History of Western Philosophy

AbstractŁukasiewicz introduced a new methodological approach to the history of logic. It consists of the use of modern formal logic in the research of the history of logic. Although he was not the first to use formal logic in his historical research, Łukasiewicz was the first who used it consistently and formulated it as a requirement for a historian of logic. The aim of this paper is to present Łukasiewicz's contribution and the history of its formulation. In addition, the paper (...) will present its reception. There are two main themes in Łukasiewicz’s work on the history of logic. He discussed Stoic logic and Aristotle’s syllogistic. The second part of the paper focuses on current reception of Łukasiewicz’s contribution and on the question of whether there is a difference between knowledge about his contribution to Stoic logic and to Aristotle’s syllogistic, given that it has been hypothesised that Łukasiewicz’s contribution is currently more known among Aristotelian scholars than among those who focus on Stoic logic. Based on the papers that have appeared in the last five years at Web of Science and Scopus this hypothesis has not been confirmed. (shrink)

Avoiding partisan diatribe, Left Wing, Right Wing, People, and Power traces the historical development of the left wing and the right wing to reveal that the core of politics is the conflict over power. Despite specific differences of time and place, political actions are consistently efforts to preserve or change the structure and dynamics of power. With this insight, we can better understand political positions and actions. -/- Written in an accessible style, this book will inform readers regardless of where (...) they see themselves on the political spectrum. With clear but nuanced definitions of political ideologies and movements, the author shows how politics is people seeking to express and expand their power in the social space around them. Thus, the clash of the left and right wings is not about grand ideologies but instead is about power relations and the flow of power among people. (shrink)

It is often assumed that Epicurean happiness can be achieved by everyone alike. This paper offers a corrective to this view. While it is true that the Epicureans abolish traditional differences among people like those between the sexes, social classes, and so on, they also maintain that there are people who are incapable of achieving happiness because they lack a certain bodily make-up or because they do not have the right ethnic or cultural origin.

De Cruz and Levy, in their commentaries on Religion as Make-Believe, present distinct questions that can be addressed by clarifying one core idea. De Cruz asks whether one can rationally assess the mental state of religious credence that I theorize. Levy asks why we should not explain the data on religious “belief” merely by positing factual beliefs with religious contents, which happen to be rationally acquired through testimony. To both, I say that having religious credences is p-irrational: a purposeful departure (...) from rational thought and behavior, where the purpose in question is maintaining a group identity. (shrink)

The paper first examines the difference between Wolff’s demonstration of my present existence and Descartes’ intuitive connection of my thinking with my existence. The results of this investigation enable us to analyse two controversial answers to the question of the knowledge of existence in Wolff’s works. The first answer is from Jürgen Stolzenberg, who discusses Wolff’s proof of the statement: I am. The second is written by Luigi Cataldi Madonna, who investigates the concept of contingent existence in Wolff’s works. The (...) problems of the interpretations they propose are different. The first uses in his analysis meanings of central terms that were foreign to Wolff. The second does not pay attention to Wolff’s framework and aims. These difficulties in their interpretations distort what Wolff does and plans in his treatment of the knowledge of existence. Wolff builds a demonstration to prove how we know that we are, because for Wolff there is only science if we prove all that we claim. According to him, philosophy is a science. With this paper I plan to clarify the context of Wolff’s demonstration of my present existence as well as the demonstration itself, to which the analysis of the above two interpretations can contribute. (shrink)

