Analytic Philosophy's topics - tribe.net

An anomalous mental experience: Elizabeth Bishop in the Waiting Room of the Dentist

Jason Leary — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:46:57 GMT

PREFACE :Here below is a recopied (with typos hopefully edited out) copy of a text which chronicles an experience had by the poet Elizabeth Bishop-- when she was 6 years of age .

I was wondering what ramifications that experience she reports might have for epistemology, ( if any) ?

Fascinating account is recopied below of author Elizabeth Bishop waiting for her aunt Consuello in the dentist office in Worcester , Mass circa 1918 .

In the Waiting Room
by Elizabeth Bishop

In Worcester, Massachusetts,
I went with Aunt Consuelo
to keep her dentist’s appointment
and sat and waited for her
in the dentist’s waiting room.
It was winter. It got dark
early. The waiting room
was full of grown-up people,
arctics and overcoats,
lamps and magazines.
My aunt was inside
what seemed like a long time
and while I waited and read
the National Geographic
(I could read) and carefully
studied the photographs:
the inside of a volcano,
black, and full of ashes;
then it was spilling over
in rivulets of fire.
Osa and Martin Johnson
dressed in riding breeches,
laced boots, and pith helmets.
A dead man slung on a pole
“Long Pig,” the caption said.
Babies with pointed heads
wound round and round with string;
black, naked women with necks
wound round and round with wire
like the necks of light bulbs.
Their breasts were horrifying.
I read it right straight through.
I was too shy to stop.
And then I looked at the cover:
the yellow margins, the date.
Suddenly, from inside,
came an oh! of pain
–Aunt Consuelo’s voice–
not very loud or long.
I wasn’t at all surprised;
even then I knew she was
a foolish, timid woman.
I might have been embarrassed,
but wasn’t. What took me
completely by surprise
was that it was me:
my voice, in my mouth.
Without thinking at all
I was my foolish aunt,
I–we–were falling, falling,
our eyes glued to the cover
of the National Geographic,
February, 1918.

I said to myself: three days
and you’ll be seven years old.
I was saying it to stop
the sensation of falling off
the round, turning world.
into cold, blue-black space.
But I felt: you are an I,
you are an Elizabeth,
you are one of them.
Why should you be one, too?
I scarcely dared to look
to see what it was I was.
I gave a sidelong glance
–I couldn’t look any higher–
at shadowy gray knees,
trousers and skirts and boots
and different pairs of hands
lying under the lamps.
I knew that nothing stranger
had ever happened, that nothing
stranger could ever happen.

Why should I be my aunt,
or me, or anyone?
What similarities
boots, hands, the family voice
I felt in my throat, or even
the National Geographic
and those awful hanging breasts
held us all together
or made us all just one?
How I didn’t know any
word for it how “unlikely”. . .
How had I come to be here,
like them, and overhear
a cry of pain that could have
got loud and worse but hadn’t?

The waiting room was bright
and too hot. It was sliding
beneath a big black wave,
another, and another.

Then I was back in it.
The War was on. Outside,
in Worcester, Massachusetts,
were night and slush and cold,
and it was still the fifth
of February, 1918.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 8 replies

PRECISING DEFINITION OF 'truth'

Jason Leary — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:59:29 GMT

Below is a precisng defintion of truth . Yes, it is long-winded but bear with it ---it isn't just a bunch of jargon . I wish I knew a shorter way of explaining it without compromising accuracy . It is a crock of STEAMING TRUTH ! Now those who would say--it's a crock of something allright--save it. It is a crock of TRUTH !

TRUTH : Is the condition whereby the use of significance (in a particular moment--or over a span of several moments) is thoroughly subordinated (in terms of relevance of content) to the requisite *significant form* that pertains to it (be that use of significance be presented only in the internal dialogue of an individual being OR be that use of significance be expressively presented to another) .
posted by:

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 19 replies

Infinity and chaos

august — Mon, 21 May 2007 06:28:54 GMT

Are Chaos and infinity definable?

It is seemingly possible to define 'actual infinty'. We can make the old fashion Aristotelian split between actual and potential infinity. This is to say that infinity is theoretical and real, but how do I avoid the theoretical infinity when attempting to discuss the real one? Isn't all of my infinity conception and thus only possible?

There is certainly a difficulty defining infinity or chaos as more than an idea.

Chaos is similar to infinity because it does not become anything more than a pattern of observed patternlessness. Patterness and finiteness are similar because they are finite observable opposites to chaos and infintiy; moreover, chaos and infinity, have only theoretic substance and are nothing more then concpets.

The evidence for chaos and infinity are based off of oppositeness, and are not of evidence themselves. In fact, they are defined in such a way that their proof is impossible to observe. For example, proving that something has infinte quality requires an inspection of its never-endingness. Proving that something has the quality of chaos requires observing that it has not pattern. Both of these required proofs are seemingly impossible because they require objective view points from which to know that there is not pattern or end to them.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 17 replies

Notes On The Pre-existence of concepts and beliefs

Jason Leary — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:12:52 GMT

NOTES ON THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CONCEPTS AND BELIEFS

It has been alleged by ANTI-Platonists and by relativists in particular, that concepts and the beliefs that include concepts are allegedly constructs created by human beings ...allegedly something that man comes up with .

That claim , however, is a false one .

Concepts that are the building blocks of beliefs and beliefs pre-exist. Basic concepts and beliefs pre-exist ...as types that is ---the various manifestations of concepts and beliefs at particular localities are not necessarily pre-existent---though the concepts and beleifs concerning specific *types of places* (though not necessarily geographical places) are pre-existent .

To better explain the current discourse about concepts and beliefs some precising definitions are appropriate .

Concepts---are arrangements of specific affirmations and/or negations concerning the aboutness of a specific content .

A Belief ---is an alignment (or in the case of false beleifs misalignment) of concepts (and or meta-concepts...which are concepts regarding other concepts) which is manifested in a corresponding alignment of mental symbols in the mind of the conscious agent that is aware of the belief .

Both concepts and beliefs pre-exist . Concepts are ontologically more fully existent than beliefs --concepts are more antecedent .

