Concordance to Concepts and Categories

All impressions of the first edition (1978/1979) use the same typesetting, and therefore the same pagination, except for the 1999 Pimlico edition, in which an updated editor’s preface precedes the author’s preface, instead of following it, as in previous impressions. The second edition (2013) was completely reset. This concordance facilitates the conversion of page references to the first edition into page references to the second. The text of the second edition, which has been revised throughout, and added to, should be used in all new and revised translations. The concordance does not include the 2013 foreword or appendix.

First
edition		 First Line (first edition, first
impression/1999 impression)		 1999 Second
edition
vii Some of these articles were written xi xxv
viii natural sciences or mathematics; the other xii xxvi
ix This is the second/This is one of five vii xix
x Goal’ in Leonard Russell (ed.), viii xxi
xi Isaiah Berlin is most widely known for xiii xxix
xii papers can, and surely do, preserve the xiv xxx
xiii This unacceptably idealist equivalence, xv xxxi
xiv correct account of the constitution of xvi xxxii
xv no general theoretical critique xvii xxxiii
xvi right?’). What above all concerns xviii xxxv
xvii the interests of general utility or xix xxxvi
xviii in the name of honesty, or truthfulness xx xxxvii
1 What is the subject-matter of philosophy? 1
2 logic, or grammar, or chess, or heraldry 2
3 mirror, which it would find to consist 3
4 possessing unquestionable authority or 4
5 of astronomy created, leaving behind 6
6 that had achieved so magnificent a 7
7 clarification and establish the human 8
8 they followed the commandments that 10
9 different sets of spectacles, using 11
10 at present – all these are models in 13
11 desires and needs of others – it 14
12 This paper is an attempt to estimate 15
13 [state]ment any sentence which 16
14 was too vague and excluded too little 17
15 expresses a proposition, without 18
16 a sentence for example as ‘It was 20
17 unless one can say that there could be 21
18 and categorical, but not to be conclusively 22
19 altogether. Ayer, conscious this perhaps 24
20 By far the most ingenious attempt to 25
21 absurdities resulted. I verify the 26
22 assert, for example, that if I look up I 28
23 omnisentient being which is in all 29
24 right a proposition which in suitable 30
25 conclusively. In all possible cases 31
26 3 This brings us to the third type 33
27 necessarily elude observation; when for 34
28 explained by the fact that m is vague 35
29 be no more absurd to say that he 37
30 phenomenalism which this entails it 38
31 similar to significant ones. Such a 39
32 It is becoming fashion amongst 41
33 language of science could, with no 42
34 [pro]positions involves the possibility 43
35 objects had been unjustifiably 45
36 object as definable in terms of it. 46
37 above – has not been kept 47
38 the theorem asserts is considered 49
39 America, then I agree – and 50
40 to which can be discovered by ordinary 51
41 an intermittent series of actual data 53
42 modern European languages – which 54
43 referring directly or indirectly to 55
44 in meaning any sentence not asserting 56
45 Johnson’s well known attitude does 58
46 causal. I cannot point to the table 59
47 in particular of proper names – 60
48 of indication of how sentences mean’ 62
49 categorical propositions, by contrast 63
50 etc. may be true and yet nothing exist 64
51 (dispositional) about the one next door 66
52 not directly verifiable, and consequently 67
53 light or heavy? Surely the sense datum 68
54 necessary or sufficient conditions of the 70
55 most prevalent modern form of it 71
56 There is a cluster of problems which have 72
57 amount of ingenuity has been used 73
58 is then assumed to be one of simple 74
59 mathematical physics foremost; Locke 75
60 perhaps, the ‘meanings’ of some categorical 77
61 requiring a minimum of certain definite 78
62 Leaving aside for the moment what would 79
63 propositions as hypothetical or general 81
64 themselves directly controvertible into 82
65 far as the blood royal of the genuine 83
66 moreover of accommodating games, Utopias, 85
67 of singular propositions were general ones 86
68 these, as soon as invoked, harden into terms 87
69 be of the same logical type, for there 89
70 be without interest to consider the nature 90
71 the information we mean them to convey? 91
72 characteristics to our data by means of the 93
73 of singular statements does it belong?’ 94
74 to discredit. But the method is obviously being 95–6
75 ever, the notion that because there were 97
76 every species of proposition as combinations 98
77 names of such ultimate constituents, molecular 99
78 need never slip; by contracting our claims 101
79 merely discomfiting but in some way 102
80 they may wish to communicate; and for this 104
81 ‘Every man to count for one and no one 106
82 standards of justice, divinely sanctioned 107
83 the principle in this way leaves open crucial 108
84 A society in which every member holds an equal 110
85 promote equality of behaviour or treatment 111
86 system, which consists entirely of rules, and is 112
87 egalitarianism seems to entail that any rule 113–14
88 rule that it is bad or iniquitous need not 115
89 expression, where both the use and recognition 116
90 derive much force from an intimate connection 117
91 sources of unequal rights, or furnish good 119
