Evolution is a fact: of that there can be no dispute. But, writes Richard Morris in this lively overview of modern biology, scientists have been arguing about most other aspects of Darwinian thought for generations, and the battle is growing ever fiercer with the advent of "evolutionary psychology" and other new approaches. Following the biologist Ernst Mayr, Morris identifies at least five subtheories in the theory of evolution: "evolution as such," or the idea that evolution takes place at all; "common descent," the notion that all life originated in a common ancestor; "multiplication of species," or the splitting of one species into two or more species over time; "gradualism," the idea that evolutionary change happens slowly over a long period of time; and "natural selection," the idea that favorable genetic characteristics prevail over less desired ones. These subtheories are widely debated these days, with controversial scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould advancing ideas of "punctuated equilibrium," whereby change happens suddenly and often catastrophically; Gould’s nemesis Richard Dawkins advancing orthodox Darwinism under the "selfish gene" metaphor; and other scientists turning up bits and pieces of evidence of environmental determinism and parallel evolution in nature that alternately undermine and support Darwinian thought. The arguments among these contemporary scholars are lively, often acrimonious, and amply fueled — after all, Darwin himself puzzled over whether natural selection was the driving force of evolutionary change. Morris offers an evenhanded account of the many schools of thought at work today, and his book will be of great interest to students of the life sciences. ~ Gregory McNamee of Amazon.com
Virtue epistemology is an exciting, new movement receiving an enormous amount of attention from top epistemologists and ethicists; this pioneering volume reflects the best work in that vein. Featuring superb writing from contemporary American philosophers, it includes thirteen never before published essays that focus on the place of the concept of virtue in epistemology. In recent years, philosophers have been debating how this concept functions in definitions of knowledge. They question the extent to which knowledge is both normative (i.e., with a moral component) and non-normative, and many of them dispute the focus on justification, which has proven to be too restrictive. Epistemologists are searching for a way to combine the traditional concepts of ethical theory with epistemic concepts; the result is a new approach called virtue epistemology — one that has established itself as a particularly favorable alternative. Containing the fruits of recent study on virtue epistemology, this volume offers a superb selection of contributors — including Robert Audi, Simon Blackburn, Richard Foley, Alvin Goldman, Hilary Kornblith, Keith Lehrer, Ernest Sosa, and Linda Zagzebski — whose work brings epistemology into dialogue with everyday issues. ~ Product Description
Go
The cross presents the artist with difficulties because although it contains complexity, and we never exhaust its marvels or comprehend the depth of its truths, it is unambiguous.
What is truth?" has long been the philosophical question par excellence. The Nature of Truth collects in one volume the twentieth century’s most influential philosophical work on the subject. The coverage strikes a balance between classic works and the leading edge of current philosophical research. The essays center around two questions: Does truth have an underlying nature? And if so, what sort of nature does it have? Thus the book discusses both traditional and deflationary theories of truth, as well as phenomenological, postmodern, and pluralist approaches to the problem. The essays are organized by theory. Each of the seven sections opens with a detailed introduction that not only discusses the essays in that section but relates them to other relevant essays in the book. Eleven of the essays are previously unpublished or substantially revised. The book also includes suggestions for further reading. Contributors include Linda Martín Alcoff, William P. Alston, J. L. Austin, Brand Blanshard, Marian David, Donald Davidson, Michael Devitt, Michael Dummett, Hartry Field, Michel Foucault, Dorothy Grover, Anil Gupta, Martin Heidegger, Terence Horgan, Jennifer Hornsby, Paul Horwich, William James, Michael P. Lynch, Charles Sanders Pierce, Hilary Putnam, W. V. O. Quine, F. P. Ramsey, Richard Rorty, Bertrand Russell, Scott Soames, Ernest Sosa, P. F. Strawson, Alfred Tarski, Ralph C. Walker, Crispin Wright. ~ Product Description
In Making Men Moral, his 1995 book, Robert George questioned the central doctrines of liberal jurisprudence and political theory. In his new work he extends his critique of liberalism and goes beyond it to show how contemporary natural law theory provides a superior way of thinking about basic problems of justice and poltical morality. It is written with the same combination of stylistic elegance and analytical rigor that distinguishes his critical work. Not content merely to defend natural law against its cultural critics, he deftly turns the tables and deploys the idea to mount a stunning attack on predominant liberal beliefs about such issues as abortion, sexuality, and the place of religion in public life. Readers interested in law, political science, and philosophy will find George’s arguments both challenging and compelling. ~ Product Description
In my own discussions about movies with friends of differing opinions I’ve found it helpful to differentiate between whether a movie is enjoyable and whether it is good. The former is decidedly subjective, purely a matter of one’s tastes. Though is is utterly futile, I swear I’ve been in arguments over whether so-and-so enjoyed a movie or not. Making the distinction can prevent such arguments. In my own case, there are movies which I enjoy which I would hardly deem “good” movies.
