Originally published in 1930, this title looks at the education of children. Adler believes the problems from a psychological point of view are the same as for adults, that of self-knowledge and rational self-direction. However, the difference being that due to the ‘immaturity of children, the question of guidance – never wholly absent in the case of adults – takes on supreme importance.’ The title starts by presenting the Individual Psychology viewpoint as a whole, with the later chapters undertaking to (...) tackle in more depth the various interrelated problems of children’s education. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Originally published in 1930 _The Science of Living_ looks at Individual Psychology as a science. Adler discusses the various elements of Individual Psychology and its application to everyday life: including the inferiority complex, the superiority complex and other social aspects, such as, love and marriage, sex and sexuality, children and their education. This is an important book in the history of psychoanalysis and Adlerian therapy.

This text explores critical perspectives on the intersections between colonialism, political violence, and environmentalism to deepen our understanding of genocide and genocidal violence.

In his treatise on justice St. Thomas points out that the virtue of filial piety (pietas), by which we render honor to our parents, fails to satisfy the proper definition of justice because we cannot fully repay our debt to them. The same holds true of the virtue of respectfulness (observantia), by which we render honor to our teachers and guides, all the more if they themselves are virtuous. Ralph McInerny has been teacher and guide to me, and a virtuous (...) one at that. Still, it would be deplorably small-minded merely to call Ralph virtuous without noting the sheer magnificence of his moral and intellectual contributions to the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth. As is only fitting in the Christian dispensation, these contributions have made him an object of scorn in the eyes of some who are less magnanimous than he. But, like Peter and the apostles before him, he has rejoiced at being "judged worthy of ill-treatment for the sake of the Name.". (shrink)

This chapter develops compatibilist replies to the most popular styles of argument for incompatibilism, and concludes that these arguments leave compatibilism in the running. Differences among various kinds of compatibilism, including semicompatibilism, are examined.

David Pears's recent essay, "How Easy is Akrasia?, '' is, in significant part, a refutation of an argument against the possibility of a certain sort of incontinent action. The kind of incontinent action in question is, in Pears's words, "underivative brazen akrasia, which is commonly taken to be akrasia with the fault located between the last line of an agent's reasoning and his action" (p. 40). The argument which he attacks is attributed to Donald Davidson. The purpose of this note (...) is, not to quarrel with Pears, but rather to supplement his interesting essay. In Section I, drawing upon some of Davidson's views on intending and unconditional practical judgments, I construct a stronger argument for the impossibility of the type of akratic action at issue than the one which Pears refutes. In Section II, I explain why even the stronger argument fails and sketch out some implications of its failure for a causal theory of action. (shrink)