92 conductorless orchestra is not feasible, then 120
93 an end in itself, but as the end, 121
94 birth, or colour, which human beings cannot 123
95 criterion of equality has plainly been 124
96 the propositions which describe what should 125
97 demand for fairness. The notions of equality 127
98 to balance the claims of, ends or values 128
99 natural social hierarchy, like Burke 129
100 and would regard it as ‘fairer’ if some 131
101 treat all men alike in like situations 132
102 one that did. In its extreme form egalitarianism 133
103 History, according to Aristotle, is an 135
104 from them; there were those who defiantly 136
105 School has emphasised since the days of Bossuet 137
106 all social problems by means of a scientific 138–9
107 by the magnificent progress of the natural 140
108 and experiences. Metaphorical and misleading 141
109 which are entailed by our whole [way of] thinking 142
110 to conceive the history of an institution as an 144
111 – more dependable – avenue to factual 145
112 is, by the rules of our ordinary logic, 146
113 prisoners of their theories; they are accused 147
114 of even the most rudimentary science; and 149
115 itself not open to inductive or deductive 150
116 range or dependability (or specifiability) 151
117 be capable of being estimated with a fair 153
118 could his answer be? He might hesitantly 154
119 are in this way recorded. In the case of 155
120 the unknown. It follows from this that 157
121 consideration of economists psychological 158
122 and economic facts and events. But I am able 159
123 What was there in France in the eighteenth 160
124 an interrelated social whole, obtained from 162
125 due to rational or purposive, and what to 163
126 grappled with the problem: Leibniz and Hegel 164
127 resent the arrogant and strong’, or 166
128 accept them, the answer must surely be that 167
129 based on an inductively reached conclusion 168
130 my situation vis-à-vis other conscious 170
131 heap them into one, and reel off a 171
132 have so notably done), but the function 172
133 merely as organisms in space, the regularities 174
134 be sustained, it must be, as the generalisations 175
135 course, it is a priori (as Vico 176
136 that cannot but be his own, is a task that 178
137 archaeologist, but not those of an historian 179
138 alone gives its sense to the very notion of 180
139 arise. But the descriptive and explanatory 181
140 beings, as we understand the term, could have 183
141 with a logic of its own. It is the ‘logic’ 184
142 of particular events, persons, predicaments 185
143 Is there still such a subject as political theory? 187
144 This type of systematic parricide is, in effect 188
145 criminal law functions or why Mr Kennedy 189
146 evidence for an answer and what would not 190
147 sociology, too large to be considered 192
148 to an intellectual pursuit is clearly not 193
149 created and old ones destroyed – expressions 194
150 priorities and ultimate ends, is possible, is 195
151 but elements in it or expressions of it 197
152 questions presupposes a pluralism of values 198
153 It is at this point that the deep division 199
154 Here too stand those twentieth-century 201
155 that a man has, and on the place that 202
156 creation of a demiurge, in which freedom 203
157 model. Those who are obsessed by one model 205
158 To suppose, then, that there have been or 206
159 social contract is a model which to this day 207
160 – experienced events, ‘inner’ or ‘outer’ 209
161 based on empirical data and the methods of 210
162 theology, or perhaps in some other discipline 211
163 order and interpret data. To analyse 213
164 in thinking of human beings as human, and 214
165 analysis of which Kant transformed philosophy 215
166 words available to us as we are today 216
167 Extreme cases of this sort are of philosophical 218
168 and bold and fruitful hypothesis will explain 219
169 incoherent solutions of the past without 220
170 ‘scientism’ in political ethics. Some of 221–2
171 speculation. But this merely takes the argument 223
172 of our beliefs. We may be conditions to 224
173 Does knowledge always liberate? 226
174 where the frontier dividing the external world 227
175 [com]pulsive behaviour. True liberty 228
176 know that I am liable to epileptic fits, or 229
177 avoid this burden, there is a tendency 231
178 to my sweet will, in accordance with principles 232
179 compulsion is itself the result of an earlier 233
180 perhaps necessarily so – this Baconian 235
181 to resist them, they were as stocks and stones 236
182 oneself whether it makes sense to ask 237
183 that his capacity for freedom of choice is 239
184 irrational and obsolete; it will expose such 240
185 acceptable alternatives can ever present itself 241
186 x can predict the total behaviour of y 243
187 cannot in principle be predictive. That, if I 244
188 In other words, I see no reason to suppose 245
189 of one’s own and others’ conduct, would 246
190 describe a man as being free if his conduct 248
191 inspected and rationally examined – these 249
192 Even if no hard and fast rule can be provided 250
193 It is worth noting that it is the actual doors 252
194 their rhetorical force from the fact that there 253
195 self-determination; for I can now give a 254
196 successfully. If David had known more 255
197 as we now think the burning of widows or eating 257
198 not of knowing that, but of knowing what to do 258