Product Description
This is a dictionary of Descartes and Cartesian philosophy, primarily covering philosophy in the 17th century, with a chronology and biography of Descartes's life and times and a bibliography of primary and secondary works related to Descartes and to Cartesians. ... Read more

Product Description
Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) was one of the most notorious and pious of Rene Descartes philosophical followers. A member of The Oratory, a Roman Catholic order founded in 1611 to increase devotion to the Church and St. Augustine, Malebranche brought together his Cartesianism and his Augustinianism in a rigorous theological-philosophical system. Malebranche's occasionalist metaphysics asserts that God alone possesses true causal power. He asserts that human understanding is totally passive and relies on God for both sensory and intellectual perceptions. Critics have wondered what exactly his system leaves for humans to. Yet leaving a space for true human intellectual and moral freedom is something Malebranche clearly intended. This book offers a detailed evaluation of Malebranche's efforts to provide a plausible account of human intellectual and moral agency in the context of his commitment to an infinitely perfect being possessing all causal power. Peppers-Bates suggests that Malebranche might offer a model of agent-willing useful for contemporary theorists. ... Read more

Product Description
This scarce antiquarian book is included in our special Legacy Reprint Series. In the interest of creating a more extensive selection of rare historical book reprints, we have chosen to reproduce this title even though it may possibly have occasional imperfections such as missing and blurred pages, missing text, poor pictures, markings, dark backgrounds and other reproduction issues beyond our control. Because this work is culturally important, we have made it available as a part of our commitment to protecting, preserving and promoting the world's literature. ... Read more

Product Description
This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Subtitle: The Development of a Constructive Realism Upon the Basis of Modern Logic and Science, and Through the Criticism of Opposed Philosophical Systems; Original Published by: Holt in 1918 in 552 pages; Subjects: History / General; Philosophy / Movements / Rationalism; ... Read more

Product Description
The rationalization of power has been an enduring feature of modernity, assigning to human rights the task of subjecting the excesses of power to the scrutiny of critical reason. Gaete examines this task in the wake of the crisis of modernity, when the belief that man can draw principles out of his own ground has lost its authority and when the very possibility of an enlightened, disinterested reason is being questioned. The aim of the text is not to offer another critique of rights, but to investigate how both rights and critiques are transformed by the rhetoric of power. The author traces the discourse of judicial criticism as a series of rhetorical operations, bringing to light the paradoxes, antinomies and "truth games" that permeate the field of human rights. He interrogates the discourse of modern humanism and examines how its claims to being the law and the metaphysics of a modern state shape the bond between state and citizen. Gaete carries his argument across the fields of post-Neitzschean philosophy, Anglo-American jurisprudence, political science, cultural and legal studies opening ground for the analyses of the rhetoric of rights. ... Read more

Product Description
H A Prichard argued that the 'why should I be moral?' question is the central subject matter of moral theory. Prichard famously claimed to have proved that all efforts to answer that question are doomed. Many contributors to this volume of contemporary papers attempt to reconstruct Prichard's argument. They claim either explicitly or implicitly that Prichard was mistaken, and philosophy can contribute to meaningful engagement with the 'why be moral?' question. A theme to emerge from these papers is that arguments like Prichard's rely on numerous philosophical presuppositions. The volume therefore touches on a wide range of topics and treatments. Is there one kind of practical reason or multiple kinds of reasons? Are there separate facts that determine the rationality and reasonableness of persons? Does the conception of a practical reason found in classical philosophy have the resources to undercut Prichard's argument? Does it make sense to hold people morally accountable for their actions if it cannot be demonstrated that there are reasons to be moral? Does applied ethics have anything to contribute to the debate on morality's rational authority?This volume will be useful for advanced undergraduates and specialists working on the foundations of morality, and morality's intersection with reason and rationality. The detailed introduction enhances the collection's accessibility by providing a detailed exposition of Prichard's renowned thesis that draws on his lesser-known, mature papers. It then carefully situates the volume's contents against that background. ... Read more

Product Description
This book is concerned with the alleged capacity of the human mind to arrive at beliefs and knowledge about the world on the basis of pure reason without any dependence on sensory experience.Most recent philosophers reject the view and argue that all substantive knowledge must be sensory in origin. Laurence BonJour provocatively reopens the debate by presenting the most comprehensive exposition and defense of the rationalist view that a priori insight is a genuine basis for knowledge. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Refreshing Rationalism
Laurence Bonjour provides a refreshingly insightful defense of "moderate rationalism" and a priori justification. Bonjour persuasively argues against empiricical "write offs" of the a priori by saying that objections to a priori knowledge are either groundless or presuppose the very a priori justification they claim to reject.

