Feyerabrend argues that intellectual progress relies on the creativity of the scientist, against the authority of science.

"There is no rigorous and effective deconstruction without the faithful memory of philosophies and literatures, without the respectful and competent reading of texts of the past, as well as singular works of our own time. Deconstruction is also a certain thinking about tradition and context. Mark Taylor evokes this with great clarity in the course of a remarkable introduction. He reconstitutes a set of premises without which no deconstruction could have seen the light of day." – _Jacques Derrida __"This invaluable (...) philosophical sampler brings together many of the threads out of which deconstruction is woven. taylor's anthology does not make deconstruction easy; much more usefully, it provides a meticulous guide to the sources – and significance – of the difficulties. – Barbara E. Johnson _"The book will be of great value as a set of readings with authoritative explanation for all those interested in the current relations of literature and philosophy. It is the best book of its kind I know. – _J. Hillis Miller, Yale University_. (shrink)

Paisley Livingston here addresses contemporary controversies over the role of "theory" within the humanistic disciplines. In the process, he suggests ways in which significant modern texts in the philosophy of science relate to the study of literature. Livingston first surveys prevalent views of theory, and then proposes an alternative: theory, an indispensable element in the study of literature, should be understood as a Cogently argued and informed in its judgments, this book points the way to a fuller understanding of the (...) special contribution that literary knowledge may make within the human sciences. (shrink)

The philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos suggests criteria for acceptability of work in the interdisciplinary area of theology and science: proposals must contribute to scientific (or theological) research programs that lead to prediction and discovery of novel facts. Lakatos's methodology also suggests four legitimate types of theology–and–science interaction: (1) heuristic use of theology in science; (2) incorporation of a theological assertion as an auxiliary hypothesis in a scientific research program, or (3) as the central theory of a research program; (...) and (4) hybrid theology–and–science programs with empirical data. Three recent Zygon articles illustrate these four types. (shrink)

This is a collection in translation of essays by Paul Ricoeur which presents a comprehensive view of his philosophical hermeneutics, its relation to the views of his predecessors in the tradition and its consequences for the social sciences. The volume has three parts. The studies in the first part examine the history of hermeneutics, its central themes and the outstanding issues it has to confront. In Part II, Ricoeur's own current, constructive position is developed. A concept of the text is (...) formulated as the implications of the theory are pursued into the domains of sociology, psychoanalysis and history. Many of the essays appear here in English for the first time; the editor's introduction brings out their background in Ricoeur's thought and the continuity of his concerns. The volume will be of great importance for those interested in hermeneutics and Ricoeur's contribution to it, and will demonstrate how much his approach offers to a number of disciplines. (shrink)

