La spécialisation sans l'universalisme est aveugle mais l'universalisme sans la spécialisation est inconsistant. Pour avoir su concilier l'une avec l'autre, l'ouvrage de E. R. Curtius sur "La littérature européenne et le Moyen âge latin" demeure l'une des sources fondamentales de la réflexion littéraire contemporaine. Il le doit tout d'abord à la rigueur d'une méthode dont l'intransigeante précision ne le cède en rien à celle des sciences de la nature car pour Curtius "la philologie démontre à l'aide des textes, tout comme (...) la géométrie démontre à l'aide des figures." C'est dire que dans cette œuvre l'étude des faits littéraires n'est altérée par aucun présupposé doctrinal étranger à son objet. Il le doit surtout à, l'ampleur de la perspective adoptée qui, de Virgile à Dante et de Vico à Goethe, reconstitue magistralement l'unité de la tradition culturelle latine. (shrink)

Researchers from across the social sciences have found consistent deviations from the predictions of the canonical model of self-interest in hundreds of experiments from around the world. This research, however, cannot determine whether the uniformity results from universal patterns of human behavior or from the limited cultural variation available among the university students used in virtually all prior experimental work. To address this, we undertook a cross-cultural study of behavior in ultimatum, public goods, and dictator games in a range of (...) small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of economic and cultural conditions. We found, first, that the canonical model – based on self-interest – fails in all of the societies studied. Second, our data reveal substantially more behavioral variability across social groups than has been found in previous research. Third, group-level differences in economic organization and the structure of social interactions explain a substantial portion of the behavioral variation across societies: the higher the degree of market integration and the higher the payoffs to cooperation in everyday life, the greater the level of prosociality expressed in experimental games. Fourth, the available individual-level economic and demographic variables do not consistently explain game behavior, either within or across groups. Fifth, in many cases experimental play appears to reflect the common interactional patterns of everyday life. Key Words: altruism; cooperation; cross-cultural research; experimental economics; game theory; ultimatum game; public goods game; self-interest. (shrink)

What motives underlie the ways humans interact socially? Are these the same for all societies? Are these part of our nature, or influenced by our environments?Over the last decade, research in experimental economics has emphatically falsified the textbook representation of Homo economicus. Literally hundreds of experiments suggest that people care not only about their own material payoffs, but also about such things as fairness, equity and reciprocity. However, this research left fundamental questions unanswered: Are such social preferences stable components of (...) human nature; or, are they modulated by economic, social and cultural environments? Until now, experimental research could not address this question because virtually all subjects had been university students, and while there are cultural differences among student populations throughout the world, these differences are small compared to the full range of human social and cultural environments. A vast amount of ethnographic and historical research suggests that people's motives are influenced by economic, social, and cultural environments, yet such methods can only yield circumstantial evidence about human motives. Combining ethnographic and experimental approaches to fill this gap, this book breaks new ground in reporting the results of a large cross-cultural study aimed at determining the sources of social preferences that underlie the diversity of human sociality. The same experiments which provided evidence for social preferences among university students were performed in fifteen small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of social, economic and cultural conditions by experienced field researchers who had also done long-term ethnographic field work in these societies. The findings of these experiments demonstrated that no society in which experimental behaviour is consistent with the canonical model of self-interest. Indeed, results showed that the variation in behaviour is far greater than previously thought, and that the differences between societies in market integration and the importance of cooperation explain a substantial portion of this variation, which individual-level economic and demographic variables could not. Finally, the extent to which experimental play mirrors patterns of interaction found in everyday life is traced.The book starts with a succinct but substantive introduction to the use of game theory as an analytical tool and its use in the social sciences for the rigorous testing of hypotheses about fundamental aspects of social behaviour outside artificially constructed laboratories. The results of the fifteen case studies are summarized in a suggestive chapter about the scope of the project. (shrink)

