Logic ought to guide our thinking. It is better, more rational, more intelligent to think logically than to think illogically. Illogical thought leads to bad judgment and error. In any case, if logic had no role to play as a guide to thought, why should we bother with it?The somewhat naïve opinions of the previous paragraph are subject to attack from many sides. It may be objected that an activity does not count as thinking at all unless it is at (...) least minimally logical, so logic is constitutive of thought rather than a guide to it. Or it may be objected that whereas logic describes a system of timeless relations between propositions, thinking is a dynamic process involving revisions, and so could not use a merely static guide. Or again the objection may be that there is no such thing as logic, only a whole variety of different logics, not all of which could possibly be good guides. (shrink)

BLWith new text and full apparatus criticusThe Eudemian Ethics was one of two ethical treatises which Aristotle wrote on the subject of ethica or `matters to do with character'. Although the two works cover much the same ground, the Nicomachean Ethics is better known; the poor manuscript tradition of the Eudemian Ethics has made correct translation and interpretation of the text extremely difficult. The subject of the work is the choice of a certain means of conduct, made by a `man (...) of practical wisdom', between two extremes of behaviour: asceticism and yielding to uncontrolled impulses. Aristotle also stresses the notion of moral intention and the importance of virtue of character. This new Oxford Classical Text of the Eudemian Ethics is the result of many years of work. After Sir David Ross's death, his original text was substantially reworked and revised by his friend and colleague R. R. Walzer, who was aided in the revision by his former pupil Mrs Jean Mingay, who continued his work after his death in 1974. Mrs Mingay was fortunate in being able to make use of previously unpublished contributions from D. J. Allan after his death in the late seventies, and more recently has been helped in her work by the suggestions of Professor D. A. Russell, David Robinson, and Christopher Rowe. (shrink)

To make out in what way Einstein’s 1905 ‘annus mirabilis’ writings hang together one has to hang on Einstein’s strive for unity evinced in his stubborn attempts to coordinate with one another the basic research traditions of classical physics. Light quanta hypothesis and special theory of relativity turn out to be mere milestones of maxwellian electrodynamics and statistical thermodynamics reconciliation programme. The conception of luminiferous ether was an insurmountable stumbling block for Einstein’s statistical thermodynamics programme in which the leading role (...) was played by the light quanta paper . (shrink)

