DIALETICS AT A STANDSTILL: BENJAMIN'S "DENKBILDER":0Benjamin's Thougt-Images in Einbahnstraße - Gustan Asselbergs; 0Sichtlich sich verbergend: Die Autor-Figur des Passagen-Werks - Wolfram Malte Fues; 0LIMINAL FIGURES: CHILD AND FLANEUR:0The Child at the Threshold: Walter Benjamin's Berliner Kindheit um 1900 - Corina Stan; 0The Flâneur and the Socio-Economic Critique - Nassima Sahraoui; 0UNSIGHTLY FIGURES: 0Walter Benjamin's Figures of De-Figuration: The Barbarian, the Destructive Character, and the Monster - Sami R. Khatib; 0ANGELS AND HISTORIANS: 0Closing Time: Benjamin, Temporality, and the Problem of Political (...) Organization - Bennett Carpenter; 0Of Fish and Men: Benjamin's Allegorist and the Meaning of Life - Madeleine Kasten; 0Walter Benjamin on Charlie Chaplin: The Rehabilitation of the Allegorical in Modernity - Daniel Mourenza; 0THE NARRATOR AND THE POLITICS OF SENSES: 0"Drawing o an Unlikely Source": The "Erzähler", the Islamic Revival, and Benjamin's Philosophy of Language - Ton Groeneweg; 0TRANSLATION BETWEEN FOREIGNNESS AND KINSHIP: 0Bleakness in the Age of Google: Walter Benjamin and the Possibility of Redemptive Translation - Orr Scharf; 0Walter Benjamin's Translator/Critic as a Model for Transcultural Thought and Practice - Gisela Brinker-Gabler.; 0THE TASK OF CRITIC: 0Lektüre als Opfer: Der Kritiker in "Wider ein Meisterwerk" und dem Trauerspielbuch - Anna Wotkowicz; 0THE RIGHTEOUS AS MEDIATOR OF LINGUISTIC EXPERIENCE: 0"Im Anfang war das Wort": Von Adam, zwei Bäumen und dem Gerechten - Gerard Visser. (shrink)

Published in 1960, Hans-Georg Gadamer’s _Truth and Method_ is one of the most influential books on interpretation to have appeared in the past half century. Scholars across the humanities have applied, discussed, and criticized its insights. This volume aims to continue this conversation between hermeneutics and the humanities and tries to map Gadamer’s influence on the humanities, while identifying the possibilities for further interaction between his ideas and contemporary scholarship. This bilingual collection is essential reading for scholars interested in issues (...) of methodology, theory, and philosophy. (shrink)

SUVs are the safest vehicle because they're so large-right? Wrong! That's the advertising pitch, but in 2000, they had the highest rollover rate (36%) of any vehicle type involved in fatal accidents. Yet two years later their safety myth was still so strong that one of four vehicles sold in the U.S. was an SUV. The world of spin we live in is full of such potentially hazardous illusions. We need to know if particular foods can hurt us with Salmonella (...) or cholesterol, whether our government is truthful in its reasons for waging war, what problems a political candidate may cause or resolve if elected, and whether the items we purchase are durable or junk. But gaining those insights can be challenging when so many of the illusions surrounding us are deliberately created. As a civil-litigation attorney for over twenty-five years, Randy Kasten has heard thousands of lies. He has witnessed that those who dispense the information we need to make decisions-advertisers, salespeople, politicians, and the media-often have a vested interest in manipulating us. Truth's biggest enemies are the people whose job it is to sell us incomplete versions of the facts and our willingness to believe what we want to believe. Often, we believe what we believe because it is the only story available. To help us see through deceptions of all types, Kasten discusses eight kinds of lies and what we can do about them, as well as methods for discerning the truth gleaned from his practice of law. Other topics include advertising magic, thirty-six places where the truth hides, lessons from science, the media and misinformation, and how we fool ourselves. Altogether, he provides a unique tool for enabling us to make decisions that will lead to more prosperity, better health, greater intimacy, and a life based on lasting values. (shrink)

