Traditional scientific views of rationality are couched in economic terms; choosing an option that does not maximize expectancy is irrational. The construct has been extended metaphorically so that the term “irrational” now describes any decision deemed foolish by the evaluator. For everyday decisions that do not involve money, a decision maker’s utilities are generally not known to an onlooker. Therefore, the pejorative label may be applied inappropriately because the evaluation is distorted by incorrect assessment of the decision maker’s goals. We (...) tie this linguistic confusion to the predominance of gambling studies within decision making research. For noneconomic decisions, we propose an alternative definition, one inspired by a theory of everyday decisions. We label a decision irrational if is inconsistent with a policy previously established by the decision maker. The hierarchical structure of everyday decisions, along with the descriptive multiattribute utility model, are core elements in the theory presented by Weiss et al. (2010 Theory and Decision, 68, 101–114). The theory holds that fast changing considerations are a crucial element in the evaluation of decision options. The momentary salience attached to a consequence can change with current, often fleeting circumstances. An option that would usually be rejected can quickly become too tempting to resist. Most people exhibit this kind of irrationality, violating a personal policy, some of the time—and they are not necessarily foolish to do so. (shrink)

Over the last decade, there has been a growing consensus, including in Italy, that it makes sense to provide an objectively measurable empirical basis for educational policies and practices in order to escape from the uncertainty of practices based on individual experience or subjective values. The quantification of the social sphere, the “metric society” (Mau, 2019), and data-driven models of governance have led not only to “learnification”, a culture of performativity and standardised testing as the dominant model (Biesta, 2010), (...) but also to a loss of future-oriented visions as these latter are overwhelmed by statistical models of anticipation. The main aim of this paper is to critique the post-positivist epistemological assumptions of so-called Evidence Based Education as well as the neoliberal organisational models whose indiscriminate application to professionals in education robs these roles of professionalism. Secondly, based on the recent UNESCO report on the “Futures of Education”, it intends to discuss the dimension of the future as a key direction of meaning for educational policies and practices, held up as an alternative to anticipatory governance models (Robertson, 2022). (shrink)

Artikeln tar sin utgångspunkt i två aktuella exempel på krav på historisk rättvisa efter kolonialismen: forna Mau-Mau-kämpars krav på gottgörelse för britternas övergrepp på 1950-talet och hererofolkets krav till Tyskland på gottgörelse för det folkmord som ägde rum 1904–1907. Dessa exempel aktualiserar frågan om historisk rättvisa. Vad innebär historisk rättvisa? Vilka krav på historisk rättvisa är berättigade att ställa? Hur lång tid efter övergrepp och våld finns det skäl att kräva gottgörelse? Kan kraven ärvas till efterkommande generationer? Vem bör gottgöra (...) dem som drabbats? Dessa frågor måste besvaras för att man skall kunna ta ställning till krav på gottgörelse och rättvisa. Syftet med denna artikel är att identifiera och söka besvara en rad frågor som krav på gottgörande rättvisa efter kolonialismen ställer. Avslutningsvis diskuteras kraven från Mau-Mau-kämparna som var internerade i brittiska läger och hererofolkets krav på kompensation från Tyskland.Nyckelord: Gottgörande rättvisa, kompensation, kolonialism, herero, Mau-Mau, global rättvisa, historisk rättvisaEnglish summary: The Meaning of Historical Justice after ColonialismRecently, four Kikuyus and former Kenyan Mau-Mau fighters claimed compensation for castration, torture and rape committed in the British detention camps in the 1950s. Also recently, representatives of the Herero people went to Berlin to bring home skulls that Germans brought to Berlin after the genocide at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. The detentions and abuses of Kikuyu and the genocide of the Herero people are just two examples of offenses carried out by European nations during colonialism. Do these offenses have any reverberations today? Should we simply forget about the deeds that happened such a long time ago or do they raise any legal or moral questions?The concept of justice has two dimensions, distributional and rectificatory. This article focuses on the meaning and implication of rectificatory justice for historical wrongs. The simple idea that if A is harming B, A has to correct her act, i.e. the basic idea of rectificatory justice, presupposes a line of complicated assumptions when it is applied to specific historical incidences, for example colonialism.A model provides a basis for an explication of rectificatory justice. It is then applied to a discussion of rectification after colonialism. The questions of who can rightly claim rectification and who owes rectification, if there are temporal limitations to rectification and what rectification after colonialism would imply are discussed. The article ends with an explication of the meaning of rectificatory justice, an argumentation for why rectificatory justice is commendable and an assessment of the demands of the Mau-Mau-fighters and the Herero. (shrink)

