Antigone's Dilemma: A Problem in Political Membership

I would like to thank Donna Haraway, Barrie Thome, Daniel Scripture and, especially, Peter Euben for their many helpful comments and suggestions on various drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Thelma Francis for her generous support and encouragement.     

A note on the deontic system DL of Jones and Pörn

I would like to thank Ingmar Pörn for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Hierarchical causes in the cosmological argument

I would like to thank Linda Zagzebski for her very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

Historical perspectives on the morality of virtue

I would like to thank Patrick Grim, Lee Miller, and Dennis Rohatyn for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.     

Is space-time discrete or continuous? — An empirical question

In this paper I present the Discrete Space-Time Thesis, in a way which enables me to defend it against various well-known objections, and which extends to the discrete versions of Special and General Relativity with only minor difficulties. The point of this presentation is not to convince readers that space-time really is discrete but rather to convince them that we do not yet know whether or not it is. Having argued that it is an open question whether or not space-time is discrete, I then turn to some possible empirical evidence, which we do not yet have. This evidence is based on some slight differences between commonly occurring differential equations and their discrete analogs.I would like to express my thanks to John McKie with whom I have had several inspiring conversations about discrete space. I would also like to thank the audience of a paper on this topic which I read in October 1991 at the College Park campus of the University of Maryland. Finally I would like to thank the referees ofSynthese for their comments. One of them, in particular, should be thanked especially for help in improving Appendix Two.     

Kripke & the existential complaint

I would like to thank W. R. Carter, Charles Chihara, Karel J. Lambert, Kirk Ludwig, Stephen Neale, Herman Cappelan, and an anonymous referee for this Journal, for helpful discussion on this topic, as well as for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. A version of the paper was read at the 1993 Pacific Division meeting of the APA in San Francisco. I wish to thank especially David Cowles and Mark Richard for their thoughtful contributions in that session.     

Divine foreknowledge and the libertarian conception of human freedom

As always, this paper benefitted from discussions I have had with David Werther. I would also like to thank an anonymous referee for this journal who offered many insightful criticisms and suggestions.     

Skepticism and legal interpretation

For comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article, I would like to thank Kendall Walton, Edward Averill, Marcia Baron, Richard Brandt, and Walter Schaller. This paper was first developed while in residence as a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I wish to thank both that institution for making its resources available to me during the 1986–87 academic year, and my home institution for granting me the Developmental Leave that permitted me to pursue my research. Finally, I wish to thank Thomas W. Pogge for helping me to make several substantive clarifications in the final version of this paper.     

On the function of weak phantasmata in perception: Phenomenological,psychological and neurological clues for the transcendental function of imagination in perception

Weak phantasmata have a decisive and specifically transcendental function in our everyday perception. This paper provides several different arguments for this claim based on evidence from both empirical psychology and phenomenology.I would like to express my gratitude to Bill McKenna for his help with the English text and his critical remarks. This paper was presented in the Cork Roundtable for Philosophy in March 2003, at University College, Cork, and I would like to thank Julia Jansen, Tony O’Connor and the other participants for their constructive critique.     

Believing the improbable

I would like to thank Brad Armendt, Patrick Maher, Bas Van Fraassen and Joan Weiner for comments on this (and/or earlier versions of this) paper. I have also benefited from conversation and correspondence with Stewart Cohen. Some of the research of which this paper was a product was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.     

The wall and the shield K-K reconsidered

With apologies to Professor Sosa. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Eastern Division Meetings of the APA held in Washington, D.C., December 27 through December 30, 1988. I would like to thank my commentator Professor Gary Gleb of Rutgers University for his thoughtful comments, I also wish to thank Glenn Ross, Steven Davis and Arthur Ripstein for their sound advice.     

Action sentences

I would like to thank Eddy Zemach, Jonathan Stavi, Julius Moravcsik and Dov Gabbay for some very good discussions on the logical form of action sentences. Also, I am indebted to an anonymous referee of Erkenntnis for some very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Persistence,change, and explanation

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to George Myro for his wonderful insight, advice, and support, in writing this paper. I would also like to thank Ermanno Bencivenga, John Broome, Janet Broughton, Alan Code, Paul Grice, Mark Johnston, David Lewis, Paul Kube, Dugald Owen, Steve Yablo, and Colloquium participants at University of Virginia and Ohio State University for their very helpful discussions.     

Individualism,causal powers,and explanation

Versions of this paper were presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and Psychology in June 1991, at Cornell University in October 1991, and at Queen's University in January 1992; I thank Terence Horgan and Carl Ginet, respectively, for their comments on the first two of these occasions. I would also like to thank Terence Irwin, Sydney Shoemaker, Bob Stalnaker, Ed Stein, and J. D. Trout for comments on earlier versions of the paper, and Joe Moore, Dave Robb and Sergio Sismondo for useful discussion.     

Miracles and the case for theism

I would like to thank Keith Parsons for reviving my interest in this topic, and Robert McKim, Patrick Maher, Hugh Chandler, Jordan Howard Sobel, and William Alston for helpful remarks concerning previous versions of this paper.     

Deconstructing the declaration: A case study in pragrammatology

I would like to thank Jonathan Lee, Terry Pinkard, Steven S. Schwarzschild, Jill Petzall, Bob Gibbs, Bill Hamrick and Jim Bohman for their very helpful criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper.     

Towards an epistemology of religious traditions

Summary Starting from the acceptance of the Egalitarian Principle I exhibited a version which I considered too lax (BEP) and one I considered too strict (NEP), arriving at a version (MEP) which allows that there can be tolerance-limiting reasons for adhering to traditions but only if they are based on unreasoned knowledge claims. In fact, I hold that the situation most of us find ourselves in restricts such claims on religious topics to very general ones. Hence the choice between NEP and MEP is not significant. It follows that we should take up one of two positions concerning religious traditions: either we argue from the shared assumptions of a variety of traditions without genuine participation in any of them; or we justify participation in one of them by noting various marks of reliability, such as serendipitous understanding. A version of this paper was read at the Faith and Reason Conference held at the Catholic Institute in Strathfield, October 5 and 6, 1996. I would like to thank all who participated in the discussion of my paper on that occasion. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for Sophia for their helpful comments.     

Looking back on Goffman: The excavation continues

I would like to thank Yves Winkin, Dean MacCannell, Charles Bosk, and review editor Jim Ostrow for providing helpful comments on several earlier drafts of this essay.     

An atheological argument from evil natural laws

I should like to thank Keith Chrzan, P.G. McGrath, Susan Ament Smith and an anonymous referee for this journal for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. I should also like to thank two anonymous referees for Philosophy and Phenomenological Research for extensive and brilliant criticisms of an earlier and very different version of this paper; many of the improvements in the present version were motivated by their criticisms.