Beliefs pre-exist too ...yet they pre-exist as *exial potentials*--subsiting in the nexus or penumbra of possible alignments between concepts (and/or meta-concepts) .

False beliefs pre-exist too ...yet they pre-exist only in a privative sense--- as privations
( potential absences) of the proper alignments that are supposed to be made between specific concepts and meta-concepts .

Which is a fancy way of saying that when the proper type of alignment between the symbols of concepts and such is misssing ...when it is absent --- the wrong arrangement of mental symbols (and hence the wrong arrangement of concepts) is put together in place of the concepts and their corresponding symbols that fit in that specific context .

(False beliefs can often be deliberate , as when a person intentionally disregards the meta-thinking which they are aware of shows them that there are inconsistencies amongst the beliefs they put forth at a given time and/or that the methods of thought they use to arrive at beliefs have NON-consistencies in methodology . Such an arrangement is different from an earnest msiconception )

Of course some skeptics will ask where do the concepts and beliefs come from ?

Well they do not come from anywhere . They are omini-spatial ---lying in wait potentially everywhere to be manifested by particular instances --whenever the requisite conditions are ripe .

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 8 replies

Glaring error in an article posted by a relativist .

Jason Leary — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:24:08 GMT

Symposia :an online philosophy journal and archive, does (on the whole) have a number of quite good and remarkably noteworthy articles on philosophical studies .

However, they do also have some quite dodgy ones too : some articles that are pepperred with a number of fallacies and spurious methods of coming to conclusions .

A particularly bad one is posted (not suprisingly by a relativist) and is titled , ' Does Plato offer a comprehensive refutation of relativism? ' and is posted apparently by some person whose on line name is apparently :'someoneisatthedoor' .

In the present post you are now reading , I have decided to select one particular fallacious claim made by that author in that essay and present a basic explanation of why the author of that essay is quite wrongheaded .

If all goes well, sometime yours truly would like (in another post) to expose other errors made by the author of that essay .

First ,it is well taken that I quote that other person who goes by the screen name : 'someoneisatthedoor ' to better present a review of a claim they make . So here goes ....

"The “moral-optical illusion” in Plato’s case derives from him presupposing the existence of complete truth and then defining it by means of an exclusive, incomplete set of criteria . What is more significant to the argument about relativism is that if knowledge is innate then all we each have to do is recollect our knowledge. This in an epistemological sense makes us all as potentially wise as each other, which is what many relativists would claim. "----someoenisatthedoor

Though the person who is dubbed 'someoneisatthedoor' does use the term 'potentially', in the phrase : 'potentially as wise as each other' , the odd part is that he glosses the 'potentially' element over when he (wronglty) adduces from such a claim the thesis which claims that such potential argues for some inherent mysteriousness (as to whether memory of the Platonic sort is valid for evaluating epistemological data) . He goes on to claim-- with a seductive, lazy-minded, first glance plausibility-- the conclusion that claims that anyone who advances a statement (as to what content they remember supposedly is) has presented just as warranted a statement as any statement (as to the content of memory), as presented by anyone else --and claims to derive that conclusion from the doctrine of Plato that all learning is a form of remembering -- called anamesis !

A passably deeper study of the premise of Plato :which holds that all (non-contingent) learning is a form of remembering (or more precisely: unforgetting) shows that it is outrageous that the author called "someoneisatthedoor" would claim to derive the weird conclusion: that the statement any person might be wont to make about the content of some putative memory at any time is somehow supposedly as warranted as a statement made by anyone else !

How does someoneisatthedoor make that error you may be asking ?

The author in murky fashion glosses over the difference separating (A)Some putatively accurate memory of some body of data and (Z) merely some statement claiming to be a memory of some body of data !

He goes from taking note of the doctrine that all persons *in potential* (given the requiste conditions getting made available for remembering) have the capacity for accurate remembering of some body of data , and then weirdly dives headlong into presuming that every time a person merely *claims to report* some statement as to what they *allegedly* remember that they are actually using that capacity . <---Which is an unwarranted jumping to conclusions (and that's a collossal understatement to call it jumping to conclusions !)

Thus he dives headlong into epistemological pluralism from a premise that in no way supports it .

If a person ,say, after drinking half a gallon of Miller lite and smoking a suitcase full of opium and babbling most of the day, makes the statement where they claim to remember that 12 times 12 equals 0 or minus 22-, then on what grounds should we claim that such a person has equal claim to remembering the content of the information as to what product the mathematical operation mentioned yields than, say , someone else who makes the statement that affirms that they remember that the product of 12 times 12 = 144 ????

Yes , the person who has been drinking half a gallon of Miller light and smoking a suitcase- sized amount of opium who then makes a statement claiming that 12 times 12 somehow equals 0 or -22 might have a innate capacity (IF they put their mind to it ) to remember what the veridical answer to the question :what does 12 x 12 equal ? ---yet does that mean that just because they have the capacity to remember that somehow means that automatically every time they open their mouths the statement they make regarding the topic automatically uses that capacity ? (Heck no , it doesn't !)

The author of the article, which alleges that Plato somehow failed to refute relativism, weirdly presumes that an innate capacity for memory must be thought of as always instantiated by anyone who claims to be giving an account of what they *supposedly* remember as to any content of data . Furthermore, he glosses over factors such as whether a particular person who claims to remember some specified information is even willing to try to remember it accurately . Also the author glosses over whether such a person has the requiste cognitive and/or neurological factors on hand or not that is favorable to them calling up the memory to the forefront of the mind .

Such is quite frankly an outrageous fallacy on behalf of the author of the article .

One can read the article and review it at the following webaddress . (Provided the hyperlink takes)

journal.ilovephilosophy.com/Arti ... ivism-/269

There are numerous other errors /fallacies in the article as well .

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

Academic Zodiac

Lord of the Zodiac — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:45:58 GMT

First published by Klaudio Zic Publications, 2007, www.lulu.com/astrology. Copyright © 2007 by Klaudio Zic. All Rights Reserved. No part of this abstract may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, for commercial purposes or otherwise, without the written permission of the author, except when permitted by law.