In his article, Florian Vermeiren attributes to Leibniz – like other interpreters before him – the distinction of two different kinds of relations: 1) relations in the proper sense of the word as, for example, the fatherhood subsisting between Sophroniscus and Socrates, which Leibniz considers situated ‘outside the subjects’ involved; 2) relational properties, such as being a father, inherent in Sophroniscus. The distinction is clearly present in Leibniz’s writings. According to Vermeiren, Leibniz considers ‘purely mental’ only the relations ‘out of (...) the subjects’ and not the relational predicates, by means of which, on the other hand, the individuals of the Leibnizian world would be truly related. In this sense, therefore, Leibniz would admit the reality of relations, which would play an important role in his ontology. At least since 1686 (the year in which he wrote the Discourse), however, Leibniz states that the world is made only of individuals with their internal modifications: just as there are no properties with a leg in one subject and a leg in another, there are no individuals bound together by any kind of material nexus or ‘real’ ties. Thus, if we make a list of all fathers on the one hand and sons on the other, there remains the problem of how to properly connect the fathers exactly with their sons. Attributing to each of two related individuals a relational property is not enough to connect them. Being a father in David must necessarily refer in some way to Solomon as a son. Leibniz is aware of this, as his attempts to analyze relational propositions in his essays on rational grammar show. Given the sentence ‘Cajus is killed by Titius’ for example, Leibniz attempts to reduce it to an inference between a pair of categorical sentences, each of which attributes a relational predicate to the subject. Relations (and relational properties) result from the substances and their modes, “without producing any change” of themselves but only in virtue of a consequence, that is of a logical inference. The image of the world derived so from the Monadology and other Leibnizian writings is that of a world composed of a collection of isolated individuals, independent of each other and lacking mutual connections. Relational properties correspond to internal modifications of each individual: the second term, in the case of binary relations (the ‘external’ one: Helen, if Paris loves Helen) is resolved into an internal representation (of Paris, in this case). It is God who coordinates the various representations of individuals with each other, to result in a harmonious whole. Since relations are a consequence of the existence of the individual substances with their intrinsic properties, God himself can be said to be the creator of relations, in so far as he calls the individuals into existence. And this is exactly what Leibniz states, in his commentary on Temmik’s book. (shrink)

Though accepting the traditional view that truth and falsity are properties of propositions and judgments, Leibniz does not refrain from predicating truth and falsity of pre-judgmental items such as ideas, which he considers to be true iff logically consistent, and false otherwise. Elsewhere, however, Leibniz claims that ideas are true or false only insofar as they include the (true or false) affirmation that their object is possible. This paper aims to cast light on Leibniz’s doctrine of ideas as truth-bearers by (...) exploring its historical background. On the one hand, Leibniz’s pronouncements reflect his reaction to the post-Cartesian debates. On the other hand, they appear to be inspired from Aquinas’s doctrine of accidental falsity. (shrink)

In the lead article, Vardoulakis argues that Heidegger elides and occludes animportant difference between two senses of what it means for something to becalculable. On the one hand, there is‘that which can be calculated with somecertainty’, which Vardoulakis dubs the‘calculated’. On the other, there is‘calculating’, the process of proceeding‘even though we know that such acalculation can never be certain or secure as it lacks a determinate measurement’.Iwant to suggest, however, that such a distinction does play a significant role inHeidegger’s work, (...) albeit in an unexpected place: his analyses of time. I will traceout what I consider to be two likely manifestations of the different senses of thecalculable. Turningfirst toBeing and Time, I will propose that we can read therelationship between world-time and now-time through this lens. For Heidegger,the pernicious factor that gives rise to the ordinary conception of time is not time’scalculability as such, but rather the dominance of what Vardoulakis calls thecalculated. Secondly, I want to draw out the role that the dynamic betweencalculating and calculated can be seen to play in Heidegger’s analyses of theAnaximander fragment, especially the way he distinguishes time’s‘allocationcharacter’(Zuweisungscharakter) from mere‘numerability’. (shrink)

This article is written in the memory of Marcelo Dascal, and is conceived as an imaginary answer to a question put by him to the author: what is the point – given a shared non-religious, even atheistic, outlook – in translating (into the Hebrew) of Leibniz’s Théodicée? The two main theses of this imagined answer are: 1. That there is in the Théodicée a moral theory, partly implicit but irreducible and relatively independent of its theological content, and that this theory (...) is based on a paradoxical – but original and important – concept of moral necessity, extracted from the theory of the absolute need to choose the best possible; 2. That this concept of moral necessity may be developed into a theory of responsibility, looking back to the need to give accounts about what has been done (or not done), and forward, to what has to be done (or not) now. (shrink)