Well done and worth a second read.

formidable defense of rationalism.
The rationalist position, essentially that knowledge is possible purely on the basis of thinking, would never have required much defense a few hundred years ago. It had always been taken for granted that knowledge could be given a priori justification, without appeal to sensory perception. The anti-rationalist position is a difficult one: indeed, it seems that any meaningful denial of this claim would itself be a priori. Yet this fact has not dissuaded countless intellectuals from either severely disarming a priori justification or rejecting it outright. So, in my view the primary strength of BonJour's work here is to show that all rejections of synthetic a priori justification implicitly depend on synthetic a priori arguments themselves. This is apparent in BonJour's challenges to moderate empiricism, linguistic analysis, and the radical repudiation of apriorism by Professor Quine and his followers. The defensive aspect of this book demonstrates that a rejection of a priori reasoning results in a rejection of reason itself, a position that is untenable if not an outright performative contradiction. Some critics will ultimately latch on to the argument that appeals to a priori justification are ultimately question-begging. I do not find this view plausible, since such objections are also principally a priori in nature.

BonJour's critique of Kant's epistemology, showing him to be closer to empiricism than rationalism, is pretty much on the mark, because Kant's theory of knowledge applies only to one's own subjective categories and not reality in sich. (I believe a constructivist defense of Kant's philosophy can be made, but it requires that a bridge be made between the mind and external reality, something not established by Kant himself.) He also spends considerable time withering away at the all too prevalently held view of the symbolic conception of thought, which in my view is one of the more powerful arguments against the a priori. His argument, in a nutshell, is that the symbolic conception of thought renders thoughts internally inaccessible, and any metaphysical theory which does so must be untenable.

Ultimately, BonJour's thesis is that a priori justification is fallible, but undeniably possible. BonJour feels secure with the position of moderate rationalism he has a adopted, although I believe this conception of reason is a bit weaker than he does, simply because, on my interpretation, BonJour requires less certainty than I would deem necessary to justify a given proposition a priori. A priori justification requires axioms, without it is clearly weaker than it would be otherwise. In his moderate view, there is also the possibility of empirical data refuting a priori justification, and I cannot accept this. If empirical information really "refutes" a priori justification (which I am not convinced is possible), then I would definitely refrain from calling the a priori argument truly _justified_. Furthermore, I think BonJour misses an essential part of a priori justification-that it logically precedes all empirical knowledge. Yet this takes little away from the essence of BonJour's position, which I would accept.

Bear in mind I am most certainly an extreme rationalist, albeit not quite the kind Mr. BonJour has in mind when he discusses the "extreme" rationalist in his book. Therefore, I may sound more critical than I would prefer. Regardless of my own criticism, this is an excellent, fair, and highly-welcome defense of the most maligned source of knowledge in our time.

Interesting but it conflicts with reality.
I have not read all the book but noticed in the propositions assumed as reliable, for example that something cannot be "red all over and green all over", that this has turned out not to be correct as determined by science. Investigations into the nature of our physical universe has given us the strange conclusion that a small subatomic particle such as an electron or a photon of light can indeed be "both red all over and green all over", e.g., be both a particle (a point) and a wave (extending indefinitely). This is not understandable to our reason but has been confirmed by experiment. Thus making the logical assumptions as given in the beginning of this book in conflict with what has been determined as the nature of reality and though it seems commonsense and logical to state that something cannot be in two states at once, it does seem indeed to be the way the world is constructed.