Dalam pembacaan saya, karya yang sedang saya timang-timang ini tidak berlebihan jika diberi tajuk, “Belajar Mencipta Refleksi Ilmiah Teologis dari Joas Adiprasetya.” Oleh karena itu, pada tempat pertama, kepada Joas Adiprasetya saya menyampaikan proficiat atas dipublikasikannya hasil studi yang memahkotai ikhtiar menimba ilmu di School of Theology, Boston University, Massachusetts (USA), pada 2009 yang lalu. Studi formal Joas Adiprasetya bukan hanya sekedar selesai asal selesai, melainkan dengan kualifikasi maxima cum laude. Hal ini dapat ditilik dan dibuktikan dengan opus magnum yang (...) sedang kita bicarakan hic et nunc. Bagaimana tidak? Karya ini mengangkat ke permukaan dua tema besar, yang kemudian dijadikan fokus kajian dan perhatiannya. Kedua tema itu berkenaan dengan Trinitas dan Teologi Agama-Agama. Di satu pihak, mengulas Trinitas tak ubahnya bagaikan mengawali perjalanan dalam kegelapan dan mengakhirinya dalam kegelapan. Pembicaraan tentang Trinitas mengesankan tidak semakin memperjelas pemahaman pembicara tentang Trinitas, apalagi memperjelas Trinitas pada dirinya sendiri. Trinitas tetap Trinitas. Titik. Ia tetap misteri. Di lain pihak, manusia yang percaya telah (sedang dan akan) mengalami siapakah Trinitas dalam peri hidupnya. Jadi, ada semacam lubang yang memungkinkan manusia dalam keterbatasannya scapato via (lepas, melejit, melarikan diri) mencapai gugus tertinggi dalam puncak-puncak sekelebatan sinar yang barang kali imaginatif. Akan tetapi kedua “kebenaran” itu sah. Artinya, dapat diverifikasikan dan dapat pula dipertanggungjawabkan secara ilmiah. Oleh karena itu, sangat besar kekeliruan UU No. 12 Tahun 2012 tentang Pendidikan Tinggi yang membuat kategorisasi baru, yang sangat bertentangan dengan akal sehat dan kebiasaan ilmiah, yakni memasukkan (ilmu) Teologi dalam rumpun ilmu Agama. Namun, apa mau dikata, para pengambil kebijakan di negeri ini akhir-akhir ini seakan tidak pernah belajar dari ilmu, kecuali bagaimana mengakali agar kepentingan kelompok diakomodasi dengan imbalan uang. Justru, studi dan karya Joas Adiprasetya ini, di mata saya, dapat memperlihatkan kekeliruan dan kerancuan berpikir para anggota parlemen sekaligus Kementerian Agama Republik Indonesia. Coba simak saja kajian Joas Adiprasetya dan lihat sendiri bagaimana tema teologis ini tidak bersangkut paut dengan “rumpun ilmu agama,” sebab studi ini bersifat keilmuan, “metapraksis” yang melampaui premis-premis agama sebagai suatu lembaga, yang tentu saja telah dibuktikan di Indonesia dapat dipolitisasi. Dalam studi Joas Adiprasetya ini, tak terbilang jumlah tokoh besar (dalam sejarah doktrin Kristen) yang mengulas, merefleksikan, meneliti, serta menulis dengan ketelitian yang mengagumkan dan ketajaman yang memukau, akan tetapi pada akhirnya sama gelapnya, dan yang lebih menakjubkan adalah jumlah orang percaya dan oleh karena itu mengalami tidak berkurang, bahkan sebaliknya. Itulah sebabnya Anselmus Canterburry menyatakan Credo ut intelligam; artinya, saya percaya supaya dengan itulah saya memahami............ Joas Adiprasetya pun, dalam bidikan saya, menyenggol paradigma teologi tentang agama-agama di bawah istilah eksklusivisme, inklusivisme, and pluralisme. Seiring dengan perkembangan waktu, yang memperlihatkan bahwa teologi pun menganut asas semper reformanda et reformata sicut signum temporis (senantiasa membarui dan diperbarui seturut tanda zaman), maka dipopulerkan era pasca pluralisme. Dengan terminologi pasca pluralisme, sejumlah peristilahan yang pernah dikecam seperti sinkretisme, kafir (baca: bukan kita), murtad, proselitisme, dan lain sebagainya perlu ditinjau kembali. Di sini, Joas Adiprasetya melihat tersedianya lahan untuk berdialog, juga tentang Trinitas. Tentu hal ini merupakan tantangan tersendiri jika “minoritas”—seperti Joas Adiprasetya—menawarkan kepada publik sebuah keterkaitan “niscaya” antara teologi tentang Trinitas dengan teologi tentang agama-agama. Ternyata Joas Adiprasetya yang kreatif berhasil menyingkapkan kata kunci yang dapat berlaku umum, yaitu sosial untuk kemudian masuk dalam the great design, yakni misteri perichoresis. Tidak tanggung-tanggung, Joas Adiprasetya menyihir para pembaca dengan ungkapan magis yang diturunkan dari Leonardo Boff, “The holy Trinity is our social program” (Nicolas Federov dikutip oleh Boff dalam “Trinity” dalam Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology, hlm. 78). Meski demikian, hal itu tidak berarti Saudara Joas Adiprasetya sedang tidak menyimpan bom waktu, sebab relasi sosial yang diterapkan dalam signifikansi perichoresis dapat melahirkan suatu cara pandang yang menyamakan saja antara Sang Alpha dan Omega dengan makhluk ciptaan; dan hal ini salah satu butir notasi tentang Teologi Pembebasan, yang sepenuhnya didukung oleh Leonardo Boff. Sekali lagi, dengan memanfaatkan senjata pamungkas dari para teolog kenamaan tersebut (Raimundo Panikkar, Gavin D’Costa, Mark Heim, yang masing-masing menggunakan person-, nature-, reality-perichoresis), Joas Adiprasetya berhasil mengeksplorasi dan menemukan seberkas cahaya terang, yang ternyata sejalan dengan penemuan Richard Kearney (Allah yang mungkin ada) dan Jürgen Moltmann (Trinitas terbuka). Sampai di sini, Joas Adiprasetya dapat menawarkan temuannya sebagai suatu bentuk teologi Indonesia! Akhirnya, karya ini tidak sesederhana, tidak sesingkat Daftar Isi (hlm. vii), sebab penelusuran Joas Adiprasetya mengalir sampai jauh, sampai saling merasuki pribadi-pribadi tanpa melebur menjadi satu, tanpa menghilangkan identitas, justru karena prinsip perichoretik itu bersatu tanpa saling meniadakan. Karya Ketua Sekolah Tinggi Teologia Jakarta ini merupakan salah satu model unggul berteologi dalam konteks dan ranah multipluralisme, yang diakui dan dipuji di Indonesia, namun tidak banyak dipraktikkan. (A. Eddy Kristiyanto, Program Studi Teologi, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)

