Like Wittgenstein, John Searle believes that much of analytic philosophy—especially the philosophy of mind—is founded on confusion and falsehood. Unlike Wittgenstein, he does not consider this condition to be endemic to philosophy. As a result, Searle's dual goals in The Rediscovery of the Mind are to rid the philosophy of mind of the fundamental confusions that plague it, and to set the field on the path toward genuine progress. Thus, the book opens with a chapter entitled “What's Wrong with the Philosophy of Mind?” and closes with “The Proper Study.” The text is a blend of old and new: Searle introduces several new ideas, the most important of which is his thesis of the unconscious, and incorporates them into theses that have figured prominently in his previous works. Even for those who will find little to agree with in this book, The Rediscovery of the Mind serves as a testament to the sheer scope and iconoclasm of Searle's work.

Do Wittgenstein's late philosophical writings represent a religious point of view? There is a good deal of evidence—including a number of Wittgenstein's own avowals—for an affirmative answer. Against this, there is the stark fact that Wittgenstein's late philosophical writings never directly discuss questions of God and religion. So, if they do represent a religious viewpoint, a correct account of it would, it seems, need to address subtleties and hidden tendencies. While a number of philosophical authors have offered such accounts, nothing resembling a consensus has so far emerged.

John Locke is famous for, among other things, his attack on innate ideas. At one time it was felt that Locke had attacked a straw man. But John Yolton has shown that many of Locke's contemporaries held strange views about innate ideas. Appealing to innate ideas was apparently a popular method of establishing principles that might otherwise be difficult to defend. Locke's attack is in good measure directed at those who preferred not to provide arguments. However, when one tries to sort out Locke's own arguments and to reconstruct what the more articulate defenders of innate ideas were interpreted to hold, matters become complicated.

Dans la seconde partie de son Prologue au Commentaire du premier livre des Éléments d'Euclide, Proclus, un néo-platonicien du Ve siècle après J.-C., a donné sur Platon un jugement qui semble avoir été accepté d'une façon assez unanime par les anciens, lorsqu'il écrit: «Après eux [Hippocrate de Chios et Théodore de Cyrène] vécut Platon qui fit prendre aux Mathématiques en général, à la Géométrie en particulier, un essor immense, grâce au zèle qu'il déploya pour elles, et dont témoignent assez ses écrits tout remplis de discours mathématiques, et qui, à chaque instant, éveillent l'ardeur pour ces sciences chez ceux qui s'adonnent à la philosophie». Les historiens modernes de la géométrie grecque ont dû nuancer ce jugement de Proclus, allant même jusqu'à parler de légende à propos des prétendues découvertes géométriques de Platonz. De fait, il semble que l'essor des mathématiques et de la géométrie au IVe siècle av.

Human rights claims rely on both utilitarian and deontological perspectives of the moral universe. The persuasiveness of these claims depends on the extent to which they resonate harmoniously with a person's other moral opinions. If these opinions cannot be grounded in a larger structure of ra-tionally defensible moral principles, differences of opinion cannot be satis-factorily resolved. When this happens, action protective of rights —about which there may be not only different but diametrically opposed opinion — will be hard to achieve.

ABSTRACT: The analytic method by which Descartes established the first principle of his philosophy (cogito, ergo sum) is a unique cognitive process of direct insight and non-logical inference that differs markedly from the deductive model of noetic apprehension long associated with seventeenth-century rationalism. In this paper, it is shown that the same analytic process is at work in the Third Meditation proof of the innateness of the idea of God, where, however, there are serious doubts about its legitimacy.

Since Hume, some philosophers deny that conscious thinking requires the existence of a thinking subject. This claim is well illustrated by Lichtenberg’s remark according to which Descartes could not pretend to have established the certainty of “I think” but only that of “Thinking is going on” (Es denkt). Bernard Williams has argued that the claim that there can be thinking without a thinking subject is incoherent. My purpose, in this paper, is to suggest an interpretation of that claim which overcomes the problem raised by Williams.

The problem of the person may be described as the crux of Descartes' philosophy in the fairly obvious literal sense that it is the point of intersection of the two chief axes of the system, the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Mind. The actual, if not professed aim of the former is the ousting of the occult powers and faculties of Scholastic-Aristotelian physics by the mechanical concept of force or action-by-contact. The chief tenet of the latter is that mind, whose essence is thinking, is clearly and distinctly conceivable apart from matter, the essence of which is extension. From this, by an illicit inference which need not concern us further, Descartes concludes that the mind is “really distinct” from matter, that is, a substance capable of existing apart from body in its own right. Where these two lines of thought meet, the problem of the person constitutes itself in the following manner.

