizing empiricist elements within a rationalist framework. The volume contains chapters on Christian Wolff, Martin Knutzen, Alexander Baumgarten, Christian Crusius, Leonhard Euler, (...) Johann Lambert, Marcus Herz, Johann Eberhard, and Johann Tetens. Each chapter includes a brief introduction that provides succinct biographical and bibliographical information on these authors, a concise account of their projects, and information on the importance of these projects to Kant's First Critique. Extensive references to the First Critique, brought together in a concordance, highlight the potential relevance of each text. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:246 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY f~ntlSetifr ~uftanbebrtn~en, [o,ba{~hie @i~e~t heeler~anbluu~ ~uaIet~ bee ~[u~e[t bee ~emu~tfein~ (~m ~e~riffe eiuer ~inie)i[t, u,b baburd~a[rerer[t em Dbieft (el, be[timmter ~a,,m) erfannt r0irb.") The notion of constructing a concept is a technical one for Kant ("r ~e@rlffabet f on ft r u i r en, beiflt: hie i~m focre[p0nblereube ~In [ c @a u u,@ a ~ c i o ~i bar[tdlen." Op. cit., B741)--to (...) construct a concept of space would be to produce a representation of a determinate region of space in accordance with some determining principle. 9Maimon, Salomon (1753-1800): Self-educated philosopher from Lithuania who appeared on the Berlin scene in the later 1780's. His Versuch ~ber die Transzendentalphilosophie (1790) was a critical study of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft; Kant had already seen some of it in manuscript, sent to him by Marcus Herz. In his letter of May 26, 1789 (~362), he describes to Herz how he had been on the point of returning the manuscript unread, with a note saying that he was too busy, but that on glancing at it he had realized its quality and had seen that none of his opponents had understood the Kritilc as well as had M. u Herz, Marcus (1747-1803): Student and subsequently close friend of Kant's. Medical doctor and, from 1786, Professor of Philosophy in Berlin. i Selle, Christian Gottlieb (1748-1800) : Medical doctor in Berlin, involved in experiments in animal magnetism. Kiesewetter regarded the experiments as fraudulent, but absolved S. of complicity. J Berlinische Monatr A liberal journal, founded in 1783, in which Kant frequently published. The editor in question was Johann Erich Biester (1749-1816), who was also Librarian of the Royal Library inBerlin. k Elsner, Christoph Friedrich (1749-1820): Professor of Medicine at K6aigsberg, who attended Kant in his final illness. A FURTHER NOTE ON PAUL MARHENKE'S "THE PHENOMENALISTIC INTERPRETATION OF KANT'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE" IN AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE to a paper, "The Phenomenalistic Interpretation of Kant's Theory of Knowledge," which was found in the effects of the late Paul Marhenke, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, and which was printed in the April, 1964 issue of this Journal I mentioned that an intensive inquiry failed to reveal when this paper was written or for what occasion. I have recently received a note from Professor Jacob Loewenberg, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Philosophy at Berkeley, informing me that the paper was written while Paul Marhenke was a student at Berkeley and was written for Professor Loewenberg's Seminar on Kant, during the session of 192526. Professor Loewenberg writes that "the seminar dealt with certain selected topics crucial in or growing out of the Critique of Pure Reason. Among those who in addition to Paul were in the seminar, I remember distinctly (largely because of their superior performance) Donald C. Williams and the late A. P. Ushenko. I am not quite sure whether or not Philip Wiener was also enrolled." University o] California, San Diego A YRD-~[STROLL A I~EPLY TO WALTER KAUFMANN WALTER KAUFMANN,in his article, "Nietzsche in the Light of his Suppressed Manuscripts" 1 converts a review of Erich F. Podach's book, Friedrich Nietzsche's 1This Journal, II, 2 (Oct., 1964), pp. 205-225. NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 247 Werke des Zusammenbruchs into a bitter personal attack on Podach and an even more vitriolic assault on me. Every author and scholar is entitled to his own opinion, and had Kaufmann soberly stated his case by simply announcing that, to his mind, the re-editing of Nietzsche's works according to the genuine manuscripts now available in Weimar has not changed one iota of the true character of the philosopher's last books, then his efforts would certainly have been unexceptionable. Prof. Kaufmann could simply have said, "Much ado about nothing! Podach's findings will, by no means, alter the image of Nietzsche among philosophers. Period." Indeed, this is precisely what Kaufmann's elaborate tirades and invectives come to if one reduces them to their... (shrink)

