A short time ago the idea of sustainable agriculture was accepted only at the extreme margins of the U. S. agricultural systems. Although sustainability has now become a major theme of many U. S. agricultural groups, there remains much under-explored terrain in the meaning of sustainable agriculture. A thorough examination of who and what we want to sustain and how we can sustain them is critical if sustainable agriculture is to be a practical improvement over conventional agriculture. In order to (...) begin this effort, this article analyzes contemporary sustainable agriculture discourse and suggests alternatives for reconceptualizing sustainable agriculture. In particular we look at three arenas of sustainable discourse-family farm/rural community preservation, food safety, and agricultural science-and address issues of class, race/ethnicity, and gender found in current sustainability positions. We find that while advocates of sustainability have succeeded in pushing agricultural researchers and policy makers to address environmental issues, we need to go much farther both in theory and practice in order to deal with equally important issues of social equity. © 1992 Kluwer Academic Publishers. (shrink)

SummaryP. Vardy asserts the thesis that the vicious circle principle has the same structure as Russell's paradox. But structure is not the thing itself. It is the thing objectivated from the wiewpoint of a mathematician. So this structure can be expressed in a mathematical formalism, e. g. the Λ‐calculus. Russell's paradox is understood as a result of the error of taking purely logical concepts, like negation, as lkiewise formalisable without change of meaning. The illusion of meaning in the liar's proposition: (...) Yl'am telling a lie can also be explained be the formalisable self‐referential structure of this proposition. Yet it remains an illusion because the logical intention cannot follow the structure.ResumeLe « Principe du cercle vicieux » a la même structure que le paradoxe de Russel: c'est une thèse de P. Várdy. Mais la structure n'est pas la chose même. Elle est la chose objectivée du point de vue du mathématicien et peut done être exprimée dans un formalisme mathématique, p. ex. le Λ‐calcul. L'erreur qui conduit au paradoxe de Russel, c'est de juger des concepts purement logique, p. ex. la négation, comme étant également exprimable dans un formalisme sans que leur sens ne change.L'illusion de sens que donne l'énoncé«je mens» dans le paradoxe du menteur peut aussi être expliquée par la structure formalisable d'autoréférence de cette proposition. Mais l'illusion persiste, parce que l'intention logique ne peut pas suivre la structure.ZusammenfassungRussells «Vicious circle principle» hat dieselbe Struktur wie die Russellsche Antinamie. So lautet die These P. Várdys. Aber die Struktur ist nicht die Sache selbst, sondern nur die vom mathematischen Standpunkte aus objektivierte Sache, die in einem Formalis‐onus ausgedrückt werden kann. Die Antinomie Russells wird Als Folge der irrigen Auffassung verstanden, rein logische Begriffe, wie z. B. die Negation, konnten formalisiert werden, ohne dass dabei ihr Sinn verwandelt würde. Die Sinnillusion des Satzes «Ich lüge» kann dann auch aus der selbstbezüglichen formalen Struktur des Satzes erklärt werden. Doch bleibt dies blosse Illusion, weil die logische Intention der Struktur nicht gerecht werden kann. (shrink)

