Some people have supposed that utility is good in itself, non-in-strumentally good, as distinct from good because conducive to other good things. And in modern versions of this view, utility often means want-satisfaction, as distinct from pleasure or happiness. For your want that p to be satisfied, is it necessary that you know or believe that p, or sufficient merely that p is true? However that question is answered, there are problems with the view that want-satisfaction is a non-instrumental good. (...) What if you want something only because you have a false belief? What if the time at which you want that p is fifty or five hundred years before the time to which p itself refers? To meet these difficulties, qualifications have to be introduced, and much has been written about how exactly these qualifications are to be framed.1 There is however what may be a rather more serious objection to the view that want-satisfaction is a non-instrumental good, or rather to the combination of that view with the principle that it is sufficient for your want that p to be satisfied simply that p is true. The objection is that this combination forces you to give undue weight to the mere acquisition of desires when you come to make judgements about changes in the value of things. It forces you to say that for any true proposition p, which initially you do not want to be true, your mere acquisition of a desire that p will, other things being equal, make the world better. Non-instrumental value can be increased merely by multiplying desires, even though everything else remains the same. Surely, however, improving the world is not as easy as that. (shrink)

1. The ideal of spatio-temporally unrestricted generalisation, which marks all post-mythological thinking about nature, marks no more than the continuity of totemism in political casuistry. No unrestricted principle of Socialism or Conservatism or Liberal Democracy is defensible unless it is accorded a moral ultimacy which almost no one fully conscious of what he was about would actually want to accord it. If this bare platitude is to be fully assimilated, it needs both concrete exemplification and support of the systematic kind. (...) Liberal principles are well provided for in these respects: J. F. Stephen showed in brilliant detail that, from a utilitarian point of view, the question whether liberty even in advanced societies is irrespective of time and place a good or a bad thing is an irrational question—”as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing.” But demonstrations and illustrations of the restricted nature of our other popular political principles are not so easily come by, and the critical survey of standard prodemocratic arguments, which makes up Part III of this paper, is meant to supply a part of the deficiency. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to show that there was one person, perhaps only one, who developed a rigorously scientific cosmology nearly two thousand years ago. Cosmology is the largest of all subjects, with a long history, and the cosmology considered here is the one that endured for the longest part, nearly three-quarters, of that history. By cosmology I mean a description of the universe as a whole and of the arrangement of its principal parts. But by scientific cosmology, (...) I mean something more. For a cosmology to be considered scientific, three criteria must be met: it must be quantitative, physical, and empirical. Quantitative means that it must assign some scale of distances and sizes to its parts. Physical means that it must rest upon some kind of physical or mechanical principles, causes, for the ordering and motion of its parts. Finally, empirical means that it must either be derived from observation or, if derived theoretically, as from physical or mechanical principles, it must be confirmed by observation. I set out these criteria, which may not be exclusive or exhaustive but are surely within reason, in order to define our subject and exclude mythological or theological cosmologies, which generally meet none of the criteria, and philosophical cosmologies, as those of Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, which may meet one or two in some way, although not rigorously, but surely do not meet all three. I am not concerned with whether the cosmology or the criteria upon which it is based are correct. Compared to our present understanding, the scale may be off by orders of magnitude, the physics may be entirely mistaken, and the observations may be inaccurate. But if all three are present I would call the cosmology scientific, and if not I would not call the cosmology scientific. (shrink)

Robert Grosseteste was a prolific theological and scientific writer, a translator, bishop of Lincoln , and a candidate for sainthood. There have been several studies of his life and his works, the most recent being that of Richard Southern. Nevertheless, James McEvoy's comment in 1983 that “the course of Grosseteste's life up until 1225 is almost completely unknown” remains largely true. The problem is common in medieval history—there is a dearth of reliable sources for the subject's early life. I do (...) not intend to discuss here Grosseteste's youth, or even his life until 1198 . I will accept, with a few reservations, the model Southern presented for Grosseteste's life until 1198 — that Grosseteste came from an undistinguished family, acquired an education, and may have taught in local schools; after serving the bishop of Lincoln in a minor capacity, he managed to obtain an administrative position under Bishop de Vere in the diocese of Hereford. Unfortunately, Bishop de Vere died on Christmas Day 1198, and his household was disbanded. It is the period following 1198 until 1225 that needs scrutiny. The recent discovery of a reference to Robert Grosseteste in a thirteenth-century cartulary demands that we reconsider the way in which historians have structured Grosseteste's career, both because of what this manuscript records and because of the light it sheds upon the methodology that has underpinned Grosseteste scholarship. (shrink)

Any study of the religious situation in Ukraine always faces one problem - the lack of detailed information on the number of believers of a particular denomination. The most recent census did not include the question of denominational affiliation, as it was considered a violation of the principle of freedom of conscience. The only officially recognized statistical unit we have is the religious community. Approximate number of adherents of a particular denomination is given by the results of sociological research. However, (...) it is precisely at the border of statistics and sociology that one of the paradoxes that the current religious situation in Ukraine is rich in is the paradox of the inconsistency of sociological data with statistics. Thus, according to the State Committee for National Religions of Ukraine as of January 1, 2009, there were 11539 communities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, 4128 communities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, and 1184 communities of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. As the traditional Greek churches include the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Roman Catholics, their number is 3570 and 907 communities, respectively. (shrink)

vyp. 1. [Without special title] -- vyp. 2. Ėpokhi svobodnoĭ konkurent︠s︡ii i burzhuaznykh revoli︠u︡t︠s︡iĭ -- vyp. 3 Ėpokha monopolisticheskogo kapitala, imperializma, sot︠s︡ialisticheskikh revoli︠u︡t︠s︡iĭ, protivostoi︠a︡nii︠a︡ dvukh sistem, osvobozhdeniia︡︠ koloniĭ, krizisa "realʹnogo sot︠s︡ializma" i formirovanii︠a︡ za Zapade "sot︠s︡ialʹnogo gosudarstva".

Throughout history, the nature of the UGCC is at the center of the attention of researchers. Until now, they are divided into "Westerners" - supporters of Romanization of the church, that is, its purely Catholic nature, and "Byzantines" - those who defend its eastern rite. In addition, the study of the history of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church can be divided into two groups: negativist works and apologetic works. The first group is primarily represented by the works of Ukrainian Soviet (...) historians of the postwar period, which have very well-known names: "Unia: the path of betrayal and disgrace", "UniCity - an instrument of clerical anti-communism", "Uniate Church - enemy of the Ukrainian people", "The reactionary role of the union in the history of Ukrainian people "etc. Of course, the significance of such ideologically exacerbated "research" as a scientific development is doubtful. They have, if not scientific, but rather a journalistic character. (shrink)