Este artigo quer ressalvar como a postura ética é fundamental num contexto de pluralismo religioso – na perspectiva de diálogo interreligioso. Focalizando o encontro entre o cristianismo e as religiôes de matrizes africanas no Brasil, a teologia negra desenvolvida no Brasil fala em junção. O problema caracterizado quer trazer alguma marca das experiências de inculturação (experiência do sagrado). Este tema da inculturação na América Latina revela que é importante analisar no vai-e-vem da missão junto aos Negros, a articulação dos aspectos (...) seguintes: identidades, poderes e diálogos. Por isso, abordo a questão ética a partir da definição identitária, e o processo de inculturação no encontro do cristianismo com as religiões de matrizes africanas, para indicar possíveis rumos do diálogo neste contexto. (shrink)

We would like to thank the commentators for their generous comments, valuable insights and helpful suggestions. We begin this response by discussing the selfishness axiom and the importance of the preferences, beliefs, and constraints framework as a way of modeling some of the proximate influences on human behavior. Next, we broaden the discussion to ultimate-level (that is evolutionary) explanations, where we review and clarify gene-culture coevolutionary theory, and then tackle the possibility that evolutionary approaches that exclude culture might be sufficient (...) to explain the data. Finally, we consider various methodological and epistemological concerns expressed by our commentators. (shrink)

in Harvard Companion to the History of Science, ed. Michael Ruse (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).

The biological membranes of eukaryotic cells harbor sensitive surveillance systems to establish, sense, and maintain characteristic physicochemical properties that ultimately define organelle identity. They are fundamentally important for membrane homeostasis and play active roles in cellular signaling, protein sorting, and the formation of vesicular carriers. Here, we compare the molecular mechanisms of Mga2 and Ire1, two sensors involved in the regulation of fatty acid desaturation and the response to unfolded proteins and lipid bilayer stress in order to identify their commonalities (...) and specializations. We will speculate on the cellular significance of membrane property sensors in other organelles and discuss their putative mechanisms. Based on these findings, we propose membrane property sensors as an emerging class of proteins with wide implications for organelle communication and function. (shrink)

The paper deals with some major themes in early Cassirer’s philosophy of mathema- tics. It appears, that the basis of his thinking about mathematical objects and mathematical concept formation is his Neo-Kantian idealistic theory of concepts which he developed in opposition to what is called the „traditional theory of concepts“ going back to Aristotle. Cassirer often seeks to confirm his philo- sophical insights concerning mathematics by the interpretations the works of significant mathematicians. Therefore, the second part of the paper deals (...) with Cassirer’s attempt to find such a confirmation in famous Dedekind’s theory of natural numbers. Cassirer’s philosophical attitude to Dedekind’s theory is compared with that of Russell. The author raises the sceptical question of whether Cassirer’s view of mathematics – as developed in his early period – could be a sufficient or at least plausible basis for solving philosophical problems of the foundations of mathematics of that time. (shrink)

In late winter of 1864, Charles Darwin received two folio volumes on radiolarians, a group of one-celled marine organisms that secreted siliceous skeletons of unusual geometry. The author, the young German biologist Ernst Haeckel (fig. 1), had himself drawn the figures for the extraordinary copper-etched illustrations that filled the second volume.1 The gothic beauty of the plates astonished Darwin (fig. 2 ), but he must also have been drawn to passages that applied his theory to construct the descent relations (...) of these little known creatures. He replied to Haeckel that the volumes "were the most magnificent works which I have ever seen, & I am proud to possess a copy from the author."2 Emboldened by his own initiative in contacting the famous naturalist, Haeckel, a few days later, sent Darwin a newspaper clipping that described a meeting of the Society of German Naturalists and Physicians at Stettin, which occurred during the previous autumn. The article gave an extended and laudatory account of Haeckel's lecture defending Darwin's theory.3 Darwin immediately replied in his second letter: "I.. (shrink)

