In Chapter V of Res Cogitans, Zeno Vendler argues that any analysis of “x knows that p” that has “x believes that p” in the analysans is incorrect. The reason he gives is that the “that p” in “x knows that p” is not the same grammatical object as the “that p” in “x believes that p”. As Vendler puts it, there are thats and thats. The view that there are two kinds of “that” clause, one which follows “know” and another which follows “believe”, is attacked by O.R. Jones in his article “Can One Believe What One Knows?”.

Socrates argues in the Republic that a certain condition of soul is both best for its possessor and the source of just or right action towards others. He calls this condition ‘justice’, but in order not to beg the question I shall refer to it as the prescribed condition. I shall not be concerned in this paper with the first half of Socrates' thesis, but only with the way the prescribed condition of soul expresses itself in action. A number of questions arise here, for Socrates' conception of just action extends beyond the common understanding to include the performance of that social function for which one is fitted by nature. I shall disregard this extension, however, and restrict myself to one crucial question: what grounds are there of a non-analogical kind for the assertion that a person whose soul is in the prescribed condition will never act in a way which would be agreed by Socrates and the vulgar to be wrong?

Nous avons l'habitude de dire «le moi», «le soi». Nous utilisons l'article pour nominaliser le pronom personnel. Quel sens peut avoir l'expression nominale ainsi obtenue?

Elle paraît très ambiguë. Car en disant «le moi» nous transformons le mot indicateur en être indiqué, le signe en objet, le signifiant en signifié, comme si le geste de se désigner soi-même devenait à son tour un nouvel être. Il ne faut pas confondre la mention et l'usage du pronom personnel. Il peut être allégué par un tiers sans être assumé par le locuteur.

Dans les débats suscités par les écrits de Thomas Kuhn, je me suis intéressée au caractère habituellement non thématisé d'une objection levée contre sa théorie des paradigmes, ainsi qu'au caractère ambigu de la réfutation que lui apporte Kuhn. L'objection porte sur le rapprochement abusif que la théorie des paradigmes opérerait entre l'homme de science et l'homme ordinaire, comme si pour Kuhn la science relevait du bon sens. De son côté, et en dépit de la fréquence de ses références à l'homme ordinaire, Kuhn déclare que cette interprétation de sa théorie n'est pas pertinente.

In recent papers Fred Sommers and Michael Lockwood have independently argued that the distinction between the ‘is’ of predication and the ‘is’ of identity (henceforth: the IP-distinction) is not well-founded. This claim is somewhat obscure since, on the theories they advocate, it is not only still possible to distinguish between the ‘is’ of predication and the ‘is’ of identity, but important to do so on pain of turning good arguments bad. Sommers' way of putting it, namely that we don't need identity, is no better. Of course we don't need identity since, in second-order quantification logic, identity is definable in terms of predication. Perhaps the best way of putting their point is by means of Sommers' claim (op. cit. p. 500) that identity statements can be formalized by monadic relations. We can therefore mark the IP-distinction by the essentially polyadic nature of identity.

It is well known that Sellars' account of linguistic meaning is closely linked to a framework of Rylean-behaviouristic concepts. It is far from clear, however, what the nature of this relation exactly is. Some (e.g., Chisholm, [2], 523) have construed this relation as conceptually so tight as to commit Sellars to logical behaviourism about meaning: semantical statements would be shorthand ways of talking about overt verbal and nonverbal behaviour and behavioural dispositions. On the other hand, some (e.g., J. Young, [18]), have construed the relation so loosely as to deny that the behaviouristic framework can possibly provide a conceptually adequate basis for understanding semantical discourse.

An Acquaintance of mine decided, in the late 1950s, to become an officer in the U.S. Navy, until he discovered a Navy regulation stating that ugly men would not be accepted as officer candidates. Surely there is something suspicious about such a policy. Yet, in a time when people are so conscious of the many forms of discrimination — race, colour, sex, age, religion — it is somewhat surprising that little serious attention is given to the practice of what I shall call ‘aesthetic discrimination against persons’, discrimination on the basis of appearance or looks. It is true that, in recent years, some social scientists have conducted research leading them to the conclusion that human beings prefer and esteem good looking people over plain or ugly ones (a conclusion the truth of which has been known for thousands of years prior to its ‘proof’). A few of these researchers have even been willing to venture moral opinions on the subject.

Books on the major thinkers in the history of philosophy are faced with difficult tasks. Not only do they run the risk of being too scholarly for the nonspecialist or insufficiently detailed for the specialist, but also they must observe the fine line between avoiding anachronism and establishing the current relevance and merits of the past philosopher. These problems are compounded for the English-speaking philosopher by a figure like Hegel who is either identified with a very unhegelian British idealism, or largely ignored. The anglophone interpreter of Hegel must find fresh ways of expressing his ideas and methods for a philosophical audience whose recent resurgence of interest in Hegel emerges from a zero degree, or worse, of understanding or empathy. Charles Taylor's book is brilliantly successful at rehabilitating Hegel and providing a vigorous, stimulating reading of his major works.

Travis' Saying and Understanding offers the foundations for what he hopes will be a generative theory of illocutions. I want to criticize the “generative” character of the theory.

Note first that I am not going to criticize the theory because — as is true of Saying and Understanding — there are no rules for its generation, nothing to let us see how it will work. The book is only a discussion of the foundations of such a theory. My criticism is that I do not see how it can be generative, given what Travis expects it to do. So in this critique I shall outline what I think he expects it to do, how he expects it to work, and why I think it cannot.