William Sweet

William Sweet offers a rejoinder to Hendrik Hart’s response. He begins with terminological considerations, and argues that, despite Hart’s further clarifications regarding his use of such terms as ‘faith,’ ‘belief,’ and ‘rational,’ the concerns raised in his first critical essay (“Anti-foundationalism, Hendrik Hart, and the Nature and Function of Religious Belief,” Philosophy & Theology 8:2) still stand. He raises two substantive issues which, he argues, Hart has yet to explain fully and convincingly: the nature of faith, and how what religious believers say about their faith can be understood as meaningful or true. He concludes by suggesting that the future conversation focus on two central questions: the nature of faith, and whether Hart is arguing for an ‘alternative’ vision of meaning and truth, or simply a ‘broader’ one.

The history of South African philosophy is only recently becoming widely known. Recent books and articles have been written on figures such as Martin Versfeld, Mongameli Mabona, Andrew H. Murray, and Alfred Hoernlé. But perhaps the best-known book bearing on philosophy written by a South African is Holism and Evolution, by Jan Christiaan Smuts (and from whom the term “holism” entered popular discourse). Yet Smuts – who was both Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa (1919–24 and 1939–48) and a military leader in both world wars – never taught as a philosopher and denied that the book was a work of philosophy at all. Moreover, Smuts eschewed philosophical labels, denying specifically that he was an idealist. In this article, I describe the idealism of the late 19th/early 20th century in the Anglo-American world, and review some elements of Smuts’ work and personal biography to determine whether one might, in fact, describe him as a philosopher and, in particular, an idealist philosopher.

Content Description The origins and uses of the classical moral theories / Roger Sullivan -- Wisdom as foundational ethical theory in Thomas Aquinas / Lawrence Dewan -- Descartes and the ethics of generosity / Leslie Armour -- Is pity the basis of ethics? : Nietzsche versus Schopenhauer / T.L.S. Sprigge -- Jacques Maritain and Karol Wojtyla : approches to modernity / Kenneth Schmitz -- On the foundations of ethics / Hugo Meynell -- Ethics, the humanities, and the formation of persons / Thomas De Koninck -- Personal identity and the sense of duty / Elizabeth Trott -- Passing through : women's experiences and ethics / Monique Dumais -- Ladri'ere's eschatology of reason and the foundations of ethics / Louis Perron -- The foundations of ethics and moral practices / William Sweet.

The British idealist philosopher Bernard Bosanquet argues that the legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law are rooted in what he calls the ‘real will.’ This notion of the real will, however, has often been claimed to be problematic. In this paper, I argue that the notion of the real or general will can be made clearer and, arguably, more satisfactory, if one looks at Bosanquet’s notion of aesthetic consciousness. I provide a short account of Bosanquet’s views on art and aesthetic consciousness and identify a number of points on which aesthetic consciousness and awareness of the real will are, arguably, similar. This similarity suggests that the notion of the real will may be more plausible – or, at least, less problematic – than critics have alleged.

One of the concerns in the modern democratic state is what place there should be, if any, for the recognition of cultures and cultural identities. Should a democratic state concern itself with the preservation of culture? Should it recognize or promote a national culture – a German culture in Germany, for example, – or should it recognise or promote some kind of national cultural pluralism or multiculturalism? Should a culture or one’s cultural identity have special protections or rights in the state? In this paper, work towards answers to some of these questions. I begin with a brief statement of what I call the ‘modern’ liberal democratic view, and present how it generally understands the place of cultural identity and culture. I then consider a response to it – a view that has been called ‘communitarian.’ Following this, I present an alternative to both views that situates itself within ‘postmodern’ liberal democratic tradition and, again, see how it understands the place of cultural identity and culture. I argue that this latter view, and indeed all three views, neglect some key issues on the nature of identity and, by extension, culture. It is only by being attentive to these key issues that we can arrive at a plausible and practicable statement of the place of cultural identity and of culture in the modern democratic state.

This is a book dedicated to Professor George F. McLean (1929-2016). A group of distinguished scholars from all parts of the world provide personal reminiscences, recollections and reflections on the global outreach of McLean's philosophical work and his legacy. Authors are from such countries as Argentina, Austria, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Georgia, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Lebanon, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, Zimbabwe, etc.

This paper takes up some themes in Peter Jonkers’s essay, ‘Philosophy and Wisdom’, but discusses, more specifically, philosophy as ‘love of wisdom’. After a short summary of what is commonly understood by wisdom, why people value wisdom, and how one may acquire wisdom, I briefly note why the philosophy that we generally encounter today has seemed, to some, to be disconnected from wisdom and the love of wisdom. I argue that, if we are more attentive to the role of love in philosophy and to texts, frequently marginalized, that reflect a ‘sapiential philosophy’, philosophy can again be ‘love of wisdom’.

Many studies in the philosophy of religion have focussed on the character of religious faith and whether there is place for a rational demonstration of religious belief. These studies frequently pit ‘evidentialists’ against ‘non-evidentialists’. Interestingly, these issues were of central concern to the 19th century philosopher John Henry Newman - principally in his Grammar of Assent and his Oxford Sermons - where Newman attempts a ‘via media’ between these two extremes. In this paper, my focus is not so much on the adequacy of Newman’s via media, as on his analysis of religious belief, and on what he takes belief and the epistemic standards relevant to determining the meaning and truth of religious belief to be. I will argue that Newman’s account provides a novel understanding of the relation of grounds for belief to faith than provided by many of his contemporaries, and that its attempt to be a via media has a surprisingly contemporary character.

Idealism, Metaphysics and Community examines the place of idealism in contemporary philosophy, and its relation to problems of metaphysics, political thought, and the study of the history of philosophy. Drawing together contributions from philosophers from several distinct traditions, this book presents a range of perspectives - revealing areas of agreement and disagreement, addressing topics of contemporary discussion, and providing new insights into philosophical idealism. Following an extensive introduction by the editor, and drawing on the work of the Canadian idealist, Leslie Armour, the book is divided into three main parts: Part 1 focuses on the British idealist, F.H.Bradley; Part 2 examines metaphysical issues and idealism, such as the realism/anti-realism debate, the relation of classical and idealist metaphysics, rational psychology, time and eternity, and the divine; Part 3 draws on idealism to address contemporary concerns in ethical theory, political philosophy, social philosophy and culture and the history of philosophy. Presenting new insights into the work of classical authors as well as contemporary philosophers, this book provides a better understanding of classical idealism and addresses important areas of contemporary philosophical, social and political concern.