Saturday January 28, 2012

ephilosopher.com is an online community dedicated to philosophical thinking. Login or become a member!

From our forums

Re: The Social Sciences714 views15 repliestwpatry26.1.2012 15:37
Re: Bible’s stories.854 views9 repliestwpatry19.1.2012 1:40
My Metaphysics Theory1440 views17 repliesJHuber19.1.2012 1:34
Re: The physical parameters of Vacuum.861 views7 repliestwpatry19.1.2012 1:33
Fukushima reactors update214 views0 replieskowalskil20.12.2011 21:50
A mini-tutorial for Kindle users242 views0 replieskowalskil15.12.2011 14:39
Re: Kant: universalizable = rational ???394 views3 repliesleonardomenderes12.12.2011 11:26
Re: A puzzling claim644 views4 repliesleonardomenderes6.12.2011 11:37
More...

Quotables

First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do. -- Epictetus
Home
News Feeds:
09
Nov
2008
reserved_for_seo_keywords Public Reason "is a new blog for political philosophers and theorists. The purpose of the blog is to create an open forum for the academic political philosophy and theory community where we can discuss our common work. Academic blogging has undergone a remarkable growth lately. A group blog, in particular, can be used as a tool to continue the conversations that begin on the journal pages and in the conference halls. There are two types of user status at Public Reason: participants and members. Participants have the ability to comment on posts. To register as a participant, you must be affiliated with an academic institution in some way. For instance, present or former students of political thought may register and participate in discussion. To register as a participant at the site, please follow this link. Please keep in mind that your registration may take some time to be approved.
 
24
Aug
2008
reserved_for_seo_keywords Douglas E. Edlin (ed.), Common Law Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2007, 247pp., $80.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780521846424. W.J. Waluchow: ". . .if common law is case law, precisely where in legal cases are common law rules to be found? Among the most theoretically troubling features of such rules -- assuming that they do indeed exist -- is that they are not canonically formulated in the manner of statutory rules. Judges seldom formulate anything remotely like what we normally think of as a rule when they decide cases. Rather, they explain and defend their decisions by citing reasons, doctrines, precedents, and so on. Often they cite what appear to be moral, political and social considerations. But these are not the kinds of things we normally think of as legal rules; rather they seem to be factors one could draw on to support the adoption, application, alteration or rejection of such rules. And so our question remains: where precisely do we locate common law rules? And then there is this peculiar feature of common law rules: they are quite often capable of revision in the very act of application by a judge, a respect in which they seem quite unlike, say, statutory rules which judges are not free to change. How can rules, revisable at point of application, be intelligently thought of as legally "binding" on a decision-maker? Indeed, can they sensibly be said to be rules at all? . . ." more
 
22
Jun
2008
reserved_for_seo_keywords Jesse Prinz, The Emotional Construction of Morals, Oxford University Press, 2007, 334pp., $60.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199283019. Ronald de Sousa, University of Toronto: "Is the good a projection of our preferences, or are our preferences correct or incorrect according to their correspondence to some objective good, independent of our minds? The question goes back to Plato's Euthyphro. There have been major hitters on both sides, and it is one of the many scandals of philosophy that the debate drags on. Jesse Prinz's brilliant new book is a detailed and convincing defense of a fresh variant of the projectionist view, in which emotional responses, particularly approbation and disapprobation, constitute the core content of moral judgments. The view is refined in such a way as to embrace the possibility of moral truth, and answer a large array of objections. Its relativist consequences are embraced, and independently supported with a wide range of psychological and anthropological evidence. Prinz shows, however, that even full fledged relativism does not exclude viable notions of moral debate and moral progress." more
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 372

Chat Box

Latest Message: 15 hours, 3 minutes ago
  • twpatry : That was supposed to be spoon
  • twpatry : Nothing more for now.
  • twpatry : Joke #1: Confucius say: To stab a man with fork is pointless.
  • twpatry : Deep thought #1: Being a gold-digger was easier before the invention of Viagra.
  • lorsban : Hello hello! not liking what I see here.
  • Motorcyclist : Wow, some familiar names. I got some random notice that Leo had posted a week or two ago and dropped in today. Thought this place was indeed toast, Zero. Regards to TD, and best wishes for a speedy recovery to TL
  • ThoughtFox : Guess salt doesn't work?
  • Zero : What a total joke. I thought we'd salted the ground over this place.
  • talking_dog : Good bettering, as the Danes say. ;-)
  • TimeLine : I really don't miss this place, I automatically transmogrify to nasty when I log in. I may read to some fiction books and get off this laptop. ciao bello...
  • talking_dog : damn. sorry to hear it, man. hope that doesn't last too long...
  • TimeLine : I had a car accident and am not allowed to move. I... am... going... mad...
  • TimeLine : Philosophical recipes; Marxist buns (great for those long nights sitting in the library), Wittgenstein Stew (complex but extremely tasty), and Dworkin Sweet Potato Soup (for some liberal nourishment)
  • talking_dog : did look tasty...
  • TimeLine : I found the sugar free vegan chocolate apple cake rather useful, actually...
  • talking_dog : crikey but it's a mess in here
  • talking_dog : lots of bots
  • talking_dog : and bots
  • talking_dog : spam spam spam egg and spam
  • talking_dog : ...wicked SNR up in here...
  • TimeLine : Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity...
  • myriadshalak : Hi. Site looks good. Can't see all the icons on my xoom though. Maybe the new Firefox for android will make a difference. Oh, why can't the spammers stay outta here?
  • ThoughtFox : I'mmmm baaacckk. Wahey!!!
  • funkgunk : test
  • Msafwan : News: science article was written by 8year old «link» .This shows that science is unbias as long as it is done in systematic/scientific methodology. The article can be read FREE till new year (from ROyal Society website).

Only registered users are allowed to post

Online

0 users and 5814 guests online

Latest Comments

© 2010 by ephilosopher.com. All Rights Reserved.