Ülkemizde 6 Şubat 2023 tarihinde 11 il ve ilçelerini kapsayan büyük bir deprem yaşanmıştır. Bu depremde bütün kamu kurumları ve Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları (STK) bölgeye destek olmak için seferber olmuştur. Bazı kamu kurum ve kuruluşları enkaz kaldırma, yaralılara tıbbi müdahale, çadır temini, kurulması, iaşe ve ibate vb. ihtiyaçların karşılanması için görev yaparken, bazıları da yaşanan depremin travmatik etkilerini azaltmaya yönelik manevi destek hizmetleri yürütmüşlerdir. Bir kamu kurumu olan Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı’na (DİB) bağlı İl ve İlçe Müftülükleri personeli, merkez teşkilatı ve (...) Diyanet Vakfı çalışanları da sahada görev yapmıştır. DİB personelinin deprem bölgesinde manevi danışman olarak hizmet vermesi, o tarihlerde, bazı kesimler tarafından eleştirilmiştir. DİB personelinin alanda yaptıklarının incelenmesi bu çalışmanın konusunudur. Çalışmanın amacı manevi danışman olarak hizmet veren DİB personelinin alanda neler yaptıklarını detaylarıyla belirlemek ve yapılanların manevi danışmanlık mesleğinin ilkelerine uygunluğunu literatür esas alınarak değerlendirmektir. Araştırma nitel araştırma desenlerinden, durum çalışmasıyla (Case Study) yapılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Kırşehir il ve ilçe müftülüklerinde çalışan din görevlileri oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma grubunun seçiminde amaçlı örneklem yöntemi kullanılarak ölçüt örneklem tekniği ile veri toplanmıştır. Burada tercih edilen ölçüt, Kırşehir İl ve İlçe Müftülüklerinde görev yapmak ve depremde manevi danışman olarak, alanda çalışmış olmak şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Katılımcılarla yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla sorulan sorulardan elde edilen verilere, betimsel analiz uygulanmıştır. Mülakat soruları araştırma amacına uygun olarak ve literatür taraması esas alınarak araştırmacı tarafından oluşturulmuştur. Bu araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular, DİB tarafından manevi danışmanlara düzenlenecek eğitim programlarının düzenlenmesinde veri oluşturması yönüyle önemlidir. Araştırma sonunda bulgular şöyle sınıflandırılmıştır: Psikolojik/manevi danışmanlık: Ziyaretlerde depremzedelerin ellerinin tutulması, kucaklama, duygusal refakat, çocukların başlarının okşanması vs. yakınlık hissi verilerek depremzedelerin rahatça konuşmalarına imkân oluşturmuşlardır. Bölgenin yapısından dolayı mezhepsel ayırım yapmadan bütün köylere gidip “Siz bizim kardeşimizsiniz, sizin için geldik, yalnız değilsiniz, acınızı paylaşıyoruz, geçmiş olsun” ifadeleri ile duygudaşlık hissi verilmiş ve yardım götürülmüştür. Dinî/manevi danışmanlık: Cenaze yıkamak, kefenlemek, cenaze namazı kıldırmak, çadır mescidinde vakit ve Cuma namazı kıldırmak, Kur’an okumak, dua ve sohbet etmek gibi faaliyetler yapılmıştır. Depremzedelerin yaşadıkları evler, çadır kentler, konteynerler ve köyler düzenli ziyaret edilerek hal ve hatırlarının sorulup, vatandaşın isteği üzerine dini törenler yapılmıştır. Destek hizmeti: Özellikle ilk giden görevliler yemek/su dağıtma, çadır kurma ve AFAD çalışmalarında kurtarma işlemine katılmışlardır. Diğer hizmetler: Depremzede esnafın kalkınması ve ekonomik destek için, esnaftan alış-veriş yapmışlar, nişanlı kızlara çeyiz ve üniversite öğrencilerine kitap yardımında bulunmuşlardır. (shrink)

Torture does need to be defined if we are to know exactly what we are seeking to ban; but no single definition will do, because there are many possible ones, and we may want to treat different practices that might be called torture differently. Compare the case of homicide; we do not want to punish manslaughter as severely as murder, and may not want to punish killing in self-defence at all. There are degrees of torture as of murder. Unclarities simply (...) play into the hands of would-be torturers. Downie is unsuccessful in deriving the duty of doctors not to be involved in torture from an analysis of the word `doctor'. It may be contrary to the role-duty of doctors to participate in torture; but there might be other duties which overrode this role-duty. The right approach is to ask what principles for the conduct of doctors have the highest acceptance-utility, or, as Kant might have equivalently put it, what the impartial furtherance of everyone's ends demands. This approach yields the result that torture (suitably defined) should be banned absolutely. It also yields prescriptions for the conduct of doctors where, in spite of them, torture is taking place. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to PorphyryR. M. DancyGeorge E. Karamanolis. Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. Pp. x + 419. Cloth, $125.00.Coleridge wrote: “Every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure that (...) no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian. They are two classes of man, beside which it is next to impossible to conceive a third.”Ancient Platonists could not be counted on to accept this kind of dichotomy, and that is what Karamanolis’s book is about. (It may be usefully compared with Lloyd P. Gerson’s 2005 book, Aristotle and Other Platonists.) It covers Antiochus (second century BC), Plutarch [End Page 634] of Chaeronea, Numenius, Atticus, Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, and Porphyry (third century AD). And it does so with incredible thoroughness, making it a tough read. The book began as a dissertation; it still has something of the air of one.The longest chapter is devoted to Porphyry, whom Karamanolis claims to be the first Platonist to write commentaries on books of Aristotle, and the first to adopt the view that Aristotle simply was in agreement with Plato—the founder of a tradition in scholarship to the effect that “Plato is named as the authority in metaphysics, and Aristotle in logic” (330). His concluding paragraph is this:It is this understanding of philosophizing which lies behind the formation of the Pla-tonist syllabus I described in the beginning of this book. This remains the situation until the Renaissance. When Renaissance humanists revive ancient philosophy, especially Platonism, as happened in Renaissance Florence, they re-establish this very model. Few other shifts in the history of Western philosophy are of such significance as the one which we, quite rightly, attribute to Porphyry.(330)The “Platonist syllabus” to which Karamanolis here adverts is perhaps summed up when he says that “from the third to the sixth century AD... Aristotle was appropriated by Platonists because they found his philosophy, if properly studied, a prerequisite for, and conducive to, an understanding of Plato’s thought” (4). More precisely, Karamanolis’s book is about Porphyry’s view and the background of its formation.Answering Karamanolis’s title question is not what is at stake; rather, he is concerned with how the Platonists listed above answered it. So we are not getting a history of the reading of Plato and Aristotle as agreeing or disagreeing from the very beginning. The early Academy and the skeptical Academy before Antiochus, for example, do not figure, except incidentally, in Karamanolis’s story (although there is a useful appendix on the early peripatetics). There is enough here to keep us busy without this.Dealing with any of Karamanolis’s Platonists is made more difficult by the nature of the material that remains: except for Plutarch and Plotinus, it is almost entirely fragmentary. So it is a question of interpreting not just the target authors, whose works we do not possess, but the sources we have for them, who have their own hobby-horses to ride, and hence are not always reliable. Karamanolis pays suitable attention to such details. But the back-and-forth discussion required can make it difficult to keep the larger picture in view.Karamanolis’s Platonists do not uniformly go for the agreement of Plato and Aristotle. As Karamanolis has it, Porphyry is the only one to swallow it whole: “... nowhere does Porphyry criticize Aristotle,” he concludes (322). This requires him to explain away what he regards as misunderstandings of the evidence (243–45 records some disagreements, and the Porphyry chapter throughout is dedicated to rebuttal). Karamanolis is at least prima facie convincing. At the opposite end of the spectrum are Atticus and Numenius, whose antipathy toward Aristotle is universal.For the rest, whether we are to say that Plato and Aristotle were in agreement obviously depends on what the agreement is to be about. There is, among Karamanolis’s Platonists, a good deal of interesting variation over that. Most of those who... (shrink)

