I argue that Derrida's critique of speech act theory is largely unsustainable because of its reliance on a questionable and insufficiently explicatedconception of philosophy as negative metaphysics8 and its attendant misconception of scientific theory construction in general and speech act theory in particular.

The aim of this essay is to bring to light what I take to be the two most seminal philosophical insights of John Macmurray in the face of the postmodern condition which establishes the foundation and platform of a new philosophy, a new ethics, and a new politics.

In this essay I will consider some epistemological issues raised by the following two questions:(l) Does molecular biology provide the best explanations of biological phenomena?(2) What are the best ways (i.e., fruitful strategies) to cast molecular explanations of molecular phenomena?I will argue that notwithstanding the manifest scientific successes of the molecular revolution, the assessment of the philosophical debate between reductionists and antireductionists requires an examination of the ways in which the second question is currently being answered by molecular biologists.

This paper examines Parfit's argument that personal identity is not what matters, focusing on his case against reductionist theories of personal identity. I argue that Parfit's reasons for rejecting reductionist views do not take the physical criterion for personal identity seriously enough. I outline a thoroughly naturalistic version of the reductionist theory that, if true, would escape Parfit's criticism. Such a view would be a plausible candidate for a relation that would matter as much as, if not more than, the non identity relation advocated by Parfit.