If religion means a commitment to a set of theological propositions regarding the nature of God, the soul, and an afterlife, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was never a religious enthusiast. The influence of the great religious thinker Friedrich Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834) on his family kept religious observance decorous and commitment vague.2 The theologian had maintained that true religion lay deep in the heart, where the inner person experienced a feeling of absolute dependence. Dogmatic tenets, he argued, served merely as inadequate (...) symbols of this fundamental experience. Religious feeling, according to Schleiermacher’s Über die Religion (On religion, 1799), might best be cultivated by seeking after truth, experiencing beauty, and contemplating nature.3 Haeckel practiced this kind of Schleiermachian religion all of his life. Haeckel’s association with the Evangelical Church, even as a youth, had been conventional. The death of his first wife severed the loose threads still holding him to formal observance. The power of that death, his obsession with a life that might have been, and the dark feeling of love forever lost drove him to find a more enduring and rational sub-. (shrink)

Ernst Haeckel’s popular book Nat¨urliche Sch¨opfungs- geschichte (Natural history of creation, 1868) represents human species in a hierarchy, from lowest (Papuan and Hottentot) to highest (Caucasian, including the Indo-German and Semitic races). His stem-tree (see Figure 1) of human descent and the racial theories that accompany it have been the focus of several recent books—histories arguing that Haeckel had a unique position in the rise of Nazi biology during the first part of the 20th century. In 1971, Daniel Gasman (...) brought the initial bill of particulars; he portrayed Haeckel as having specific responsibility for Nazi racial programs. He argued that Darwin’s champion had a distinctive authority at the end of the 19th century, throwing into the shadows the myriads of others with similar racial attitudes.1 But it was not simply a general racism that Haeckel expressed; he was, according to Gasman (1971: 157–159), a virulent anti-Semite. Since its original publication, Gasman’s thesis has caught on with a large number of historians, so that in the present period it is usually taken as a truism, an obvious fact of the sordid history of biological thought in the first half of the 20th century.2 Perhaps the most prominent scholar—at least among historians of biology—to adopt and advance Gasman’s contention was Stephen Jay Gould. In his first book, Ontogeny and Phy- logeny (1977), Gould took as his subject Haeckel’s principle of recapitulation, the proposal that during ontogeny the developing embryo went through the same morphological stages as the phylum passed through in its evolutionary descent. So according to this conception, the human embryo begins as a one-celled creature, then takes on the form of an ancient invertebrate (e.g., a gastraea), then of a primitive vertebrate, then of an early mammal, then of a primate, and finally of a distinct.. (shrink)

Just before Ernst Haeckel’s death in 1919, historians began piling on the faggots for a splendid auto-da-fé. Though more people prior to the Great War learned of Darwin’s theory through his efforts than through any other source, including Darwin himself, Haeckel has been accused of not preaching orthodox Darwinian doctrine. In 1916, E. S. Russell, judged Haeckel's principal theoretical work, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, as "representative not so much of Darwinian as of pre-Darwinian thought."1 Both Stephen Jay Gould and (...) Peter Bowler endorse this evaluation, and see as an index of Haeckel’s heterodox deviation his use of the biogenetic law that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.2 Michael Ruse, without much analysis, simply proclaims that “Haeckel and friends were not true Darwinians.”3 These historians locate the problem in Haeckel’s inclinations toward Naturphilosophie and in his adoption of the kind of Romantic attitudes characterizing the earlier biology of Goethe. These charges of heresy assume, of course, that Darwin’s own theory harbors no taint of Romanticism and that it consequently remains innocent of the doctrine of recapitulation. I think both assumptions quite. (shrink)

Writers on collective action are in broad agreement that in order for a group of agents to form a collective intention, the members of that group must have beliefs about the beliefs of the other members. But in spite of the fact that this so-called "interactive knowledge" is central to virtually every account of collective intention, writers on this subject have not offered a detailed account of the nature of interactive knowledge. In this paper, we argue that such an account (...) is necessary for any adequate analysis of collective intention. Furthermore, we argue that an application of Robert Aumann's theory of interactive knowledge may be used to address several puzzling features of collective intention. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

"Dazu Franz Kreuzer im Gesprèach mit Viktor Frankl, Robert Jungk, Arnold Keyserling, Erwin Ringel und Paul Watzlawick"--Cover.

