Avatar draws us into the beautiful and exciting world of Pandora, with its fantastic locations and its exotic and dangerous creatures. The experience of watching Avatar in 3D is like looking into a cabinet of curiosities, a pastime that was particularly popular during the Victorian era. Avatar's incredible special effects make Pandora seem as believable and real as our everyday world. Most of the creatures and plants of Pandora, including the Na'vi, are designed using computers. These digital special effects deliver (...) a level of detail far beyond what was possible before computers started creating alien worlds and their inhabitants. Avatar offers an ecological warning, telling us that something is going terribly wrong on planet Earth and encouraging us to be kind to our planet. A phenomenological view of Avatar allows us to see how its special effects can have a positive influence on how we view our own world. (shrink)

Saul Kripke did more than anyone else to bring possible worlds into the contemporary philosophical discourse, first with his more formal work on the model theory for modal logic in the 1960s, and then with his more philosophical lectures on reference and modality, delivered in January 1970, that used the possible worlds apparatus informally to clarify the relations between semantic issues about names and metaphysical issues about individuals and kinds. Possible worlds semantics have been widely applied since then, both in (...) philosophy and in other fields such as linguistic semantics and pragmatics, theoretical computer science, and game theory. Kripke’s work, along with that of David Lewis, stimulated an ongoing debate about the nature and metaphysical status of possible worlds. Kripke himself has had little to say about the issues raised in this debate, in print, beyond what he said in Naming and Necessity and in brief remarks in a preface to a later edition of the lectures, published in 1980. But there is a clear view of the nature of possible worlds, and of the status of an explanation of modality in terms of possible worlds, implicit in the lectures and the preface. -/- The central focus of the post–Naming and Necessity debate about possible worlds has been a contrast between David Lewis’s modal realism and various versions of actualism. On this general issue, it is clear enough where Kripke stands: His criticisms of what he describes as the “other countries” picture of possible worlds are an explicit rejection of Lewis’s realism about possible worlds. But the rejection of modal realism raises a range of further questions: What exactly are possible worlds (or possible states of the world, which Kripke suggests would be less misleading terminology)? What contribution do they make to the explanation of modal discourse, and of the distinctive facts that modal discourse is used to state? Does the slogan “necessity is truth in all possible worlds” provide, or point to, a reductive analysis of necessity? Are possible worlds, in some sense, prior to modal operators and modal auxiliaries? If not, in what sense are they explanatory? How are possible worlds, or counterfactual situations, specified? How do they contribute to our understanding of specific meta- physical questions about the relations between particular individuals and their qualitative characteristics, the kinds to which they belong, and the matter of which they are constituted? How are we to understand the possible existence of individuals that do not actually exist? What is the status of the domains of individuals in merely possible worlds? -/- My aim in this chapter is to spell out the views about some of these foundational questions that are expressed or at least implicit in Kripke’s lectures. In Section 2, I discuss the general contrast between modal realism and actualism and questions about the kind of explanation that possible worlds provide for modal discourse and modal facts. In Section 3, I look at Kripke’s views about how possible worlds are specified, in particular at the role of individuals in specifying possible worlds. In Section 4, I consider the problems about merely possible individuals. (shrink)

What is the relation of politics to theory? Theories make political claims, theorists make political critiques, and academics use theory in the pursuit of institutional ends: theory is not only about politics but is itself a political practice.

In approaching the future, i.e. in planning projects and decision-making, the role of both affective and non-affective factors is considerable. But given that affectivity is not a homogeneous realm and that it is difficult, if not impossible, to isolate the affective and non-affective elements of a description, anticipation can be hardly described as purely affective, and, on the other, it is necessary to consider what kind or level of the hierarchical realm of affectivity is involved in the anticipation move. In (...) the paper several distinction are made in order to elucidate the role of affectivity in anticipating a person’s approach to the future. (shrink)

In 1763, the young James Boswell left Great Britain for a 'Grand Tour' of the Continent. The tour was a tradition among British and Scottish youths; by visiting the great historical sites, especially those of Roman and Greek antiquity, they would complete the studies they had begun at universities back home. Boswell's tour, however, was different: he was less concerned with the ruins of the past than the thinkers of the present. In particular, he was eager to question the leading (...) figures of the Enlightenment on matters of faith and God--of particular importance to Boswell, who had been raised in the dour and dire atmosphere of the Church of Scotland. In his remarkable conversations with figures like Voltaire, Rousseau, and Hume, we see a man struggling with the claims of reason and needs of faith--a struggle that remains very much our own 250 years later. (shrink)

This book argues that the last eight years in particular have shown us that our democracy has largely evaporated, leaving behind only an exoskeleton that was once its original vertebrae of ends and principles. It is critical to our form of democracy in the U.S. that citizens become active participants.

