DOCSLIB.ORG

Booklet FFORDE(CMYK)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Booklet FFORDE(CMYK) THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Working Group on WHAT IS OUR REAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING? 4-6 May 2006 Introduction p.3 Programme p. 4 List of Participants p.6 Biographies of the Participants p.7 Memorandum p. 11 14 EM AD I A C S A C I A E I N C T I I F A I R T V N M O P VATICAN CITY 2006 The great Galileo said that God wrote the book of nature in the form of mathematical language. He was convinced that God gave us the gift of two books: that of the Sacred Scriptures and that of nature. And the language of nature – thus was his conviction – is mathematics, therefore it is a language of God, of the Creator. Now let’s see what maths is: per se, it is an ab- stract system, an invention of the human spirit and does not exist as such in its pure form. It is always realised approximate- ly but – as such – it is an intellectual system, it is a great, in- genious invention of the human spirit. What is surprising is that this invention of our human mind really is the key to un- derstanding nature, that nature is really structured in a mathe- matical way and that our maths, invented by our spirit, is real- ly the instrument to be able to work with nature, to put it to our service, to exploit it by means of technical knowledge. It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human intellect and the structure of the universe should coin- cide: that the mathematics invented by us really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it usable for us. Thus the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objec- tive structure of reality coincide: subjective reason and reason objectified in nature are identical. I think this coincidence be- tween something we have thought and how nature works and behaves, are a great enigma and challenge, because we see that, in the end, there is ‘one’ reason that connects them both: our reason could not discover this other one if both did not origi- nate from a single identical reason. Benedict XVI replies off the cuff to the questions of the young people of the Diocesis of Rome, St. Peter’s Square, 6 April 2006. What Is Our Real Knowledge INTRODUCTION about the Human Being? © MARCELO SÁNCHEZ SORONDO • Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he Working Group on ‘What is our Real issues being probed by cognitive science, with Knowledge about the Human Being?’ its new language of neurons and synapses, in Twill reconsider this perennial question, relation to the classic language of intellect, de- which was formulated by King David when he sire and emotion, are central to our topic. So, asked: ‘Yahweh, what is man, that you care for too, are the ongoing discoveries about our ge- him?’ (Ps 144:3). Science does not provide the netic inheritance, which pose questions about sole answer to this question and we believe free will and the connection between evolution that in this scientific age a dialogue between and creation. Lastly, there are anthropological science and the humanistic tradition is re- (and moral) questions that relate to the time quired for its effective exploration. before a person’s birth and to the state of death. In the interest of a balanced quest, which It is our hope to forge, through a profound and can lead to a fuller understanding of the criti- interdiscipinary discussion, greater under- cal issues that currently confront us as regards standing of these three clusters of issues as we our real knowledge about the human being, we use them to clarify our central question: what need to re-examine the historical relationship is our real knowledge about the human being? between philosophy and science, and more This colloquium is a joint meeting and has specifically between the humanistic tradition been organised by the John Templeton Founda- (which has its roots in philosophy) and the sci- tion’s ‘Humble Approach Initiative’ and the Pon- entific tradition. Today, it seems, there is a tifical Academy of Sciences. The choice of the great need for reconciliation between these two meeting place, the Academy’s headquarters at traditions. Indeed, ever since Galileo launched the Casina Pio IV in the Vatican gardens, given the modern scientific revolution these two tra- its illustrious scientific history, reflects our wish ditions have become progressively detached to contribute to the creation of a new relation- from one another and appear, as science has ship between these traditions, and prompts us grown ever more specialised and complex, to to ponder what role religion can play in achiev- have reached a point of inflection which offers ing such a synthesis, in particular in relation to a new horizon of mutual comprehension. In the anthropological question. This villa, which this endeavour it is helpful to revisit the in the sixteenth century was a summer resi- thought of Greek (Plato and Aristotle) and me- dence of Pope Pius IV and a meeting place of dieval (St Thomas Aquinas) philosophers, as great scholars, in 1923 became the seat of the well as that of modern philosophers (Hume, Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose origins Kant, Hegel), on the one hand, and the thought date to the founding of the Academy of the of modern scientists, on the other, for the light Lynceans, the world’s first scientific academy, this philosophic and scientific background by Prince Federico Cesi in 1603. Galileo, the fa- sheds on the identity of human beings, who ther of modern science, was a founding mem- share their bodies with nature but also emerge ber and its acknowledged leader. from nature (as the philosopher Anaxagoras As can be seen from the list of participants, was the first to observe when he argued that in- science, philosophy and theology are well rep- tellect is not mixed with matter). We can then resented at this joint meeting, and it is thus our turn our attention to a some central problems hope that this colloquium, which is based upon presented by science today, as well as to the op- an interdisciplinary approach, will constitute portunities provided by science for rethinking an important contribution to answering today’s philosophical and theological views on human central anthropological question: what is our beings and their place within the Creation. The real knowledge about the human being? 