When Charles Darwin (1859, 482) wrote in the Origin of Species that he looked to the “young and rising naturalists” to heed the message of his book, he likely had in mind individuals like Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who responded warmly to the invitation (Haeckel, 1862, 1: 231-32n). Haeckel became part of the vanguard of young scientists who plowed through the yielding turf to plant the seed of Darwinism deep into the intellectual soil of Germany. As Haeckel would later observe, (...) the seed flourished in extremely favorable ground. The German mind, he would write (1868), was predisposed to adopt the new theory. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804), for instance, was on the verge of accepting a transmutational view in his Third Critique (1790; 1957, 538-39), though he stepped gingerly back from the temptation. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), about the same time, dallied with transmutational ideas, at least Haeckel would convince Darwin that the Englishman had an illustrious predecessor. Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck’s (1744-1829) conceptions had taken hold among several major German thinkers in the first few decades of the nineteenth century in a way they had not in England and France. Among those ready to declare themselves for the new dispensation was Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), Haeckel’s teacher at Würzburg—though, this very political scientist would prove Haeckel’s nemesis later in the century. So Haeckel’s estimate of the ripeness of German thought was not off the mark. Darwinism took hold in the newly unified land, though not without some struggle; but at last it became the dominant view in the biological sciences. But with its success did it foster the malign racist ideology that transfixed Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)? (shrink)

Ernst Fraenkels Neopluralismus zählt zu den 'Klassikern'. Worin zeigt sich seine Anschlussfähigkeit? Antipluralistische Traditionsbestände sind wirkmächtig geblieben. 'Lobbyismus' hat immer noch einen schlechten 'Beigeschmack'. Das Problem von Grundkonsens und Streit stellt sich insbesondere bei politischen Gegnern, die mit 'Freund-Feind-Ideologien' agieren.

Darwin's theory of natural selection and its moral purpose -- Appendix 1: the logic of Darwin's long argument -- Appendix 2: the historical ontology and location of scientific theories -- Darwin's principle of divergence: why Fodor was almost right -- Darwin's romantic quest: mind, morals, and emotions -- Appendix: assessment of Darwin's moral theory -- The relation of Spencer's evolutionary theory to Darwin's -- Ernst Haeckel's scientific and artistic struggles -- Haeckel's embryos: fraud not proven -- The linguistic creation (...) of man: August Schleicher and the missing link in Darwinian theory -- Was Hitler a Darwinian? (shrink)

In this paper, we offer an analysis of ‘group intentions.’ On our proposal, group intentions should be understood as a state of equilibrium among the beliefs of the members of a group. Although the discussion in this paper is non-technical, the equilibrium concept is drawn from the formal theory of interactive epistemology due to Robert Aumann. The goal of this paper is to provide an analysis of group intentions that is informed by important work in economics and formal epistemology.

Ich versuche zu beweisen, daß Descartesי Dualismus, nach welchem der Leib und die Seele radikal voneinander getrennt sind, ihn zwingt, seinem natürlichen Sträuben zum Trotz einige Denkmöglichkeiten, die sich aus der Annahme des Wahnsinns ableiten lassen, ernst zu nehmen. Der Cartesischen Auffassung des Wahnsinns nach hegt der Wahnsinnige vor allem Zweifel, ob seine Gliedmaßen ihm gehören. Dieser Zweifel wird durch den Dualismus des Philosophen gerechtfertigt. Derselbe Mensch kann außerdem zweifeln, ob ihm irgendein Leib gehöre; auch dieser Zweifel ist durch (...) den in Frage stehenden Dualismus des Descartes gerechtfertigt. (shrink)