This paper challenges Mugnai’s conceptualist reading of Leibniz’s theory of relations. I specifically question his idea that relational accidents are mental additions to absolute foundations. I examine some of the evidence on which he relies. Most importantly, I question his interpretation of Leibniz’s rejection of purely extrinsic denominations (abbreviated “NPED”) as stating that relations result from non-relational foundations. Mugnai thereby understands Leibniz’s notion of ‘extrinsic’ as ‘relational’ or ‘relative’. Such a reading contradicts both Leibniz’s definition of ‘extrinsic denominations’ and the (...) scholastic meaning of this notion. Furthermore, Leibniz’s use of NPED shows that some relations are intrinsic denominations. Additionally, I argue that conceptual relations cannot do all the work in Leibniz’s metaphysics. Fundamental notions such as expression, order and, most importantly, coexistence rely on non-conceptual relations. (shrink)

Many of the concepts analysed by philosophers have their origin in ordinary – or at least extra-philosophical – language. Perception, knowledge, causation, and mind are examples. But the concept of substance is a philosophical term of art. Its uses in ordinary language tend to derive, often in a rather distorted way, from the philosophical senses. There is an ordinary concept in play when philosophers discuss “substance”, and this, as we shall see, is the concept of object, or thing when this (...) is contrasted with properties or events. But such “individual substances” are never termed “substances” outside philosophy. -/- There exist two rather different ways of characterising the philosophical concept of substance. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term “substance” comes from an early Latin translation of the Greek ousia. Ousia is a noun derived from the verb “einai” (to be) and is naturally translated “being”. According to the generic sense, substances are those things that best merit the title “beings”. This is usually interpreted to mean those things that are the foundational or fundamental entities of a given philosophical system. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed. In David Hume’s system, impressions and ideas are the substances, for the same reason. In a slightly different way, Forms are Plato’s substances, for everything derives its existence from Forms. -/- The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this usage, substances are a particular kind of entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not. This conception of substance derives from the intuitive notion of individual thing or object, which contrasts mainly with properties and events. According to this usage, it is a live issue whether the fundamental entities are substances or something else, such as events, or properties located at space-times. The issue is how we are to understand the notion of an object, and whether, in the light of the correct understanding, it remains a basic notion, or one that must be characterised in more fundamental terms. Whether, for example, an object can be thought of as nothing more than a bundle of properties, or a series of events. -/- The reason “substance” has acquired these two usages is that the work that introduced the term to philosophy, Aristotle’s Categories, claims that the things that most merit the title “beings” (substances in the generic sense) are individual objects as opposed to properties or events (substances in the specific sense). (shrink)

O pensamento de Leibniz foi, sem dúvida, essencial para o desenvolvimento das linhas fundamentais da filosofia crítico-transcendental de Kant. A interlocução entre Kant e Leibniz é evidente no decorrer do pensamento kantiano, seja diretamente, nos diversos momentos em que Kant busca um enfrentamento explícito com seu predecessor, seja indiretamente, quando Kant discute com os autores da escolástica alemã que são considerados discípulos de Leibniz Pretendo observar, em particular, que uma das discussões pouco noticiadas, mas de grande relevância para o desenvolvimento (...) do pensamento kantiano, é aquela em relação ao problema da teodiceia. Com isso em foco, meu objetivo nesse capítulo é o de tentar mostrar alguns aspectos do diálogo de Kant com a teodiceia de Leibniz. Primeiro, apresentarei alguns aspectos da teodiceia de Leibniz. Depois, mostrarei o tratamento que Kant dispensa ao problema da teodiceia em alguns de seus escritos iniciais. Por fim, apresentarei o seu tratamento no período crítico, da maneira como se expõe em um artigo de 1791 intitulado Sobre o Fracasso de todas as Tentativas Filosóficas na Teodiceia. De modo complementar, ao abordar o problema no período crítico, farei algumas remissões às três Críticas, às Lições sobre a Doutrina Filosófica da Religião de 1783/84, às Lições de Ética e à Religião nos Limites da Simples Razão de 1793. (shrink)

