We construct an algebra of generalized functions endowed with a canonical embedding of the space of Schwartz distributions.We offer a solution to the problem of multiplication of Schwartz distributions similar to but different from Colombeau’s solution.We show that the set of scalars of our algebra is an algebraically closed field unlike its counterpart in Colombeau theory, which is a ring with zero divisors. We prove a Hahn–Banach extension principle which does not hold in Colombeau theory. We establish a connection between (...) our theory with non-standard analysis and thus answer, although indirectly, a question raised by Colombeau. This article provides a bridge between Colombeau theory of generalized functions and non-standard analysis. (shrink)

Let be a topological space and *X a nonstandard extension of X. Sets of the form *G, where G $\in$ T. form a base for the "standard" topology $^ST$ on *X. The topological space will be used to study compactifications of in a systematic way.

Ovaj rad započinje konstatacijom da u sklopu relativno kratke povijesti moderne filozofske kulture u Bugarskoj postoji dovoljno osnova za razlikovanje nekoliko zasebnih razdoblja, svako od kojih uključuje specifične razvojne etape. Svako razdoblje stoga zaslužuje ozbiljnu analizu. No istraživanje povijesti moderne bugarske filozofije mora se temeljiti na jasnim metodološkim premisama. Kada objašnjavamo fenomene i procese filozofskog života u ovoj zemlji, polazimo od pojma filozofske kulture, shvaćenoga kao kompleksni sustav koji uključuje elemente i idealne prirode i ne-idealnog karaktera. Svi čimbenici socio-kulturne naravi (...) u životima profesionalnih filozofa – aktivnosti, institucije znanja, filozofska tijela, formalne i neformalne organizacije, filozofski forumi i filozofski tisak – obuhvaćeni su pojmom filozofska javnost. Korištenjem ovoga termina omogućuje se provođenje fenomenološke analize različitih manifestacija filozofije izvan stratuma intrinzičnih ideja.This study begins with the ascertainment that within the comparatively short history of modern philosophical culture in Bulgaria, there are enough grounds to distinguish several relatively independent periods, each with its specific stages. Each of these periods deserves serious analysis. But the study of the history of modern Bulgarian philosophy has to be based on clear methodological premises. When we explain the phenomena and processes of philosophical life in this country, we proceed from the concept of philosophical culture, understood as a complex system incorporating both elements of ideal nature and of non-ideal character. All factors of socio-cultural nature in the lives of the professional philosophers – activities, institutions of knowledge, body of philosophers, formal and non-formal organizations, forums of philosophers and philosophical press – are specified by the term philosophical publicity. Using this term makes it possible to carry out a phenomenological analysis of the different manifestations of philosophy outside its stratum of intrinsic ideas.Cette étude commence par la constatation qu’il existe, dans le cadre de la relativement courte histoire de la culture philosophique moderne en Bulgarie, suffisamment de raisons pour distinguer plusieurs périodes relativement séparées, chacune comportant des phases spécifiques. Chaque période mérite ainsi une analyse sérieuse. Mais l’étude de l’histoire de la philosophie bulgare moderne doit être fondée sur des prémisses méthodologiques claires. Lorsque nous expliquons les phénomènes et les processus de la vie philosophique dans ce pays, nous partons du concept de culture philosophique, entendue comme un système complexe incorporant à la fois des éléments de nature idéale et de caractère non-idéal. Tous les facteurs de nature socioculturelle dans la vie des philosophes professionnels – activités, institutions du savoir, corps des philosophes, organisations formelles et non formelles, forums des philosophes et presse philosophique – sont indiqués par le terme de publicité philosophique. L’emploi de ce terme permet d’effectuer une analyse phénoménologique des différentes manifestations de la philosophie à l’extérieur de son strate d’idées intrinsèques.Der vorliegende Traité beginnt mit der Feststellung, im Bereich der verhältnismäßig kurzen Geschichte der zeitgenössischen philosophischen Kultur in Bulgarien gebe es zureichend Unterbau, um mehrere relativ eigenständige Zeitabschnitte samt deren dazugehörigen spezifischen Entwicklungsetappen voneinander abgrenzen zu können. Jeder einzelnen dieser Perioden gebührt eine eingehende Analyse. Jedoch sollte die Studie der Historie der modernen Philosophie Bulgariens auf eindeutigen methodologischen Prämissen fußen. Wenn wir Phänomene und Prozesse des philosophischen Lebens in diesem Land erläutern, heben wir mit dem Begriff der philosophischen Kultur an, der Elemente der idealen Natur sowie des nicht idealen Charakters innehat und als komplexes Gefüge ausgelegt wird. Alle Faktoren soziokultureller Natur aus den Leben der professionellen Philosophen – Aktivitäten, Institutionen des Wissens, philosophische Gremien, formelle und informelle Organisationen, philosophische Foren und philosophische Presse – sind im Begriff philosophische Öffentlichkeit gebündelt. Die Benutzung der angesprochenen Bezeichnung ermöglicht die Umsetzung der phänomenologischen Analyse diverser Offenbarungen der Philosophie abseits des Stratums deren intrinsischer Ideen. (shrink)