This book is an ambitious attempt to develop a cognitive approach to religion. Focusing particularly on ritual action, it borrows analytical methods from linguistics and other cognitive sciences. The authors, a philosopher of science and a scholar of comparative religion, provide a lucid critical review of established approaches to the study of religion, and make a strong plea for the combination of interpretation and explanation. Often represented as competitive approaches, they are rather, complementary, equally vital to the study of symbolic (...) systems. (shrink)

At the center of_ In Dark Again in Wonder_ are readings of René Char and George Oppen. Both of these poets achieved recognition at a young age, Char among the French surrealists in the 1930s, Oppen among the American objectivists in the same decade. Both were independent individuals who, having found their way to communities of inventive writers, stepped back and shaped their own idiosyncratic paths. Both responded decisively to the social upheavals of the 1930s and ‘40s. Oppen committed himself (...) to radical politics in the ‘30s, a decision that, as it turned out, led to his not writing poetry for nearly twenty-five years. Char fought in the Resistance in the '40s. Both, in their mature work, developed a kind of poetry that is at once a love poetry, a meditative poetry, and a poetry of encounter. The concluding chapter of the book places the questions raised by Char’s and Oppen’s work in a larger context, tracing the cultural history that shapes our modern experience of inhabiting a tension between an historical and a metaphysical horizon of experience, or, as this appears in a different but related light, a tension between a sociological and an existential understanding of our lives. Char and Oppen are both poets concerned with the old philosophical questions that are still with us—the nature of spiritual freedom, the gathering of the self in relation to death, the meditation on the whole, the turn to Nature as the open space of the whole under the conditions of modernity, the clarification of the ground of vision in eros and love, and the search for the good life—while at the same time they fully engage the social predicaments and promises of their world. "A brilliant, philosophical, and aesthetic approach to twentieth-century poetry that casts important light on the great poetic works of René Char and George Oppen. Revealing the ongoing role of wonder in the post-Romantic tradition, it points to two remarkable poets whose work embodies imagination in the knowledge of inevitable loss, renewal in the awareness of despair. This is a book worth reading for its insight into two poets and the larger literary and philosophical currents in which they lived and worked." _—Sandra L. Bermann, Princeton University_ "This is a brilliant, erudite, beautifully written, and compelling book, one that makes an important contribution to our understanding not only of the two poets on whom it focuses but of the period they inhabit and that we, as their inheritors, continue to inhabit. Robert Baker wears his considerable learning lightly, but he has deep knowledge both of the history of European and American poetry and of the history of philosophy. He has thought deeply and passionately about poetry, philosophy, history, and the ways in which they intertwine." —_Henry Weinfield, University of Notre Dame_ "Robert Baker has written a fine and unusual book: a study of two remarkable poets, one French and the other American, and a concluding reflection of considerable literary and intellectual reach on the gap between history and metaphysics in which both poets found themselves and in which we still subsist. Bake'rs style is synthetic, magisterial, drawing on a capacious knowledge of literature and the history of ideas." —_Kevin Hart, University of Virginia_. (shrink)

The ATM protein kinase is centrally involved in the cellular response to ionizing radiation (IR) and other DNA double‐strand‐break‐inducing insults. Although it has been well established that IR exposure activates the ATM kinase domain, the actual mechanism by which ATM responds to damaged DNA has remained enigmatic. Now, a landmark paper provides strong evidence that DNA‐strand breaks trigger widespread activation of ATM through changes in chromatin structure.1 This review discusses a checkpoint activation model in which chromatin perturbations lead to the (...) conversion of inactive ATM domains to phosphorylated, active ATM monomers. The new findings underscore the critical importance of epigenetic events in genome function and surveillance in mammalian cells. BioEssays 25:627–630, 2003. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

A Short History of Logic by William Ritchie Sorley, first published in 1911, is a rare manuscript, the original residing in one of the great libraries of the world. This book is a reproduction of that original, which has been scanned and cleaned by state-of-the-art publishing tools for better readability and enhanced appreciation. Restoration Editors' mission is to bring long out of print manuscripts back to life. Some smudges, annotations or unclear text may still exist, due to permanent damage to (...) the original work. We believe the literary significance of the text justifies offering this reproduction, allowing a new generation to appreciate it. (shrink)

