In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:332 BOOK REVIEWS toral inventions (such as basic Christian communities), and the religious backgrounds of millions who help to make up the churches, Catholic and Protestant, of the United States. Providence College Providence, RI EDWARD L. CLEARY, O.P. Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. By ALFRED R. MELE. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. 272 + ix. $39.95 (cloth). Alfred Mele's overarching aim in this book (...) is to offer an account of the role of intentions in the explanation of intentional action. He works within the familiar terms of causal theories of action, and is particularly indebted to Donald Davidson. In Part I, Mele borrows a set of theses from Davidson's desire/belief model of intentional action, and in the process of addressing problems associated with these theses, he progressively refines an account of action that understands an agent's reasons to have explanatory force by virtue of being among the causes of action. In Part II, Mele argues that desire/belief models are insufficient as they stand and need to be filled out by recognizing that intentions provide a crucial link between reasons and actions. The discussion begins with the vexed question of how the content of mental states can be relevant to the causal explanation of action. We constantly appeal to our desires, beliefs, plans, and so on (i.e., to various propositional, or intentional, attitudes) in explaining our behavior. But how does, say, my appetite for good wine and my belief that the house chardonnay is such a wine figure in the causal order that brings about my act of ordering a glass of it? Presumably, these intentional states supervene upon certain physical states of my body, and the latter do the causal work of producing wine-ordering behavior. However, there are good reasons to think that, with certain sorts of changes in my history and environment (viz., of the sort described in twin earth thought experiments), these physical states could be the realization of different intentional states. So can a causal theory of action actually accord my desires and beliefs any role in explaining my action? Mele argues that even if we hold (with externalists) that the agent's history and environment help to fix the content of her intentional states, we can nonetheless say that unless the agent had intended what she did, she would not have acted as she did. The behavior is intentional action by virtue of issuing (in the right way) from physical processes BOOK REVIEWS 333 that realize the agent's reasons for acting, and these processes realize these reasons only if the processes have an appropriate causal history. The result is that what we desire, believe, and intend does after all make a systematic difference in what we do. Mele makes some helpful refinements in the standard account of the causal role of desire in intentional action. It has typically been claimed that when an agent's wants compete, the "strongest" of them deter· mines the action; if an agent wants to do A more than anything else that she takes herself to be able to do, then if she acts intentionally she will do A. Mele points out that this general claim must be qualified so as to index desires to times, to accommodate both unsuccessful at· tempts and the agent's estimates of the likelihood of success, and to deal with the complex relations between desires. He explores the way in which agents are able to control the motivational strength of their desires, and he works out a definition of irresistible desire. One of the deepest challenges to the claim that action is caused by what we most desire arises in considering "motivational ties." How, on this account, is intentional action possible when we equally desire each of two incompatible alternatives? An arbitrary decision procedure can be adopted (e.g., a coin toss), but this alone does not en· hance the attractiveness of the randomly selected alternative. Here Mele introduces his thesis about intentions: viz., that intentions have an "executive quality that is not reducible to desire-strength" (p. 72), so that even when there is no preponderant motivation to do A... (shrink)

On Islamic religious life and Islamic ethics in view of various Islamic stories.

