A summary of Explaining Imagination (OUP, 2020) for the author/critics symposium in Analysis.

Elements of Mind (EM) has two themes, one major and one minor. The major theme is intentionality, the mind’s direction upon its objects; the other is the mind–body problem. I treat these themes separately: chapters 1, and 3–5 are concerned with intentionality, while chapter 2 is about the mind–body problem. In this summary I will first describe my view of the mind–body problem, and then describe the book’s main theme. Like many philosophers, I see the mind–body problem as containing (...) two sub–problems: the problem of mental causation and the problem of consciousness. I see these problems forming the two horns of a dilemma. Just as the problem of mental causation pushes us towards physicalism, so the problem of consciousness pushes us away from it. Each problem reveals the inadequacy of the solution to the other. Essentially the problem of mental causation is the conflict between (i) the apparent fact that mental states and events have effects in the physical world and (ii) a general principle about the causal nature of the physical world, which is sometimes called the ‘causal closure’ or the ‘causal completeness’ of the physical world. This principle says that all physical effects have physical causes which are enough to bring them about. The problem then is simple: how can a mental cause have a physical effect if that effect also has a physical cause which is enough to bring it about? Barring massive overdetermination of our actions by independent causes, it seems that the best answer is to identify the mental and the physical causes. And this is traditionally how physicalists have argued for their identity theory of mind and body. However, many physicalists reject the identity theory, and therefore they have to solve the mental causation problem in some other way. At present, there is no consensus among physicalists on which of the currently proposed solutions is correct. In chapter 2 of EM I propose an alternative, which I call ‘emergentism’. Inspired by the rejection of the identity theory, Emergentism is the idea that mental properties are genu.. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Summary Of The Spoken Responses By The Poets To Their CriticsJohn HollanderMark Strand responded to Charles Berger’s comments by mak-ing appreciative remarks about the kind of attention his work had received, adding that he did occasionally in writing perceive “glimmers, in the kind of attention I pay, to what Charles Berger has spoken of.” With regard to certain aspects of prior intention, he said that “vague formal imperatives (...) got fulfilled in the writing” and that knowing at the time “the rightness of what I’ve said,” I was nonetheless able to “know the meaning of what I’d said only weeks afterward.” He also acknowledged the kinds of allusiveness which Berger had adduced in his writing, speaking of how and when in the course of writing the resources of his particular sort of echo and allusion seemed to make themselves available.He then turned to the specific question of one of the sequences of poems that Berger had discussed, the “Great Dog Poem No. 2.” He averred that in choosing a dog as speaker he had “not just meant to be funny” [he avowed later on in his remarks that his poems frequently began with “dark humor”] but had also sought for a mode of introspection more original than the fashionably solemn ones of so much contemporary poetry: “I could look within and bark.” With respect to the final line, he observed “I like to finish with a flourish, to pretend I’m Laforgue or Rimbaud,” manifesting “a desire to be a symbolist poet.” With respect to that concluding verse, “I feel like the end of a gorgeous line,” he added that if a dog said that—particularly “a [End Page 189] platinum retriever”—it could not be self-pitying. He spoke in general of the relation of high and low in the poem (a dog named “Rex,” and so forth) and of the relation of this sequence to a much earlier poem of his called “Eating Poetry” in which the speaker is likewise a dog.With regard to formal design, he concluded by saying that in general he tended to start poems “with rough drafts in blank verse” which he then “roughened up” in various ways, preferring as he said “cadences” rather than “measure” in the framing of lines. But he added that in the De Chirico poems he had read, he felt that if one wrote a villanelle, one should keep strictly to the form, without changing words in the refrain lines, and keeping to the iambic meter, saying that “I don’t think you should cheat” under those circumstances.Strand concluded by thanking Berger for the precise nature of his critical attentiveness.John Hollander started out by acknowledging with pleasure that Eleanor Cook’s analysis of his “Owl” had certainly helped him to understand it better; he observed that he felt he had only started to write what he called “real poetry” in his third book, when he had first written a poem he could not understand at the time, and only came to understand years later. He remarked that “The relation of poet and critic as framed by this panel is this: good criticism is a poem’s best friend. We all depend on our friends to point out to us things about ourselves we may not know or acknowledge; although their cousins and other familial relations are other poems, our poems’ best friends are pieces of critical writing.”He was particularly grateful to Cook for pointing out things he hadn’t himself seen—such as the question of the terminal words in the first stanza—but which as a result of the critical insight he had to acknowledge. And this brought up the crucial question of intentionality at the practical rather than theoretical level: in the case of such observations by critics and acknowledgments by poets, it would seem that the writing of a poem could have an intention of which the writer would be unaware. Hollander adduced the analogy of dreaming to poetic composition, paralleling the question “Did you mean to write that?” with (to anyone reporting a dream) “Did you mean to dream that?”He then observed about the... (shrink)

This is a summary of the book, Words and Images: An Essay on the Origin of Ideas (Oxford 2011). This summary serves as an introduction to a symposium on this book, featuring contributions by Mohan Matthen, Daniel Weiskopf and Åsa Wikforss, and a reply by Gauker.

ABSTRACT This summary lays out the basic science and methodology used in genetic testing that investigates historical population migrations and the ancestry of living individuals. The genetic markers used in this testing, and the distinction between Y‐chromosome, mitochrondial and autosomes analysis, are explained and the shortcomings of these methodologies are explored.

