Little attention has been given to the integral relationship between character strengths and spirituality (the search for or communing with the sacred to derive meaning and purpose). The science of character strengths has surged in recent years with hundreds of studies, yet with minimal attention to spirituality or the literature thereof. At the same time, the science of spirituality has steadily unfolded over the last few decades and has offered only occasional attention to select strengths of character (e.g., humility, love, (...) and forgiveness) or the universal typology of the VIA classification of character strengths and virtues. In this exploration, we argue that there is a robust synergy of these sciences and practices revealing that spirituality is vitally concerned with promoting character strengths. At the same time, character strengths can enhance and deepen spiritual practices, rituals, and experiences. We elaborate on how character strengths and spirituality come together in the context of the psycho-spiritual journey toward wholeness. By wholeness, we are referring to a way of being in the world that involves a life-affirming view of oneself and the world, a capacity to see and approach life with breadth and depth and the ability to organize the life journey into a cohesive whole. We further discuss six levels by which spirituality can be integrated within the VIA Classification, including a meta-perspective in which wholeness represents a meta-strength or superordinate virtue. We frame two pathways of integration: the grounding path, in which character strengths offer tangibility and thereby deepen and enhance spirituality, and the sanctification path, in which spirituality elevates character strengths. Finally, we turn to research-based practices and examine how character strengths might facilitate and contribute to spiritual practices and, conversely, how spirituality might enhance character strength practices. Such multifaceted integration offers insight and wisdom to both areas of study and opens up new directions for psycho-spiritual research and practices to deepen and broaden our understanding of what it means to be human. (shrink)

What does it mean to be “strengths-based” or to be a “strengths-based practitioner?” These are diffuse areas that are generic and ill-defined. Part of the confusion arises from the customary default of practitioners and leaders across many cultures to label anything positive or complimentary as “strengths-based,” whether that be an approach, a theoretical orientation, an intervention, or a company. Additional muddle is created by many researchers and practitioners not making distinctions between very different categories of “strength” in human beings – (...) strengths of character, of talent/ability, of interest/passion, of skill/competency, to name a few. To add clarity and unification across professions, we offer seven characteristics and a comprehensive definition for a character strengths-based practitioner. We center on the type of strength referred to as character strengths and explore six guiding principles for understanding character strengths (e.g., character is plural; character is being and doing) and their practical corollaries. Reflecting this foundation and based on character strengths research, our longstanding work with strengths, discussions with practitioners across the globe, and a practitioner survey asking about strength practices (N= 113), we point out several character strengths practices or approaches we describe as soaring (e.g., explore and encourage signature strengths; practice strengths-spotting), emerging (e.g., the integration of mindfulness and character strengths), or ripe with potential (e.g., phasic strengths; the tempering effect; the towing effect). We use the same framework for describing general research domains. Some areas of research in character strengths are soaring with more than 25 studies (e.g., workplace/organizations), some are emerging with a handful of studies (e.g., health/medicine), and others are ripe with potential that have none or few studies yet opportunity looms large for integrating character science (e.g., peace/conflict studies). Using this framework, we seek to advance the exchange and collaboration between researcher and practitioner, as well as to advance the science and practice of character strengths. (shrink)

The volume collects classics of Marxist historiography of science, including a new translation of Boris Hessen's “The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's ...

Historically, Ehrenfest’s theorem is the first one which shows that classical physics can emerge from quantum physics as a kind of approximation. We recall the theorem in its original form, and we highlight its generalizations to the relativistic Dirac particle and to a particle with spin and izospin. We argue that apparent classicality of the macroscopic world can probably be explained within the framework of standard quantum mechanics.

Technology Assessment is a new mode of knowledge: it attempts to grasp the impact of large bodies of techniques and processes on large bodies of people and social institutions. We are not yet quite clear what exactly we mean by "impact" which is at the heart of TA judgments. Therefore it is of great importance that we look deeper into the epistemological foundations of TA, and attempt to learn where lie its strengths and pitfalls, under what circumstances it can be (...) best practised, what kind of qualities of mind it requires. (shrink)

