Mark Glouberman

The notion of individuation has both a semantic and an ontological face. More exactly, the claim can be defended that individuation has a proprietary linguistic or conceptual aspect as distinct from an ontological one. Ontologists such as W. V. Quine would credit neither the possibility of such a divergence nor the intelligibility of its proposal. The ontology of a language, for Quine, is inseparable from its individuative resources, mechanisms such as identity, pluralization, pronouns, and so forth. I aim here to pick apart the ontological from the semantic aspect of individuation at one place where they interact, thereby to show that the distinction, far from being a mere abstraction lacking explanatory leverage, is vital for achieving an adequate characterization of the representational powers of language. I begin by attempting to put the issue into some kind of perspective, a didactic move prudent in virtue of the brassiness of the subsequent tacks.

In a recent 5‐to‐4 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada denied to Harvard University a patent on a genetically modified mouse. In their reasoning, the majority Justices, concerned obviously about the implications of granting the patent for the human case, argue that higher organisms (mammals) are not “compositions of matter” in the sense intended by the Canadian Patent Act. But if a mouse is not a composition of matter, what—indeed, what on earth—is it? As the minority Justices complain, the majority decision smacks of dubious metaphysics and theology. Appealing to a quite unlikely source, the Bible, I show that the distinction between mice and men can be defended without introducing problematic metaphysical and question‐begging theological materials. I also show, en route, that the biblical position on the special status of men and women is not inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Granting a patent on the mouse (as was done in the U.S.A.) is compatible with denying it to human organisms.

The first "Critique", Kant states inaugurates a perfectly new science'. But this transcendental philosophy', for dealing in possibilities, not actualities, does not qualify as philosophy in the traditional sense. What Kant dubs transcendental idealism' "is" however an (ontological) doctrine about things. Kant's doctrinal stand is thus inconsistent with his description of transcendental enquiry. Since transcendental idealism gets its meaning from the contrast with Cartesian realism, it follows that Kant must implicitly be granting that in some measure at least the earlier metaphysicians did what they said they were doing. Indeed, Kant must be relying on some part of what they did. It follows that if there is a "via media" between traditional Cartesian metaphysics and Hume's backgammon, Kant does not locate it

For placing the contrast of certainty and uncertainty at the philosophical center, Descartes is charged with Michael Dummett with mistakenly subordinating the study of language and meaning to epistemology. But Dummett's knowledge-theoretic reading of the certainty/uncertainty duality is as erroneous as the tradition it inherits is long. The Cartesian demand for certainty and critique of uncertainty in mature writings like the Meditations has a definite semantic character. Cartesian uncertainty, construed aright, anticipates Dummett's putatively original idea of a non-reductive yet non-realist semantics for standard factual claims asserted on the basis of sense-evidence. There is an internal relation, in Descartes' philosophy, between a repudiation of uncertainty and a repudiation of a non-realist conception of the world.

SummaryBecause it is not generally appreciated that Hume's analysis of the causal tie as radically contingent or ‘irrational’ is bound up with his specialised theory of cognition, its historical position is widely misconceived. Even a rationalist like Spinoza would agree that if, as Hume maintains, the causal tie holds between items each of which is‘ adequately’ grasped independently of the other, i.e. between what Spinoza calls ‘substances’, then the tie is indeed irrational. Also, Kant does not attempt to show that the causal tie, as Hume sees it, is not irrational. His anti‐Humean result is based on the prior denial Humean causal fundaments are available in experiential cognition as we know it.RésuméLa position historique de Hume est généralement mal comprise parce qu'on ne voit pas que son analyse de la relation causale comme étant radicalement contingente ou »irrationnelle« est liée à sa théorie particulière de la connaissance. Même un rationaliste tel que Spinoza accorderait que la causalité est en effet irrationnelle si elle relie, ainsi que le prétend Hume, deux choses saisies indépendamment, c'est‐à‐dire deux substances selon Spinoza. Même Kant ne cherche pas à démontrer que le lien causal tel que Hume le voit n'est pas irrationnel. Son résultat anti‐humien est basé sur la négation préalable que le fondement de la causalité puisse être tiré de la connaissance expérimentale.ZusammenfassungWeil man im allgemeinen nicht berilcksichtigt, dass Humes Analyse der kausalen Verknüpfung als einer radikal kontingenten oder »irrationalen« Relation mit seiner besonderen erkennt‐nistheoretischen Position verbunden ist, wird deren historische Bedeutung oft missverstanden. Sogar ein Rationalist wie Spinoza würde zugestehen, dass die Verknüpfung irrational sein muss, wenn sie zwischen Substanten irn Sinne Spinozas, d.h. zwischen Dingen bestehen soll, die unabhängig voneinander adäquat erfasst werden, wie Hume das behauptet. Auch Kant versucht nicht zu zeigen, dass eine Kausalverknüpfung, so wie Hume sie auffasst, nicht irrational sei. Denn er bestreitet ja gerade, dass kausale Grundlagen auf Grund gewöhnlicher Erfahrung überhaupt gefunden werden können

