Nicholas Rescher accompanies the text of the Monadology section-by-section with relevant excerpts from some of Leibniz’s widely scattered discussions of the matters at issue. The result serves a dual purpose of providing a commentary of the Monadology by Leibniz himself, while at the same time supplying an exposition of his philosophy using the Monadology as an outline.
“The work would be of great value to philosophers engaged in the conceptual analysis of coercion, to political scientists studying the state or other coercive institutions, and to advanced readers interested in the field of peace research.”—Choice
In these essays, four philosophers and one physicist consider the interactions of mathematics and physics with logic and philosophy in the era of modern science.
Rescher develops a theory that accounts for philosophical disagreement and shows how conflicts root in divergent ‘cognitive values’-values regarding matters such as importance, centrality, and priority. He argues that given the nature of the enterprise, consensus is not a realistic goal, and failure to achieve it is not a defect.
Rescher examines a number of controversial issues from a philosophical viewpoint, in an attempt to clarify some of the complexities of modern society, technology, and economics.
Rosenberg applies current thinking in philosophy of science to neoclassical economics in order to assess its claims to scientific standing. Although philosophers have used history and psychology as paradigms for the examination of social science, there is good reason to believe that economics is a more appropriate subject for analysis: it is the most systematized and quantified of the social sciences; its practitioners have reached a measure of consensus on important aspects of their subject; and it encompasses a large number of apparently law-like propositions.
The first book-length critical study of Kant’s Critique of Judgement, shedding new light on this often-overlooked work on aesthetics.
This volume gathers experts in physics, logic and philosophy to discuss developments in space exploration and nuclear science and their impact on the philosophy of science.
Through his S-R model of statistical relevance, Wesley Salmon offers a solution to the scientific explanation of objectively improbable events. Two other essays compliment the statisticl relevance model.
For most of the twentieth century, the writings of aestheticians of the French Enlightenment were neglected by philosophers and students of the fine arts. Coleman has applied philosophical analysis to the writings of Diderot, Montesquieu, Dubos, Batteux, Andre, and Crousaz, among others, to reflect on the fine arts of the first two-thirds of the eighteenth century.
This book presents twenty essays by philosopher Nicholas Rescher, representing more than a decade of his work. The collection ranges from historic to contemporary discussions on epistemology, philosophy of science, metaphysics, logic, among other topics.
The ten essays in this book present the thoughts of major Arabic philosophers in history, while speaking to their basis in Greek philosophy and the influence of Arabic philosophy on the West.
The four main essays in this volume investigate new sectors of the theory of decision, preference, act-characteristics, and action analysis. These are complemented by appendices on a study of the logic of norms by Alan Ross Anderson, and Rescher provides an outline of the aspects of action.
This volume offers an unusual variety of topics presented during the sixth annual Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy. The subjects covered include: refuting J. L. Austin’s attempt to destroy philosophers’ assumptions on the nature and purpose of a “statement;” false premises found in “St. Anselm’s Four Ontological Arguments;” pain in connection with brain-state and functional-state theories; aesthetics in light of questions of fraudulence in modern art and music, and an analytical deconstruction of mystical experience.
Nicholas Rescher, by examining and reproducing sources in Arabic philosophy, seeks to definitively settle the debate over whether Galen originated the fourth figure of the categorical syllogism.