Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 51-60 of 2435 documents


acpa reports and minutes
51. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Mirela Oliva Minutes of the 2015 Executive Council Meeting
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
52. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Mirela Oliva Secretary’s Report (2014–2015)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
53. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Treasurer’s Report (2014)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
54. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Financial Statements
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
55. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Necrology Necrology (2015–January 2017)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
56. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 89
Available Back Issues of the Proceedings
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
presidential address
57. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 88
Daniel O. Dahlstrom The Status of Dispositions
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper addresses puzzling issues concerning the ontological status of dispositions. Following review of debates about a traditional conditional analysis as well as Lewis’s “reformed conditional analysis” of dispositions, the paper analyzes attempts to solve the problem of what makes the relevant conditional true. Reasons are presented for rejecting attempts to locate the relevant truth-maker in a causal basis that allegedly dispenses with dispositions or in properties that are universally dispositional. In this way the paper argues that neither “eliminativism” nor “pandispositionalism” provides a successful account of dispositions’ ontological status, and that ontology must find a way to countenance the reality of both dispositional and non-dispositional properties.
presentation of the aquinas medal
58. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 88
John C. McCarthy Introduction of John M. Rist, 2014 Aquinas Medal Recipient
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
aquinas medalist’s address
59. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 88
John Rist Philosophers and Sophists: Then and Now
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I attempt here to draw parallels between ancient and modern sophistry —and ancient and modern philosophy. Plato at one point identified a sophist as a paid hunter of rich young men who ‘lurks’ in non-being: that is, has no concern for truth. In more modern times Elizabeth Anscombe, when asked what her philosophical colleagues did, remarked (note the ironic Platonic echo) that they spend most of their time corrupting the youth. And the present situation in many liberal universities encourages them to do so—and in the humanities more generally, not only in philosophy. By the time a PhD candidate has completed his doctorate, joined a department and eventually got tenure, he will in many cases have become a practised sophist, equipped with what often amounts to a PhD in rationalizing, that is, in sophistry. I wonder whether we ought not to do something to change some of that.
plenary sessions
60. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 88
Susan Haack Credulity and Circumspection: Epistemological Character and the Ethics of Belief
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The purpose of this paper is, first, to get clear about what credulity is, and why it’s an epistemological vice (§ 1); then, to explore the various forms this vice takes, including its perhaps surprising manifestation as a form of scientism (§ 2); next, to suggest why credulity poses dangers not only to individuals, but also to society at large—including, specifically, the legal system and the academy (§ 3); and, finally, to sketch some ways to curb credulity and foster circumspection in ourselves and others, especially our students (§ 4). In the process it will take up issues about the nature of belief, the determinants of the quality of evidence, synechism, science, scientism, testimony, expertise, and evidence-sharing as well as questions about the ethics of belief and the demands of education.