Though this study had its origins in the consideration of children's writing and their responses to reading it explores in a wider context the nature of imagination and its relation to the discursive. Within imagination there seem to be three modes that are frequently conflated - fantasy, identification and the imagination itself. Each, however, has distinctive epistemological implications and significance for identity. In normal discourse imagination is often conflated with fantasy. Whereas fantasy seeks to exercise power in attempting to transform the world into its own terms and imagination shares this capacity for refiguration, the one is associated with obfuscation and the other with insight. In reading, the distinction is crucial. Generally, children are empowered by the fantasy that texts exploit or stimulate. Yet the absence of significant cognitive control constitutes a kind of blindness. Identification differs from fantasy in that the reader is drawn, say, into the world of the book - this supposes a differentiation, an escape, from the self that is merely placated in fantasy. Yet, here too, is blindness, particularly with regard to the constitutive aspects of the writing. On the other hand to teach texts through exerting cognitive control may shift the text too quickly into the discursive with the danger that students are expected to respond to experiences that they have not had. The distinctions between identification and imagination are manifest in some of the fictions of Chaucer and Kafka where differentiation is achieved through irony. Imagination is what facilitates the sh

The principal focus of this research is a comprehensive defence of the theory of strict finitism as a foundation for mathematics. I have three broad aims in the thesis; firstly, to offer as complete and developed account of the theory of strict finitism as it has been described and discussed in the literature. I detail the commitments and claims of the theory, and discuss the best ways in which to present the theory. Secondly, I consider the main objections to strict finitism, in particular a number of claims that have been made to the effect that strict finitism is, as it stands, incoherent. Many of these claims I reject, but one, which focuses on the problematic notion of vagueness to which the strict finites seems committed, I suggest, calls for some revision or further development of the strict finitist’s position. The third part of this thesis is therefore concerned with such development, and I discuss various options for strict finitism, ranging from the development of a trivalent semantic, to a rejection of the commitment to vagueness in the first instance.

The purpose of my thesis is to examine the relation between the human and the divine in the Homeric poems, and define thereupon the limits of human and divine responsibility. To this end I particularly focus on the Homeric concepts of fate and divine justice, as these are expressed mainly by the terms and . Nonetheless, since the Greek terms do not always coincide in their semantics with the respective terms of any modern language, it is regarded as necessary that the field of each term be defined prior to the examination of the concepts themselves. Similarly, issues such as morality and Homeric ethics have to be raised, since they form the basis upon which any discussion of Homeric thought can rely. The Iliad and the Odyssey employ the two basic ideas of fate and divine justice each in a discrete manner, and this requires that each poem be examined separately. A comparison between the two works, necessary for a more overall idea of the Homeric world and the Homeric compositions, is incorporated in the chapter on the Odyssey.

Two strains (NCm 9897 and 9898; strains A and B respectively) of a Pseudomonas· species have been shown to display antifungal and antibacterial activity on solid media. Biochemical tests indicate that the organisms may be two distinct strains of a new species. Cell morphology was studied using scanning electron microscopy. Chemically defined media, established for the organisms, indicate non-fastidous characteristics. Four liquid media, able to elicit antibiotic production from Strain A have been developed: a chemically defined medium (antibacterial), a chemically defined medium and a complex medium (antifungal) and a chemically defined medium (antibacterial and antifungal). Nitrogen and magnesium limitation significantly increased yields. Magnesium content in a medium (without a magnesium salt component) and in whole cell samples grown in the said medium were assessed using atomic absorption spectroscopy and elemental analysis respectively. Optimization experiments for antibacterial and antifungal activity, assessed by a disc diffusion assay, increased yields, in 250 ml conical flasks by a factor of X9 and 109% respectively. A 6 litre laboratory-scale fermentor was used for larger batch cultivations . Procedures for extraction of the active compounds from the biological matrices were . developed leading to the isolation of one antibacterial compound, ABl (yellow crystalline) and three antifungal compounds, AFl, AF2 and AF3 (pale yellow and amorphous). Structure determination of ABl, involving mass spectrometry, IR/UV spectroscopy, lH-NMR and x-ray diffraction, indicated it to be 1.6 dimethyl pyrimido[5,4-e ]-1,2,4- triazine-5,7(IH,6H)-dione (Xanthothricin; Toxoflavin), a toxic metabolite previously detected in foods contaminated with Ps. cocovenenans. Selective media, developed ' for Strain A and Strain B, did not support growth of Ps. cocovenenans. Preliminary structural analysis suggests that AFl may possess a mono-substituted ring system with CHz chain and a terminal hydroxyl group; that AF2 may belong to the polyene group of antifungal antibiotics and that AF3 may be an aliphatic ketone with hydroxyl group . Agar diffusion, minimum inhibitory concentration, assays for the compounds, indicate activity to be in the ~gml range for sensitive microorganisms. Antibiotic challenge against test microorganisms suggest bacteriostatic activity for ABl, fungistatic activity for AFl and AF3 and fungicidal activity for AF2.

Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Proslogion Chap.II starts from the contention that 'lq when a Fool hears 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind. This is a special feature of the Pros.II argument which distinguishes the argument from other ontological arguments set up by, for example, Descartes and Leibniz. This is also the context which makes semantics necessary for evaluation of the argument. It is quite natural to ask 'lq What is understood by the Fool, and what is in his mind? It is essential for a proper consideration of the argument to identify the object which is understood by the Fool, and so, is in his mind. A semantics gives answers to the questions of 'lq What the Fool understands? and 'lq What is in the Fool's mind? If we choose a semantics as a meta-theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, it makes an effective guide to identify the object. It is a necessary condition for a proper evaluation of the Pros.II argument to fix our universe of discourse, especially since, in the argument, we are involved in such talk about existing objects as Anselm's contention that 'when a Fool hears 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind. The ontology to which a semantic theory commits us will be accepted as our scope of objects when we introduce our semantic theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, and this ontological boundary constrains us to identify the object in a certain way. Consistent application of an ontology, most of all, is needed for the evaluation of the logical validity of an argument. If we take Frege's three-level semantics, we are ontologically committed to intensional entities, like meaning, as well as extensional entities. Sluga contends that Frege's anti-psychologism for meanings should not be interpreted as vindicating reification of intensional entities in relation to Frege's contextualism, that Frege's anti-psychologism with his contextualism is nothing but a linguistic version of Kantian philosophy for the transcendental unity of a judgement. There is, however, another possible interpretation of Frege's contextualism. According to Dummett, the significance of Frege's contextualism must be understood as a way of explanation for a word's having meaning. If Dummett's view is cogent, we could say that Frege's contextualism does not prevent our interpreting his semantics as being committed to intensional entities. We need not worry that Frege's over all semantics, especially with his contextualism, would internally deny the ontological interpretation of his theory. We see Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Pros.II is an invalid argument if we introduce Frege's three-level semantics, i.e. if we acknowledge meanings of words as entities in our universe of discourse. We can also employ extensional semantics for the interpretation of the Pros.II argument. According to extensionalists, like Quine and Kripke, we need not assume intensional entities, like meaning, to be part of our ontological domain. They argue that we can employ our language well enough without assuming intensional entities. If we choose extensional semantics as a meta-theory to interpret the Pros.II argument, it commits us only to extensional entities as objects in the Universe of our interpretation. In Sections 1.4 and 1.5, I show that extensional semantics makes the Pros.II argument a valid argument for the existence of God. 