C. James

I have been interested for quite some time in the relevance of reference to ontology. Another who has shown equal interest is W. V. Quine. Surprisingly, because of many other disagreements, there is a large area in which we agree about reference and ontology, namely, that there is some reason to think that both are “inscrutable.” Not so surprisingly, there is a crucial point where we disagree, namely, concerning the relativity of reference and ontology. Although it is not clear, it seems that Quine holds that both reference and ontology are relative to what he calls a “background language” in a way that results in metaphysical questions, as I describe them, being senseless or meaningless. He argues for this relativity from inscrutability. I, however, explain it by postulating that ontological problems and certain referential problems are in a certain sense, “external.” In this paper I propose to lay out what I take to be the relevance of reference to ontological problems, show where Quine’s claims of inscrutability agree with my view, clarify Quine’s claims about relativity, and finally show that, given the inscrutability we both find acceptable, it is reasonable to reject the relativity only Quine accepts.

Leibniz’s De incerti aestimatione, which contains his solution to the division problem, has not received much attention, let alone much appreciation. This is surprising because it is in this work that the definition of probability in terms of equally possible cases appears for the first time. The division problem is used to establish and test probability theory; it can be stated as follows: if two players agree to play a game in which one has to win a certain number of rounds in order to win the pool, but if they break the game off before either of them has won the required number of rounds, how should the pool be distributed?Our article has two aims: it provides the readers with the first published English translation of De incerti aestimatione, and it also gives them a brief commentary that explains Leibniz’s philosophical and mathematical concepts necessary in order to understand this work. The translation is as literal as possible throughout; it shows how Leibniz struggled at times to find a solution to the division problem and how he approached it from different angles. The commentary discusses Leibniz’s views on four key concepts: fairness, hope, authority and possibility. The commentary then outlines how Leibniz attempted to solve the problem of division.

In 2015, a tablet containing an archaic inscription of considerable length from Arkadia, which had appeared on the antiquities market, was “pre-published”. The present article offers: (1) a new edition of the text from autopsy and two photographs, along with (2) an English translation. Since the inscription contains many unusual linguistic and ritual details, an extensive line-by-line commentary on the text (3), as well as a study of the script and dialect (4), are also proposed. Developing this commentary, a further section (5) offers an analysis of the typology of the text, identifying it as a calendar for a three-day (τριανβρίς) festival, which recurred in different cycles (annual, biennial/trieteric, and enneateric). This festival was concerned with multiple communities, sanctuaries, and deities, perhaps especially with Zeus. By way of conclusion (Envoi), an attempt at a general appraisal of the tablet is presented: issuing perhaps from the sanctuary of Mount Lykaion or from Methydrion, the regulation was closely linked to the Arkadian myths of the birth of Zeus. Every eight years in particular, the armed defense of his mother Rhea was celebrated (the Hoplodmia), announcing the rise of the new king of the gods.

Universality has become a predominant focus of critique. To take just three examples: the purported universality of Western values has been exposed as a major justification for violent imperial enterprises, feminist thought has exposed so-called universal norms as having a specifically masculine provenance and nature, and the study of whiteness has largely been the exposure of specifically white features of institutions, practices, arts, norms, and laws that have been taken to be universal and colorless. All these examples follow the general Marxian form of critique that is guided by the proposition that all existing universalities conceal a factional interest. Universalities that function effectively and guide..