John Heil

The essence of an accident consists in its relationship to a substance. For we should not imagine that an accident is a thing in its own right to which gets attached a relationship or a link to a substance in which that accident exists. For if so, an accident would be something in its own right, dependent on substance only as extrinsic, and on this view, an accident could be cognized apart from the substance. These outcomes are impossible, however. Hence, what an accident is to something of the substance: either a measure, or a state, and so on. Thus, the Philosopher says that an accident has being only because it belongs to something that has being.

Certain philosophical arguments apparently show that the having of beliefs is tied conceptually to rationality. Such a view, however, seems at odds both with the possibility of irrational belief and with recent empirical discoveries in the psychology of reasoning. The aim of this paper is to move toward a reconciliation of these apparently conflicting perspectives by distinguishing between internalist and externalist conceptions of rationality. It is argued that elements of each are required for a satisfactory theory, one that allows for the possibility of irrationality and makes sense of empirical findings without violating conditions on belief ascription. Normative theories, on this view, constrain the latter while remaining silent on the character of actual psychological mechanisms

Peter van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument makes salient the difficulties facing attempts to reconcile determinism and agency. Others go further. Derk Pereboom, for instance, contends that science provides compelling evidence that no action is free, and Galen Strawson argues that conditions for genuinely free action are flatly unsatisfiable. Against such skepticism about free will, the paper introduces considerations in support of the idea that there are probably good reasons to think that conditions for free actions—real agency—are sometimes satisfied, that ascriptions of agency are sometimes true, but that truthmakers for these ascriptions could be wholly deterministic in a way that might seem to, but does not in fact, place them at odds with the possibility of genuinely free action.

Common sense and philosophical tradition agree that mind makes a difference. What we do depends not only on how our bodies are put together, but also on what we think. Explaining how mind can make a difference has proved challenging, however. Some have urged that the project faces an insurmountable dilemma: either we concede that mentalistic explanations of behavior have only a pragmatic standing or we abandon our conception of the physical domain as causally autonomous. Although each option has its advocates, most theorists have sought a middle way that accommodates both the common-sense view of mind and the metaphysical conviction about the physical world. This volume presents a collection of new, specially written essays by a diverse group of philosophers, each of whom is widely known for defending a particular conception of minds and their place in nature. Contributors include Robert Audi, Lynne Rudder Baker, Tyler Burge, Donald Davidson, Fred Dretske, Ted Honderich, Jennifer Hornsby, Frank Jackson, Jaegwon Kim, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ruth Garrett Millikan, H. W. Noonan, Philip Pettit, Ernest Sosa, and Robert Van Gulick.

"In his introduction to this most welcome republication (and second edition) of his logic text, Heil clarifies his aim in writing and revising this book: 'I believe that anyone unfamiliar with the subject who set out to learn formal logic could do so relying solely on [this] book. That, in any case, is what I set out to create in writing An Introduction to First-Order Logic.' Heil has certainly accomplished this with perhaps the most explanatorily thorough and pedagogically rich text I've personally come across. "Heil's text stands out as being remarkably careful in its presentation and illuminating in its explanations--especially given its relatively short length when compared to the average logic textbook. It hits all of the necessary material that must be covered in an introductory deductive logic course, and then some. It also takes occasional excursions into side topics, successfully whetting the reader's appetite for more advanced studies in logic. "The book is clearly written by an expert who has put in the effort for his readers, bothering at every step to see the point and then explain it clearly to his readers. Heil has found some very clever, original ways to introduce, motivate, and otherwise teach this material. The author's own special expertise and perspective--especially when it comes to tying philosophy of mind, linguistics, and philosophy of language into the lessons of logic--make for a creative and fresh take on basic logic. With its unique presentation and illuminating explanations, this book comes about as close as a text can come to imitating the learning environment of an actual classroom. Indeed, working through its presentations carefully, the reader feels as though he or she has just attended an illuminating lecture on the relevant topics!" --Jonah Schupbach, University of Utah.

Historically, philosophical discussions of relations have featured chiefly as afterthoughts, loose ends to be addressed only after coming to terms with more important and pressing metaphysical issues. F. H. Bradley stands out as an exception. Understanding Bradley's views on relations and their significance today requires an appreciation of the alternatives, which in turn requires an understanding of how relations have traditionally been classified and how philosophers have struggled to capture their nature and their ontological standing. Positions on these topics range from the rejection of relations altogether, to their being awarded the status as grounds for everything else, to various intermediary positions along this spectrum. Love them, hate them, or merely tolerate them, no philosopher engaged in ontologically serious metaphysics can afford to ignore relations.