W.V.O. Quine has famously objected that (1) properties are philosophically suspect because (2) there is no entity without identity and (3) the synonymy criterion for property identity won't do because there's no such concept as synonymy. (2) and (3) may or may not be right but do not prove (1). I reply that Leiniz's Law handles property identity, as it does for everything else, then respond to a variety of objections and confusions.

Hegel and Prussianism, by T. M. Knox.--Reply, by E. F. Carritt.--Rebuttal, by T. M. Knox.--Final rejoinder, by E. F. Carritt.--Hegel rehabilitated? By S. Hook.--Hook's Hegel, by S. Avineri.--Hegel again, by Z. A. Pelczynski.--Hegel and his apologists, by S. Hook.--Hegel and nationalism, by S. Avineri.--The Hegel myth and its method, by W. Kaufmann.--For further reading (p. 172).

The theories Si1 and Ti1 are the analogues of Buss' relativized bounded arithmetic theories in the language where every term is bounded by a polynomial, and thus all definable functions grow linearly in length. For every i, a Σbi+1-formula TOPi, which expresses a form of the total ordering principle, is exhibited that is provable in Si+11 , but unprovable in Ti1. This is in contrast with the classical situation, where Si+12 is conservative over Ti2 w. r. t. Σbi+1-sentences. The independence (...) results are proved by translations into propositional logic, and using lower bounds for corresponding propositional proof systems. (shrink)

We define and study a new restricted consistency notion RCon ∗ for bounded arithmetic theories T 2 j . It is the strongest ∀ Π 1 b -statement over S 2 1 provable in T 2 j , similar to Con in Krajíček and Pudlák, 29) or RCon in Krajı́ček and Takeuti 107). The advantage of our notion over the others is that RCon ∗ can directly be used to construct models of T 2 j . We apply this by (...) proving preservation theorems for theories of bounded arithmetic of the following well-known kind: The ∀ Π 1 b -separation of bounded arithmetic theories S 2 i from T 2 j is equivalent to the existence of a model of S 2 i which does not have a Δ 0 b -elementary extension to a model of T 2 j . More specific, let M ⊨ Ω 1 nst denote that there is a nonstandard element c in M such that the function n ↦ 2 log c is total in M . Let BLΣ 1 b be the bounded collection schema for Σ 1 b -formulas. We obtain the following preservation results: the ∀ Π 1 b -separation of S 2 i from T 2 j is equivalent to the existence of 1. a model of S 2 i +Ω 1 nst which is 1 b -closed w.r.t. T 2 j , 2. a countable model of S 2 i + BLΣ 1 b without weak end extensions to models of T 2 j. (shrink)

The World around the Old Testament: The People and Places of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Brent A. Strawn. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Pp. xxvii + 531, illus. $49.99.

For half a century the idea of rational thought has been challenged by discoveries that call into question some of its foundations. How we actually think seems to be at odds with descriptive and prescriptive models that once held sway in the development of modern science and scholarship. One response to these challenges has been a loss of nerve. Another—the one on display in Rationality: Contexts and Constraints—is an active attempt to revise those models, so as to enhance their compatibility (...) with new discoveries, in a maximally coherent and inclusive way. Rationality: Contexts and Constraints is an inter-disciplinary reappraisal of the nature of rationality. In method it is pluralistic, drawing upon the analytic approaches of philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, and more. These methods guide exploration of the intersection between hoary scholarship and cutting-edge philosophical or scientific research. In this way, Rationality: Contexts and Constraints contributes to development of a suitably revised, comprehensive understanding of rationality, one that befits the 21st century, one that is adequately informed by recent investigations of science, pathology, non-human thought, emotion, and even enigmatic Chinese texts that might previously have seemed to be expressions of irrationalism. • Addresses recent challenges and Identifies a direction for future research on rationality • Investigates the relationship between rationality and mental disorders such as delusion and depression • Assesses reasoning in artificial intelligence and nonhuman animals • Reflects on ancient Chinese Philosophy and possible cultural differences in human psychology • Employs philosophical reflection along with linguistic, probabilistic, and logical techniques -/- . (shrink)

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. Requires signed TDF. ;I deal with two themes: the idea that an account of thought should be given by giving an account of the ascription of thoughts by a radical interpreter--which I call interpretationism; and the idea that psychological concepts like action and perception are essentially causal. It has often been thought that these two themes conflict; or at least, that if they can co-exist, then they must be kept separate, and (...) associated with different perspectives on behaviour. But is that right? I discuss the character of interpretationism and the nature of causal theories, and examine the extent to which the two themes are compatible. ;Chapter I explains and argues for an interpretationist approach, distinguishing between different interpretationist views, and defending interpretationism against various common objections. ;Chapter II examines the links between interpretationism and the anomalousness of the mental. I discuss a number of different arguments and distinguish a range of theses about anomalousness and indeterminacy which they may support. ;Chapter III discusses the motivation for causal theories. I explain why it matters that we should give causal theories within an interpretationist perspective rather than treating the two themes as insights of different perspectives; and I examine the difficulties of doing so. ;Chapter IV considers the causal theory of vision. I argue against the view that the interpretationist's conception of experience undermines the causal theory. ;Chapter V considers the case of action. I develop a substantive causal theory of action which responds to the following argument: that if we accept the interpretationist's claim that the mental is anomalous, then we must concede that mental properties cannot be causally relevant. ;From the particular cases, and on general grounds, I conclude that it is possible to adopt an interpretationist perspective which simultaneously sees the mental in causal terms; and that such a perspective is essential for an adequate understanding of the mind. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.