3 What Is Our Real Knowledge PROGRAMME about the Human Being? THURSDAY, 4 MAY 2006 19:30 Cocktails at the Cortile Ovale • Casina Pio IV 20:00 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV FRIDAY, 5 MAY 2006 9:00 Welcome Nicola Cabibbo, President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 9:05 Greetings Mary Ann Meyers, Senior Fellow of the John Templeton Foundation 9:10 Opening Remarks Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Session I PERSPECTIVES FROM HISTORY Chairperson: H.E. Msgr. Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo 9:15 Felipe Fernández-Armesto Being Human: A Historical Approach 9:45 Fernando Vidal Person and Brain: A Historical Perspective from within the Christian Tradition 10:15 Coffee Break 10:30 General Discussion Session II PERSPECTIVES FROM ANTHROPOLOGY Chairperson: Janet Martin Soskice 11:00 Berhane Asfaw The Origin of Humans: The Record from the Afar of Ethiopia 11:30 Alison Brooks What is a Human? Archaeological Perspectives on the Origins of Humanness 12:00 General Discussion 12:30 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV Session III PERSPECTIVES FROM SCIENCE Chairperson: Jürgen Mittelstrass 13:45 Malcolm Jeeves Soul-Searching and Mind-Reading: Issues Raised by Twenty-First Century Neuropsychology and Evolutionary Psychology 14:15 Jean-Didier Vincent The Need for Others 14:45 Antonio Battro Homo Educabilis: A Neurocognitive Approach 4 What Is Our Real Knowledge about the Human Being? Programme 15:15 Tea Break 15:30 Hideaki Koizumi A New Science of Humanity: A Trial for the Integration of Natural Sciences and the Humanities towards Human Security and Well-Being 16:00 General Discussion 19:30 Cocktails at the Cortile Ovale • Casina Pio IV 20:00 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV SUNDAY, 6 MAY 2006 Session IV PERSPECTIVES FROM PHILOSOPHY Chairperson: Antonio Battro 9:00 Evandro Agazzi The Scientific Images and the Global Knowledge of the Human Being 9:30 Enrico Berti Is DNA Range a Sufficient Definition of Human Nature? Aristotle vs. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain 10:00 Franco Chiereghin A Solely Human Aspect of Existence: The Experience of Beauty 10:30 Coffee Break 10:45 Thomas Nagel Science and the Mind-Body Problem 11:15 Jürgen Mittelstrass Science and the Search for a New Anthropology 11:45 General Discussion 13:00 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV Session V PERSPECTIVES FROM PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY Chairperson: Enrico Berti 14:15 Peter van Inwagen Our Deepest Beliefs about Ourselves 14:45 Janet Soskice Imago Dei and Sexual Difference 15:15 Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo The Knowledge of Ourselves in Dialogue with Science 15:45 Tea Break 16:00 General Discussion 16:45 Summary and Discussion of Next Steps 19:30 Cocktails at the Cortile Ovale • Casina Pio IV 20:00 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV 5 What Is Our Real Knowledge LIST OF PARTICIPANTS about the Human Being? NAME AND TITLE NAT. DISCIPLINE AND CHARGE PAPER Dr. Evandro Agazzi I University of Genoa The Scientific Images and the Global Genoa Department of Philosophy Knowledge of the Human Being Dr. Berhane Asfaw ETH Rift Valley Research Service The Origin of Humans:The Record from Addis the Afar of Ethiopia Ababa Dr.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Daniel C. Dennett
    Last updated 2002 Curriculum Vitae DANIEL C. DENNETT PERSONAL: Born, March 28, 1942. Married to Susan Bell Dennett; two children. ADDRESS: 20 Ironwood Road, No. Andover, MA 01845 U.S.A. EDUCATION: B.A., Harvard University, 1963 D. Phil. (philosophy), Oxford, 1965 FELLOWSHIPS: Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, 1963 (declined, to study at Oxford). Guggenheim Fellowship, 1973-74 (declined in favor of next two items). Santayana Fellowship, Harvard University, 1974 (honorary). N. E. H. Younger Humanist Fellowship, 1974. Fulbright Research Fellowship to the University, Bristol, England, 1978. Visiting Fellowship, All Souls College, Oxford, 1979. N. E. H. Senior Fellowship, 1979. Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1979-80. Guggenheim Fellowship, 1986-87. Fellow, Zentrum für Interdisciplinäre Forschung, Bielefeld, Germany, 1990. Writer in Residence, Bellagio Study and Conference Center, Italy, 1990. Visiting Erskine Fellow, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1995. SPECIAL LECTURESHIPS: Taft Lectures, University of Cincinnati, 1978. Luce Distinguished Lecture in Cognitive Science, University of Rochester, 1979. Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford University, 1979. Princeton University Annual Philosophy Lectures, 1980. Sloan Visiting Scientist Lectures, Dept. of Computer Science, Yale University, 1980. Council for Philosophical Studies, Summer Institute on Psychology and the Philosophy of Mind, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, July 1981. John Locke Lectures, Oxford University, April, May, 1983. Gavin David Young Lectures, University of Adelaide, Australia, June, July, 1984. Gramlich Memorial Lecture, Philosophy Department, Dartmouth College, April 24, 1985. Visiting Professor, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, May, 1985. John Dewey Lecture, University of Vermont, February 13, 1986. Distinguished Lecture Series, MIT Laboratory of Computer Science, March 13, 1986. Tanner Lecture, University of Michigan, November 6, 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference and Reinterpretation