In my view, the matter of a movie’s goodness is also rather subjective, but it at least has the potential to be somewhat substantive. It seems to me that when we ascribe such judgements of worth we are measuring a movie against a usually unstated set of values. These sets of values, of course, differ from person to person, and so it would seem that a movie’s goodness is also entirely subjective. In my experience, though, when these values are stated, it turns out that, after consideration, they garner some consensus. If nothing else, one can say with greater clarity that, “Based on these criteria, I don’t think this was a quality movie. What do you think about my criteria?”
If there is, after all, nothing objective involved here, there are neither better nor worse movies. There are just movies. This just seems entirely counter-intuitive. It is not just by chance that certain movies rise above the rest. That said, here is a sampling of my own values:
Technical Skill (Lighting, Filming, etc.)
Detail (The degree to which the film has carried out its vision)
Originality over Contrivance
Complexity over Simplification
Unique Characters over Stock Characatures
Even each of these criteria has its element of subjectivity. There are also further values which are entirely subjective. A good friend of mine has as his primary criterion that the protaginist must die. In any case, I wonder if stating our values up front might illumine our conversations about movies. Instead of just tallying those who “enjoyed” a movie and those who didn’t, a movie should have to withstand a little scrutiny. For example, in view of these criteria, how does Armageddon stand up.
As a Christian, it seems best to judge a movie’s philosophical stance apart from these considerations. Pleasantville might stand as a good movie even if I deeply disagree with its philosophical stance. Incidentally, I think a better summation of its thesis would be, “there is no supposed to.” Not, “Be passionate instead of pleasant!” as suggested on this list.
Let’s see if this works. Personally, judging Pleasantville by the above values, I’d say:
Technical Skill — Excellent
Detail — Excellent
Originality over Contrivance — Very Good
Complexity over Simplification — Very Poor
Unique Characters over Stock Characatures — Good
How does this resound with others. I think Pleasantville succeeds and fails in other areas as well, but overall it was a fine movie. I also think it was profoundly wrongheaded, but I don’t think these judgements are inconsistent. Whenever I mention my appreciation for Lynch’s Blue Velvet in Christian circles I’ve discovered it’s a good idea to make this very distinction 🙂
This is the first time I’ve written out some of my inchoate ideas about film and art and I would appreciate your thoughts, everyone. I will be opening a website called “Film Autopsies” in February and these thoughts are informing my vision there. Please help refine my thinking. I will revise as you debunk.
This volume gathers eleven new and three previously unpublished essays that take on questions of epistemic justification, responsibility, and virtue. It contains the best recent work in this area by major figures such as Ernest Sosa, Robert Audi, Alvin Goldman, and Susan Haak.Topics in this book include: 1. Whether we have voluntary control over what we believe. 2. Whether the issue of voluntary control is relevant to epistemic justification. 3. And the relationship between issues 1 and 2 to the analysis of knowledge. ~ Product Description
Although I’m an atheist who believes only in great nature, I recognize the spiritual richness and grandeur of the Roman Catholicism in which I was raised. And I despise anyone who insults the sustaining values and symbol system of so many millions of people of different races around the world. An authentically avant-garde artist today would show his or her daring by treating religion sympathetically. Anti-religious sneers are a hallmark of perpetual adolescents. When will artists climb out of the postmodernist ditch and accept their high mission to address a general audience? An art of chic coteries, whether in rococo aristocratic France or in drearily ironic, nervously posturing New York, ends up in a mental mousehole.
To sum up our discussion to this point, unless we have an independent moral basis for law, it is hard to see why we have any general duty to obey it; and unless we recognize the priority of a universal moral law, we have no firm basis for justifying our acts of civil disobedience against “unjust laws.” Both the validity of law and morally motivated disobedience of unjust laws are annulled in favor of a power struggle.
Any position in which claims about Jesus or the resurrection are removed from the realm of historical reality and placed in a subjective realm of personal belief or some realm that is immune to human scrutiny does Jesus and the resurrection no service and no justice. It is a ploy of desperation to suggest that the Christian faith would be little affected if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead in space and time. A person who gives up on the historical foundations of our faith has in fact given up on the possibility of any real continuity between his or her own faith and that of a Peter, Paul, James, John, Mary Magdalene, or Priscilla. The first Christian community had a strong interest in historical reality, especially the historical reality of Jesus and his resurrection, because they believed their faith, for better or for worse, was grounded in it.