“Facts don’t come with their own meaning attached.” Tzvetan Todorov Alex John London is frustrated by the commonly encountered situation of doctors thinking that they know what is bes...

Aux sources du sentiment européen de l'identité se trouverait un héritage contrasté d'idées et de croyances venu des « Lumières » du XVIII siècle. Telle est la thèse développée dans L'Esprit des Lumières, un essai philosophique et politique publié en 2006 par Tzvetan Todorov. Cette mutation radicale de la pensée est un phénomène historique qui se produit en Europe, au XVIII siècle, et est « responsable de [l']identité présente » des Européens. L'auteur en réexamine les acquis, le projet initial, (...) les grands principes et les errements ultérieurs, en insistant sur l'actualité de ce qui serait « la création la plus prestigieuse de l'Europe »: cet idéal, cet « esprit » éclairé, lucide, de « libre examen [...] critique ». Il termine par un acte de foi: « l'identité de l'Europe [et] donc sa "volonté générale" [ne] pourr[ont] s'affirmer [que] si l'on s'appuie sur les analyses faites à l'époque des Lumières. "Aux Européens de s'unir pour y parvenir!"The sources of feeling European identity would be a legacy of contrasting ideas and beliefs came from the "Enlightenment" of the eighteenth century. This is the thesis of The Spirit of Enlightenment, a philosophical essay and policy published in 2006 by Tzvetan Todorov. This radical change of thought is a historical phenomenon that occurs in Europe in the eighteenth century, and is "responsible for [the] present identity" of Europeans. The author reviews the achievements, the initial project, the principles and the subsequent wanderings, stressing the relevance of this would be "creating the most prestigious of Europe": this ideal, this "spirit" informed lucid, "free examination [...] criticism." It ends with an act of faith: "Europe's identity [and] hence its" general will "[not] Pourr [have] to say [that] if one relies on the analyzes made the Enlightenment. "For the Europeans to unite to achieve!". (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 28.1 (2004) 223-225 [Access article in PDF] Devoirs et Délices d'une vie de passeur: Entretiens avec Catherine Portevin, by Tzvetan Todorov; 395 pp. Paris: Les Éditions du Seuil, 2002, €22. Caveat lector. Let the reader beware: this is no leisurely, nostalgic stroll by another Parisian intellectual now ruminating and pontificating over issues and events outside his competence. True to his vocation as ferryman (passeur), (...) class='Hi'>Todorov guides the reader over the vast expanses of historical, ideological, and intensely personal terrain that he has explored as an émigré of Bulgaria, a brilliant Structuralist, French citizen, father, spouse, and son caring for his aged father. The resulting mosaic composes a narrative itinerary rich in intellectual history.The exceptional range of Todorov's experience and research affords him a unique perspective. Having first lived and studied under Stalinism, he distinguished himself as a Parisian literary scholar stressing the primacy of the linguistic. Now internationally renowned, his books cover a broad spectrum of human experience, including the Holocaust, WWII, totalitarianism, the ethics of memory, the role and function of the intellectual, race and culture, ethnocentrism and conquest, and, most recently, human identity and a new humanism. Having immersed himself in numerous contexts, Todorov has acquired extensive firsthand knowledge from within. He is nevertheless adept at standing back and assessing them from without, revealing idiosyncrasies and limitations. His uncompromising scrutiny bows to no ideological a priori, nor spares any sacred cow.Some pronouncements will ruffle feathers in a number of intellectual aviaries. He values literature, for example, above philosophy, science, and the social sciences as a source of not only beauty, but meaning and truth. Contrary to the tendency to view literature as an arbitrary construction used to further an agenda of socio-economic domination and political repression, he contends that literary texts can best enrich our vision of the world and our personal sensibilities. Stressing art's essential humanity while challenging the obsession with science and technology, Todorov views language as neither estranged from reality nor subjugated by politics. Hence the impossibility of isolating literature from ethics and existence: writers legitimately seek to come to terms with the human condition, communicating experiences and sensibilities we would otherwise ignore. [End Page 223]Criticism, contends Todorov, should accordingly plunge back into the work's context or thought, as does Bénichou in studying French Classicism, or Joseph Frank in analyzing Dostoyevsky, or else it should explore anthropological perspectives, as does René Girard. Todorov's focus remains squarely on the literary work, not on the genius of theory: we have more to learn from texts of all ages than from contemporary critics who embed them in systems, reducing them to mere examples of theory.Beyond the "ethnocentrism" (p. 124) that he sees in the tendency to approach literary works through current preoccupations, Todorov delivers a severe verdict on the Marxist intellectuals so prominent throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s: "... the thirty years (1945-1975) that were so glorious for the French economy [were] disastrous for political thought. Ideologically, these