Research shows that the physician’s personal attributes and social characteristics have a strong association with their end-of-life decision making. Despite efforts to increase patient, family and surrogate input into EOL decision making, research shows the physician’s input to be dominant. Our research finds that physician’s social values, independent of religiosity, have a significant association with physician’s tendency to withhold or withdraw life sustaining, EOL treatments. It is suggested that physicians employ personal social values in their EOL medical coping, because they (...) have to cope with existential dilemmas posed by the mystery of death, and left unresolved by medical decision making mechanisms such as advanced directives and hospital ethics committees. (shrink)

In a characteristically iconoclastic essay, “Does the State Have a Monopoly to Punish Crime?”, Douglas Husak argues that the state’s moral right to punish crime is all but self-evident while its supposed monopoly on punishment is a fiction. Husak draws this bracing conclusion from a modest, quasi-Lockean premise – that persons and other entities have a right to impose stigmatizing deprivations on those who wrong them. This premise evokes John Locke’s far stronger claim that everyone enjoys a natural right to (...) inflict potentially severe sanctions on any wrongdoer. The quasi-Lockean premise also evokes the familiar idea that all criminal wrongdoing is an attack on the broader community, and that law-breakers consequently owe a debt to society that they can repay through punishment. In this essay, I argue that the inferences Husak draws from the quasi-Lockean premise are unsound, but for reasons that reveal important lessons about the state’s right to punish crime and about the limits of what we can extract from the venerable idea that a central victim of criminal wrongdoing is the community as a whole. In Part II, I argue that the quasi-Lockean premise does not ground the state’s right to punish the kind of wrongs traditionally thought central to the criminal law, namely, wrongs perpetrated on individual human victims. In Part III, I answer Husak’s implicit challenge to describe a kind of stigmatizing deprivation – a kind of punishment – that the state alone has a right to inflict. I suggest that no entity but the state may inflict sanctions that constitute prima facie invasions of moral rights. (shrink)

All observers of our legal system recognize that criminal statutes can be complex and obscure. But statutory obscurity often takes a particular form that most observers have overlooked: uncertainty about the identity of the wrong a statute aims to punish. It is not uncommon for parties to disagree about the identity of the underlying wrong even as they agree on the statute's elements. Hidden in plain sight, these unexamined disagreements underlie or exacerbate an assortment of familiar disputes—about venue, vagueness, and (...) mens rea; about DUI and statutory rape; about hate crimes, child pornography, and counterterrorism laws; about proportionality in punishment; and about the proper ambit of the criminal law. Each of these disputes may hinge on deeper disagreements about the identity of the wrong a statute aims to punish, and these deeper disagreements can be surprisingly hard to resolve, fueled as they are by the complex inner structure of our penal laws and the discretionary mechanisms of their administration. (shrink)

Prominent theories of the criminal law borrow heavily from the two leading theories of temptation—the evaluative conception of temptation, which conceives emotion and desire as essentially involving a kind of evaluation, and the mechanistic conception of temptation, which conceives emotion and desire as essentially involving felt motivation. As I explain, both conceptions of temptation are inconsistent with the possibility of akratic action, that is, action contrary to a person’s conscious better judgment. Both are inconsistent with the possibility of akratic action (...) because both are covertly inconsistent with a two-fold psychological assumption that undergirds common beliefs about human action and lies at the heart of the law of criminal responsibility: that resisting a powerful temptation is extremely difficult yet not ordinarily impossible. I reveal these inconsistencies and offer in place of the leading theories of temptation a theory of affective desire as primitive psychic attraction, an elemental psychological state typically accompanied by evaluation and motivation but not reducible to either one. I then show how this theory of desire is consistent with the possibility of akratic action, with the two-fold psychological assumption at the heart of the law of criminal responsibility, and, in particular, with the defense of provocation. (shrink)

In recent years, many disciplines have become interested in the scientific study of morality. However, a conceptual framework for this work is still lacking. In The Moral Background, Gabriel Abend develops just such a framework and uses it to investigate the history of business ethics in the United States from the 1850s to the 1930s. According to Abend, morality consists of three levels: moral and immoral behavior, or the behavioral level; moral understandings and norms, or the normative level; and (...) the moral background, which includes what moral concepts exist in a society, what moral methods can be used, what reasons can be given, and what objects can be morally evaluated at all. This background underlies the behavioral and normative levels; it supports, facilitates, and enables them. Through this perspective, Abend historically examines the work of numerous business ethicists and organizations--such as Protestant ministers, business associations, and business schools--and identifies two types of moral background. "Standards of Practice" is characterized by its scientific worldview, moral relativism, and emphasis on individuals' actions and decisions. The "Christian Merchant" type is characterized by its Christian worldview, moral objectivism, and conception of a person's life as a unity. The Moral Background offers both an original account of the history of business ethics and a novel framework for understanding and investigating morality in general. (shrink)

