On p. 261 of MIND, No. 146 (April, 1928), the relation expressed by the words “is a itbfamily of” would be better expressed by some other phrase such as “is a subsystem of”. For the notion which I defined at the end of the note was, through a stupid mistake on my part, incorrectly described as “a family,” whereas really it should hare received some quite distinct designation such as “a maximal system”. The term “family” should of course be used (...) in the sense which the authors of Principia Mathematica.have assigned to it And this sense only coincides with the sense of “ maximal system ” in the special case where R is a one-one relation ; in other cases more than one family may be included in a single maximal system On it. 260 two small corrections are required. For “ Rbo ” read “ Rpo ”. And the footnote should have had the number “ 1 ” prefixed to it, making it clear that it is a footnote and refers to section (3), and is not a continuation of section (4). (shrink)

The legend of the encounter between Wilberforce and Huxley is well established. Almost every scientist knows, and every viewer of the BBC's recent programme on Darwin was shown,* how Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Oxford, attempted to pour scorn on Darwin's Origin of Species at a meeting of the British Association in Oxford on 30 June 1860, and had the tables turned on him by T. H. Huxley. In this memorable encounter Huxley's simple scientific sincerity humbled the prelatical insolence and clerical (...) obscurantism of Soapy Sam; the pretension of the Church to dictate to scientists the conclusions they were allowed to reach were, for good and all, decisively defeated; the autonomy of science was established in Britain and the Western world; the claim of plain unvarnished truth on men's allegiance was vindicated, however unwelcome its implications for human vanity might be; and the flood tide of Victorian faith in all its fulsomeness was turned to an ebb, which has continued to our present day and will only end when religion and superstition have been finally eliminated from the minds of all enlightened men. Even churchmen concede that it was a disastrous defeat.1 Only Owen Chadwick strikes a note of caution, observing that the account given of the incident in Wilberforce's biography seems hardly consistent with an overwhelming defeat, and maintaining that the received account must be a largely legendary creation of a later date. (shrink)

Applied ethics, a subdiscipline of philosophy, lends itself to an encyclopedia format because of the many industries and intellectual fields that it encompasses. The Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics is based on twelve major categories, such as Biomedical Ethics and Environmental Ethics. Religious traditions that embody normative beliefs, as well as classical theories of ethics, are explored in a non-judgmental manner. Each of the twelve categories is divided into discrete areas that are covered by 5,000-6,000 word articles. Each of the 281 (...) articles begins with a definition of the subject and includes a table of contents, glossary of key terms, and bibliography. Second- and third- level headings, boxes, sidebars, and the like emphasize the reference-oriented nature of the material. The four volumes are arranged in an A-Z format, with a complete subject index at the end of the last volume. Articles are written by international experts, arranged alphabetically by title, not by subject, and cross-referenced so the reader can locate relevant information in other articles. One of Library Journal's Best Reference Sources for 1997! One of the CHOICE Outstanding Academic Books for 1998! Cross-references appear in each article to refer readers to related information A glossary and bibliography in each article provide readers with tools for learning and creative thinking. (shrink)

R. J. Hankinson traces the history of ancient Greek thinking about causation and explanation, from its earliest beginnings through more than a thousand years to the middle of the first millennium of the Christian era. He examines ways in which the Ancient Greeks dealt with questions about how and why things happen as and when they do, about the basic constitution and structure of things, about function and purpose, laws of nature, chance, coincidence, and responsibility.

We provide a justification for political liberalism’s Reciprocity Principle, which states that political decisions must be justified exclusively on the basis of considerations that all reasonable citizens can reasonably be expected to accept. The standard argument for the Reciprocity Principle grounds it in a requirement of respect for persons. We argue for a different, but compatible, justification: the Reciprocity Principle is justified because it makes possible a desirable kind of political community. The general endorsement of the Reciprocity Principle, we will (...) argue, helps realize joint political rule and relationships of civic friendship. The main obstacle to the realization of these values is the presence of reasonable disagreement about religious, moral, and philosophical issues characteristic of liberal societies. We show the Reciprocity Principle helps to overcome this obstacle. (shrink)

This chapter explores the philosophical development of Alexander’s empiricism, interest in experimental psychology, and its connection to realism and its subsequent rise in the early twentieth century. His early interests are most notably his rejection of British idealism and an empiricist tendency derived in part from classical empiricism and empirical developments in psychology. It is argued that Alexander arrives at realism through his work on psychology, thus revealing that the rise of realism has some psychological origins. His philosophical method is (...) also analysed in detail and it is shown that many of his arguments should be understood as following this method and that many objections to his arguments for realism and against his theory of perception can be resisted when this method is taken into consideration. (shrink)

David K. Lewis (1941-2001) was unquestionably one of the most important analytic philosophers of the twentieth century, writing papers and books, largely but not exclusively in metaphysics, that set the intellectual agenda across a huge variety of topics in the last three decades. Some twenty years after his death, this collection of essays reflects the historical importance of Lewis's work by bringing together a range of scholarly reflections on his work. The essays consider a range of topics including the nature (...) of metaphysics, the epistemology of necessary truths, possibility, naturalness, supervenience, time travel, causation, semantics, and ethics. Several of them draw on an exciting new body of material in the Lewisian corpus, his extensive correspondence, recently published in two volumes (OUP, 2020). The wide-ranging topics of these essays illustrate the impressive extent of Lewis's thought and his reach across most areas of analytic philosophy. The chapters collected in this volume adds to the increasing literature on the philosophy of David K. Lewis and will be an important book for those examining his role in the history of analytic philosophy. (shrink)

Decety (2011) considers the cognitive neuroscience of empathy and, in particular, his three-component model of empathic responding. His position is highly influential with its emotional awareness/understanding and emotional regulation components representing clear extensions of previous theorizing on empathy. In this brief commentary, I will critically consider the third of his components: affective arousal. In particular, I will consider the implications of the literature to the proposed computations, based on perception—action coupling, that underlie this component of his model. I will suggest (...) that perception—action coupling does not underlie affective arousal but rather that this is mediated by far more simple mechanisms of emotional arousal based on conditioning. (shrink)

This is a new release of the original 1960 edition.

In this Introduction, Alexander and his work are outlined in its historical context with an account of his place in the history of philosophy. The background and motivation of the work is given along with a description of the organisation and content of the chapters that follow. Justification is also given for the inclusion of three posthumous papers by Alexander and how these posthumous papers relate to the newly commissioned essays.

This volume brings together a number of essays on various historical and thematic problems in the philosophy of Leibniz. The contributors include Prof. Leclerc, Milic Capek, Nicholas Rescher, N. L. Wilson, and Leroy E. Loemker. The book represents a kind of retrospective show of Prof. Loemker’s contribution to Leibniz scholarship, the other essays emphasizing points upon which he has commented less fully. As such the book serves three major functions: 1) it is a splendid introduction to Leibniz’ thought and his (...) historical context as a whole; 2) it complements nicely Professor Loemker’s recent study of the background to Leibniz’ thought ; 3) it puts into proper perspective another recent collection of English and American essays on Leibniz, in which Prof. Loemker is not represented. The essays are grouped under three headings, "Investigations," "Assessments," and "Historical Studies," corresponding in general to expository, critical and historical matters. (shrink)