are years of stagnation and of an intellectual straight jacket in which all discourse was judged by the measure of Marxist-Leninist dogma" (pp. 144-45, translation mine). Todorov thus deplores such irresponsibility: all while enjoying the many material comforts and civil freedoms of a free-market, democratic society, "bobos" (bourgeois bohèmes) advocated the instauration of a totalitarian regime whose economic failures and political repression Todorov had known only too well. Their actions thus were not in keeping with their discourse, for they made no effort to seriously weigh the concrete results of their ideology.Like Tony Judt, who voices similar criticisms in Past Imperfect and The Burden of Responsibility, Todorov prefers Raymond Aron's intellectual rigor and Camus's humane moderation to Sartre's knee-jerk radicalism and futile gesticulations. Given Todorov's experience and erudition, such criticisms can neither be brushed aside nor attributed to being a rear-guard action. He moreover distributes incisive criticisms to the Right, to the Left, and even to the Center. But... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE SCANDAL OF ORIGINS IN ROUSSEAU Jeremiah L. Alberg University of West Georgia To speak of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and scandal is not difficult. Immediately one thinks of his relationship with Mme de Warens, his lover and his beloved mama. Most of his works upset some group or another—other intellectuals (the Discourse on the Sciences andArts), the Genevan authorities (the "Dedication" the Discourse on Inequality), the Church (Emile)—the list could (...) go on and on. In this article I would like to turn away from our usual use ofthe word scandal and look more deeply at the connection between Rousseau's system and the theological or, more properly, the biblical notion of scandal. This notion is obscure. While no one would deny its importance in the New Testament, trying to develop a coherent "theory ofscandal" from the various usages in the New Testament has proven difficult.1 To give only one example of the problem, Christ crucified is proclaimed as a scandal (ICor 1.23) and yet the Christians who follow him are forbidden to cause scandal to others (ICor 8.9), especially the younger and weaker. 1 For a basic understanding ofthe biblical notion ofscandal the following titles are helpful' G. Stählin, Skandalen Untersuchungen zur Geschichte eines biblischen Begriffs, (Gütersloh. Bertelsmann, 1930), as well as his article "Skandalen, skandahzo" in Theologisches Wörterbuch des Neuen Testaments, ed Kittel and Friedrich, 7 339-58, J Calvin, ConcerningScandals (translation oíDe scandalis. 1550) (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1 978), H Bintz. Das Skandalen als Grundlagenproblem derDogmata. (Berlin de Gruyter. 1969), D McCracken, The Scandal ofthe Gospels Jesus, Story, and Offense, (NY Oxford UP, 1994); J Alison, The Joy ofBeing Wrong Original Sm Through Easter Eyes (NY Crossroad, 1998) 140-146; G. Bailie, Violence Unveiled Humanity at the Crossroads (NY Crossroad, 1995) 207-2 10; R Girard, Des choses cachées depuis lafoundation du monde, (éditions Grasset et Fasqelle, 1978) especially 573-592 2 Jeremiah L. Alberg The most successful attempt at bringing coherence to the various elements of scandal has been carried out in the various works of René Girard.2 His basic insight was to see in biblical scandal an inchoate theory of human desire. Girard calls this desire "mimetic" or desire that one receives from another. This type of desire leads to scandal. It is here that the connection with Rousseau becomes evident. The famous literary theorist T. Todorov states: "the 'mimetic desire' of Girard is only another name for the amour-propre ofRousseau" (Todorov 38). For his part Girard defines theskandalon (that which causes the scandal) in the following way: It is not an obstacle thatjust happens to be there and merely has to be got out ofthe way; it is the model exerting its special form of temptation, causing attraction to the extent that it is an obstacle and forming an obstacle to the extent that it can attract. (Girard 1987, 416) Rousseau's analysis of amour-propre as that which excites without satisfying, seduces without delivering, and promises without fulfilling, parallels Girard's analysis ofmimetic desire as the doomed-to-be-frustrated reaching for the scanáalon3 Thus, I am arguing that in his various works Rousseau is developing the conceptual possibilities of biblical scandal. While there would be many way's of showing this structural parallel between Rousseau's thought and biblical scandal, I will concentrate on a reading ofthe "Preface" to the Discours sur l'origine et lesfondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes (1755), in order to show that this work is structured by scandal. It is structured by a human desire that seeks what is unattainable and renders the object unattainable in the very seeking after it. More concretely, 1 shall argue that in the "Preface" Rousseau is able to reduce the question aboutthe origin ofinequality "to its genuine state" only 2 See the work cited above as well as his more recent / See Satan Fall Like Lightning ' Rousseau's definition of amour-propre makes its connection with offense (another translation of the biblical word for scandal) quite clear. Speaking of man in the primitive state he remarks. "For the same reason [that he is not capable ofmaking comparisons... (shrink)

