DOCSLIB.ORG

Priest Graham

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Priest Graham TOWARDS NON-BEING This page intentionally left blank Towards Non-Being The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality Graham Priest CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Graham Priest 2005 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems (P) Ltd., Chennai, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 0–19–926254–3 978–0–19–926254–0 13579108642 For Richard (1936–1996)—non-existent object though you may now be, your Sosein is still with us. Preface ‘If meinongianism isn’t dead, nothing is,’ Gilbert Ryle is reputed to have said in the heyday of Oxford Philosophy.1 I think that Ryle was exactly right. No idea in philosophy is ever past its use-by date, at least, no idea of any substance. We may always come back and find new depths in it, new applications for it, new answers to objections that were taken to be decisive. Thus, for example, platonism has re-emerged many times in the history of Western philosophy, most recently in a perhaps unexpected place: in connection with technical results in the founda- tions of mathematics. Aristotelian virtue ethics has reappeared recently after several hundred years of the dominance of ethics by kantianism and utilitarianism. And so the list goes on. Of course, this is not how Ryle intended his words to be understood. What he meant was that meinongianism was dead for all time. It would perform no Lazarus-like return. For many years I shared Ryle’s view. Educated about thirty years ago in Britain, I took it for granted that Russell had shown that meinongianism was little more than superstition (though one that he himself had subscribed to for some time), and that Quine had shown that it was all just simple obfuscation. That which exists is that over which one can quantify; and that’s that. Thus it was that I was outraged when I met Richard Routley (Sylvan as he later became) in the mid-1970s, and found him stoutly defending a version of meinongianism. (Richard never defended a view in any other way!) I could not understand how the view could possibly be taken seri- ously. It was my good fortune not just to have met Richard, but to have been able to talk with him about the matter over many years. He per- suaded me that all the knock-down arguments that I thought I had were lame or just begged the question; that meinongianism is a very simple, natural, and common-sense view; that the theory has many applications to areas of philosophy where more orthodox views creak at the joints. 1 I have not been able to track down the source of this quote, so it may just be hearsay. The nearest I have found is ‘Gegenstandstheorie ...is dead, buried and not going to be resurrected,’ Ryle (1973), 255. Preface · vii Part of the beauty of meinongianism—or at least of Richard’s approach to it, spelled out at length in Exploring Meinong’s Jungle (1980)—is its technical simplicity. To do full justice to the idea one would seem to need impossible worlds, but these one has anyway, at least if one subscribes to some version of relevant logic. But the main technical trick is just thinking of one’s quantifiers as existentially neutral. ‘∀’is understood as ‘for every’; ‘∃’ is understood as ‘for some’. Existential commitment, when required, has to be provided explicitly, by way of an existence predicate, E, which, pace the way that Kant is often—and erroneously—interpreted, is a perfectly normal predicate. Thus, ‘there exists something such that’ is ∃x(Ex ∧ ...x ...); and ‘all existing things are such that’ is ∀x(Ex ⊃ ...x ...). The action of the theory is mainly, therefore, not at the technical level, but at the philosophical level. Indeed, in one way, Richard’s view was even simpler than Meinong’s. Meinong held that concrete objects exist, abstract objects, like numbers and propositions, subsist, and that merely possible and impossible objects do not in any way exist. They neither exist nor subsist—as Meinong is fre- quently represented as having claimed. Richard simplified this: concrete objects exist; everything else (abstract objects, worlds, merely possible objects, impossible objects) simply do not exist. (Indeed, though I shall not follow him in this, Richard held the even stronger view that it is only present concrete objects that exist. Past and future concrete objects have the same existential status as abstract objects—none.) To distinguish his view from Meinong’s, Richard coined the neologism noneism for it, a usage that I will follow. There is one technical problem that was never really solved in the 1,000-odd pages of Exploring Meinong’s Jungle, however. This is the charac- terization problem. Meinong insisted that the Sein (being) of an object is independent of its Sosein (properties). In particular, objects can be charac- terized in various ways, and have the properties that they are characterized as having, whether or not they exist—existential status is irrelevant. Thus, we specify an object by a certain set of