Drag to reposition

Truth, Rationality and Pragmatism [TRP] presents the fruits of Christopher Hookway’s thinking about the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce since the publication of Peirce in 1985. Unlike the earlier work, this ‘does not pretend to be a general introduction to Peirce’s philosophy [but]... deals [instead] with a range of important and central issues in more detail than was possible in that volume’. As his title indicates, Hookway’s chief aim is to articulate pragmatism’s most promising ideas about the nature of truth and rationality—well, as just noted, for ‘pragmatism’ read ‘Peirce’; but the wording of the title is not inappropriate given the regular use of James and Dewey as foils for interpreting Peirce.

In this chapter, we focus on the simple sounding question: What is it to have sex? On the assumption that having sex is what you do with all and only your sexual part-ners, this offers a way of focusing the question: What would it take for a sex robot to be a sex partner? In order to understand the significance of the development of robots with whom (or which) we can have sex, we need to know what it is to have sex with a robot. And in order to know this, we have to know what it is to have sex, period. In the bulk of the chapter, we develop an account of shared sexual agency we think is a plausible precondition of genuinely having sex. In the final section, we remark briefly on the issue of what it would take to form a sexual we (as we call it) with a robot. For if we can do this, we can probably have sex with robots; but if we can’t, we can’t.

This dissertation attempts to establish that Nietzsche's philosophical development from 1864 to 1870 is directed towards finding a satisfactory way to redeem the sufferings of life immanently, that is, without appeal to a state of perfect being beyond the grave. I argue that this stage of his thinking culminates in the belief that the project of self-expressive self-determination was a satisfactory source of immanent redemption, and I therefore label this enterprise the project of redemptive self-determination. ;In the first of the dissertation's three parts I show how Nietzsche's confrontation with Schopenhauer's pessimism led him to believe that an acceptable practical philosophy--that is, a set of maxims prescribing or prohibiting the direction of one's energies towards the achievement of certain ends--had to be compatible with atheism and metaphysical pessimism . In part two I explain what redemptive self-determination is and argue for its presence in Nietzsche's thinking during the period covered. And in part three I show how his commitment to redemptive self-determination shaped his views of the promise and purpose of classical philology and the nature and death of Greek tragedy

In the 1960s, Richard Rorty's public image was that of a rising officer in the advancing army of analytic philosophy. Then, in 1979, he published Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, in the wake of which all hell broke loose. Since that time, he has become a renowned neopragmatist enfant terrible, been called the most interesting philosopher in the world by Harold Bloom, dismissed as beneath discussion by most of the rank and file among his erstwhile analytic brethren, and now selected as the subject of this ninth volume in Blackwell's Philosophers and Their Critics series.

This paper raises three questions: (1) Can Nietzsche provide a satisfactory account of how the slave revolt could have begun to "poison the consciences" of masters? (2) Does Nietzsche's affinity for "master values" preclude him from acknowledging claims of justice that rest upon a sense of equality among human beings? and (3) How does Nietzsche's story fare when looked on as (at least in part) an empirical hypothesis? The first question is answered in the affirmative, the second in the negative, and the third with the verdict "quite well". Nietzsche's interpretation of Socrates is held to vindicate the affirmative answer to question one; his conception of nobility as spontaneously self-affirming to justify the negative answer to question two, and historical, anthropological and etymological evidence to support the favorable answer to question three

This paper raises three questions: Can Nietzsche provide a satisfactory account of how the slave revolt could have begun to "poison the consciences" of masters? Does Nietzsche's affinity for "master values" preclude him from acknowledging claims of justice that rest upon a sense of equality among human beings? and How does Nietzsche's story fare when looked on as an empirical hypothesis? The first question is answered in the affirmative, the second in the negative, and the third with the verdict "quite well". Nietzsche's interpretation of Socrates is held to vindicate the affirmative answer to question one; his conception of nobility as spontaneously self-affirming to justify the negative answer to question two, and historical, anthropological and etymological evidence to support the favorable answer to question three.