From ancient philosophy to contemporary theories of fiction, it is a common practice to relegate illusory appearances to the realm of the non-existent, like shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave. Contrary to this traditional mode of drawing a metaphysical distinction between reality and fiction, Markus Gabriel argues that the realm of the illusory, fictional, imaginary and conceptually indeterminate is as real as it gets. Being in touch with reality need not and cannot require that we overcome appearances in (...) order to grasp a meaningless reality which exists ‘out there’, outside and maybe even beyond our minds. Human mindedness (_Geist_) exists in the mode of fictions through which we achieve self-consciousness. This novel approach provides a fresh perspective on our existence as subjects who lead their lives in the light of self-conceptions. _Fictions_ also develops a social ontology according to which the social unfolds as a constant renegotiation of dissent, of different points of view onto the same reality. Thus we cannot ever hope to ground human society in a fiction-free realm of objective transactions. However, this does not mean that truth and reality are somehow outdated concepts. On the contrary, we need to enlarge our conception of reality so that it fully encompasses ourselves as specifically minded social animals. This major new work of philosophy will be of interest to students and scholars throughout the humanities and to anyone interested in contemporary philosophy and social thought. (shrink)

Many consider the nature of human consciousness to be one of the last great unsolved mysteries. Why should the light turn on, so to speak, in human beings at all? And how is the electrical storm of neurons under our skull connected with our consciousness? Is the self only our brain's user interface, a kind of stage on which a show is performed that we cannot freely direct? In this book, philosopher Markus Gabriel challenges an increasing trend in the (...) sciences towards neurocentrism, a notion which rests on the assumption that the self is identical to the brain. Gabriel raises serious doubts as to whether we can know ourselves in this way. In a sharp critique of this approach, he presents a new defense of the free will and provides a timely introduction to philosophical thought about the self – all with verve, humor, and surprising insights. Gabriel criticizes the scientific image of the world and takes us on an eclectic journey of self-reflection by way of such concepts as self, consciousness, and freedom, with the aid of Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nagel but also Dr. Who, The Walking Dead, and Fargo. (shrink)

In his penetrating book on the criminal culpability of children, Gideon Yaffe advances a novel theory of desert. According to the theory, the punishment you deserve for committing a given crime is the punishment the prospect of which would have led you to deliberate correctly about how to act, had that punishment been presented to you beforehand as an inevitable consequence of your committing the crime. Although fascinating and ambitious, Yaffe’s theory of desert struggles as an account of who deserves (...) what, and it falls short of explaining why and how desert is normatively significant—why and how desert matters. (shrink)

We review evidence of the psychological and social costs associated with punishing. We propose that these psychological and social costs should be considered (in addition to material costs) when searching for evidence of costly punishment.

Philosophers have taken little heed of the fact that people often act contrary to their better judgment not because they suffer a volitional infirmity like weakness of will or compulsion but instead because they care too little about what they judge best (they are unconcerned) or they care too much about something else (they are compromised). Unconcerned and compromised action, being varieties of akratic action that do not involve volitional infirmity, are phenomena worth examining not only in their own right (...) but also for what they reveal about the better known varieties of akratic action for which they might easily be mistaken, such as weak-willed action and action (or inaction) that stems from accidie. Unconcern and compromise also are worth examining for what they reveal about a topic beyond philosophical psychology, namely, moral and legal accountability. Forgiveness, resentment, and retributive punishment each may have less to do with what an offender (morally) believes than with what he cares about. (shrink)

The idea of philosophy as science expands throughout 19th century philosophy; first instantiated by German Idealism's systems in the shape of absolute science which start from pure subjectivity to further gather deductively the entire world under its categories. This idea is later found within the works of Franz Brentano in the form of philosophy as inductive science that has to work according to the method of natural sciences. However, despite this methodological commitment, Brentano did not give up the metaphysical dimension (...) of philosophical research and accepted natural theology as philosophical science. In this way, his inductive-scientific philosophy is fundamentally different from Comte's and Mill's positive philosophy, which purposely bracketed metaphysical problems in order to focus upon the constant relations of phenomena. Within this framework, the volume starts from Brentano's conception of philosophy as science and aims to analyze the source of this idea in Mill, Comte, and Bentham, its criticism and further development by Marty, Stumpf, Twardowski, and Husserl, and also the alternative competing views on the topic of Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Newman, Dilthey, and Wittgenstein. (shrink)

From populist propaganda attacking knowledge as ‘fake news’ to the latest advances in artificial intelligence, human thought is under unprecedented attack today. If computers can do what humans can do and they can do it much faster, what’s so special about human thought? In this new book, bestselling philosopher Markus Gabriel steps back from the polemics to re-examine the very nature of human thought. He conceives of human thinking as a ‘sixth sense’, a kind of sense organ that is (...) closely tied our biological reality as human beings. Our thinking is not a form of data processing but rather the linking together of images and imaginary ideas which we process in different sensory modalities. Our time frame expands far beyond the present moment, as our ideas and beliefs stretch far beyond the here and now. We are living beings and the whole of evolution is built into our life story. In contrast to some of the exaggerated claims made by proponents of AI, Gabriel argues that our thinking is a complex structure and organic process that is not easily replicated and very far from being superseded by computers. With his usual wit and intellectual verve, Gabriel combines philosophical insight with pop culture to set out a bold defence of the human and a plea for an enlightened humanism for the 21st century. This timely book will be of great value to anyone interested in the nature of human thought and the relations between human beings and machines in an age of rapid technological change. (shrink)