Recent influential interpreters have argued that the philosophy of body that prevails in Leibniz's writings from the 1680' s to about 1704 is both more Aristotelian and less idealistic than the ' monadology' of his last years. It is argued here that the Aristotelian terminology of matter and form which is undoubtedly prominent in the work of Leibniz's ' middle years' was understood by him in a sense that is consistent with the monadology. The monadology is foreshadowed, moreover, in important (...) arguments against the Cartesian thesis that extension is the essence of corporeal substance. Leibniz can be seen as a sort of realist in physics, in contrast with occasionalists. But what is important in that contrast is not so much the reality of matter, as the reality of form, which Leibniz interpreted in terms of the active powers of soul-like substances. (shrink)

Leibniz’s religious cosmopolitanism is one of the main ways in which his thought foreshadows the Enlightenment. Of the controversial issues of his time, it is the one on which he was boldest. His commitment to it is discussed here in relation to both the Chinese Rites Controversy and the reunion of Christendom, and the main features of his conception of religion are discussed. (1) It is a religious and normative conception. (2) Its main principle is “the love of God above (...) all things.” (3) It involves a principled pragmatism on many, perhaps most, religious issues. The implications of this pragmatism are traced for (4) Leibniz’s ecclesiology and (5) his strategies for interpreting religious concepts. (6) The relatively abstract and ahistorical character of religious essentials on Leibniz’s view is acknowledged. (shrink)

The relation between primitive and derivative forces may be the hardest problem about the relation between Leibniz's physics and his metaphysics. He holds that derivative forces are modifications of primitive forces, but also that physical forces, which he classifies as derivative forces, belong to bodies, which are aggregates, whereas primitive forces belong to unextended perceiving substances and constitute their essence. This chapter addresses this problem, arguing that a major part of it can be solved on the supposition that physical events (...) are only phenomena, and hence ultimately determined by modifications of the primitive forces of perceiving substances. (shrink)

Leibniz held that even if we had no proof of the possibility premise of the ontological argument, a presumption would justify accepting it. He had an extensive theory of presumptions, as a part of practical philosophy, originating in his jurisprudence. He even proposed a formal proof that presumption favors possibility. This chapter examines ways of trying to overcome the difficulty that in the case of a necessary being, where possibility of existence and possibility of nonexistence exclude each other, presumptions of (...) possibility seem to cancel each other out, but concludes that prospects of escape from the problem are not promising. (shrink)

This paper is a reply to hoffman's piece "almeder on truth and evidence" ("philosophical quarterly", Volume 25, January 1975). In "truth and evidence" ("philosophical quarterly", Volume 24, October 1974) I had argued that gettier-Type counterexamples to the classical definition of knowledge as completely justified true belief are defective because they assume the false proposition that a person can be completely justified in believing a false proposition. Hoffman objected to my reasons for saying as much and in this paper I reply (...) to his objections. (shrink)

This is a fine introduction to the study of pragmatism. It is well written, thoroughly researched, and clearly focused in presenting the history and implications of the core positions of classical and contemporary pragmatists. It is targeted basically for the general college and university student in American and Western Philosophy, the History of Philosophy, and American Studies. Without too much of a stretch, it seems equally suitable for the general reader familiar with some philosophy outside the academic and scholarly community. (...) Also, the author introduces from time to time generally reliable criticisms of core points various authors make. While the selections of pragmatic authors covered are representative of some classical and contemporary pragmatists, some prominent pragmatists did not make the final cut, including Royce, Mead, Lewis, Goodman, Carnap, Reichenbach, Rescher, and van Fraassen. But it is still a good introduction to what all pragmatists have in common, although the .. (shrink)

The present essay focuses on problematizing the European Union's claim that intercultural dialogue constitutes an advocated method of talking through cultural boundaries—inside as well as outside the classroom—based on mutual empathy and non‐domination. More precisely, the aim is to analyze who is being constructed as counterparts of the intercultural dialogue through the discourse produced by the EU in policies on education, culture and intercultural dialogue. Within the Union, Europeans are portrayed as having an a priori historical existence, while the ones (...) excluded from this notion are evoked to demonstrate its difference in comparison to the European one. The results show that subjects not considered as Europeans serve as markers of the multicultural present of the space. Thus, intercultural dialogue seems to consolidate differences between European and Other—the ‘We’ and ‘Them’ in the dialogue—rather than, as in line with its purpose, bringing subjects together. (shrink)