Pub Date : 2021-11-23DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0424
The Orthodox Christian Church is one of the largest religious groups within Christendom, second only to Roman Catholicism. Historically, it traces its origins to Christ and claims an unbroken line of fidelity to the teaching of the apostles and their successors. It consists of over a dozen autocephalous Churches, each of which is led by a Patriarch or Metropolitan Archbishop who together lead the Orthodox Church around the world in a conciliar ecclesial government, with the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized as the “first among equals.” The oldest among these Churches are in the Middle East (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) and the Mediterranean (e.g., Greece, Cyprus, Constantinople), as well as many in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Romania, Poland, as well as the Czech Lands and Slovakia). It also contains a number of autonomous, or self-governing, churches in Asia (e.g., China and Japan). Thus, the Eastern Orthodox Church is rich in ethnic and cultural diversity, while being united in doctrine and worship. To many in the West, however, and especially to those in the English-speaking world, it remains an enigma that is often confused either with Roman Catholicism or with a syncretic mixture of Christianity and Eastern religion. This article provides a brief sample of works from the Orthodox intellectual tradition that are likely to foster greater collaborative engagement with contemporary academic philosophy. As a whole, the collection attempts to help readers answer three questions. First, what are the views of the Orthodox Christian Church, especially those that are more distinctive of Orthodox Christianity? Second, how have these views been explained and defended in historical philosophical and theological discourse? Third, how have these views been explained and defended in contemporary philosophical and theological discourse? The presentation is divided into seven sections: General Overviews and Historical Context; Metaphysics and Philosophy of Language; Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion; Moral Psychology and Character Formation; Normative and Applied Ethics; Social, Cultural, and Political Philosophy; and Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Russian Religious Philosophy. The selections within each section are principally designed to be of use for contemporary English-speaking academic philosophers by providing a representative presentation not only of topics but also of eras (e.g., ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary), areas of jurisdiction (e.g., Middle Eastern, Byzantine, Slavic, etc.), and schools of thought (e.g., analytic philosophy, Continental philosophy, etc.).
{"title":"Eastern Orthodox Philosophical Thought","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0424","url":null,"abstract":"The Orthodox Christian Church is one of the largest religious groups within Christendom, second only to Roman Catholicism. Historically, it traces its origins to Christ and claims an unbroken line of fidelity to the teaching of the apostles and their successors. It consists of over a dozen autocephalous Churches, each of which is led by a Patriarch or Metropolitan Archbishop who together lead the Orthodox Church around the world in a conciliar ecclesial government, with the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized as the “first among equals.” The oldest among these Churches are in the Middle East (e.g., Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) and the Mediterranean (e.g., Greece, Cyprus, Constantinople), as well as many in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Albania, Romania, Poland, as well as the Czech Lands and Slovakia). It also contains a number of autonomous, or self-governing, churches in Asia (e.g., China and Japan). Thus, the Eastern Orthodox Church is rich in ethnic and cultural diversity, while being united in doctrine and worship. To many in the West, however, and especially to those in the English-speaking world, it remains an enigma that is often confused either with Roman Catholicism or with a syncretic mixture of Christianity and Eastern religion. This article provides a brief sample of works from the Orthodox intellectual tradition that are likely to foster greater collaborative engagement with contemporary academic philosophy. As a whole, the collection attempts to help readers answer three questions. First, what are the views of the Orthodox Christian Church, especially those that are more distinctive of Orthodox Christianity? Second, how have these views been explained and defended in historical philosophical and theological discourse? Third, how have these views been explained and defended in contemporary philosophical and theological discourse? The presentation is divided into seven sections: General Overviews and Historical Context; Metaphysics and Philosophy of Language; Epistemology and Philosophy of Religion; Moral Psychology and Character Formation; Normative and Applied Ethics; Social, Cultural, and Political Philosophy; and Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Russian Religious Philosophy. The selections within each section are principally designed to be of use for contemporary English-speaking academic philosophers by providing a representative presentation not only of topics but also of eras (e.g., ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary), areas of jurisdiction (e.g., Middle Eastern, Byzantine, Slavic, etc.), and schools of thought (e.g., analytic philosophy, Continental philosophy, etc.).","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42513012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-23DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0425