'lq Necessary existence is the central concept of Anselm's argument for the existence of God in Proslogion Chap.III. It has been said that, even if the argument is formally valid, it cannot stand as a valid argument for the existence of God, since 'lq necessary existence is an absurd concept like 'lq round square. And further that even if there is a meaningful combination of concepts for 'lq necessary existence, it cannot quality as a subject of an a priori argument. As objections to the interpretations which make the Pros.III argument valid, it has been argued that even if there is a concept of 'lq necessary existence which is meaningful and there is another concept of 'lq necessary existence which is suitable as a subject of an a priori argument, there is no concept of 'lq necessary existence which is meaningful and at the same time suitable as a subject of an a priori argument. In Chap.2 and Chap.3, I try to show that there can be concepts of 'lq necessary existence which are proof against these objections. Anselm's arguments for the existence of God in Proslogian Chap.II and Chap.III are logically valid arguments on some logical principles. Some fideists, K. Barth, for example, argue that Anselm's arguments for the existence of God in Proslogion are not proofs for the existence of God even if they are logically valid arguments. I raise the question how this attitude could be possible, in Chap.4 and Chap.5. Barth's fideistic interpretation of Anselm's Proslogion arguments does not find any flaw in the validity of the arguments, and it accepts the meaningfulness and truth of the premises even to the fool in Proslogion. If this is the case, i.e. if Barth's interpretation accepts the validity of the arguments and the truth of the premises, I raise the question, how can the arguments not be interpreted as proofs for the existence of God? How is it possible that the function of the arguments is not that of proving the existence of God? According to Wittgensteinian fideism, premises in the arguments should not be intelligible to those who do not believe in God's existence already, and so the real function of the arguments is the elucidation, the understanding of believer's belief, rather than proving articles of belief to unbelievers. Barth's fideistic interpretation of the arguments, however, fully recognizes the meaningfulness and truth of the premises in the arguments as well as the validity of the arguments. I argue that there could be a justification for the Barthian fideism. As Malcolm notices, there are still atheists who understand Anselm's arguments as valid, but the only possibility for the people who recognize the validity of Anselm's arguments still to remain atheists has been thought to be to challenge the truth of premises employed in the arguments. Now, of the atheistic possibility, we can change the direction of our attention, that is, to the question about the function of a logically valid argument itself. What has not been thought of in relation to Anselm's arguments is the significance of logical truth or the logical validity of an argument. We have not asked such questions as 'lq What does a logical truth say? and 'lq What does a logically valid argument guarantee with true premises? Let us assume that even the premises are accepted by atheists. Do they all convert to theism? If that were so, the disagreement between atheist and believer over the ontological arguments should turn only on the truth of premises. If that is not so, there is some point in raising this other question. If there are people who, recognizing the premises and validity of an argument, are still reluctant to accept the conclusion, we have reason to question the function of a valid argument. I argue that there is a way of being consistently reasonable while accepting the premises and the validity of the ontological arguments and yet remaining an atheist or an agnostic.