Summary I try to apply Lakatos's metacriterion of the rationality of normative philosophies of science to normative political theories, stressing that Lakatos's metacriterion is not only an extension of Popper's idea of tests by potentially falsifyingdescriptive basic judgments to tests by potentially falsifyingnormative judgments. Rather, its application is a test by demonstrating the tested theory's capability of reconstructing its own history as rational. Finally I argue that the tradition of utilitarian political theories is fittest to be confirmed by a Lakatosian (...) test. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BEING AND ONE THEOLOGIAN I PROPOSE EXPLORING the view of being of one theologian whose work has received wide attention both in Germany and America. Wolfhart Pannenberg is known primarily through his formulation of the seven controversial theses in (and on the subject of) Revelation as History (1961), and through his development of this approach into a full-fledged theological methodology "from below" in Jesus'God and Man (1964) and Theology (...) a:ttd the Philosophy of Scienc :e (1973). Yet philosophers and theologians have not failed to notice that some rather interesting and novel ontological speculation has accompanied the work of this philosophically oriented theologian, speculation that could represent the seed of a novel approach to contemporary ontology. Now Pannenberg's passing references to God',s being, and to being in general, could be criticized from a theological perspective ; perhaps he would even prefer a treatment along such lines. However, another line of approach also suggests itself: if one can show that Pannenberg is advocating a way of viewing being in general, how does his approach fare when taken as the foundation of a SY'stematic ontology? Is it more at home in olassical philosophical thought about being or, if not, what contemporary influences does it reflect? Of course, for manyif not most-theologians, to attempt such an abstraction would be to tear their theology asunder, joint from marrow. For example, Barth's doctrine of the becoming God, as Eberhart Jiingel has admirably shown, is designed to do justice only to the God of revelation, and is meant to be taken as prior to all philosophical speculation about God's being and being in general.1 1 Eberhart Jiingel, Gottes Sein ist in Werden (Tiibingen, 1965), e.g. pp. 9f, 73ff; cf. Barth's Kiroh7iohe Dogmatik, II/I, pp. 202f. 645 646 PHILIP CLAYTON But lying at the heart of Pannenberg's theology is the refusal to shield his theology in this way. Theology is the science of God as the all-determining reality (TPS 302ff),2 and faith cannot defend any statement that reason fails to verify (Jesus 109). As his recent anthropology sorties into behavioral psychology, sociobiology and philosophical anthropology to produce an" anthropology in theological perspective" rather than a theological anthropology, so we may also expect a readiness on Pannenberg's part to consider his ontological statements as " ontological hypotheses" (if this is not a contradictio in adjecto ), to be tested by means of their" fit" with general speculation on the nature of being. Indeed, in BQT II: 237 and TPS, Chapter 5, he explicitly asks us to try the biblical understanding of reality in the court of the " contemporary experience of reality." Elsewhere, in a direct discussion of ontology, Pannenberg uses theological subject matter as an "example" meant to " contribute to a better understanding " of the philosophical issues involved (TKG 132f). 1. The Pannenbergian Ontology Assuming the validity of my admitted abstraction and of an unashamedly philosophical rather than theological analysis, what is this "novel" view of being found in Pannenberg's writings? Pannenberg holds that "futurity" is fundamental for Jesus' message (TKG 54). All reality is "eschatologically oriented "-in philosophical terms, referred to (bezogen auf) the future-and God is "the God of the coming kingdom" (BQT II: 237), "the God of history" (Grundfragen 112-28), "the power of the future" (TKG 57). This is not merely an 2 In the following I will use the common abbreviations for Pannenberg's works: 'TPS' for Theology and the Philosophy of Science (Philadelphia, 1976) ; ' BQT' for Basic Questions in Theology, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1971) ; 'Jesus' for Jesus-God and },fan, 2nd ed" (Philadelphia, 1968); 'TKG' for Theology and the Il.ingdom of God (Philadelphia, 1969) ; 'Idea' for The Idea of God and Human F1'eedom (Philadelphia, 1973); 'Anth' for Anthropolgy in Theological Perspective (Philadelphia, 1984) ; and 'Grundfragen' for Grundfragen systematisoher Theologie, Band 2 (Gottingen, 1980). BEING AND ONE THEOLOGIAN 647 epistemological thesis, emphasizing, say, the limitedness of our knowledge of the divine; " God in his very being is the future of the world" (TKG 61). If this is so, what is God's ontological status now? "It is necessary to say," Pannenberg writes, "that, in a restricted... (shrink)

Using firsthand accounts gleaned from notebooks, interviews, and correspondence of such twentieth-century scientists as Einstein, Fermi, and Millikan, Holton shows how the idea of the scientific imagination has practical implications for the history and philosophy of science and the larger understanding of the place of science in our culture.

Paisley Livingston here addresses contemporary controversies over the role of "theory" within the humanistic disciplines. In the process, he suggests ways in which significant modern texts in the philosophy of science relate to the study of literature. Livingston first surveys prevalent views of theory, and then proposes an alternative: theory, an indispensable element in the study of literature, should be understood as a Cogently argued and informed in its judgments, this book points the way to a fuller understanding of the (...) special contribution that literary knowledge may make within the human sciences. (shrink)

Paisley Livingston here addresses contemporary controversies over the role of "theory" within the humanistic disciplines. In the process, he suggests ways in which significant modern texts in the philosophy of science relate to the study of literature. Livingston first surveys prevalent views of theory, and then proposes an alternative: theory, an indispensable element in the study of literature, should be understood as a Cogently argued and informed in its judgments, this book points the way to a fuller understanding of the (...) special contribution that literary knowledge may make within the human sciences. (shrink)

In reply to H. Bußhoff's paper I give another outline of Lakatos' approach to normative theories in order to reduce the misunderstandings Bußhoff seems to have fallen victim to. . In particular, I try to show that he is wrong in claiming there is a vicious circle in this approach or my interpretation of it . Finally, I expose for criticism his alternative methodology of political science which propagates a theory of a "third type", suggesting that he takes too little (...) seriously problems he calls academical although their importance has been shown not only by Lakatos but by political philosophers as Rawls and Nozick. (shrink)