In his paper ‘Knowledge and Reasons’ B. A. O. Williams remarks: “That there should be radically impersonal knowledge seems, on the face of it, impossible: if p is known, then somebody must surely know it”. Williams points out, however, that this “apparent platitude” has strongly counter-intuitive consequences. let ‘Kp’ stand for ‘it is known that p', and’ Kap’ for’ a knows that p'.

Philosophy of religion has become in our days a considerable part of philosophy. Alain's books on religion, published in the early thirties, remain among the most valuable which have been ever written by philosophers on this subject, but unfortunately they are scarcely known to-day, at least in North America. The most important of them — Les Dieux — has recently been translated in English: The Gods, Richard Pevear, New York, New Direction, 1974. Although inspired by Hegel, Alain's method and ideas really are very original as well as profound, because Alain's style and doctrine deeply differ from Hegel's. They differ no less from analytical philosophers’ models, because Alain never argues with religion but reflect on it, in order to draw a true picture of man. The following essay tries to indicate both the contents and the main features of this philosophy.

L'article de M. Theau offre peu de prises au commentaire. II est lui-même un commentaire très dense et structuré de Ia philosophie religieuse d’ Alain. Oui, pour Alain l'anthropormorphisme est le vrai de Ia religion; celle-ci ne nous révèle que notre vérité humaine; mais notre vérité humaine a précisément besoin de nous être révélée. Et M. Theau de poser une question fort pertinente: comment l'imagination — cette imagination qui pour Alain est purement passionnelle et nullement créatrice — peut-elle Créer les dieux et, plus encore, s'élever de Ia religion de Ia nature à Ia religion de l'esprit, au christianisme? Comment “Ia folie du logis” peut-elle nous révéler le vrai de l'homme?

Je voudrais revenir sur Ia réponse que l'auteur apporte à cette question, non pour Ia critiquer mais pour Ia préciser. Je terminerai sur Ia critique de fond que M. Theau adresse à ('auteur des Dieux.

The primary objective of this paper is to improve the defense of the thesis that

This is to be done by establishing (in Parts Ill and IV) that there is a unique sense in which

A secondary objective of the paper is to illustrate (in Part I) the way in which the value and validity of (2) has been obscured in recent defenses and criticisms of (1), which inappropriately interpret it in terms of the claim that

Since the truth of (3) will be denied, the defense of (1) will also involve arguing (in Part II) that the traditional alternative to the bodily criterion, namely the criterion of memory and psychological characteristics, not only is not a necessary condition of personal identity but also is not a sufficient condition.

While there is agreement among many (but not all) theologians and philosophers that a miraculous event should be conceived in opposition to the natural order, there is disagreement about why this opposition must be present. In this paper I propose to examine Antony Flew's explanation of how and why miracles and nature are opposed, suggesting that his account is, as it stands, problematical and in need of revision. In evaluating Flew's position I shall focus on comments he makes when discussing Hume's account of miracles, and while I shall not attempt to argue the correctness or incorrectness of Flew's interpretation of Hume, I think that what I say, if correct, bears importantly on that issue.

Donald Davidson has advanced a novel argument for the psychophysical identity theory, the view that mental events are identical with physical events. Davidson contends that the truth of this theory can be inferred from three principles: (1) at least some mental events interact causally with physical events; (2) events related as cause and effect fall under strict deterministic laws; and (3) there can be no strict deterministic laws on the basis of which mental events can be predicted or explained (pp. 80–81).

Davidson's contention is striking, quite aside from the question of whether (1), (2), and (3) are correct. For it is commonly assumed that discoveries in the empirical sciences—in particular, the discovery of psycho-physical laws—would be prerequisite for establishing a version of the identity theory. Davidson's argument is successful only if there can be no such discoveries: the third principle precludes the possibility of there being (strict) laws linking the mental and physical.

Donnellan has introduced a distinction between two uses of referring terms, the referential and the attributive. A referentially used term is said to pick out that object the speaker has in mind, the one he meant or intended to refer to, while a term used attributively is said to pick out whichever object it names or denotes. While it is generally agreed that Donnellan has discovered a real difference in the way referring terms work, it has by no means been dear how the distinction could or should be handled theoretically. That has two consequences. First, intuitions diverge over difficult or marginal cases and, with no theory to appeal to, the taxonomic part of the enterprise is threatened. Second, the referential/attributive distinction has not become an accepted, relatively uncontroversial tool for solving problems about the semantics of utterances; and this is a least partly because of a lack of theory. But the distinction, so one feels, really is more important than it has thus far shown itself to be.

In Chapter V of his book Res Cogitans — “On What One Knows” — Zeno Vendler attempts to maintain the thesis that the objects of knowledge and belief are incompatible, i.e., that the immediate object of believing is a picture of reality and “the immediate object of knowing is not a ('true’) picture of reality but reality itself”. We shall

and

In Chapter IV — “Propositions” — Vendler tries to draw a distinction between “the subjective and objective dimensions of the mental world”. The subjective dimension corresponds to the world of propositions.