Habeşistan Prensi Rasselas Bir Hikâye, Dr. Samuel Johnson’ın (1709-1784) eserlerinin en popüler olanlarından biridir. Eserin ilk okuyucuları onu felsefî ve pratik açıdan önemli bir eser olarak görmüş ve bir roman olarak sınıflandırmanın zor olduğunu düşünmüştür. Johnson, eserini yaklaşık 250 yıl önce yazmasına rağmen bugün de okuyucuya hayatın, ölümün, evliliğin, öğrenmenin, eyleme karşı eylemsizliğin anlamını ve diğer birçok konuyu keşfettirmeye çalışmaktadır. Johnson, ahlak teorilerinden hareketle mutluluğu ele almamaktadır. Ahlakî failin kendisinden, insandan ve insanın yaşadığı hayat ve bunun koşullarından hareketle konuyu anlatmaktadır. (...) Mutluluk anlamında temele alınacak olan fail ve onun içinde bulunduğu şartları değerlendirmektedir. Mutluluk, elde edilenden veya elde etmekten çok arama ve başarmada bulunabilir. Habeşistan Prensi, Voltaire’in (1694-1778) iyimserlik sistemini çürütmek için yazdığı Candide adlı esere, planı ve yapısı bakımından benzerlik göstermektedir. Fakat vardıkları sonuç birbirlerinden oldukça farklıdır. İnsanların mutluluğu bulmayı düşündükleri hemen her unsur ele alınıp bunların istenileni veremeyeceğinin belirtildiği Habeşistan Prensi, yöneticilerden hizmetçilere, yaşlılardan gençlere, bilgelerden cahillere varıncaya kadar her kesimden insanı örneklemektedir. Bütün olaylar mutluluk umuduyla başlamış fakat hayal kırıklığıyla sona ermiştir. Sonuçta romanda kurgusal bir yolculuk aracılığıyla ahlakî bir gerçeklik ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Johnson, Türkiye'de çok fazla tanınmadığı için makalenin giriş kısmında hayatı ve eserlerinin Habeşistan Prensi ile ilgili olan yönlerine kısaca değindik. Çalışmada yöntem olarak nitel araştırmanın imkanlarından yararlanılmış, literatür ve doküman analizi metotları kullanılarak Habeşistan Prensi’nde mutluluk, kötümserlik, iyimserlik konuları incelenmiştir. (shrink)