Modern Studies in Philosophy, we are informed on the page facing the title-page, "is a series of anthologies presenting contemporary interpretations and evaluations of the works of major philosophers." The volumes are "intended to be contributions to contemporary debates as well as to the history of philosophy; they not only trace the origins of many problems important to modern philosophy, but also introduce major philosophers as interlocutors in current discussions." In the first of the two volumes on Plato three of (...) the articles chosen by Gregory Vlastos have not appeared elsewhere: Julius Moravcsik, Learning as Recollection; G. E. L. Owen, Plato on Not-Being; David Higgins, Sentence Meaning, Negation, and Plato's Problem of Non-Being. The other studies in Volume One are reprints: R. Robinson and J. D. Denniston, Plato; H. F. Cherniss, The Philosophical Economy of the Theory of Ideas; A. Wedberg, The Theory of Ideas; R. C. Cross and A. D. Woozley, Knowledge, Belief and the Forms; R. Robinson, Hypothesis in the Republic; G. Vlastos, Reasons and Causes in the Phaedo; R. E. Allen, Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues; Colin Strang, Plato and the Third Man; J. L. Ackrill, Symplokë eidön; J. L. Ackrill, Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251-259. In Volume Two Terry Penner, "Thought and Desire in Plato" has not been published before. The others have: Paul Shorey, Plato's Ethics; David Sachs, A Fallacy in Plato's Republic; Raphael Demos, A Fallacy in Plato's Republic?; J. D. Mabbott, Is Plato's Republic Utilitarian?; G. Vlastos, Justice and Happiness in the Republic; F. M. Cornford, The Doctrine of Eros in Plato's Symposium; R. A. Markus, The Doctrine of Eros in Plato's Symposium; Glenn R. Morrow, Plato and the Rule of Law; Wayne A. R. Leys, Was Plato Non-Political?; F. E. Sparshott, Plato as Anti-Political Thinker; Renford Bambrough, Plato's Political Analogies; E. R. Dodds, Plato and the Irrational Soul; W. K. C. Guthrie, Plato's Views on the Nature of the Soul; Harold Cherniss, The Sources of Evil According to Plato; W. J. Verdenius, Plato's Doctrines of Artistic Imitation. Obviously, the above listed articles will be welcome to those debating issues in Plato and to historians of twentieth-century philosophy. There are two difficulties, however. The print is too small in the body of the text and is nearly microscopic in the footnotes and diagrams. Reading thus becomes almost painful. Margins to the left, right, top and bottom of the pages are practically nonexistent. On occasion footnote material is misplaced--for example, the comment on Strang's article as originally published elsewhere should be on p. 184, not on p. 187, of Volume One. But a greater problem is the fact that almost all the articles on metaphysics and epistemology are by linguistic analysts. Vlastos in his introductory remarks admits as much: "Volume One is heavily weighted on the 'analytical' side." He reports the statement of an un-named advocate of conceptual analysis "that these [analytic] methods now enable us to understand Plato better than he was ever understood by anyone in history--better than by any of his own contemporaries, even better than by himself!" He disclaims such euphoria but insists "there is an element of truth in it after all" insofar as analytic tools can alert a student to ambiguity and its consequences in some of Plato's sentences. Hence, "if we come across such sentences in Plato, it would be plainly true to say that we can understand them better than he did and even to add that we can, therefore, understand him better, since we can see both what he meant to say and the logical liabilities of his incautious sentences." All this is true enough, but a warning still is in order. Linguistic analysts tend to read only some of Plato's dialogues and, even within them, to concentrate on some passages only. This is understandable in view of their interests and the capacity of the analytic technique. But that selectivity might lead them to believe that the Plato thus revealed is the complete and authentic Plato, which it is not. Hence, in reading and teaching Plato one must complement language- and concept-analysis with other approaches. Vlastos himself is aware of this necessity : [[sic]] "Once we have made full allowance for what modern semantics and logic can do to make Plato more intelligible and alive for us today, we should be quick to concede that borrowings from this quarter must be used with economy and discretion, and that continuing reliance on older linguistic and historical disciplines is as essential now as it has ever been in the past if the object of our inquiries is Plato himself, instead of some mock-up more pleasing to current taste." One could only wish that Vlastos had fostered that reliance on other disciplines by including articles of that sort among those he actually chose.--L. S. (shrink)

Goethes Protest gegen Newtons Theorie des Lichts und der Farben ist besser, als man gemeinhin denkt. Man kann diesem Protest in den wichtigsten Elementen folgen, ohne Newton in der physikalischen Sache unrecht zu geben. Laut meiner Interpretation hat Goethe in Newtons wissenschaftsphilosophischer Selbsteinschätzung eine entscheidende Schwäche aufgedeckt: Newton glaubte, mithilfe prismatischer Experimente beweisen zu können, dass das Licht der Sonne aus Lichtstrahlen verschiedener Farben zusammengesetzt sei. Goethe zeigt, dass dieser Übergang vom Beobachtbaren zur Theorie problematischer ist, als Newton wahrhaben wollte. (...) Wenn Goethe darauf beharrt, dass uns der Übergang zur Theorie nicht von den Phänomenen aufgezwungen wird, dann kommt dadurch unser eigener, freier und kreativer Beitrag zur Theorie-Bildung ans Tageslicht. Und diese Einsicht Goethes gewinnt eine überraschende Schärfe, weil Goethe plausibel machen kann, dass sich alle entscheidenden prismatischen Experimente Newtons aus der geometrischen Optik ebenso gut mit einer alternativen Theorie vereinbaren lassen. Wenn ich recht sehe, war Goethe der erste Wissenschaftsphilosoph, der mindestens eine empirisch äquivalente Alternative zu einer wohletablierten physikalischen Theorie gesehen und daraus weitreichende wissenschaftstheoretische Schlüsse gezogen hat: Damit war Goethe seiner Zeit um ein gutes Jahrhundert voraus. (shrink)