ACADEMIC ZODIAC

KLAUDIO ZIC
Academy for RTRRT and Scientific Astrology

ABSTRACT
The Academy of Scientific Astrology is based on astronomic principles confirming to the IAU convention. The calculations are performed on the HORIZONS integrator by Jon Giorgini of NASA JPL, Pasadena CA.
Subject headings: solar system – Academic Zodiac, astrology – precession of the ascendant, meridian constellations
Online material: www.lulu.com/astrology

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over empty space, he hangeth the earth upon nothing;

1. INTRODUCTION

Over the years the Academic Zodiac has been published, tested and tried in a variety of situations ranging from Eros landing to the discovery of the WMAP cold spot. It is our intent and duty to give credit while referring to the NASA JPL staff that guided our first steps into the fascinating world that we call universe. Our mission was not only to delineate all the dwarf planets, centaur objects and classes of special objects, but also study the universal horoscope much as the ancients would. Surprisingly, we have everything that is needed for such a study; in a word, we have NASA.

2. OBSERVATIONS

The ancients observed the skies. This matter of fact marks the difference between the ancient and modern. The visionary astronomers saw the exact positions of the stars according to precession as well as other energetic changes in the finer strata. Anyone observing the sky will determine the rising constellations. These change according to epoch and precession. The ascendant set is by no means static. Observation discloses the true nature of the skies: they rotate. As the skies rotate, the set of ascendants is changing. As the set of ascendants is changing, so does the pulse of this little planet, e.g. today we have a small set of ascendants, only 16, accounting for the uniform state of planetary culture.

3. DATA REDUCTION

The Academic Zodiac has been studied and published as based on scientific facts. The introductory study includes the precession of the ascendant, as well a special treatise on the meridian constellations.
The definition under 1) implies that there is a difference between eastern and meridian constellations, much as the local zodiac stands apart as separate system.
The same rules do not apply to ascendants and zodiacal constellations, much as a separate study of the meridian constellations is required in an astrologer.
The astrologer operating within the real sky environment learns to reduce the data to the essential: ascendant, Moon, star gates, WMAP cold spot and major conjunctions.
Data can be extracted by planetocentric analysis, e.g. In a Juno-centric marriage horoscope, Venus conjunct Bellatrix conveys data that were not obtainable by geocentric analysis.
4. MODEL

The Academic Zodiac spawns further models.

The Academic Zodiac with its standard 22 IAU constellations stands apart fro the set of eastern ascendants, whose number is 16.
The Cartesian house system regulates the uniform of stellar information in a given situation, whether during a seaquake (topocentric depression, negative altitude), on spacecraft or alien solar system. The board mainframe already incorporates such a system.
Scanning the local zodiac for travel purpose is executed by a basic program with preprogrammed zodiacs as well as input and correction capabilities. Zodiacs will be determined on the flight.

5. DISCUSSION

It would be beyond our expectations to find a primitive society handling the intricacies of precession and the zodiac. Slaves and primitives are expected to do as they are told, think as it is expected from their primitive culture, and most of all think big of their culture and leaders. The culture one is born into is the greatest of all times, for all practical purposes. One will not question since the experts do their job and one is not to interfere. It is clear that the Indian, Hebrew and Chinese civilizations are in turn the greatest of all. With due respect towards your civilization, mine is slightly greater than yours is.

6. SUMMARY

Neglect and occult reason have reduced the zodiac to speculative game for the masses. Asinine presumptions have Spica Virginis in Libra and soon Scorpius.
People born with Sun in Virgo are already being told that they are “Scorpio”. Soon the error will expand towards 90 degrees without anyone noticing.
Ascendant Pisces is being interpreted as Capricorn, even when Capricornus can not rise at due east for the epoch.
The Sun is in Libra for Sai Baba’s birthday, November 23rd.
Scores of people believe in the most improbable ascendants and zodiacal positions, such as Aries ascending or even “Pluto in Aries”. Apart from being ridiculous, such presumptions are dangerous in many ways. Pluto never enters Aries or Pisces, much as Eris will never enter Taurus at all. The people who handled the zodiac and ascendant set during the years were poorly educated to say the least. There may be even belief in 12 or 13 signs in the academic world, such is the pressure of the unconscious media upon modern daily mind.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

AN ETHICAL FIRST PRINCIPLE

Jason Leary — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:52:40 GMT

An objective ethical first principle

David Hume was quite wrong when he claimed that all statements regarding ethics/morality merely reflected emotional preferences and denied that there could be any purely rational , intellectual , NON-emotive basis for ethics .

There, indeed, can be and are ethical first principles and precepts NOT based on emotion (though the right uses of emotion can be welcomed as a secondary overlay) ...which are objective and are based on the entailments of sound reason .

Often , however, the demonstration of such objective , rational precepts is rather attenuated , involving lengthy long-winded arguments . There is though at least one ethical first principle that can be demonstrated without as many long-winded sentences and paragraphs .

The two-fold first principle being referred to in this present essay is none other than the precept that teaches (number 1 ) that one should always at least attempt to find some justification for a belief or disposition and , concurrently, that it is always wrong for a being (barring the being in question is greatly addled by severe stress or neurological problems which would rightly excuse them) --- to reject the duty to at least try to find a consistent /rational justification for persisting in some belief or disposition ,and (number 2.) that it is always wrong to refuse to *specifically evaluate* (when one has the spare time to do so) any new arguments presented against that belief or disposition, in terms of the previous attempt at justification (or any supplermentary justification or supplementary attempts at justification) .

In light of that first principle statements made by people when asked why they are watching some particular t.v. show who say , "there's nothing else on " are always totally wrongheaded .

Similarly if a person affirms that they dislike some other person (or other consicous agent like an animal ) and then when asked why they don't like them respond with , "I just don't like them" --and make no effort to evaluate whether or not such dislike for that person ect. is justified or not ---the person who expresses such arbitrary dislike is guilty of a totally wrong disposition .

Similarly, if a person when asked why they dislike another person or being responds , "there's just something about them I don't like", yet does NOT set about to find any consistent criteria that they can clearly define as to why they dislike them ---is also guilty of a totally wrong disposition if they persist in disliking that person or being without any attempt at rational evaluation and justification .