The prelims comprise: On the Modern Philosophical Background On Kant's Relation to the Contemporary Philosophical Background Kant's Letter to Marcus Herz Kant's Two Epistemological Solutions in the Critique of Pure Reason Kant's Copernican Revolution in Philosophy as Constructivism Kant's Copernican Revolution, Science, and Metaphysics Kant's Copernican Revolution in Philosophy and Metaphysics Kant, Hegel, and the Historical Turn.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Ethics of Salomon Maimon (1753-1800) DAVID BAUMGARDT* SALOMON MAIMON is now generally considered the most acute mind among the earliest critics of Kant. Kant himself had praised his acumen,1 though later qualifying his regard decisively.2 Johann Gottfried Herder called * We have just learned of the death of the author. David Baumgardt, born in Germany on April 20, 1890, studied in Vienna and in Berlin and taught philosophy (...) at the University of Berlin from 1924 to 1935 as Privatdozent, Extraordinarius and Ordinarius, until he was forced by Germany's racial laws to resign, but after the end of the war the Free University of Berlin appointed him honorary professor. From 1935 to 1939 he taught at the University of Birmingham; after his arrival in the United States he first joined the staff of the Pendle Hill School and, from 1941 to 1954, he served with the Library of Congress as a consultant in the field of philosophy. In 1955-56 he was Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Columbia. After his retirement he continued to publish and at present there are five publications by him in the press. The number of books and articles written by him probably well exceeds two hundred. Just in the last months of his life he was presented with a Festschri[t (Horizons of a Philosopher), indicative of a wide range of friends, students, and fellow-scholars who wanted to express their appreciation of the man and his work. On the continent Baumgardt was perhaps best known for two books: Franz yon Baader (1927) and Der Kampf um den Lebenssinn unter den Vorliiufern der Modernen Ethik (1933). The former threw full light on an important but unduly neglected figure of the German romantic school of philosophy; the latter confronts Kant's rationalistic ethics with the irrationalism of a Herder, Hemsterhuis, and Jacobi. In the United States he published, among others, Bentham and the Ethics of Today (1952) and Great Western Mystics (1961), originally delivered as Matchette Lectures, but enriched, for publication, by voluminous notes containing a wealth of information on mystics, some of whom, especially Jewish ones, are familiar only to the expert. At the time of his death he was working on a book which would probably have become his opus magnum: an attempt to reconcile what he called the ethics of force with the ethics of love. Baumgardt described his own philosophic position as that of a Benthamian hedonist, asserting that only hedonism, when carried to its conclusions, would permit such a reconciliation. Systematic, ethical and religious problems underlay all his historic research; thus his loss will be felt keenly and widely. (PHILIP MERLAN) t See Kant's Gesammelte Schri[ten, ed. K6nig. Preuss. Akad. Wissenschaften, Vol. XI, Abt. II, Kant's Briefwechsel (1900), Vol. II, p. 49, letter to Marcus Herz, May 26, 1789: "Nicht allein" hat "niemand yon meinen Gegnern reich und die Hauptfrage so wohl verstanden, sondern nur wenige... mochten zu dergleichen tiefen Untersuchungen so viel Scharfsinn besitzen... als Hr. Maymon." 2See ibid., p. 476, letter to Carl Leonhard Reinhold, March 28, 1794: "Was aber z. B. ein Maimon mit seiner Nachbesserung der critischen Philosophie... eigentlich wolle," habe ich "nie recht fassen k6nnen." The noticeable change in Kant's judgment of Maimon's work is hardly due to the fact that his praising remarks were addressed to a Jewish friend and the disapproving ones to a gentile disciple. The reason for this shift in his evaluation of Maimon's later writings 099] 200 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Maimon's Versuch iiber die Transzendentalphilosophie "profound" and "comprehensive.''~ Even Goethe and Schiller mentioned him with esteem in their correspondence;~ and Johann Gottlieb Fichte explicitly' warned that coming centuries would ridicule us bitterly for disregarding this "immensely great talent." It may, therefore, not be out of place if, even more than 150 years after Maimon's death, some attention is paid to his generally neglected criticism of Kant's categorical imperative. Maimon's acute critical observations on Kant's ethics may claim to be of interest even to the analysis of some basic issues of contemporary moral philosophy. In an autobiography, culturally of general interest, edited by the psychologist and esthetician Karl... (shrink)