Goethes Protest gegen Newtons Theorie des Lichts und der Farben ist besser, als man gemeinhin denkt. Man kann diesem Protest in den wichtigsten Elementen folgen, ohne Newton in der physikalischen Sache unrecht zu geben. Laut meiner Interpretation hat Goethe in Newtons wissenschaftsphilosophischer Selbsteinschätzung eine entscheidende Schwäche aufgedeckt: Newton glaubte, mithilfe prismatischer Experimente beweisen zu können, dass das Licht der Sonne aus Lichtstrahlen verschiedener Farben zusammengesetzt sei. Goethe zeigt, dass dieser Übergang vom Beobachtbaren zur Theorie problematischer ist, als Newton wahrhaben wollte. (...) Wenn Goethe darauf beharrt, dass uns der Übergang zur Theorie nicht von den Phänomenen aufgezwungen wird, dann kommt dadurch unser eigener, freier und kreativer Beitrag zur Theorie-Bildung ans Tageslicht. Und diese Einsicht Goethes gewinnt eine überraschende Schärfe, weil Goethe plausibel machen kann, dass sich alle entscheidenden prismatischen Experimente Newtons ebenso gut mit einer alternativen Theorie vereinbaren lassen. Wenn ich recht sehe, war Goethe der erste Wissenschaftsphilosoph, der mindestens eine empirisch äquivalente Alternative zu einer wohletablierten physikalischen Theorie gesehen hat: Damit war Goethe seiner Zeit um ein gutes Jahrhundert voraus. (shrink)

Modern Studies in Philosophy, we are informed on the page facing the title-page, "is a series of anthologies presenting contemporary interpretations and evaluations of the works of major philosophers." The volumes are "intended to be contributions to contemporary debates as well as to the history of philosophy; they not only trace the origins of many problems important to modern philosophy, but also introduce major philosophers as interlocutors in current discussions." In the first of the two volumes on Plato three of (...) the articles chosen by Gregory Vlastos have not appeared elsewhere: Julius Moravcsik, Learning as Recollection; G. E. L. Owen, Plato on Not-Being; David Higgins, Sentence Meaning, Negation, and Plato's Problem of Non-Being. The other studies in Volume One are reprints: R. Robinson and J. D. Denniston, Plato; H. F. Cherniss, The Philosophical Economy of the Theory of Ideas; A. Wedberg, The Theory of Ideas; R. C. Cross and A. D. Woozley, Knowledge, Belief and the Forms; R. Robinson, Hypothesis in the Republic; G. Vlastos, Reasons and Causes in the Phaedo; R. E. Allen, Participation and Predication in Plato's Middle Dialogues; Colin Strang, Plato and the Third Man; J. L. Ackrill, Symplokë eidön; J. L. Ackrill, Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251-259. In Volume Two Terry Penner, "Thought and Desire in Plato" has not been published before. The others have: Paul Shorey, Plato's Ethics; David Sachs, A Fallacy in Plato's Republic; Raphael Demos, A Fallacy in Plato's Republic?; J. D. Mabbott, Is Plato's Republic Utilitarian?; G. Vlastos, Justice and Happiness in the Republic; F. M. Cornford, The Doctrine of Eros in Plato's Symposium; R. A. Markus, The Doctrine of Eros in Plato's Symposium; Glenn R. Morrow, Plato and the Rule of Law; Wayne A. R. Leys, Was Plato Non-Political?; F. E. Sparshott, Plato as Anti-Political Thinker; Renford Bambrough, Plato's Political Analogies; E. R. Dodds, Plato and the Irrational Soul; W. K. C. Guthrie, Plato's Views on the Nature of the Soul; Harold Cherniss, The Sources of Evil According to Plato; W. J. Verdenius, Plato's Doctrines of Artistic Imitation. Obviously, the above listed articles will be welcome to those debating issues in Plato and to historians of twentieth-century philosophy. There are two difficulties, however. The print is too small in the body of the text and is nearly microscopic in the footnotes and diagrams. Reading thus becomes almost painful. Margins to the left, right, top and bottom of the pages are practically nonexistent. On occasion footnote material is misplaced--for example, the comment on Strang's article as originally published elsewhere should be on p. 184, not on p. 187, of Volume One. But a greater problem is the fact that almost all the articles on metaphysics and epistemology are by linguistic analysts. Vlastos in his introductory remarks admits as much: "Volume One is heavily weighted on the 'analytical' side." He reports the statement of an un-named advocate of conceptual analysis "that these [analytic] methods now enable us to understand Plato better than he was ever understood by anyone in history--better than by any of his own contemporaries, even better than by himself!" He disclaims such euphoria but insists "there is an element of truth in it after all" insofar as analytic tools can alert a student to ambiguity and its consequences in some of Plato's sentences. Hence, "if we come across such sentences in Plato, it would be plainly true to say that we can understand them better than he did and even to add that we can, therefore, understand him better, since we can see both what he meant to say and the logical liabilities of his incautious sentences." All this is true enough, but a warning still is in order. Linguistic analysts tend to read only some of Plato's dialogues and, even within them, to concentrate on some passages only. This is understandable in view of their interests and the capacity of the analytic technique. But that selectivity might lead them to believe that the Plato thus revealed is the complete and authentic Plato, which it is not. Hence, in reading and teaching Plato one must complement language- and concept-analysis with other approaches. Vlastos himself is aware of this necessity : [[sic]] "Once we have made full allowance for what modern semantics and logic can do to make Plato more intelligible and alive for us today, we should be quick to concede that borrowings from this quarter must be used with economy and discretion, and that continuing reliance on older linguistic and historical disciplines is as essential now as it has ever been in the past if the object of our inquiries is Plato himself, instead of some mock-up more pleasing to current taste." One could only wish that Vlastos had fostered that reliance on other disciplines by including articles of that sort among those he actually chose.--L. S. (shrink)