The illusory truth effect is exhibited when repeated exposure to a statement increases an individual’s credence in that statement. While most investigations of the illusory truth effect focus on individuals’ belief formation, humans typically form beliefs within a social structure. This is particularly relevant because various social structures can give rise to repeated exposure to statements; e.g. one or two foundational papers might always be cited by a particular lab. So, how does the illusory truth effect influence learning and belief (...) formation in a group? This paper uses network models to investigate this question. These models show that the illusory truth effect can be very detrimental to a group’s belief formation. The effect causes networks to prematurely settle on a belief, in part, through repeated exposure data points that are not independently generated. Previous research has indicated that the probability of such failures is near zero when networks are large or scientists are forced to explore unpopular and risky science. However, simulation results show that the harmful consequences of the illusory truth effect are robust even in large networks with mandatory exploration. (shrink)

How social scientists' disagreements about their key words and distinctions have been misconceived, and what to do about it Social scientists do research on a variety of topics—gender, capitalism, populism, and race and ethnicity, among others. They make descriptive and explanatory claims about empathy, intelligence, neoliberalism, and power. They advise policymakers on diversity, digitalization, work, and religion. And yet, as Gabriel Abend points out in this provocative book, they can’t agree on what these things are and how to identify (...) them. How to tell if something is a religion or a cult or a sect? What is empathy? What makes this society a capitalist one? Disputes of this sort arise again and again in the social sciences. Abend argues that these disagreements have been doubly misconceived. First, they conflate two questions: how a social science community should use its most important words, and what distinctions it should accept and work with. Second, there’s no fact of the matter about either. Instead, they’re practical reason questions for a community, which aim at epistemically and morally good outcomes. Abend calls on social science communities to work together on their words, distinctions, and classifications. They must make collective decisions about the uses of words, the acceptability of distinctions, and the criteria for assessing both. These decisions aren’t up to individual scholars; the community gets the last word. According to Abend, the common good, justice, and equality should play a significant role in the logic of scientific research. Gabriel Abend is professor of sociology at University of Lucerne and the author of The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics (Princeton). (shrink)

Si en su primer libro Gabriel nos explicaba cómo podemos conocer lo real y exactamente qué podemos considerar por real, en este segundo trabajo el filósofo alemán, máximo representante de la “Escuela filosófica del Nuevo Realismo” utiliza a Platón, Schopenhauer y Kant, pero también a “The Walking Dead”, “Dr. Who” y “Fargo”, para luchar contra el neurocentrismo, la limitación de la consciencia y la reflexión humana a las meras capacidades neuronales. En cierta manera Markus Gabriel libera al sujeto (...) del determinismo cientificista, a favor de una ética de la responsabilidad en la reflexión. El yo no es sólo su cerebro, va mucho más allá. (shrink)

People ordinarily make sense of their own behavior and that of others by invoking concepts like belief, desire, and intention. Philosophers refer to this network of concepts and related principles as 'folk psychology.' The prevailing view of folk psychology among philosophers of mind and psychologists is that it is a proto-scientific theory whose function is to explain and predict behavior.

Este libro reivindica los términos cientificismo y cientificista, utilizados habitualmente como insultos por posmodernos, religiosos y enemigos de la ciencia en general. "Este libro es una recopilación de ensayos de autores que decididamente están del lado de la ciencia en esta guerra cultural. Muy oportunamente, estos autores advierten que el cientificismo no debería ser objeto de vergüenza. En algunos debates, personas como Richard Dawkins y Sam Harris han sido acusadas de ser cientificistas, y en vez de asumir esta etiqueta con (...) orgullo suelen negar que lo sean. Este libro, en cambio, es un elogio del cientificismo. En sus capítulos los autores exponen por qué defender a ultranza la ciencia no ha de ser motivo de vergüenza, por qué la sociedad moderna necesita más (no menos) ciencia, y por qué la ciencia debe trascender las fronteras que tradicionalmente se le han querido imponer” (Gabriel Andrade). (shrink)

To Serve With Honor should be required reading for all members of the officer corps of the United States military. Beyond that, it should be made required reading for all United States military academies, ROTC and officer candidate programs. This treatise on military ethics goes a long way in bridging the gap between the military and society's understanding of the military's ethical dilemma. It is a must for the student of military affairs. International Social Science Review To Serve With Honor (...) is the first book by an American to focus on the validity of current standards of military ethics in more than a century. This thoughtful study begins with the premise that the military profession is qualitatively different from any other profession. Author Richard Gabriel uses this assumption to address such vital questions as What are the limits of military obedience? and When does a soldier have an obligation to resist the orders of his superiors? (shrink)