Though, in view of Descartes' challenge to the epistemological credentials of "reason" early in the Meditations, one expects him to resist the claim that the professedly invulnerable cogito argument works through the suppressed premise "Everything that thinks, exists," interpreters have been hard-pressed to convert comprendre here into pardonner. Loath to convict Descartes of confusing a psychological point about inferential process with a logical one about the conditions for validity, many are driven to implausible construals, for example, the ingenious performative construal, on which "cogito" does not express a premise. In this fast-paced study Jerrold Katz, calling on his Chomsky-inspired theorising about natural languages, offers a via media. At the core is the thesis that validity is not always a matter of logical form--hence a rejection of the view whose contemporary prestige derives from Frege. According to Katz, the validity of analytic entailments is a function not of logical form but of the senses of the contributing linguistic elements. The cogito argument, Katz maintains, falls into this class. Thus, comprendre avec pardonner: Descartes is not being evasive when he holds that there is an argumentational move from "cogito" to "sum" while denying that the argument, as presented, is enthymematic.

Registrants for the academic study of philosophy, expecting an encounter with special cognitive products, regal truths, are soon enough disabused. Philosophy, its supposedly special access to the structure of things exploded, is relegated to sundry tasks of intellectual hygiene. I track down the source of the unrealistic view, anatomising what has a strong claim to be regarded as the regal enterprise’s inau¬gural reasoning—in Plato. When professionals consider the successor activity that is called ‘philosophy,’ they should therefore wonder about the label. The deposition of she who was once known as Queen of the Sciences is, I argue, really the end of philosophy. Does the prevail¬ing professional attitude attest to mere nostalgia? In fact, the view of philo¬sophy as (say) conceptual enquiry inherits some of the fantasy. To the extent that continued use of the label is internally justified, that signals a deeper mistake on the part of the users about the truth.

1. The distinction between the functions of sense and intellect in cognition is first given its modern form by Kant. According to one influential commentator, Jonathan Bennett, “Kant’s breakthrough” in fact consists precisely in liberating himself from his predecessors’ misconceptions in this regard. It is true that the categorial duality of receptivity and spontaneity—of intuition and concept—is not to be found in the major classical writings prior to Kant. In its place, one encounters a relativized distinction. The empiricist Hume, for example, describes a conceptual element or “idea” as differing only in “vivacity” from an item of sensory intake or “impression,” and the rationalist Leibniz says of a state of “pure” intellection that it differs from a perceptual state in being clear of the residuum of cognitive “confusion” which taints the latter.

In Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams supplies an interpretation of Descartes's Meditations in which the meditator's clean sweep of initial beliefs is justified by a stance that abrogates all practical pressures: the stance of pure enquiry. Otherwise, Williams explains, it would not be reasonable to set many of the initial beliefs aside. Nowhere, however, does Descartes assert that his approach is in this sense ?pure?. It would of course be preferable if the meditator's rejection of all the initial beliefs did not require an abrogation of the conditions that govern everyday belief-formation and assessment. I supply a reading that accomplishes this. The key to this reading is recognition that Descartes is a thinker of his time, a time when the pre-modern worldview was being systematically rejected. I show, in this regard, that when Descartes characterizes a belief as ?uncertain?, this has the implication that the belief is false. And, certainly, the rational policy, without need for any special stance, is to reject falsehoods