Richard Michael McDonough

Organic metaphors appear as early as §2 of the Phenomenology and throughout Hegel’s major works. The culmination of the dialectic is the moment where Life understands itself. Hegel even identifies the Notion with the “principle of all life”. Yet despite Hegel’s emphasis on the notion of Life, there is no general agreement about the significance of his notion of organism. Some commentators emphasize Hegel’s organicism only in connection with the notion of organic unities in Hegel’s social philosophy. Still others acknowledge its basic position in Hegel’s metaphysics, but regard it as refuted by the development of mechanistic science. Some even regard Hegel’s organicism as broadly consistent with non-organic science, leaving the status of Hegel’s notion of organism in conceptual limbo.

To produce a history entirely from speculations alone seems no better than to sketch a romance.... Yet, what may not be [known about actual history], can, nonetheless, be attempted through speculation regarding their first beginnings, as far as these are made by nature. The first stanza of the Dao-de Jing, one of the most memorable passages in world literature, is not a paradigm of clarity. Alan Chan distinguishes six sorts of approaches to interpreting the Dao-de Jing : mythological, mystical, religious, metaphysical, philosophy of life, and ethical-political. There...

The paper argues that Russell’s fascination with Conrad’s Heart of Darkness reveals a positive aspect of Russell’s character neglected by Monk’s biography. Section 1 sketches some of the darker aspects of Russell’s character. §2 outlines the relevant themes in Heart of Darkness. §3 argues that Russell’s fascination both with Conrad and his novel derives from his resolute commitment to a painful exercise in self-knowledge. §4 explains the more positive perspective on Russell’s “strength of mind” that emerges from this argument.

The paper argues that Wittgenstein's "doctrine of silence", the view that one cannot "say" philosophical propositions (and certain other things), does not, as usually believed, mean that one cannot, in the ordinary sense, engage in philosophical discourse about these things. The paper argues that in a certain sense on can "say" these things (as Wittgenstein himself does in the Tractatus). As a consequence, Wittgenstein is not, as some believe, committed to the inconsistent attempt to say what cannot be said.

No supposition seems to me more natural than that there is no process in the brain correlated with associating or with thinking; so that it would be impossible to read off thought processes from brain processes. I mean this: if I talk or write, there is, I assume, a system of impulses going out from my brain and correlated with my spoken or written thoughts. But why should the system continue further in the direction of the center? Why should this order not proceed, so to speak, out of chaos? The case would be like the following—certain kinds of plants multiply by seed, so that a seed always produces a plant of the same kind as that from which it was produced—but nothing in the seed corresponds to the plant which..

Wittgenstein’s remark to Drury that he looks at philosophical problems from a religious point of view has greatly puzzled commentators. The paper argues that the readings given by commentators Malcolm, Winch and Lebron are illuminating, but inadequate. Second, using Wittgenstein’s “use-conception of meaning” as an example, the paper proposes a more adequate reading that emphasizes Wittgenstein’s view that “nothing is hidden”. In this connection, the paper examines Fodor’s critique of Wittgenstein’s “use-conception” and shows how Fodor only refutes a “misuse-conception meaning” because he presupposes a kind of linguistic meaning, the kind that Wittgenstein emphasizes, that is “already before his eyes”. Wittgenstein’s view that the truth is already before one’s eyes is further explained by employing an ethical analogy with Raskolnikov’s enlightenment in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Finally, the paper addresses the difficult question whether Wittgenstein is, despite his own denials, “a religious man”, and argues that there is a non-trivial religious dimension in Wittgenstein’s life but that there are several important senses in which Wittgenstein is correct that he is not a religious person