En décadas recientes se ha considerado que una formulación adecuada del autoconocimiento (AC) debería ser consistente con la tesis del externalismo (E). Michael McKinsey es uno de los personajes que ha enfatizado con mayor ahínco que la conjunción de ambas posturas es inconsistente. En este trabajo defiendo la idea de que las objeciones presentadas por McKinsey no afectan de manera importante la formulación davidsoniana de la autoridad de la primera persona (AC3) en conjunción con (E); señalo, además, que si (...) no pudiera hacerse una reconstrucción à la Davidson de (AC3) desde la postura de McKinsey sería en virtud de las diferencias metodológicas, semánticas, epistemológicas y ontológicas entre ambos autores, y no debido a que esta reconstrucción en sí misma sea incompatible con el externalismo. (shrink)

Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of (...) the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue. (shrink)

Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of (...) the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue. (shrink)

Using relevant encyclicals issued over the last 100 years, the author extracts those principles that constitute the underpinnings of Catholic Social Teaching about the employment relationship and contemplates implications of their incorporation into human resource policy. Respect for worker dignity, for his or her family's economic security, and for the common good of society clearly emerge as the primary guidelines for responsible human resource management. Dovetailing these three Church mandates with the economic objectives of the firm could, in essence, alter (...) the firm's nature because profit motivations would be constrained by consideration for worker and societal welfare. Integration of Church teaching with current corporate goals should therefore impact greatly on a variety of human resource policies. (shrink)

Conditionals has at its center an extended essay on this problematic and much-debated subject in the philosophy of language and logic, which the widely respected Oxford philosopher Michael Woods had been preparing for publication at the time of his death in 1993. It appears here edited by his eminent colleague David Wiggins, and is accompanied by a commentary specially written by a leading expert on the topic, Dorothy Edgington. This masterly and original treatment of conditionals will demand the attention (...) of all philosophers working in this area. (shrink)

To me a painted paroquet Hath been – a most familiar bird– Taught me my alphabet to say– To lisp my very earliest word. Edgar Allan Poe, “Romance,” Poetry and Tales 53 Logographical necessity (ana...

Marx and heidegger agree that capitalism turns everything into a commodity for economic exploitation. Unlike marx, However, Heidegger regards both capitalism and communism as instances of human subjectivism: the attitude that man is the measure of all things, And that everything is an object to be dominated by the human subject. Capitalist man dominates nature (including man) individually; communist man does so collectively. Marx, Unfortunately, Was taken in by hegel's anthropocentric view of history, And had an unwavering faith in the (...) promise of industrialization for liberating mankind from its problems. Heidegger calls for a new way of understanding humanity: as an integral part of nature, Not its lord and master. Neither capitalism nor communism can comprehend this way of thinking. (shrink)

These are replies to the discussions by Kirk Ludwig, Elizabeth Pacherie, Björn Petersson, Abraham Roth, and Thomas Smith of Michael E. Bratman, Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together (Oxford University Press, 2014).

ZusammenfassungOb und inwieweit Menschenbilder in der Ethik eine Rolle spielen (sollen), ist hoch umstritten - auch deswegen, weil das Verhältnis zwischen Ethik und Menschenbild ziemlich unklar ist. Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht, dieses Verhältnis zu klären und darzulegen, dass die Rede vom Menschenbild in der Ethik an mehreren Stellen relevant und sinnvoll ist. Zu diesem Zweck wird erstens der Begriff des Menschenbildes definiert und einige verbreitete Missverständnisse ausgeräumt. Zweitens werden drei in der Ethik verbreitete Modelle der Beziehung zwischen Ethik und Menschenbild (...) vorgestellt und ihre Schwierigkeiten untersucht: das (traditionelle) Telos-Modell, das (neuzeitliche) Human-nature-Modell und das (moderne) reduzierte Vernunft- Modell. Anhand einer ausführlichen Kritik des dritten Modells, das modernen Ethikansätzen zugrunde liegt, zeigt der Beitrag drittens schließlich auf, dass eine Ethik dann, wenn sie konkrete Urteile und materiale Normen begründen will, nicht umhin kommt, explizit oder implizit von gehaltvollen Menschenbildern auszugehen. (shrink)

