As Professor Burns has shown, even though Hume did not offer an explicit, exhaustive treatment of “The Women Question”, there are many (and, I would add, much more than three) passages in which he explains principles or facts related to the status of women. Generally speaking, and on this I fully agree with Professor Burns, the “Humean Female” qualifies as an expression of what we call today a male chauvinist position.

L'Æsthetica de Baumgarten est restée depuis plus de deux cents ans dans l'ombre de la «révolution» au moins nominale qu'elle a représentée pour l'histoire de la philosophic moderne. Et de fait, Baumgarten doit moins son importance historique à l'évaluation rigoureuse qu'on a pu faire des concepts qu'il a contribué à développer, qu'à l'ouverture d'un champ théorique et philosophique particulier. Car quelles que soient les limites et les lacunes historiques de son projet théorique, il n'en reste pas moins qu'une grande partie de la tradition philosophique de l'esthétique, en particulier dans le contexte de la philosophie allemande, y a trouvé la possibilité d'une unification et comme la marque d'une «origine». C'est Baumgarten qui, le premier en Allemagne, a réuni les conditions nécessaires pour assurer à la théorie de l'art et du beau une cohérence systématique qui lui avait été auparavant refusée et, par voie de conséquence, pour lui permettre de former un champ théorique et philosophique distinct. On a souvent fait remarquer que Baumgarten avait «inventé» très peu de thèmes nouveaux en esthétique; et il est indéniable qu'il s'est contenté la plupart du temps de réorganiser, dans ses observations, un matériau à la fois ancien et restreint, qu'il tire presque exclusivement de la rhétorique et de la poétique traditionnelles. Mais la pertinence historique de sa pensée tient plutôt au fait qu'il crée une nouvelle perspective unifiée, un nouveau centre de gravité qui permet d'organiser de façon neuve un ensemble de phénomènes qui avaient été traités avant lui de façon indépendante.

The method of Wide Reflective Equilibrium (WRE) has been defended by Kai Nielsen as an exciting new development in the search for a device for increasing our ability to choose between competing moral conceptions. Nonetheless, this confidence will be seen as misplaced unless serious issues are resolved. Lack of clarity surrounds the questions: (1) What is the claimed epistemological role for WRE? (2) What version of WRE is to be employed? In this paper I resolve these ambiguities in a way which supports Kai Nielsen's claim. First, however, I should specify in broad terms the method of WRE.

In a Recent article [9], Alexander Rosenberg attacks the “manipulative” view of causation as being unilluminating and as being beset with difficulties. As a proponent of that view [3], I have felt it necessary to take up cudgels in its defence.

Rosenberg's criticisms are directed at Gasking's version of this view [5]. Gasking's recipe for causation is, “one says ‘A causes B’ in cases where one could produce an event of the A sort as a means to producing one of the B sort” (p. 485). Here it is taken for granted that we have general manipulative techniques for producing events of the A sort and that this is implicitly assumed when one speaks of A as a cause. There is one qualification to this formula for causes which arises from the necessity for individuating processes, namely, that, for A to be the cause of B, it must not always lead to B (for then the technique for producing A would also be a B-producing one), but only in special cases.

The problem I want to raise in this paper will not be a problem for anyone who does not share both the following concerns or prejudices. The first is that we should take a materialist, extensional approach to linguistic meaning, specifically, the approach that is suggested by the work of Donald Davidson. The second is that social analysis must be emancipatory, and that this requires the conceptual possibility of postulating social structures that are in some sense hidden by discourse. The problem I want to address lies in a possible conflict between these concerns, both of which I will clarify, though not justify (except in so far as we take their compatibility to be apart of their respective justifications). The problem is this: Does the methodological core of Davidson's semantics—the principle of charity—permit interpretation informed by a concept of ideological concealment?

As with many of our philosophical problems, the existence of this one is quite precarious. We can avoid avoiding it only if we move along a rather specific route, which, I am afraid, will constitute a good chunk of my paper.

In this article I consider the Kantian preference for natural beauty from a socio-political point of view. Instead of only regarding the “intellectual” significance of beauty in nature as a symbol of morality, I show that the aesthetic appreciation of natural beauty must also be understood in its dialectical relation to society as “the place of antagonism.” By highlighting this dialectical understanding, I point out the socio-political contribution of aesthetic experience for the cultural progress of humanity. The fragility of beauty in the context of culture can be further interpreted as a symbol of the temporality of the project of perpetual peace in politics.