For a basic law of epistemic logic (epistemic logic which is an enterprise that seeks to find which beliefs and dispositions of thought are justified ) is an *epistemic duty* (a normativity) basic to the very enterprise of epistemic logic as an enterprise, that one should attempt to find out if beliefs and dispositions of thinking are justified or not before one chooses to continue supporting those beliefs and ways of thinking .

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

excerpt dealing with efficient cause

Jason Leary — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:56:05 GMT

Here below is an excerpt from an author(an author whose name I couldn't find in the text otherwise I'd credit the source) who , in turn quotes philosophical writer Suarez. Mr.Suarez proposes some quite interesting claims on how the conception of efficient cause (a conception that apparently appears in a book written by Aristotle titled : Physics , might be more clearly conceptualized

Very intereting --truly , surely , and monkey -shooley it is interesting !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. Preliminary Remarks

A. Suarez and the moderns

Unlike Hume's analysis of causality, and unlike most of the prominent contemporary analyses (e.g., those of Lewis, Mackie, Tooley, etc.), Suarez's definition is not meant to be reductive. That is, he does not mean to analyze causality in non-causal terms. Thus, he is not trying to replace causality with some philosophically more tame or less metaphysical concept like constant conjunction, regularity, counterfactual dependence, change in probability, etc. Indeed, it is precisely in order to avoid the notion of action, which stands at the heart of Suarez's analysis, that these modern theories have been developed. Hume's analysis was self-consciously aimed at avoiding the metaphysical implications of the notion of action and also of what he (perhaps mistakenly) saw to be the intimately related notion of causal or natural necessity.
In giving his analysis, Suarez presupposes that what we ordinarily take to be instances of causality in nature are just that. He argues for this presupposition in section 1 of Disputation 18, but for present purposes he is assuming that we have enough paradigmatic instances clearly in mind in order to construct an illuminating definition or, better, explication.

B. Creation ex nihilo

At a certain point in his discussion Suarez makes adjustments that are conceptually required in order for creation ex nihilo to count as an instance of efficient causality. Notice that these moves do not by themselves assume that creation ex nihilo is indeed metaphysically possible. Rather, they assume simply that if there is or can be such a thing as creation ex nihilo, then it should count as an instance of efficient causality. This seems rather modest and wholly acceptable.
This concern with creation explains, by the way, why Suarez talks about the communication of esse rather than about the communication of form. If every instance of efficient causality involved an agent acting on a patient, then we could simply speak of the communication of form to the patient that serves as matter of the change in question. However, creation is an action but not an action on an antecedently existing patient or matter. In the case where the effect of creation is a material substance, creation brings into being both the form and the matter. Hence, Suarez uses the more general term esse for the perfection communicated in efficient causality, rather than the more specific term form. However, whenever a created efficient cause acts (at least naturally), the terminus of its action is always esse qua form, be it a substantival form, or an accidental form, or (perhaps) a mode.

II. Reworking Aristotle's Definition

What we have in this section is a carefully crafted reworking of Aristotle's characterization of an efficient cause as that 'whence there is a first beginning of change or rest'. At each step Suarez makes an emendation and then raises a problem that leads to a further emendation.
Step One:

Proposal: An efficient cause is that whence there is a first beginning of change or rest.

Problem: This definition does not contain a proper genus.

Solution: Replace 'whence' with the term 'per se principle'. 'Principle' defines a general category under which all the various sorts of causal or explanatory notions fall. Literally, it means 'source' or 'beginning'. (Later on in section two Suarez will distinguish a principle quod from a principle quo. This amounts to a distinction between the substance which (quod) is the agent in a given case of efficient causality from the power or habit or faculty by which the substance acts. However, this distinction does not come into play at present.) The particle per se is meant to exclude anything (or any description) which is only accidentally related to the effect produced. For instance, if a doctor builds a house, he does so as a human being or as a builder, but not as a doctor. That is, his being a doctor is accidental or per accidens with respect to this particular instance of efficient causality. The term 'doctor' connotes a human being as having a certain set of powers, habits, and dispositions which define the medical art he possesses and is irrelevant to his house-building activity. So the principle quod here is best captured either by a natural kind term which leaves open just what the relevant principle quo is ('human being') or by a term which connotes the relevant powers ('builder').

Step Two:

Proposal: An efficient cause is a per se principle from which a change first exists or comes to exist.

Problem: The definiens here is common to causes other than efficient causes, in particular the matter or material cause, since the matter, like the agent, exists antecedently to the change or exercise of efficient causality. It is not enough to point out that the matter itself must first be made to exist by an exercise of efficient causality, since the same holds for all secondary (i.e., non-divine) efficient causes as well.

Solution: The efficient cause is at least conceptually prior to the matter, in that the matter receives because the agent acts, but not vice versa. So this is a legitimate sense in which the efficient cause is first and the matter is not. Further, the efficient cause is an extrinsic principle, unlike matter and form, which are intrinsic causes. Later on, Suarez clarifies this further by pointing out that the matter and the form communicate their own esse to the composite, whose own esse derives from or includes that of the matter and the form. By contrast, the efficient cause communicates an esse that is numerically distinct from its own--and this whether we are speaking of the principle quod or the principle quo.

Step Three:

Proposal: An efficient cause is a per se and extrinsic principle from which a change first exists or comes to exist.

Problem: The definiens seems to apply to the final cause or end rather than to the efficient cause, since the end is that for the sake of which an efficient cause acts and is thus prior to the latter. In short, an efficient cause 'aims at' a certain terminus. Note that the Aristotelian picture has a dynamism packed into it that later anti-Aristotelians found fit to reject. Some of them (Descartes) limited change to local motion, where finality is perhaps least evident; others (Hume) simply rebelled against metaphysics in general; still others (Malebranche, Berkeley) saw the connection between finality and efficiency and limited agency to God alone or to God and rational agents alone. What they all deny--or at any rate are agnostic about--is dynamism and real action in nature.

