Mark Zelcer

Providing a concise but comprehensive overview of Joseph B. Soloveitchik's larger philosophical program, this book studies one of the most important modern Orthodox Jewish thinkers. It incorporates much relevant biographical, philosophical, religious, legal, and historical background so that the content and difficult philosophical concepts are easily accessible. The volume describes his view of Jewish law and how he answers the fundamental question of Jewish philosophy, namely, the "reasons" for the commandments. It shows how many of his disparate books, essays, and lectures on law, specific commandments, and Jewish religious phenomenology can be woven together to form an elegant philosophical program. It also provides an analysis and summary of Soloveitchik's views on Zionism and on interreligious dialogue and the contexts for Soloveitchik's respective stances on issues that were pressing in his role as a leader of a major branch of post-war Orthodox Judaism. The book provides a synoptic overview of the philosophical works of Joseph B. Soloveitchik. It will be of interest to historians and scholars studying neo-Kantian philosophy, Jewish thought, and philosophy of religion.

Menexenus is one of the least studied among Plato's works, mostly because of the puzzling nature of the text, which has led many scholars either to reject the dialogue as spurious or to consider it as a mocking parody of Athenian funeral rhetoric. In this book, Pappas and Zelcer provide a persuasive alternative reading of the text, one that contributes in many ways to our understanding of Plato, and specifically to our understanding of his political thought. The book is organized into two parts. In the first part the authors offer a synopsis of the dialogue, address the setting and its background in terms of the Athenian funeral speech, and discuss the alternative readings of the dialogue, showing their weaknesses and strengths. In the second part, the authors offer their positive interpretation of the dialogue, taking particular care to explain and ground their interpretive criteria and method, which considers Plato's text not simply as a de-contextualized collection of philosophical arguments but offers a theoretically reading of the text that situates it firmly within its historical context. The book will become a reference point in the debate about the Menexenus and Plato's political philosophy more generally and marks an important contribution to our understanding of ancient thought and classical Athenian society.

Plato’s political philosophy is usually seen in the context of domestic politics, justice within a polis. This essay argues that Plato had views on international relations theory as well. We show that Plato had a theory of the causes of international conflict, and that his theory can be seen as a response to Thucydides’ theory as well as theories espoused by other Greek thinkers. Plato’s theory can be generalized to a theory of causation in the social sciences. He also had clear views on what international relations theorists now call “hegemonic stability theory,” “transition theory,” and the nature of political sovereignty.

1920s United States saw the publishing of numer- ous popular science textbooks in Yiddish, like Z. P. Nathans’ Populere erḳlerung fun Aynshṭayn’s relaṭiṿiṭeṭ ṭeorye and Yiddish translations of scientific classics like Darwin’s The Descent of Man1. These were geared toward a largely bilingual Jewish audience that had strong cultural ties to Yiddish and also to science. But what does it mean for an ethnicity to have strong cultural ties to science and how did it get that way in this case? Put another way, why put all this effort into producing Yiddish texts for an audience, part of which could get by in English and part of which was not particu- larly well educated enough to appreciate them? Why would Jews put such a Jewish spin on science?

We state the defining characteristic of mathematics as a type of symmetry where one can change the connotation of a mathematical statement in a certain way when the statement's truth value remains the same. This view of mathematics as satisfying such symmetry places mathematics as comparable with modern views of physics and science where, over the past century, symmetry also plays a defining role. We explore the very nature of mathematics and its relationship with natural science from this perspective. This point of view helps clarify some standard problems in the philosophy of mathematics.

Typical approaches to resolving the sorites paradox attempt to show, in one way or another, that the sorites argument is not paradoxical after all. However, if one can show that the sorites is not really paradoxical, the task remains of explaining why it appears to be a paradox. Our approach begins by addressing the appearance of paradox and then explores what this means for the paradox itself. We examine the sorites from the perspective of the various brain systems that are intuitively comfortable with the key features of the premises of the sorites argument. We suggest that the explicit and implicit cognitive systems are separately responsible for the initial plausibility of the categorical and inductive premises. The appearance of paradox is a function of our brain’s architecture and arises from the conflicting interactions of neurologically distinct systems.

Over the past few decades the notion of symmetry has played a major role in physics and in the philosophy of physics. Philosophers have used symmetry to discuss the ontology and seeming objectivity of the laws of physics. We introduce several notions of symmetry in mathematics and explain how they can also be used in resolving different problems in the philosophy of mathematics. We use symmetry to discuss the objectivity of mathematics, the role of mathematical objects, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and the relationship of mathematics to physics.