“Free riding,” used as a descriptive term, refers to taking a jointly produced benefit without contributing towards its production. Used as a term of criticism, it refers to the wrongful failure to contribute towards the joint production of benefits that one receives. On either usage, the central interest of moral philosophy in free riding is the same: to specify the conditions under which not contributing towards the joint production of benefits that one receives is wrong, and to explain why.

The state-of-art research in the field of life’s organization confronts the need to investigate a number of interacting components, their properties and conditions of sustainable behaviour within a natural system. In biology, ecology and life sciences, the performance of such stable system is usually related to homeostasis, a property of the system to actively regulate its state within a certain allowable limits. In our previous work, we proposed a deterministic model for systems’ homeostasis. The model was based on dynamical system’s (...) theory and pairwise relationships of competition, amensalism and antagonism taken from theoretical biology and ecology. However, the present paper proposes a different dimension to our previous results based on the same model. In this paper, we introduce the influence of inter-component relationships in a system, wherein the impact is characterized by direction (neutral, positive, or negative) as well as its (absolute) value, or strength. This makes the model stochastic which, in our opinion, is more consistent with real-world elements affected by various random factors. The case study includes two examples from areas of hydrobiology and medicine. The models acquired for these cases enabled us to propose a convincing explanation for corresponding phenomena identified by different types of natural systems. (shrink)

Rudolf Bultmann's program of demythologizingAs the heading above indicates, the main purpose of this essay is an endeavour to give an exposition of Bultmann's program of demythologizing. Attention is consecutively given to Bultmann's definition of myth; the problem, according to Bultmann, created for modem man by the mythic worldview of the New Testament and the mythological depiction of the salvation event therein; the impossibility of upholding this view in modem times; the necessity for demythologizing; demythologizing through existential interpretation; results, such (...) as Bultmann's views on speaking about God; the acts of God; God's revelation; the Christ-event and eschatology. The essay is concluded with a short, mainly appreciative evaluation. (shrink)

It is usual to read nomina, with which three interpretations are possible. The stronger arrogates to himself the titles of moderation and justice. So in the excellent Rumanian translation of 1871 by Gavrilu J. Munteanu: ‘Cându are sâ decida pumnulu, celu mai tare si atribue titlu de moderatu şi de onestu.’.

Over the last decade, the c‐myb gene and its protein product, Myb, have undergone extensive examination and manipulation in hemopoietic tissues. Although it is rarely disputed that, as a transcription factor, Myb regulates cell cycling, proliferation and differentiation, identification of genes directly controlled by Myb has been surprisingly difficult. More recently, genes with promoter regions that contain Myb recognition sequences have been identified, but a direct proliferative response to Myb via these ‘target genes’ has yet to be demonstrated. Mutagenesis studies (...) have defined domains of the protein which influence its transcriptional activity and transforming potential; however how the molecule interacts with itself and with other cellular factors is only beginning to be understood. A broader examination of c‐myb expression in normal and malignant tissues suggests an analogous role for Myb in proliferation, differentiation and transformation of nonhemopoietic tissues. (shrink)

In this contribution we investigate the conceptual coherence of penal substitution and its moral validity. After assessing two opposing modern contributions, we turn to Reformed and medieval scholasticism. This scholastic manoeuvre sheds additional light on the analytic questions at issue. Following Owen and Scotus in their use of a relational analysis of guilt and its punishment, we argue that penal substitution is conceptually and morally coherent, albeit not univocally vis-à-vis ordinary punishment. Absent from the case of substitution is personal deservedness; (...) herein we follow Murphy. However, this leaves open the conceptual possibility of representative deservedness. (shrink)

In his, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, W. T. Stace denies to give Indian schools of thought a philosophical status. He gives three reasons for that—(1) Indian thoughts have practical motivation, (2) instead of rational explanation, it is content with symbolism, and (3) India lies outside the mainstream human civilization. In the defense of Indian philosophy, these three arguments have been countered in this paper from different perspectives. It has been shown that these arguments are rooted in scientism, extreme (...) idealism, and ethnocentrism respectively. Stace has also argued that philosophy has four leading traits—(1) discussing the universe as a whole, (2) generalizing sciences, (3) idealism, and (4) non-practical motivation. For a proper defense, it has been shown that Indian systems share those traits. At the end, a conclusive remark has been given. It has been remarked that Stace’s case is an example of ethnocentric bias and racism. It has also been suggested that the interaction of the philosophies of different civilizations is necessary for the very sake of philosophy. Though this is not the first endeavor to defend Indian philosophy, the literature review (conducted by the author) suggests that Stace’s arguments haven’t been criticized separately. Philosophy and Progress, Vol#73-74; No#1-2; Jan-Dec 2023 P 281-314. (shrink)

There are two fundamentally different approaches to innovation: incremental and radical. In Economics as Anatomy, G.M. Peter Swann argues that economics as a discipline needs both perspectives in order to create the maximum beneficial effect for the economy. Chapters explore how and why mainstream economics is very good at incremental innovation but seems uncomfortable with radical innovation. Swann argues that economics should follow the example of many other disciplines, transitioning from one field to a range of semi-autonomous sub-disciplines. In this (...) book, he compares the missing link in empirical economics to being the economic equivalent of anatomy, the basis of medical discourse. Working as a sequel to Swann's Putting Econometrics in its Place, this book will be a vital resource to those who are discontent with the state of mainstream economics, especially those actively seeking to promote change in the discipline. Students wishing to see progress in the teaching of economics will also benefit from this timely book. (shrink)