    Reference and Reinterpretation by Anthony Kulic A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 ©Anthony Kulic, 2007 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Reference is the relation held to obtain between an expression and what a speaker or thinker intends the expression to represent. Reference is a component of interpretation, the process of giving terms, sentences, and thoughts semantic content. An example of reference in a formal context involves the natural numbers, where each one can be taken to have a corresponding set‐theoretic counterpart as its referent. In an informal context reference is exemplified by the relation between a name and the specific name‐bearer when a speaker or thinker utters or has the name in mind. Recent debates over reference have concerned the mechanism of reference: How is it that we can refer? In informal contexts, externalists see the reference relation as explicable in terms of the salient causal relations involved in the naming of a thing, or a class of things, and the ensuing causal chains leading to a term’s use. Opponents of this view— internalists—see the reference relation as being conceptually direct, and they take the external approach to rely on untenable metaphysical assumptions about the world’s structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory
    1 To appear in Romina Padró and Yale Weiss (eds.), Saul Kripke on Modal Logic. New York: Springer. Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory Timothy Williamson Abstract: This chapter responds to Saul Kripke’s critique of the idea of adopting an alternative logic. It defends an anti-exceptionalist view of logic, on which coming to accept a new logic is a special case of coming to accept a new scientific theory. The approach is illustrated in detail by debates on quantified modal logic. A distinction between folk logic and scientific logic is modelled on the distinction between folk physics and scientific physics. The importance of not confusing logic with metalogic in applying this distinction is emphasized. Defeasible inferential dispositions are shown to play a major role in theory acceptance in logic and mathematics as well as in natural and social science. Like beliefs, such dispositions are malleable in response to evidence, though not simply at will. Consideration is given to the Quinean objection that accepting an alternative logic involves changing the subject rather than denying the doctrine. The objection is shown to depend on neglect of the social dimension of meaning determination, akin to the descriptivism about proper names and natural kind terms criticized by Kripke and Putnam. Normal standards of interpretation indicate that disputes between classical and non-classical logicians are genuine disagreements. Keywords: Modal logic, intuitionistic logic, alternative logics, Kripke, Quine, Dummett, Putnam Author affiliation: Oxford University, U.K. Email: [email protected] 2 1. Introduction I first encountered Saul Kripke in my first term as an undergraduate at Oxford University, studying mathematics and philosophy, when he gave the 1973 John Locke Lectures (later published as Kripke 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Donald Davidson
    An interview with Donald Davidson Donald Davidson is an analytic philosopher in the tradition of Wittgenstein and Quine, and his formulations of action, truth and communicative interaction have generated considerable debate in philosophical circles around the world. The following "interview" actually took place over two continents and several years. It's merely a part of what must now be literally hundreds of hours of taped conversations between Professor Davidson and myself. I hope that what follows will give you a flavor of Donald Davidson, the person, as well as the philosopher. I begin with some of the first tapes he and I made, beginning in Venice, spring of 1988, continuing in San Marino, in spring of 1990, and in St Louis, in winter of 1991, concerning his induction into academia. With some insight into how Professor Davidson came to the profession, a reader might look anew at some of his philosophical writings; as well as get a sense of how the careerism unfortunately so integral to academic life today was so alien to the generation of philosophers Davidson is a member of. The very last part of this interview is from more recent tapes and represents Professor Davidson's effort to try to make his philosophical ideas available to a more general audience. Lepore: Tell me a bit about the early days. Davidson: I was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on March 6, 1917 to Clarence ("Davie") Herbert Davidson and Grace Cordelia Anthony. My mother's father's name was "Anthony" but her mother had married twice and by coincidence both her husbands were named "Anthony".
