John Cook Wilson (1849–1915) was Wykeham Professor of Logic at New College, Oxford and the founder of ‘Oxford Realism’, a philosophical movement that flourished at Oxford during the first decades of the 20th century. Although trained as a classicist and a mathematician, his most important contribution was to the theory of knowledge, where he argued that knowledge is factive and not definable in terms of belief, and he criticized ‘hybrid’ and ‘externalist’ accounts. He also argued for direct realism in perception, (...) criticizing both empiricism and idealism, and argued for a moderate nominalist view of universals as being in rebus and only ‘apprehended’ by their particulars. His influence helped swaying Oxford away from idealism and, through figures such as H. A. Prichard, Gilbert Ryle, or J. L. Austin, his ideas were also to some extent at the origin of ‘moral intuitionism’ and ‘ordinary language philosophy’ which defined much of Oxford philosophy until the second half of the twentieth-century. Nevertheless, his name and legacy were all but forgotten for generations after World War II. Still, his views on knowledge are with us today, being in part at work in the writings of philosophers as diverse as John McDowell, Charles Travis, and Timothy Williamson. (shrink)

It is well known that Charles L. Dodgson worked on a logic treatise that would popularise the subject of symbolic logic. The first part appeared in 1896 but the next parts never appeared. It has been claimed that Carroll worked in isolation and did not read the main works of his time. The object of this paper is to inquire what Carroll’s private library teaches us on his readings. The content of this library is known thanks to the sale catalogues (...) that were issued when the library was auctioned at Carroll’s death. This paper provides an overview of the logic books owned by Carroll. Then, it investigates the extent to which Carroll was acquainted with the main logic works of his time. Finally, the paper considers some methodological issues related to the use of ‘library arguments’ in intellectual history. (shrink)