An assessment is made of Rudolf Otto's criticisms of Friedrich Schleiermacher's claim that religious feeling is to be interpreted as essentially involving a feeling of absolute dependence. Otto's criticisms are divided into two kinds. The first suggest that a feeling a dependence, even an absolute one, is the wrong sort of feeling to locate at the heart of religious consciousness. It is argued that this criticism is based on misinterpretations of Schleiermacher's view, which is in fact much closer to Otto's (...) than the latter appreciated. The second kind of criticism suggests that the feeling of absolute dependence cannot play the foundational role assigned to it by Schleiermacher, since it is itself a secondary response. It is argued not only that Otto provides no justification for this criticism, but that Otto's own position is incoherent unless Schleiermacher's view is accepted. (shrink)

A new criterion is introduced for judging the suitability of various fuzzy logics for practical uncertain reasoning in a probabilistic world and the relationship of this criterion to several established criteria, and its consequences for truth functional belief, are investigated.

Ausgehend von einer postulierten Abstammung der verschiedenen Gymnospermengruppen und der Angiospermen von Progymnospermen werden die Semophylesen der Samenanlagen und deren „Hüll- und Schutzorganen” eingehend besprochen. Das innere Integument ist phylogenetisch wohl aus verwachsenen sterilen Megasporangien entstanden, das aussere ist das Homologon der Cupula der Samenfarnen und ein Achsengebilde.Die dritte Hülle — die interseminalen Schuppen bei den Bennettiteen, die Chlamys bei den Chlamydospermen, die Fruchtknotenwand bei einigen Angiospermengruppen wie Pandanaceen und Cyperaceen, und der Arillus bei Angiospermen mit karpellaten Gynoezien — ist (...) wahrscheinlich aus reduzierten Samenanlagen hervorgegangen. Die vierte, aus sterilen brakteenartigen Phyllomen entstanden, hat in verschiedenen Kombinationen mit fertilen Achsen, die karpellaten Fruchtknoten der Angiospermen gebildet.Die Herkunft der Blütenpflanzen von chlamydospermen- und bennettiteen-ähnlichen Vorfahren wird sehr wahrscheinlich da Übergänge zwischen den „nackten” Samenanlagen vomGnetum-Typ und sogenannten pseudomonomeren Griffeln von Angiospermen vorliegen.En basant la phylogénie de plusieurs groupes de Gymnospermes et d'Angiospermes sur une descente des Progymnospermes du Devonien Supérieur , les sémophylèses des ovules et de ses couches protectrices ont été discuté.Le tégument interne très probablement représente une groupe de mégasporanges stériles fusés, le tégument externe est l'homologue des cupules des ptéridospermes et d'origine axillaire. La troisième couche — les écailles interséminales chez les Bennettitales, la chlamys chez les Chlamydospermes, le paroi de l'ovaire chez quelques Angiospermes comme les Pandanacées, les Piperacées..., l'arille de l'ovule dans les ovaires carpellaires des Angiospermes — est probablement l'homologue d'un nombre d'ovules steriles. La quatrième couche, constituée de phyllomes steriles, s'est associée avec des axes ovulifères en formant les pistils carpellaires des Angiospermes. L'origine des Angiospermes des ancêtres d'un type Chlamydosperme-Bennettitale est indiqué par la morphologie transitoire de quelques ovaires soi-disant „pseudo-monomères” liant les ovules „nues” du typeGnetum avec les pistils du type des Piperacées, Chloranthacées etc. (shrink)

Volume 46, Issue 6, November 2020, Page 727-743.

В книге дается анализ основных характерных признаков русской философии, позволяющие выделить ее как нечто особенное из общего контекста философских культур.

A striking aspect of the so-called "Goldhagen debate" has been the bifurcated reception Hitler's Willing Executioners has received: the enthusiastic welcome of journalists and the public was as warm as the impatient dismissal of most historians was cool. This article seeks to transcend the current impasse by analyzing the underlying issues of Holocaust research at stake here. It argues that a "deep structure" necessarily characterizes the historiography of the Holocaust, comprising a tension between its positioning in "universalism" and "particularism" narratives. (...) While the former conceptualizes the Holocaust as an abstract human tragedy and explains its occurrence in terms of processes common to modern societies, the latter casts its analysis in ethnic and national categories: the Holocaust as an exclusively German and Jewish affair. These narratives possess important implications for the balance of structure and human agency in the explanation of the Holocaust: where the universalism narrative emphasizes the role of impersonal structures in mediating human action, the particularism narrative highlights the agency of human actors. Although historical accounts usually combine these narratives, recent research on the Holocaust tends in the universalist direction, and this bears on the sensitive issue of responsibility for the Holocaust by problematizing the common-sense notion of the perpetrators' intention and responsibility. Goldhagen is responding to this trend, but by retreating to the particularism narrative and employing an inadequate definition of intention, he fails to move the debate forward. It is time to rethink the concept of intention in relation to events like the Holocaust. (shrink)