We conclude this special issue with the Executive Summary and Command Brief from the McCain Conference, ?New Warriors/New Weapons: The Ethical Ramifications of Emerging Military Technologies?, as formulated by the conference convener, the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the US Naval Academy, and as prepared for the: Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant, US Marine Corps (Ed).

Gives a brief summary of the results reached in the book and their advantages. It recapitulates the differences between the dynamic view of the world defended in the book and traditional tensed conceptions of time. While the latter hold that tensed facts are fundamental, the former holds that tensed facts reduce to tenseless facts even in a dynamic world, where what tenseless facts there are depends on what time it is. The different roles of causation for the present approach (...) are summed up: Causation defines the direction of time, and can be used to analyse temporal relations; There can be causation only in a world where the past and the present are real, while the future is not. (shrink)

At the 2022 Central American Philosophical Association meeting, there was an Author-Meets-Critics session on Carolyn McLeod’s book, Conscience in Reproductive Health Care: Prioritizing Patient Interests. The event was organized and chaired by Heather Stewart and sponsored by the APA Committee on the Status of Women and Kate Norlock, chair of that committee. There were four speakers, including McLeod and three “critics”: Javiera Perez Gomez, Alison Reinheld, and Jennifer Parks, who were all generous enough to provide McLeod with their comments beforehand. (...) The sessions occurred over Zoom even though some speakers were present in person at the conference. McLeod kicked things off by providing a summary of her book, which was then followed by critical comments by the critics in the order in which they’re named above. McLeod responded to their remarks and then Stewart led a Q&A session with our small but lively and intelligent audience. The content of what was said has been reproduced here. (shrink)

This document gathers together, in summary form, objections scattered across many papers and multiple online databases. Nevertheless, it omits some objections, notably complicated ones.

This is a summary of “Toward a Global Media Ethics: Theoretical Perspectives,” which appeared in Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies , 29(2), 2008, 135-172. The article was written by Clifford G. Christians, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Shakuntala Rao, State University of New York-Plattsburgh; Stephen J. A. Ward, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Herman Wasserman, University of Sheffield. It was the result of a workshop on global media ethics by the article's authors hosted by the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (...) (STIAS) at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. The authors brought to the discussion the different perspectives of contractualism, communitarianism, and critical theory. The intention of the summary is to the draw the attention of scholars and ethicists outside the readership of Ecquid Novi to this leading-edge theoretical work. It is hoped the summary will stimulate comment and further work in global media ethics. The summary is not intended to replace the original article. Readers should consult the original for the full argument. (shrink)

Summary of my book, Writing the Book of the World, for a symposium. The book defends realism about structure, the view that there is a privileged way to describe the world.

The hypothesis of group selection fell victim to a seemingly devastating critique in 1960s evolutionary biology. In Unto Others (1998), we argue to the contrary, that group selection is a conceptually coherent and empirically well documented cause of evolution. We suggest, in addition, that it has been especially important in human evolution. In the second part of Unto Others, we consider the issue of psychological egoism and altruism -- do human beings have ultimate motives concerning the well-being of others? We (...) argue that previous psychological and philosophical work on this question has been inconclusive. We propose an evolutionary argument for the claim that human beings have altruistic ultimate motives. (shrink)

In this article, we give a summary of Leonhard Euler’s work on the pentagonal number theorem. First we discuss related work of earlier authors and Euler himself. We then review Euler’s correspondence, papers and notebook entries about the pentagonal number theorem and its applications to divisor sums and integer partitions. In particular, we work out the details of an unpublished proof of the pentagonal number theorem from Euler’s notebooks. As we follow Euler’s discovery and proofs of the pentagonal number (...) theorem, we pay attention to Euler’s ideas about when we can consider a mathematical statement to be true. Finally, we discuss related results in the theory of analytic functions. (shrink)

I provide an overview of my work to date (Fall 2016), discuss some of the main themes that animate my work, and briefly describe some of my planned future projects.

One of the problems when students go to university is that they are faced with insufficient skills (reading, summarizing and writing). These skills are not just an option for students – they are a necessity. One of these skills is text summarizing. Summarizing strategies may be called the gist of the literary text. Different summarization strategies may be required for different text types and lengths. The ability to summarize well means your reading comprehension and writing skill should be excellent. Summarization (...) is a high-level comprehension strategy which is effective in improving reading achievement and text summary quality.Several approaches have been developed to analyse summarizing skills which are required to teach and learn English at all levels especially at university level. The research was conducted among students of the second year English department at University of Vlora. The summaries reflect the major differences among the strategies used by skilled and unskilled students. The skilled students produce coherent linguistic and syntactic structures. Skilled (high-proficiency) students use semantic and prepositional phrases more than unskilled students (low-proficiency). Thus, the skilled students do not distort ideas of the original text but distort subject-verb order. When they summarize, we can easily distinguish the way in which they combine idea units across two or more paragraphs. The summaries reflect that students write very long sentences. The margin of errors is considerable due to the mother tongue influence and their level of English. (shrink)

The first task of the Royal Commission, in my view, is to decide what functions the House of Lords should perform. That will determine what powers it ought to have and how it should be constituted.

Making Things Up By BennettKarenOxford University Press, 2018. xii + 260 pp.