Reason Vindicated
Laurence BonJour has written an outstanding defense of "pure reason", i.e., the idea that the human mind can, by way of rational insight, arrive at certain truths about the nature of reality.These truths are known "a priori" and do not rely on the senses for their justification.The most obvious examples of a priori knowledge are the laws of logic and mathematics.Although certain a priori truths may have some empirical content (for example, the statement that something can't be all red and all green at the same time), even these truths are not justified on empirical grounds.

This view is, broadly speaking, called rationalism and is the dominant position in the history of philosophy.Not only was it advocated by explicit rationalists such as Plato, but also philosophers considered empiricists, such as Locke and Aristotle, were rationalists.It wasn't until Hume and his followers that rationalism went challenged.(Prof. BonJour has an interesting take on Kant, whom he places within the empiricist tradition.)In our day, rationalism has been defended by many distinguished (and diverse) philosophers such as Brand Blanshard, A. C. Ewing, Gordon Clark, and Roderick Chisolm.

Prof. BonJour elaborates on the standard rationalist argument that any attempt to build a rigorously empirical epistemology must ultimately depend on a priori insight.Take the above statement that something can't be all red and all green at the same time.How many examples of red and green objects would we have to observe to come to that conclusion?How would we know that we have made enough observations to be confident in our conclusion?In addition, how can we come to the conclusion given that nothing is entirely red or entirely green?As Brand Blanshard notes somewhere, even a not particularly bright person can cut to the heart of such matters by viewing just one object and applying his rather limited abilities of reflection.

Prof. BonJour's book is quite comprehensive and refutes many of the standard critiques of rationalism.In addition, he has a particularly devastating chapter on W.V.O Quine and his "naturalized epistemology."I highly recommend Prof. BonJour's other books, THE STRUCTURE OF EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE and EPISTEMOLOGY.

An Incredible Book
My only qualm with this book is that only a reader who has read some philosophy will find it truly accessible.It's length and scope doesn't allow the author to fully discuss many of the issues surrounding the topic of rational insight.

What is rational insight?One of the simplest examples is the syllogism: "All men are mortal.Socrates is a man.Socrates is mortal."Another example is the statement: "Something cannot be both green all over and red all over."I think that only the hardcore skeptic would deny the certainty of such insights.How do we justify/explain such insights?Here comes the rub - to justify such insights, the ability to grasp them must already be possessed by those who are justifying them and those to whom they must be justified.A point later defended by the author, and which has been defended by many rationalists, is that the structure of the world must such that these relationships are given in reality in some form.

Rather than list and categorize these insights, Bonjour mounts a wonderful defence for these insights, which he categorizes, like other rationalist philosophers, as "apriori" knowledge, or in his better term, "apriori justification".He, like other rationalists, describes them as a grasp of necessity: once thier nature is grasped and understood, people defend them by thinking and reasoning, rather than pointing to specific data given in experience.

The book has many wonderful points: a careful and reasoned exposition of why Kant was not a rationalist in the true sense of the word (this has been known to quite a few rationalists in the Aristotleian tradition, but Bonjour's criticism leaves little to the imagination), a defence of view of a priori knowledge as fallible, but fallible only in the sense that it answers to new and better apriori insights when found to be mistaken, and a nice and careful discussion of the major analytic school's objections against a priori knowledge.

A great part of this book is well made and much needed distinctions between the a priori and the a posteriori, the analytic and the synthetic, and the necessary and the contingent.His defence and qualification of these terms are worth the cost of the book alone, and he shows how misrepresentaions of these terms, and thier implications are, have led to the acceptance of weak arguments against them being considered conclusive rejections of them.

Finally, the author gives both the nice defenceand the beginnings of an a priori theory of induction.The good thing about his defence is that it validates induction, and it will probably be easy to incorporate the best work that has been done into this field since I believe that Bonjour has silenced the greatest oppositions to induction as a source of knowledge.

It is a short book, and is quite limited in scope, but it was a page turner for me.I believe the influence of this book's arguments will be far reaching, once the required critical mass of intellectuals inculcate the ideas contained within this book.