Arguments from consciousness to God’s existence (ACs) contend that physicalism is too problematic to explain the mind’s ultimate source. They add that theism probably better explains this source in terms of God making us in his own image (with conscious, unified, rational minds). But ACs are problematic too. First, physicalism has various competitors beside theism. Russellian monism and dual-aspect theory are examples. Second, all these theories, including theism, are seriously flawed. For example, it’s tied to traditional dualism, which has causal (...) issues (according to Murphy, Churchland, and other physicalists). But we argue that this theistic dualism can be refined to avoid its issues—and the issues in all other theories. So, it probably explains the mind’s origin better than other theories. We rely here on Lowe’s dualism, where the mind’s subject exists immaterially yet spatially, and is a unified, simple entity (unlike neural aggregates with their quite separate parts). This turns the tables on Churchland, Murphy, and other advocates for scientism. -/- . (shrink)

In Seeing Things as They Are (Searle 2015), Searle developed a direct realist’s theory of perception. According to direct realism, physical objects are directly and immediately perceived. Searle claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception goes against direct realism. For Searle, Berkeley’s theory suggests that only subjective experiences (ideas) are directly and immediately perceived, not physical objects. Contrary to Searle, G. S. Pappas claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception is consistent with the view that physical objects are immediately perceivable (Pappas 1982; (...) Pappas 1987). Given the conflicting interpretations of Berkeley’s theory of perception, this paper attempts to defend Searle’s position on Berkeley’s theory of perception. It refutes Pappas’ interpretation by arguing that he is inconsistent with Berkeley’s theses of ontological phenomenalism and heterogeneity thesis. (shrink)

This is the outline: 1. Introduction – Quelques remarques sur Dieu 2. Science et religion vont-elles se rencontrer ? 3. Le conflit va-t-il tout emporter ? 4. Au coeur du problème : une version sclérosée du dogmatisme 5. Quelle posture pour la rencontre entre science et religion ? 6. Y a-t-il une synthèse à l’horizon ? À quelles conditions ?

This paper aims to elucidate the meanings of the concept of modernity, highlighting its contradictory core and the theoretical and practical implications of this contradiction. To this end, we turn to the works of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), as a paradigmatic intellectual expression of modernity, insofar as the author highlights notions that seem central to understanding the specificity of his time, which are brought together in his reflections on history and human progress, in the context of the enlightenment (...) that is struggling to become effective. We believe it is possible to extract from these reflections an idea of utopia which, although it needs to be cleansed of certain idealistic excesses, ends up representing a perspective that dialogues with Critical Theory, notably with Theodor Adorno (1903-1969). Although he demonstrates the bankruptcy and limits of the philosophical categories that authors such as Kant used to think about modernity, he doesn't discard the concepts in question, but rather puts them under tension, ultimately aiming to unveil the prospects for emancipation from the administered world, which, in the final analysis, have always been present at the heart of modern thought. (shrink)

In this work, we will try to outline the position of desire and representation in the constitution of the capture apparatus of the imperial machine. For this, we will try to represent the way in which the libido itself is represented both in the primitive socius and in the barbarian socius. To carry out this path, we will start from two base texts: the first will be The Anti-Oedipus, where we trace the genesis of production, registration and consumption; together with (...) the text by Thousand Plateaus entitled The Capturing Apparatus, where we highlight the movement of the State's genesis and how, its conception is indifferent to the notion of the modern subject, as it is based on the flows of desire and on its ideal and concrete representations. In addition to this outline, we will seek to establish the influences of Marx and Engels on the conceptions of Deleuze and Guattari, in spite of the process of reflection about the genesis of the State. For this, we take the bibliographies of Marx and Engels indicated by the French authors – referenced in the two texts cited above – in their description of the genesis of the capture apparatus that is the State. Such works are specifically: A Contribution to the Critique of the Political Economy, The German Ideology and the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts. (shrink)

Augustine’s sermons on the Psalms of Ascent, part of the Enarrationes in Psalmos, are a unique entry in the venerable tradition of those writings that aim to help us ascend to a higher reality. These sermons transform the ascent genre by giving, in the place of the Platonic account of ascent, a Christian ascent narrative with a Trinitarian structure. Not just the individual ascends, but the community that is the church, the body of Christ, also ascends. The ascent is up (...) to God, the Idipsum or the Selfsame, the ultimate reality, confessed by the church as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Through the grace of the Incarnation, God the Son enables us to ascend, making himself the way of ascent from the humility we must imitate at the beginning of the ascent all the way up to Heaven, where he retains his identity as Idipsum. Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit works in the ascending church to convert our hearts to the love of God and neighbor. I review the Platonic ascent tradition in Plato’s Republic and Plotinus’ Enneads; overview ascent in some of Augustine’s earlier writings; introduce the narrative setting of the sermons on the Psalms of Ascent; and analyze the Trinitarian structure of their ascent narrative. I close with some reflections on the difference between a preached Trinitarianism that encourages ascent and a more academic effort to understand God such as we find in Augustine’s de Trinitate. (shrink)