Moritz Schlicks Plädoyer für ein empirisches Fundament unserer Erkenntnis enthält weder reduktionistische noch phänomenalistische Extrempositionen. Seine Beispiele für Fundamentalsätze haben allesamt die Form: Hier jetzt so und so; aber nicht alle diese Sätze sind Fundamentalsätze. Was muss man für die letzten drei Wörter dieses Schemas einsetzen, um wirklich beim Fundament anzukommen? Ich schlage vor, die Frage durch Rückgriff auf das interpretationstheoretische Prinzip des Wohlwollens zu beantworten. Demzufolge sind diejenigen Sätze (der Form Hier jetzt so und so) Fundamentalsätze, über die kein (...) inhaltlicher Streit aufkommen kann; wer bei solchen Sätzen – unter denselben Umständen – zu einem anderen Urteil kommt als wir, der bezeugt dadurch keine Meinungsverschiedenheit in der Sache, sondern nur einen anderen Gebrauch sprachlicher Ausdrücke. Bei welchen Ausdrücken funktioniert dieses Kriterium besonders gut? Einerseits bei Ausdrücken, die mit Gesichtsfeldern zu tun haben; noch besser bei Ausdrücken aus dem eindeutig phänomenalistischen Bereich unserer Sprache. (shrink)

SummaryP. Vardy asserts the thesis that the vicious circle principle has the same structure as Russell's paradox. But structure is not the thing itself. It is the thing objectivated from the wiewpoint of a mathematician. So this structure can be expressed in a mathematical formalism, e. g. the Λ‐calculus. Russell's paradox is understood as a result of the error of taking purely logical concepts, like negation, as lkiewise formalisable without change of meaning. The illusion of meaning in the liar's proposition: (...) Yl'am telling a lie can also be explained be the formalisable self‐referential structure of this proposition. Yet it remains an illusion because the logical intention cannot follow the structure.ResumeLe « Principe du cercle vicieux » a la même structure que le paradoxe de Russel: c'est une thèse de P. Várdy. Mais la structure n'est pas la chose même. Elle est la chose objectivée du point de vue du mathématicien et peut done être exprimée dans un formalisme mathématique, p. ex. le Λ‐calcul. L'erreur qui conduit au paradoxe de Russel, c'est de juger des concepts purement logique, p. ex. la négation, comme étant également exprimable dans un formalisme sans que leur sens ne change.L'illusion de sens que donne l'énoncé«je mens» dans le paradoxe du menteur peut aussi être expliquée par la structure formalisable d'autoréférence de cette proposition. Mais l'illusion persiste, parce que l'intention logique ne peut pas suivre la structure.ZusammenfassungRussells «Vicious circle principle» hat dieselbe Struktur wie die Russellsche Antinamie. So lautet die These P. Várdys. Aber die Struktur ist nicht die Sache selbst, sondern nur die vom mathematischen Standpunkte aus objektivierte Sache, die in einem Formalis‐onus ausgedrückt werden kann. Die Antinomie Russells wird Als Folge der irrigen Auffassung verstanden, rein logische Begriffe, wie z. B. die Negation, konnten formalisiert werden, ohne dass dabei ihr Sinn verwandelt würde. Die Sinnillusion des Satzes «Ich lüge» kann dann auch aus der selbstbezüglichen formalen Struktur des Satzes erklärt werden. Doch bleibt dies blosse Illusion, weil die logische Intention der Struktur nicht gerecht werden kann. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Changing Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God by James C. PetersonDolores L. ChristieChanging Human Nature: Ecology, Ethics, Genes, and God James C. Peterson Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. 