Walton offers a sustained and thorough study of Malebranche’s science of ethics. Much has been written about his Search for Truth but little has been said about his Treatise on Ethics which presents another perspective to Malebranche as a philosopher and extricates him from that sphere of philosophical thinking impoverished by sterility and abstraction, a criticism often unjustly leveled at the so-called Rationalists. Walton starts out by presenting an analysis of Malebranche’s theocentric ontology, an understanding of which is essential to (...) his moral thinking. Malebranche attempts in his Treatise to discover a common denominator in man which can serve as the foundation for a science of ethics. He finds reason to be the controlling factor which not only unites men to each other but unites man to God who Himself is Reason and Wisdom. (shrink)

We argue that thoughts are structures of concepts, and that concepts should be individuated by their origins, rather than in terms of their semantic or epistemic properties. Many features of cognition turn on the vehicles of content, thoughts, rather than on the nature of the contents they express. Originalism makes concepts available to explain, with no threat of circularity, puzzling cases concerning thought. In this paper, we mention Hesperus/Phosphorus puzzles, the Evans-Perry example of the ship seen through different windows, and (...) Mates cases, and we believe that there are many additional applications. (shrink)

I had a strange dream, or half-waking vision, not long ago. I found myself at the top of a mountain in the mist, feeling very pleased with myself, not just for having climbed the mountain, but for having achieved my life's ambition, to find a way of answering moral questions rationally. But as I was preening myself on this achievement, the mist began to clear, and I saw that I was surrounded on the mountain top by the graves of all (...) those other philosophers, great and small, who had had the same ambition, and thought they had achieved it. And I have come to see, reflecting on my dream, that, ever since, the hard-working philosophical worms have been nibbling away at their systems and showing that the achievement was an illusion. True, their skeletons, indigestible to worms, remained, and were surprisingly similar to one another. But I was led to think again about what one can, and what one cannot, achieve in this direction. (shrink)

[R. M. Sainsbury] Evans argued that most ordinary proper names were Russellian: to suppose that they have no bearer is to suppose that they have no meaning. The first part of this paper addresses Evans's arguments, and finds them wanting. Evans also claimed that the logical form of some negative existential sentences involves 'really' (e.g. 'Hamlet didn't really exist'). One might be tempted by the view, even if one did not accept its Russellian motivation. However, I suggest that Evans gives (...) no adequate account of 'really', and I point to unclarities in Wiggins's similar, but distinct, attempt to use 'really' in the logical form of true negative existentials. /// [David Wiggins] Evans was not wrong (I maintain) to say that the senses of genuine proper names invoke and require objects. Names in fiction or hypothesis mimic such names. Pace Evans, Sainsbury and free logicians, proper names are scopeless. (Evans's 'Julius' is not a name.) Names create a presumption of existential generalization. In sentences such as 'Vulcan does not really exist', that presumption is bracketed. The sentence specifies by reference to story or report a concept identical with Vulcan and declares it be really uninstantiated. (The sentence, which partakes of play, is a kind of palimpsest.) It is explained why this second level view of 'exists' is to be preferred. (shrink)

This is the text of The Lindley Lecture for 1975, given by R. M. Hare, a British philosopher.

This book is divided into three parts: in Part I, R. M. Hare offers a justification for the use of philosophy of language in the treatment of moral questions, together with an overview of his moral philosophy of ‘universal prescriptivism’. The second part, and the core of the book, consists of five chapters originally presented as a lecture series under the title ‘A Taxonomy of Ethical Theories’. Hare identifies descriptivism and non‐descriptivism as the two main positions in modern moral philosophy. (...) The former he divides into Naturalism and Intuitionism, and the latter into Emotivism and Rationalism. Hare argues that all forms of descriptivism tend to lead to Relativism because the truth conditions of moral statements are culturally variant. Of the positions discussed, only Hare's own position, a form of Rationalism, which he calls Universal Prescriptivism, meets all of the requirements that an adequate ethical theory should meet. Part III consists of Hare's previously published essay ‘Could Kant have been a Utilitarian?’ (Utilitas 5, 1993). Here, Hare puts forward the controversial thesis that Kant's moral philosophy is, in its basic principles, compatible with utilitarianism. (shrink)