Martin Heidegger (b. 1889–d. 1976) is a central figure in 20th-century philosophy. Especially in his early works, most notably Being and Time (1927), Heidegger critically continues the tradition of phenomenology inaugurated by Edmund Husserl (b. 1859–d. 1938). Heidegger’s philosophy has been a major influence on a number of important philosophers in their own right, including Hans-Georg Gadamer (b. 1900–d. 2002), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (b. 1908–d. 1961), Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975), Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913–d. 2005), Michel Foucault (b. 1926–d. 1984), Jacques Derrida (b. 1930–d. 2004), and Richard Rorty (b. 1931–d. 2007). His work has also impacted other disciplines, such as theology, literary and cultural studies, art theory, and the theory of architecture. Heidegger is primarily known for his work in metaphysics and existential philosophy, but he has also made much-discussed contributions to a wide range of philosophical topics, including the study of numerous authors from the history of philosophy. The German edition of his collected works (Gesamtausgabe, or GA) includes published writings, lecture courses, seminars, and manuscripts. Once completed, it will include 102 volumes. To manage this rich material, Heidegger’s philosophy is often divided into different periods. Although how to demarcate these periods is itself a matter of scholarly debate, Oxford Bibliographies divides his work into an early, middle, and later period. This entry treats the middle period of his thought (roughly 1933–1945). It coincides with the rise to power of the German National Socialist Party, in which Heidegger was involved as rector of the University of Freiburg, the Second World War, and the Holocaust. Although Heidegger rarely addresses these events directly, this period in particular should not be considered without taking into account these events and the dominant ideologies of the time. Heidegger’s major concerns during this period are with the experience of art, the philosophy of history, and the history of Western philosophy in particular. Heidegger gives a few important lectures and lecture series during this time that were later edited. These should be the starting point for any reading. The major body of his writing during this period, however, consists of manuscripts, notes, and course materials, which are more difficult to assess. In using this bibliography, be sure to also check the entries on the early and later period of Heidegger’s works. Although the focus of Heidegger’s philosophical concern shifts, many themes continue to be relevant throughout his works. Often, scholars writing on Heidegger take into account his development as whole, and relevant literature may be treated in another entry. This bibliography aims to be inclusive with regard to schools of thought and interpretations of Heidegger. It is not exhaustive but rather an attempt to identify useful starting points for individual study within the more recent literature on Heidegger.
{"title":"Martin Heidegger: Middle Works","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0425","url":null,"abstract":"Martin Heidegger (b. 1889–d. 1976) is a central figure in 20th-century philosophy. Especially in his early works, most notably Being and Time (1927), Heidegger critically continues the tradition of phenomenology inaugurated by Edmund Husserl (b. 1859–d. 1938). Heidegger’s philosophy has been a major influence on a number of important philosophers in their own right, including Hans-Georg Gadamer (b. 1900–d. 2002), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (b. 1908–d. 1961), Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975), Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913–d. 2005), Michel Foucault (b. 1926–d. 1984), Jacques Derrida (b. 1930–d. 2004), and Richard Rorty (b. 1931–d. 2007). His work has also impacted other disciplines, such as theology, literary and cultural studies, art theory, and the theory of architecture. Heidegger is primarily known for his work in metaphysics and existential philosophy, but he has also made much-discussed contributions to a wide range of philosophical topics, including the study of numerous authors from the history of philosophy. The German edition of his collected works (Gesamtausgabe, or GA) includes published writings, lecture courses, seminars, and manuscripts. Once completed, it will include 102 volumes. To manage this rich material, Heidegger’s philosophy is often divided into different periods. Although how to demarcate these periods is itself a matter of scholarly debate, Oxford Bibliographies divides his work into an early, middle, and later period. This entry treats the middle period of his thought (roughly 1933–1945). It coincides with the rise to power of the German National Socialist Party, in which Heidegger was involved as rector of the University of Freiburg, the Second World War, and the Holocaust. Although Heidegger rarely addresses these events directly, this period in particular should not be considered without taking into account these events and the dominant ideologies