This thesis explores the possibilities for normative grounding of authority through a focus on the relationship between Habermas’s ‘critical theory’ and Gadamer’s ‘philosophical hermeneutics’, with particular reference to the bases of authority in East Asian culture. More specifically, it examines the role of reason and tradition in justifying political authority. Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics locates the conditions of authority in tradition, constituted in part by prejudice, while Habermas offers a theory of communicative action that transcends the limited horizons of tradition. The distinction between reason and tradition is applied in East Asian culture through an analysis of the practice of filial piety. The thesis endorses Habermas’s charge that Gadamer hypostatizes tradition. Habermas correctly identifies the political implication of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, namely, that it obscures power relations. It is argued that Habermas’s ‘communicative action theory’ and ‘discourse ethics’ are better able to do justice to the basis for the normative grounding of authority. The relevance of discourse ethics for the justification of political authority in East Asian culture is explored.

This thesis is a critical study of the prospects for contemporary accounts of ethical intuitionism. Ethical intuitionism is an epistemological theory about the nature of our justified ethical beliefs, whose central claim is that we have at least some non-inferentially justified beliefs. Having been out of favour for much of the latter-part of the twentieth century, ethical intuitionism is enjoying something of a renaissance. Contemporary proponents of the view have shown that ethical intuitionism need not fall foul of the main objections previously brought against it. Furthermore, developments in epistemology have helped to make the notion of non-inferential justification (and the associated view, epistemological foundationalism) more philosophically respectable. As I will suggest, non-inferentially justified belief paradigmatically involves a belief that is justified by a non-doxastic state. In this thesis I will consider four accounts of ethical intuitionism which each claim that a particular kind of non-doxastic state can ground justified ethical beliefs: understandings, intellectual seemings, perceptual experiences and emotional experiences. Note that contemporary ethical intuitionists do not commit themselves to there being a distinctively ethical non-doxastic state. Rather, contemporary ethical intuitionists adopt a sort of innocence by association strategy, suggesting that that we gain non-inferential justification in ethics in much the same way as we get non-inferential justification in other domains. It is my purpose in this thesis to subject each of these four accounts of contemporary ethical intuitionism to sustained philosophical criticism. Although I do not think that ethical intuitionism is implausible, it is my view that the current enthusiasm for the position ought to be seriously tempered, and that much work will need to be done in order to make it acceptable as a meta-ethical view. Firstly, with regard to the understanding (self-evidence) account I argue that there are serious problems with the view that the substantive Rossian principles are non-inferentially justifiably believed on the basis of an adequate understanding of their content. Secondly, I go on to suggest, inter alia, that proponents of the intellectual seemings account of intuitionism cannot appeal to their favoured general epistemological principle in order to ground their ethical epistemology. Given this, much work needs to be done on their part in order to show why we ought to think that intellectual seemings with an ethical content that is substantive get to justify. Thirdly, against the ethical perception account I suggest that even if it is true that ethical agents have perceptual experiences which represent ethical properties, it is not at all obvious that this supports ethical intuitionism, since insofar as such experiences get to justify, it seems plausible that they will ground inferentially or mediately justified beliefs. I do, however, suggest that a related perceptual view may be able to ground a plausible account of non-inferentially justified ethical beliefs. Finally, I consider the ethical emotions account. Given that this is a relatively new view on the philosophical scene I spend much of my time defending it against some serious recent objections brought against it. However, I will also suggest that there are question marks surrounding the epistemological credentials of emotional experiences and that much work will therefore need to be done in order to make the view that emotional experiences do in fact non-inferentially justify ethical beliefs acceptable.

The thesis is a contribution to the understanding of the relationship of the dialectical thought and method of G. W. F. Hegel and K. Marx. The aim of the thesis is to ascertain what the relation and the difference between the contrary forms, of the idealist and the materialist dialectic, actually is. The thesis consequently attempts to make sense of Marx’s view that his application of the dialectical method was not only different from but also the “direct opposite” of his idealist predecessor. This theme, itself the source for the enigmatic nature of the inversion, is developed by ascertaining some of the core elements that lie behind and underpin Marx’s own comment; that the rational kernel of Hegel’s mystical form of dialectic could be discovered if it was “turned right side up again”. The thesis also explored the relationship between the early Marx’s critique of Hegel, contained in the 1844 Paris Manuscripts, with the later Marx’s comments on his view of the relation of his dialectic to Hegel’s. As such, the thesis argues that there is both a continuity and a development in Marx’s critical attitude to Hegel’s dialectical thought. The core elements of the rational kernel of Hegel’s dialectic for Marx lies, as the thesis will argue, in the Hegelian account of the general form of working of the dialectic, and in Hegel’s explication of the laws of dialectics. The thesis thus explore the intimate relation of these two interconnected themes from the point of view of Hegel’s systematic idealism, and in Marx’s materialist application of these rational elements to his critique of political economy. This involves endeavouring to elucidate, both the nature of a dialectical account of contradiction, and the related explanation of nomological activity or law from a dialectical perspective. The thesis also attempts to explore the fundamental contrast of the materialist from the idealist elucidation of these core elements.

