One can argue that the problem posed by difference/identity in contemporary philosophy has its roots in the persistent epistemological imperative to be certain about what we know. We find this demand in Plato’s Theaetetus and Sophist. But beyond this demand, there is a sense in the earlier dialogue that difference is not a passive feature waiting to be identified. “Difference” points towards an active differentiating. In the Sophist, difference appears in the method of dividing and gathering deployed to hunt for the elusive “sophist.” Difference is also one of the great kinds that weaves together other kinds. Practically, difference enables the sophist’s expertise of appearance-making as he knowingly confuses things with words. This paper then quizzes the concept of difference in all these guises in the two dialogues.

The Laches features two Athenian generals (Laches and Nicias) and Socrates discussing the essential meaning of courage. Laches defines it as “a certain perseverance of the soul,” while Nicias argues that it consists in “knowledge of what is to be feared and hoped for both in war and in all other matters.” This paper, with the aid of several Plato scholars, argues that although most scholars agree that Socrates does not present his own view of the matter, hence leaving the dialogue without a proper resolution, it may still be surmised that for Socrates, courage means willful yet wise perseverance.

This essay critically considers the differences and complementarities between Emmanuel Levinas’s and Jean-Luc Nancy’s respective accounts of ontology and ethics. A comparative reading reveals that while both insist upon a relational conceptualization of subjectivity, they base relationality on differing notions of alterity. The simultaneous proximity and distance between these two thinkers’ respective transphenomological quests yield critical force that enables a mutual critique, while opening up productive avenues for overcoming some of the problems inherent to their views.

Women have played a prominent role in environmental preservation in all societies, including societies facing serious environmental problems. Women in places like Nigeria’s Niger Delta carry out tasks such as farming, fetching of firewood for domestic use, fetching of water, and the like. These activities involve the use of natural resources and thus make women more vulnerable when there are problems such as oil pollution, gas flaring, and other related activities that endanger the environment. In the Niger Delta women have protested against oil related activities that damage their environment. They have also participated in other events to conserve their environment. The paper adopts an ecofeminist perspective in critiquing environmental mismanagement in the Niger Delta. It highlights the fact that women are prominent in campaigning for a sustainable Niger Delta. There is need for writers from academic and social circles writing on the Niger Delta not to ignore the women’s voices.

Women have played a prominent role in environmental preservation in all societies, including societies facing serious environmental problems. Women in places like Nigeria’s Niger Delta carry out tasks such as farming, fetching of firewood for domestic use, fetching of water, and the like. These activities involve the use of natural resources and thus make women more vulnerable when there are problems such as oil pollution, gas flaring, and other related activities that endanger the environment. In the Niger Delta women have protested against oil related activities that damage their environment. They have also participated in other events to conserve their environment. The paper adopts an ecofeminist perspective in critiquing environmental mismanagement in the Niger Delta. It highlights the fact that women are prominent in campaigning for a sustainable Niger Delta. There is need for writers from academic and social circles writing on the Niger Delta not to ignore the women’s voices.

Prompted by Heidegger’s search for great art in the modern times, this paper looks into crafts as answering the philosopher’s frustrated call. Using Soetsu Yanagi’s idea of a “religion of beauty,” which turns to the ordinary as beautiful, it suggests that crafts—carefully made by hand while considering its affinity with nature and the human body that uses it—is a way of being, the way Heidegger described the way of “dwelling poetically.”

The goal of a Christian, especially a regenerated Christian, in the 21st century is to tell the story of the various shapes that his religious position underwent with the hope that other unbelievers may follow his footsteps, that is, from a belief in God to atheism and agnosticism, and back to a belief in God. He tries to show by using the arguments of Paul Tillich how the limits of language enabled him to transcend the agnosticism of Bertrand Russell.

Today’s larger corporations engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for myriad reasons. Anchored in philosophical treatises, the paper discusses the different facets of CSR. It presents some CSR practices of local and multinational corporations and how these practices take care of the triple bottom line and maintain good corporate image. It also presents drawbacks to business ethics.The last part of the paper presents some challenges that CSR is facing. This paper argues that businesses should see CSR as a responsibility of creating a better life for the larger society as it creates a better life for its stakeholders .

The three intertwining careers of William Torrey Harris [1835-1909] in philosophy, philosophy of education, and educational administration converge in twelve of the Annual Reports of the board of directors of the St. Louis public schools, most of the essential features of which he formulated as the superintendent of schools from 1867-79. These twelve reports, comprising philosophical and educational principles, have been acclaimed nationally and internationally to be among the most valuable official publications in American educational literature. The major purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature and scope of the philosophical principles of Harris expressed in his Annual Reports. The areas of philosophy represented are metaphysics, anthropology, epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of religion. While the motivation and context of these philosophical principles are pedagogical in orientation, it is evident that Harris produced here a philosophical synthesis worthy of consideration in a formal survey of the history of American philosophy

The aim of this paper is two-fold: firstly, to argue for the claim that the two problems of geometry presented in the Meno seem to be connected to each other, and secondly, to offer, in connection with the first claim, a conjecture concerning the nature of the second problem of geometry brought up in the dialogue at 86e. This paper offers, in particular, a historical reconstruction of how we should understand this problem of construction in geometry.

This paper attempts to elucidate on Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction and its difficult elements, viz., differance, dissemination, destinerrance, and geocatasthrophe. These basic ideas need elaboration for their proper understanding. Once successfully achieved, then here lies the significance of this paper.

A general conceptualization of God’s omnipotence is that he possesses illimitable superior power over and above every other thing. Consequently, God is thought of being able to bring about “all” things. Such belief includes that as all-powerful, he does not need to be protected or defended by his creatures, insofar as he “cannot” be vulnerable to the threats or attacks of any creature, except possibly self-inflicted attacks, which would be selfcontradictory. Human power, on the other hand, assumes the belief that even though God is absolutely omnipotent, believers in him have the duty to either carry out what they believe is his commandment or each one acts as he should act. This being so, the human claim to omnipotence absolutizes man/woman as being able, with impunity, in fact, with stupendous promise of reward, by acting as the “arm” or “brain” of God. The logical conclusion of such reasoning is to deny either claim of omnipotence by God or man. But how plausible would such a conclusion be to real-life situation?