of the time. Heidegger’s major concerns during this period are with the experience of art, the philosophy of history, and the history of Western philosophy in particular. Heidegger gives a few important lectures and lecture series during this time that were later edited. These should be the starting point for any reading. The major body of his writing during this period, however, consists of manuscripts, notes, and course materials, which are more difficult to assess. In using this bibliography, be sure to also check the entries on the early and later period of Heidegger’s works. Although the focus of Heidegger’s philosophical concern shifts, many themes continue to be relevant throughout his works. Often, scholars writing on Heidegger take into account his development as whole, and relevant literature may be treated in another entry. This bibliography aims to be inclusive with regard to schools of thought and interpretations of Heidegger. It is not exhaustive but rather an attempt to identify useful starting points for individual study within the more recent literature on Heidegger.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49306606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-22DOI: 10.1017/S0031819121000371
Guido Imaguire
Abstract Peter van Inwagen (2001) has given a probabilistic answer to the fundamental question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’: There is something, because the probability of there being nothing is 0. Some philosophers have recently examined van Inwagen's argument and concluded that it does not really work. Three points are central in their criticism: (i) the premise which states that there is only one empty possible world is false, (ii) the premise which states that all possible worlds have the same probability is not plausible and (iii) the argument is not significant for the question it sets out to answer. In this paper, I shall show that (i) even if there are many empty worlds, this does not necessarily invalidate the argument in its general lines, (ii) the examples they offer to support the intuition that possible worlds may have different probabilities fail, and (iii) even if the conclusion of the argument does not really answer the question van Inwagen sets out to answer, it is still not an insignificant response to the question.
{"title":"Something Rather Than Nothing","authors":"Guido Imaguire","doi":"10.1017/S0031819121000371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000371","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Peter van Inwagen (2001) has given a probabilistic answer to the fundamental question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’: There is something, because the probability of there being nothing is 0. Some philosophers have recently examined van Inwagen's argument and concluded that it does not really work. Three points are central in their criticism: (i) the premise which states that there is only one empty possible world is false, (ii) the premise which states that all possible worlds have the same probability is not plausible and (iii) the argument is not significant for the question it sets out to answer. In this paper, I shall show that (i) even if there are many empty worlds, this does not necessarily invalidate the argument in its general lines, (ii) the examples they offer to support the intuition that possible worlds may have different probabilities fail, and (iii) even if the conclusion of the argument does not really answer the question van Inwagen sets out to answer, it is still not an insignificant response to the question.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"1 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48978902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-27DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0426
Martin Heidegger (b. 1889–d. 1976) is a central figure in 20th century philosophy. Especially in his early works, most notably Being and Time (1927), Heidegger critically continues the tradition of phenomenology inaugurated by Edmund Husserl (b. 1859–d. 1938). Heidegger’s philosophy has also been a major influence on a number of important philosophers in their own right, including Hans-Georg Gadamer (b. 1900–d. 2002), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (b. 1908–d. 1961), Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975), Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913–d. 2005), Michel Foucault (b. 1926–d. 1984), Jacques Derrida (b. 1930–d. 2004), and Richard Rorty (b. 1931–d. 2007). His work has also impacted other disciplines, such as theology, literary and cultural studies, art theory, and the theory of architecture. Heidegger is primarily known for his work in metaphysics and existential philosophy. However, Heidegger has made much-discussed contributions to a wide range of philosophical topics, including the study of numerous authors from the history of philosophy. The German edition of his collected works (Gesamtausgabe, or GA) includes published writings, lecture courses, and seminar as well as manuscripts, and is planned to hold over a hundred volumes. To manage this rich material, Heidegger’s philosophy is often divided into different periods. Although how to demarcate these periods is itself a matter of scholarly debate, Oxford Bibliographies divides his work in an early, middle, and later period. This entry treats the later period of his thought, beginning around 1945. Heidegger rarely comments directly on the