This article has two tasks: to investigate the notions of space, time and causality in Schopenhauer’s theory of knowledge and, subsequently, to carry out a comparative study of the results obtained with the epistemological considerations between the first and second phase of Nietzsche’s thought. It is understood that conclusions concerning the world as representation had an echo in the first digressions of the author of The Birth of Tragedy on the conceptions of space, time and causality. However, the departures begin (...) to be perceived still in the first years of the 1870s. It is chosen to call the reflections on knowledge until On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense, considering, besides the unsystematicity of the Nietzschean approaches, the maturation of the epistemological investigations in Human, All Too Human. It is discussed how the naturalistic aspects of the second phase of Nietzsche’s intellectual activity find implications in his conceptions of space, time and, above all, causality. It is emphasized, however, that it is not the intention of this work to argue that Nietzsche’s epistemology is originally derived from Schopenhauer or that it depends exclusively on the notions studied here. (shrink)

This article is the result of a bibliographic and hermeneutic investigation. In the light of Hannah Arendt's thought, the writing thematizes the representativeness of the conception of human plurality present in the reflections of Socrates and Plato. First, it investigates how the conception of plurality is present in the thought of Socrates, considered by Arendt, a political philosopher par excellence and the one who established plurality as the law of the Earth. Therefore, the conception of plurality manifested in Plato's reflections (...) is analyzed and, mainly, some of the consequences resulting from Socrates' condemnation and death. We consider this confrontation essential to recover and/or point out the importance of plurality in spaces of social participation, accomplishing with others what certainly could not be done alone and/or isolated. Plurality is, therefore, composed of singularities, and the fact that we are together with other singular beings is what impels us to communicate with each other. (shrink)