Bu çalışma, Rükneddin Ubeydullah b. Muhammed es-Semerkandî'nin (öl. 701/1301) "Risâle fî ḥaḳîḳati’l-‘âlemi’l-kebîr ve’s-ṣağîr/Büyük ve Küçük Âlemin Hakikati Hakkında Bir Risâle" adlı eserini tahkîk etmeyi, müellifin hayatı ve eserin içeriğini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Rükneddin es-Semerkandî'nin müteahhir/geç dönem Mâtürîdî ve Hanefî âlimlerinden biri olduğu; kelâm, tasavvuf, tefsir, fıkıh usulü, hadis ve diğer alanlardaki eserleriyle İslâm medeniyeti tarihinde belirgin izler bıraktığı belirtilmelidir. Semerkandî'nin eserlerinde de görüldüğü gibi o, sûfî kelâmcılardan veya kelâmcı sûfîlerinden biridir. Üslubu, kelâm, tasavvuf ve - zaman zaman geniş anlamıyla - felsefe (...) ile karışık olan bir sentezdir. Bu da şaşırtıcı bir şey değildir. Zira Semerkandî, ilimlerin iç içe geçtiği ve kelâm ile tasavvufun felsefe boyasıyla boyandığı (Gazâlî (öl. 505/1111) ve Fahreddin er-Râzî (öl. 606/1210) sonrası) bir dönemde yaşamıştır. Elimizdeki risâlesi aracılığıyla, Rükneddin es-Semerkandî'nin kelâmcı ve mutasavvıf olmasının yanı sıra felsefeden de etkilendiğini görüyoruz. Zira insan ile büyük âlem arasındaki benzetme veya insan ve âlem arasında bir bağ kurma meselesi, kökleri eski felsefelere dayanan eski bir bakış açısıdır; daha sonra İslâm felsefesi ve İslâm düşüncesi bütünüyle bu felsefî perspektiften etkilenmiş ve insanı küçük bir âlem olarak görmüşlerdir. Rükneddin es-Semerkandî, insanı küçük bir âlem olarak veya kendi ifadesiyle büyük âlemin fihristi olarak gören Müslüman düşünürler veya âlimlerden biridir. Görünüşe göre, müellif bu konuya özel bir ilgi göstermiş ve bu nedenle bu konuda müstakil bir risâle yazmıştır. Söz konusu risâlesini, girişten sonra on iki kısa ve öz bölüm halinde kaleme almıştır. Müellif eserinde, büyük âlem ve küçük âlemin yaratılma amacına - ki bu risâlesini yazma hedefidir - değinmiştir. Ayrıca âlemlerin kısımları, dört kavram "duyu, akıl, kalp ve ruh" ve ruhun en yüce ve en erdemli olduğu, "Allah, Âdem'i kendi suretinde yarattı" hadisinin anlamı, insan ruhunun en üstün/erdemli varlık olduğu, bir mürebbî şeyhin/eğiten hocanın bilmesi gereken ilimler, eğiten hocası olmayan birinin ne yapması gerektiği gibi tasavvufî konuları ele almış; Allah'ın sıfatlarının kısımları, insan, cin ve melek gibi diğer kelamî konuları da işlemiştir. Müellif, risâlesinde konu bağlamında ayetleri ve hadisleri aktarma ve âlimlerin sözlerini nakletme yöntemini izleyerek kendi görüş veya ifadesini belirtmektedir. Müellif genellikle Cüneyd-i Bağdâdî (öl. 297/909) ve Hakîm et-Tirmizî (öl. 320/932) gibi sûfî âlimlerden alıntı yapar, bu da ilmî kaynaklarının - en azından ilgili risâlesi bağlamında - sûfî eserler ve âlimler olduğunu yansıtır. Bu çalışmanın önemi, söz konusu risâlenin ilk kez tahkîk ve incelenmesi yapılıp, risâlenin hâlâ kütüphanelerde el yazması olarak bulunmasında yatmaktadır. Araştırmamız neticesinde, Türkiye kütüphanelerinde bulunan toplam sekiz nüsha tespit edilmiştir. Şöyle ki, Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Ulucami 1674/2, vr. 17-25; Bursa İnebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Ulucami 1695/15, vr. 226-231; Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Hekimoğlu Ali Paşa 933/16, vr. 108-111; Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Esad Efendi 1695/14, vr. 84-86; Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Hacı Beşir Ağa 387/6, vr. 121-131; Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Laleli 168/4, vr. 87-92; Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Muğlalı Hoca Mustafa Efendi 109/6, vr. 30-33 ve Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Sütlüce Dergahı 117-4, vr. 94-99. Tarihsel olarak en eski ve müellifin ölüm tarihine en yakın olanı (Bursa/ Ulucami 1674/2) ana nüsha olarak tayin edildi; ayrıca iki nüsha ana nüshayla karşılaştırılarak/mukayese edilerek incelenmiştir. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:This volume collects seven articles of Carlo Paolazzi, O.F.M., previously published in journals and congress proceedings between 1996 and 2004, each of them dealing with the Writings of Francis. The essays are not arranged chronologically but move from more general to more specific studies on the Writings of Francis of Assisi. The titles of the essays included are: 1) The Birth of the Writings and Constitution of the Canon (...) ; 2) Francis, Theology and the Letter to brother Anthony ; 3) Anthony cites Francis: the Epilogue of the Sunday Sermons and the Early Rule XVI ; 4) The Writings between Francis and his secretaries: a Knot to be Untied ; 5) Concerning the Autographs of brother Francis: Doubts, Verifications and Confirmations ; 6) Concerning the Authenticity of the Writings of Francis to the "Poor Ladies" ; 7) The Lesser Brothers and Books: Concerning the Exegesis of "the books necessary to fulfill their office" and "Those who do not know how to read" . Each of the essays displays a careful methodology