259 pp. $18.00Grounding himself in the Christian tradition, James Peterson argues for the moral efficacy of human genetic manipulation. Interpreting intentional intervention as part of human stewardship rather than as a wrongful interference with some divine plan, he takes (...) on the sticky questions, making critical distinctions, for example, between cure and enhancement or welcoming children as they come and making them “better.” Not neglecting future implications of current tinkering with human biology, even in such taboo areas as gamete selection, he contends that engineering a baby free of harmful genes (for example, Tay-Sachs or Down syndrome) not only makes that person better, but it also eliminates an ongoing burden to family, to society, and perhaps to future generations. Treading gingerly among the sacred cows of some Christian ethicists, he advocates the implanting of selected embryos free of unwanted genes; in his view, embryos are not yet persons.Peterson considers serious concerns such as eugenics projects and racial bias but offers standards to address them. He contends that intentionally increasing choices for our children is not only acceptable but also praiseworthy. What parents would not optimize the educational and social opportunities for their child, even without the child’s consent? Interventions should be safe, offer genuine improvement, increase the recipient’s capacity, and make the best use of limited resources. Peterson is not so naive that he does not recognize that technology does not always make us better. He recognizes, too, that his standards do not eliminate risk.Fair enough, but the issue of what “improvement” may mean to the individual as well as to the greater community remains somewhat ambiguous. Peterson suggests that broadening the decision making among a variety of professional and individual cohorts would help, but his argument is not totally persuasive. In sum, Peterson’s treatment falls short of offering a totally satisfying standard for determining which characteristics should be manipulated and which should be accepted. Nor does he demonstrate definitively how a [End Page 187] Christian perspective would contribute to sorting out possible choices. Does the deaf parents’ desire for their child to be deaf like them constitute an instance where intervention should not be attempted? Can the disparate cohorts he suggests as arbiters rise above their own biases? Does Christianity and its belief system offer answers? Readers—even readers who call themselves Christian—will likely be persuaded that genetic intervention is a good, and even compatible with their religious perspective. Nonetheless, they will harbor lingering doubts about how the questions can best be solved, who should solve them, and how Christian belief helps sort among the possibilities. In his closing comments Peterson appears to agree.The book is rich in research and in provocative ideas. It is an exciting book. It is a readable and enlightened contribution to the professional conversation on gene therapy. Peterson’s research is extensive, his argumentation balanced. His attempt to locate the question within the Christian tradition is laudable. Happily, Peterson eschews a creationist approach to world and human origins. Unhappily, his approach to the scriptural text is not always nuanced. His assertion that Jesus himself was different biologically from other human beings (132) seems a stretch. If one takes the passages of Jesus’s biological origins literally, as apparently does the author, what happens to the assertion that Jesus is like other human beings “in all things but sin”? And where did Jesus get the Y chromosomes? While he persuades the reader that genetic intervention is compatible with a Christian worldview, Peterson does not offer—at least in this reviewer’s view—an adequate criterion for navigating this new world of the possible.Dolores L. ChristieJohn Carroll UniversityCopyright © 2013 Society of Christian Ethics... (shrink)

In this review, I talk about the essays dealing with C.I. Lewis's place in the history of analytic philosophy and the history of philosophy of science.

