Maria Baghramian

The turn of the twentieth century witnessed the birth of two distinct philosophical schools in Europe: analytic philosophy and phenomenology. The history of 20th-century philosophy is often written as an account of the development of one or both of these schools, as well as their overt or covert mutual hostility. What is often left out of this history, however, is the relationship between the two European schools and a third significant philosophical event: the birth and development of pragmatism, the indigenous philosophical movement of the United States. Through a careful analysis of seminal figures and central texts, this book explores the mutual intellectual influences, convergences, and differences between these three revolutionary philosophical traditions. The essays in this volume aim to show the central role that pragmatism played in the development of philosophical thought at the turn of the twentieth century, widen our understanding of a seminal point in the history of philosophy, and shed light on the ways in which these three schools of thought continue to shape the theoretical agenda of contemporary philosophy.

This paper engages with a central question posed by R. G. Collingwood: “[does] philosophical literature [have] any peculiarities corresponding to those of the thought which it tries to express?” In attempts to identify and distinguish between various schools and traditions of philosophy the idea of style is often invoked. And yet this same idea remains ill-defined and nebulous. My paper draws on a number of scattered discussions of style in philosophy in order to find the beginnings of an answer to Collingwood’s question. I distinguish between “shallow” and “deep” conceptions of philosophical style and examine the various forms each takes. The shallow sense involves considerations of methodology, the dictates of prevailing fashions and choices in writing style, and deals primarily with the form that a philosophical text takes. The deep sense, in Whitehead’s words, engages with “the ultimate morality of the mind” and affects the actual content of writing. Here, a philosopher’s style invokes her fundamental philosophical commitments and reflects her philosophical persona and temperament. I maintain that a response to Collingwood’s question has to include both conceptions of style.

This paper engages with a central question posed by R. G. Collingwood: “[does] philosophical literature [have] any peculiarities corresponding to those of the thought which it tries to express?” In attempts to identify and distinguish between various schools and traditions of philosophy the idea of style is often invoked. And yet this same idea remains ill-defined and nebulous. My paper draws on a number of scattered discussions of style in philosophy in order to find the beginnings of an answer to Collingwood’s question. I distinguish between “shallow” and “deep” conceptions of philosophical style and examine the various forms each takes. The shallow sense involves considerations of methodology, the dictates of prevailing fashions and choices in writing style, and deals primarily with the form that a philosophical text takes. The deep sense, in Whitehead’s words, engages with “the ultimate morality of the mind” and affects the actual content of writing. Here, a philosopher’s style invokes her fundamental philosophical commitments and reflects her philosophical persona and temperament. I maintain that a response to Collingwood’s question has to include both conceptions of style.

Cultural, moral and religious diversity is a pervasive feature of modern life, yet has only recently become the focus of intellectual debate. _Pluralism_ is the first book to tackle philosophical pluralism and link pluralist themes in philosophy to politics. A range of essays investigates the philosophical sources of pluralism, the value of pluralism and liberalism, and difference in pluralism, including writings on women and the public-private distinction. This is a valuable source for students of philosophy, politics and cultural studies

Over the last several decades an increasing number of philosophers have announced their sympathies for or have become affiliated with what has become known as neo-pragmatism. The connection between the various strands of pragmatism, new and old, however, remains quite unclear. This paper attempts to shed some light on this issue by focusing on a debate between Hilary Putnam and Robert Brandom on classical and contemporary pragmatisms. Using the Brandom-Putnam debate as my starting point, I examine the relationship between the pragmatisms of Putnam and Rorty, two of the most influential neopragmatists, and argue that differing conceptions of the normative are at the heart of their disagreement. I further argue that this disagreement has similarities to, and can be illuminated by, two differing conceptions of norms in Wittgenstein's work. I conclude that Brandom does not delineate the differences between various strands of pragmatism convincingly

Donald Davidson was one of the most prominent philosophers of the second half of the twentieth century. His thinking about language, mind, and epistemology has shaped the views of several generations of philosophers. This book brings together articles by a host of prominent philosophers to provide new interpretations of Davidson’s key ideas about meaning, language and thought. The book opens with short commemorative pieces by a wide range of people who knew Davidson well, giving us glimpses into the life of a great philosopher, a beloved husband and father, a colleague, teacher and friend. The chapter by Lepore and Ludwig and the ensuing heated debate with Frederick Stoutland on how to interpret Davidson demonstrate why Davidson’s legacy has become a disputed intellectual territory. The chapters by Kathrin Glüer, Peter Pagin, Barry Smith, James Higginbotham and William Child, all eminent philosophers of language, are prime examples of just one strand of this legacy, while the piece by Sophie Gibb gives us an opening to Davidson’s enormous contribution to philosophy of mind. _Donald Davidson: Life and Words_ closes with a piece by Davidson himself, first published in 1995 in the International _Journal of Philosophical Studies_, where he brings together the various strands of his work in a Unified Theory of speech and action. This book comprises key articles first published in the _International Journal of Philosophical Studies _and previously unpublished commemorative pieces, and serves as a fitting dedication to the work and memory of a great philosopher.

This book is a study of relativism as a dominant intellectual preoccupation of our time. Relativism asks how we are to find a way out of intractable differences of perspectives and disagreements in various domains. Standards of truth, rationality, and ethical right and wrong vary greatly and there are no universal criteria for adjudicating between them. In considering this problem, relativism suggests that what is true or right can only be determined within variable contexts of assessment. This book brings together articles published in the International Journal of Philosophical Studies over a period of 17 years, as well as in a Special Issue of the journal published in 2004. The chapters in Section I discuss some of the main forms of relativism. Section II sheds light on the different motivations for relativism, assessing their strengths and weaknesses. Section III provides a detailed examination of the vexed question of whether Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his later work, supported relativism. The varied responses to this important question shed light on the issues discussed in Sections I and II. This collection is a lively and engaging resource for scholars interested in the crucial impact relativism has had on the way we think about the meaning of truth, and what is right and wrong. The chapters in this book were originally published in the International Journal of Philosophical Studies.

Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. Detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. Debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. Discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. This entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

It is commonly accepted that people can, and regularly do, deceive themselves. Yet closer examination reveals a set of conceptual puzzles that make self-deception difficult to explain. Applying the conditions for other-deception to self-deception generates what are known as the ‘paradoxes’ of belief and intention. Simply put, the central problem is how it is possible for me to believe one thing, and yet intentionally cause myself to simultaneously believe its contradiction. There are two general approaches taken by philosophers to account for these puzzles about the self-deceptive state and the process of self-deception. ‘Partitioning’ strategies try to resolve the paradoxes by proposing that the mind is divided in some way that allows self-deception to occur. ‘Reformulation’ strategies suggest that the conditions we use to define self-deception should be modified so that the paradoxes do not arise at all. Both approaches are subject to criticism about the consequences of the strategies philosophers use, but recent cross-disciplinary analyses of self-deception may help shed light on the puzzles that underlie this phenomenon