William Sweet

Today, when systematic philosophy - and reason itself - are challenged both outside of and within philosophy, is it still possible to do metaphysics? This volume provides a broad perspective on contemporary approaches to the nature and the fundamental questions of metaphysics. Drawing on scholars from continental Europe, Asia, Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, and representing a variety of philosophical cultures and traditions, this volume surveys and extends work in metaphysics and its implications for broader philosophical concerns (e.g., in ethics and social philosophy, in mathematics and logic, and in epistemology). It also addresses such questions as the role of history and historicity in undertaking metaphysics, the nature of metaphysics, the priority of metaphysics over epistemology, and the challenges of empiricism and postmodernism.

The place of British idealism in the history of political thought has been the subject of much debate. Some have maintained that it represented "a complete change" from the liberal tradition of Mill and Bentham. We re-examine here some features of Bosanquet's political philosophy, arguing that evidence for its alleged "conservative" or "illiberal" character is far from conclusive. Still, while there are a number of key liberal values to be found in Bosanquet's thought, in several important respects he breaks with the earlier liberal tradition in Britain. This will allow us to draw some conclusions about the place of idealism in the history of 19th century British liberalism

In his 1983 book on Bradley’s Logic, Anthony Manser remarks that “[i]t has been suggested that there was, at the end of the nineteenth century, a great English philosopher named ‘Bradley-Bosanquet’.” Manser was, of course, just repeating the view of J.S. MacKenzie who wrote, in his 1928 review of the second edition of Bradley’s Ethical Studies, that “Bradley and Bosanquet have almost to be regarded as one person […] Neither is readily intelligible without the other.” And it is fairly well known that Bosanquet himself sometimes wrote that his and Bradley’s respective views were quite close — that “there is never […] any more than a verbal difference or difference of emphasis, between us.” So, despite the recognition in Bosanquet’s own time that he had a distinctive and powerful voice on philosophical topics, the impression created by the preceding remarks — that Bosanquet does not really offer a distinctive position from Bradley — has been long held, and it is no doubt partly responsible for the consequence that, until fairly recently, philosophical interest in Bosanquet’s work has taken, at best, second place to that of Bradley.

In this paper I outline some ways in which philosophy can contribute to the study of culture and pluralism, and how such a study may lead to a better understanding of philosophical enquiry. Building on earlier work (Sweet, 2002), I focus on four areas in which these contributions might be made. The first concerns the methodological, ideological, and historical presuppositions of culture and multiculturalism. The second area considers how philosophical discourse affects a culture's "self-understanding". The third area focuses on how (and how far) philosophy may enable a culture to allow diversity and pluralism within the larger community. The fourth area deals with philosophy's dialectical relation with culture -how far philosophy is a product of culture, and whether that affects philosophy's participation in culture. An exploration of these areas will show both what role philosophy has to play in the analysis of culture, and why it is important for philosophers -especially in the English-speaking world- to engage in the "philosophy of culture".

U radu ću identificirati neke primjere kulturnih sukoba koji uključuju religiju, preispitati neka ponuđena rješenja takvih sukoba, i razmotriti može li religija u bilo kojem smislu biti dio tog rješenja. Također ću ponuditi neke modele religije unutar granica demokracije – modele za koje smatram da su relevantni za demokracije na jugoistoku Europe. U predstavljanju ovih modela, tvrdim da se plodonosan pristup može pronaći u recentnim djelima kanadskog filozofa Charlesa Taylora.In this paper, I identify some examples of cultural clash that involve religion, review some proposed solutions to such clashes, and discuss whether religion in any sense can be part of that solution. I also provide some models of religion within the limits of democracy – models which, I suggest, are relevant to the democracies in Southeast Europe. In presenting these models, I claim that a fruitful approach is found in the recent work of the Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor.Dans cet article, j’identifie quelques exemples de chocs culturels qui impliquent la religion, j’examine certaines solutions proposées pour de tels conflits, et j’aborde la question de savoir si la religion dans un quelconque sens puisse faire partie de cette solution. Egalement, je fournis quelques modèles de religion à l’intérieur des limites de la démocratie, des modèles qui, je le suggère, sont pertinents pour les démocraties du sud-est de l’Europe. En présentant ces modèles, j’affirme qu’une approche fructueuse se trouve dans les récents travaux du philosophe canadien Charles Taylor.Im vorliegenden Aufsatz identifiziere ich eine Anzahl Exempel für religionsmotivierte kulturelle Auseinandersetzung, nehme einige Lösungskonzepte für solche Konflikte in Augenschein und diskutiere über die Tauglichkeit der Religion, in irgendeinem Sinne ein Bestandteil dieser Lösungswege zu werden. Darüber hinaus liefere ich einige Religionsentwürfe innerhalb der Demokratiegrenzen – Modelle, die sich meines Erachtens als maßgebend für die Demokratien Südosteuropas erzeigen. In der Präsentation der erwähnten Modelle vertrete ich die Ansicht, ein fruchtbares Angehen dieser Problematik zeichne sich im jüngsten Werk des kanadischen Philosophen Charles Taylor ab