According to Marx’s unfinished critique of political economy, capitalist relations of production rely on what Marx refers to in Capital as ‘the mute compulsion of economic relations’. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that this constitutes a distinct form of economic power which cannot be reduced to either ideology or violence, and to provide the conceptual groundwork for a systematic theory of capital’s mute compulsion.

The introduction of the concept of capital inCapital– with the words ‘we find’ – has provoked a great deal of discussion about the precise relation between the categories of simple circulation and the concept of capital. In this article, I argue that Marx derives the concept of capital by way of an analysis of the immanent contradictions of money, and that this dialectical derivation can be understood as a conceptual movement in which the concepts of money and capital progressively change (...) their modal status. Furthermore, I examine the development of this transition to capital throughout Marx’s writings from the period 1857 to 1872, arguing that the same arguments can be found in all the relevant writings. Finally, the article provides a critical review of the literature on the transition to capital. (shrink)

THE DOUBLE INVERSION - THE CONCEPT OF FETISHISM IN THE CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMYKarl Marx’s critical analysis of ‘the secret of the fetishism of commodities’ – according to which the universal domination of the commodity form makes social relations appear in the form of relations between things – is today widely regarded as a central element of the critique of political economy. The concept of fetishism was generally neglected until in the 1920’s, and the debates around this concept did not (...) really take off until the 1960’s. Since then, there have essentially been two predominant interpretations of Marx’s concept of fetishism: on the one hand those who regards fetishism as an ideological phenomenon, as something that has to do with the way in which social reality is represented for and in the social agents. On the other hand there are those who insists that fetishism refers to a certain displacement or inversion at the level of social practice itself, and not its ideological representation. In this article, I review these conflicting readings in the light of a close reading of Marx’s use of the term fetish in all of his writings from the Grundrisse onwards. I argue that Marx used this term to refer to an ideological phenomenon, and that he was right in doing so. I also point out that this does not entail subscribing to a naïve view of ideology as false consciousness or class manipulation that can be abolished by enlightenment and criticism. (shrink)