Solution: The efficient cause is first in execution and it alone has a real moving influence. The particle 'from which' is already sufficient to mark this difference, since the end is that for the sake of which a change exists, but not that from which a change exists. So no emendation is called for.

Step Four:

Proposal: An efficient cause is a per se and extrinsic principle from which a change first exists or comes to exist.

Problem: (1) This definition applies only to the First Cause, since no other cause is first, strictly speaking. (2) This definition does not apply to creation, since creation is not a change.

Solution: (1) By 'first' we mean first within a given genus or order of causes. So it can apply to any principal cause, and indeed to any instrumental cause, advising cause, or disposing cause--in short, to any cause that acts and thereby contributes to some effect. So each genuine efficient cause will be 'first' with respect to some effect or other within some order or genus of efficient causality. (There is some question here about instrumental causes, but this will be dealt with in the next section.) (2) This objection is well taken, and to accommodate it we should speak of action instead of change.

Step Five:

Proposal: An efficient cause is a per se and extrinsic principle from which an action first exists or comes to exist.
Alternative 1: An efficient cause is a first per se and extrinsic principle from which an effect flows forth, or on which an effect depends, by means of an action.
Alternative 2: An efficient cause is a first per se and extrinsic principle from which an effect receives its own distinct esse by means of an action.

Problem: What an action is is just as obscure as what an efficient cause is.

Solution: At the level of generality at which we are now operating, it is sufficient to understand by the term 'action' the effect's emanation from and dependence on its extrinsic cause. Thus, we need not make explicit mention of the effect in the formula, although we may ala the second alternative. Later, in Disputation 18, Section 10, we will say more about what an action is. (It will turn out that an action is a mode of the effect that has an essential relation to the agent as actually acting--and it is this mode which is the agent's causality.)

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

Analytic philosophy vs. Continental philosophy

Jason — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 07:49:59 GMT

Anyone want to take a stab at this? The merits and defects of both, if any. The methodological differences, style, etc. In other words, what are some good meta-philosophical criteria that would adjudicate what is the superior approach to studying, answering, or solving philosophical questions/problems?

I know that since this is the AP tribe, there will be a heavy bias toward AP, but let's try to be impartial.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 3 replies

DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE ON THIS SITE OR IS IT DORMANT???

Jason — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:10:50 GMT

I posted a topic on "Analytic Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy" over a week ago but have not seen any replies. I would assume that out of 200 plus members, at least one would have replied by now. Just wondering.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 7 replies

Encompassing Field...

FocalAxis — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:32:32 GMT

Analytic Philosophy...

Well I think I'm in the right place with this post. In essence, here is an idea I'm sharing and I would like some discussion about it:

It seems a field of energy does entirely encompass all that we are. I call this the encompassing field. I also consider this field of energy to be the universe-consciousness. Unity.

This field also interconnects all of our consciousness. The degree to which each of us is aware of the reality of our interconnected consciousness varies from one to another. It may even vary for each of us from time to time. I call this interconnected consciousness the collective-consciousness.

The universe-consciousness is the unity of consciousness which this collective is.

UC is self aware and very aware of all life. Life, being energy, is UC. Please understand UC is alive. UC experiences and manifests it’s awareness in present-moments as reality itself is unfolded.

As with all that has awareness, UC manifests intention. Consider the possibility of discernment being represented in that which is appreciated and that which is not.

I am curious about the UC intending to encourage the things it appreciates. This is possible.

Some things in this world never change. Some things do. Each choice you make cannot be undone.

It never changes. It simply means we do make choice consciously when we intend. That’s important.

All temporal objects vibrate. Is it the case that the smaller the object the faster it’s vibration?

Are there non-temporal objects? If there are non-temporal objects, do they vibrate?

6.5.5

That which is our shared understanding grows and this is change. Yet what we share in understanding does not change. This is God (UC) growing.

A shared understanding is our agreement about what is true for us.

Wherever anything happens for the first time – There is God.

Shared understanding must exist for trust to exist.

This is where faith is unconscious.

Now we trust that our shared understanding does represent what we trust as the known itself.

Enter agreement.

Intention is connected to thought as we choose what we intend. The thoughts which occur and result from the intention we form are manifestations of our intention as we thought it.

It is true that we don’t always appreciate these resulting thoughts. Our resolution of our experience of thought is not without some importance, since it is possible for unresolved things to develop in this manner.

Sometimes thoughts may occur which do reflect part of the path taken in the formation of intention, yet which do not represent the ultimate conclusion of the path formed by the intention.

Where this is also true, a simple return to the idea of the accepted final intention may reinforce the choice. Ah, hah hah hah… Intentions are choices. Beautiful!

Our intention is to fold others into our shared understanding and trust, through agreement.

Our intention is to enfold them into the collective through shared understanding, trust, and agreement.

Right now both of those statements work pretty well it seems to me.

This way we exist, our consciousness interconnected through the shared energy which is our understanding - as the conscious collective.

Commitment is important to agreement. I notice that shared understanding is required for trust and trust is also required for shared understanding. We do not share understanding in that which is outside of trust for any of us. Is the creation understandable without trust? What creation do you ask? I answer: it is the proposed intention. It is to say that sometimes we do not understand the choosing we experience. It is then not true for us. Again, intention and choosing are connected.

This is the direction of energy in flow from shared understanding and trust – they are connected… outward.

Agreement makes growth of the shared understanding. So then, agreement is connected to shared understanding. It seems we may attempt to bring trust into existence where it is not now, by agreeing about shared understanding.

O the opportunity in Harmony of shared intention.

I intend to grow in shared understanding and in shared intention through trust. It is possible for us to agree to share intentions. It may also be possible that some growth of our shared understanding is necessary to establish shared intentions.

I am willing to manifest shared understanding and trust as my part of the connection with others through agreement. These agreements represent the acknowledgement of those connected, that our shared understanding is equally true for each of us.

Is it possible that a shared understanding is more true for one than another? If that were true can trust truly exist? Hm... I know trust exists.

