Little research has explored the perceptions of military medical providers in the deployed environment and how their perceptions may change over time across an extended military conflict. To our knowledge, no studies have examined military medical providers’ opinions on readiness for their roles in the post-9/11 contingency operations. What has been published indicates that, during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom, military medical providers often deployed with little notice and minimal formal training. The present report examines data obtained from multiple (...) cohorts of military medical providers (N = 321) deployed to Iraq between 2005 and 2009. Despite varying degrees of support from the U.S. public, our findings indicate that U.S. Air Force military medical providers’ support for the people of Iraq, their belief in the mission, and their ability to influence change did not vary with time. (shrink)

This book's importance is derived from three sources: careful conceptualization of teacher induction from historical, methodological, and international perspectives; systematic reviews of research literature relevant to various aspects of teacher induction including its social, cultural, and political contexts, program components and forms, and the range of its effects; substantial empirical studies on the important issues of teacher induction with different kinds of methodologies that exemplify future directions and approaches to the research in teacher induction.

The author--a Danish philosopher influenced by Moore, the later Wittgenstein, and C. I. Lewis--lays bare three fundamental rules of "informal logic" implicit in any description of empirical reality. They are: psychological expressions cannot be applied independently of the personal pronouns, personal pronouns cannot be applied independently of names of ordinary things, and names of ordinary things cannot be applied independently of words expressing possibility of action. A number of important consequences are drawn: in particular, that certain traditional philosophical problems--such (...) as the existence of the external world and the future validity of physical laws--cannot be properly formulated; and that the description of nature cannot afford any argument for psychological determinism. A stimulating book. --T. L. M. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:CRUCIFIXION: ACCIDENT OR DESIGN? Sebastian Moore, O.S.B. Downside Abbey Lastyear I was visited by an old friend from my Liverpool days. Mike and I had worked together with the young of the parish, and one summer the two of us took a couple of boys camping in France, a trial of patience which made us known to each other at some depth. He was in fact a passionately (...) convinced Catholic, and very pastoral with it. We had many and long theological discussions. On his recent visit to Downside, I was showing him and some friends round our church, when, à propos ofquite what I don't remember, he made a remark about the Catholic cult of suffering, and said, "and it's all because ofthe crucifixion, isn't it? Why don't we recognize that the crucifixion was an accident?" I didn't react, because I was dumbfounded at what seemed to be the denial ofthe mystery ofthe cross by a friend who I had no reason to believe had stopped being a Catholic. And I'm sure he hasn't. He would certainly have told me ifhe had. It has taken me over a year to figure out what is going on here, and this would not have been possible without intensive study of the work of René Girard. The only alternative to saying that the crucifixion was an accident is to say that it was "ordained by God." It is only as ordained by God that this horrible event could be presented to people as a divine affirmation that suffering is to be sought and espoused. Also, it is only as ordained by God that the crucifixion can be thought of as "appeasing God" in some way. Both the moral and the dogmatic implication ofthe crucifixion—that suffering is a good thing, and that God required a victim—are grounded in the notion that God required the crucifixion ofhis Son. And it is because this idea is quite unacceptable, unworthy of God and ofthe human mind made in God's image, that my friend concludes that the crucifixion was not required by God, not written into the eternal scheme ofthings, but an accident. 156Sebastian Moore Once the problem is clarified in these terms, more and more instances come to mind, of rejection, by Christians and others, of the whole divine ordination ofthe cross. Gore Vidal refers to Christianity as "that lugubrious religion." Mary Hunt, a prominent American Catholic feminist, introduced a workshop with the statement, "we are not about naked guys nailed to crosses, blood all over the place!" Where divine ordering is accepted the special painfulness and darkness ofthe idea is noted. Anselm refers to the doctrine as the Narnia Chronicles, to commend the notion, by referring to a dark law written into the nature ofthings beyond our comprehension. The children's suggestion that Asian should simply not comply with the Snow Queen's requirement is rejected by Asian with a mysterious impatience—the children justhaven't grown up, like the romantics who, according to Matthew Arnold, "did not know enough." Again, during a day on "the roots of violence" that I led here yesterday there was much questioning about the role ofGod die Father in the crucifixion. The problem is crystallized in the famous cry from the cross, "Why have you forsaken me?" To my confessedly lame suggestion that Jesus was "only quoting a psalm," someone remarked, "to quote that psalm at thatjuncture and not mean it, is somewhatmisleading!" Again it's the same problem. How can God be understood as ordaining the crucifixion, compatibly with the notion of God as all-loving which Christianity of course affirms? Hans Urs Von Balthasar, who is 90% pro-Girard, in the other 10% wants to hold on to something he calls "the wrath of God." Thus the seeming necessity of having God require and ordain the crucifixion is the main crisis of Christian belief. The six-year-old Willie, in Thomas Klise's amazing novel, The Last Western, puts the problem with childlike directness. He keeps interrupting catechism class with, "Why did God kill Jesus?" and is shushed by Sister. I recall that Illtyd Trethowan said to... (shrink)

