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

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-5 of 5 documents


articles
1. The Southern Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 47 > Issue: 2
Daniel Colucciello Barber On Post-Heideggerean Difference: Derrida and Deleuze
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper takes up the Heideggerean question of difference. I argue that while Heidegger raises this question, his response to the question remains ambiguous and that this ambiguity pivots around the question of time. The bulk of the paper then looks at how Derrida and Deleuze respectively attempt to advance beyond Heidegger’s ambiguity regarding the questions of difference and time. Derrida is able to demonstrate the manner in which time—as delay—is constitutive of any attempt to think difference. I argue, however, that his innovative articulation of “différance” maintains an extrinsic rather than intrinsic relation to difference in-itself. To achieve an intrinsic relation, it is necessary to turn to the work of Deleuze, particularly to his discussion of “nonsense” and “singularity.”
2. The Southern Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 47 > Issue: 2
Ken Levy The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The Surprise Exam Paradox continues to perplex and torment despite the many solutions that have been offered. This paper proposes to end the intrigue once and for all by refuting one of the central pillars of the Surprise Exam Paradox, the “No Friday Argument,” which concludes that an exam given on the last day of the testing period cannot be a surprise. This refutation consists of three arguments, all of which are borrowed from the literature: the “Unprojectible Announcement Argument,” the “Wright & Sudbury Argument,” and the “Epistemic Blindspot Argument.” The reason that the Surprise Exam Paradox has persisted this long is not because any of these arguments is problematic. On the contrary, each of them is correct. The reason that it has persisted so long is because each argument is only part of the solution. The correct solution requires all three of them to be combined together. Once they are, we may see exactly why the No Friday Argument fails and therefore why we have a solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox that should stick.
3. The Southern Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 47 > Issue: 2
Joe Mintoff In Defense of the Ideal of a Life Plan
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Aristotle claims at Eudemian Ethics 1.2 that everyone who can live according to his own choice should adopt some goal for the good life, which he will keep in view in all his actions, for not to have done so is a sign of folly. This is an opinion shared by other ancients as well as some moderns. Others believe, however, that this view is false to the human condition, and provide a number of objections: (1) you can’t plan love; (2) nor life’s surprises; (3) planning a whole life is of no use since the world changes too much; (4) as do our values; and (5) planning a life is something only dreary people would do. The aim of this paper is to examine these objections, as part of a broader attempt to defend the relevance of a eudaimonistic approach to the question of how to live well.
4. The Southern Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 47 > Issue: 2
Gerhard Nuffer Stalnaker on Mathematical Information
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Robert Stalnaker has argued that mathematical information is information about the sentences and expressions of mathematics. I argue that this metalinguistic account is open to a variant of Alonzo Church’s translation objection and that Stalnaker’s attempt to get around this objection is not successful. If correct, this tells not only against Stalnaker’s account of mathematical truths, but against any metalinguistic account of truths that are both necessary and informative.
5. The Southern Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 47 > Issue: 2
Jeffrey W. Roland A Euthyphronic Problem for Kitcher’s Epistemology of Science
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Philip Kitcher has advanced an epistemology of science that purports to be naturalistic. For Kitcher, this entails that his epistemology of science must explain the correctness of belief-regulating norms while endorsing a realist notion of truth. This paper concerns whether or not Kitcher’s epistemology of science is naturalistic on these terms. I find that it is not but that by supplementing the account we can secure its naturalistic standing.