In this panel six IS researchers from varying backgrounds will discuss whether epistemological anarchy, as proposed by the controversial philosopher Paul Feyerabend, has the potential to foster research progress and can help to create new insights in the IS field. Feyerabend is well known for his notion that "anything goes" in terms of methodology, and many scholars are concerned that this seemingly anarchistic sentiment can undermine efforts to systematically build and structure an epistemological and methodological foundation for an academic discipline. (...) This panel, which will be moderated by Horst Treiblmaier, includes as panelists Andrew Burton-Jones, Shirley Gregor, Rudy Hirschheim, Michael Myers, and Tom Stafford. The outcome of this discussion will be incorporated into a paper published in the DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. (shrink)

Horst Bredekamp’s subject is the astute deployment and perennial resonance of the startling image of the body politic that dominates the frontispiece to Leviathan: a treatise on the psychology of the individual and the dynamic of the multitude, published in 1651 by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Affirming the centrality of such a figural device for this pioneering theorist of the state, Bredekamp goes on to address the art-historical dimension of the mesmerising etched title-page. In his central chapters he (...) explores the extraordinary range of sources – from socio-cultural tradition to scientific advances – on which the author and his artist-collaborator may have drawn. In conclusion, he reveals Hobbes to be no less passionate than shrewd in his belief that the constraints and amenities of a tolerable life in common attest to the potency of the visual. As appendices, two essays and catalogues explore the portraits made of Hobbes as well as illustrations that appeared in his other works, thus systematically completing the exploration of the images connected with this exceptional philosopher. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophers of mind tend to assume that the world of nature can be reduced to basic physics. Yet there are features of the mind consciousness, intentionality, normativity that do not seem to be reducible to physics or neuroscience. This explanatory gap between mind and brain has thus been a major cause of concern in recent philosophy of mind. Reductionists hold that, despite all appearances, the mind can be reduced to the brain. Eliminativists hold that it cannot, and that this (...) implies that there is something illegitimate about the mentalistic vocabulary. Dualists hold that the mental is irreducible, and that this implies either a substance or a property dualism. Mysterian non-reductive physicalists hold that the mind is uniquely irreducible, perhaps due to some limitation of our self-understanding. In this book, Steven Horst argues that this whole conversation is based on assumptions left over from an outdated philosophy of science. While reductionism was part of the philosophical orthodoxy fifty years ago, it has been decisively rejected by philosophers of science over the past thirty years, and for good reason. True reductions are in fact exceedingly rare in the sciences, and the conviction that they were there to be found was an artifact of armchair assumptions of 17th century Rationalists and 20th century Logical Empiricists. The explanatory gaps between mind and brain are far from unique. In fact, in the sciences it is gaps all the way down.And if reductions are rare in even the physical sciences, there is little reason to expect them in the case of psychology. Horst argues that this calls for a complete re-thinking of the contemporary problematic in philosophy of mind. Reductionism, dualism, eliminativism and non-reductive materialism are each severely compromised by post-reductionist philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind is in need of a new paradigm. Horst suggests that such a paradigm might be found in Cognitive Pluralism: the view that human cognitive architecture constrains us to understand the world through a plurality of partial, idealized, and pragmatically-constrained models, each employing a particular representational system optimized for its own problem domain. Such an architecture can explain the disunities of knowledge, and is plausible on evolutionary grounds. (shrink)

This book introduces an account of cognitive architecture, Cognitive Pluralism, on which the basic units of understanding are models of particular content domains. Having many mental models is a good adaptive strategy for cognition, but models can be incompatible with one another, leading to paradoxes and inconsistencies of belief, and it may not be possible to integrate the understanding supplied by multiple models into a comprehensive and self-consistent "super model". The book applies the theory to explaining intuitive reasoning and cognitive (...) illusions and explores implications for epistemology, semantics, and disunity of science. (shrink)

Many hold that theoretical reasoning aims at truth. In this paper, I ask what it is for reasoning to be thus aim-directed. Standard answers to this question explain reasoning’s aim-directedness in terms of intentions, dispositions, or rule-following. I argue that, while these views contain important insights, they are not satisfactory. As an alternative, I introduce and defend a novel account: reasoning aims at truth in virtue of being the exercise of a distinctive kind of cognitive power, one that, unlike ordinary (...) dispositions, is capable of fully explaining its own exercises. I argue that this account is able to avoid the difficulties plaguing standard accounts of the relevant sort of mental teleology. (shrink)

In this carefully argued critique, Steven Horst pronounces the theory deficient.