The deduction of categories in the 1781 edition of the Critique of the Pure Reason (A Deduction) has “two sides”—the “objective deduction” and the “subjective deduction”. Kant seems ambivalent about the latter deduction. I treat it as a significant episode of Kant’s thinking about categories that extended from the early 1770s to around 1790. It contains his most detailed answer to the question about the origin of categories that he formulated in the 1772 letter to Marcus Herz. The (...) answer is that categories are generated a priori through a kind of intellectual “epigenesis”. This account leaves unexplained why precisely such and such categories should be generated. While this observation caused Kant to worry about the hypothetical status of the subjective deduction in 1781, he would come to acquiesce in the recognition that the ground of the possibility of categories is itself inscrutable. I call this his “methodological skepticism”. (shrink)

The deduction of categories in the 1781 edition of the Critique of the Pure Reason (A Deduction) has “two sides”—the “objective deduction” and the “subjective deduction”. Kant seems ambivalent about the latter deduction. I treat it as a significant episode of Kant’s thinking about categories that extended from the early 1770s to around 1790. It contains his most detailed answer to the question about the origin of categories that he formulated in the 1772 letter to Marcus Herz. The (...) answer is that categories are generated a priori through a kind of intellectual “epigenesis”. This account leaves unexplained why precisely such and such categories should be generated. While this observation caused Kant to worry about the hypothetical status of the subjective deduction in 1781, he would come to acquiesce in the recognition that the ground of the possibility of categories is itself inscrutable. I call this his “methodological skepticism”. (shrink)

The article familiarizes us with Salomon Maimon, a self-taught philosopher of Jewish descent, and with his attitude to the scientific views of Immanuel Kant. Although Maimon depicted himself as a follower of Kant, the reality contradicts this picture. The conclusions drawn in the article are based on Maimon’s letters and his manuscript of A Dialogue between Kant and One of His Students discovered only recently. The abovementioned correspondence with Kant clearly shows Maimon’s position in relation to the views of the (...) philosopher from Königsberg. The letters, most of which remained unanswered, are written in a characteristic, somewhat audacious manner. Maimon begins them with glorifying Kant’s philosophy but then suggests numerous corrections concerning not only its insignificant details but also some principal issues which would radically change the whole system of Kant’s philosophy. Presumably that justifies the fact that Maimon received but one answer in the whole correspondence. Kant answered it at the instigation of his friend, Marcus Herz, with whom Maimon won favour. Later, however, Kant bore a grudge against Herzto such an extent that their own correspondence, previously frequent and very personal in character, almost ceased, becoming scarce and official. This, however, did not discourage Maimon, who in his Autobiography claimed that Kant had a high regard of him. The Jewish self-taught philosopher kept writing letters to Kant, and as he could not bear the lack of any answer, he decided to respond to the lettershimself. Kant’s would-be answers are contained in the abovementioned manuscript of A Dialogue between Kant and One of His Students, which for Maimon was a kind of compensation for Kant’s repudiation. Thetitle dialogue is between the Königsberg philosopher and a student N, whose views are identical with those of Maimon. It is hard to overlook the importunity of his attacks on Kant, whose answers are far more polite perhaps due to the fact he cannot equal him. In the dialogue, Kant contradicts himself, is lost in the arguments, and finally agrees with the statements of N despite the fact that they are quite distant from his own critical philosophy. N – that is Maimon – casts doubts concerning various aspects of Kant’s philosophy, e.g. the notion of space as a form of pure intuition, and Kant’s attempts to defend his position are quite helpless. Frequent statements such as “I do not know” or “highly probable” compound Maimon’s picture of Kant. It turns out, however, that in some of the theses contained in the dialogue Maimon was close the views of Fichte, which Kant refused as well. Perhaps, then, Maimon was a link between Kantian philosophy and the classical German idealism, a link much more important than it is generally acknowledged. (shrink)