I think my review is understated, so I will only say this: get the book if you have the philiosophical background, and be prepared for one of the best defences of Reason in philosophical history. ... Read more

Product Description
Drawing upon the work of Karl Popper and W.W. Bartley III, this text argues for an approach to rationality freed from authoritarian dependence on reasons and justification. It proposes an objectivist interpretation to make sense of single-case probabilities, even in a deterministic universe. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Induction Baaad! Falsification Goooood!
In 1934 Karl Popper published "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" and a solution proposed a solution to David's Hume's problem of induction. Now called "Critical Rationalism" (CR), Popper did away with the problem be denying Science uses induction to find truth. He's tells Scientific knowledge grows by proposing brash new theories that can be tested, followed then by ruthlessly submitting them to severe tests an attempt to falsify them. Whatever survives with each iteration, brings us closer to truth.

Instantly controversial, outraged induction-apologists and Popper supporters fired many heated words back and forth for years.

Dave Miller eases the reader in to the controversy by the problem of induction, a short summary of other attempts to solve the problem and their shortcomings, and how Popper's falsification has solved it. Two whole chapters are devoted to Bayesian theory and how underwhelming is its utility to scientific activity. Miller corrects Popper's formulation of verisimilitude and clarifies propensity theory.

Not a book for a beginner, but very satisfying. After you have enjoyed this book, you should read David Miller's new book "Out of Error" to see how Critical Rationalism has evolved.

Not bad
I felt that the book explains the key issues well ina clear, well presented format. It is true that the book is not designed for the beginner but with a little knowledge it comes across beautifully. ... Read more

Product Description
The seventeenth century saw a major revolution in our ways of thinking about such issues as the method appropriate to philosophy and science, the relation between mind and body, the nature of substance, and the place of humanity in nature. While not neglecting the lesser but still influential figures, such as Arnauld and Malebranche, John Cottingham focuses primarily on the three great "rationalists": Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. He examines how they approached central problems of philosophy, and shows how closely their ideas are related, despite the radically different philosophical systems they produced. He not only places the major thinkers in their historical and philosophical contexts, but engages their ideas in a vigorously critical way, revealing their capacity to throw light on major philosophical topics that are still very much alive today. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

best introduction
This work appears to be the best introduction to rationalism as a 17th century school of thought.Beside presenting in a lucid and not oversimplified way the ideas of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, Cottingham situates them both in historical context and in the context of contemporary debates like those of philosophy of mind (certainly so far as we can expect from an introductory work).Oversimplification often harms books like those of the Opus series, so that it often ends up in a book without much content.Cottingham's might be the best in the series.There are some weaknesses in the Leibniz part. Otherwise best introduction. ... Read more

Product Description
This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from the publisher's website (GeneralBooksClub.com). You can also preview excerpts of the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Subjects: Rationalism; Philosophy / General; Philosophy / Movements / Rationalism; Religion / Agnosticism; Religion / Atheism; Religion / Philosophy; ... Read more

Product Description
The term "economic rationalism," closely tied to equally contentious terms like "neoliberalism, " "economic reform, " "structural adjustment," and "globalization," first entered the lexicon more than ten years ago. In this timely and exceptionally accessible work, philosopher John Wright tackles economic rationalism from a moral perspective. In non-technical language, he reviews the economic arguments for economic rationalism. He examines the ethnical defenses for economic rationalism, considers the many criticisms of economic rationalism, and weighs whether the moral defenses are truly valid.

Some of the many challenging issues the book confronts include:

Does economic rationalism work to maximize human happiness?Does inequality matter?Does the free market always ensure the survival of the economically 'fit?'Does the free market maximize individual liberties? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Important subject, extremely easy to read
If you're interested to evaluate economic rationalism or free markets from a moral and ethical point of view, this is the book for you. While the author is a professor in philosophy, he starts the first third of the book talking about economics. And I have to say it's a very excellent presentation and straight to the point. In fact, one of the most understandable presentations I've read about the basics of economics.

The rest of the book evaluates economic rationalism and free-market-ism from various philosophical perspectives: utilitarian, deservingness, social darwinism, voluntary exchange, economic democracy, maximization of liberty and conservativism.