conditions. These might be: was a detective, lived in Baker St., had unusual powers of observation and inference, etc. Let us write the conjunction of these conditions as A(x). Then if we call the object so characterized ‘Sherlock Holmes’, s for short, then s has its characterizing properties, A(s), plus whatever properties follow from these. The idea that an object has those properties that it is char- acterized as having is called the characterization principle (CP). It explains, amongst other things, how we can know some of the things we do about viii · Preface non-existent objects: we know that objects characterized in certain ways have those properties, precisely because they are characterized in that way. Now, the trouble with this idea is that the CP cannot be correct in full generality. If it were, not only could one run the ontological argument to prove the existence of God—and everything else—one could, in fact, prove everything. For let B be any sentence, and consider the condition x = x ∧ B. Let t be the object characterized by this condition. Then the CP gives us: t = t ∧ B, from which B follows. It would seem, then, that only a restricted class of contexts, A(x), can be used in the CP. The problem is, which? This is the characterization problem. There are various gestures towards a solution to the problem in Exploring Meinong’s Jungle, but Richard never achieved there—or anywhere else as far as I am aware—a solution that he regarded as fully satisfactory. I first became attracted to noneism when I found an approach to the characterization problem that I found plausible. The CP can hold unres- trictedly, provided only that its instances may hold, not at this world, but at others. This solution is explained in detail in Ch. 4. That chapter began life as a paper given at a conference in St Andrews in 1999. In later discussions, Byeong Yi persuaded me that I had not done justice to the indeterminacy of some intentional states. Chapter 3, which is an attempt to do better, arose out of discussions with Steven Read. Chapters 3 and 4 are a statement of noneism—or my version of it anyway. In 2001 Jay Garfield invited me to give the annual Alice Ambrose Lazerowitz and Thomas Tymoszko Memorial Logic Lecture at Smith College. I decided to talk about some problems in epistemic logic, and especially the behaviour of identity in epistemic contexts. The first two chapters of the book expand on the topic of that lecture. With this mater- ial in place, it became clear that a coherent semantic and metaphysical picture of intentionality in general was available. This is what is presented in Part 1 of the book (Chs. 1–4). Part 2 of the book (Chs. 5–8) comprises a defence of the view, and especially its noneism, against some natural objections. In the process, a noneist account of various kinds of objects other than the objects of intentional states is articulated. It is widely thought that Quine had demolished meinongianism in his ‘On What There Is’ (1948); but Quine’s demolition was itself demolished by Routley in ‘On What There Isn’t’ (1982).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Continuum Companion to Anarchism
    The Continuum Companion to Anarchism 9781441172129_Pre_Final_txt_print.indd i 6/9/2001 3:18:11 PM The Continuum Companion to Anarchism Edited by Ruth Kinna 9781441172129_Pre_Final_txt_print.indd iii 6/9/2001 3:18:13 PM Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Ruth Kinna and Contributors, 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitt ed, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the permission of the publishers. E ISBN: 978-1-4411-4270-2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record of this title is available from the Library of Congress. Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India Printed and bound in the United States of America 9781441172129_Pre_Final_txt_print.indd iv 6/9/2001 3:18:13 PM Contents Contributors viii Acknowledgements xiv Part I – Research on Anarchism 1 Introduction 3 Ruth Kinna Part II – Approaches to Anarchist Research 2 Research Methods and Problems: Postanarchism 41 Saul Newman 3 Anarchism and Analytic Philosophy 50 Benjamin Franks 4 Anarchism and Art History: Methodologies of Insurrection 72 Allan Antliff 5 Participant Observation 86 Uri Gordon 6 Anarchy, Anarchism and International Relations 96 Alex Prichard Part III – Current Research in Anarchist Studies 7 Bridging the Gaps: Twentieth-Century Anglo-American Anarchist Thought 111 Carissa Honeywell 8 The Hitchhiker as Theorist: Rethinking Sociology and Anthropology from an Anarchist Perspective 140 Jonathan Purkis 9 Genders and Sexualities in Anarchist Movements 162 Sandra Jeppesen and Holly Nazar v 9781441172129_Pre_Final_txt_print.indd v 6/9/2001 3:18:13 PM Contents 10 Literature and Anarchism 192 David Goodway 11 Anarchism and the Future of Revolution 212 Laurence Davis 12 Social Ecology 233 Andy Price 1 3 Leyendo el anarchismo a través de ojos latinoamericanos : Reading Anarchism through Latin American Eyes 252 Sara C.