We agree that another exists and we are not them. Yet we are totally interconnected through the UC. So it is true that you are more you, than I am you. This is not, however, true from the perspective of the UC. UC is absolutely all that each of us is, and all that each of us is.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 4 replies

SOME BEGINNING MATERIAL (for precising definitions)

Jason Leary — Thu, 03 May 2007 07:23:00 GMT

SOME BEGINNING MATERIAL FOR PRECISING DEFINITIONS

SPACE---is the presence range of causal extention in terms of either efficient cause, material cause, or final cause .

INSTANTIATION --Is the manifestation of an instance from a set, class, or meta-set, or class---or a principle governing any such categories-- into a domain of efficient, material , or final causation .

(A lot of seeming conrudrums ...vexing problems.... in philosophy notably ontology , and epistemology can be cleared up with more precise definitions . So let not the proverbial chips fall where they may . Let us guide them to fall into the right slots !)

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 10 replies

Wrestling Religion and the Media: 2 on 1 deathmatch

Krampus — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:01:38 GMT

This topic I have posted before but the recent news of Senator Stark announcing that he is an atheist has relit my fire. Whenever an interview or debate on a moral issue is presented in the media, the "moral" argument is ALWAYS represented by some type of clergyman (usually Catholic). The linking is not unexpected. As the majority of society associates ethics with religion then the authorities on religion naturally should be authorities on ethics--in the public mind. However, in an age of pedophilic raping priests, hypocrites like Ted Haggert, just flat out insane fucks like "Rev." Fred Phelps, bigots like Falwell, and insane nuts like Robertson (claiming Katrina was gaud's punishment and Chavez should be assassinated) it is high time that secular ethicists, especially secular academic philosophers of ethics, wrest this media monopoly from religion.

The question is how?

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 9 replies

The relationship between the artistis media

HumanFallout — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:25:19 GMT

I have this habit - whenever I try to explain my views of a certain artistic medium I usually end up bringing in other forms of art. It's long been my contention that all artistic media are interrelated. But each independent medium (let's exclude film which is the mixture of four media) strikes us in its own way. Despite the "high art" aspect so many people like to place on literature (and I'm a writer so I think I'm qualified to say this), I think the "highest" art form is music, simply because it's able to connect with us more strongly than any other, is able to bring out of us, with such ease, the strongest and most basic of emotions. It's also the most obscure, as far as trying to figure out WHY certain musical phrases, certain sounds and combinations of sounds, why certain sorts of pauses in certain contexts, all affect such large portions of us in very similar ways. Most of this, it seems to me, is a product of chemistry - and that's not the realm of philosophy - but the philosophical question, I think, is this :

In what ways are all the independent artistic media (film excluded) related? In what ways are they NOT related? Surely the different media affect different parts of the brain, but the way they're processed is always an artistic process (in other words, the psychological transformation of information into art), therefore: Does that not require the same part(s) of the brain?

Perhaps this is clumsily (at least hurriedly) composed, and anybody feel free to iron it out for me.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

"pervert's guide to cinema" with slavoj zizek

podp — Tue, 22 May 2007 08:59:41 GMT

hell all,

anybody see sophie fiennes "pervert's guide to cinema" ? it features the Lacanian philospher Zizek from Slovenia analyzing
cinema, our desires, and the entangled worlds of illusion, fantasy , realities.

just watched it partially thru a second time with a bunch of filmmakers who got quickly bored with it... though it Was after watching
a few other clips first... and i think the attention for media had dwindled in general.

though i did also find it this time a somewhat mainstreaming/popularizing of his ideas (if that's possible), and if you are familiar with him,
you may start to wish he'd taken it further into more obscure film territory.

the film excerpts clips Are from a pretty wide range: hitchcock, chaplin, lynch, tarkovsky, marx brothers, coppola, etc.
and has some exceptional moments, especially since it seems very timely to psychoanalyze the cinema in sociological contexts.

After researching this a bit i also discovered a new book called Endless Nights: cinema and psychoanalysis, parallel histories
... a collected essays on the subject:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6945.html

anyway, i could pursue a number of angles for discussion about these topics , but i'll just throw this info out first.

and if yur in the bay area , pervert's guide is playing at the roxie ( one more nite?):

http://www.roxie.com/events/details.cfm?eventID=20D7FE5F-F1F6-5CD4-1BFDF9CFFD06BA49

ciao,
pod

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 1 reply

Recommendation

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:15:16 GMT

Could you please recommend a philosopher who's principles remain relevant in all branches of modern knowledge, eg. quantum theory, relativity, mathematics and the social sciences.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 13 replies

creating an interactive art project on my tribe page

bragitta — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:44:55 GMT

I am creating a questioning art project on my tribe page
an interactive art project
where I make an piece of art and then post a question
and the comments inspire the next piece of art and question

comments greatly inspire the projects direction
so please hop on over to my tribe page
and see if this art project will provide anything of value to you

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

WHERE IS EVERYBODY ?

Jason Leary — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:41:59 GMT

Where is everybody ? Let's keep this present message board rocking ! Let's not let it collect cyberdust like so many wind up doing !

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 11 replies

WHERE IS ANYBODY?

bradleyalbus — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:37:26 GMT

Are we any closer to an answer?

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 1 reply

A Static View of Time & the soul

Thu, 25 May 2006 22:41:22 GMT

Okay, assume this theological concept:
the Creationist view of the soul=God creates the souls of humans prior to their birth "out of nothing" or ex nihilo. This is in contrast to the view that souls, the immaterial substance of humans, are passed by the parents along with the physical traits.

Okay. assume the creationist view of the soul is true.

The theological setback for this view is that it says in the Bible that God rested on the seventh day. If the creationist view of the soul were true, God would be busy 24/7 making souls since humans are born every 3 seconds or so and consequently unable to rest. Let's call this theological problem the "7th day dilemma".

THIS IS MY SOLUTION TO THE DILEMMA. I want to know if my proposed solution is logically possible under the presumption that the soul exists, it can be created by an all powerful being out of nothing, etc.

Okay, here goes:
Would a static view of time, that is, the standard Einsteinian view of time as relative to no particular point solve the "7th day dilemna"? Since God would be able to create souls ex nihilo from the beginning of time to the end of time all at once in this static view of time allowing for God to rest on the "seventh" day and thus "skirt" the problem by redefining the "7th day" as a conceptual issue from our viewpoint ?

