John Heil

Some foundationalists have argued that epistemic warrant may be in some measure determined by features of a doxastic agent's circumstances that are not necessarily accessible to the agent. 'externalist' views of this sort have been attacked recently by laurence bonjour on the grounds that they are at odds with the ordinary notion of "epistemic rationality". I suggest that this need not be so and argue that bonjour fails to provide convincing reasons for the rejection of externalist forms of foundationalism

Appeals to dispositionality in explanations of phenomena in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, require that we first agree on what we are talking about. I sketch an account of what dispositionality might be. That account will place me at odds with most current conceptions of dispositionality. My aim is not to establish a weighty ontological thesis, however, but to move the discussion ahead in two respects. First, I want to call attention to the extent to which assumptions philosophers have made about dispositionality are far from innocent. The assumptions incorporate substantive theses that, by constraining the space of acceptable answers to particular philosophical questions, have inhibited the search for answers to those questions. Second, and more positively, I hope to open up the space of possibilities by offering an alternative way of conceiving dispositionality developed by C. B. Martin

Despite heroic efforts, philosophers have found it increasingly difficult to evade discussion of metaphysical topics. Take the philosophy of mind. Take, in particular, the mind-body problem in its latest guise: the problem of causal relevance. If mental properties are not reducible to physical properties, how can we reconcile the role such properties seem to have in producing bodily motions that constitute actions with the apparent fact that the very same motions are entirely explicable on the basis of purely physical properties of purely physical events in the nervous system? Familiar approaches to the problem include appeals to “supervenient causation,” to “higher-level” laws governing putatively higher-level entities and events, and to “realizing” relations that make room in objects for overlapping properties.

"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.

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.