The author argues that the theory of a dorsal/ventral stream for visual processing can be used to reconcile the constructivist and direct perception theories. My commentary discusses neurophysiological and psychophysical studies that run counter to the view. In addition, the central issue of debate between the constructionist and direct perception approaches regarding what is visual information is discussed.

This chapter addresses questions such as what is unique about human beings, and what makes humans human. It begins exploration of such questions by looking back on some of the major events and themes of the past 1000 years in Western civilization and the primitive human instincts they illustrate. The second millennium opened with holy wars: local wars, such as the Spanish Reconquista to retake Spain from the Moors, and the broader multi‐state Crusades to take the Holy Lands from the (...) Muslims. Many scholars date postmodernism from Hiroshima and the Holocaust, one an instantaneous annihilation, the other a systematic one. Like space exploration, work on human genetics is dominated by governmental agencies and commercial interests. The chapter argues that genocidal proclivity of the past millennium could lead to genocide on an even more horrible scale if we create a new or “better” human species (or subspecies) through genetic engineering. (shrink)

This thematic study focuses especially on the role that suffering plays in the practice of philosophy. It identifies and interprets the basic structures and possibilities related to the experience of suffering; and, it examines some of the significant historical contributions that have influenced our thinking about this issue. ;It begins by developing a preliminary definition of suffering. After which, it seeks and examines those same basic structures in the contributions of Plato, Augustine, Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Heidegger---each in their own chapters. (...) ;The study of Plato centers on suffering conceived in terms of eros, with particular attention paid to that suffering at the crucial intersection of the sensible and the intelligible. ;The study of Augustine focuses on suffering conceived in terms of the tension between the human and the divine. The role of suffering in Christianity is summarized, and Augustine's personal example is employed as an illustration. The contrast between the sufferings of Job and those of Jesus are explored briefly with respect to the question of results. ;The studies of Spinoza and Nietzsche are combined in the same chapter because they both naturalize suffering. In Spinoza, the focus is on his analysis of how human beings rise above their passivity through an increase in their active power of understanding. In Nietzsche, the call for an even greater suffering is analyzed. ;The study of Heidegger examines suffering in both his earlier works and later works . Heidegger's insensitivity to the suffering of the Holocaust is also discussed. ;The conclusion examines the contemporary perspective of James R. Watson's Between Auschwitz and Tradition, and then speculates on what is called for today in terms of thinking and suffering. It argues that thought needs to acknowledge its bodily dwelling, confront its limitations, and open itself to that which is 'other.' In the face of all the resistances, thinking today needs to be suffering. (shrink)

The paper deals with the meaning of the transcendental imagination in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, comparing it with the productive imagination proposed by Fichte in his Wissenschaftslehre of 1794. It also presents Heidegger’s views concerning both Kant and Fichte. Regarding Kant there is also a discussion of the difference between the first and second editions of the First Critique. It may be noted that Heidegger prefers the first edition to the second, since, in his view, the latter leads into (...) German Idealism. In Fichte’s philosophy the imagination plays a considerably larger role than it does in Kant. And Heidegger early on recognizes the importance of Fichte as a philosopher in its own right, and not just, as was customary in the period, a mere transitional figure between Kant and Hegel. The paper concludes with a critique of Heidegger’s views regarding both Fichte and Kant. Though there is an addendum discussing the function of the imagination in the aesthetics of Kant, in that of Fichte, and a brief comparison with Heidegger’s own aesthetics. (shrink)