    [Show full text]
  • I Was Among Those Who Wanted to Become Richard Sylvan (Né
    The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic Volume 4, Number 3, Sept. 1998 IN MEMORIAM: RICHARD (ROUTLEY) SYLVAN 1935-1996 I was among those who wanted to become Richard Sylvan (ne´ Routley). Logician, metaphysician, social and environmental philosopher, builder of systems and houses, colleague and adviser, lover of Nature–Richard had many personae. But the ambition to be Sylvan was (and is) too large. And anyway it must be withdrawn, after his sudden death on 16 June, 1996 of a massive heart attack while visiting the island of Bali, Indonesia, with his second wife Louise. Sylvan was a great credit to our ANU Institute of Advanced Studies. Sadly, he did not always receive optimal support, for reasons that reflect badly both on him and on us. On him, because he was a difficult (though not unpleasant) man. In response we his colleagues sometimes had difficulty in suffering him, often on grounds that shame our pretensions to be a great university. Nonetheless Sylvan’s academic record was outstanding. He bore individ- ual or joint responsibility for some 27 books and booklets, together with scores and scores of highly innovative professional articles. In philosophy Richard “covered the waterfront,” tackling topics in (among others) logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics and environmental philosophy. For his contributions he was elected to the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1977, but he resigned from that body in 1980. Richard Routleywas born in New Zealand in December, 1935. He received his bachelor’s degree from Victoria University of Wellington, going on to graduate study in philosophy at Princeton in 1959-61.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Sylvan (Born Richard Routley) on Nonexistent Objects
    Richard Sylvan (born Richard Routley) on Nonexistent Objects https://www.ontology.co/sylvanr.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Richard Sylvan [born Richard Routley] on Nonexistent Objects INTRODUCTION "On the June 16th, 1996, Richard Sylvan died of a sudden and unexpected heart attack. His death, at the relatively young age of 60, robbed Australasia of one of its greatest philosophers, arguably the most original that it has ever produced. Richard was born Francis Richard Routley at Levin, New Zealand, on 13 December, 1935. He changed his name to Sylvan -- much to the confusion of a number of people -- when he remarried in 1983. After studying at the Victoria University of Wellington, he took a job at the University of Sydney, in Australia, where he lived for the rest of his life. He had several other jobs in Australia, including one at the University of New England, where, with Len Goddard, he trained a generation of Australian logicians. In 1971, he took up a position at the Australian National University, in Canberra, where he worked until his untimely death. Richard was a most unusual person -- by any standards. He would rise at dawn, write philosophy till lunch, then pursue his hobbies, like building houses or tending the forests that he owned, till the sun went down, when he would open a bottle of wine and relax. To those who did not know him well, he could appear blunt, aggressive, and he could certainly be a difficult person for university administrators to get on with.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: for the END IS a LIMIT
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: FOR THE END IS A LIMIT: THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE ENVIRONMENT Ozguc Orhan, Doctor of Philosophy, 2007 Dissertation Directed By: Professor Charles E. Butterworth Department of Government and Politics Professor Ken Conca Department of Government and Politics This dissertation argues that Aristotle’s philosophy of praxis (i.e., ethics and politics) can contribute to our understanding of the contemporary question concerning the environment. Thinking seriously about the environment today calls for resisting the temptation to jump to conclusions about Aristotle’s irrelevance to the environment on historicist grounds of incommensurability or the fact that Aristotle did not write specifically on environmental issues as we know them. It is true that environmental problems are basically twentieth-century phenomena, but the larger normative discourses in which the terms “environmental” and “ecological” and their cognates are situated should be approached philosophically, namely, as cross-cultural and trans-historical phenomena that touch human experience at a deeper level. The philosophical perspective exploring the discursive meaning behind contemporary environmental praxis can reveal to us that certain aspects of Aristotle’s thought are relevant, or can be adapted, to the ends of environmentalists concerned with developmental problems. I argue that Aristotle’s views are already accepted and adopted in political theory and the praxis of the environment in many respects. In the first half of the dissertation, I
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Theses