Les études présentées dans ce volume portent sur des sujets empruntés à des domaines très divers : ceux-ci mettent en jeu des questions concernant la vie, la réalité sociale, la connaissance dont le traitement relève en particulier des compétences de l'anthropologie, de l'histoire des sciences, de la philosophie, et même de la littérature qui s'est intéressée à sa façon à ces questions. Les traverse l'hypothèse suivante : les contenus auxquels ces questions se rapportent, si différents soient les plans sur lesquels (...) ils se situent, ont en commun de n'exister qu'"à l'essai", c'est-à-dire en cours d'élaboration, en travail, dans l'effort, à la peine, à travers des formes inachevées, donc en étant confrontés en permanence au risque de la crise, ce qui n'empêche qu'ils soient entraînés dans un élan continu sans qu'on sache où celui-ci conduit ni même s'il conduit quelque part. Or, pour rendre compte de ces réalités en devenir, marquées d'incertitude à un certain degré, le mieux était de procéder identiquement "à l'essai", en lançant une dynamique d'investigation qui ne suive pas un chemin déjà tout tracé conformément à un idéal de rectitude. De là une démarche systématiquement sinueuse, appuyée sur des lectures pratiquées comme autant d'expérimentations qui mettent à l'épreuve, cas par cas, l'hypothèse de départ telle qu'elle vient d'être évoquée. Sont ainsi esquissés, pour voir, sous réserve d'examen, les linéaments d'une philosophie pratique qui permet d'évacuer certaines alternatives traditionnelles comme celles du réel et de la pensée, du corporel et du mental, des faits et des valeurs, de la nature et de la culture, de la nécessité et de la liberté"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Le sens désigne la subjectivité du sujet. II n’est pas seulement une disposition effective de l'âme, de lui il у a aussi un savoir. Le savoir du sens appartient à la connaissance, et il s’oriente vers une verité ou exactitude qui lui sont particulières. La connaissance de la chose et la connaissance du sens se distinguent par le sens différent qui anime et forme l'une et l'autre. La connaissance de la chose s’accomplit par la transcendance, par l’addition de l'autre à (...) la conscience qui se connaît elle-même. La connaissance du sens s’accomplit comme « Introscendance concentrique » ; eile veut approfondir le sens à chercher, en l’exposant dans l’image des expériences diverses, que le sens rend possible. La connaissance de la chose et celle du sens tombent sous deux logiques de pôle opposé ; ces deux logiques répondent à la différence corrélative de l’altérité des choses et de l’identité du sens. (shrink)

By pairing translations of _Gorgias_ and _Rhetoric_, along with an outstanding introductory essay, Joe Sachs demonstrates Aristotles response to Plato. If in the _Gorgias_ Plato probes the question of what is problematic in rhetoric, in _Rhetoric_, Aristotle continues the thread by looking at what makes rhetoric useful. By juxtaposing the two texts, an interesting "conversation" is illuminated—one which students of philosophy and rhetoric will find key in their analytical pursuits. Focus Philosophical Library translations are close to and are non-interpretative (...) of the original text, with the notes and a glossary intending to provide the reader with some sense of the terms and the concepts as they were understood by Aristotle and Plato’s immediate audience. (shrink)

Seit ihrer Begründung im 18. Jahrhundert war die Ästhetik auch ein Korrektiv der Logik, indem sie die Sinnlichkeit des Menschen - Wahrnehmungen, Gefühle, Erinnerungen sowie deren Ausdruck in Kunst, Literatur und Wissenschaft - in den Blick genommen hat. In diesem Band wird die Vielfalt ästhetischer Perspektiven dokumentiert: Als Gesellschaftskritik und Erkenntnistheorie, als Lehre vom Schönen und Theorie der Kunst ist die Ästhetik nicht wegzudenken, wenn man den Menschen in seiner kulturellen Existenz begreifen möchte.

L'oubli est précédé par sa mauvaise réputation. Pensé comme un manque de la mémoire, le symptôme d'une dégénérescence annoncée, on le redoute. On cherche à l'oublier bien que l'on sache qu'il sera toujours là. Pourtant, s'il ne faisait pas quotidiennement son œuvre, on ne pourrait plus vivre, agir ou créer. Oublier est une faculté universelle et vitale dont les modalités d'expression diffèrent de celles de la mémoire : une puissance enfouie en notre être, une force créatrice capable de nous régénérer. (...) À contre-courant des modes et humeurs de notre société, des philosophes, des anthropologues et surtout des artistes n'ont pas oublié d'oublier tous les fardeaux qui se présentent comme des obstacles à leur désir de création. Développer sa capacité à effacer les évènements pesants et traumatisants qui nous conduisent au désastre est moins un risque qu'un pari, dont l'enjeu est de rendre à chaque personne ce qu'elle désire peut-être le plus au monde : affirmer sa réelle singularité, notamment par et dans l'acte créatif."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

This is an English translation of four of Plato’s dialogue (Protagoras, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, and Cratylus) that explores the topic of sophistry and philosophy, a key concept at the source of Western thought. Includes notes and an introductory essay. Focus Philosophical Library translations are close to and are non-interpretative of the original text, with the notes and a glossary intending to provide the reader with some sense of the terms and the concepts as they were understood by Plato’s immediate audience.

Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo analisar o conhecimento teórico de conselhos tutelares sobre o Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente e suas atuações a partir disso. Para isso, realizamos entrevistas com dois conselhos por meio de um questionário. As respostas foram dadas por escrito e, com elas, pudemos notar convergências e divergências entre esses conselhos. Com a análise, percebemos que cada conselho possui um olhar no seu trabalho, porém ambos possuem consciência de que seu dever é o de proteger e (...) garantir os direitos das crianças e dos adolescentes. Ambos os conselhos admitiram existir interação com a escola, porém, ela se restringe ao controle de frequência e da evasão escolar. Também, ambos remetem casos de violação de direitos à realidade social, afirmando que fatores econômicos não são determinantes nesses atos, porém, nos casos de famílias em situações econômicas desfavoráveis, o conselho tutelar é acionado. Por fim, enquanto um dos conselhos diz que aquele que viola algum direito da criança ou do adolescente deve ser responsabilizado, outro afirma que ele deve intervir com medidas educativas para resgatas a proteção do menor. Concluímos que os conselhos conhecem seus deveres, porém deixam a desejar no que tange à relação com as escolas. (shrink)

L’unité du savoir est assurément le principe, la fin et le dessein de Descartes. Et il apparaît qu’il l’a réalisée dans son oeuvre, pourvu qu’on sache se placer au centre de perspective qui fut celui de l’homme et qui confère au système son unité foncière : je veux dire cette intuition originelle qui, dans son doute même, lui fit saisir tout à la fois son être imparfait et l’Etre parfait et immuable de qui tout dépend.

Introductory background -- Paradigms in the arts and social sciences -- General-integrative paradigms in psychology -- Particular-specific paradigms in psychology -- Operational paradigms in psychology -- Conclusion.

English summary: Etienne Gilson states that God is such a sure notion, that it would be useless to attempt to prove His existence. More interesting for this philosopher is to try to understand how a true atheist, one who dogmatically believes that god applies to nothing in reality, would explain such a belief. French description: J'ai souvent ete prie, parfois somme, quelque fois meme mis au defi de donner des preuves de l'existence de Dieu. Je n'ai jamais pu me passionner (...) pour la question. Je me sens si certain qu'une realite transcendante au monde et a moi-meme repond au mot Dieu, que la perspective de chercher des preuves de ce dont je suis si sur me semble denuee d'interet. Non seulement ces preuves ne m'apprendraient rien que je ne sache, mais j'aurais le sentiment de raisonner au profit d'une de ces certitudes acquises d'avance qui causent leurs demonstrations plutot qu'elles n'en resultent. Ceux qui prennent plaisir a gagner au jeu en trichant sont comprehensibles, car ils gagnent quelque chose, mais puisqu'une demonstration faussee ne prouve rien, son auteur n'a rien a gagner. En revanche, justement parce que l'existence de Dieu me parait spontanement certaine, je suis curieux des raisons que d'autres peuvent avoir de dire que Dieu n'existe pas. Pour moi, c'est la non-existence de Dieu qui fait question. Je desire donc connaitre et mettre a l'epreuve quelques-unes des raisons invoquees en faveur de l'atheisme. Je veux dire, de l'atheisme dogmatique et positif, c'est-a-dire de la doctrine qui, apres mure reflexion, conclut comme une certitude rationnelle que rien qui reponde au mot dieu n'existe en realite. Par rien, j'entends aucun etre. (shrink)

Moral philosophers agree that welfare matters. But they disagree about what it is, or how much it matters. In this vital new work, Wayne Sumner presents an original theory of welfare, investigating its nature and discussing its importance. He considers and rejects all notable theories of welfare, both objective and subjective, including hedonism and theories founded on desire or preference. His own theory connects welfare closely with happiness or life satisfaction. Reacting against the value pluralism that currently dominates moral philosophy, (...) he advances welfare as the only basic ethical value. He concludes by discussing the implications of this thesis for ethical and political theory. Written in clear, non-technical language, and including a definitive survey of other work in this area, Sumner's book is essential reading for moral philosophers, political theorists, and welfare economists. (shrink)

