West Cork Rare BookfairINANNA MODERNWest Cork Reading Holidays
We ship per DHL Express

We ship per DHL Express

[Lewis, The Journal of Philosophy, Volume XLVI, No.7: March 31, 1949: Contents:

[Lewis, C.I. (Clarence Irving)] / [Aiken, Henry David] / Lucius Garvin / Virgin G.Hinshaw.

The Journal of Philosophy, Volume XLVI, No.7: March 31, 1949: Contents: Lucius Garvin – Relativism in Professor Lewis’s [C.I.Lewis] Theory of Esthetic Value / Virgil G.Hinshaw – Basic, Propositions in Lewis’s [C.I.Lewis] Analysis of Knowledge / Book Reviews: Henry Aiken – D.W.Gottschalk, Art and the Social Order and others [Inscribed and signed by Henry David Aiken: “For Lillas – In partial a poor repayment for happiness received – HDA”].

First Edition. [New York], [Columbia University] / The Journal Of University, 1949. Octavo. 59 pages (pages 169-228 of Volume XLVI, No.7: March 31,1949 of The Journal of Philosophy). Original, stapled Softcover Pamphlet. Very good+ condition. Signed and inscribed by Henry David Aiken, including a Book Review by Aiken but mainly including two early contributions on C.I.Lewis’ Philosophy.

Includes:

1. Lucius Garvin’s (Oberlin College) contribution on C.I.Lewis’ “esthetic [sic] position put forward by Professor C.I.Lewis of Harvard University in his book “An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation″

2. Virgil G.Hinshaw (Ohio State University) reflects on C.I.Lewis’ Carus lecture [″An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation”], and compares Lewis’ proposition that is “basic for the analysis of knowledge undertaken by the epistemologist” to Bertrand Russell’s “pure perceptive proposition”. Hinshaw says: “Lewis’s line of reasonin starts with his basic distinction between the two elements common to all knowledge, the concept as a product of the activity of thought and the sensuously given as entirely independent of such activity”.

EUR 480,-- 

We ship per DHL Express

We ship per DHL Express

Lucius Garvin – Relativism in Professor Lewis’s [C.I.Lewis] Theory of Esthetic Value / Virgil G.Hinshaw – Basic, Propositions in Lewis’s [C.I.Lewis] Analysis of Knowledge /