    THESES SIS/LIBRARY TELEPHONE: +61 2 6125 4631 R.G. MENZIES LIBRARY BUILDING NO:2 FACSIMILE: +61 2 6125 4063 THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EMAIL: [email protected] CANBERRA ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA USE OF THESES This copy is supplied for purposes of private study and research only. Passages from the thesis may not be copied or closely paraphrased without the written consent of the author. OBJECTS AND ONTOLOGY IN MEINONG'S JUNGLE by Arthur Witherall A thesis presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Australian National University July 1992. Except where acknowledged within the text, all parts of this thesis represent my own original work. 1/Mhu~ /J/ZwutJ Arthur Witherall ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Not only do I acknowledge my supervisors, Richard Campbell and Richard Sylvan, for their intelligent criticism of this work, I am also grateful to them for giving me the occasional push in what seemed to be the right direction. Some of the many others whose ideas have stimulated my thoughts while venturing into Meinong's Jungle include: Edwin Mares, Susan Theron, Dominic Hyde, Bart Buseyne, Robert Nichols, Jeremy Garwood, Julia Clarke and Micheal Tooley. We join spokes together in a wheel, but it is the centre hole that makes the wagon move. We shape clay into a pot, but it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want. We hammer wood for a house, but it is the inner space that makes it livable. We work with being, but non-being is what we use. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 11. ABSTRACT It is often sensible, coherent and true to deny that certain things exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthese Library
    Synthese Library Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science Volume 415 Editor-in-Chief Otávio Bueno, University of Miami, Department of Philosophy, USA Editors Berit Brogaard, University of Miami, USA Anjan Chakravartty, University of Notre Dame, USA Steven French, University of Leeds, UK Catarina Dutilh Novaes, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands The aim of Synthese Library is to provide a forum for the best current work in the methodology and philosophy of science and in epistemology. A wide variety of different approaches have traditionally been represented in the Library, and every effort is made to maintain this variety, not for its own sake, but because we believe that there are many fruitful and illuminating approaches to the philosophy of science and related disciplines. Special attention is paid to methodological studies which illustrate the interplay of empirical and philosophical viewpoints and to contributions to the formal (logical, set-theoretical, mathematical, information-theoretical, decision-theoretical, etc.) methodology of empirical sciences. Likewise, the applications of logical methods to epistemology as well as philosophically and methodologically relevant studies in logic are strongly encouraged. The emphasis on logic will be tempered by interest in the psychological, historical, and sociological aspects of science. Besides monographs Synthese Library publishes thematically unified anthologies and edited volumes with a well-defined topical focus inside the aim and scope of the book series. The contributions in the volumes are expected to be focused and structurally organized in accordance with the central theme(s), and should be tied together by an extensive editorial introduction or set of introductions if the volume is divided into parts.
    [Show full text]
  • ON MAKING a COHERENCE THEORY of TRUTH TRUE Richard
    ON MAKING A COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH TRUE Richard Sylvan In the last half century the coherence theory of truth has largely fallen into disuse and disrepute. While there is now some flirting with coherence approaches, as each approved version of the majority position, the correspondence theory, duly founders, and holism gains in fashionability, still coherence has but few committed friends.1 Granted, it has had friends of a sort: most notably Rescher, who has made significant contributions, on which others may profitably build. But Rescher, while advocating what he calls a 'coherence theory' has twisted the theory into what it is not, a modified "self-evidence" theory, and has also warped it into a methodological pragmatism that would have made straight old-timers like Bradley and Blanshard blanch. As well the major virtues of the theory - if only it could be got to work, which unfortunately it can't - have been appreciated by isolated explorers of the wide truth terrain, such as Blackburn (see esp. his pp.237-8). The present exercise supplies one way of enabling the theory to work, without undue warping.2 That way does not pretend to be an authentic historical way, only an historically con trolled and informed way. For the primary purpose here is not historical explication; it lies rather in the development of coherence theory beyond its previous and varied historical settings3, to render it somewhat more adequate and more coher­ ent, and to begin to display some of its further virtues. Leading requirements on coherence theories of truth have always been coherence and comprehensiveness; thus, for in­ stance, Bradley: 'Truth is an ideal expression of the Universe, at once coherent and comprehensive' (p.223).
