Bertrand Russell’s _Principles of Mathematics_ (1903) gives rise to several interpretational challenges, especially concerning the theory of denoting concepts. Only relatively recently, for instance, has it been properly realised that Russell accepted denoting concepts that do not denote anything. Such empty denoting concepts are sometimes thought to enable Russell, whether he was aware of it or not, to avoid commitment to some of the problematic non-existent entities he seems to accept, such as the Homeric gods and chimeras. In this paper, (...) I argue first that the theory of denoting concepts in _Principles of __Mathematics_ has been generally misunderstood. According to the interpretation I defend, if a denoting concept shifts what a proposition is about, then the aggregate of the denoted terms will also be a constituent of the proposition. I then show that Russell therefore could not have avoided commitment to the Homeric gods and chimeras by appealing to empty denoting concepts. Finally, I develop what I think is the best understanding of the ontology of _Principles of __Mathematics_ by interpreting some difficult passages. (shrink)

I critically discuss two kinds of argument in favour of ontological pluralism and argue that they fail to show that ways of being are explanatorily fruitful.

A Ouranographia de van Roomen é constituída por três livros: no liber primus, descreve genericamente a máquina celeste, sua matéria e forma, seus movimentos e orbes; no liber secundus, descreve o primeiro céu e as linhas e círculos celestes que usamos para nos referenciar estando aqui da Terra; no liber tertius, explica o primeiro móvel, seus círculos e movimentos. Percebemos que van Roomen faz uma compilação de boa parte do conhecimento existente sobre o tema desde a Antiguidade até seu tempo (...) e, através de suas citações, percebemos ainda que ele teve contato com obras de inúmeros autores, se mostrando um grande intelectual. (shrink)

This book chapter represents one of the engagements between Catholic and Wesleyan philosophers at the 2008 Wesleyan Philosophy Society. The issue of what precisely "Wesleyan philosophy" would mean and comprise can be usefully illuminated by comparison with the positions and issues that were raised and discussed by Catholic scholars during the 1930s Christian philosophy debates in France, which included Etienne Gilson, Maurice Blondel, Jacques Maritain, and Gabriel Marcel. We also discuss how the thought on a contemporary Catholic philosopher Adriaan (...) Peperzack, specifically on affectivity, can be brought into comparison with that important theme in Wesleyan philosophy. (shrink)