Philosophy of matter is that department of philosophical knowledge which relates to the philosophy of physics. While the philosophy of physics is concerned with the objects and events of the physical world as a whole, the philosophy of matter deals only with that “physical substance” of which the physical world is supposed to be made. However, the borders between the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of matter are logical distinctions rather than real, and the philosophy of matter has a fundamental role to play in relation to the philosophy of physical in particular, and the philosophy of science in general.

The Purpose of this thesis is to present a comprehensive survey of Kant’s political theories, and to compare them with earlier thinkers to which they are related. The choice of this topic is due in the main to two considerations. First, the writer has observed with concern the social and political ills of our Western Civilization - the disintegrating family life, the individual's disillusion with democracy, his selfish, cynical disregard towards his fellow man, his attitude towards the state of getting the most and giving the least, the slow erosion of values and the prevalent contempt of inspiring ideals.

In this paper, we study the completeness property of some implication-negation fragments of propositional logics. By the phrase implication-negation fragment of a propositional logic, we understand the system consisting of all the theses which have implication and/or negation as their sole connectives in the said logic. This means, that we have to find a means to isolate, so to speak, all these theses and then axiomatize the resultant system. Our method of proof is by constructing a Gentzen type Sequenzen Kalkul which is strong enough to embrace all theses in the said logic. Since, Sequenzen Kalkul has a constructive character, every connective, once introduced, will remain in later sequents of the derivation.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the concept of motive and to make clear just how this concept relates to explaining human behaviour. First however, it will be advisable to make a few preliminary remarks. It will be admitted right from the start that there is something quite unusual about the form of words "Abe’s motive for killing Sam was that he wanted Sam's money". In fact we seldom use the word “motive" in everyday discourse. It is more usual to ask not "What was x's motive for doing that?” but "Why did X do that?", and more usual to reply not "X's motive was such and such" but "X did it because of such and such".

More than two hundred and fifty years have elapsed since George Berkeley first published his Principles of Human Knowledge and thereby divided the intelligible world into “notions” and “ideas". In the ensuing period, the more articulate world has shown a marked preference for treating only his theory of “ideas” .The result has been misleading. It is therefore the purpose of this essay to present Berkeley' s theory of “notions”, in so far as it can be gleaned from the pages of his extant works, and to emphasize the importance of "notions" in any fair-minded attempt to view Berkeleyan philosophy as a whole. The vital role of a theory of notions will become evident in due course.

This thesis presents the results or an attempt to isolate and give an axiomatic basis for the pure-implication fragment or each or several logical systems. C. I. Lewis points out that exact logic may be taken as a canon or deductive inference, and that the chief business of a canon or deduction is to delineate correctly the properties of the relation of 'implication’. It seems clear, then, that criticism or any logical calculus must include consideration of just what properties are imputed to the relation of ‘implication' by that calculus.

A la suite d'une objection que nous avions formulée envers l'Epistola de Tolerantia de Locke, M. le Professeur Raymond Klibansky nous proposa d'écrire une thèse sur Pierre Bayle. [...]

<p> Most Rawlsian approaches to global justice fall into one of two main types&mdash;cosmopolitanisms that expand the scope of Rawls's domestic theory to the entire world, and those that, following Rawls's <i> The Law of Peoples</i>, develop a liberal foreign policy rooted in the toleration of "decent" but nonliberal peoples. Global Justice as Fairness offers an alternative to these by incorporating some aspects of each, as well as some unique features, into a coherent whole that avoids their more significant drawbacks. Employing a distinctive understanding of the global original position and a republican view of freedom, the theory generates two principles that aim to ensure the agency and non-domination of peoples. These principles provide the broad outlines of a just global basic structure for states that is both realistic and utopian. </p><p> The most basic parameters of Rawlsian theories of global justice are the subject of and parties to the original position(s). Global Justice as Fairness is unique among such theories by identifying the global basic structure as subject (as cosmopolitans do) while also taking peoples, not persons, as the parties (following Rawls's law of peoples). It is also alone in severing the tie between domestic and global justice and recognizing the fact of reasonable <i> global</i> pluralism, according to which it is unreasonable to expect all peoples to hold liberal conceptions of domestic justice. Global Justice as Fairness excludes the parties' knowledge of their domestic conceptions behind the veil of ignorance, forcing them to rely on their generic interests as peoples. This picture of peoples' rationality is developed with an account of global primary goods rooted in their agency and a global analog of citizenship. </p><p> Thus situated, the parties are led to select two principles of justice for a global basic structure formulated in terms of the republican vision of freedom. The first principle specifies a human rights regime that ensures the minimal conditions needed for peoples to maintain their distinctly political form of group agency. The second provides guidelines for minimizing the domination of peoples through a just global political and economic order within which they can freely exercise that agency.</p>

<p> Abstract not available.</p>

No description available.