and appreciation for the evangelical content of the texts.The first essay deals with the establishment of the "canon" of Francis's writings in which the author demonstrates that the writings are born and develop from Francis's relationship with the Word of God. In this context, "writing" takes on the character of an "essential moment" in Francis's relationship with the Word , with God and with the brotherhood. This explains for Paolazzi, the passion with which Francis recommends the writings to those to whom they are addressed.The second and third essays are related to Anthony of Padua and the writings. The second essay deals with the content and authenticity of the Letter to Anthony, included by Kajetan Esser in the canon of Francis's writings. Paolazzi argues that the expression, "Brother Anthony my bishop" goes back to Francis himself. He suggests that Anthony's request for permission to teach reflects the concern of the novice who had permission from his minister to have a breviary, but was uncomfortable and needed Francis's explicit permission , a characteristic of the tension in the brotherhood upon Francis's return from Egypt in 1220. The conditions Francis places on the teaching of Anthony reflect Francis's concern that the Word of God not be approached purely from an intellectual perspective, but rather as a Word which must transform life. The third essay attempts to demonstrate that the Epilogue to Anthony's Sunday Sermons integrates sections of chapter 17 of the Early Rule. Paolazzi concludes this careful lexical study with the affirmation that Anthony had the Early Rule's exhortation to preachers in chapter 17 before his eyes as he concluded his Opus Evangeliorum .In the fourth essay Paolazzi tackles the question of the role played by secretaries in the production of the Writings of Francis. Scholars, including Esser, have suggested that because of his health and/or because of his status as "illiterate," Francis depended on secretaries to put his thoughts on paper. Paolazzi approaches the question by citing a saying attributed to Francis from the Mirror of Perfection . That this saying goes back to the historical Francis Paolazzi concludes based on both the content and the fact that it reflects Francis's literal approach to the Gospel. The saying states that Francis wanted no one to call him good, father or master because of the teaching of Christ in the Gospel who said that only God should be addressed with these titles . He then studies the usage and appearance of these three terms in the Writings of Francis, which confirm a consistent usage in accord with this saying. This demonstrates that the Writings reflect the "speech" of Francis and not simply his conceptual thought. Paolazzi considers that "in the Writings religious thought and the verbal lexicon of evangelical inspiration respond one to.. (shrink)

Peter of John Olivi composed Question 57 of his Quaestiones in secundum librum Sententiarum (“Questions on the Second Book of the Sentences”) in the decade after William of Moerbeke had translated, not long before 1270, Aristotle’s On Rhetoric into Latin.2 It was above all Moerbeke’s translation that gave thirteenth-century Europe access to the analysis of the emotions that Aristotle had placed in Book Two of the work. Two earlier translations existed: one that Hermannus Alemannus had made from an Arabic translation (...) in 1256, and another that an anonymous translator had done from the Greek, sometime in the middle of the century.3 Few had read Hermannus’s version; and even fewer that of the unknown translator. In .. (shrink)

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Gegenwart und Zukunft der Philosophie in Deutschland" verfügbar.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS The Logic of God Incarnate. By THOMAS V. MORRIS. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986. Pp. 220. $19.95. Thomas V. Morris, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, has written a technical yet provocative study on the Incarnation. As a faithful Christian he believes in and desires to defend the traditional Christian doctrine of the Incarnation proclaimed in the New Testament and defined by the (...) early councils of the Church, especially Chalcedon, that is, that Jesus is the One eternal Son existing in two natures. He also holds that, while the truth of the Incarnation is revealed, it must nonetheless stand the test of logic and reason. The Incarnation cannot be illogicaJ or meaningless. " If the church has been guided by God in such matters as the formulation of its creeds, conciliar decrees, and catechisms,.... we would not expect glaring logical flaws in its central doctrinal affirmations" (p. 46). The stated purpose of Morris's study is to defend the traditional doctrine against those who would hold it to be logically incoherent and meaningless. "In the course of thinking about the Incarnation for some