    [Show full text]
  • Hugh Maccoll After One Hundred Years
    Philosophia Scientiæ Travaux d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences 15-1 | 2011 Hugh MacColl after One Hundred Years Amirouche Moktefi and Stephen Read (dir.) Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/351 DOI: 10.4000/philosophiascientiae.351 ISSN: 1775-4283 Publisher Éditions Kimé Printed version Date of publication: 1 April 2011 ISBN: 978-2-84174-551-7 ISSN: 1281-2463 Electronic reference Amirouche Moktefi and Stephen Read (dir.), Philosophia Scientiæ, 15-1 | 2011, “Hugh MacColl after One Hundred Years” [Online], Online since 01 April 2011, connection on 15 January 2021. URL: http:// journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/351; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/philosophiascientiae. 351 This text was automatically generated on 15 January 2021. Tous droits réservés Preface Amirouche Moktefi LHSP, Archives H. Poincaré (UMR 7117), Nancy-Université & IRIST (EA 3424), Université de Strasbourg, France Stephen Read Department of Logic and Metaphysics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland “It all turns upon that little word if, Mr. Burton.” [MacColl 1891, 955] This volume is devoted to the life and work of Hugh MacColl (1837- 1909), the Scottish mathematician, philosopher and novelist. Although MacColl is nowadays remembered mainly for his contributions to the science of logic, his work covers many other domains and witnesses the richness and variety of his intellectual interests. MacColl’s early writings (from 1861 onwards) were devoted to mathematics, notably geometry, algebra and the theory of probabilities. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, he published several papers on logic that brought him to the attention of his contemporaries. In these writings, he expressed his preference for propositional calculus instead of the term/class approach, widespread in his day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eye of the Crocodile
    Introduction Freya Mathews, Kate Rigby, Deborah Rose Val Plumwood was one the great philosophers, activists, feminists, teachers, and everyday naturalists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In the course of her productive life she wrote two great philosophical monographs which became key texts in the emerging fields of environmental philosophy and ecofeminism. Her stature as a thinker of power and influence was reflected in the fact that she was included in the 2001 book 50 Key Thinkers on the Environment1 along with luminaries such as Buddha, Gandhi, and Arne Naess. Val died of a stroke in 2008 at the age of 68. She was not only an influential environmental thinker, whose book Feminism and the mastery of nature has become a classic of environmental philosophy; she was also a woman who fearlessly lived life on her own deeply considered terms, often in opposition to prevailing norms. Val’s philosophy had its origins in, and vigorously contributed to, a pivotal moment in Western thought. In the 1970s a radical critique of traditional Western conceptions of nature emerged simultaneously at opposite ends of the Western world, in Australia and in Norway. The Norwegian critique emanated from philosopher, Arne Naess, who became the founder of the deep ecology movement. The less well-known but just as trenchant Australian critique emanated from a small group of philosophers centred on The Australian National University in Canberra. Val, who was then known as Val Routley, and her partner, Richard Routley (later to become Richard Sylvan) were key members of this group. They, like Arne Naess, recognised that the environmental problems that were coming into view at that time were the result not merely of faulty policies and technologies but of underlying attitudes to the natural world that were built into the very foundations of Western thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Free of Detachment: Logic, Rationality, and Gluts
    Nousˆ 00:00 (2013) 1–14 Free of Detachment: Logic, Rationality, and Gluts JC BEALL University of Connecticut 1. Introduction Glut theorists maintain that some sentences are true and false—true with true negations. The best examples of such gluts are antinomies (e.g., the liar paradox). My aim here is not to argue for glut theory; that has been done elsewhere [3, 5, 6, 21,22,35,36,46]. My aim is to address a longstanding and very common objection to glut theories. The objection, roughly, is: (1) Glut theory involves the invalidity of material modus ponens (or, on its con- temporary tag, material detachment): {A, A ⊃ B} ∴ B is invalid. (2) Material detachment is central to our theoretical work. (3) Without some way to understand how we pursue common theoretical work without the validity of detachment, glut theory remains not only a highly radical idea; it is simply implausible—full stop. The dominant reply by glut theorists over the last four decades [4–6, 17, 31, 36, 38, 51] is to concede (1), for reasons briefly reviewed in §5 below, but, towards answering (2) and (3), proceed on a quest for (non-material) detachable conditionals, generally following the lead of Anderson and Belnap’s work and that of others in the ‘relevance’ tradition [1, 2, 17, 23, 31, 32, 38, 39, 42, 47, 50].1 But as Dunn, Meyer and Routley noted early on [33], Curry’s paradox riddles the quest for detachable conditionals with severe problems; and overcoming the problems makes for very complicated, philosophically awkward semantics [9], and indeed often engenders the need to find yet other detachable conditionals to serve other pressing needs (e.g., restricted quantification) [10,12,19].