In this highly original book, Markus Gabriel offers an account of the human self that overcomes the deadlocks inherent in the standard positions of contemporary philosophy of mind. His view, Neo-Existentialism, is thoroughly anti-naturalist in that it repudiates any theory according to which the ensemble of our best natural-scientific knowledge is able to account fully for human mindedness. Instead, he shows that human mindedness consists in an open-ended proliferation of mentalistic vocabularies. Their role in the human life form consists (...) in making sense of the fact that the human being does not merely blend in with inanimate nature and the rest of the animal kingdom. Humans rely on a self-portrait that locates them in the broadest conceivable context of the universe. What distinguishes this self-portrait from our knowledge of natural reality is that we change in light of our true and false beliefs about the human being. Gabriel’s argument is challenged in this volume by Charles Taylor, Andrea Kern and Jocelyn Benoist. In defending his argument against these and other objections and in spelling out his theory of self-constitution, Gabriel refutes naturalism’s metaphysical claim to epistemic exclusiveness and opens up new paths for future self-knowledge beyond the contemporary ideology of the scientific worldview. (shrink)

In _Counter-History of the Present_ Gabriel Rockhill contests, dismantles, and displaces one of the most widespread understandings of the contemporary world: that we are all living in a democratized and globalized era intimately connected by a single, overarching economic and technological network. Noting how such a narrative fails to account for the experiences of the billions of people who lack economic security, digital access, and real political power, Rockhill interrogates the ways in which this grand narrative has emerged in (...) the same historical, economic, and cultural context as the fervid expansion of neoliberalism. He also critiques the concurrent valorization of democracy, which is often used to justify U.S. military interventions on the behalf of capital. Developing an alternative account of the current conjuncture that acknowledges the plurality of lived experiences around the globe and in different social strata, he shifts the foundations upon which debates about the contemporary world can be staged. Rockhill's counter-history thereby offers a new grammar for historical narratives, creating space for the articulation of futures no longer engulfed in the perpetuation of the present. (shrink)

This book of tightly woven dialogues engages prominent thinkers in a discussion about the role of culture-broadly construed-in contemporary society and politics. Faced with the conceptual inflation of the notion of 'culture,' which now imposes itself as an indispensable issue in contemporary moral and political debates, these dynamic exchanges seek to rethink culture and critique beyond the schematic models that have often predominated, such as the opposition between "mainstream multiculturalism" and the "clash of civilizations." Prefaced by an introduction relating current (...) cultural debates to the critical theory tradition, this book examines the politics of culture and the spirit of critique from three different vantage points. To begin, Gabriel Rockhill and Alfredo Gomez-Muller provide a stage-setting dialogue, followed by discussions with two major representatives of contemporary critical theory: Seyla Benhabib and Nancy Fraser. Working at the horizons of this tradition, Judith Butler, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Cornel West then provide important critical perspectives on cultural politics. The book's concluding section engages with Michael Sandel and Will Kymlicka, who work out of the Rawlsian tradition yet are uniquely concerned with the issue of culture, broadly understood. The epilogue, an interview with Axel Honneth, returns to the core issue of critical theory in cultural politics. Ranging from recent developments and progressive interventions in critical theory to dialogues that incorporate its insights into larger discussions of social and political philosophy, this book sharpens old critical tools while developing new strategies for rethinking the role of 'culture' in contemporary society. (shrink)

Journal Name: SATS Issue: Ahead of print.

This article reconstructs Yasuo Deguchi’s We-Turn framework through the lens of conditionalism, the view that events – including actions – are wholes composed of interconnected necessary and jointly sufficient conditions. This approach raises crucial questions about the individuation of such wholes, particularly in avoiding infinite regress and arbitrary system boundaries. I compare Deguchi’s analysis to a parallel strategy in the philosophy of mind, where conditionalism dissolves traditional versions of the mind-body problem by treating mental activity as an integrated whole in (...) which mental and non-mental elements are co-constitutive. In this holistic view, there is no need to postulate a dualistic explanatory gap between the mental and the physical; instead, both are parts of a larger systemic unity. Within this context, I further explore the role of the subject – the “I” – in Deguchi’s framework, arguing that the We-Turn provides a promising path toward reconceiving subjectivity without relying on a metaphysically isolated or self-positing individual. Finally, I suggest that conditionalist holism and the We-Turn offer important resources for advancing contemporary debates at the intersection of the philosophy of mind, social ontology, and epistemology. (shrink)