Second World War, the Holocaust, and other events of 20th-century history. However, themes taken up in the later period, such as the discussion of cultural crisis and the philosophy of technology, can be seen as responding to these events. Heidegger’s later work is marked by a few important lectures and lecture series that were published and translated during Heidegger’s lifetime, and these should be the starting point for any reading. The major body of his writing, however, consists of manuscripts, notes, and course materials, which are more difficult to assess. Although the main focus of Heidegger’s philosophical concerns shifts, many themes continue to be relevant throughout his works. Also, scholars writing on Heidegger often take into account his development as a whole, and relevant literature may be treated in another entry. Thus, be sure to also check the entries on the early and middle period of Heidegger’s works when using Oxford Bibliographies. This bibliography aims to be inclusive with regard to schools of thought and interpretations of Heidegger. It is not exhaustive but rather an attempt to identify useful starting points for individual study within the more recent literature on Heidegger.
{"title":"Martin Heidegger: Later Works","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0426","url":null,"abstract":"Martin Heidegger (b. 1889–d. 1976) is a central figure in 20th century philosophy. Especially in his early works, most notably Being and Time (1927), Heidegger critically continues the tradition of phenomenology inaugurated by Edmund Husserl (b. 1859–d. 1938). Heidegger’s philosophy has also been a major influence on a number of important philosophers in their own right, including Hans-Georg Gadamer (b. 1900–d. 2002), Maurice Merleau-Ponty (b. 1908–d. 1961), Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975), Paul Ricoeur (b. 1913–d. 2005), Michel Foucault (b. 1926–d. 1984), Jacques Derrida (b. 1930–d. 2004), and Richard Rorty (b. 1931–d. 2007). His work has also impacted other disciplines, such as theology, literary and cultural studies, art theory, and the theory of architecture. Heidegger is primarily known for his work in metaphysics and existential philosophy. However, Heidegger has made much-discussed contributions to a wide range of philosophical topics, including the study of numerous authors from the history of philosophy. The German edition of his collected works (Gesamtausgabe, or GA) includes published writings, lecture courses, and seminar as well as manuscripts, and is planned to hold over a hundred volumes. To manage this rich material, Heidegger’s philosophy is often divided into different periods. Although how to demarcate these periods is itself a matter of scholarly debate, Oxford Bibliographies divides his work in an early, middle, and later period. This entry treats the later period of his thought, beginning around 1945. Heidegger rarely comments directly on the Second World War, the Holocaust, and other events of 20th-century history. However, themes taken up in the later period, such as the discussion of cultural crisis and the philosophy of technology, can be seen as responding to these events. Heidegger’s later work is marked by a few important lectures and lecture series that were published and translated during Heidegger’s lifetime, and these should be the starting point for any reading. The major body of his writing, however, consists of manuscripts, notes, and course materials, which are more difficult to assess. Although the main focus of Heidegger’s philosophical concerns shifts, many themes continue to be relevant throughout his works. Also, scholars writing on Heidegger often take into account his development as a whole, and relevant literature may be treated in another entry. Thus, be sure to also check the entries on the early and middle period of Heidegger’s works when using Oxford Bibliographies. This bibliography aims to be inclusive with regard to schools of thought and interpretations of Heidegger. It is not exhaustive but rather an attempt to identify useful starting points for individual study within the more recent literature on Heidegger.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46052395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.1017/S0031819121000358
H. Ohtani
Abstract Dominant interpretations of Plato's Crito attempt to reconstruct the text deductively, taking the arguments in the famous Laws’ speech as consisting solely in the application of general principles to facts. It is thus conceived that the principles and facts are grasped independently of each other, and then the former are applied to the latter, subsequently reaching the conclusion that Socrates must not escape. Following the lead of Cora Diamond, who argues against this ‘generalist interpretation’, I argue that the Laws’ speech essentially involves an exercise of our moral imagination through which both principles and the facts to which they apply are grasped. This is not to say that a deductive argument is absent from the Laws’ speech. Rather, for the first time, we understand how the deductive arguments in the Laws’ speech can function through imagining a life in which these arguments make sense. The Crito is an attempt to exercise the readers’ imagination, thereby presenting ethics that is both personal and objective. Understanding the Laws’ arguments essentially requires the readers’ imaginative involvement with Socrates’ personal story, but they still have objective import.
