I. Wesen und entwicklung des humanitätsgedankens.--II. Der socialismus.--III. Der individualismus.--IV. Der utilitarianismus.--V. Der pessimismus.--VI. Der evolutionismus.--VII. Der positivismus.--VIII. Nietzsches uebermensch.--IX. Die hauptgrundsätze einer modernen humanitätsethik.

I propose S0009838800018553_inline1. It may be noted that Longinus does not avoid hiatus after the vowels ν and ι, which possess an easy ‘glide’ accompaniment.

Several difficulties that accompany Plato's theory of Forms have received considerable attention in the philosophical literature in the past half century. A great deal of discussion and controversy surrounds the dialogue Parmenides and the group of considerations commonly called the “Third Man Argument”. Our purpose here is to strike out in one direction suggested by this passage, but it can in no way be thought of as an exegesis nor a logical elucidation of the “Third Man Argument” itself. While what (...) we shall say here has an obvious affinity and connection with the Parmenides passage, the two principal questions that concern us here are of a more general nature than the specific points in the Parmenides. The first is whether Plato's theory of Forms involves a regress which is ruinous to the theory. The second is, if a self-destructive regress is a necessary consequence of the theory, what elements of Plato's theory make the regress inescapable. (shrink)

Hirschfeld and Wheeler proved in 1975 that ∑1 ultrapowers (= “simple models”) are rigid; i.e., they admit no non-trivial automorphisms. We later noted, essentially mimicking their technique, that the same is true of Δ1 ultrapowers (= “Nerode semirings”), a class of models of Π2 Arithmetic that overlaps, but is mutually non-inclusive with, the class of Σ1 ultrapowers. Hirschfeld and Wheeler left as open the question whether some Σ1 ultrapowers might admit proper isomorphic self-injections. We do not answer that question; but (...) we do answer the corresponding question, in the negative, for the Δ1 case. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Making Sense and Meaning: On the Role of Communication and Culture in the Reproduction of Social Systems” by Raivo Palmaru. Upshot: The author addresses implications arising from socializing observer-dependent heuristics. Above all, Palmaru’s terminology is called into question since its conceptual deficiencies with regard to the relation between an observing system and its environments cause naturalistic fallacy. The author’s reply espouses a concise reanalysis of the complementary relations of fundamentally incomparable domains, namely the observer (...) and the social system. (shrink)