Gary James Jason

In this essay, I look at two films as possible exemplars of the Nietzschean view of egoism. Compulsion is based on the infamous 1924 Leopold and Loeb murder case. In the movie, two arrogant young men—one of whom admires Nietzsche and preaches the (apparently Nietzschean) view that the strong and superior don’t need to follow conventional morality—kill a boy to prove they can outsmart the unter-menschen police. For a different take on what Nietzsche may have had in mind as “the Overman,” I also look at the film The Moon and Sixpence. Here the protagonist isn’t violent or aggressive, but a completely self-absorbed artist, who paints with genius but uses others without feeling any gratitude or friendship, let alone love.

SummaryIn this paper, two different theoretical problems of induction are delineated. The first problem is addressed; the second problem is deferred to the sequel to this paper. The first problem of induction is taken to be the seemingly unformalizable nature of traditional inductive arguments. It is shown that the problem does not arise out of some particularly dubious argument form , but rather from the presupposition that inductive “logic” is, like deductive logic, assertoric. Rather , inductive logic is dialectical in nature.RésuméDans cet article, deux problèmes théoriques de l'induction sont formulés. Le premier est traité, le second le sera dans une suite à cet article. Le premier problème de l'induction est ici la nature apparemment non formalisable des arguments inductifs traditionnels. L'auteur montre que le problème ne provient pas d'une forme d'argumentation particulièrement douteuse , mais au contraire de la présupposition que la «logique» inductive est, comme la logique déductive, assertorique. Il soutient au contraire qu'elle est par nature dialectique.ZusammenfassungIn der vorliegenden Arbeit werden zwei theoretische Probleme der Induktion formuliert, wovon das zweite in einem anderen Artikel behandelt werden soll. Das erste Problem betrifft die scheinbar nicht formalisierbare Natur der üblichen induktiven Argumente. Der Verfasser zeigt dass das Problem nicht von einer besonders zweifelhaften Argumentationsform herrührt , sondern von der Voraussetzung, dass die induktive «Logik» — wie die deduktive Logik — assertorisch sei. Es wird dagegen gezeigt, dass die induktive Logik dialektischer Natur ist.

This essay is my review of Olaf Gersemann’s book, Cowboy Capitalism: European Myths, American Reality. Gersemann was a reporter for Germany’s largest business weekly magazine, and he came to America to write an expose of the weakness of the American economy. What he found instead—and argued in detail—is that the American economy was robust, for better off than commonly believed in Europe. I finish the review by pointing out some things he overlooked, such as the fact that the U.S. has paid and continues to pay disproportionately more for joint American/European defense, and that no European nation has allowed in the vast number of poor immigrants that America has.

Christopher Johnson has put forward in this journal the view that ad hominem reasoning may be more generally reasonable than is allowed by writers such as myself, basing his view on virtue epistemology. I review his account, as well as the standard account, of ad hominem reasoning, and show how the standard account would handle the cases he sketches in defense of his own view. I then give four criticisms of his view generally: the problems of virtue conflict, vagueness, conflation of speech acts, and self-defeating counsel. I then discuss four reasons why the standard account is superior: it better fits legal reality, the account of other fallacies, psychological science, and political reality.

This study, The Dialectic of Discovery, addresses the long-standing debate about the possibility of a "logic of discovery." Regarding this issue, four interlocking theses are defended. The first thesis is that there is indeed a logic of discovery, namely, dialectic, which is an extension of underlying inference and question logics. ;The second thesis is that this fact has been overlooked because the view of knowledge that has dominated Western philosophy, a view I dub "the solipsistic concept of knowledge," blinds us to it. ;The third thesis is that this dialectic is to a large degree formalizable, and that it ought to be formalized to the extent possible. ;The fourth thesis is that the main block to complete formalizability is a particular sort of context-dependency, namely dependence upon the physical conditions under which research is conducted; however, this particular context-sensitivity, this irreducible pragmatic element, is isolatable within the dialectical system as the rules of strategy . Nature does not dictate what is rational, but she does dictate how that rationality should be applied if it is to be successful. ;The structure of the work is designed to present the defense of those theses as closely to their stated order as possible. In the first two chapters, I lay the groundwork for a reasonable defense of Thesis 1 by discussing both ends of the phrase "the logic of discovery." Then, in Chapter Three, I address Thesis 1 directly. ;Thesis 2 is introduced in Chapter Five, and explored more fully in Chapter Fourteen. ;Theses 3 and 4 require the most sustained defense. Since dialectic is an extension of underlying assetoric and erotetic components, Chapters Four and Six address assertoric matters, while Chapter Seven addresses erotetics. ;The assertoric and erotetic foundations having been laid, I am able in Chapters Eight and Nine to exhibit in some detail a formal dialectic of sufficient power to explicate discovery. After exploring conceptual change in the light of dialectic, we are able to address Thesis 4 directly in Chapter Thirteen. ;I conclude the study by examining Thesis 2 in Chapter Fourteen