As G. E. Moore famously observed, sentences such as 'It's raining but I don't think it is', though they aren't contradictory, cannot be used to make coherent assertions.' The trouble with such sentences is not a matter of their truth conditions; such sentences can readily be true. Indeed, it happens often enough with each of us that we think, for example, that it isn't raining even though it is. This shows that such sentences are not literally contradictory. But even (...) though such sentences have unproblematic truth conditions, we cannot say the same about their conditions of assertibility. There are no circumstances in which one can use such sentences to perform coherent assertoric speech acts. Situations exist in which these sentences would be true, but none in which anybody could use them to say so. (shrink)

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Putting It on the LineMichael Moore (bio)IAmong the many ways to teach aesthetic education, a compelling one is to organize pedagogy around specific works of art, music, drama, and dance. This has been the central tenet of the Lincoln Center Institute and its sister institutes around the world. They concentrate on specific works because it allows participants to focus their minds, emotions, and energies on one set of (...) images and experiences. Excited by such an approach, many teachers return year after year, eager to tackle a new and varied repertory.But they cannot repeat the summer institute forever. They may need to take other workshops to satisfy professional (re)certification requirements. The school district may no longer reimburse them for the cost of the workshop. Their team may develop other interests. Often they find that the school has displaced the arts with other priorities, particularly in the light of so-called proficiency exams mandated by state boards of education.Whatever the reason, if teachers want to continue to do something meaningful in the arts, they may well have to become their own summer institute, lesson planner, and teaching artist rolled into one. The question then becomes, "How well did you learn the lessons of the institute?" The first lesson requirement is, "Do you know how to choose an appropriate work of art around which to develop aesthetic experiences and reflection for your students?" Behind that question, however, lies another: "What is your definition of art?" This is no idle philosophical exercise because one's answer underlies everything else done in the classroom in the name of aesthetic education. [End Page 62]Several years ago, Marcia Mulder Eaton of the University of Minnesota developed an exercise that enables teachers to examine their definitions of art in a practical way. She asked teachers to complete the following sentence: "Something is a work of art if and only if _________." She then showed them several objects, with the request that they write on a piece of paper if each object was a work of art, according to the definitions that they had written down.When I ran the exercise at a summer teachers institute in Pittsburgh, I displayed in order (1) a small flag; (2) an original painting; (3) a cheap cup from Wal-Mart; (4) a piece of fruit; (5) some driftwood; (6) and a basin wrench.1 Teachers voted on each piece as it was shown. Once the voting was completed, I asked them how they voted and how they justified their vote in the light of their definitions. When I have run this exercise elsewhere, the definitions and resultant criteria have broken down into four groups: (1) it was created, therefore, it is art; (2) an expert, such as an art museum or a critic, may have decreed it to be art; (3) "it touched me in some way and I cannot describe that feeling other than to call it art"; and (4) "I'm no connoisseur but I know what I like." There are strengths and weaknesses in each position:1. Anything that humans make is art because it is an artifact. Weakness: The definition is too general2. We should respect the opinions of experts. After all, they studied the matter much longer and more deeply than we have. They know what they are talking about. Weakness: What if I think they are off base? What if there is something in the work that appeals to me?3. "It somehow has touched me and I want to cherish it." "There is something in there that causes me to respond. It, therefore, has some kind of power." Weakness: This position does not lend itself very well to public discussion, unless you have something you can point to or explain in a way that gets through to others.4. "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." (Well, let's hear it for rugged individualism!) Weakness: It suggests a closed mind and an unwillingness to listen to others' opinions. Again, there is no opportunity for shared insights.The discussion in Pittsburgh dealt with, more or less, each of the above positions, but... (shrink)

