No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Hare's Impossibilities and the Paradoxicality of Obsessionais
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Extract
A prolonged (obsessive?) professional interest in the problems of obsessional disorder has led me to a consideration of Professor Hare's arguments for prescriptivism. It is perhaps a tribute to the elegance of Hare's argument and the lucidity with which it is presented that the present paper is concerned with the exceptions he cites.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1978
References
1 Hare, R. M., The Language of Morals (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952; OUP Paperback, 1964), 20.Google Scholar
2 Hare, R. M., Freedom and Reason (Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1963), 79.Google Scholar
3 Op. cit.
4 Horsburgh, H. J. N., ‘The Criteria of Assent to a Moral Rule’, Mind, 63 (1954), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Lukes, S., ‘Moral Weakness’, Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Janet, P., Les Obsessions et la Psychasthénie (Paris: Alcan, 1903).Google Scholar
7 Freud, S., ‘Notes Upon a Case of Obsessional Neurosis’, Standard Edition, Vol. X (London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 1909).Google Scholar
8 Straus, E. W., On Obsession (New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs, 1948).Google Scholar
9 Reed, G. F., ‘“Under-Inclusion”—A Characteristic of Obsessional Personality Disorder’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 115 (1969), 781–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Hare, R. M., Freedom and Reason, 73.Google Scholar
11 Fenichel, O., The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (New York: Norton, 1945).Google Scholar
12 Matthews, G., ‘Weakness of Will’, Mind, 75 (1966), 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar