Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year

Articles 181 - 190 of 190

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

Foreword, Chandran Kukathas Jan 1992

Foreword, Chandran Kukathas

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

Hayek's essay 'Why I am not a Concervative' first appeared in 1960 as the final chapter of his treatise, The Constitution of Liberty. Strictly speaking, it was not really a concluding chapter; it was presented as a 'postscript' to the main text-a text whose concern was to articulate and elaborate upon the fundamental principles of classical liberalism. In this postscript Hayek attempted a task which the main treatise did not take up: to explain how the principles of classical liberalism set it apart from the conservatism with which it seemed to have so much in common.


Discourse And Perspective In Daoism: A Linguistic Interpretation Of Ziran, William A. Callahan Jan 1989

Discourse And Perspective In Daoism: A Linguistic Interpretation Of Ziran, William A. Callahan

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

In Chinese philosophical literature, the term zirana is generally rendered as "spontaneity," "natural," or "self-so" by both Chinese and Western trans- lators. I think that these translations not only miss the point being made in the texts, but actually serve to obscure it


Welfare, Contract, And The Language Of Charity, Chandran Kukathas Jan 1989

Welfare, Contract, And The Language Of Charity, Chandran Kukathas

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

No abstract provided.


Confucius, Mencius And The Notion Of True Succession, John N. Williams Apr 1988

Confucius, Mencius And The Notion Of True Succession, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

No abstract provided.


The Preface Paradox Dissolved, John N. Williams Aug 1987

The Preface Paradox Dissolved, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

The preface paradox strikes us as puzzling because we feel that if a person holds a set of inconsistent beliefs, i.e. beliefs such that at least one of them must be correct, then he should give at least one of them up. Equally, if a person's belief is rational, then he has a right to hold it. Yet the preface example is prima facie a case in which a person holds an inconsistent set of beliefs each of which is rational, and thus a case in which that person has a duty to relinquish what he has a right to …


Believing The Self-Contradictory, John N. Williams Jul 1982

Believing The Self-Contradictory, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

Clearly, if a man holds a self-contradictory belief, then his belief cannot be rational, for there can be no set of evidence sufficient to justify it. This is most apparent when the self contradictory belief is a belief in a conjunction, (e.g., a belief that p & ~p), rather than when it is a non-conjunctive self-contradictory belief, e.g. a belief that red is not a color.


The Absurdities Of Moore's Paradoxes, John N. Williams Apr 1982

The Absurdities Of Moore's Paradoxes, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

No abstract provided.


Inconsistency And Contradiction, John N. Williams Oct 1981

Inconsistency And Contradiction, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

Inconsistency and contradiction are important concepts. Unfortunately, they are easily confused. A proposition or belief which is inconsistent is one which is self- contradictory and vice-versa. Moreover two propositions or beliefs which are contradictories are inconsistent with each other. Nonetheless it is a mistake to suppose that inconsistency is the same as contradiction.


Justified Belief And The Infinite Regress Argument, John N. Williams Jan 1981

Justified Belief And The Infinite Regress Argument, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

The background to this paper is the question of how rational belief is possible in the light of the commonly presented infinite regress in reasons. The paper investigates the neglected question of whether this regress is vicious. I argue that given the genuine requirements of rational belief, the regress would require the rational believer to hold an infinity of beliefs, which is impossible. The regress would not entail the rational believer holding an infinitely complex belief, which, admittedly, would be logically impossible.


Moore's Paradox: One Or Two?, John N. Williams Jun 1979

Moore's Paradox: One Or Two?, John N. Williams

Research Collection School of Social Sciences

Discussions of what is sometimes called 'Moore's paradox' are often vitiated by a failure to notice that there are two paradoxes; not merely one in two sets of linguistic clothing. The two paradoxes are absurd, but in different ways, and accordingly require different explanations.