Author: Mamzer Henryk Title: TRANSFORMATION OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS INTO THE CULTURAL STUDIES ONES AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE PROCESS OF WORLD’S HUMANIZATION (Przekształcanie się problemów filozoficznych w kulturoznawcze jako wyraz procesu humanizacji świata) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.12, number: 2011/1, pages: 263-278 Keywords: NOTION OF CULTURE, CULTURAL STUDIES, PROCESS OF WORLD’S HUMANIZATION Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:This text is inspired by main research problem undertaken by Jerzy Kmita in (...) his book Konieczne serio ironisty. O przekształcaniu się problemów filozoficznych w kulturoznawcze (Poznań 2007). The mentioned problem is related to this area of culture to which „The human being had invaded and thanks to this started to construct both the world and himself”. Beginning from this moment the way followed by humans equals the process of the world’s humanization. This is not a continuous process. Each epoch, each culture, has its own vision of own functioning and the way which surrounding world functions, the world in which the social actor participates and creates. The practice proves that usually ethnocentric human attitudes influence the way in which original assumptions are introduced into the life. Reaction to this fact is giving up practicing philosophical practices related with the notion of “absolute” and, as consequences, moving into the field of cultural studies. This process is the demonstration of the world’s humanization. The notion of culture is the superior one. In a way – a priori – of all types of human activities. The science and philosophy are produced by the culture as well, and they are shaped by the values and expectations present in given culture. Because of this cultural studies (knowledge on the culture) appears to be “broad meaning type of knowledge”, exceeding the borders of the philosophy. (shrink)

The ArgumentFranz Borkenau's book,The Transition from Feudal to Modern Thought(Der Übergang vom feudalen zum bürgerlichen Weltbild[literally:The Transition from the Feudal to the Bourgeois World-Picture]), serves as background for Grossmann's study. The objective of this book was to trace the sociological origins of the mechanistic categories of modern thought as developed in the philosophy of Descartes and his successors. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, according to Borkenau, mechanistic thinking triumphed over medieval philosophy which emphasized qualitative, not quantitative considerations. This (...) transition from medieval and feudal methods of thought to modern principles is the general theme of Borkenau's book, and is traced to the social changes of this time. According to this work, the essential economic change that marked the transition from medieval to modern times was the destruction of the handicraft system and the organization of labor under one roof and under one management. The roots of the change in thought are to be sought here. With the dismemberment of the handicraft system and the division of labor into relatively unskilled, uniform, and therefore comparable activities, the conception of abstract homogeneous social labor arises. The division of the labor process into simple repeated movements permits a comparison of hours of labor. Calculation with such abstract social unities, according to Borkenau, was the source from which modern mechanistic thinking in general derived its origin.Grossmann, although he considers Borkenau's work a valuable and important contribution, does not believe that the author has achieved his purpose. First of all, he contends that the period that Borkenau describes as the period of the triumph of modern thought over medieval should not be placed at the beginning of the seventeenth century, but in the Renaissance, and that not Descartes and Hobbes but Leonardo da Vinci was the initiator of modern thought. Leonardo's theories, evolved from a study of machines, were the source of the mechanistic categories that culminated in modern thought.If Borkenau's conception as to the historical origin of these categories is incorrect in regard to time, Grossmann claims it follows that it is incorrect also in regard to the social sources to which it is ascribed. In the beginning, the factory system did not involve a division of labor into comparable homogeneous processes, but in general only united skilled handicraftsmen under one roof. The development of machinery, not the calculation with abstract hours of labor, is the immediate source of modern scientific mechanics. This goes back to the Renaissance and has relatively little to do with the original factory system that was finally superseded by the Industrial Revolution.While Borkenau, in tracing the social background of the thought of the period, relies chiefly on the conflicts and strife of political parties, Grossmann regards this as one element only in the formation of the general social situation, which in its entirety and in the interaction of its elements explains the development of modern thought. (shrink)

We take I.Q. tests but not Compassion Aptitude tests. Yet mind and emotions need to be seen as two different parts of the same spectrum if the battered human psyche is to be mended. Skolimowski sees the opportunity for a new order to be brought about if the Western mind can return to, then reintegrate, the spiritual.

Henryk Elzenberg is one of the most prominent Polish philosophers of this century. His main publications are: the brilliant Foundations of Leibniz’s Metaphysics of 1917; a philosophical diary published in 1963 as Trouble with Being; and a collection of papers Man and Value. Elzenberg’s principal field of inquiry was axiology, in which he put forward a deep and original conception of his own. That, however, remains still mostly in the form of manuscripts and lecture notes, of which we publish (...) two pieces above: a critique of the utilitarian concept of value, and an analysis of Meinong’s position on the same topic. (shrink)