{"title":"Personal and Objective Ethics: How to Read the Crito","authors":"H. Ohtani","doi":"10.1017/S0031819121000358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000358","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Dominant interpretations of Plato's Crito attempt to reconstruct the text deductively, taking the arguments in the famous Laws’ speech as consisting solely in the application of general principles to facts. It is thus conceived that the principles and facts are grasped independently of each other, and then the former are applied to the latter, subsequently reaching the conclusion that Socrates must not escape. Following the lead of Cora Diamond, who argues against this ‘generalist interpretation’, I argue that the Laws’ speech essentially involves an exercise of our moral imagination through which both principles and the facts to which they apply are grasped. This is not to say that a deductive argument is absent from the Laws’ speech. Rather, for the first time, we understand how the deductive arguments in the Laws’ speech can function through imagining a life in which these arguments make sense. The Crito is an attempt to exercise the readers’ imagination, thereby presenting ethics that is both personal and objective. Understanding the Laws’ arguments essentially requires the readers’ imaginative involvement with Socrates’ personal story, but they still have objective import.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"91 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46355808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-01DOI: 10.1017/S0031819121000346
Christopher Arroyo
Abstract There is a longstanding and widely held view, often associated with Catholicism, that intrinsically nonprocreative human sex acts are intrinsically immoral. Some philosophers who hold this view, such as Edward Feser, claim that they can defend the view on purely philosophical grounds by relying on the perverted faculty argument. This paper argues that Feser's defense of the perverted faculty argument does not work because Feser fails to recognize the full implications of the species-dependence of natural goodness. By drawing on the work of Peter Geach and Philippa Foot, this paper presents a view of natural goodness that adequately accounts for the species-dependence of such goodness. Using this adequate account, the paper argues that at least some intrinsically nonprocreative human sex acts contribute to human flourishing.
{"title":"Natural Goodness, Sex, and the Perverted Faculty Argument","authors":"Christopher Arroyo","doi":"10.1017/S0031819121000346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000346","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is a longstanding and widely held view, often associated with Catholicism, that intrinsically nonprocreative human sex acts are intrinsically immoral. Some philosophers who hold this view, such as Edward Feser, claim that they can defend the view on purely philosophical grounds by relying on the perverted faculty argument. This paper argues that Feser's defense of the perverted faculty argument does not work because Feser fails to recognize the full implications of the species-dependence of natural goodness. By drawing on the work of Peter Geach and Philippa Foot, this paper presents a view of natural goodness that adequately accounts for the species-dependence of such goodness. Using this adequate account, the paper argues that at least some intrinsically nonprocreative human sex acts contribute to human flourishing.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"115 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47712470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-14DOI: 10.1017/S0031819121000280
J. Hyman
Abstract This article explores the place of truth and truthfulness in painting and drawing, and criticises logocentrism in the theory of truth.
