Jean-François Revel is the first philosopher to take food seriously and to offer a topology for food practices. He draws a distinction between different kinds of cuisine -- popular (regional) cuisine and erudite (professional) cuisine. With this distinction, he traces the evolution of food practices from the ancient Greeks and Romans, down through the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance and the Modern Period. His contribution has been acknowledged by Deane Curtin who offers an interpretation of Revel’s conceptual scheme along (...) Platonic lines. In this essay the author reviews Curtin’s interpretation, finds it wanting in certain respects, and develops an alternative reading of Revel along Hegelian lines. This interpretation, the author believes, does greater justice to Revel’s topology for food practices. (shrink)

The novel Doctor Zhivago has not received the attention it has deserved lately—even much less for its philosophical ideas—so in this essay I want to bring attention to Boris Pasternak's notion of the nature of consciousness, which I find quite interesting. Yurii Zhivago, one of the principal characters in Doctor Zhivago, says the following about the experience of death: Will you [Anna Ivanovona] feel pain? Do the tissues feel their disintegration? In other words, what will happen to your consciousness? But (...) what is consciousness? Let's see. A conscious attempt to fall asleep is sure to produce insomnia, to try to... (shrink)

Medical practice is based on teaching, learning and examples set by seniors. Past and present practices are briefly analysed. Current trends do not justify optimism. The poor patient is likely to be sidelined as doctors reach out to the rich and powerful in this country and those bringing in American dollars from abroad. While corrective steps are possible, it is unlikely that they will be implemented.

I examine Nagarjuna’s averting an opponent’s argument, Paul Sagal’s general interpretation of Nagarjuna and especially Sagal’s conception of "averting" an argument. Following Matilal, a distinction is drawn between locutionary negation and illocationary negation in order to avoid errant interpretations of verse 29 The argument is treated as representing an ampliative or inductive inference rather than a deductive one. As Nagarjuna says in verse 30: "That [denial] of mine [in verse 29] is a non-apprehension of non-things" and non-apprehension is the averting (...) of arguments or "the relinquishing of all views." "Not making a proposition P" would be not speaking P or silence with regard to P and, as Sagal argues, not meaning a global linguistic silence. Such an interpretation would lead to attributing wholesale irrationalism to Nagarjuna-something I wish to avoid. (shrink)

THIS ESSAY DEALS WITH D F NORTON’S INTERPRETATION OF HUME’S METHODOLOGY IN THE LATTER’S FAMOUS DISCUSSION OF MIRACLES IN THE FIRST INQUIRY. NORTON CONSTRUES "EXPERIENCE" TO MEAN PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE. THE AUTHOR SHOWS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SENSE OF THE WORD WHICH IS MORE COSMOPOLITAN AND ONE WHICH SQUARES MORE WITH THE USES OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE "HISTORY OF ENGLAND". ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HUME PASSAGE ARE GIVEN AND HUME’S METHOD IS COMPARED WITH R G COLLINGWOOD’S IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTIONIST IDEA (...) OF HISTORY. (shrink)

'This is a work of seminal importance in educating scholars on how to perceive art in any medium precisely because Heninger provides a successful methodology for understanding what lies behind the apparent content of texts and images.

By focusing on the known details of Laonikos Chalkokondyles’ biography, on his relation to Byzantine historiographical tradition, by comparing his historical work to that of contemporary intellectuals living under the Ottomans as well as those in the west, examining his portrayal of Mehmed II, his adoption of a Herodotean model, the revival of Herodotus in the Renaissance more generally, and the reception of the ᾿Aπόδειξις in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, I argue that Laonikos was writing for an elite circle (...) of Byzantine émigrés and other intellectuals with access to classical Greek in the west, rather than for the post- Byzantine intellectuals associated with the Ottoman court. (shrink)

It may be of interest to supplement the latter part of Professor Conway's article by a note applying the same standards to estimating the value of the other sources on which we have to rely for our knowledge of the Spirensian tradition. Apart from ‘L’ and Harl. 2684 Luchs used for this purpose three partially Spirensian sources: the one fourteenth-century and four fifteenth-century MSS whose archetype he called ‘R’ V, the fifteenth-century Vat. Pal. 876, and the fifteenth-century Flor. Laur. lxxxix. (...) inf. 1. The last mentioned may be dismissed as practically valueless and as supplying little more than new corruptions from an unusually contaminated intermediary. In addition to these deteriores Luchs used the Agennensis , but only for the Spirensian supplement in Book xxvi' and for the last part of Book xxx . He did not deal at all with the Spirensian textual correctors in A. (shrink)