years now, I have come to see that a few simple metaphysical distinctions and a solid dose of logical care will suffice to explicate and defend the doctrine against all extant criticisms of a philosophical nature" (p. 9). Morris meticulously analyzes and critiques a number of arguments that oppose the possibility of coherence of the Incarnation by attempting to demonstrate that such arguments are.either false and illogical themselves, or that they do not apply to a true understanding of the Incarnation. Moreover, Morris proposes a novel understanding of the Incarnation which he believes is both logical and intelligible, and which conforms to the Christian tradition. This goal of upholding the intelligibility of the Incarnate leads Morris to a three-fold task. He first of all must refute his chief adversaries, those who would deny the sensibleness of saying God became man in Jesus. Such critics deny the validity of the Incarnation on the ground..'! that it is meaning·less, and the'l'efore impossible to juxtapose the incommensurable. attributes of divinity and humanity, e.g., perfection/imperfection, immutability/corruptibility. They hold that Jesus could not have had both these sets of properties at once (cf. p. 20). Morris refuses to capitulate to such arguments. He nevertheless insists that any solution to the issue which would undermine human logic or which would fail to uphold the Christian's belief is no solution at all (cf. p. 32). 367 368 BOOK REVIEWS Secondly, Morris's task leads him to refute any attempts at a " OneNature " solution, which would "squash" together the human and divine natures in Jesus to form a single nature. Such proposals jeopardize either the integrity of Jesus's divinity (Arianism) or his humanity (Docetism, Monophysitism), inevitably composing a mythical tertium quid (cf. pp. 33-38). Morris presents a clear case against such corruptions of the Incarnation. Thirdly, Morris's task brings him to analyze contemporary kenotic Christology. He thoroughly discusses this approach, for the reason that it is directly involved in the issue at hand, namely, the incompatibility between divine and human properties in Christ. Secondarily, however, Morris's interest in kenoticism reflects his own hope that some variation of the approach might posibly arrive at a Christological solution (cf. p. 92). While he ultimately rejects kenoticism, Morris flirts with the various alternatives, and, as we shall see, his own perception of the Incarnation remains tinged with a kenotic flavor. How then is it possible to predicate of one and the same individual divine and human attributes intelligibly and coherentlyT To use contemporary computer jargon, the question might be phrased: is it possible that God and man can he "incarnation-friendly¥" Morris believes so. Morris first of all sets out to define the terms-divine nature and human nature. He believes part of the incompatibility problem lies in attributing to Jesus's humanity unnecessarily hostile aspects. He distinguishes between being "merely human" and being "fully human"· To be " merely human " is to possess not only those properties that narrowly define one's nature or kind, such as rationality, but... (shrink)

İslâm’ın ilk dönemlerinden itibaren Kur’ân’da Arapça dışında bir kelimenin bulunup bulunma-dığı hususunda farklı görüşler ileri sürülmüştür. Bu görüşler çerçevesinde mesele, Kur’ân’da yabancı dillerden bazı kelimelerin bulunup bulunmadığı merkezinde tartışıldığı gibi, bazı kelimelerin köken itibarıyla Arapça olmakla beraber şer’î terminolojinin ortaya çıkışı sonra-sında Arapların o zamana kadar bilmediği yeni anlamlar kazanmış olmasının Kur’ân’ın arabî olmasına engel teşkil edip etmeyeceği boyutuyla da tartışılmıştır. Şâfiî, Kur’ân’ın arabîliği görüşünün ilk ve en tavizsiz savunucularından biridir. Kur’ân, muhatapları Arap olduğu için Arapça nazil olmuştur. Her dil, (...) o dili konuşan halkın kültürünü ve düşünce yapısını da barındı-rır. Şâfiî nazarında Kur’ân’ın arabî olması Arap dilinin kurallarına, üslubuna uygun olmasının ötesinde Arap kültürünü ve düşünce yapısını da barındırması demektir. Muhataplar açısından bakınca da kendi dillerinde inen vahyin kendileri için olabildiğince açık/mübin olması gerekir. Dolayısyla Şâfiî’nin er-Risâle’de, nasslardan hüküm çıkarırken Arapçanın kural ve üsluplarını dikkate alma üzerine kurmuş olduğu beyân teorisi Kur’an’ın arabî olması ile yakından alakalı-dır. Bu makalede Şâfiî’nin konuya dair görüşleri er-Risâle isimli eseri merkeze alınarak tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Arap dili, Fıkıh, Şâfiî, Beyân, Kur’an’ın Arabîliği. (shrink)