Someone acts in a morally worthy way when they deserve credit for doing the morally right thing. But when and why do agents deserve credit for the success involved in doing the right thing? It is tempting to seek an answer to that question by drawing an analogy with creditworthy success in other domains of human agency, especially in sports, arts, and crafts. Accordingly, some authors have recently argued that, just like creditworthy success in, say, chess, playing the piano, or (...) archery, creditworthy moral success is a matter of getting things right by way of manifesting a relevant skill. My main aim in this paper is to bring out an important structural difference between moral creditworthiness and creditworthiness in sports, arts, and craft, undermining attempts to use examples of the latter as a model for understanding the former. As an alternative, I propose an account of morally creditworthy action, according to which such action is a matter of manifesting virtue, not skill—a claim that's based on an important, but underappreciated, difference between the sorts of excellences constituting virtues and skills. The paper thus contributes to a more nuanced picture of normative achievements across different domains of human agency, highlighting largely overlooked structural dissimilarities among them. (shrink)

Many virtue epistemologists conceive of epistemic competence on the model of skill —such as archery, playing baseball, or chess. In this paper, I argue that this is a mistake: epistemic competences and skills are crucially and relevantly different kinds of capacities. This, I suggest, undermines the popular attempt to understand epistemic normativity as a mere special case of the sort of normativity familiar from skilful action. In fact, as I argue further, epistemic competences resemble virtues rather than skills—a claim that (...) is based on an important, but often overlooked, difference between virtue and skill. The upshot is that virtue epistemology should indeed be based on virtue, not on skill. (shrink)

English summary: The relationship between science and politics can hardly be reduced to a simple formula. On one hand they appear to be completely separate systems that follow only their own internal logic. On the other hand, mutual references can be identified. It is quite possible to consistently align political decisions to scientific evidence, whereby the autonomy and the legitimacy of democratic policy would however inevitably be affected. In four sections the relationship between science and politics are analyzed under the (...) viewpoint of a specific key question: Does true policy require powerful decision and therefor specifically the absence of science? And is science not conversely determined by it being free of value and policy? What about concepts that tend to want to replace policy with science? Finally, there is the question of what legitimate role science can play in today's politics, and whether this can be in the form of policy advice. This book, with contributions from renowned authors from different disciplines, is systematically devoted to answering these questions. German text. German description: Das Verhaltnis zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik ist kaum auf eine einfache Formel zu bringen. Einerseits erscheinen sie als vollig getrennte Systeme, die nur ihrer eigenen inneren Logik folgen. Andererseits lassen sich wechselseitige Bezugnahmen ausmachen. So ist durchaus denkbar, politische Entscheidungen konsequent an wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen auszurichten, wodurch aber unweigerlich die Autonomie auch und gerade demokratisch legitimierter Politik betroffen wuerde.In vier Sektionen wird das Verhaltnis von Wissenschaft und Politik unter einer bestimmten Leitfrage analysiert: Setzt wahre Politik kraftvolle Dezision und somit gerade die Abwesenheit von Wissenschaft voraus? Und ist Wissenschaft nicht umgekehrt durch ihre Wert- und damit Politikfreiheit bestimmt? Wie steht es um Konzepte, die Politik tendenziell durch Wissenschaft ersetzen wollen? Schliesslich fragt sich, welche legitime Rolle Wissenschaft heutzutage in der Politik spielen kann, etwa in Form der Politikberatung.Der Band mit Beitragen renommierter Autoren unterschiedlicher Disziplinen geht diesen Problemkonstellationen in systematischer Weise nach. (shrink)