David Gauthier's impressive new book, Morals by Agreement, attempts to resuscitate something like Lockean natural rights on an essentially Hobbesian basis—a project eminently worth doing, if it can be done. Hubin and Lambeth offer some interesting criticisms of his project, and as they also raise some fundamental questions about the character and derivation of rights, it is important to see whether those criticisms hold up. I wish to comment on the one I think to be most crucial.

Canadian philosopher Rupert C. Lodge (1886–1961) developed a pluralistic or “comparative philosophy” in which he adopted what I shall call the polycentric perspective. The polycentric perspective recognizes that since philosophical discourse, indeed all discourse, is necessarily linear, “of only one dimension”, it follows that no one metaphysical system, no one philosophical perspective, can ever be considered adequate on its own. In this paper I argue that the philosophy of pluralism, the adoption of the polycentric perspective by Lodge and other early Canadian philosophers, can and does serve as an adequate answer and intriguing alternative to Richard Rorty's challenge to Speculative Philosophy in The Consequences of Pragmatism and Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.

The question of what is meant by assertions like “He could have done otherwise”, where the truth of what is said is regarded as a necessary condition of holding an agent to be morally responsible for what he has done, has recently been discussed by a number of philosophers. In this paper, I wish to contribute to that discussion, taking note particularly of a commentary by Austin on Moore's and Nowell-Smith's treatment of it, the commentary being found in Austin's British Academy Lecture entitled Ifs and Cans. I shall also consider certain responses to Austin's contentions by Nowell-Smith, D. J. O'Connor and Richard Taylor.

Nul penseur, fût-il le plus étranger à la problématique propre de l'histoire, ne peut, bien entendu, s'empêcher de laisser entrevoir, çà et là au long de son œuvre, sa façon de comprendre celle-ci. Aussi est-ce avec beaucoup de prudence qu'il faut parler de «la philosophie de l'histoire» d'un auteur. Réservons pour la fin de cet article la question de savoir si la philosophie de Merleau-Ponty mérite ce titre et contentons-nous pour l'instant de dégager l'ensemble de réflexions que notre auteur présente comme une philosophie de l'histoire. Puisque Merleau-Ponty n'a jamais consacré une œuvre aux problémes de l'Histoire, on pourrait d'ailleurs être tenté de considérer ses réflexions sur la question comme des passages épisodiques qui trahissent seulement son profond intérét pour la situation politique où il s'est trouvé engagé. Il nous faudra donc montrer qu'on peut effectivement parler d'un «ensemble de réflexions» qui, pour ne pas avoir été jeté dans une œuvre particulière, doit se lire en filigrane tout au long des travaux du philosophe. C'est cette lecture en somme que le présent article veut suggérer.

ABSTRACT: Among recent criticisms of impartial moral theories, especially in consequentialist and deontological forms, Bernard Williams’ integrity objection is perhaps the most tantalizing. This objection is a complaint—at once both general and deep—that impartial moral theories are systematically incapable of finding room for integrity in human life and character. Kantians have made forceful responses to this integrity objection and have moved on. Consequentialists have found the objection more trying. I offer reasons to think that consequentialists too can safely move on. These reasons suggest the relationship between integrity and impartiality is less antagonistic than often supposed.

RÉSUMÉ : Parmi les récentes critiques des théories morales impartiales, notamment les critiques conséquentialiste et déontologique, l’objection d’intégrité de Bernard Williams est possiblement la plus attrayante. Cette objection—à la fois générale et profonde—reproche aux théories morales impartiales d’être incapables de retrouver l’intégrité dans la vie et le caractère humains. Les kantiens ont répondu vigoureusement à cette objection, puis sont passés à autre chose. Les conséquentialistes ont trouvé l’objection plus éprouvante. Je soutiens que les conséquentialistes peuvent, eux aussi, passer à autre chose, en suggérant que le rapport entre l’intégrité et l’impartialité est moins antagonique que supposé.

Despite its importance in various fields, analogical reasoning has not yet received a unified formal representation. Our contribution proposes a general scheme of inference that is compatible with different types of logic (deductive, probabilistic, non-monotonic). Firstly, analogical assessment precisely defines the similarity of two objects according to their properties, in a relative rather than absolute way. Secondly, analogical inference transfers a new property from one object to a similar one, thanks to an over-hypothesis linking two sets of properties. The belief strength in the conclusion is then directly related to the belief strength in this meta-hypothesis.