Judge: Philosophy and Freedom in the First PersonHere is your invitation to an extraordinary journey through the intersections of philosophy and law. In this captivating book, Paul McKeever presents a powerful new method of considering the world's most famously long-standing, unresolved philosophical problems. He also demonstrates, in an entertaining and convincing way, the practical importance of achieving solutions to such problems. In each chapter, McKeever places you in the role of a presiding judge, meticulously analyzing a vexing legal dispute rooted in a long-standing philosophical paradox or dilemma. You will discover that, in each case, the elusiveness of the solution to the philosophical puzzle stems from the perspective from which philosophers have considered it. You will witness the transformative power of McKeever's new philosophical method as you skillfully apply its solutions to each court case, and are illuminated by the profound impact of philosophical thinking on real-world problems. "JUDGE" is an eye-opening exploration, offering thinkers from all fields of endeavour an uncharted perspective on the timeless mysteries that shape our understanding of the world. Whether you are a philosophy student, a law professor, a physician, a police officer, a baker, an artist, a legislator, a political activist, or someone who is preparing for a world in which the proper adoption of new technologies such as artificial intelligence will require a command of effective philosophical problem-solving skills: prepare to challenge your intellect and reshape your perceptions in this riveting fusion of philosophy and law. 13 PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS RESOLVED IN THIS DISSERTATION - Are “facts” trumped by your perceptions/beliefs/feelings/ - The Problem of Identity vs. Change: Is the old grey mare what she used to be? - Do you perceive the external world? As it really is? Does it exist? Can you know it to exist? - The Problem of Universals: What do all commonalities have in common? - What is meaning?: If your neighbor claims that everything he says is a lie, is he telling the truth? - What is truth? If it’s a fact that you will murder someone tomorrow, do you have the freedom and power not to do so? - The Problem of Causality: what causes a tennis ball to bounce? - The Problem of Induction: If you’ve only seen white swans, can you say with certainty that all swans are white? - Is “free will” a myth? Is the future written? Do you already have a fate? - The IS-OUGHT Problem: Are goodness and virtue subjective? One-size-fits-all? Dependent on the situation? A myth? - What is justice? - Are natural rights a myth? - What is freedom? |
Contents
The bizarre assumptions implicit in disparity arguments | |
Meaning Versus MindIndependent Statements | |
Preliminary matters | |
philosophical implication of deflationary theories of truth | |
philosophical implication of the Liar Paradox | |
A firstperson account of the nature of statements | |
Resolution of problems implied by Truth Deflation theories and the Liar Paradox | |
An acceptable sense of mindindependence | |
Judgment in the case of Veritas v Squib | |
founded on an unwarranted assumption | |
Two reasons why the conclusions of disparity arguments are not warranted | |
products of the thirdperson perspective | |
products of the thirdperson perspective | |
Argument from the thirdperson perspective concerning the object of perception | |
An account of perception from the firstperson perspective | |
An IDENTITY is knowledge of an ENTITY in an external reality | |
The immateriality of resemblancedisparity to the issue of perception | |
Interpreting disparity arguments by way of the Identification Theory | |
Decisions in the cases of Grey and Stutter | |
The Problem of Universals | |
Specification and clarification of the problem | |
The main philosophical accounts of the nature of types | |
Types from the thirdperson perspective a QUESTION OF RELATION | |
Challenges to aforementioned types are products of the thirdperson perspective | |
A firstperson account of the nature of types | |
The firstperson account does not fall prey to the problems faced by other accounts | |
Judgment in the case of Bingos v Zebian and Aden | |
Appendix | |
Appendix A Wronglyalleged forms of the Liar Paradox | |
Truth and the Laws of Thought | |
the nature of truth | |
Future contingent propositions and divine foreknowledge | |
Theories of truth from the thirdperson perspective | |
A practical theory of truth | |
The three laws of thought and the Rational Theory of truth Part 6 Answer to the problems of future contingentpropositions divine foreknowledge | |
Conclusion of the trial of The State v Officer Hunchak | |
The Problem of Causation | |
The issue | |
Humes position | |
Kants solution to Humes problem of causation | |
products of the thirdperson perspective | |
Kant did not answer the substantive problem of causation | |
causation Solution from the firstpersonperspective to theproblem of Part 7 Decision in the case of The State v Stickle | |
When Youve Seen One Youve Seen Them | |
The issue | |
Humes position | |