No student or colleague of Marjorie Grene will miss her incisive presence in these papers on the study and nature of living nature, and we believe the new reader will quickly join the stimulating discussion and critique which Professor Grene steadily provokes. For years she has worked with equally sure knowledge in the classical domain of philosophy and in modern epistemological inquiry, equally philosopher of science and metaphysician. Moreover, she has the deeply sensible notion that she should be a critically intelligent learner as much as an imaginatively original thinker, and as a result she has brought insightful expository readings of other philosophers and scientists to her own work. We were most fortunate that Marjorie Grene was willing to spend a full semester of a recent leave here in Boston, and we have on other occasions sought her participation in our colloquia and elsewhere. Now we have the pleasure of including among the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science this generous selection from Grene's philosophical inquiries into the understanding of the natural world, and of the men and women in it. Boston University Center for the R. S. COHEN Philosophy and History of Science M. W. W ARTOFSKY April 1974 PREFACE This collection spans - spottily - years from 1946 ('On Some Distinctions between Men and Brutes') to 1974 ('On the Nature of Natural Necessity').

This volume contains the papers and commentaries presented at the fourth philosophy colloquium at the University of Western Ontario in November 1968. The papers examine, from different points of view, the central problems in the philosophy of action. They include: “Agency” by Donald Davidson with comments by James Cornman; “On the Logic on International Action” by Roderick Chisholm with comments by Bruce Aune and a reply by Roderick Chisholm; “Wanting: Some Pitfalls” by R.M. Hare with comments by David Gauthier and D.F. Pears; “Two Problems about Reasons for Actions” by D.F. Pears with comments by Irving Thalberg. Also included is an extensive bibliography of recent work in the philosophy of action. The contributors are all well known for their work in this branch of philosophy; their papers present a cross section of the best work being done in the area at the present time.

Biographical material.-Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of Ernst Cassirer.-The philosopher speaks for himself.-Bibliography of the writings of Ernst Cassirer to 1946, comp. by C.H. Hamburg and W.M. Solmitz (p. [881]-910).

Reading McDowell: On Mind and World brings together an exceptional list of contributors to analyse and discuss McDowell's challenging and influential book, one of the most influential contributions to contemporary philosophy in recent years. In it McDowell discusses issues in epistemology, philosophy of mind and ethics as well as surveying the broader remit of philosophy. Reading McDowell clarifies some of these themes and provides further material for debate across philosophy of mind, ethics, philosophy of language and epistemology. The internationally renowned contributors include: Richard Bernstein, Gregory McCulloch, Hilary Putnam, Charles Taylor, Crispin Wright, Jay Bernstein, Rudiger, Bubner, Robert Pippin, Charles Lamour, Axel Honneth, Barry Stround, Robert Brandom and Michael Williams. In conclusion, John McDowell responds to all the contributions. This critical contribution to analytic philosophy is likely to shape philosophical debate for years to come. It will be of interest to professional philosophers, as well as students of contemporary epistemology, philosophy of mind and ethics.

EMERGENT EVOLUTION- THE GIFFORD LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS IN THE YEAR 1922 by C. LLOYD MORGAN. Originally published in 1923. PREFACE: HALF a century ago, as years run, a student was called on to take the chair at a dinner in connection with the Royal School of Mines. Members of the staff were present. And the fortunate youth was honoured by the support of Professor Huxley. Which of the lines of science you have followed has chiefly engaged your interest Following up the thread of my reply, he drew from me the confession that an interest in philosophy, and in the general scheme of things, lay deeper than my interest in the practical applications of science to what then purported to be my bread-and butter training. With sympathetic kindliness that soon dispelled my fear of him he led me to speak more freely, to tell him how this came about, what J had read, and so on. That such a man should care to know what Berkeley and Hume had done for me what I had got from Descartes Discourse how I was just then embrangled in difficulties over Spinoza filled me with glad surprise. His comments were so ripe and they were made to help me Whatever else you may do, he said, keep that light burning. But remember that biology has supplied a new and powerful illuminant. Then speeches began. His parting words were When you have reached the goal of your course, why not come and spend a year with us at South Kensington So when I had gained the diploma of which so little direct use was to be made, and when my need of the illuminant, and my lack of intimate acquaintance with the facts on which the new lamp shed light, had been duly impressed on me during a visit to North America and Brazil, I followed his advice, attended his lectures, and worked in his laboratory. On one of the memorable occasions when he beckoned me to come to his private room he spoke of St. George Mivart s Genesis of Species. I had asked him some questions thereon a few days before to which he was then too busy to reply and he gave me this opportunity of repeating them. Mivart had said If then such innate powers must be attributed to chemical atoms, to mineral species, to gemmules, and to physiological units, it is only reasonable to attribute such to each individual organism p. 260, I asked on what grounds this line of approach was unreasonable for even then there was lurking within me some touch of Pelagian heresy in matters evolutionary. Far from snub bing a youthful heretic he dealt kindly with him. The question, he said, was open to discussion but he thought Mivarts position was based on considerations other than scientific. Any analogy between the growth of a crystal and the development of an organism was of very doubtful validity. Yes, Sir 1 I said, save in this that both invite us to distinguish between an internal factor and the incidence of external conditions He then asked what I under stood by innate powers, saying that for Mivart they were the substantial forms of scholastic tradition. I ventured to suggest that the School men and their modern disciples were trying to explain what men of science must perhaps just accept on the evidence. And I asked whether for an innate power in the organism one might substitute what he had taught us to call an internal metamorphic tendency which must be as distinctly recognised as that of an internal conservative tendency H. E. ii. p. 116. Of course you may so long as you regard this merely as an ex pression of certain facts at present unexplained. n I then asked whether it was in this sense one should accept his statement that nature does make leaps ii. pp. 77, 97 and, if this were so, whether the difference on which Mivart laid so much stress that between the mental capacities of animals and of men might not be regarded as a natural leap in evolutionary progress. This was the point to which I was leading up...