    [Show full text]
  • UQFL291 Richard Sylvan Collection
    FRYER LIBRARY Manuscript Finding Aid UQFL291 Richard Sylvan Collection Size 172 boxes Contents Correspondence, manuscripts, publications, research material compiled on various philosophical subjects. Biography Richard Routley, who later changed his name to Richard Sylvan, was a philosopher and key figure in research on relevant logic, non-standard logic and environmental philosophy. Notes Unrestricted access Arranged by subject with cross-references to file number. The index of file numbers included at the end of this document was compiled by Sylvan's literary executor prior to transfer to the library. Material in boxes 159 to 172 were passed on to Dr Ross Brady after Sylvan’s death in 1996. Brady edited the second volume of Sylvan’s book Relevant Logics and their Rivals, published in 2003. Environmental Ethics Box 1 1731, 1711, 1710, 1723, 1727, 1705, 1713 Box 2 1561, 1476, 1712, 1714, 1716, 1717, 1706 Box 3 1707, 1783, 1715, 1734, 1735, 1744, 1782 Box 4 1779, 1718, 1818 Box 5 1863, 1767, 1736, 1746, 1759, 1769, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1972, 1998, 1996, 1988, 2006, 1992, 1993, 2000, 1989, 1997, 1991, 1467 Last updated: 22-03-2021 © University of Queensland 1 FRYER LIBRARY Manuscript Finding Aid Box 6 1768, 1758, 910, 917, 1221, 1766, 1772, 1390, 1367, 1365, 889, 973, 974 Box 7 312, 309, 900, 1198, 1197, 1196, 1195, 1194, 1074, 792, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 667, 668, 66, 603, 664, 665, 656, 657, 190, 733, 794, 770, 769, 768, 767, 766, 765, 761, 759, 757, 755, 754, 788 Box 8 647, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655,
    [Show full text]
  • The Last Man∗
    Australasian Journal of Logic The Last Man∗ Roger Lamb University of Queensland [email protected] I. First Moves I examine the basic logical character of ‘the last man example’, as well as the logical character of one of its more important variants. Although it has one striking antecedent in recent philosophy – of which more later – it’s fair to regard it as an example first presented to a contemporary audience by Richard Routley in his 1973 paper, ‘Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?’.1 I want to determine exactly how the example goes and what it shows. I want to determine what it does not show. One reason ∗From the Managing Editor: The use of the sexist language is not condoned by the editors of this Journal. “The Last Man” is used because this is, at least in part, a historical piece and the historical figure that is the subject of the paper – Richard Routley/Sylvan – used it. 1An early version of the paper was originally “presented at the New Zealand Philosophy Conference, Hamilton 1973” (vide Val Routley, ‘Critical Notice’ of Passmore’s Man’s Responsibility for Nature, AJP 53, No. 2 (August, 1975), fn. 1); then a “shortened version” delivered at the World Congress of Philosophy in Bulgaria in September, 1973, and subsequently published in the not very accessible Proceedings of the XV World Congress of Philosophy No. 1, Varna, Bulgaria, 1973, pp. 205-210. The latter version has subsequently been reprinted as the lead article in Michael E. Zimmerman’s widely accessible anthology of philosophical and environmental writings, Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Prentice Hall (1993), pp.
    [Show full text]