On rencontre encore cette idée d'une triple révolution: Copernic, Darwin, Freud. La première phase fera l'objet de nos réflexions. Elle a été conçue par Freud comme une blessure au narcissisme humain. « Le narcissisme universel des hommes, leur amour d'eux-mêmes, nous dit Ricœur expliquant Freud, a, jusqu'à présent, subi trois sévères coups de la part de la science: ce fut d'abord la position centrale de la terre qui fut contesée par Copernic, puis … « Freud lui-même nous dit que pour l'homme pré-copernicien » la position centrale de la terre indiquait qu'elle jouait un rôle dominant dans l'univers et concordait avec la tendance qu'il avait à se considérer comme maître du monde «. Et à l'époque de Freud des historiens de la science abondèrent dans le même sens: au « moyen âge », la terre et l'homme étaient au centre de l'univers et cette position était la plus honorable.

The word δξα is used frequently by Plato and with the many shades of meaning that it had in the idiomatic Greek of his time. References to all its occurrences and to those of δοξζω in the Platonic corpus Lafrance gives in an appendix to his book (415–422); and from these in his first chapter (19–33) he selects typical cases to exemplify a score or more of what he calls “literary” meanings, which he divides into two main groups, the objective sense, “appearance”, and the subjective, “opinion”. By eliminating the occurrences of doxa in these colloquial or “literary” senses he restricts his investigation to Plato's philosophical uses of the term, disregarding even the occurrences of these in what he deems to be merely repetitious or undeveloped passages and subjecting to minute analysis only the most fully developed and consequently most significant philosophical passages concerned with doxa. This is the fourth of the four methodological principles that are formulated by Lafrance to govern his investigation and read in the light of which the dialogues, he believes, reveal an intelligibly coherent theory of doxa (15–18). According to the first of these principles in the reading of any Platonic text there must be borne in mind the period of Plato's intellectual evolution in which it was written and the nature of his epistemological notions at that moment; according to the second, Platonic dialogues being genuine philosophical dramas, it is always as fulfilling a function in a definite dramatic situation that Plato discloses his thought to the precise extent that he has decided to do so, and consequently any passage on doxa, to which as such no dialogue is devoted, must be understood in the light of the context in which the question of doxa has arisen. According to the third principle the understanding of a Platonic text requires that account be taken of the scholarly literature dealing with it.

Marx called a social pattern “contradictory” if the conditions of its maintenance are also key ingredients for its demise. The science of ecology, too, studies patterns the conditions for whose maintenance are also key ingredients for their demise. The historical materialist notion of contradiction has a close counterpart in the ecological notion of succession. Succession is a process by which the structure of a biological community—both niche structure and species structure—changes as a result of each species' modification of the habitat. Just by living, each species members alters its environment, and in non-climax communities these effects, summed over all living things, constitute disequilibria. The habitat changes, and with it the niche structure. Gradually the species structure of the community changes. Each seral stage, with its distinctive species structure, requires for its maintenance the ongoing existence of living members of each species in the structure; yet this condition is the key ingredient for succession, for the demise of the seral stage. Succession results, in effect, from contradictions that are present in each seral stage. (For an illustrative example of seral stages and biological succession, see the Appendix.)

1. The problem: Here are three plausible but incompatible propositions:

(1) The answer to Locke's question (23):

Could we suppose two distinct incommunicable consciousnesses acting the same body, the one constantly by day, the other by night … I ask … whether the day and the night man would not be two as distinct persons as Socrates and Plato ?

is yes.

(2) I am a human being. More generally, human persons are human beings.

(3) Identity is not relative.

This article explores the relation between Descartes's appeal to God's veracity and his connected notions of “metaphysical” and “moral” certainty. I do this by showing their roles in his proof of the external world, his position on other minds, and his position on the “beast-machine.” Descartes uses God's veracity in the first proof, but not in the second or third. I suggest that the reason for this is that extending his appeal to God to other minds would have placed his beast-machine doctrine in jeopardy. I conclude by accounting for some Cartesian passages that might seem incompatible with my reading of moral certainty's important role in his philosophy.