    [Show full text]
  • Bouwsma, 1898-1978
    O. K. (Oets Kolk) Bouwsma, 1898-1978: An Inventory of His Papers at the Harry Ransom Center Descriptive Summary Creator: Bouwsma, O. K. (Oets Kolk), 1898-1978 Title: O. K. Bouwsma Papers, Dates: 1907-1988 (bulk 1925-1978) Extent: 50 document boxes (21 linear feet) Abstract: The O. K. Bouwsma Papers, 1907-1988 (bulk 1925-1978) consist of journals, notepads, correspondence, notes, lectures, essays, articles, clippings, drawings, invitations, receipts, and printed material related to the American philosopher O. K. Bouwsma. Call Number: Manuscript Collection MS-00473 Language: English Access: Open for research. Researchers must create an online Research Account and agree to the Materials Use Policy before using archival materials. Use Policies: Ransom Center collections may contain material with sensitive or confidential information that is protected under federal or state right to privacy laws and regulations. Researchers are advised that the disclosure of certain information pertaining to identifiable living individuals represented in the collections without the consent of those individuals may have legal ramifications (e.g., a cause of action under common law for invasion of privacy may arise if facts concerning an individual's private life are published that would be deemed highly offensive to a reasonable person) for which the Ransom Center and The University of Texas at Austin assume no responsibility. Restrictions on Authorization for publication is given on behalf of the University of Use: Texas as the owner of the collection and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder which must be obtained by the researcher. For more information please see the Ransom Centers' Open Access and Use Policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiment Month: Helping Philosophers to Engage Empirically June 30, 2009
    Experiment Month: Helping Philosophers to Engage Empirically June 30, 2009 Overview: Although there has been a growing interest in experimental research among young philosophers, especially undergraduate and graduate students, many find that they don’t have the resources or expertise required to conduct rigorous experimental research. These budding philosophers often have exciting and original ideas; they simply lack the support they would need to turn those visions into real philosophical research. The aim of the proposed Experiment Month program is to provide these philosophers with resources, encouragement and technical assistance to realize the potential of their own ideas. To attain these objectives, we propose, in conjunction with a consortium of prominent philosophers and under the auspices of the Yale University Program in Cognitive Science, to implement a program that will provide philosophers (especially students) with: x ‘Experiment buddies’ who can help them to correctly design studies and think through the implications of their data x On-line educational videos that guide them through the process of developing philosophically relevant experiments x The resources necessary to put together online studies, attract a large sample of subjects, and analyze the resulting data. Above all, we aim to encourage and inspire young philosophers through the organization of a community-wide event that will enable broad participation in a friendly and supportive atmosphere. Summary of Project: Fall 2010 Proposals for experiments due. Winter 2010 Team of volunteers select the most viable proposals for inclusion in the Experiment Month and provide helpful comments on selected submissions. Winter 2010— Each winning project is assigned an ‘experiment buddy’ who works Spring 2011 with the philosopher to help refine the proposed study, enabling research that successfully engages with the key philosophical questions in the relevant area.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae DANIEL C. DENNETT PERSONAL
    September 19, 2002 Curriculum Vitae DANIEL C. DENNETT PERSONAL: Born, March 28, 1942. Married to Susan Bell Dennett; two children. ADDRESS: 20 Ironwood Road, No. Andover, MA 01845 U.S.A. EDUCATION: B.A., Harvard University, 1963 D. Phil. (philosophy), Oxford, 1965 FELLOWSHIPS: Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, 1963 (declined, to study at Oxford). Guggenheim Fellowship, 1973-74 (declined in favor of next two items). Santayana Fellowship, Harvard University, 1974 (honorary). N. E. H. Younger Humanist Fellowship, 1974. Fulbright Research Fellowship to the University, Bristol, England, 1978. Visiting Fellowship, All Souls College, Oxford, 1979. N. E. H. Senior Fellowship, 1979. Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1979-80. Guggenheim Fellowship, 1986-87. Fellow, Zentrum für Interdisciplinäre Forschung, Bielefeld, Germany, 1990. Writer in Residence, Bellagio Study and Conference Center, Italy, 1990, 2001. Visiting Erskine Fellow, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1995. Distinguished Fellow, Centre for the Mind, Institute for Advanced Study, Australian National University, Canberra, Feb, 1998. Collegium Budapest, Budapest, Hungary, June, 2002 SPECIAL LECTURESHIPS: Taft Lectures, University of Cincinnati, 1978. Luce Distinguished Lecture in Cognitive Science, University of Rochester, 1979. Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford University, 1979. Princeton University Annual Philosophy Lectures, 1980. Sloan Visiting Scientist Lectures, Dept. of Computer Science, Yale University, 1980. Daniel C. Dennett, Curriculum vitae PaGe 2 September 19, 2002 Council for Philosophical Studies, Summer Institute on Psychology and the Philosophy of Mind, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, July 1981. John Locke Lectures, Oxford University, April, May, 1983. Gavin David Young Lectures, University of Adelaide, Australia, June, July, 1984. Gramlich Memorial Lecture, Philosophy Department, Dartmouth College, April 24, 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES an ESSAY on the THEORY of DESCRIPTIONS by FRANCESCO PUPA a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty In
    AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES AN ESSAY ON THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS by FRANCESCO PUPA A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2008 ii © 2008 FRANCESCO PUPA All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David M. Rosenthal Date Chair of Examining Committee John Greenwood Date Executive Officer Michael Devitt Robert W. Fiengo David M. Rosenthal Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES AN ESSAY ON THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS by Francesco Pupa Adviser: Professor Michael Devitt What, from a semantic perspective, is the difference between singular indefinite and definite descriptions? Just over a century ago, Bertrand Russell provided a standard philosophical response. Descriptions are quantifier phrases, not referring expressions. As such, they differ with respect to the quantities they denote. Indefinite descriptions denote existential quantities; definite descriptions denote uniquely existential quantities. Now, while most philosophers were busying themselves defending and expanding upon Russell’s position, some linguists were, quietly and independently, developing a radically different response. Descriptions, some linguists held, were referring expressions, not quantifier phrases. Accordingly, descriptions differ with respect to their rules of reference. Indefinite descriptions refer to ‘novel’ items, definite descriptions to ‘familiar’ ones. Although some philosophers, most prominently Peter Strawson, would independently propose their own familiarity theories and although many linguists of a model-theoretic bent would join lock-step with the Russellians, little attempt was made to bridge the gap between these two seemingly incompatible responses.
    [Show full text]
  • David Lewis: the Life of a Philosopher
    Page 1 Klesis - Philosophical Review - 2012: 24 - The philosophy of David Lewis David Lewis: the life of a philosopher Michele Salimbeni * (EHESS & Institut Jean-Nicod) David Lewis and Maggie the cat, at home, in 1989. Photo © Stephanie LewisI.n a sense, all life is told copy; is written to attack or defend * Michele Salimbeni preparing a thesis at EHESS whose title is possible, and Images Possible Worlds (under the direction of Frédéric Nef). His main research areas are metaphysics and ontology, including possible worlds from which he draws a new definition of the concept image. He is also writing the first biography (Italian and English) on David Lewis. To this end, he has recently met in Princeton, Stephanie Lewis has made available archives and materials necessary for the writing of this book will also be an introduction to his philosophy. He also is a director and screenwriter, he wrote and directed in Italy, his first feature film, Under-the-sky (2008) and various short films. He wrote, in addition, the scenario film I magi randagi Sergio Citti (taken from an original subject of Pier Paolo Pasolini), with which he won the Quality Award from the Ministry of Show and was nominated for the Nastro Argento as best Italian writer in 1997. He has worked with many directors including Andrzej Żuławski (on which he wrote the book Il cinema di Andrzej Żuławski, editions Res 2002). 11 Page 2 Klesis - Philosophical Review - 2012: 24 - The philosophy of David Lewis a world system, to define a method that we own Marguerite Yourcenar There are three rules for writing a biography, but Fortunately no one knows the Somerset Maugham I.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mcdowell - Wikipedia