This paper attends to the rhetorical and discursive constructions of gendered violence in Ghanaian digital culture surrounding the prospective nomination of women on Ghana’s ORAL task force – Operation Recover All Loot. As a charged rhetorical site of gendered and epistemic violence against women’’s acumen, this study unravels the deployment of meritocratic logics, ornamentalism, claims of intellectual ineptitude, tropes of competency, and tokenistic rhetorics to delegitimize women’s inclusion in high-stakes political offices in Ghana. Grounded in African Feminist Theory and Critical (...) Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study evinces how public rhetors mobilize androcentric narratives on X to frame women as quintessential distractions and illegitimate political actors within anti-corruption initiatives. These discourses further establish a colonial gradient of neoliberalism, that constructs the political sphere as result-driven and inherently masculine, while co-naturalizing women as concerned with matters of beauty and aesthetics. The study calls for decolonial interventions nested within Indigenous public pedagogy and social media collective authorship for change. (shrink)

The intellectual resistance to totalitarian regimes can take many forms. This remarkable volume portrays one such story of resistance in Romania during the reign of Ceausescu: that of Constantin Noica, one of the country's foremost intellectuals. The Paltinis Diary is a wonderful homage to an intellectual master and to the power of intellect and freedom. The book will be of interest to philosophers, non-philosophers alike, and to anyone who seeks to grasp the true meaning of survival under totalitarian conditions.

I investigate the UNBELIEVABLE similarities between the ideas of Oreshkov et al. and my ideas. In fact, their framework (the ontological background) is UNBELIEVABLE similar to my EDWs perspective!

Summary of the major innovations of Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896).

Triumphalist histories of science are nothing new but were, in fact, a staple of the 19th century. This article considers one of the more famous works in the genre and argues that it was motivated by doubt more than by faith.

This essay introduces and explores the problem of making sense of God’s actions, particularly as it manifests in Ted Chiang’s short story Hell Is the Absence of God. The problems of evil and of undeserved reward and punishment are cast as special cases of the problem of making sense of God’s actions. The essay explores the different ways various characters in the story encounter and grapple with the problem. Finally, I argue that the setup in Chiang’s story undercuts certain prominent (...) replies against the problem of evil, such as the free will and mysterious ways defenses. (shrink)

El artículo analiza los principales desafíos que debe afrontar la filosofía en el siglo XXI ante una transformación global marcada por el fin de la Guerra Fría, la expansión de la globalización, las desigualdades económicas, las revoluciones científico-técnicas, la crisis ecológica, los avances en biotecnología, la violencia y la subordinación de la educación a criterios tecnocráticos y de mercado. Gabriel Vargas Lozano sostiene que estos cambios configuran una nueva “figura del mundo” que exige una filosofía capaz de dialogar con (...) las ciencias naturales y sociales, pero sin renunciar a su función crítica, ética y política. El texto reivindica una filosofía práctica, no encerrada en la academia, orientada a los grandes problemas ciudadanos: la justicia social, la igualdad, la libertad, la violencia, la democracia, la bioética y el sentido de la educación. Frente a la marginación de la filosofía en los sistemas educativos y en el debate público, el autor defiende su valor como ejercicio de pensamiento libre, argumentación racional, crítica del poder y formación de ciudadanía. La conclusión central es que la filosofía sigue siendo indispensable para comprender el presente, imaginar futuros posibles y contribuir a la construcción de un mundo más justo y digno. (shrink)

A antropologia cultural defendeu recentemente que natureza e cultura não são conceitos universais capazes de esclarecer a constituição do comportamento coletivo, mas sim variações conceituais locais que se situam diante de outros modos igualmente legítimos de compor a experiência do mundo. No caso da antropologia de Philippe Descola, essa crítica conduziu a uma reconceitualização radical das ciências sociais e humanas em termos de regimes ontológicos, reconceitualização essa que se baseia em elementos centrais da tradição fenomenológica. Neste artigo, desenvolvo uma perspectiva (...) fenomenológica da antropologia de Descola a fim de esclarecer em que medida podemos compreender nossa relação com o mundo para além da divisão entre natureza e cultura. O artigo está dividido em três seções. Na primeira, apresento as teses principais da posição de Descola, que ele denomina “universalismo relativo”, e introduzo duas críticas a esse projeto: a possível confusão entre seu quadro ontológico e aspectos do naturalismo moderno, bem como o risco de reificar determinações culturais como propriedades ontológicas. Na segunda seção, abordo a primeira crítica, mostrando como a pretensão universalista da antropologia de Descola — segundo a qual a experiência coletiva se organiza pela dualidade dos planos da fisicalidade e da interioridade — pode ser elucidada por meio da análise husserliana da experiência corporal, evitando assim sua assimilação ao regime naturalista. Por fim, sustento que a ideia antropológica de uma diversidade de regimes ontológicos pode ser esclarecida em termos fenomenológicos por meio da análise de duas camadas da constituição do mundo: a experiência primordial do corpo vivo e o processo intersubjetivo de comunalização. (shrink)