Gérard Genette a joué un rôle important lors de l’établissement de la méthode structurale en France et ailleurs. Néanmoins ses œuvres – à la différence de celles de Roland Barthes ou Tzvetan Todorov par exemple – ont été reçues en Allemagne avec un grand retard. Pour expliquer ce phénomène, l’article présente la situation d’outre-Rhin en esquissant dans ses grandes lignes l’évolution de la narratologie allemande jusqu’à ses racines dans la « morphologie » goethéenne. Une esquisse qui aboutit à une (...) étude contrastive et qui, finalement, permet de mieux comprendre les raisons principales pour le retardement d’une réception mais aussi pour l’attractivité persistante du système conceptuel de Genette pour la discussion allemande. (shrink)

L'examen du parcours personnel et littéraire d'Assia Djebar, femme, écrivain et algérienne, est l'axe de l'approche de Vera Lucia Soares. Pour analyser les différentes composantes de son objet d'étude Soares a recours à quelques-uns des théoriciens les plus renommés ­ Roger Chartier, Paul Ricoeur, Todorov, entre autres ­ et les utilise de façon magistrale pour disséquer l'oeuvre d'Assia Djebar, sous les angles les plus divers. Il faut aussi signaler la bibliographie spécialisée sur laq..

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Myth Of ReadingAlfred LouchThe Myth of Theory, by William Righter; x 7 224 pp. Cambridge University Press, 1994, $49.95.IThe critics mill about in the welcome break between interminable and terminal conference sessions, eager to see and be seen. William Righter wanders about, listening and telling anyone who stays to listen what he hears, musing all the while on what each of them has done, or tried to do, (...) or failed to do. One hopes for a dénouement—something, perhaps, like the tableau at the end of The Inspector General: critics frozen in typical and typically ludicrous attitudes. Alas, the prospective tone of ironic detachment is not sustained. Righter is too close to his perambulating colleagues; he shares too many of their academic reflexes to keep the requisite distance. If there is a tableau at the end, the reader must imagine it, and place Righter along with the rest, caught in (may we call them?) Gallosaxon attitudes.It seems to be an important conference. Everyone’s milling about. One wonders, do they have anything else to do? Here’s Derrida, de Man, Barthes, Hillis Miller, Booth, Bersani, Lyotard, Poulet, and Todorov. The remarks of one seem to flow seamlessly into the allegedly counter-claims of the next. It’s all amazingly friendly. Of course there’s that rude fellow Eagleton, who says: “Methodologically speaking, literary criticism is a non-subject.... If literary theory is a kind of meta-criticism [End Page 218], a critical reflection on criticism, then it follows that it too is a non-subject” (p. 210). But don’t mind him. For criticism is about literature and literature exists. So these promenading and posturing critics can’t be mere phantasms of brains fevered by much reading, or anyway by references to many books.Curious that the first critic available for a chat is Leavis. A bit of nostalgia that. I suppose most English critics of sufficient vintage recall their Leavis-inflicted wounds the way they might reminisce about the bit of shrapnel they got in the way of on Omaha Beach and bear now with pride. But my, how temperate he appears here! How on earth can he come across so bland? Remember him saying: Snow does not begin to exist as a novelist. Now that was Leavis. You may have disagreed with him, you may have thought him silly, but you certainly understood him, as one comprehends a slap in the face. But here: “... Leavis takes on vividly and personally the total responsibility of consciousness for a wide area of assumptions that obviously trail their implications behind them” (p. 4). This is an extraordinarily spongy way of saying that Leavis knew he was right, and if you didn’t agree with him, a humiliating place in a cheap and tawdry consumer society awaited you.Still, it is a lucky thing that Leavis appears first on the scene. As a critic to help frame more exactly the kinds of questions about literary theory and practice Righter wants to ask, Leavis offers an easily recognizable starting point. He somehow manages to take the high moral ground. You want to ask, how is it that Elijah’s mantle descends on him? Does he compel assent only by the stridency of his words, and not by an ostensibly rational way in which his critical judgments hang together?A pity if this should be so, because the point of Leavisite diatribes, though not their excesses, is close to the hearts of passionate readers. Such readers (ourselves perhaps) read judgmentally. A book bowls us over. Describing the experience we are tempted to draw invidious comparisons to other books, which perhaps move us less, or not at all. We say of minor things that come our way: it’s not Shakespeare (or D. H. Lawrence). If you agree the project comes to an end. If you don’t, you want to know what it is that bowls us over, and why we don’t find those qualities in your favorite author. You want an explanation of a particular kind, not one that adduces new facts, but one that allows us to appreciate how the case at dispute... (shrink)