    2019/7/25 John McDowell - Wikipedia John McDowell John Henry McDowell (born 7 March 1942) is a South African John Henry McDowell philosopher, formerly a fellow of University College, Oxford and now University Professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Although he has written extensively on metaphysics, epistemology, ancient philosophy, and meta-ethics, McDowell's most influential work has been in the philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. McDowell was one of three recipients of the 2010 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation's Distinguished Achievement Award,[6] and is a Fellow of both the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and the British Academy. McDowell has, throughout his career, understood philosophy to be "therapeutic" and thereby to "leave everything as it is", which he understands to be a form of philosophical quietism (although he does not consider himself to be a "quietist"). The philosophical quietist believes that John McDowell in Paris, October philosophy cannot make any explanatory comment about how, for example, 2007 thought and talk relate to the world but can, by offering re-descriptions of [1] philosophically problematic cases, return the confused philosopher to a Born 7 March 1942 state of intellectual quietude. However, in defending this quietistic Boksburg, South perspective McDowell has engaged with the work of leading Africa contemporaries in such a way as to therapeutically dissolve what he takes to Alma mater University College of be philosophical error, while developing original and distinctive theses Rhodesia and about language, mind and value. In each case, he has tried to resist the Nyasaland (as issued influence of what he regards as a misguided, reductive form of by University of philosophical naturalism that dominates the work of his contemporaries, London) particularly in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Branch Kripke 1977.Pdf
    2/28/13 New Frontiers in American Philosophy by Taylor Branch | Byliner field. But philosophy has changed a great deal in the past century. While “social” philosophers like John Dewey and Jean-Paul Sartre are practically household names, they do not represent the mainstream of contemporary philosophical inquiry, which has become such an arcane discipline that it leaves most laymen gasping for meaning. Those who can easily grasp formulations like Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” are befuddled by a modern “analytic” philosopher’s equivalent: “To be is to be the value of a variable.” British and American analytic philosophers have abandoned to science the “pursuit of truth” while claiming for their own logician’s and semanticist’s “pursuit of meaning.” Even the most well-educated persons in America today, who understand the metaphysics of Schopenhauer or the epistemology of Kant, founder in the mathematical thickets of such 20th-century figures as Rudolph Carnap and Willard Van Orman Quine. This alone would explain why philosophy has become an isolated field of knowledge, increasingly neglected even by the most intellectual circles of society. But there is another, more important reason. The analytic school to which Kripke belongs has taken philosophy into such esoteric realms that it is divorced from classic philosophic questions like “What is the good life?” The analytic philosophers do not seek to provide a synthetic, or universal, “theory of life.” Many students who came to philosophy drunk with Plato or spellbound by Santayana have dropped out after discovering that the ideas of the old philosophers are out of the way, refrigerated, while their professors work with equations.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and Psychology at Oxford
    Philosophy and Psychology at Oxford The connection between philosophy and psychology has a long history in Oxford. John Locke (1632–1704) was a student and, for a time, a tutor at Christ Church before leaving Oxford to enter the household of the first Earl of Shaftesbury. Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding is one of the great works of British empiricist philosophy and he is also regarded as the father of English psychology. The first Oxford post in psychology was established in 1898, more than two hundred years after the publication of Locke’s Essay, when G.F. Stout (editor of the journal Mind from 1892 to 1920) was appointed to the Wilde Readership in Mental Philosophy, in the faculty of Literae Humaniores. The Wilde in question was Henry Wilde FRS, an electrical engineer and a notable benefactor who endowed, not only the Wilde Readership and the Henry Wilde Prize (for outstanding performance in Philosophy in Final Honour Schools), but also the John Locke Scholarship in Mental Philosophy (now the John Locke Prize) and the annual Locke Lectures. After five years, Stout moved to the chair of Logic and Metaphysics at St. Andrews and was succeeded as Wilde Reader by William McDougall, one of the founders of the British Psychological Society, and then by William Brown, under whose leadership an Institute of Experimental Psychology was established in 1936. Brown had been an undergraduate at Christ Church from 1899, taking Psychology as a special subject in Greats and winning the John Locke Scholarship. Three decades later, he expressed some frustration that these were still the only two ways in which psychology figured in Oxford examinations, writing in the Oxford Magazine (11 May 1933), “psychology has encountered more difficulty breaking away and finding its own level in Oxford than in any other university”, and in the British Medical Journal (30 May 1936), “the whole subject has been a subordinate one within the School of Philosophy”.
    [Show full text]