摘要本文探讨了真实与真实在绘画中的地位，批判了真理论中的逻各斯中心主义。
{"title":"Truth and Truthfulness in Painting","authors":"J. Hyman","doi":"10.1017/S0031819121000280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819121000280","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the place of truth and truthfulness in painting and drawing, and criticises logocentrism in the theory of truth.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"96 1","pages":"497 - 525"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46937036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-25DOI: 10.1002/9780470997079.ch9
M. G. Murphey
Clarence Irving Lewis (b. 1883–d. 1964) is arguably the most important philosopher bridging the pragmatism of the golden age of William James and Charles Sanders Peirce and the analytic quasi-pragmatism of philosophers like W. V. Quine, Nelson Goodman, Wilfrid Sellars, and Hilary Putnam (the first three of whom were taught by him). Lewis’s philosophy as a whole reveals a unified systematic development from his dissertation in 1910, his early work in logic, the development of his epistemology in the 1920s and 1930s, his account of value theory in the 1940s and 1950s, culminating in his work in ethics, which occupied him until his death. Along the way he offered a devastating critique of American absolute idealism and offered a rich epistemology grounded in a Peircean kind of pragmatism. Early in his career Lewis wrote the first the history of logic in English, and, critical of the paradoxes of material implication, he developed an account of strict implication and a set of successively stronger modal logics, the S systems becoming the father of modern modal logic. Lewis was the most influential American philosopher from the mid-1930s until after his retirement in the 1950s. His work helped shape American philosophy as an academic endeavor and contributor to the growing acceptance of rigorous philosophical analysis and European logical empiricism. Lewis spent practically his entire career at Harvard University, bridging the Harvard of James and Royce and the modern department of Quine and Goodman. During his career he wrote six books and a hundred or so papers and reviews. A student of Josiah Royce, William James, and Ralph Barton Perry, a contemporary of Hans Reichenbach, Rudolf Carnap, and the logical empiricists of the 1930s and 1940s, and the teacher of Quine, William Frankena, Goodman, Roderick Chisholm, Roderick Firth, Sellars, and others, he played a pivotal role in shaping the marriage between pragmatism and empiricism that has come to dominate much of current analytic philosophy. Despite his significant contributions, his work soon became neglected and misinterpreted, lost in the influx of interest in Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language. Fortunately, this neglect has begun to wane.
{"title":"C. I. Lewis","authors":"M. G. Murphey","doi":"10.1002/9780470997079.ch9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470997079.ch9","url":null,"abstract":"Clarence Irving Lewis (b. 1883–d. 1964) is arguably the most important philosopher bridging the pragmatism of the golden age of William James and Charles Sanders Peirce and the analytic quasi-pragmatism of philosophers like W. V. Quine, Nelson Goodman, Wilfrid Sellars, and Hilary Putnam (the first three of whom were taught by him). Lewis’s philosophy as a whole reveals a unified systematic development from his dissertation in 1910, his early work in logic, the development of his epistemology in the 1920s and 1930s, his account of value theory in the 1940s and 1950s, culminating in his work in ethics, which occupied him until his death. Along the way he offered a devastating critique of American absolute idealism and offered a rich epistemology grounded in a Peircean kind of pragmatism. Early in his career Lewis wrote the first the history of logic in English, and, critical of the paradoxes of material implication, he developed an account of strict implication and a set of successively stronger modal logics, the S systems becoming the father of modern modal logic. Lewis was the most influential American philosopher from the mid-1930s until after his retirement in the 1950s. His work helped shape American philosophy as an academic endeavor and contributor to the growing acceptance of rigorous philosophical analysis and European logical empiricism. Lewis spent practically his entire career at Harvard University, bridging the Harvard of James and Royce and the modern department of Quine and Goodman. During his career he wrote six books and a hundred or so papers and reviews. A student of Josiah Royce, William James, and Ralph Barton Perry, a contemporary of Hans Reichenbach, Rudolf Carnap, and the logical empiricists of the 1930s and 1940s, and the teacher of Quine, William Frankena, Goodman, Roderick Chisholm, Roderick Firth, Sellars, and others, he played a pivotal role in shaping the marriage between pragmatism and empiricism that has come to dominate much of current analytic philosophy. Despite his significant contributions, his work soon became neglected and misinterpreted, lost in the influx of interest in Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language. Fortunately, this neglect has begun to wane.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/9780470997079.ch9","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43875395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：