DOCSLIB.ORG

A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 7-18-2018 3:00 PM A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science Jamie Shaw The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Kathleen Okruhlik The University of Western Ontario Gillian Barker The University of Western Ontario Chris Smeenk The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Jamie Shaw 2018 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons, Science and Technology Policy Commons, and the Science and Technology Studies Commons Recommended Citation Shaw, Jamie, "A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science" (2018). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 5599. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/5599 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i Abstract The goal of this dissertation is to reconstruct, critically evaluate, and apply the pluralism of Paul Feyerabend. I conclude by suggesting future points of contact between Feyerabend’s pluralism and topics of interest in contemporary philosophy of science. I begin, in Chapter 1, by reconstructing Feyerabend’s critical philosophy. I show how his published works from 1948 until 1970 show a remarkably consistent argumentative strategy which becomes more refined and general as Feyerabend’s thought matures. Specifically, I argue that Feyerabend develops a persuasive case against rationalism, or the thesis that there exist normative and exclusive rules of scientific rationality. In Chapter 2, I reconstruct Feyerabend’s pluralism and detail its relationship to his humanitarianism and epistemological anarchism. I understand Feyerabend’s pluralism as the combination of the principles of proliferation and tenacity. I show the evolution and justification of these principles from Feyerabend’s early papers until the late 1970s. In Chapter 3, I defend Feyerabend’s pluralism from its most prominent criticisms. I then clarify that Feyerabend’s pluralism amounts to a conception of the logic of theory pursuit and modify his view using insights from C.S. Peirce, Pierre Duhem, and Michael Polanyi. From Peirce, I show how economic, sociological, and value-laden features of theory pursuit may be used to constrain proliferation and tenacity. From Duhem and Polanyi, I try to show the proper role of tacit knowledge within a Feyerabendian framework. Finally, I show what implications Feyerabend’s pluralism has for models of distributing funds within scientific communities. I contend that it provides a more promising model that the ‘well-ordered science’ proposal advanced by numerous philosophers and social scientists. Specifically, I aim to understand what taking Feyerabend’s pluralism seriously entails for principles of balancing funding allocation decisions and the role of peer-review in evaluating the potential success of research proposals. I conclude by suggesting future lines of research for further analyzing and applying Feyerabend’s pluralism. Keywords: Feyerabend; theoretical pluralism; methodological pluralism; theory pursuit; economics of discovery; tacit knowledge; well-ordered science; funding distribution models; peer review. ii Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have been possible if it weren’t for the help of innumerable people’s support from various different parts of my life. First and foremost, I owe everything to my parents, John Shaw and Diane Purdie, who supported me in every conceivable way. I would not have completed this thesis if it weren’t for them. Every page has been inspired by what I have learned from them throughout my life. Every positive trait in these pages is a direct result of their influence and every negative trait was the result of me not paying close enough attention to their wisdom. I also appreciate the phenomenal faculty at Western for their seemingly endless supply of constructive feedback, encouragement, and compassion. Most of all, my eternal gratitude to Kathleen Okruhlik for not only supervising such a ridiculous project, but for her constant guidance and emotional support. Throughout the roller coaster of dissertation writing, she kept me sane with her delightful sense of humor and sincere positivity. Gillian Barker made sure that my philosophy not only maintained expected levels of rigor, but consistently empowered me in more ways than I can express. She was my epitome of intellectual honesty and passion. Chris Smeenk’s apparently limitless knowledge and cerebral tenacity always kept me on my toes and taught me how to balance intellectual fortitude with openness and humility. Robert DiSalle spent countless hours challenging me on every corner of my thought while, somehow, always left me feeling motivated and somewhat tipsy. I also learned many other things, about philosophy and life, from conversations with Eric Desjardins, Stathis Psillos, and John Thorp that I hope I never forget. Rob Stainton deserves credit for doing the impossible: making Wittgenstein make sense, and Anthony Skelton made sure the sections of my thesis on ethics maintained plausibility in a field I know too little about. Many faculty abroad also helped me out with various parts of the thesis, including Hakob Barseghyan, Karim Bschir, and Josh Mozersky. Sergio Sismondo deserves special mention not just for getting me into philosophy in the first place, but introducing me to Feyerabend. Any suffering I unleash on the world as a result of his influence is entirely his fault. I also could not have become a sensible person, capable of writing a dissertation at all, if it weren’t for my friends and colleagues. I wish I could detail all the ways they’ve influenced me and helped me, but such would require another hundred pages. I will just list a few of my iii amazing and brilliant friends at Western who got me to where I am: Marie Gueguen, Adam Koberinski, Melissa Jacquart, Adam Woodcox, Matt Small, Michael Cuffaro, Justin Donhauser, Justin Bzovy, Philipos Papagreek, Molly Kao, Tom DeSaegher, Erlantz Etxeberria, Yousuf Hasan, John Lehman, Brandon Murray, Emerson Doyle, Sona Ghosh, Jarred Richards, and Craig Fox. My old friends from Queens, especially Torin Doppelt, Tim Juvshik, and Ryan McSheffrey, gave me all I needed in my early days to succeed in this business. Finally, though too countless to mention, even though I love making long lists, I must thank my friends and family outside of academia. I hope they know who they are so that they may understand my profound gratitude for their love and companionship. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: The Revolt Against Rationalism: Feyerabend’s Critical Philosophy ....................7 1.1 The Acceptance and Rejection of Empiricism .....................................................................10 1.1.1: Feyerabend’s Defense of Positivism ............................................................................10 1.1.2: Feyerabend and Quantum Mechanics ..........................................................................13 1.1.3: Feyerabend on Observation Statements .......................................................................15 1.1.4: Feyerabend on Instrumentalism ...................................................................................20 1.1.5: Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................23 1.2: Feyerabend on Falsificationism ..........................................................................................24 1.2.1: Feyerabend’s ‘Fall’ for Falsificationism ......................................................................24 1.2.2: Comparing Feyerabend to Popper on Methodology ....................................................26 1.2.3: Feyerabend’s Realism and Fallibilism .........................................................................35 1.2.4: Feyerabend versus Popper on Quantum Theory ..........................................................37 1.2.5: Abandoning Falsificationism .......................................................................................40 1.2.6: Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................................45 1.3: Against Rationalism ............................................................................................................45 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................50
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theory and Reality
    an introduction to the philosophy of science ........................................................... SCIENCE AND ITS CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS A SERIES EDITED BY DAVID L. HULL THEORY AND REALITY ........................................................... Peter Godfrey-Smith is associate professor of philosophy and of his­ tory and philosophy of science at Stanford University. He is the author PETER GODFREY-SMITH of Complexity and the Function ofMind in Nature. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2003 by The University of Chicago All rights reserved. Published 2003 Printed in the United States of America 12 II 100908 45 ISBN: 0-226-30062-5 (cloth) ISBN: 0-226-30063-3 (paper) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science I Peter Godfrey-Smith. p. cm. - (Science and its conceptual foundations) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-30062-5 (alk. paper) - ISBN 0-226-30063-3 (pbk. : alk. The University of Chicago Press / Chicago and London paper) I. Science-Philosophy. I. Title. II. Series. QI75 .G596 2003 501-dc2I 2002155305 @ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences-Perma­ nence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. 56 Chapter Three Later (especially in chapter 14) I will return to these problems. But in the next chapter we will look at a philosophy that gets a good part of its motivation from the frustrations discussed in this chapter. Further Reading 4...................................................................................... Once again, Hempel's Aspects ofScientific Explanation (1965) is a key source, con­ Popper: Conjecture and Refutation taining a long (and exhausting) chapter on confirmation.
    [Show full text]
  • Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?
    NOU^S 38:2 (2004) 197–232 Would ‘‘Direct Realism’’ Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction? MARC LANGE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I Recently, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in the ‘‘Humean’’ problem of induction. For several decades following the recognized failure of Strawsonian ‘‘ordinary-language’’ dissolutions and of Wesley Salmon’s elaboration of Reichenbach’s pragmatic vindication of induction, work on the problem of induction languished. Attention turned instead toward con- firmation theory, as philosophers sensibly tried to understand precisely what it is that a justification of induction should aim to justify. Now, however, in light of Bayesian confirmation theory and other developments in epistemology, several philosophers have begun to reconsider the classical problem of induction. In section 2, I shall review a few of these developments. Though some of them will turn out to be unilluminating, others will profitably suggest that we not meet inductive scepticism by trying to justify some alleged general principle of ampliative reasoning. Accordingly, in section 3, I shall examine how the problem of induction arises in the context of one particular ‘‘inductive leap’’: the confirmation, most famously by Henrietta Leavitt and Harlow Shapley about a century ago, that a period-luminosity relation governs all Cepheid variable stars. This is a good example for the inductive sceptic’s purposes, since it is difficult to see how the sparse background knowledge available at the time could have entitled stellar astronomers to regard their observations as justifying this grand inductive generalization. I shall argue that the observation reports that confirmed the Cepheid period- luminosity law were themselves ‘‘thick’’ with expectations regarding as yet unknown laws of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge
    ....... CONJECTURES sense similar to that in which processes or things may be said to be parts of the world; that the world consists of facts in a sense in which it may be said to consist of (four dimensional) processes or of (three dimensional) things. They believe that, just as certain nouns are names of things, sentences are names of facts. And they sometimes even believe that sentences are some- thing like pictures of facts, or that they are projections of facts.7 But all this is mistaken. The fact that there is no elephant in this room is not one of the processes or parts ofthe world; nor is the fact that a hailstorm in Newfound- 10 land occurred exactIy I I I years after a tree collapsed in the New Zealand bush. Facts are something like a common product oflanguage and reality; they are reality pinned down by descriptive statements. They are like abstracts from TRUTH, RATIONALITY, AND THE a book, made in a language which is different from that of the original, and determined not only by the original book but nearly as much by the principles GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE of selection and by other methods of abstracting, and by the means of which the new language disposes. New linguistic means not only help us to describe 1. THE GROWTH OF KNOWLEDGE: THEORIES AND PROBLEMS new kinds of facts; in a way, they even create new kinds of facts. In a certain sense, these facts obviously existed before the new means were created which I were indispensable for their description; I say, 'obviously' because a calcula- tion, for example, ofthe movements of the planet Mercury of 100 years ago, MY aim in this lecture is to stress the significance of one particular aspect of carried out today with the help of the calculus of the theory of relativity, may science-its need to grow, or, if you like, its need to progress.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Assessment of the Political Doctrines of Michael Oakeshott
    David Richard Hexter Thesis Title: A Critical Assessment of the Political Doctrines of Michael Oakeshott. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 1 Statement of Originality I, David Richard Hexter, confirm that the research included within this thesis is my own work or that where it has been carried out in collaboration with, or supported by others, that this is duly acknowledged and my contribution indicated. I attest that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge break any UK law, infringe any third party’s copyright or other Intellectual Property Right, or contain any confidential material. I accept that the college has the right to use plagiarism detection software to check the electronic version of the thesis. I confirm that this thesis has not been previously submitted for the award of a degree by this or any other university. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. David R Hexter 12/01/2016 2 Abstract Author: David Hexter, PhD candidate Title of thesis: A Critical Assessment of the Political Doctrines of Michael Oakeshott Description The thesis consists of an Introduction, four Chapters and a Conclusion. In the Introduction some of the interpretations that have been offered of Oakeshott’s political writings are discussed. The key issue of interpretation is whether Oakeshott is best considered as a disinterested philosopher, as he claimed, or as promoting an ideology or doctrine, albeit elliptically.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1
    Study Questions Philosophy of Science Spring 2011 Exam 1 1. Explain the affinities and contrasts between science and philosophy and between science and metaphysics. 2. What is the principle of verification? How was the logical positivist‟s view of verification influenced by Hume‟s fork? Explain. 3. Explain Hume‟s distinction between impressions and ideas. What is the relevance of this distinction for the empiricist‟s view of how knowledge is acquired? 4. Why was Hume skeptical about “metaphysical knowledge”? Does the logical positivist, such as A. J. Ayer, agree or disagree? Why or why not? 5. Explain Ayer‟s distinction between weak and strong verification. Is this distinction tenable? 6. How did Rudolf Carnap attempt to separate science from metaphysics? Explain the role of what Carnap called „C-Rules‟ for this attempt. Was he successful? 7. Explain one criticism of the logical positivist‟s principle of verification? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? 8. Explain the affinities and contrasts between A. J. Ayer‟s logical positivism and Karl Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability. Why does Popper think that scientific progress depends on falsifiability rather than verifiability? What are Popper‟s arguments against verifiability? Do you think Popper is correct? 9. Kuhn argued that Popper neglected what Kuhn calls “normal science.” Does Popper have a reply to Kuhn in his distinction between science and ideology? Explain. 10. Is Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability a solution to the problem of demarcation? Why or why not? Why would Gierre or Kuhn disagree? Explain 11. Kuhn, in his “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” disagrees with Popper‟s criterion of falsifiability as defining the essence of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy
    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Innovation: the Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity
    Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity JULY 14, 2021 AUTHOR Benjamin F. Jones* ABSTRACT Science and innovation are central to human progress and national economic success. Currently, the United States invests 2.8% of GDP in research and development, which is supported by a range of public policies. This paper asks whether the United States invests enough. To answer that question, the conceptual case for government intervention and skepticism about that case are reviewed. The paper then turns to systematic evidence, including the very latest evidence, regarding the operation of the science and innovation system and its social returns. This evidence suggests a clear answer: We massively underinvest in science and innovation, with implications for our standards of living, health, national competitiveness, and capacity to respond to crisis. * Kellogg School of Management and National Bureau of Economic Research. Email: [email protected]. 1. Introduction Scientific and technological advances have long been recognized as engines of economic growth and rising prosperity. The fruits of these advances—instantaneous global communications, vaccines, airplanes, heart surgery, computers, skyscrapers, industrial robots, on-demand entertainment, to name a few—might seem almost magical to our ancestors from not-too-many generations ago. The power of this progress has been broadly evident since the Industrial Revolution and was recognized at the time, including by political leaders. As the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted in 1873, “How much has happened in these fifty years … I am thinking of those revolutions of science which … have changed the position and prospects of mankind more than all the conquests and all the codes and all the legislators that ever lived.” Disraeli was talking of things like the steam engine, the telegraph, and textile manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend
    Durham E-Theses Pluralism and the 'Problem of Reality' in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend KIDD, IAN,JAMES How to cite: KIDD, IAN,JAMES (2010) Pluralism and the 'Problem of Reality' in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/864/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Kidd Pluralism and the ‘Problem of Reality’ in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend Abstract Feyerabend’s later philosophy was a sustained defence of cultural and epistemic diversity. After Against Method (1975) Feyerabend argued that his rejection of methodological monism challenged the presumed unity and superiority of scientific knowledge and practices. His later philosophy was therefore dedicated to a reassessment of the merits of a wide range of ‘non-scientific’ traditions present throughout non-Western indigenous cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Feyerabend
    Against Method Fourth Edition Paul Feyerabend VERSO London • New York Analytical Index Being a Sketch of the Main Argument Introdnction 1 Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. 1 7 This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes. 2 13 For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counterinductively. 3 17 The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual. 4 ~ There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo. xxx ANAL YTICAL INDEX 5 33 No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof ofprogress.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE January, 2018 DANIEL GARBER
    CURRICULUM VITAE January, 2018 DANIEL GARBER Position: A. Watson Armour III University Professor of Philosophy Address: Department of Philosophy 1879 Hall Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006 Address (September 2017-July 2018) Institut d’études avancées 17, quai d’Anjou 75004 Paris France Telephone: 609-258-4307 (voice) 609-258-1502 (FAX) 609-258-4289 (Departmental office) Email: [email protected] Erdös number: 16 EDUCATIONAL RECORD Harvard University, 1967-1975 A.B. in Philosophy, 197l A.M. in Philosophy, 1974 Ph.D. in Philosophy, 1975 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Princeton University 2002- Professor of Philosophy and Associated Faculty, Program in the History of Science 2005-12 Chair, Department of Philosophy 2008-09 Old Dominion Professor 2009- Associated Faculty, Department of Politics 2009-16 Stuart Professor of Philosophy Garber -2- 2016- A. Watson Armour III University Professor of Philosophy University of Chicago 1995-2002 Lawrence Kimpton Distinguished Service Professor in Philosophy, the Committee on Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, the Morris Fishbein Center for Study of History of Science and Medicine and the College 1986-2002 Professor 1982-86 Associate Professor (with tenure) 1975-82 Assistant Professor 1998-2002 Chairman, Committee on Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science (formerly Conceptual Foundations of Science) 2001 Acting Chairman, Department of Philosophy 1995-98 Associate Provost for Education and Research 1994-95 Chairman, Conceptual Foundations of Science 1987-94 Chairman, Department of Philosophy Harvard College 1972-75 Teaching Assistant and Tutor University of Minnesota, Spring 1979, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy Johns Hopkins University, 1980-1981, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy Princeton University 1982-1983 Visiting Associate Professor of Philosophy Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 1985-1986, Member École Normale Supérieure (Lettres) (Lyon, France), November 2000, Professeur invitée.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert Camus' Dialogue with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky Sean Derek Illing Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2014 Between nihilism and transcendence : Albert Camus' dialogue with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky Sean Derek Illing Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Illing, Sean Derek, "Between nihilism and transcendence : Albert Camus' dialogue with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky" (2014). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 1393. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1393 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. BETWEEN NIHILISM AND TRANSCENDENCE: ALBERT CAMUS’ DIALOGUE WITH NIETZSCHE AND DOSTOEVSKY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by Sean D. Illing B.A., Louisiana State University, 2007 M.A., University of West Florida, 2009 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the product of many supportive individuals. I am especially grateful for Dr. Cecil Eubank’s guidance. As a teacher, one can do no better than Professor Eubanks. Although his Socratic glare can be terrifying, there is always love and wisdom in his instruction. It is no exaggeration to say that this work would not exist without his support. At every step, he helped me along as I struggled to articulate my thoughts.
    [Show full text]