In this book, I offer an account of intentional action. The book has two main parts: in the first part, I discuss and criticize the currently prevailing account of intentional action—the Causal Theory of Action (CTA)—and, in the second part, I offer my alternative account. The CTA proposes essentially two conditions for something that you do to be an intentional action: (1) what you do is represented by your intention (or other mental attitudes), and (2) it is caused by your (...) intention. Against the CTA, I argue that, since it conceives of representation and causality as essentially separate conditions, it cannot explain why, when someone acts intentionally, it is not a mere accident that both conditions are jointly satisfied: i.e., that the intention causes the movement it represents. The CTA’s inability to rule out such accidentality is, as I argue further, the deeper source of the notorious problem of deviant causation. Given this diagnosis, I claim that the key for a satisfactory account of intentional action is to conceive of the essential unity of representation and causality in intentional action. Doing so, I suggest, requires understanding a distinctive sort of causality at work in intentional action. Following the work of G.E.M. Anscombe, I argue that what is distinctive of the sort of causal-explanatory connection captured in action explanations like “S is doing A because she intends to do B” is that it is essentially known by the acting subject. In the final sections of the book, I then develop and defend a conception of the sort of self-knowledge involved in intentional action. (shrink)

This paper provides an analysis of U.S. farmland owners, operators, and workers by race, ethnicity, and gender. We first review the intersection between racialized and gendered capitalism and farmland ownership and farming in the United States. Then we analyze data from the 2014 Tenure and Ownership Agricultural Land survey, the 2012 Census of Agriculture, and the 2013–2014 National Agricultural Worker Survey to demonstrate that significant nation-wide disparities in farming by race, ethnicity and gender persist in the U.S. In 2012–2014, White (...) people owned 98% and operated 94% of all farmland. They generated 98% of all farm-related income from land ownership and 97% of income from farm owner-operatorship. Meanwhile, People of Color farmers were more likely to be tenants rather than owners, owned less land, and generated less farm-related wealth per person than their White counterparts. Hispanic farmers were also disproportionately farm laborers. In addition to racial and ethnic disparities, there were disparities by gender. About 63% of non-operating landowners, 86% of farm operators, and 87% of tenant farmers were male, and female farmers tended to generate less income per farmer than men. This data provides evidence of ongoing racial, ethnic and gender disparities in agriculture in the United States. We conclude with a call to address the structural drivers of the disparities and with recommendations for better data collection. (shrink)

Vance Kasten; Manipulation and Teaching, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 14, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 53–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1.

Epistemic constitutivism (EC) holds that the nature of believing is such that it gives rise to a standard of correctness and that other epistemic normative notions (e.g., reasons for belief) can be explained in terms of this standard. If defensible, this view promises an attractive and unifying account of epistemic normativity. However, EC faces a forceful objection: that constitutive standards of correctness are never enough for generating normative reasons. This paper aims to defend EC in the face of this objection. (...) I do so in two steps. First, I dispute a crucial assumption underlying the case against EC: that constitutive standards of correctness in general are ‘reason-giving’ only if and because there is also a prior reason to comply with them. Second, I outline a strategy of how EC can meet the challenge of explaining what’s special about the activity of believing such that, unlike other standard-governed activities, it is capable of generating normative reasons. (shrink)

English summary: What does Dada mean? The answer lies in the distinction between the perceptible and the designation and the failure to mediate discursively between the two. With the inception of Dada-Zurich - at the intersection between literary and art studies, comparative studies, image-text theory and philosophy - the relationship between modernity and avant-garde as well as between avant-garde and Dadaism was redefined. This redefinition was a consequence of the scandalous aesthetic theoretical insights of Dada Zurich, which concretized in practical (...) and poetic form an aesthetic theory that in itself is aesthetic, and developed an aesthetic-theoretical understanding in which aisthesis takes up a central position. Dada uses the avant-garde as material. The aesthetic theoretical potential of Dada Zurich in turn had an impact not only on the artefacts that were actually used and aesthetically reflected by Dada, but on all modern - including avant-garde - artefacts. German description: Was bedeutet Dada? Die Antwort liegt in der Differenz von Wahrnehmbarem und Bezeichnung und deren scheiternder diskursiven Vermittlung. Mit der Konstitution des Gegenstandes Dada-Zurich - im Schnittfeld von Literatur- und Kunstwissenschaft, Komparatistik, Bild-Text-Theorie und Philosophie - wird das Verhaltnis von Moderne und Avantgarde sowie von Avantgarde und Dada neu bestimmt. Diese Neubestimmung resultiert aus der Erkenntnis der asthetisch-theoretischen Form Dada-Zurichs, deren Konstitution das theoretische Skandalon Asthetischer Theorie (als einer Theorie, die selber asthetisch wird) in praktischer und poietischer Form konkretisiert. Sie entwickelt eine asthetisch-theoretische Erkenntnisform, in der Aisthesis eine zentrale Stellung einnimmt. Dada nutzt die Avantgarde als Material. Das asthetisch-theoretische Potential Dada-Zurichs wirkt dabei nicht nur zuruck auf die von Dada tatsachlich verwendeten (asthetisch reflektierten), sondern auf alle modernen - auch avantgardistischen - Artefakte. (shrink)

