Kierkegaard’s thesis that lacking faith is necessarily a state of despair leads to the conclusion that Either/Or’s fictional character Judge William, who belongs to the “ethical” rather than the “religious” stage of life, is, despite the many virtues of his position, in a state of despair. What does his despair amount to, then? Relying on Kierkegaard’s analysis of despair in The Sickness unto Death, I claim that the failure in the Judge’s view of life is rooted in his misguided understanding of what it is to be a “self.” By taking himself to have ultimate control over the way he is (in a manner akin to what Sartre’s means by “radical freedom”), the Judge fails to acknowledge that he possesses what I term an individual essence, bestowed upon him by God in a state of potential. This chapter explains the conception of individual essence and demonstrates how it applies to the Judge’s despair.

Chapter four concentrates on a close analysis of Aquinas’s understanding of creation, which is undeniably crucial for any attempt at constructing and evaluating a Thomistic version of theistic evolutionism. The exposition of Aquinass philosophical theology of creation and his commentary on the work of six days in Genesis is preceded by an analysis of Augustine’s reading of the Hexameron, his use of the concept of rationes seminales, and the debate on whether his notion of creation can be interpreted as evolution-friendly.

Chapter seven addresses the difficulty of the theological interpretation of evolutionary biology in delineating a precise account of the concurrence of divine and contingent causes engaged in speciation. Invoking Aquinas’s famous distinction between God’s primary and principal causation and the secondary and instrumental causation of creatures, a constructive model of the concurrence of divine and natural causes in evolutionary transformations is offered.

This chapter offers a broad overview of the dominant views of personhood and selfhood in ancient Mesoamerica. It begins with a discussion of the conception of social personhood, then turns to the issue of essence and selfhood, finally culminating in the “embedded identity” theory of personal identity that relies on these previous views.

Aristotle has the resources to solve the Conjunctive Problem of Happiness and thus to vouchsafe the necessity of ethically virtuous activity while clarifying the kind of priority that contemplation has. Among these resources is his theory of predication as articulated in the Organon, his toolkit for all sorts of philosophical inquiry. This theory allows us to understand the coherence of what have appeared to many to be fundamentally discrepant answers to the question about what kind of activity happiness is.

This chapter explores Heidegger’s challenge to the claim that logic is authorative in the following sense: Putative logical propositions demand assent and serve to constrain our thinking about nonlogical subject areas such as metaphysics, and they do so because these logical truths are true in virtue of the essence of the logical. The chapter argues that, given Heidegger's metaphysics, his rejection of the authority of logic so construed is defensible. Specifically, it discusses how his nonpropositional theory of the fundamental bearers of truth and his ontological pluralism undercut this construal of the authority of logic. On this view, Heidegger is less interested in revising or rejecting principles such as the law of noncontradiction than he is in defending his right to revise or reject these principles if his metaphysical investigations demand that he does so.

Inherited discussions of ‘science and religion’ too much assume an interaction between two historically constant phenomena in terms of stories of ‘progress’ and ‘conflict’. Instead, it is better to recognise long-term and varying modes of tension between three different approaches to nature, pivoted about attitudes to ‘enchantment’ and to transcendence versus immanence. Within such a perspective, it appears that the dominant model of science as ‘disenchanted transcendence’ is a Newtonian one that historically quickly proved inadequate. Alternative and earlier traditions of ‘natural magic’ later returned under new guises and are closer to the essence of the ‘ergetic’ or experimental attitude that lies at the real core of ‘science’. The Newtonian model also implausibly suppressed the realities of motion, time, change, substantial form and secondary qualities. But contemporary physics points towards their restoration and to nature as a vital habit and form-shaping process, as well as to the ‘magical’ character of powers and causes. Magic, rightly understood, is a necessary mediator between religion as theory and science as practice and is a crucial aspect of an ergetic understanding of ‘enchanted transcendence’ which is the most promising perspective for today.

The chapter focuses on the methodological debate between Empiricist and Rationalist schools of medicine, as portrayed in Galen’s early treatise On Medical Experience (Med.Exp.). This dense and philosophically-sophisticated text, preserved for the most part only in an Arabic translation, supposedly presents the substance of a dispute, witnessed by the young Galen, between his Rationalist teacher Pelops and an Empiricist opponent, about the respective roles of experience and reason in medicine. Analysing the arguments on both sides, in particular as they concern the question of inductive generalisation and the nature and validity of the empirical procedure known as epilogimos, the chapter shows how Galen’s presentation of a sequence of responses and counter-responses between the two protagonists serves to prefigure his own complex and hugely influential synthesis of the empirical and rationalist procedures in his own mature methodology.

Galen insists that genuine epistêmê, in the Aristotelian sense of securely-founded scientific understanding, is available to the serious medical investigator. The foundations consist in propositions that are evidently true, and hence require no further support. These come in two types: those evident to the senses and those evident to reason, and these are ex heautôn pista, self-crediting, intrinsically trustworthy. On the basis of such propositions the diligent inquirer can erect a firmly-founded structure of practical knowledge, a technê, but one which is, none the less, in a genuine sense demonstration. In this chapter I re-examine what Galen says about a number of inter-related key issues: What is the ‘orderly method’ of discovery which Galen regularly commends, and berates his opponents for failing to adhere to? What supplies the ‘context of justification’ for such a firmly-founded science, and how does this relate to Galen’s oft-repeated affirmation of the necessity for empirical testing, peira? And finally, and relatedly, what specific role in all of this is played by what he calls ‘differentiated experience’, peira diorismenê?

Aristotle maintains that defining nous requires first defining its activity, which requires first having considered its objects, intelligible beings. This chapter is about the nature of these objects: what about them makes them intelligible? My principal proposals will be that what makes them intelligible is that they are separate or unmixed, and that because, insofar as they are intelligible, they are, in their essence, activity. I am not unaware that this makes it sound as though Aristotle takes intelligibility to consist in some kind of nous. But he himself virtually says as much, when he claims that nous is the form of its objects (lit. εἶδος εἰδῶν); besides it is a result he is committed to by the doctrines that nous is intelligible and that there is something that intelligible objects all are in common; for the alternative, as he himself says, is to suppose that nous “will have something mixed-in, which makes it intelligible just like the rest.” The challenge, then, is not to steer clear of this result, but to make sense of it. My proposal will be that the key lies in realizing that and why Aristotle thinks intelligibility is a creature of nous.

This chapter is focused on Aristotle’s account of sensibility in De Anima II 12. My thesis is that the account defines sensibility as the standard in relation to which perceptible qualities are the sorts of quality they are. To illustrate, Aristotle holds that some colors are dark, others light; this implies that the spectrum of dark and light is “divided” into two “sides,” one dark, the other light. In the previous chapter I suggested that what it is for a quality to lie on one side of a spectrum – e.g. to be one of the dark colors – is a matter of its relation to the “middle” of the associated spectrum. In this chapter I argue that the claim that sensibility just is “as it were a kind of mean of the contrariety in perceptible qualities” implies that these “middles” are defined by sensibility itself, the form or essence of the primary sense organ. The upshot is that the senses are “forms” or “standards” of perceptible qualities, in that the particular qualities known by their means are the sorts of quality they are (e.g. dark colors or light ones) thanks to their relationship to the form of the primary sense organ.