The aim of this article is twofold: first, to show that, in Plato's Hippias Major, Hippias is the mouthpiece of a materialist ontology; second, to discuss the critique of this ontology. My argument is based on an interpretation of Hippias Major 300b4–301e3. I begin by revealing the shortcomings of P. Woodruff's and I. Ludlam's interpretations. Next, I define the concept of materialism as it was understood in ancient Greece (Democritus) in order to outline the specificity of Hippias' materialism. Finally, I argue that the opposition between the two characters of the Hippias Major represents in fact an ontological opposition between two conceptions of what a unity is, i.e., Hippias' elementary corporal unities and Socrates' “formal unity.”

This article defends the idea that causal relations between reasons and actions are wholly irrelevant to the explanatory efficacy of reason-explanations. The analysis of reason-explanations provided in this article shows that the so-called “problem of explanatory force” is solved, not by putative causal relations between the reasons for which agents act and their actions, but rather by the intentions that agents necessarily have when they act for a reason. Additionally, the article provides a critique of the principal source of support for the thesis that reason-explanations are causal explanations, namely, Davidson's argument in “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” It is shown that Davidson's argument for this thesis rests crucially on two mistakes: his definition of intentional action and his ontological prejudice against intentions.

I argue that Aristotle takes a ‘natural language semantics’ approach to logic, which is consistent with the general attitudes one finds in informal logic today. Although his position is complex, Aristotle emphasizes the intensional rather than the extensional side of argument evaluation. He does not take a truth-functional approach to semantics, but an approach that elucidates the illative mechanism through an understanding of natures. This comes close to what informal logicians insist on. The informal logic movement was, to a very large extent, a Canadian initiative, prominently featuring authors such as Johnson, Blair, Govier, and many others.

Quel statut donner aux calculs et surtout aux figures proposées par Henri Bergson pour expliquer le fonctionnement de la reconnaissance dans Matière et mémoire ? Ce travail suggère que ces calculs et ces figures ne sont pas que des métaphores commodes ; la réalité n'est pas dépourvue d'un certain nombre d’éléments et de grandeurs plus ou moins importantes. Il semble donc possible de supposer qu'après avoir arithmétisé les faits de conscience à l'aide de nombres spéciaux (dans l’Essai), Bergson géométrise l’être spirituel et matériel (dans Matière et mémoire).

One of the central aims of Kyle Johannsen’s monograph, A Conceptual Investigation of Justice, is to defend the idea that we should think of justice as a fundamental value—a value that can come into conflict with other fundamental values. This pluralism is associated in particular with G.A. Cohen’s work and his critique of John Rawls’s theory of justice. In this commentary, I sketch some of the implications of Cohen’s pluralism for a Cohenite ethos of justice.

Loving another person requires that we set that person apart from others, but morality is often thought to require that we view everyone as equally important. I argue that two approaches to the nature of love, robust concern and special perception, both miss crucial aspects of loving relationships: sensitivity to the beloved’s response, and history of the relationship. Love depends on the beloved’s attitude as well as the lover’s. Shared history as a necessary condition of loving relationships addresses these problems, and points the way to more productive analysis of conflicts between loving relationships and impartiality.

In the Traité des systèmes, Condillac analyses a plurality of systematic metaphysical doctrines, specifically, those of Spinoza, Malebranche and Leibniz. Commentators have mainly interpreted this plurality as a way for Condillac to illustrate his criticisms and to raise doubts about the main contemporary systems while using the same criteria for interpretation. However, I note that his analytic tools differ according to which philosopher or philosophical system he analyses. This paper focuses on the criticism of Leibniz’s system, and aims to show that Condillac operated from subsequent reconstructions. In order to raise criticisms against the Leibnizian system, Condillac gave it an architectonic structure that is borrowed mainly from Wolff.

In this paper, I argue that social psychologism is the most philosophically appealing form of psychologism. I present two arguments in support of social psychologism. The first is that this form of psychologism allows philosophers to justify normative claims about human reasoning. In the second part of this paper I argue that social psychologism ameliorates historical concerns with psychologism in general. The conclusion I draw from this discussion is that a need to outline and justify a normative system for deductive reasoning requires some discussion of how formal systems and human minds connect to one another.

ABSTRACT: Careful analysis of the details of the text allows us to refine Socrates’ understanding of manliness. Laches submits without a fight to Socrates’ objections to his definition of manliness as prudent perseverance. He does not appreciate that Socrates objections merely require that he make his definition more precise. Nicias refuses to consider objections to his understanding of manliness as avoiding actions that entail risk. The two sets of objections show that manliness entails first calculating that a risk is worth taking and then subsequently not rejecting that calculation without due consideration.

Annas’ virtue ethics faces the Circularity Objection. She claims that a just soul is disposed to doing just acts. If a just soul is defined neither in terms of right acts nor rules, then the Circularity Objection is circumvented. Drawing upon Korsgaard’s recent work, it is shown that Annas’ argument faces anew the Circularity Objection. Then, I examine Annas’ fresh attempts to avert the Circularity Objection by appealing to the community of the virtuous. I argue that this move does not save her theory from either relativism or the Circularity Objection.

In this article, I wish to shed a new light on Heidegger's philosophical position toward idealism and realism. This will be accomplished through an analysis of Heidegger's account of the problem of scepticism in §43 of Sein und Zeit. Heidegger's position toward scepticism has often been overlooked or treated candidly by scholars and, as a result, misunderstood in the larger philosophical world, who frequently equated Heidegger's philosophy with some form of scepticism. By highlighting some crucial ambiguities in the unfolding of §43, I show that in Sein und Zeit Heidegger is elaborating a radical refutation of scepticism even though it will ultimately only be accomplished in the Beiträge zur Philosophie.