Gérard Genette occupe une « situation » intermédiaire entre les avant-gardes théoriques des années 1960 et l’histoire littéraire de la tradition lansonienne à la Sorbonne, où il avait commencé sa carrière académique, avant d’amorcer un « tournant rhétorique » dans la filiation de Valéry et de Paulhan. Enseignant la poétique à l’EPHE et à l’EHESS, il a contribué à renouveler profondément la théorie littéraire en France dans les années 1960, aux côtés de Barthes, Todorov, Jakobson et Michel Charles.

Short description: Part A : Philosophy, Literature, and Knowledge – Chapter I : Idealism and the Absolute – A. J. B. Hampton: “Herzen schlagen und doch bleibet die Rede zurück?” Philosophy, poetry, and Hölderlin’s development of language suffi cient to the Absolute – P. Sabot: L’absolu au miroir de la littérature. Versions de l’Hégélianisme’ chez Villiers de l’Isle Adam et chez Mallarmé – P. Gordon: Nietzsche’s Critique of the Kantian Absolute – Chapter II: Philosophy and Style – J.-P. Larthomas: Le (...) cas Kierkegaard (1813-1855) ou l’écriture comme dialectique de l’écoute – S. Hüsch: Style et signifi cation. Intériorité et communication indirecte chez Søren Kierkegaard – A. Milon: La question du style en philosophie: la grammaire non-style – C. Van Lerberghe: La question du style dans la phénoménologie asubjective de Jan Patocka – Chapter III: Poetry and Philosophy – J.-B. Dussert: Martin Heidegger en ses poèmes – C. de Roche: The poem and the monad: On the reception of Leibniz‘ monadology in Paul Celan’s poetics – M. de Jesus Cabral: Entre théâtre et philosophie : notes sur la poétique de Maurice Maeterlinck – Chapter IV : Literature, Philosophy, and (new) Mythology – A. Martinengo: La raison hors de soi. Herméneutique et mythe chez Paul Ricoeur – G. Boggio Marzet Tremoloso: Démythologisation comme acte mythopoïétique: le cas de Jason de Elisabeth Porquerol. – G. Coulter: Jean Baudrillard: The Literary / Poetic Philosopher – Chapter V : Literature and Ethics – J. Azoulai: L’Éthique de Spinoza dans Bouvard et Pécuchet: un vertige philosophique et littéraire – I. Vendrell: Can Literature be Moral Philosophy? A sceptical view on the Ethics of Literary Empathy – F. Picon: Envisager Todorov: Poétique, éthique et humanisme contemporain – Chapter VI : Philosophy and Textuality – E. Lecler: La littérature : la mort de la philosophie – J. A. Gosetti- Ferencei: Writing in Philosophy and the Literature and Philosophy of Writing (Plato, Mann, Blanchot) –W. Cristaudo: Bringing Back Character and Grammar: Freeing Literature from Excessive Reliance on Philosophy and Theory – C. Alfano: Parenthesising Cracks into the Ground of Philosophy: The Textuality of Stanley Cavell’s Philosophical Writing – Part B: Perspectives of a Dialogue between Philosophy and Literature: Philosophical Refl ections in Literary Creation – Chapter VII : Philosophical Dialogue and Literature – A. Baillot: Tieck et Solger, un dialogue philosophicolittéraire – V. Altachina: Le dialogue philosophique chez Diderot et chez Dostoïevski – Chapter XIII : Bergsonien Infl uences in Literature – C. Dewas: Bergson et Katzantzakis. Les limites du langage comme condition d’une métaphysique de la littérature – E. Pesenti Rossi: La philosophie à l’épreuve de la poésie : Bergson et Ungaretti – Chapter IX : Wittgenstein and Literature – G. Valdemarca: La revanche du sens commun : Wittgenstein, Musil et la chute de la certitude – A. Leaker: From the ‘numinous glow’ to ‘gut squalor’: Transcendence and the Ordinary in Wittgenstein and Don DeLillo’s Underworld – A. den Dulk: Wallace and Wittgenstein: Literature as Dialogue Concerning the Real World – Chapter X: Borges and Semprun: Writers and Philosophers – J.-F. Mattéi: Borges et la philosophie – T. Capmartin: Voyage au bout de la représentation dans Fictions: Quelques remarques ménardiennes sur Borges et le stoïcisme – V. Capdevielle- Hounieu: Jorge Semprún et l’hybridation du littéraire et du philosophique : pour une ‘fi ction essayistique’ – Chapter XI : Literary (Mis-) Readings of Philosophy – P. Lasarte: Misreadings of Arthur Schopenhauer in Sin Rumbo by Eugenio Cambaceres – S. Roldan: Qu’est-ce qui est fort comme la mort selon Maupassant? La détermination ultime d’Olivier Vertin vue sous l’angle de Schopenhauer – B. Nickel: L’infl uence de Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) sur la poésie concrète – Chapter XII: The Impact of Philosophy on 20th Century Literature and Poetry – B. Ertugrul: Walter Benjamin et Ingeborg Bachmann entre littérature et philosophie – J. Leclercq / M. Watthee-Delmotte: Michel Henry : pour un langage de la subjectivité. La pensée du roman Le Fils du roi – J. Hobus: “The happiness of the concentration camps”: Reading Imre Kertész’ Novel Fatelessness with Albert Camus’ Concept of the Absurd – S. Frogel: Man without God: Nietzsche, Kafka and Camus Der Herausgeber Sébastian Hüsch, Studium der Philosophie, Geschichte,. (shrink)