Abstract: This thesis is concerned with phenomenal unity, a salient and important feature of our conscious lives, albeit one which has gone somewhat under-explained. My focus will on the phenomenal unity of perceptual experiences at a time, which is best illustrated by the following kind of example: whilst walking through the park, you notice a particular tree, whose foliage and bark have a particularly intense hue and strange texture. At the same time, there is a strong scent in the air, and you can feel the heat of the sun on your arms. Alongside this, birds are calling loudly… whilst undergoing all these different perceptual experiences, it strikes you that although these experiences correspond to different senses, they seem to be tied together in some important way: there is a unity to your overall perceptual experience at this time. Even in this mundane case, there are various ways in which my experiences are unified: the various properties of the objects that I represent via vision and touch are unified in the sense that they seem to inhere in the same object (and so are object unified), the various objects that I am seeing and touching all seem to me to be located in the same space (and so are spatially unified), and further, I can jointly attend to several of these experiences together at will (and so these experiences are introspectively unified). Over and above this however, we might think there is a distinct other kind of unity. This is a unity of phenomenology, the subjective character of perceptual experience. There is something it is like for me to hear the birds calling, and there is something it is like for me to see the leaves on the tree. But there is also currently something it is like for me to hear the birds and see the foliage, together. Further, this togetherness is such that it is an integral part of my current experience. This final kind of unity is phenomenal unity, and providing a full description and explanation of this phenomenon will be my task in this thesis. In doing this I will address the following two questions: ‘what is phenomenal unity?’ and ‘how should we explain phenomenal unity?’. I will show that phenomenal unity is best thought of as a relation that holds between token perceptual experiences, answering the first question, and in answering the second question, will consider various reductive and non-reductive explanations of phenomenal unity, before arguing that we should explain phenomenal unity in terms of the unified states being the potential parts of the same overall phenomenal state.

The relationship of Jacques Derrida and Martin Heidegger has always been complex, encompassing an entanglement of two already immense networks and suspended between proximities and distances from infinitesimal to radical. Its peculiarity is evident in the way in which Derrida strategically inscribes his own text at the margin of Heidegger's thought via a double or cl6tural gesture which articulates the paradox that Derrida writes with Heidegger against Heidegger. One of the most decisive aspects of this gesture is Derrida's deconstruction of Heidegger's claims regarding the relation between technology and philosophy. In "The Question Concerning Technology" and accompanying essays Heidegger opens up a way of reflecting upon the essence of technology moves against its metaphysical determination specifying, moreover, the sense of modern technology as a mode of disclosure. These reflections are, however, ambiguous. Heidegger is one of the first thinkers to confront technology in philosophical terms, and yet he wishes to purify thinking of originary technicity. Technology remains a question, and as a question asked by thinking, thinking is not technical. In other words, thinking for Heidegger, is constituted in its very difference from technology. This is the move that must be deconstructed. In simultaneously repeating and displacing the Heideggerian scheme, Derrida elaborates an infinitesimal and decisive différance between the thinking of Being and his own notion of "writing" (Vecriture) or generalized inscription. What is crucial is that as against Heidegger's Being, the general text is not an essence of technics nor is it a proper thinking opposed to technology. On the contrary, Derrida's main point, among other things, against Heidegger, is that technology has always already begun, that it is originary with respect to the history of Being and thinking. In this study I examine the stakes and implications of Derrida's move along with a possible Heideggerian response. To begin with, I develop a reading of Heidegger's text that shows the import of technology to his work as a whole and its centrality to the thinking of Being as difference. I then take up the question of Derrida's deconstruction of Heidegger's analysis of the history of Being and its technological completion as this is played out in The Post Card and related texts. Following this I revert back to Derrida's now "classic" writings of the late 1960s and early 1970s and explore the arguments that relate contemporary developments in technology, science, and the media to the problematic of writing and to the closure of logocentric metaphysics. The preceding chapters lay the groundwork for me to then offer a critical reading of Derrida's text that locates in the articulations and assumptions of deconstruction certain indications of its belonging, within the horizon of Heidegger's thinking of technology. Finally, I offer a reading of some of Derrida's later texts with the aim of showing that and how deconstruction emerges as an affirmative technology.