FROM ESSENCE TO METABOLISM - MARX'S CONCEPTS OF WORKThe Marxist tradition is marked by a persistent conflict about the analytical as well as tactical use of the concept of labour: Is labour a trans-historical necessity, or is it rather a specific capitalist phenomenon that should be abolished along with capital and the state? The article shows how these theoretical and tactical conflicts can be traced back to certain ambiguities in the writings of Marx, taken as a whole. Furthermore, the article (...) argues that Marx’s use of the concept can be divided into three periods: In 1844, the concept of labour was a anthropological notion designating the trans-historical essence of the human being and occupying an explanatory and critical function in the critique of bourgeois society. In 1845-48, the trans-historical use of the concept disappears and gives way to a distinction between activity and labour. The latter is now conceptualised as something specific to capitalism. From 1857 onwards, Marx develops a new trans-historical concept of labour, inspired by the concept of metabolism. However, this concept does not have the explanatory and critical function that the early concept of labour had. (shrink)

The present article critically examines three aspects of Graham Priest's dialetheic analysis of very important kinds of limitations (the limit of what can be expressed, described, conceived, known, or the limit of some operation or other). First, it is shown that Priest's considerations focusing on Hegel's account of the infinite cannot be sustained, mainly because Priest seems to rely on a too restrictive notion of object. Second, we discuss Priest's treatment of the paradoxes in Cantorian set-theory. It is shown that (...) Priest does not address the issue in full generality; rather, he relies on a reading of Cantor which implicitly attributes a very strong principle concerning quantification over arbitrary domains to Cantor. Third, the main piece of Priest's work, the so-called “inclosure schema”, is investigated. This schema is supposed to formalize the core of many well-known paradoxes. We claim, however, that formally the schema is not sound. (shrink)

Current organizational design, as it pertains to both private and public organizations, assumes that they are bound and separate from the larger society or community they exist in. In this context, leaders tend to make decisions out of the narrow self-interest of their organizations and the systems within which they are embedded rather than contemplating the resultant impact of those decisions on the broader network of interdependent systems. In this essay we argue that the traditional leadership paradigms are not serving (...) humanity well and that individual leaders need to break down the siloed thinking that dominates within various types of organizations and to promote a mindset of interdependence. In our view, there needs to be a much broader recognition of the interdependence of various systems in society by those who have the responsibility for leading, particularly our political leaders. Unfortunately, however, there are powerful political and economic impediments to our political leaders embracing this mindset of interdependence. We offer some practices to promote a greater awareness of organizational interdependence and discuss some of the implications that this shift in mindset has for organizational leaders in society. (shrink)

Aristotle is oftentimes viewed through a strictly philosophical lens as heir to Plato and has having introduced logical rigor where an emphasis on the theory of Forms formerly prevailed. It must be appreciated that Aristotle was the son of a physician, and that his inculcation of the thought of other Greek philosophers addressing health and the natural elements led to an extremely broad set of biologically- and medically-related writings. As this article proposes, Aristotle deepened the fourfold theory of the elements (...) with anatomic and physiologic observations. In books like History of Animals, Parts of Animals, and the lost Anatomai, he actively dissected organisms and recorded his findings. The corpus of medically-related literature Aristotle developed had a direct influence on subsequent Greek thinkers, including Galen, and on Medieval Islamic and modern Western practitioners such as William Harvey. Aristotle's ideas continue to influence modern medical thinkers in Europe and America through both his interpretation by European philosophers gaining the attention of medical humanists, and his writings' enduring impact on medical researchers balancing scientific with more personalistic approaches to medicine. (shrink)

The estrangement between genetic scientists and theologians originating in the 1960s is reflected in novel combinations of human thought (subject) and genes (investigational object), paralleling each other through the universal process known in chaos theory as self-similarity. The clash and recombination of genes and knowledge captures what Philip Hefner refers to as irony, one of four voices he suggests transmit the knowledge and arguments of the religion-and-science debate. When viewed along a tangent connecting irony to leadership, journal dissemination, and the (...) activities of the "public intellectual" and the public at large, the sequence of voices is shown to resemble the passage of genetic information from DNA to mRNA, tRNA, and protein, and from cell nucleus to surrounding environment. In this light, Hefner's inquiry into the voices of Zygon is bound up with the very subject matter Zygon covers. (shrink)

" In Imagination and the Meaningful Brain, psychoanalyst Arnold Modell claims that subjective human experience must be included in any scientific...

This book brings together several directions of work in model theory between the late 1950s and early 1980s.

This paper introduces and defends an account of model-based science that I dub model pluralism. I argue that despite a growing awareness in the philosophy of science literature of the multiplicity, diversity, and richness of models and modeling practices, more radical conclusions follow from this recognition than have previously been inferred. Going against the tendency within the literature to generalize from single models, I explicate and defend the following two core theses: any successful analysis of models must target (...) sets of models, their multiplicity of functions within science, and their scientific context and history and for almost any aspect x of phenomenon y, scientists require multiple models to achieve scientific goal z. (shrink)