In November 2008 Professor Mike Richards issued his much awaited review of the British Department of Health's policy on out-of-pocket payments for drugs not approved as cost effective by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The policy stated, or had been construed as stating, that those who top up thereby became ineligible for further National Health Service treatment for the condition targeted by the drug. For instance, if a lung cancer sufferer bought Avastin, which is not NICE approved, (...) she could no longer receive free treatment for her cancer on the NHS's tab. Richards, the National Cancer Director, recommended that the policy be repealed. From an ethical point of view, this change should be enthusiastically welcomed. (shrink)

In economic theory it is circumstances that dictate fashion. During the last quarter of the century, years marked by an unprecedented escalation of material production, economists of all persuasions, neoclassicals or Marxists, accorded an important place to theories of growth. Economic reductionism being fundamental, development was likened to growth, which tends to take pars pro toto and to ignore the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient one. Suddenly economic theory, to which mechanical formalization would confer the appearance of (...) an almost scientific rigour, became a powerful argument for the ideology of growth. (shrink)

ABSTRACTEmpathy involves a mapping between the emotions observed in others and those experienced in one’s self. However, effective social functioning also requires an ability to differentiate one’s...

Critics of contemporary metaphysics argue that it attempts to do the hard work of science from the ease of the armchair. Physics, not metaphysics, tells us about the fundamental facts of the world, and empirical psychology is best placed to reveal the content of our concepts about the world. Exploring and understanding the world through metaphysical reflection is obsolete. In this paper, I will show why this critique of metaphysics fails, arguing that metaphysical methods used to make claims about the (...) world are similar to scientific methods used to make claims about the world, but that the subjects of metaphysics are not the subjects of science. Those who argue that metaphysics uses a problematic methodology to make claims about subjects better covered by natural science get the situation exactly the wrong way around: metaphysics has a distinctive subject matter, not a distinctive methodology. The questions metaphysicians address are different from those of scientists, but the methods employed to develop and select theories are similar. In the first section of the paper, I will describe the sort of subject matter that metaphysics tends to engage with. In the second section of the paper, I will show how metaphysical theories are classes of models and discuss the roles of experience, common sense and thought experiments in the construction and evaluation of such models. Finally, in the last section I will discuss the way these methodological points help us to understand the metaphysical project. Getting the right account of the metaphysical method allows us to better understand the relationship between science and metaphysics, to explain why doing metaphysics successfully involves having a range of different theories, to understand the role of thought experiments involving fictional worlds, and to situate metaphysical realism in a scientifically realist context. (shrink)

Can philosophy offer reasonable grounds for the existence of a God possessing genuine religious significance and not proposed simply as the solution to a purely intellectual philosophical problem? Certainly many contemporary thinkers have insisted that no genuine religion could be based upon metaphysics. In this book, however, T. L. S. Sprigge examines sympathetically the most notable metaphysical systems of the last four centuries which purport to put religion on a rational footing and, after a thorough examination of their claims, considers (...) what kind of religious outlook they might support and how they actually affected the lives of their proponents. The thinkers studied include Spinoza, Hegel, T. H. Green, Bernard Bosanquet, Josiah Royce, A. N. Whitehead, and Charles Hartshorne, concluding with an exposition of the author's own viewpoint and a general discussion on the relation between metaphysics and religion. There is also a chapter on Kierkegaard as the most important critic of metaphysical religion. (shrink)

The paradox of knowability, derived from a proof by Frederic Fitch in 1963, is one of the deepest paradoxes concerning the nature of truth. Jonathan Kvanvig argues that the depth of the paradox has not been adequately appreciated. It has long been known that the paradox threatens antirealist conceptions of truth according to which truth is epistemic. If truth is epistemic, what better way to express that idea than to maintain that all truths are knowable? In the face of the (...) paradox, however, such a characterization threatens to undermine antirealism. If Fitch's proof is valid, then one can be an antirealist of this sort only by endorsing the conclusion of the proof that all truths are known.Realists about truth have tended to stand on the sidelines and cheer the difficulties faced by their opponents from Fitch's proof. Kvanvig argues that this perspective is wholly unwarranted. He argues that there are two problems raised by the paradox, one that threatens antirealism about truth and the other that threatens everybody's view about truth, realist or antirealist. The problem facing antirealism has had a number of proposed solutions over the past 40 years, and the results have not been especially promising with regard to the first problem. The second problem has not even been acknowledged, however, and the proposals regarding the first problem are irrelevant to the second problem. This book thus provides a thorough investigation of the literature on the paradox, and also proposes a solution to the deeper of the two problems raised by Fitch's proof. It provides a complete picture of the paradoxicality that results from Fitch's proof, and presents a solution to the paradox that claims to address both problems raised by the original proof. (shrink)