We find in numerous philosophical traditions the idea that human activity plays a key role in construction of the world, whether through conceptualization of an originally undifferentiated “world-stuff”, constructive idealist views such as those of Yogacara Buddhists, or other forms of the view. Here I look at two versions of this idea that share a similar position concerning the relationship of communal to individual activity, in order to better understand the relationship between these two forms of activity in theories of human construction of the world, as well as the ways the stress changes dependent on the social concerns associated with these theories. In particular, I discuss the Classic Maya account of the constructive element of ritual performance, and the view of the Five Percent Nation/Nation of Gods and Earths, a black nationalist movement in the U.S. that began in the mid 1960s, of the self as the “sole controller” and creator, grounding this view in communal discourse that develops the individual. In each of these systems, we find a picture of the necessary interplay between individual and communal activity, even while communal action is centered in the Maya view and individual action is centered in the NGE view. This difference, I argue, is primarily explained by key differences in the social meanings and implications of these theories in their respective societal contexts.

In “A Method for Metaethics,” Velleman considers the question “What turns a fact into a reason for acting?” but he doesn’t answer the question; rather, he proposes a method for finding the answer. He arrives at that method by considering the views of historical figures such as Aristotle and David Hume as well as the 20th-century philosophers Elizabeth Anscombe, Donald Davidson, and Bernard Williams. The method he proposes cannot be derived from the mere concept of a reason for acting, but he suggests that we cannot derive a theory of reasons for acting by simply analyzing that concept.

Philosophers used to take it that developing an account of the highest good was crucial to work in ethics and political philosophy, and, on some views, even to work in speculative or theoretical philosophy. An account of the highest good was supposed to ground accounts of how one should live (given one's situation) and what one should do (under one's circumstances). In this talk, Vogler will explore the topic of the highest good with special emphasis on the accounts of it provided by Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Vogler will urge that we ought to revive interest in this lost topic.