Julius Moravcsik was een Amerikaanse filosoof gespecialiseerd in de oude Griekse filosofie. Zijn werk verdiepte zich in de kernideeën en teksten van deze fundamentele periode. Moravcsik streefde ernaar complexe filosofische concepten toegankelijk te maken voor een breder publiek. Zijn aanpak benadrukte zorgvuldige analyse en duidelijke interpretatie.
This book explores the interconnection of individual and communal ethics, emphasizing four foundational ties: respect, concern for others' welfare, trust, and care. It advocates for a pluralistic ethical framework that balances rational and emotional elements, providing contextual guidelines rather than rigid rules for community building.
This book criticizes current philosophy of language as having altered its focus without adjusting the needed conceptual tools. It develops a new theory of lexical meaning and a new conception of cognition--humans not as information-processing creatures but as primarily explanation and understanding-seeking creatures--with information processing as a secondary, derivative activity. Drawing on these theories of lexical meaning and cognition, Julius M. Moravcsik argues that the ability of humans to fully comprehend human understanding will always be partial. In this second edition, Moravcsik posits a new theory that emphasizes implicitness and context in communication. In this theory, language is presented as a dynamic system with built-in mechanisms for change and expansion, thus further supporting Moravcsik's overarching thesis that human understanding will always be incomplete.
Originally published in 1990, this book centres on a certain way of surveying a variety of theories of language, and on outlining a new proposal of meaning within the framework set by the survey. One of the key features of both survey and proposal is the insistence on the need to locate theories of language within a large framework that includes questions about the nature of thought and about general ontological questions as well. The book deals in an interconnected way with both very general and specific issues. At one end of this spectrum there are discussions of the contrast between realist and nominalist ontologies, while at the other are analyses of specific lexical items of English.