I know, I know, it sounds a little "slim shady".

but I still want to know if anyone has any thoughts on the logical possiblity of this proposed resolution to the "7th day dilemma"

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 20 replies

Self-describing adjectives

barce — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:08:58 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grelling%27s_paradox

Is the word "heterological" heterological?

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 8 replies

Does Philosophy solve all of your problems?

zoetropeglass — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:27:05 GMT

Does it make you better?
Can the logic of what you believe ever become the love that you feel?
::dissect at will::

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 17 replies

marx's reversal of the dialectic

thewildeflower — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:41:29 GMT

'It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousnes." -Marx

A penny for your thoughts?

I'm also thinking in line of the substructure and the superstructure that he wrote about.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 5 replies

Join The Meritocratic Party

Flakeybee — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:48:31 GMT

Deep thinkers, the world needs you!

http://tribes.tribe.net/themeritocraticparty

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

Let's Pull Together

Kandy — Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:42:44 GMT

I was browsing through the tribe listing and noticed that mine was not the only tribe dedicated to philosophical discussion. In fact there are a number of philosophy tribes on this network, all containing less than 10 members. I thought that it would be wise to all congregate to one tribe. I'm sending this message to all of the philosophy tribes in hopes that their members will come to A Tribe For Philosophy so that for once, we can all come together in one place.

Public URL: atribeforphilosophy.tribe.net

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 2 replies

Leibniz, Black, & Zimmerman: Identity of Indiscernibles

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:48:56 GMT

Do you agree with Max Black's view of Leibniz' Identity of Indiscernibles:

"Isn’t it logically possible that the universe should have contained nothing but two exactly similar spheres?

We might suppose that each was made of chemically pure iron, had a diameter of one mile, that they had the same temperature, color, and so on, and that nothing else existed. Then every quality and relational characteristic of the one would also be a property of the other. (II, 83)"

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 5 replies

Existentialism

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:20:34 GMT

Anybody here study existentialism? I've been getting into it recently. Actually, when I started reading about it I realized I'd always been an existentialist. Curious to know any body else's thoughts on this philosophy.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 4 replies

CALL FOR PAPERS: Metaphysical Society of America

Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:34:18 GMT

Call for Papers: Metaphysical Society of America

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
March 11-12, 2007

"Being qua Being"

Metaphysics, First Philosophy, was described by Aristotle as the quest for ultimates, archai, as he put it. Its subject: Being qua being. Its core question: What is it for a thing to be? Metaphysics considers not just living things, like biology, or thinking, or the weather, but whatever exists. It holds itself open to consider all claims about reality at large. It is perhaps its generality that has given metaphysics a bad name in some quarters. The interest in ultimates ensnarled it in population imagination with the arcana of the occult. For many philosophers, metaphysics has seemed to be hopelessly entangled with irresoluble quandaries. For how could one have the effrontery to try to characterize reality at large? Some have taken refuge from such big questions by turning to an analysis of language or some other meta-critique, parasitic on other modes of discourse. Others have substituted historical disquisitions on texts and the circumstances of their composition. Or they have sublimated, if not creatively, in poetic or artistic expression, then cloaking their metaphysical interests in the opacity of oblique discourse or the armor of technical jargon. And yet the big questions do not disappear. They remain robust as long as human curiosity flourishes. And efforts to address them persist, varying in quality with the insights or insightfulness of those who make the attempt.

Our question, then, is the ancient one: What is it for a thing to be? Do minds exist? If so, what is their relation to bodies? What is it to be a person, or a living being? What connections are there between being and knowing? fact and value? reality and truth? Do ideas exist, and if so how? Does God exist? What about probabilities and possibilities? What is the ontic status of causes? All these questions are opened up by the inquiry into being. The topic is chosen for its openness to a wide variety of perspectives. Papers are invited that seek to grapple with such questions, drawing on the work of past and present philosophers but not avoiding active engagement with the core questions in their own right.

ARISTOTLE PRIZE: Papers on Being qua Being, submitted by persons who have not yet earned a Ph.D. or whose Ph.D. is less than 5 years old at the time of submission will be considered for the Aristotle Prize if the Program Committee is alerted to eligibility. The prize carries a cash award of $500 and inclusion in the program. Please encourage graduate students and junior colleagues to consider entering the competition.

Papers with a reading time of 30 minutes, or 500 word abstracts, should be submitted by July 15, 2006 to Professor Lenn E. Goodman (lenn.e.goodman@vanderbilt.edu), Department of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240. Completed papers will receive priority in consideration. Those whose abstracts are selected by the Program Committee must submit their completed papers by January 15, 2007, to allow time for commentators to prepare and to allow for publication of the conference program.

Papers submitted for the Aristotle Prize must be complete and submitted by July 15, 2006, clearly designated as Aristotle Prize submissions and accompanied by a statement of the grounds for eligibility. Like other program papers, these should have a reading time of 30 minutes. Those not selected for the Prize (of which there is just one) may still be selected for the program.

N.B. The 2007 program takes place on a Sunday and Monday, not Saturday and Sunday.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 2 replies

SPEED OF GRAVITY RESULTS INCORRECT, SAY PHYSICISTS

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:51:05 GMT

By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 01:30 pm ET
16 January 2003
www.space.com/scienceastr..._030116.html

Physicists leveled heavy criticism Thursday on a report from last week that claimed the speed of gravity had been determined by observation and was equal to the speed of light.

One physicist called the interpretation of the finding "nonsense". Others were more diplomatic, suggesting that the experiment, involving observations of the bending of light from a distant galaxy as the light sped by the planet Jupiter, had instead measured other phenomena.

The brewing controversy, which illustrates the fits and spurts with which science sometimes grudgingly moves forward, appears to have ground to a stalemate for now as the two scientists who conducted the experiment categorically defended their work.

"The claim that they've measured the speed of gravity is simply incorrect," said Clifford Will, a physicist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, and an expert in the field.

Interestingly, Will is friends with one of the researchers whose work he knocks.