Franz Brentano (1838–1917) admired G.W. Leibniz (1646–1716) as representing the ascending phase in the development of philosophy during the modern period. Along with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz exercised a significant influence on Brentano’s treatment of several topics in metaphysics and epistemology as well as in natural theology. In this paper, I focus primarily on those topics that bear directly on Leibniz’s influence in Brentano’s theodicy: first by exploring in detail the similarities between Leibniz’s theodicy and Brentano’s; second, by taking (...) special note of Brentano’s so-called psychological proof of God’s existence; third, by elaborating in a provisional way, the potentially phenomenological aspects of Leibniz’s and Brentano’s theodicies, their advantages, and their shortcomings. In the end, I suggest that the theodicies of both Leibniz and Brentano offer primarily ontological optimism, but that a truly moral optimism, though it can be developed further in ways suggested by phenomenology, remains philosophically out of reach. (shrink)

This book delves into the evolution of the New Thought Movement and its pervasive influence on modern healthcare. The book begins by tracing the roots of the New Thought Movement, originating in the 19th century, emphasizing the power of the mind in healing and personal development. Over time, this philosophy morphed into the contemporary positive thinking industry, becoming a significant component of Western self-help culture. The book explores how these ideas have become a contentious point in today's culture wars, polarized (...) between supporters who credit it for personal empowerment and critics who highlight its limitations and potential harm. Central to the discussion is an in-depth analysis of the New Thought philosophy's impact on the healthcare industry. While acknowledging the potential benefits, such as motivating patients to adopt healthier lifestyles and fostering a sense of personal agency, the book critically examines how this philosophy's emphasis on mental positivity can lead to victim-blaming. It argues that oversimplifying health issues by attributing them solely to personal mindset obscures the multifaceted reality of health, particularly the significant role of social determinants of health and systemic inequities. This critique underscores how attributing illness to insufficient positive thinking can perpetuate stigma and neglect the socio-economic and environmental factors critical for understanding and addressing health challenges. By offering a nuanced perspective, the book aims to catalyze discussions on integrating mindful optimism with a holistic acknowledgment of the complexities inherent in healthcare, striving for a more balanced and equitable approach. Gabriel Andrade is an Assistant Professor at Ajman University, United Arab Emirates. (shrink)

A major weakness of contemporary accounts of existence and non-existence alike arises from the tendency to believe that the answers to questions of existence can put us in touch with a distinctive “catalogue” of reality. Applying instead his ontology of “fields of sense,” Gabriel questions in this paper both the idea of existence as dependent upon this “catalogue” conception of reality and, equally, on the Meinongian and Neo-Meinongian positions recently defended by Graham Priest and others, according to which there (...) are objects that do not exist, including even contradictory ones. While the first leads to a “furniture ontology,” the latter provokes semantic randomness, in that there is no longer any regular way to answer questions of existence. Gabriel’s ontological descriptivism, by contrast, guarantees that the resolution to the question of objectivity depends on nothing but a coherent domain (a field of sense) and its objects. (shrink)