The one thing I absolutely loved about this book was that it was very easy to read. I've read a lot of economics and a bit of philosophy. Though my knowledge of these subjects may not be as much as others, I didn't really have any trouble following this book because the author has a wonderful gift of making things easy to understand and his arguments easy to follow. ... Read more

Product Description
Throughout the ages one of the central topics in the philosophy of religion has been the rationality of theistic belief. Philosophers and theologians have debated whether it is rational to believe certain propositions about God's existence and nature. This text proposes that parties on both sides of this debate might shift their attention in a different direction, by focusing on the question of whether it is rational to be a religious theist. Explaining that having theistic beliefs is primarily a cognitive affair but being a religious theist involves a whole way of life that includes one's beliefs, Golding argues that it can be pragmatically rational to be a religious theist even if the evidence for God's existence is minimal. The argument is applied to the case of Judaism, articulating what is involved in religious Judaism and arguing that it is rationally defensible to be a religious Jew. The book concludes with a discussion of whether a similar argument might be constructed for other versions of religious theism such as Christianity or Islam, and for non-theistic religions such as Taoism or Buddhism.Engaging in a discussion of classic and contemporary writings on the rationality of religious commitment, this book provides fresh insights to scholars of philosophy of religion, theology and Jewish studies. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Original
Joshua Golding's "Rationality and Religious Theism" is a defense of religious Judaism using an updated version of Pascal's wager. Golding first shows how it could be pragmatically rational to be a religious believer. He explains what a religious believer is, and under what conditions it is rational to be a religious believer. Subsequently, he explains what a religious Jew is and argues that the conditions for the rationality of being a religious Jew are fulfilled.
The book is original in at least three ways. First, most books on the rationality of religion focus on the rationality of belief in the existence of God, but this book argues more generally for the rationality of religious practices and lifestyle, i.e. that the expected value of these practices makes it pragmatically rational to adopt them.
Secondly, as far as I know, this is the only work that applies a version of Pascal's wager to the case of Judaism, and it develops the strategy so that it avoids traditional objections leveled against Pascal's wager.
Thirdly, Golding defends an understanding of God that is different from the traditional understanding. God is not understood as a being, i.e. as a particular thing with certain attributes, but as Being, and the divine attributes are understood as the ways in which Being manifests itself. For example, the claim that God is benevolent is understood not as the claim that there is a being who does undeserved good things for people, but that the universe is governed by a law that makes undeserved goods happen.
I have doubts about whether this understanding of God is intelligible or religiously acceptable; I don't think that it is consistent with the sources with which Golding shows familiarity, e.g. Maimonides and Luzzatto. Fortunately, as Golding emphasizes, nothing in his argument depends upon whether God is understood in this way or in a more traditional way.
I also think that the discussion was sometimes too quick. For example, I think that there might have been more extensive considerations of objections, though I don't think that the answers provided to the objections fail.
I recommend this book. It should be of interest to philosophy students and philosophers of religion. Those without any previous exposure to contemporary analytical philosophy may find it quite difficult, and I recommend Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen's "Permission to Receive" and Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's "Living Up to the Truth" as more traditional and accessible defenses of religious Judaism.

A rare treat
Professor Golding's book was a rare treat. The book was thoughtful and articulated very well a rational approach to belief in God, or as he would say, a rationally defensible approach. Anyone looking to move beyond polemics into the realm of serious rational inquiry into the existence of God must read this book.

A new defense of the rationality of the religious life
Joshua Golding offers a carefully wrought explanation of how it can be rational for someone to live a religious life, in particular (but not necessarily only), a traditional Jewish life.His basic strategy is similar to that of Pascal's famous wager, while making a number of crucial improvements which address both the more technical (e.g., the notion of an infinite good) and spiritually substantive (the role of belief and of community in religious life) shortcomings of Pascal's argument.However, this book is far more than a mere up-dating of Pascal; it is an important and strikingly original work of religious philosophy in its own right.It should be especially appealing to adherents of traditional faiths (especially Judaism) who are grappling with the challenges of reason. (...) ... Read more