Mendelssohn's disagreement with Kant's definition survived on a two-sided Folio sheet (Statsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preuss. Kulturbesitz:, Nachlass 162, D I.4.). The dispute relates to Kant's inaugural lecture in Königsberg (August 1770): "De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis". A copy was immediately delivered to Mendelssohn by Kant's and Mendelssohn's mutual disciple, Marcus Herz. From Herz's long letter-report we know of a four-hour long discussion concerning Mendelssohn's intention to contrast Kant's definition of 'Raum' and 'Zeit' with that (...) by Leibniz. Apparently Mendelssohn's objection was never concluded or in print, hence, the _Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781) still retains the interpretation that Mendelssohn's contested in 1770. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Kants Philosophic des Subjekts. Systematische und entuncklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewusstsein und Selbslerkennlnis by Heiner F. KlemmeEric WatkinsHeiner F. Klemme. Kants Philosophic des Subjekts. Systematische und entuncklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewusstsein und Selbslerkennlnis. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1996. Pp. ix + 430. Cloth, DM 148.In this impressive work Klemme provides a detailed historical account of the development of Kant’s views on self-consciousness from the early 1770s (...) to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. In the first part of his book Klemme considers Kant’s views [End Page 471] in the 1770s as presented in his Inaugural Dissertation, newly available transcripts from his anthropology lectures, the so-called Duisburg Nachlass, and transcripts from his metaphysics lectures. Klemme first (Chapter 1) indicates briefly the place of psychology and anthropology in metaphysics in eighteenth-century Germany and identifies two general types of processes through which it was thought that self-knowledge might be attained. He then (Chapter 2) turns to a discussion of Kant’s project in the early 1770s—basing his philosophy on a spontaneous, free, and self-conscious I—and how it is developed against the background of (i) Kant’s “great light” of 1769, (ii) the awakening out of his “dogmatic slumber,” and (iii) the discovery of antinomial conflict. Klemme’s original thesis is that Moses Mendelssohn’s Phädon (1767) and especially Marcus Herz’s Betrachtungen aus der spekulativen Weltweisheit (1771), as well as Kant’s personal correspondence with these figures, are crucial to understanding how Kant comes to see the deficiencies of his view as presented in the Inaugural Dissertation. Klemme discusses Kant’s “remedy” (in Chapter 3): a new theory of the self, documented in the anthropology transcripts, according to which one has direct intuition of oneself as a simple, spontaneous, immaterial substance. Later in the 1770s (especially as documented in the Duisburg Nachlass) Kant finds himself unable to derive the categories from the self in either rational or empirical psychology and is thus forced to revise his theory in his first Critique.In the second part of his book Klemme discusses Kant’s account of self-consciousness in his Critical period. Accordingly, he presents interpretations of the Transcendental Deduction and the Paralogisms in both editions of the first Critique as well as some of the central theses of Transcendental Idealism. Fundamental to Kant’s theory of self-consciousness in the Critical period is a distinction between self-knowledge and self-awareness. The former is knowledge of the empirical self, whereas the latter is knowledge of the self considered “not as appearance nor as thing in itself” (B423) but rather pre-categorically as an indeterminate existence. With respect to self-knowledge, Klemme argues that Kant adheres to three distinct models from 1781 to 1787. In the first edition of the first Critique Kant endorses the analogy model, according to which the regulative use of reason allows one to connect all of the self’s mental states in inner sense “as if it were a simple substance” (A 672/B 700). By the time of the second edition he adopts the mediation model, according to which “the categories can be applied to inner sense because we can represent time to ourselves only through recourse to outer sense as a line” (240). In the transcripts from his anthropology lectures (as well as in his published Anthropology) Kant seems to adopt a third model of self-knowledge, according to which the categories cannot be applied to inner representations at all; such knowledge amounts to nothing more than a mere history of our representations.Klemme concludes his discussion by considering Kant’s account of self-awareness. Kant is often thought (e.g., by Dieter Henrich) to hold a reflection model, according to which the self literally reflects on itself in self-awareness, giving rise to problems of circularity. Klemme argues against such an interpretation (as well as Manfred Frank’s “intellectual intuition” interpretation) in favor of a view, according to which the self can be determined practically “as a mere intelligence according to the moral law” (395). Such a view is consistent with Kant’s theoretical assertions about... (shrink)

Kant’s Organicism: Epigenesis and the Development of Critical Philosophy, traces the decisive role played by eighteenth century embryological research for Immanuel Kant’s theories of mind and cognition. I begin this book by following the course of life science debates regarding organic generation in England and France between 1650 and 1750 before turning to a description of their influence in Germany in the second half of the eighteenth century. Once this background has been established, the remainder of Kant’s Organicism moves to (...) the influential role played by models of embryological development for Kant’s approach to understanding the cognitive processes responsible for the generation of knowledge, with special attention paid to Kant’s Precritical writings in the 1760s and 1770s. The book closes with a reinterpretation of Kant’s transcendental deduction in the Critique of Pure Reason. (shrink)