In a telephone interview this morning, Will hailed the intricate observations as possibly "a great achievement" but said the interpretation of the data "clouded what would otherwise have been a really cool result."

Defending the claim

Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and Sergei Kopeikin from the University of Missouri in Columbia, performed the experiment. They watched light from a faraway galaxy bend as the planet Jupiter passed almost directly between the galaxy and Earth. Their theory stated that the bending would occur due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter.

By noting the extent of the bending, the researchers claimed to have measured whether gravity acted instantly or somewhat more slowly, at light-speed.

Proving that gravity works at the speed of light would add support to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and place limits on fringe theories in cosmology. Most physicists are confident that this is the case, but no one has ever confirmed it by direct measurement.

Isaac Newton long ago argued that gravity instead propagates instantaneously. The suggestion has not died. If it were true, a big door would open to wild theories of how the universe might work on the grandest scales, including its possible interaction with other universes or other dimensions. Even a slight difference in the speeds of light and gravity would give theorists nifty wiggle room to craft bizarre ideas about the mechanics of the unseen universe.

Fomalont, an observational astronomer, calmly refuted the criticisms one-by-one this morning.

"We're really confident that we've measured the speed of gravity and that our interpretation of the results of our experiment are as stated," Fomalont told SPACE.com.

Behind the scenes

The finding, announced Jan. 7 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), was controversial well before it was reported to the general public. Two papers on the work had in prior weeks been submitted for peer review and possible publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. One describes the technique, another details the results. Both are still being reviewed.

Will, the Washington University physicist and a self-proclaimed longtime colleague and friend of Kopeikin, was asked to review the theoretical paper for the journal. Will recommended it not be published. The paper has since been sent to another referee.

Will explained his reasoning: A moving body, like Jupiter, produces additional gravitational effects that Kopeikin did not take into account in his theoretical calculations. Will was surprised that the findings were announced last week, before the papers had been accepted for publication.

It is not uncommon for discoveries to be presented to reporters at AAS meetings prior to having been through peer review. Numerous other findings, by NASA scientists and others, are announced in press releases every year prior to any formal peer review. Scientists are sometimes critical of this so-called "science by press release" process. Others see it as a natural and inevitable flow of information into scientific and public hands.

Ultimately, Will said, the scientific community will sort out the truth in this case.

"Will is one of the giants in this field," Fomalont said. He added that Kopeikin and Will have gone politely back and forth on their differing interpretations of subtleties in what might be observed in the experiment, and are simply at loggerheads over which approach is correct.

Kopeikin said he has found a mistake hidden deep in Will's calculations, and that other mathematicians concur. "He does not agree," Kopeikin said of Will today. "But mathematics is against him."

Kopeikin, too, said the review process would ultimately reveal the truth.

Long-running debate

Kopeikin began circulating his theoretical idea for the experiment more than two years ago, and criticisms began well before the observational work was carried out last September.

Japanese physicist Hideki Asada published a paper, also in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, about a year ago arguing that Fomalont and Kopeikin would actually be measuring the speed of light, not gravity. That paper has been a thorn in Kopeikin's side ever since. During the AAS press conference last week, when questioned about Asada's work, Kopeikin was visibly frustrated and said Asada had made a mathematical mistake.

Fomalont said this morning that Asada's paper was "not valid." But because it was published, however, it had been given "a standing which it does not deserve."

Today, also in the Nature Science Update article, Peter van Nieuwenhuizen, a physicist at Stony Brook University in New York, called the interpretation of the results by Fomalont and Kopeikin "compete nonsense," but the comment was not expanded upon.

Fomalont chose not to respond to van Nieuwenhuizen's choice of words. He also said he had no regrets over announcing the results prior to peer-reviewed acceptance in a journal.

The whole issue seems to have caught many physicists by surprise.

Fomalont notes that during the two or three years that scientists had to review the idea, most did not think the measurements could even be made (regardless of what was being measured) so few spoke up about the potential interpretation of the results (that the speed of gravity could be determined).

"Then they see that we can measure it, and that fostered a lot of bubbling up of criticism," Fomalont said.

There remains little doubt that something was measured last September when the largest planet in our solar system fortuitously passed in front of a bright galaxy some 9 billion light-years away. What remains is for physicists to agree on what was seen.

Original story on the speed of gravity announcement:
www.space.com/scienceastr..._030107.html

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

Would an average velocity contra a constant velocity .....

Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:51:09 GMT

to Einsteins STR -that is, employing the e-Lorentzian constant to the speed of light-
provide a valid case for 'absolute simultaneity' as an overarching time frame to relative time frames?

Does anyone have any thougths on this???

---J

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 5 replies

A psychological test

Bo — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:58:26 GMT

http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/b46a3fde-6299-47ab-b19c-3f3c11b52862

Post your answers in this thread not the above thread. I want to compare answers from different tribes.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

20th Century?

dirtydog — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:27:07 GMT

Does anyone know of a good book that summarizes the recent trends in philosophical thought? Something along the lines of Russel's History but more up to date? I dread the thought of mining Heidegger only to be confronted by Foucault...

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies

Contemporary Pragmatism

acasad — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 07:05:07 GMT

I am interested in other people who are using contemporary Pragmatism, ala Richard Rorty, Hillary Putnam and Cornel West (among many others) for social science research. I am also interested to know if there is anyone who has done an analysis of Pragmatism, as a philsophical bent which is in many ways a response to post-Enlightment, post-structualist, post-modern philosophy, and pragmatics, the subdiscipline of linguistics that studies language in use and as lived, interestingly enough descended from the semiotic work of C.S. Peirce, whom James regarded as the father of American Pragmatism.

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 7 replies

Books for sale

Josh_A — Fri, 14 May 2004 03:31:24 GMT

Hiya,

I have the following books available... please message me if you are interested.

MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers 4th ed.
by Joseph Gibaldi
Paperback
List Price: $13.50
Selling for: $2

Republic
by Plato, translation by Robin Waterfield
Paperback
List Price: $7.95
Selling for: $2

posted in Analytic Philosophy - 0 replies