Clinical neuropsychologists have been working in Germany since the 1980s, and specific training in the discipline has been available since 1993. The qualification currently requires 3 years of practical training, 400 h of theoretical learning, 100 h of supervision, five reports on patients and an oral examination. After its completion, neuropsychologists can work as employees in clinical settings. For a substantial period of time, neuropsychologists working in their own practices faced complex challenges in working with outpatients, whose health insurers did (...) not cover the cost of this treatment. State approval of neuropsychological diagnostic procedures and therapy was achieved in 2011, on the basis of evidence showing the method’s high effectiveness; statutory health insurers therefore now pay out for delivery of these services on an outpatient basis, too. In Germany, neuropsychologists work in all areas of the diagnosis of functional disorders, with children, adolescents, adults and older adults, and carry out treatment. Clinical neuropsychologists provide patients with individualized tools for managing their brain damage, supply exercises and tasks for them to undertake at home, and give input on administrative matters, such as determining the degree of a patient’s disability. Treatment takes place in close collaboration with members of related professions, such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists. Neuropsychologists also work as assessors, investigating, for example, the extent of a patient’s ability to work after sustaining CNS damage or the need for medical retirement. The earnings of clinical neuropsychologists vary widely, currently averaging between €3,000 and €4,000 gross per month for employed neuropsychologists; self-employed neuropsychologists in their own practices can currently bill statutory health insurers for around €100.00 per hour. Despite the generally good working conditions in this discipline, Germany is suffering from a shortage of clinical neuropsychologists. An approximate total of 800 psychologists have completed training in this field, while around 50,000 patients could benefit from neuropsychological treatment every year. (shrink)

Seit dem byzantinischen Bilderstreit und dem Bildersturm der Reformation ist nicht mehr in solcher Intensität über Bilder nachgedacht worden wie in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Neben der Archäologie und der Kunstgeschichte haben sich zahlreiche weitere Fächer an Fragestellungen rund um das Bild geradezu festgebissen. Angesichts dessen geht einer der bedeutendsten Kunsthistoriker der Gegenwart der Frage nach, warum Begriff und Geltung sowie Macht und Ohnmacht von Bildern so hartnäckig verfolgte Themen unserer Tage geworden sind.

Aufgrund sorgfältiger Untersuchung in phänomenologischer Erkenntnishaltung können die Struktur des Lysis, die künstlerisch-ideelle Gedankenbewegung und damit die Einheit von philosophisch-künstlerischer Gestalt und philosophischem Gehalt des Dialoges in einer strengeren Weise erfasst werden als bisher. Dadurch werden ganz neue Beziehungen zu Gestalt und Gehalt der Politeia sichtbar. Sie erlauben im Verein mit grundsätzlichen Überlegungen zur Methode der datierenden Sprachstatistik und weiteren Beobachtungen, den Lysis chronologisch nach der Politeia anzusetzen - in der Trilogie Phaidros - Lysis - Euthydemos. So können die interpretatorischen (...) Einschränkungen durch das Vorurteil, der Lysis sei ein Frühdialog, überwunden werden. Die positive Interpretation des Dialoges und ihre Vertiefung durch die platonische Prinzipienlehre werden damit auf ungewohnte Weise stärker begründet. (shrink)