This is the thirty-first volume in Religion and Public Life, formerly This World, a series on religion and public affairs. This ongoing series seeks to provide a wide-ranging forum for differing views on religious and ethical considerations. The essays grouped together in Culture and Consumption discuss the phenomenon of consumption, an identifiable and pervasive feature of American culture that distinguishes it from other national cultures. The lead article provides an insight into the long-standing pattern of consumption that has been progressively (...) elevated into social policy in America. This is a balanced analysis of the history of the consumption cultural ethos beginning with the undermining of the Native American Culture and ending with Wilsonian Liberal-Internationalism and the demise of the moral authority of organized labor. This commercialization of culture has always competed with the funding vision of a dispassionate social order in which custom, deferential politics, and continuation of traditional hierarchal values would be the constitutional agenda. Another contributor argues that the emergence of the democratic-consumer state in America was anticipated in de Tocqueville's observation that "in democracies nothing has brighter luster than commercea." Other contributor essays treat issues such as the New Class and the consumer state; technology's triumph at the expense of the social and natural worlds; and argue against the materialist perspective in addiction. Culture and Consumption includes the following major contributions: "The Dialectic of Consumption: Materialism and Social Control" by David Brown; "Religion, Social Science and the Ironies of Parasitic Modernity" by Guy Alchon; The Dilemma of Hypermodernity" by Mark Wegierski; "Toward an Epistemology of Addiction" by Leonard Kaplan and Vince Rinella. Also included are book reviews by Martha Davis and Conrad Kanagy. In a concluding essay, Gabriel Ricci reviews Jerome Bruner's The Culture of Education. Culture and Consumption is part of an annual survey of religion and public life that provides relevant information and ideas about significant issues of the day. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:diacritics 34.2 (2006) 14-36 [Access article in PDF] "The Possibility of the Poetic Said" in Otherwise than Being (Allusion, or Blanchot in Lévinas) Gabriel Riera Language would exceed the limits of what is thought, by suggesting, letting be understood without ever making understandable [en laissant sous-entendre, sans jamais faire entendre] an implication of meaning distinct from that which comes to signs from the simultaneity of systems or the (...) logical definition of concepts. This possibility [vertu] is laid bare in the poetic said. [...] It is shown in the prophetic said. —Emmanuel Lévinas, Otherwise than Being [my emphasis] Writing, without placing itself above art, supposes that one not prefer art, but efface art as writing effaces itself. —Maurice Blanchot, Writing of the DisasterIn an effort to elucidate a more originary difference than Heidegger's ontological difference between Being and entities, as well as an ethicity of thinking able to respond to the trace of transcendence of the other's face, Lévinas's philosophy redefines language radically and does so in uneasy proximity to poetic language. In Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence (1974), Lévinas deploys a constellation of terms—discourse, expression, communication, face, sincerity, witnessing, prophecy—in order to elucidate the ethical dimension of language, the ethicity of philosophical discourse. This constellation revolves around the crucial notion of signification and the two operative concepts of the said (le dit) and saying (le dire). By the former Lévinas understands the semantic content of an utterance or the giving of signs by a sender to an addressee, but also the different modalities by which a subject masters the world by assimilating it to the measure of consciousness (discourse, narration, history, manifestation, representation). Saying (le dire) refers to the way of signifying primarily that I am for the other, the expression of being-for-the-other that subjectivity "is" before positioned as the source of signs or comprehension: subjectivity as exposition. While the said expresses a content, the saying is expression without content.Language for Lévinas is the "structure" of both the retraction and the inscription of infinity (l'infini), and this "structure" is what Lévinas calls ethics. It is thus possible to affirm that in Lévinas there is no ethical turn without a certain linguistic turn, one in which the a priori of language is interrupted by an anteriority whose a priori character is enigmatic. But Lévinas's linguistic turn is turned inside out: for him language contains the other's call and thus harbors a form of exteriority within itself. This is because language is elevated to a metaphysical category (in the sense of Totality and Infinity [1961], where it means the breaching or interruption of totality) that exceeds the simple [End Page 14] "giving out of signs" [délivrance de signes] [AE 81/OB 48] or communication. Lévinas claims that "saying is communication, to be sure, but as a condition for all communication, as exposure [exposition]" [AE 82/OB 48]. Signification precedes and defines language as proximity and contact with the other and not as the "vicissitude [peripetia] of the thematizing intentionality" [AE 216/OB 137] of a subject whose main attribute is its ability to synchronize questions and answers, being and its manifestations, and by so doing leaves no margin for being exposed to the other. Further, signification also names an enigmatic pre-diction that challenges the primacy that language, understood as a system of signs, enjoys in other philosophies (structuralism and analytic philosophy, for example).Most critics agree that Lévinas's philosophy is inhospitable to aesthetic phenomena and ambivalent toward poetic language. His severe condemnation of the work of art in "Reality and Its Shadow" (1948) is still present in Totality and Infinity, Lévinas's first major work, where he establishes a relation with the other as face-to-face in discourse. And although in Otherwise than Being Lévinas finally acknowledges "poetic" language's ability to suggest significations that exceed the order of discourse and even endows it with a (quasi)-ethical force... (shrink)

The main ideas of the EDWs perspective are in Gabriel Vacariu’s PhD thesis posted online by UNSW (Australia) in 2007!!! I have realized the GREATEST discovery in the history of human knowledge: the EDWs! With discovering the EDWs, I have changed everything in Philosophy, Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience! This has been the main reason, so many people have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas, many years I published my first works! -/- UNBELIEVABLE, many (hundreds) “great” or small thinkers (...) did the same thing in 2006-2007 and later: they published the same ideas, UNBELIEVABLE similar to my ideas from 2002-2005! They believe they would be considered co-authors of the same new framework of thinking. They did not know that many “professors” would do the same thing: they plagiarized my ideas and they hurry up to published their work as soon as possible (in 2006-2007, depending when they discovered my article 2005). So, in the same 2 years, many people “discovered” the same new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective, each of them did not think that there would be so many other people doing the same thing, that is, many people “discovered” the same new framework (the greatest challenge in the history of human thinking!) in the same period! Such coincidences (the discovery of the EDWs in the same two years!!!) are quite IMPOSSIBLE!! This is the reason nobody quoted my name, but nobody quoted any name who PLAGIARIZED my ideas… In 2006-2007, I was wondering why nobody quote my name, but in fact, they plagiarized my ideas. Nobody discovered this framework of thinking 2500 years, and in 2-3 years, many people discovered it!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! There were some "professors" who published articles/chapters very close to Bohr's complementarity, Dirac, de Broglie's dualism before 2005 (for instance Carlo Rovelli 1996 or Ladyman), but their works were constructed within the "unicorn world" (Universe/world), therefore, these works had nothing in common with the EDWs perspective!!!! In reality, all of them plagiarized my ideas! It was like many people composed Beethoven Fifth’s Symphony, claiming that they never listen Beethoven! Who would be so stupid to believe them? (shrink)

