Download Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Mind by Tom Sorell, G. A. J. Rogers PDF

By Tom Sorell, G. A. J. Rogers

Philosophy written in English is overwhelmingly analytic philosophy, and the options and predilections of analytic philosophy are usually not basically unhistorical yet anti-historical, and opposed to textual remark. Analytic frequently aspires to a really excessive measure of readability and precision of formula and argument, and it usually seeks to learn by way of, and in step with, present usual technological know-how. In an previous period, analytic philosophy geared toward contract with usual linguistic intuitions or logic ideals, or either. All of those facets of the topic take a seat uneasily with using ancient texts for philosophical illumination. during this ebook, ten exceptional philosophers discover the tensions among, and the probabilities of reconciling, analytic philosophy and heritage of philosophy. participants: M. R. Ayers, John Cottingham, Daniel Garber, Gary Hatfield, Anthony Kenny, Steven Nadler, G. A. J. Rogers, Tom Sorell, Catherine Wilson, Yves Charles Zarka

Show description

Read Online or Download Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Mind Association Occasional) PDF

Best philosophy books


Are looking to be crafty? you could want you have been extra shrewdpermanent, extra versatile, in a position to minimize a number of corners with out getting stuck, to dive infrequently into iniquity and floor clutching a prize. you'll want to roll your eyes at these slaves of accountability who play by means of the foundations. otherwise you could imagine there's anything sleazy approximately that stance, no matter if it does appear to repay.

Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason

Environmental tradition and the drawback of reason
Culture as opposed to techno-optimism: cause to the rescue?
Adding ecology: ecohumanities perspectives

1 The ecological quandary of reason
The penguin’s story
Modern heirs of rationalism
Dualism and financial rationalism
Blindspots of rationalism: the fisheries case
A gendered schedule: neither rational, ecological or ethical

2 Rationalism and the anomaly of science
The double face of science
Disengagement as sado-dispassionate practice
The subject/object divide and the paradox of science
Resolving the anomaly of technological know-how: integrating the ‘two cultures’
Anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism

3 The politics of ecological rationality
The rationality of the EcoRepublic
The politics of rationality
Remoteness and decision
Remoteness, autarchy and spatial scale

4 Inequality and ecological rationality
Liberal democracy and ecological rationality
Beyond liberal democracy: deliberative modifications
Beyond deliberative democracy
The ecological rationality of procedural and participatory democracy

5 The blindspots of centrism and human self-enclosure
Rationalism and human-centredness
The logical constitution of centrism
A parallel liberation version of anthropocentrism
Economic centrism: nature as classification and resource
The centric parallel as a pragmatic model
Otherising as an obstacle to justice
The prudential blindspots of anthropocentrism

6 Philosophy, prudence and anthropocentrism
Is difficult anthropocentrism beside the point and unhelpful?
Is human-centredness inevitable? The limitation of prudential argument
Is human-centredness inevitable? The argument from standpoint
Selfishness and cosmic irrelevance
Recognition, prudence and survival

7 The ethics of commodification
Commodification and person/property dualism
Minimalist methodologies of closure
Animal rights and vegetarian duties
Rationalism, manufacturing facility farming and use/respect dualism

8 in the direction of a dialogical interspecies ethics
Decentring human-centred ethics
Ranking, dualism and heterogeneity
Ranking and interspecies egalitarianism
Framework stances and the parable of mindlessness
Intentionality and ethical value
The intentional acceptance stance and non-humans
Opening up interspecies ethics
Communicative interspecies ethics

9 solidarity, team spirit and deep ecology
The foundation of cohesion: identification or difference?
Solidarity and oppressive thoughts of unity
Unity and the political idea of deep ecology
The ecological enlightenment of the guy of property
Is there an eco-socialist deep ecology?

10 in the direction of a materialist spirituality of place
Is spirituality extra fundamental?
‘Materialism’ and spirit/matter dualism
Human-centred spiritualities
Indigenous critiques
Trickster spirituality: the realm as agent
Place-based spirituality as oppositional practice

11 end

Extra info for Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Mind Association Occasional)

Sample text

Introduced in the teeth of an inchoate awareness that it can’t be right: ‘I will suppose that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning . . ’16 We can hardly fail to see that such a supposition is being introduced only on sufferance, as it were. For the very phrasing implies a residual commitment to the idea of a God who is ‘supremely good and the source of truth’; and since such a being is by definition omnipotent (as Descartes will shortly be making explicit), then it can hardly be that this lesser being is also ‘of the utmost power’ (summe potens).

At the other end of the spectrum is a modern science such as, for example, biochemistry. Here, references backward seem entirely avoidable (except in so far as academic courtesy and the rules regarding plagiarism require authors to acknowledge their debts to previous work). No previous theory or body of learning has any kind of ‘primacy’; the scientist is answerable only to the constraints of logic and the touchstone of empirical evidence. But before we ask where philosophy belongs along this spectrum, some severe qualifications need to be made to the sketches just given.

What is true of action is true of taking a philosophical view. If we find a good reason for Archaios’s view, our task is done. ’4 One of the things we hope to achieve by our study of the great philosophers of the past is the removal of these limitations. We can conclude, sometimes, Frede says, that the philosopher had no good reason. This is a hard conclusion to reach—it is claiming that it is not owing to our lack of understanding that we find it difficult to understand why the person held this view—a claim not easily made in the case of philosophers, whose power of intellect and depth of insight generally far exceed our own.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.17 of 5 – based on 24 votes