In this paper we argue that the insistence by Fodor et. al. that the Language of Thought hypothesis must be true rests on mistakes about the kinds of explanations that must be provided of cognitive phenomena. After examining the canonical arguments for the LOT, we identify a weak version of the LOT hypothesis which we think accounts for some of the intuitions that there must be a LOT. We then consider what kinds of explanation cognitive phenomena require, and conclude that (...) three main confusions lead to the invalid inference of the truth of a stronger LOT hypothesis from the weak and trivial version. These confusions concern the relationship between syntax and semantics, the nature of higher-level causation in cognitive science, and differing roles of explanations invoking intrinsic structures of minds on the one hand, and aetiological or evolutionary accounts of their properties on the other. (shrink)

Advanced directives and living wills have improved our ability to dictate end-of-life care, but even these cannot guarantee that we will be allowed the dignity of a natural death. Designed by two sisters-one a doctor, one a lawyer-and drawing on their decades of experience, the five-step Compassion Protocol outlined in A Better Way of Dying offers a simple and effective framework for leaving caretakers concrete, unambiguous, and legally binding instructions about your wishes for your last days. Meant for people in (...) every walk of life-from the elderly, to those in the early stages of mentally degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, to healthy young people planning for an unpredictable future-this book creates space for a discussion we all must have if we wish to ensure comfort and control at the end of our lives.." -- from publisher's website. (shrink)

Utilitarianism and rights -- Libertarianism, classical economics and liberty -- Mill's minimalist ethics -- The Rawlsian objection.

This book explores the ways in which Bernard Lonergan’s philosophy provides exactly the kind of support F.R. Leavis was hoping to find when looking for support for his critical approach to literature after failing to find the support he sought for his argument in the dominance of logical positivism at that time.

This article is a critical examination of two distinct linguistic approaches to religion. the first employs the principle that peripheral uses of words are parasitic on their central uses to exclude religious language on grounds of a-typicality. this is criticized on grounds that meaning of words is not simply given in language but tied to understanding or explanatory framework. hence a-typicality objections lose force. the second, represented by d z phillips, immunizes religious language against outside criticism by claiming its criteria (...) of intelligibility to be internal. this claim is argued against by means of contradiction between phillips' content and performance; claim to philosophical neutrality is also questioned. (shrink)