In this paper I respond to Robert Taylor's argument that a Rawlsian framework does not support strong affirmative action programs. The paper makes three main arguments. The first disputes Taylor's claim that strong AA would not be needed in ideal conditions. Private racial discrimination, I suggest, might still exist in such conditions, so strong AA might be needed there. The second challenges Taylor's claims that pure procedural justice constrains Rawlsian nonideal theory. I argue that this rests on a fetishizing of (...) pure procedural justice that is absent from Rawls's work. I also show that a revised formulation of Taylor's concern here also fails. My third argument makes a positive Rawlsian case for strong AA in nonideal conditions that builds on a Taylor concession. Taylor suggests that the goal of nonideal theory is to create a world in which ideal theory can be applied. My argument begins by showing that another permissible goal of Rawlsian nonideal theory is to ameliorate injustice. I then argue that Rawls's contractualist framework supports the strongest forms of AA when category 3 interventions are blocked. (shrink)

Arabic literature; history and criticism.

I argue that an ambiguity exists between Philip Pettit's largely normative and Quentin Skinner's largely historical accounts of republican liberty. Historical republican liberty, as seen in Livy's narrative of the period following the expulsion of the Roman kings to the passage of the Licinian-Sextian laws, was largely defensive, in the form of the tribunate. Though republican liberty protected the plebeians from wanton patrician abuse, removing them from a formal dependence analogous to that of slave or child in Roman law, it (...) left them under the tutelage and guidance of a paternalistic order. Thus, while historical republican liberty was anti-patriarchal, it was normatively compatible with paternalism. Yet paternalism is probably undesirable for both normatively- and historically-minded advocates of republicanism. (shrink)

Guidelines for a model bride in Islam based on Islamic teachings; includes stories of six exemplary Muslim wives during Prophet Muhammad's time.

I welcome Mr Kennedy's general approach, but query whether the concept of consumerism is so closely applicable to medical care as he maintains. However, in particular aspects, especially the handling of complaints, his criticisms echo those made by the Patients Association. Finally, I detect some ground for hope in the more enlightened attitude creeping in to the eduction of the medical student.

Arab countries; intellectual life; 20th century.