Marcus argues that moral dilemmas are real, but that they are not the result of inconsistent moral principles. Moral principles are consistent just in case there is some world where all principles are 'obeyable.' They are inconsistent just in case there is no world where all are 'obeyable.' What this logical point is meant to show is that moral dilemmas do not make moral codes inconsistent. She also discusses guilt, and argues that guilt is still appropriate even in cases (...) of conflict, even when the agent thinks the right thing to do is clear. (shrink)

Alternative readings of quantification are considered. The absence of an unequivocal translation into ordinary speech is noted. Some examples are cited which, in the opinion of the author, are a result of equivocal readings of quantification, or unnecessarily restrictive readings which obscure its primary function.

The indispensability argument is sometimes seen as weakened by its reliance on a controversial premise of confirmation holism. Recently, some philosophers working on the indispensability argument have developed versions of the argument which, they claim, do not rely on holism. Some of these writers even claim to have strengthened the argument by eliminating the controversial premise. I argue that the apparent removal of holism leaves a lacuna in the argument. Without the holistic premise, or some other premise which facilitates the (...) transfer of evidence to mathematical portions of scientific theories, the argument is implausible. (shrink)

Though ‘evil’ is often used loosely as merely the generic opposite of ‘morally good’, used precisely it is the worst possible term of opprobrium available. In this essay it is taken as applying primarily to persons, secondarily to conduct; evil deeds must flow from the volition to do something evil. An evil action is one so horrendously bad that no ordinary decent human being can conceive of doing it, and an evil person is one who knowingly wills or orders such (...) actions. Malignant evil—doing evil because it is evil—is not just possible but real, and is one of several kinds of evil delineated. There are incidental discussions of cruelty, Rosenbaum on Explaining Hitler, Baumeister on Evil, and Benn on wickedness. Footnotes1 Dedicated to Alan Gewirth, in honour of his 90th birthday, and in appreciation of his superb, illuminating, and ground-breaking philosophical work over many years. (shrink)

It has been suggested that a substitutional semantics for quantification theory lends itself to nominalistic aims. I should like in this paper to explore that claim.

This collection of Marcus's non-technical essays include her earlier ground-breaking axiomatizations of quantified modal logic, and explore such topics as the necessity of identity, the directly referential role of proper names as "tags", the interplay of possibility and existence, and others viewed as iconoclastic when Marcus first addressed them, but now long incorporated into current discussion.

§1. Introduction. LetMbe a totally ordered set. A (Dedekind) cutpofMis a couple (pL,pR) of subsetspL,pRofMsuch thatpL⋃pR=MandpL Z} andZ−for the cutqwithqL= {a∈M∣a

Logic and Philosophy of Logic

Model Theory in Logic and Philosophy of Logic

Direct download (5 more)  

 

Export citation  

 

Bookmark   6 citations  

This paper investigates the claim that the second-order consequence relation is intractable because of the incompleteness result for SOL. The opponents’ claim is that SOL cannot be proper logic since it does not have a complete deductive system. I argue that the lack of a completeness theorem, despite being an interesting result, cannot be held against the status of SOL as a proper logic.

Research on preference reversals has demonstrated a disproportionate influence of outcome probability on choices between monetary gambles. The aim was to investigate the hypothesis that this is a prominence effect originally demonstrated for riskless choice. Another aim was to test the structure compatibility hypothesis as an explanation of the effect. The hypothesis implies that probability should be the prominent attribute when compared with value attributes both in a choice and a preference rating procedure. In Experiment 1, two groups of undergraduates (...) were presented with medical treatments described by two value attributes (effectiveness and pain-relief). All participants performed both a matching task and made preference ratings. In the latter task, outcome probabilities were added to the descriptions of the medical treatments for one of the groups. In line with the hypothesis, this reduced the prominence effect on the preference ratings observed for effectiveness. In Experiment 2, a matching task was used to demonstrate that probability was considered more important by a group of participating undergraduates than the value attributes. Furthermore, in both choices and preference ratings the expected prominence effect was found for probability. (shrink)