Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology

Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology

Language: English

Pages: 480

ISBN: 1118542584

Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub

Metaphysics and Epistemology: A Guided Anthology presents a comprehensive introductory overview of key themes, thinkers, and texts in metaphysics and epistemology.

  • Presents a wide-ranging collection of carefully excerpted readings on metaphysics and epistemology
  • Blends classic and contemporary works to reveal the historical development and present directions in the fields of metaphysics and epistemology
  • Provides succinct, insightful commentary to introduce the essence of each selection at the beginning of chapters which also serve to inter-link the selected writings

Kant and Modern Political Philosophy

Dasein Disclosed: John Haugeland's Heidegger

Content and Modality: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Stalnaker

Russell on Metaphysics: Selections from the Writings of Bertrand Russell


















consciousness, it can be no more concerned in, than if they had never been done: And to receive Pleasure or Pain; i.e. Reward or Punishment, on the account of any such Action, is all one, as to be made happy or miserable in its first being, without any demerit at all. For supposing a Man punish’d now, for what he had done in another Life, whereof he could be made to have no consciousness at all, what difference is there between that Punishment, and being created miserable? And therefore

hypothesis that mental states are physical states of the brain? If the philosopher can show that it is an intelligible proposition (that is, a non-self-contradictory proposition) that mental states are physical states of the brain, then the scientific argument just given above can be taken at its face value as a strong reason for accepting the truth of the proposition. My view is that the identification of mental states with physical states of the brain is a perfectly intelligible one, and that

principle, being gods, are not our masters nor do they know anything of human concerns. But surely, said Socrates, an argument which would deprive the gods of knowledge would be too strange. And yet, Socrates, Parmenides went on, these difficulties and many more besides are inevitably involved in the forms, if these characters of things really exist and one is going to distinguish each form as a thing just by itself. The result is that the hearer is perplexed and inclined either to question their

this, either he thinks of something than which a greater cannot be thought, or he does not think of it. If he does not think of it, then he does not think that what he does not think of does not exist. If, however, he does think of it, then indeed he thinks of something which cannot be even thought not to exist. For if it could be thought not to exist, it could be thought to have a beginning and an end – but this cannot be. Thus, he who thinks of it thinks of something that cannot be thought not

explanation need not be somebody’s values. […] In this respect, the present axiological approach differs decisively from that of Leibniz. He answered the question, ‘Why is it that the value-optimizing world should be the one that ­actually exists?’ with reference to the will of a God who chooses to adopt value optimization as a creative principle. Leibniz was committed to an idea that it is necessary to account for the ­obtaining of a principle in terms of the operation of an existing entity

Download sample