Theodore Scaltsas

This volume presents fourteen essays by leading figures in the fields of ancient philosophy and contemporary metaphysics, discussing Aristotle's theory of the unity and identity of substances, a topic that remains at the center of metaphysical enquiry. The contributors examine the nature of essences, how they differ from other components of substance, and how they are related to these other components. The central questions discussed are: What does Aristotle mean by "potentiality" and "actuality?" How do these concepts explicate matter and form, and how are they related to the actuality of a substance? What is the role of actuality in accounting for the unity and identity of substance? These questions are crucial to an understanding of the unity of composite substances and their identity over time. The aim of the volume is both exegetical and philosophical: to give answers to central problems in Aristotle's metaphysics, and also to stimulate further investigation of the problems defined and the controversies embodied.

Our aim in this paper is to argue that Socrates is an intellectual character builder. We show that the Socratic Method, properly understood, is a tool for developing the intellectual character of students. It motivates agents towards the truth and helps them to develop the cognitive skills to gain knowledge of the truth. We further elucidate this proposal by comparing the Socratic Method, so understood, with the widely held contemporary view that the epistemic aim of education is the development of the intellectual virtues.

Creativity is an emerging field of research for philosophy. A diachronic cultural value and fundamental human ability, creativity poses a host of questions that challenge us both on a theoretical and practical level. In this paper we explore creativity through the use of problem-solving lateral thinking techniques, as part of the C2Learn European Community research program. Lateral thinking is defined and then classified into three distinct kinds: conceptual, diagrammatic and emotive. Each kind is then explicated and its basic principles examined, in an effort to shed light on the different ways the space of possible solutions is affected by each kind of lateral thought. It is this active engagement with the space of possibilities itself, that separates a mere problem-solver from an actual creator.

The aim of this report is to explore, collect and classify the surface characteristics of texts which contain arguments, and in particular arguments pertaining to policy. Our interest is in the automated identification of publically presented arguments, rather than in their success or failure as arguments. We are therefore not dwelling on their validity or their soundness, but on the way they are typically expressed. Of special interest to us are the policy arguments which give reasons for and against legislation proposals. The automated identification of arguments which are to be found in the public domain is an approximate science. Nevertheless, the redeeming factor is that in building an assistant to the policy maker, the interest is in the main lines of argument that pertain to an issue, which, if significant, will not be expressed only once, in atypical logical language. The computational tool we are constructing will assist the policy maker with texts that display even minute hints that there may be some reason giving enfolded within their content.

In Republic V, Plato distinguishes two different cognitive powers, knowledge and belief, which operate differently on different types of object. I argue that in Republic VI Plato modifies this account, and claims that there is a single cognitive power, which under different circumstances behaves either as knowledge or as belief. I show that the circumstances which turn true belief into knowledge are the provision of an individuation account of the object of belief, which reveals the ontological status and the nature of the object. Plato explores many alternative candidates of individuation accounts of objects of true belief, which he discards. I conclude with a Platonic sketch of a teleological account of individuation which would satisfy his requirements of turning true belief into knowledge.

ABSTRACT Parallel processing systems can carry out computational tasks which would be impossible to be carried out by sequential systems. Cognitive psychologists are discovering that brains do not operate on a sequential ordering of tasks, but along parallel processing models. Sequential ordering is abandoned in the new generation computers, which are being designed on evolving parallel processing models. My proposal consists in applying the parallel processing principles to the state, creating a ‘parallel governing’model for the decision‐making procedures at the political level, in place of the present sequentially ordered procedures. I describe the main principles of current parallel processing models, and use them towards the creation of a parallel governing system. The most fundamental principle is the ‘De‐Centralisation Principle’, which requires that there be no centralised unit with special rights to information, or to policy‐, and decision‐making authority. In parallel governing, political and moral principles are built into the structure of the system, which consists of units of specialised interests and powers, with specialised channels of communication between them. I close by delineating the main differences between parallel governing and Nozick's utopia and Hayek's neo‐libertarianism.

The Socratic discussion in the Hippias Major, 300-303, is not a passing comment on plural reference; it is a theory of plural subjecthood. It has escaped attention because it is a small part of a larger complex argument on the topic of which pleasures are fine. Socrates’s theory is further concealed by the fact that it is presented as an antithesis between Hippias and himself, whereas in fact, Hippias’s position becomes part of Socrates’s theory. I begin by examining Hippias’s position, and subsequently Socrates’ criticism of it. I then turn to Socrates’s further proposal, and the development of a theory of plural subjects that incorporates elements of Hippias’s position, and Socrates’s own. At the end, I address the question of the ontology of plural subjects. I argue that the key to sharing a property between subjects is not in the way that the plural terms refer to these subjects, or in any decomposition of the commonly owned property instance into parts distributed to these subjects. Rather, I follow Socrates in finding the common ownership of a property instance central to plural subjecthood, and develop an account of how this metaphysical function can be performed by the plural subjects without threatening their distinctness and plurality.