There have been many attempts of late to formulate a satisfactory theory of knowledge with which to replace the traditional justified true belief analysis. Almost all agree that it must be the case that in order for S to know that p; i.) p be true, and ii.) S believe that p. Although many argue that there must be a condition stating that S has adequate evidence for p, requirements other than i.) and ii.) are controversial. The most popular approach taken, however, is the addition of a requirement to the effect that for S to know that p there must be no other evidence against p strong enough to undermine S's belief that p, should this evidence come to S's attention. I shall call such a requirement a “defeasibility condition” and any theory containing such a requirement a defeasibility theory.

Defeasibility theories are quite effective in handling a certain kind of difficulty to which theories of knowledge are subject, namely problems dealing with what Harman has termed the social aspect of knowledge.

In a recent paper, I challenged a currently fashionable argument against the intelligibility of disembodied survival. This argument urges that only bodily continuity can provide a satisfactory criterion for personal identity and since bodily continuity is, of course, ruled out ex hypothesi in disembodied survival, we could have no satisfactory criterion for identity of a disembodied person. Toward the end of the paper I issued a challenge to supporters of this argument; if there are reasonable standards for a criterion of personal identity which do not beg the question in favor of the bodily continuity criterion, let them be stated and let us see if other criteria of personal identity can meet them as well as bodily continuity.

The recent republication of a number of early papers by Bernard Williams has drawn my attention to a paper by Williams which may seem to anticipate and answer this challenge. In what follows I wish to see whether or not this is so; whether Williams has given standards for a criterion of personal identity which are reasonable, which bodily continuity can meet, and which other criteria (such as those proposed in my earlier paper) cannot meet.

1. Introduction

A paternalistic act is one in which the protection or promotion of a subject's welfare is the primary reason for attempted or successful coercive interference with an action or state of that person. My aim in this paper is to determine the conditions under which such acts are Justified. The route I take is through the concept of consent, with actual consent providing the foundation for a rather complex condition which I claim is necessary and sufficient for the Justification of paternalism.

Because a paternalistic act apparently violates a subject's right to non-interference, it constitutes a problem in the general area of rights. Ideally, then, one should have a developed and convincing theory of rights — that is, a theory which contains an analysis of the concept of a right, and offers solutions to the central problems, e.g. who has rights and why, what considerations override prima facie rights, and how the relative importance of prima facie rights is determined — from which the solutions to various problems about paternalism can be derived.

William Newcomb and Robert Nozick have provided us with the following problem in rational decision-making. There are two boxes, A and B. A contains either a million dollars (M) or nothing (0). B contains a thousand dollars (T). I come into the room in which we have the boxes, closed. I must make one of two choices. Either I open A and take whatever money is present, M or O, or I open both and take whatever money is present, M + T or O + T. What is the rational choice for me to make?

Nothing unusual is meant by “rational” in this context. We assume that a person making the choice desires as much money as possible. We assume that he will take into account all relevant available information as to what decision will lead to more money. If he believes that doing X will, or is likely to, lead to more money than doing not-X, then he will do X.

In the above case, it would seem that the rational choice is both. T is there for the taking, whether or not I get M, and I might as well try for both.

Well, why not, for heaven's sake? A speech impediment, perhaps. Imagine a cross between a severe lisp and a roar. That would be difficult to understand. But not impossible. The claim is that we could not understand him. Very well, who are we?

Perhaps we are the English speakers. Of course what we could understand would depend upon which language the lion spoke. I couldn't understand him, for example, if he spoke in Basque or Hittite or Old Icelandic. If he spoke in Spanish or German, I might be able to puzzle out a few words. But I don't understand anyone who speaks in Basque or Hittite or Old Icelandic. I have friends who do, however.

Of course, he might speak in Lion, in the language of the lions. That would indeed be difficult to understand. I don't even have any friends who speak in lion. So perhaps then we could not understand him. (Perhaps then lions do speak—in the language of the lions. Would that be worth looking into?) So we should need to learn the language of the lions.

What do we owe to the lower animals, if anything? The issues raised by this question are among the most fascinating and fundamental in ethical theory. They provide a real watershed for the moral philosopher and, on perhaps the most widely professed view, a trenchant test of consistency in ethical practice. Among the virtues of these two challenging books is that they make painfully clear that there has been a paucity of clear and plausible argument in support of the nearly universal tendency of humans to eat animal flesh, and to visit varying degrees of pain, discomfort, and unfreedom on the animals in question in the process.

When we are asked why it is all right to do this, given our strong belief that it is not all right for us to eat other humans, we tend to give answers that won't readily wash. We may say, for example, that animals are stupid; but we don't think it all right to eat stupid people, including people less apparently competent than many of the higher animals. Or we may say things that are patently untrue, such as that the other animals don't really feel pain anyway.

Jan Narveson has rendered a valuable service with his examination of two recent publications on the general topic of the treatment of animals. Not only has he given us the means for securing a better understanding of many of the most important arguments common to these two volumes; what is more, he has advanced a position which fails to receive any attention in either, and a position which, should it happen to be correct, would fatally undermine perhaps the most basic thesis advanced by those who argue for the rights of animals-the thesis, namely, that we have as much reason for believing that many animals have rights as we have for believing that humans do. Narveson's position is that this thesis can be seen to be false, if, as he thinks may be the case, egoism can give us a “coherent and quite theoretically smooth account of our moral intuitions” (p. 178).