Max Weber examined Chinese society and European Puritanism at the beginning of the Twentieth Century in order to find out why capitalism did not develop in China. He found that Confucianism and Puritanism are mutually exclusive, which enabled him to oppose both in the form of two different kinds of rationalism. I attempt neither to refute nor to confirm the Weberian thought model. Instead I show that a similar model applies to Jean Baudrillard’s vision of American culture, a (...) culture that he determined in terms of hyperreality. Instead of rejecting Weber’s thoughts right away, I give Weber’s model a further push and show that through a further twist that “Western culture” has received within particular American constellations, Weber’s understanding of Confucianism and Baudrillard’s understanding of American civilization manifest amazing similarities. (shrink)

In 1672 John Eliot, English Puritan educator and missionary to New England, published _The Logick Primer: Some Logical Notions to initiate the INDIANS in the knowledge of the Rule of Reason; and to know how to make use thereof_. This roughly 80 page pamphlet introduces syllogistic vocabulary and reasoning so that syllogisms can be created from Biblical texts. The use of logic for proselytizing purposes is not distinctive: What is distinctive about Eliot's book is that it is bilingual, written in (...) both English and Massachusett (Wôpanâak), an Algonquian language spoken in eastern coastal and southeastern Massachusetts. It is one of the earliest bilingual logic textbooks and it is the first, and perhaps only, textbook in an indigenous American language. -/- In this paper, we (1) introduce John Eliot and the linguistic context he was working in; (2) introduce the contents of the _Logick Primer_---vocabulary, inference patterns, and applications; (3) discuss notions of 'Puritan' logic that inform this primer; and (4) address the importance of his work in documenting and expanding the Massachusett language and the problems that accompany his colonial approach to this work. (shrink)

Recent years have seen growing interest in modifying interventionist accounts of causal explanation in order to characterise noncausal explanation. However, one surprising element of such accounts is that they have typically jettisoned the core feature of interventionism: interventions. Indeed, the prevailing opinion within the philosophy of science literature suggests that interventions exclusively demarcate causal relationships. This position is so prevalent that, until now, no one has even thought to name it. We call it “intervention puritanism” (I-puritanism, for short). (...) In this paper, we mount the first sustained defence of the idea that there are distinctively noncausal explanations which can be characterized in terms of possible interventions; a position we call “intervention liberalism” (I-liberalism, for short). While many have followed James Woodward (2003) in committing to I-puritanism, we trace support for I-liberalism back to the work of Jaegwon Kim (1974). Furthermore, we analyse two recent sources of scepticism regarding I-liberalism: debate surrounding mechanistic constitution; and attempts to provide a monistic account of explanation. We show that neither literature provides compelling reasons for adopting I-puritanism. Finally, we present a novel taxonomy of available positions upon the role of possible interventions in explanation: weak causal imperialism; strong causal imperialism; monist intervention puritanism; pluralist intervention puritanism; monist intervention liberalism; and finally, the specific position defended in this paper, pluralist intervention liberalism. (shrink)

Epistemic decision theory (EDT) employs the mathematical tools of rational choice theory to justify epistemic norms, including probabilism, conditionalization, and the Principal Principle, among others. Practitioners of EDT endorse two theses: (1) epistemic value is distinct from subjective preference, and (2) belief and epistemic value can be numerically quantified. We argue the first thesis, which we call epistemic puritanism, undermines the second.

Revolutionary Gnosticism is a religious–philo- sophical category introduced in the academic debate by the philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901–1985). Starting from his important work, several philosophers and sociologists have adopted Gnosticism as a useful explanatory notion to frame and define numerous modern and contemporary political and cultural movements. The immanentization of the eschaton, which is a renowned Voegelian expression, intimately defines the politico–cultural project of revolutionary Gnosticism. The destruction of the past for the creation of a new world, the last aeon, (...) demarcates the vision of history of revolutionary Gnosticism. Hence, according to a similar Weltanschauung, man replaces God, giving birth to «the idea of a transfiguration of mankind through a process of auto–redemption (grace replaced by revolution)» (Augusto Del Noce). The paper aims to investigate in broad terms the vast time span in which the concept of rev- olutionary Gnosticism has taken shape, from ancient Gnosis to Late Middle Ages, through seventeenth century Puritanism and Jacobinism, until twentieth–century totalitarianisms, eventually suggesting further lines of research. The present study intends to suggest a new interpretation for politico–revolutionary phenomena that have emerged in the whole West and in all epochs, with the purpose of finding a recurrent pattern that reflects one of the most disruptive intellectual engine for radical politics. (shrink)

The War on Drugs has been waged primarily for cultural reasons, i.e., to enforce the Protestant Work Ethic. It does not serve a rational utilitarian function.