Renewed attention to integrating information ethics within graduate library and information science programs has forced LIS educators to ensure that future information professionals - and the users they interact with - participate appropriately and ethically in our contemporary information society. Along with focusing on graduate LIS curricula, information ethics must become infused in multiple and varied educational contexts, ranging from elementary and secondary education, technical degrees and undergraduate programs, public libraries, through popular media, and within the home.Teaching information ethics in (...) these diverse settings and contexts brings numerous challenges and requires new understandings and innovative approaches. In keeping with the 2011 Association for Library and Information Science Education conference theme of "Competitiveness and Innovation," a diverse panel of educators and researchers were convened to foster a discussion in how to best incorporate information ethics education across diverse contexts, and how to develop innovative educational methods to overcome the challenges these contexts inevitably present. This article reports on that panel discussion and offers recommendations towards achieving success in information ethics education. (shrink)

308 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:2 APRIL 1996 cal rereading: Kant's substantial rather than exclusively procedural conception of free- dom and autonomy; the constitutive rather than merely regulative function of pure practical reason; and the latter's cognitive-cum-conative nature. But this should not detract from Neiman's original and provocative work, which deserves widespread attention. GONTER ZOLLER University of Iowa Cyril O'Regan. The Heterodox Hegel. SUNY Series in Hegelian Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press, a994. Pp. xi + (...) 517 . Paper, $94-95. This astonishingly erudite and elegantly written book is a major intellectual achieve- ment. O'Regan's study seeks to defend Hegel's trinitarian onto-theology against its modern and postmodern detractors. In addition to an intimate knowledge of Hegel's own work and commentaries thereon, O'Regan reveals a profound grasp of Christian theology, ranging from patristic authors and.. (shrink)

Formalised public participation in project approval procedures is rarely addressed in technology assessment. Empirical data about public participation processes are taken into account even more rarely. This article explores the practice of public participation in infrastructure projects in the Federal Republic of Germany on the basis of empirical data from the period of 1990 to 2010. The author compares the empirical data about participation processes with the targets of the public participation and asks for the reasons for the lack of (...) participation in formalised approval procedures. Furthermore, the author contrasts participation formats used in technology assessment with formalised public participation. In his conclusions, he advocates for a stronger combination of formalised and informal public participation in technology assessment. (shrink)

The present study explored psychological predictors of response to a series of three 25 second inhalations of 20% carbon dioxide-enriched air in 60 nonclinical participants. Multiple regression analyses indicated that only anxiety sensitivity physical concerns predicted self-reported fear, whereas both physical anxiety sensitivity concerns and behavioural inhibition sensitivity independently predicted affective ratings of emotional arousal. In contrast, the psychological concerns anxiety sensitivity dimension predicted ratings of emotional displeasure (valence), and both psychological anxiety sensitivity concerns and behavioural inhibition sensitivity independently predicted (...) emotional dyscontrol. No variables significantly predicted heart rate. These data are in accord with current models of emotional reactivity that highlight the role of cognitive variables in the production of anxious and fearful responding to somatic perturbation, and help further clarify the particular predictors of anxiety-related responding to biological challenge. (shrink)

Still, in this paper I’m not going to be laudatory, enthusiastic, or appreciative, but instead address the distinctly philosophical question of what a forgery is—investigate the concept of a forgery, as philosophers used to say, and sometimes still do. Only after that question and a few others have been answered should we ask the question that everyone wants to ask straight off: What, if anything, is aesthetically wrong with a forgery? Interesting as that question is, space limitations prevent me from (...) addressing it here. (shrink)

SummaryThis paper is a critical examination of argumentum ad ignorantiam, or arguing from ignorance. Ad ignorantiam is regarded as a fallacy, and certainly no route to knowledge, by most philosophers. However, case studies of ad ignorantiam are almost non‐existent, and theoretical discussions few in number. Thus this paper begins with a number of case studies. From them some morals are drawn. The morals concern the interpretation and evaluation of arguments in general and the nature and epistemic value of ad ignorantiam (...) in particular. Two theoretical discussions of the argument‐type are next considered, those of Richard Robinson and John Woods and Douglas Walton. I conclude that there is no general fallacy of ad ignorantiam– no argument is fallacious just because it's an ad ignorantiam– and that sometimes no reason is good reason. (shrink)