The main ideas of the EDWs perspective are in Gabriel Vacariu’s PhD thesis posted online by UNSW (Australia) in 2007!!! I have realized the GREATEST discovery in the history of human knowledge: the EDWs! With discovering the EDWs, I have changed everything in Philosophy, Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience! This has been the main reason, so many people have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas, many years I published my first works! -/- UNBELIEVABLE, many (hundreds) “great” or small thinkers (...) did the same thing in 2006-2007 and later: they published the same ideas, UNBELIEVABLE similar to my ideas from 2002-2005! They believe they would be considered co-authors of the same new framework of thinking. They did not know that many “professors” would do the same thing: they plagiarized my ideas and they hurry up to published their work as soon as possible (in 2006-2007, depending when they discovered my article 2005). So, in the same 2 years, many people “discovered” the same new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective, each of them did not think that there would be so many other people doing the same thing, that is, many people “discovered” the same new framework (the greatest challenge in the history of human thinking!) in the same period! Such coincidences (the discovery of the EDWs in the same two years!!!) are quite IMPOSSIBLE!! This is the reason nobody quoted my name, but nobody quoted any name who PLAGIARIZED my ideas… In 2006-2007, I was wondering why nobody quote my name, but in fact, they plagiarized my ideas. Nobody discovered this framework of thinking 2500 years, and in 2-3 years, many people discovered it!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! There were some "professors" who published articles/chapters very close to Bohr's complementarity, Dirac, de Broglie's dualism before 2005 (for instance Carlo Rovelli 1996 or Ladyman), but their works were constructed within the "unicorn world" (Universe/world), therefore, these works had nothing in common with the EDWs perspective!!!! In reality, all of them plagiarized my ideas! It was like many people composed Beethoven Fifth’s Symphony, claiming that they never listen Beethoven! Who would be so stupid to believe them? (shrink)

The French philosopher Jacques Rancière has influenced disciplines from history and philosophy to political theory, literature, art history, and film studies. His research into nineteenth-century workers’ archives, reflections on political equality, critique of the traditional division between intellectual and manual labor, and analysis of the place of literature, film, and art in modern society have all constituted major contributions to contemporary thought. In this collection, leading scholars in the fields of philosophy, literary theory, and cultural criticism engage Rancière’s work, illuminating (...) its originality, breadth, and rigor, as well as its place in current debates. They also explore the relationships between Rancière and the various authors and artists he has analyzed, ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Flaubert, Rossellini, Auerbach, Bourdieu, and Deleuze. The contributors to this collection do not simply elucidate Rancière’s project; they also critically respond to it from their own perspectives. They consider the theorist’s engagement with the writing of history, with institutional and narrative constructions of time, and with the ways that individuals and communities can disturb or reconfigure what he has called the “distribution of the sensible.” They examine his unique conception of politics as the disruption of the established distribution of bodies and roles in the social order, and they elucidate his novel account of the relationship between aesthetics and politics by exploring his astute analyses of literature and the visual arts. In the collection’s final essay, Rancière addresses some of the questions raised by the other contributors and returns to his early work to provide a retrospective account of the fundamental stakes of his project. _Contributors_. Alain Badiou, Étienne Balibar, Bruno Bosteels, Yves Citton, Tom Conley, Solange Guénoun, Peter Hallward, Todd May, Eric Méchoulan, Giuseppina Mecchia, Jean-Luc Nancy, Andrew Parker, Jacques Rancière, Gabriel Rockhill, Kristin Ross, James Swenson, Rajeshwari Vallury, Philip Watts. (shrink)

"The standard historical image of Jean-Luc Godard is that of a resolute iconoclast breaking with the representational norms and codes of classical cinema in the name of liberating film from the deadening weight of its past. His numerous formal innovations—syncopated montage, unconventional framing, unique experiments with dialogue, etc.—along with his abandonment of traditional narrative and character development, his playful pastiche of genres, his debunking of the representational illusions of cinematic realism, his reflexive preoccupation with film itself and the general dissolution (...) of the distinction between high and low art have created a potent new form of cinema that continues to have far-reaching effects. More experimental than Truffaut, more temerarious than Chabrol, but less fastidious than Resnais, less obtuse and prolix than Rivette, Godard is seen as the bumptious enfant terrible of the Cahiers du cinéma who set the agenda for a new era of modernist filmmaking...". (shrink)

This paper shows that the logic known as Information-friendly logic (IF-logic) introduced by Jaakko Hintikka and Gabriel Sandu defines its own truth-predicate. The result is interesting given that IF logic is a much stronger logic than ordinary first-order logic and has also a well behaved notion of negation which, on its first-order subfragment, behaves like classical, contradictory negation.

This paper introduces a reading of Spinoza that intends to situate his theory of imagination as the locus of his ethics. That, in order to arrive at reason that sees the essence and nature of things, human beings should first cultivate a space where imaginings flourish at the level of contingency and inadequacy. Here, I argue that Spinoza's philosophy initially functions as a (1) metaphysics of individuation, leading to an (2) ethics of the imagination in order to formulate (3) a (...) politics of hope. In this manner, I hope to show that this contributes to Spinoza's understanding of rationality, which he broadly calls substance. (shrink)