This article evaluates the political implications of Thomas Hobbes’s extensive treatment of religion by taking up the motif of the Eucharist (and accompanying doctrine of transubstantiation) in Leviathan. Hobbes holds out transubstantiation as an exemplar of absurdity and an historical outgrowth of Christianity’s inauspicious meeting with pagan practices. At the same time, Leviathan contains allusions to eucharistic imagery in its narration of the generation of the “Mortal God,” the commonwealth, as the incorporation of a civil body. These conflicting sentiments are (...) illustrative of a wider tension running through Hobbes’s thought. Although Hobbes’s repudiation of superstition is well-known, it stands in stark contrast to Leviathan’s treatment of Christianity as an exemplar of “true” religion. The varied allusions to eucharistic doctrine illustrate how proper use might be made of a persistent “natural religiosity.” Both in its consonance with reason and its political logic, Christianity remains a politically constructive expression of “power invisible.”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt by Tim MilnesMargaret WatkinsTim Milnes. The Testimony of Sense: Empiricism and the Essay from Hume to Hazlitt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Pp. viii + 278. Hardback. ISBN: 9780198812739. $91.00.In his brief autobiography, “My Own Life,” Hume reports that “almost all [his] life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations” (E-MOL: xxxi). This is one (...) of at least ten places in this brief work in which he associates himself with “letters” or “literature”—as compared to at most four associations with philosophy. The moral to be inferred is not that Hume considered himself not to be a philosopher. Rather, he conceived of philosophy as a kind of literature. The Treatise was itself a “literary attempt.” Indeed, opposition between the “literary” and “philosophical” aspects of a text would have been foreign to Hume and his contemporaries—a notion for a later age, despite his occasional loose distinction between the relevant genres, as in his list of writings “historical, philosophical, or literary” in “My Own Life” (E-MOL: xxxvi).Yet despite Hume’s own understanding of the continuity between philosophy and literature, broadly conceived, it is still common for contemporary philosophers to ignore literary questions in their examination of Hume’s work, or to presume that one can easily distinguish the “philosophical” parts from the “literary” ones. Tim Milnes’s The Testimony of Sense is therefore a welcome addition to the Hume literature (pun intended). With a particular focus on the essay—a genre of great importance to Hume—Milnes contributes to the small set of engagements with Hume from the disciplinary perspective of English literature. With training in both philosophy and literature, as well as established expertise on Romanticism and its own essays, Milnes is well-qualified for the task. The Testimony of Sense includes sustained engagement with Hume’s contemporaries and successors, but for the purposes of this review, I engage the book primarily as a Hume scholar for Hume scholars.Milnes’s story plays out in three acts. The first establishes the need for public trust created by a skeptical crisis, itself a product of Hume’s criticism of the epistemic program of thinkers in the Cartesian and Lockean traditions. The second explains how the essays of the long eighteenth century constitute a response to that need in various ways. The third reveals in detail how the Romantic essayists, particularly William Hazlitt and Charles Lamb, both respond to and deviate from the “neoclassical” essayists, typified by Hume and Samuel Johnson.The first chapter, “Self and Intersubjectivity,” lays the groundwork by articulating how Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart identify the need for what we now call intersubjectivity. Milnes describes the common thread as a kind of “natural transcendentalism.” In what sense are these thinkers properly understood as [End Page 175] transcendentalists? The central idea seems to be that all posit things other than reason as “conditions of meaningful thought” (72). For Hume, it is the social, linguistic experience of a community of virtuous judges. The intricate relations between self and other essential to such a community get “internalized within the specular drama of the impartial spectator” (72) in Smith’s writing, which itself takes part in the drama through his “halting, qualified syntax” that mimics “everyday speech” (44). Reid posits a “prescience” of trust, which grounds our reliance on both human testimony and the uniformity of nature, itself undergirded by the design of a benevolent God. Stewart, who posits axiomatic truths that help constitute the “stamina of intellect,” goes furthest, actually calling these truths transcendental (55). This chapter also puts these eighteenth-century thinkers in conversation with twentieth-century theorists, including Habermas, Davidson, and Rorty.Chapter 2, “The Subject of Trust,” deepens the analysis by situating these “natural transcendentalisms” in the broader enlightenment context. In contrast to Descartes, Bacon, and Locke, who were suspicious of our reliance on the opinions of others, the eighteenth-century thinkers understand trust as prior to reason in various ways—though not prior to solidarity. The particulars in each case depend on their responses to skepticism and their accounts of the relation between... (shrink)

In the Transcendental Dialectic of the Critique of Pure Reason (1787), Kant argues for the impossibility of theistic arguments, namely the ontological, cosmological, and physico-theological arguments. However, his objection relies on his classification of theistic arguments, which has been criticized by analytical philosophers of religion such as Plantinga (2012) and Swinburne (2019). Therefore, this paper aims to critically investigate two problems related to this classification: the systematic criteria of its classification and the historical sufficiency of its three theistic proofs. Regarding (...) the first problem, it will be argued that it is possible to recognize a certain systematic artificiality in Kant's classification of theistic proofs, given the criticisms of Strawson (1966) and Hegel (1812, 1830), as well as the internal critique developed by the authors of this work. Regarding the second problem, it will be argued that it is possible to indicate a certain historical insufficiency in Kant's classification of the three theistic proofs, based on brief critiques focused on some classical theologians such as Anselm, Aquinas, and Al-Ghazali. Finally, once it is justified that Kant's objection depends on this possibly artificial and insufficient classification, it will be briefly indicated that Kant does not seem as justified as he intended in his objection to theistic arguments. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to point out five aspects of Nietzschean thought that may be relevant to debates in the philosophy of science around the nature and representation of scientific knowledge. To this end, a literature review is carried out with the aim of selecting excerpts from Nietzschean works such as The Birth of Tragedy, Genealogy of Morals, The Gay Science and others that allow us to interpret Nietzsche as a philosopher of science concerned with the construction of (...) scientific knowledge about the physical reality. As a result, it is possible to identify an epistemological proposal in the Nietzschean perspective, whose objective representation of the world should point to an aesthetics of life. (shrink)