In the creep literature, time has often been elevated from its role as a means of ordering events to that of a fully fledged state variable. It is hoped that this paper will highlight the dangers of this approach and will illustrate the proper role of time in mathematical physics, emphasizing the important distinction between coordinate and state variables.

Early in the fourth century Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire, and at once had reason to regret his having done so; for now not only the Church but the state was convulsed by controversies about the Holy Trinity. These controversies raged for over two hundred years, after which the bishops found new intellectual outlets, if not more rational ones, for their animosities. But Trinitarian trouble was not dead, only sleeping. The Great Schism of the eleventh and (...) twelfth centuries, which split the Western from the Eastern Church, took place, on its theological side, over a question concerning the Trinity. This was, of course, that most famous of all theological questions, the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost, or of the filioque. The Orthodox theory was that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone. The Western bishops, however, were equally adamant that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father filioque - 'and the Son'. (shrink)

The paper situates India’s global position with respect to its R&D and patent development and then highlights the current status of university system in India as a causative factor since majority of universities are busy in teaching merely how to qualify a paper-pencil test without much impetus on Research and Development. The paper also presents the perceived scenario of a national university and its characteristics. It also suggests ways in which universities can prioritize to produce researchers and innovators.

In recent years the term "dialogue" has taken on a special nuance and, in the literature, usually refers to specially organized gatherings between Marxists and Christians. Intense arguments rage around the "dialogue." An extensive literature contains the most diverse explanations of its origins and content, objectives and possible outcomes. An attempt "on the run" to smash through this picket fence of judgments and single out some "rational core" is hardly promising in the final analysis. Another path is required, reconstructing the (...) very mechanism of the appearance of various evaluations out of some initial material, independent of the opinions of the theorists of the "dialogue." There appears to be no need for recourse to the history of the "dialogue," which is sufficiently known. Let us cite only certain factors. (shrink)

I do not feel I have the authority to evaluate the individual speeches, much less to venture any conclusion sans appel. Let me just limit myself to some cursory comments about the course of today's conversation and the prospects of a further discussion of this extremely complicated and serious topic.

The name Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov has entered the ranks of the most outstanding thinkers who are worthy representatives of Russian philosophy. However, we shall not forget that this has become obvious only in recent years in the homeland of this unique philosopher. The scandal created by the publication in 1982 of Fedorov's works in the series Filosofskoe nasledie [Philosophical Heritage] is still remembered. On instructions from above, publication of the works was followed by dismissals, investigations, and allegations about the resurrection, (...) under conditions of "developed socialism," of the works of a "religious-conservative utopian"; there was also an anti-Fedorov campaign in the press. True, enthusiastic investigators—philosophers, literary figures, and artists—did not cease their efforts either before or after this ill-starred scandal to study and publish the works of this "strange" thinker. But it should be said—and this is pointed out in the book under review here—that under conditions of unfree development of philosophical thought, Fedorov's ideas were sometimes distorted to better accord with official attitudes, to make them "acceptable" for publication under the circumstances of that time, as well as for the sake of adapting them for the propaganda of various unofficial ideas, such as "native soil" ideas. Both Fedorov's person and his works have been surrounded by legend. Paradoxical though it may seem, foreign students of the works of the Russian philosopher have had more favorable conditions to study his legacy and have written many articles and books about him. Among them, the dissertation by Michael Hagemeister, Nikolai Fedorov. Studies of His Life, Works, and Influence, published as a book in the series Marburg Studies in the History and Culture of Eastern Europe in 1989, occupies a worthy place. (shrink)

The problem of the article is based on a long tradition of studying the category ‘antinomy‘ in the history of philosophy from antiquity until the early twentieth century. Antinomical thinking has particular importance for the spiritual life in the 20th century. The author draws attention to the fact that, for example, in the poetry of Thomas Stern Eliot antinomies and paradoxes are of philosophical and religious nature especially in then dealing with questions of reaching the Truth by rational way exclusively. (...) The basic material for studies are the works of modern Russian poets Olesya Nikolaeva, Sergei Kruglov, Timur Kibirov, Olga Sedakova and Helen Schwartz. It is shown how moral and philosophical themes and descriptions of the spiritual lives of the characters associated with the interpretation of ideas of compositions in the form of antinomies. The idea of the influence of the antinomies of thinking on aesthetics and system of images of Russian poets verses is justified. Article reveals the originality of each of the poets whose poems are analyzed in the work. The author concludes that modern poetry gives traditional antinomies personal psychological nature, but at the same time, problems and poetics of paradox are in tune with thinking of twentieth century as a whole - with its disastrous spirit, full of doubt and contradiction. (shrink)

One of the most important problems for contemporary Catholicism is its dialogue with the contemporary world. In recent years, the leaders of the Catholic Church have been speaking of this with increasing frequency. The Catholic journal La Civiltà cattolica has even written of the need to found a "theology of dialogue" . The recent papal encyclicals - "Mater et Magistra" , "Pacem in Terris" , and "Ecclesiam suam" - express the effort of the leaders of Catholicism to establish more intimate (...) contacts with the world in which the religious people of today find themselves. It is therefore no accident that this problem of dialogue was taken up in discussions at the Second Ecumenical Council and particularly at its third session held in the autumn of 1964. (shrink)

Four theories of political obligation are here subjected to meticulous scrutiny and found wanting, from which "We must conclude," Simmons says, "that citizens generally have no special political bonds which require that they obey and support the governments of their countries of residence". The four are consent theory, fairness theory, the natural duty of justice, and gratitude theory. As Simmons acknowledges, all four "fall squarely within the mainstream of liberal political theory", and the question is, how does Simmons draw his (...) sweeping conclusion from so limited a study? The answer is that he has arrived at the four "most plausible" theories by a process of elimination. Utilitarianism is eliminated because act utilitarianism cannot account for obligation of the sort required, while rule utilitarianism has been shown to be incoherent. The "linguistic front" is eliminated because its contention that obedience to and support of "legitimate government" are tautological begs the real questions. Finally, "a large number of widely supported answers to questions about political obligation" are eliminated by a requirement of theories of such obligation that Simmons formulates as the "particularity requirement". What remain are the four theories within the liberal mainstream, to each of which Simmons directs skillful analysis. (shrink)

Em intervalos frequentes ao longo dos anos, o professor Chomsky vituperou tanto contra noções do senso comum quanto contra noções técnicas de linguagem pública ou “linguagem externalizada”, afirmando que elas são confusas, mal definidas ou desprovidas de qualquer interesse científico. Como cientista, ele somente estaria interessado na linguagem pública se ela fosse um “objeto real do mundo real” (Chomsky, 1993, p. 39), e não uma noção “artificial” e “arbitrária” (Chomsky, 1985, p. 26). Proponho articular tal noção de linguagem pública para (...) ele. Chomsky também condena a noção que de o propósito da linguagem é a comunicação. Sustentarei, ao contrário, que uma função primária da faculdade humana da linguagem é apoiar convenções linguísticas, e que estas têm uma função essencialmente comunicativa. (shrink)