By "scepticism" Naess means an activity or characteristic attitude, anti-conceptual, non-assertive, and ad hoc. The real sceptic has not yet happened on an argument with no countervailing ones, but he is a "great champion of trust and confidence and of common sense in action." This sceptic is the Pyrrhonist as pictured by Sextus Empiricus; the sceptic of twentieth century epistemology, who asserts that we don't know what we think we do, would be called an Academician. After chapters on historical, psychological, (...) and psychiatric aspects of Pyrrhonism, the author illustrates the Academic-Sceptic distinction in a closely argued chapter on the Ayer-Chisholm analysis of "S knows that p." Naess holds that the applicability of a claim to know is a function of the definiteness of intention. Therefore, there are conditions under which the know-don't know distinction cannot be usefully applied. It is one thing, with Moore and Pap, to agree that one has got his right hand, and another to assert that "I know physical objects exist." Naess' sceptic does not commit himself when both assertion and denial involve doctrinally contaminated ways of expression.--M. B. M. (shrink)

[T. M. Scanlon] It is clearly impermissible to kill one person because his organs can be used to save five others who are in need of transplants. It has seemed to many that the explanation for this lies in the fact that in such cases we would be intending the death of the person whom we killed, or failed to save. What makes these actions impermissible, however, is not the agent's intention but rather the fact that the benefit envisaged does (...) not justify an exception to the prohibition against killing or the requirement to give aid. The difference between this explanation and one appealing to intention is easily overlooked if one fails to distinguish between the prospective use of a moral principle to guide action and its retrospective use to appraise the way an agent governed him or herself. Even if this explanation is accepted, however, it remains an open question whether and how an agent's intention may be relevant to the permissibility of actions in other cases. \\\ [Jonathan Dancy] My first four sections concentrate on the second section of Professor Scanlon's contribution, where he lays out his conception of moral principles and of the role they play in theory and practice. I will raise questions on the following issues: 1. Scanlon's initial introduction of the notion of a principle. 2. His rejection of the standard view that principles are concerned with the forbidding, permitting and requiring of actions. 3. His rejection of pro tanto conceptions of principles in favour of a conception of them as conclusive. 4. The resulting account of what it is for a principle to face and survive exceptions. Scanlon's discussion of these matters here both appeals to and is in some respects more detailed than the relevant section of his recent What We Owe to Each Other. The topic is interesting both for the role played by principles in Scanlon's present discussion of intention and permissibility, and more generally because of his account of wrongness: an act is wrong iff it is ruled out by principles that nobody could reasonably reject. The remainder of my contribution is concerned with the ostensible focus of IP, namely the relevance of agent-intentions to the permissibility of what is done. (shrink)

Bhattacharyya, K. The Advaita concept of subjectivity.--Deutsch, E. Reflections on some aspects of the theory of rasa.--Nakamura, H. The dawn of modern thought in the East.--Organ, T. Causality, Indian and Greek.--Chatterjee, M. On types of classification.--Lacombe, O. Transcendental imagination.--Bahm, A. J. Standards for comparative philosophy.--Herring, H. Appearance, its significance and meaning in the history of philosophy.--Chang Chung-yuan. Pre-rational harmony in Heidegger's essential thinking and Chʼan thought.--Staal, J. F. Making sense of the Buddhist tetralemma.--Enomiya-Lassalle, H. M. The mysticism of Carl Albrecht (...) and Zen.--Parrinder, G. The nature of mysticism.--Cairns, G. E. Axiological contributions of East and West to the spiritual development of mankind.--Mayeda, S. Śaṇkara's view of ethics.--Mercier, A. On peace.--Barlingay, S. S. A discussion of some aspects of Gaudapāda's philosophy. (shrink)

Transplantation is a medically successful and cost-effective way to treat people whose organs have failed--but not enough organs are available to meet demand. T. M. Wilkinson explores the major ethical problems raised by policies for acquiring organs. Key topics include the rights of the dead, the role of the family, and the sale of organs.

In this detailed study giving more depth and breadth to Moravia’s work than has hitherto been done in English, the authors explore his background and assess his accomplishment as a twentieth-century artist. Students of the modern novel will be interested in the explication given here of the influences of Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, and Martin Buber on Moravia’s work.

This is the text of The Lindley Lecture for 1996, given by T.M. Scanlon, an American philosopher.