The aims of the paper are (i) to introduce a framework for reasoning about equity in health distribution before and after interventions, and (ii) to assess various Gini measures applied to healthy life expectancy against explicit normative concerns. Part 1 discusses different ways of measuring pure health inequality and suggests that a modified Gini measure could be used to measure inequity in health before and after treatment. Part 2 introduces a framework for reasoning about distributions of health. Part 3 discusses (...) three normative concerns that any acceptable measure of inequity should satisfy. Part 4 describes the standard Gini measure for measuring pure inequalities in healthy life expectancy. It also examines Wagstaff's Extended Gini measure of health inequity and discusses how it can be used to make priority weights to the worst off explicit. The final section expresses some programmatic worries and possible applications. It is argued that the impact of interventions should be evaluated both in terms of reduced inequity (as measured by the Extended Gini or the Extended Proportional Gini) and improved efficiency (measured by gains in average healthy life expectancy). Measurement of pure health inequity could supplement cost-effectiveness analysis as a basis for fair priority setting. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Place of the Money Bag in the Secular-Mendicant Controversy at ParisRobert J. Karris O.F.M. (bio)Money bag, money bag. So many Bible-reading Christians don't know of your existence. In their defense I note that you are only mentioned twice in the entire New Testament: John 12:6 and 13:29. If faithful Bible-reading Christians don't know of your existence, what is your fate among the faithful who are less than faithful?! (...) Is ignorance truly bliss?New Testament ScholarsMoney bag, money bag. Perhaps, New Testament scholars are the reason why you are almost unknown among Christians.1 Commentators on John's Gospel give you a passing notice, if that.2 Even when they make mention of you, they [End Page 21] generally don't integrate your existence with other features of John's theology or life situation.3 As for the Jesus Seminar, its members sweep you into the dustbin of history along with 99.9% of John's Gospel.4 You see, you are deemed unhistorical. A couple of scholars involved in the quest for the historical Jesus say "Hi!" to you, but then go on with more important matters.5 Other scholars involved in the application [End Page 22] of social science methodology to the study of the New Testament opine that you were kept as a security measure and contained money to pay for the annual temple tax and such like obligations, but then they hold their peace.6Money bag, money bag. Scholars who have investigated the theme of rich and poor in the New Testament hardly give [End Page 23] you a second glance. You do not play a leading role in their general conclusions.7So, money bag, we have to take leave of New Testament scholarship if we are going to make your acquaintance on a serious level.The Middle AgesFrancis of AssisiAs we move into the Middle Ages, we ask: Did St. Francis of Assisi provide us with guidance on how to treat you with the respect that you, O money bag, so richly deserve? You see, some scholars maintain that John's Gospel was most important to Francis's worldview.8 However, Francis doesn't seem to see the problem you created for his all-consuming embrace of Jesus' missionary command of traveling with no money.9 [End Page 24] Surely Francis knows of your existence, for he refers to you in his Fourth Admonition n. 3:And the more they (superiors) are perturbed about their superiorship being taken from them than they would be over the loss of the office of washing feet, so much the more do they collect for themselves a money bag (John 12:6; 13:29) to the peril of their souls.10Francis is heir to a Benedictine spiritualization of the money bag. See how Roger the Abbot in his Sermo in ultima cena employs the money bag:Woe, how many money bags, woe, how many purses are in the monasteries of St. Benedict! Woe, how many cowls, which cover the ears of the tonsured, enclose private supplies of the mind, the money bag of one's own will, the purse of murmuring, detraction, idleness, pride, envy, jealousy, and bad will! But remember, most beloved brothers, that those who do such things follow Judas the traitor. And therefore, unless you amend your lives, you will not possess the kingdom of God.11O money bag, so Francis goes his merry way, apparently ignorant of your true meaning and leaves the problems created by your existence to his learned followers such as Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. To Bonaventure we now turn, but do so through his responses to his secular opponents, William of Saint-Amour and Gerard of Abbeville. First let's hear from the secular masters. [End Page 25]William of Saint-Amour and Gerard of AbbevilleWilliam of Saint-Amour comments on John 12:6 and argues that it does not permit begging and is the basis for the normative view that the apostles and their successors should have a money bag. He writes:Augustine, 'the Lord had a purse to keep the offerings... (shrink)