This dialogue on the mind/body relation is a sequel to my dialogue ‘On the Nature of the Mind’, but can be read independently of it. The five disputants include an imaginary neuroscientist from California, an Oxford don from the 1950s, a lady, Peter Strawson and Alan White. They examine the peculiar idioms of having: having a body, having a mind, having a soul and having a self. To have a mind, it is concluded, is not to own anything, but to be able to do a variety of things: to reason from premises to conclusions; to act, think, and feel things for reasons. To have a body is to possess a variety of somatic characteristics. Hence a distinction is drawn between the body one is, and the body one has. Accordingly, the problem of the relation between my mind and my body simply disintegrates, since there can be no relation between my intellectual abilities and my somatic features.

It has often been claimed that Locke's agnostic remarks in the Essay represent his suspension of philosophical judgment on crucial ontological issues or his hesitation over which metaphysical stance to adopt. Against this often-raised criticism, I argue that Locke actually held a clear position – a type of functionalism about thingness in general, whether macro or micro, or whether mental or physical. What Locke refers to as a ‘nominal essence’, I further argue, represents a set of functional roles that a thing plays in order to be classified as of a kind to which it belongs. Our empirical knowledge about things – confined to their nominal essences – can only tell us about their functional roles but not their intrinsic properties that realize those roles. One remains therefore incurably ignorant about the intrinsic property of things in themselves. I explore the historical and philosophical significance of Locke's functional approach.

Indifference is often described as a vice. Yet who is indifferent; to what; and in what way is poorly understood, and frequently subject to controversy and confusion. This paper proposes a framework for the interpretation and analysis of ethically problematic forms of indifference in terms of how different states of indifference can be either more or less dynamic, or more or less sensitive to the nature and state of their object.

I shall situate Hume's scepticism within a broader philosophical and historical context. Firstly, I shall consider the place of Hume's thought within the early modern break with the almost millennium long metaphysical tradition, a break initiated by Descartes. The framework of being structured by a universal order was replaced by the individual human mind that broke free from any higher authority and became an autonomous cognitive agent. Subsequently, the ontological self-evidence of the world or the possibility of adequate knowledge came under sceptical attack. Hume firmly belongs to this discourse and can be seen as the most consistent exponent of this early modern sceptical line. In this light, the ‘New Hume’ claim that Hume was an ontological realist will be shown to be misplaced in principle. Secondly, the strong influence of Pyrrhonism on Hume's philosophy will be considered, together with his concept of mitigated scepticism. The Pyrrhonian legacy is especially noticeable in Hume's acceptance of the weakness of reason and in his emphasis on the instructive role of philosophy – instead of attempting to make it the foundation of science it becomes a guide to a balanced, happy life. In this respect, Hume stands outside the early modern mainstream in philosophy.

The problem of evil for theists was how to reconcile suffering with a benevolent God. Hume solved the problem of evil by claiming that the divine was amoral but not by denying God's existence which he needed in order to advocate his favoured notion of a general providence. Indeed, Hume's treatment of the problem of evil showed that his quarrel in the Natural History of Religion1and the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,2Section XI, was with a particular providence rather than the possibility of a divine orderer. The fundamental problem of evil for Hume, was evil's potential to drive people to the notion of a particular providence with its attendant damaging passions. In considering his alternative of the general providence Hume is shown to be closer to theism than has often been thought.

I summarize and criticize Derek Parfit's impressive attempt to reconcile the Kantian and the Consequentialist approaches to moral thinking, and argue that his ‘cognitive non-naturalism’ fails to do justice to the roots of moral sentiment in personal relations. I outline the destructive effect of ‘trolley problems’ on ethical reasoning, and mount a case for seeing moral reasoning as a consequence of ‘reactive’ attitudes, arising from the attempt to reach a rational consensus in the things that we praise and blame.