Now in a new edition, this volume updates Davidson's exceptional Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (1984), which set out his enormously influential philosophy of language. The original volume remains a central point of reference, and a focus of controversy, with its impact extending into linguistic theory, philosophy of mind, and epistemology. Addressing a central question--what it is for words to mean what they do--and featuring a previously uncollected, additional essay, this work will appeal to a wide audience of philosophers, linguists, (...) and psychologists. (shrink)

In our papers on the rationality of magic, we distinghuished, for purposes of analysis, three levels of rationality. First and lowest (rationalitYl) the goal directed action of an agent with given aims and circumstances, where among his circumstances we included his knowledge and opinions. On this level the magician's treatment of illness by incantation is as rational as any traditional doctor's blood-letting or any modern one's use of anti-biotics. At the second level (rationalitY2) we add the element of rational thinking (...) or thinking which obeys some set of explicit rules, a level which is not found in magic in general, though it is sometimes given to specific details of magical thinking within the magical thought-system. It was the late Sir Edward E. Evans-Pritchard who observed that when considering magic in detail the magician may be as consistent or critical as anyone else; but when considering magic in general, or any system of thought in general, the magician could not be critical or even comprehend the criticism. Evans-Pritchard went even further: he was sceptical as to whether it could be done in a truly consistent manner: one cannot be critical of one's own system, he thought. On this level (rationalitY2) of discussion we have explained (earlier) why we prefer to wed Evans Pritchard's view of the magician's capacity for piece-meal rationality to Sir James Frazer's view that magic in general is pseudo-rational because it lacks standards of rational thinking. (shrink)

Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande, first published in 1977, was based on anthropological reseaches carried out in the Southern Sudan during the late 1920s. For a decade of so, the book had little discernable impact; but from the early 1950s to present day its influence has grown incalculably, so that it is now difficult even to discuss beliefs about witchcraft or sorcery without reference to it. This abridgement of E.E. Evans-Pritchard's acknowledged masterpiece is intended to make it more (...) accessible to students and the general reader. (shrink)

The anthropologist Mary Douglas has debunked the prevalent misconception that traditional societies are universally religious. I suggest that Peter Winch's celebrated essay on the magical notions and practices of Africa's Azande people, 'Understanding a Primitive Society', is a product of this 'myth of primitive piety'. In his essay, Winch criticizes the interpretation of Zande mysticism offered by Sir E. E. Evans-Pritchard, whose book "Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande " served as Winch's source of ethnographic data. A broader survey (...) of Evans-Pritchard's writings demonstrates that he considered the Azande to possess an essentially secular culture. Once the Azande are seen to be secularists, Winch's interpretation of their magic and his critique of Evans-Pritchard lose much of their appeal. (shrink)

Focusing on a discussion by Ruddich and Stassen of the ?Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough?, this paper shows that some of the usual criticisms made by sociologists of Wittgenstein are misplaced. He does not reject causal explanations of beliefs and actions and replace them with some other form of explanation, but dismisses the idea that any explanation is called for here. His argument that the origin of the desire to explain beliefs is to be found in a misconceived parallel between (...) science and magic is explained and discussed. (shrink)