International Philosophical Quarterly

It is commonly taken for granted that in Vedānta, as also in Indian philosophy in general, yukti, anumāna, and tarka, translate into “reason” (of Western thought) while śruti is rendered as “revelation.” I reject this translation-interpretation; it is a good example of theway in which Sanskrit philosophical discourse is often misconstrued. The term śruti does not refer to revelation, nor do yukti, anumāna, or tarka to reason. Reason, I argue, comprehends all the pramānas; these are all means of legitimizing beliefs. I distinguish between different levels of the application of “reason,” and I maintain that the mere reasoner (tārkika) has not grasped the true nature of “reason.” In effect, I maintain that śabda, both lauika and alukika, is a component of reason, and so is perception. There is no concept of “revelation” in Indian philosophy, and no opposition between reason and experience.

Spinoza resolves the tension between reason and revelation by granting reason complete authority and autonomy in all philosophical and natural matters, and by denying revelation any claims to knowledge. Despite this dramatic partisanship, he attempts to make this solution attractive to believers by creating a hermeneutic that allows a limited claim to knowledge for revelation. This article attempts to explain how he arrived at this strategy and why he believed it would succeed.

This paper examines the idea of “following nature” in two classical Chinese thinkers, Mengzi and Zhuangzi. The goal is to complicate appeals to “following nature” in Asian thought and to problematize the very imposition of the concept “nature” on Zhuangzi and Mengzi. The paper begins by establishing some common ground between Mengzi and Zhuangzi, based on two points—both view harmony with tian (heaven/nature) as a primary aspect of living well, and both require a process of self-transformation to reach this harmony. The second part of the paper argues that Mengzi and Zhuangzi give different answers to a similar question. That question is, what does it means to follow or be in harmony with tian? The essay concludes with some reflections on how “following nature” in Zhuangzi and Mengzi might apply to environmental ethics.

The influence of Cajetan’s De Nominum Analogia is due largely to its first three chapters, which introduce Cajetan’s three modes of analogy: analogy of inequality, analogy of attribution, and analogy of proportionality. Interpreters typically ignore the final eight chapters, which describe further features of analogy of proportionality. This article explains this neglect as a symptom of a failure to appreciate Cajetan’s particular semantic concerns, taken independently from the question of systematizing the thought of Aquinas. After an exegesis of the neglected chapters, which describe the semantics of analogy through the three levels of cognition (simple apprehension, composition and division, and discursive reasoning), the article concludes with observations about the relationship between Cajetan and Aquinas and the philosophical and historical signifi cance of Cajetan’s approach to the semantics of analogy.

In his A Defense of Abortion David Boonin largely misreads one of the oldest and most defensible arguments against abortion, the argument based on the fetus’s rational nature. In this paper it will be shown that Boonin’s characterization of this argument isinaccurate, that his criticisms of it are therefore ineffective, and that his own criterion—the possession of a “present, dispositional, ideal desire for a future like ours”—is insufficient to ground a human being’s right to life. Boonin’s misread of this classic argument is largelythe result of his focus upon the “properties,” as opposed to the nature, of a fetus and his failure to consider the notion of a rational nature as ordered to rational activities. In addition, his argument for abortion rights fails on its own terms because it ultimately licensesinfanticide. Infants have desires and they possess a future like ours, but they do not have any desire for a future like ours.

This article is the third in a series. In the first, I argue that existence is a property. In the second, based on the fact that existence is a property, I contend that Descartes’s dream and malicious demon arguments are constituted by a fallacy with the result that he createsan illicit rift between thought and the external world that characterizes modernity. In this essay, I show that postmodernists overlook this fallacy and are forced to operate within the parameters set by it. Consequently, modernity and postmodernity form a false dichotomywith realism as the appropriate alternative. Descartes is my representative of modernity and Caputo is my representative of postmodernity. I close by showing that Caputo’s intuition that the traditional notion of truth must be rejected in order to eliminate dogmatism stems from this false dichotomy.