Rortyan therapists,pragmatist engineers,and white nationalist egotists: A response to Huckerby,Huetter-Almerigi,and Showler

This essay is a reply to commentaries by Elin Danielsen Huckerby, Yvonne Huetter-Almerigi, and Paul Showler on Tracy Llanera's Richard Rorty: Outgrowing Modern Nihilism (2020).     

Debating Forgiveness: A Reply to My Critics

In this essay I offer a detailed reply to three critics (whose commentaries are included in this issue of Philosophia) of my Forgiveness: a Philosophical Exploration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). The topics explored include the nature and limits of forgiveness; its unconditional or conditional character; the problem of distinguishing between central and marginal cases; the analysis of political apology; and questions of philosophical methodology.     

Marriage at the Summit: Response to the Commentaries

This article serves as a response to the 13 commentaries on the target article, which introduced the suffocation model of marriage in America. This reply has four main sections. First, it presents an elaborated version of the suffocation model that was inspired by the commentaries. Second, it addresses three areas of significant disagreement that emerged as we digested the commentaries. Third, it examines the circumstances under which being instrumental for one's spouse's needs benefits the self. And fourth, it takes strides toward the development of a mathematically formal version of the suffocation model. It concludes with a discussion of the ways in which policymakers, clinicians, and individual Americans can capitalize upon the suffocation model to strengthen marriage and, in doing so, bolster personal well-being.     

Invited Response to Commentaries: Self‐Practice/Self‐Reflection (SP/SR): Contexts,Challenges and Ways Forward

McGinn (2015) and Fernández‐Álvarez, Castañeiras, and Wyss (2015) make valuable suggestions in their commentaries on the three self‐practice/self‐reflection (SP/SR) articles in this issue of the Australian Psychologist. In our response, we use their commentaries as a springboard to highlight contextual influences and challenges for future SP/SR research, and suggest potential ways forward.     

Understanding Psychopathology: Cybernetics and Psychology on the Boundary between Order and Chaos

Abstract

We have argued for a balanced perspective on the relative benefits and costs of approach and avoidance motivation, and that thinking hierarchically about these motives contributes to a better understanding of goal pursuit. Having received several scholarly commentaries on these primary claims, in this reply, we further clarify the roles of regulatory fit and intelligibility in goal pursuit, examine surviving and thriving at different levels of the motivational hierarchy, and demonstrate that thinking hierarchically about approach and avoidance motivation provides a wealth of opportunities for additional research into the dynamics of motivation.     

Varieties of Perspectives on Creativity: Reply to Commentators

ABSTRACT— In this reply, I concentrate on two broad issues raised by the four commentaries in this issue: the hierarchical model of domains and individual differences in creativity. In the first case, I cite additional research to address the contrast between "hard" and "soft" domains and the application of this contrast to children, adolescents, and noneminent adults. In the second case, I introduce two recent studies to confirm the model's predictions regarding personal creative achievement. I hope that the original article, the commentaries, and this reply will inspire future inquiries into creativity in all its disciplinary varieties.     

Puppeteers,hypnotists, and neurosurgeons

Conclusion The objection to R-S accounts that was raised by the possibility of external agents requires the acceptance of two premises, viz., that all R-S accounts allow for puppeteers and that puppeteers necessarily make us unfree. The Metaphilosophical reply shows that to the extent that puppeteers are more problematic than determinism per se, pup-peteers may be explicitly excluded since they violate our paradigm of free will. The Metaphilosophical reply also suggests that we should not expect our mature R-S account to supply logically necessary and sufficient conditions for free will, but rather give us answers that agree with our intuitions regarding paradigms of free and unfree decisions. The Irrelevancy reply completed our reply to incompatibilists who continue to object that determinism per se destroys the R-S program. It may be debated whether my autonomy variable account is a satisfactory way to spell out the Irrelevancy reply, but I think that this type of approach suggests the way to vindicating the R-S view from an important type of objection.     

Selecting among extraordinary informants

In our reply to the commentaries by Jacqui Woolley and Rebekah Richert, we discuss the following: (1) possible effects that religious educations have on individual differences and (2) how older children may construe mind‐readers.     

Function and Argument in Begriffsschrift

It is well known that the formal system developed by Frege in Begriffsschrift is based upon the distinction between function and argument—as opposed to the traditional distinction between subject and predicate. Almost all of the modern commentaries on Frege's work suggest a semantic interpretation of this distinction, and identify it with the ontological structure of function and object, upon which Grundgesetze is based. Those commentaries agree that the system proposed by Frege in Begriffsschrift has some gaps, but it is taken as an essentially correct formal system for second-order logic: the first one in the history of logic. However, there is strong textual evidence that such an interpretation should be rejected. This evidence shows that the nature of the distinction between function and argument is stated by Frege in a significantly different way: it applies only to expressions and not to entities. The formal system based on this distinction is tremendously flexible and is suitable for making explicit the logical structure of contents as well as of deductive chains. We put forward a new reconstruction of the function-argument scheme and the quantification theory in Begriffsschrift. After that, we discuss the usual semantic interpretation of Begriffsschrift and show its inconsistencies with a rigorous reading of the text.     

Starting small: Revisiting young children's perceptions of social withdrawal in China

In this reply to the commentaries by Xinyin Chen, Charissa Cheah, Yiyuan Xu, and Dawn Watling, we further discuss the conceptual and methodological challenges that arise when attempting to study beliefs about social withdrawal (1) in the unique cultural context of China and (2) in the unique developmental age period of early childhood.     

In Defence of Kripkenstein: On Lewis’ Proposed Solution to the Sceptical Argument

Abstract

In Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke argues for an extreme form of meaning scepticism. One influential reply to Kripke’s arguments was developed by David Lewis. The reply developed by Lewis makes use of the notion of mind-independent relations of similarity and difference. The aim of the paper is to argue that Lewis’ reply is not satisfactory: the challenge to find a refutation of Kripke’s sceptical arguments remains unmet.     

Assertive community treatment: Correcting some misconceptions

Conclusions Except for Mowbray, the commentators approach the issue of mental health services quite differently than we do, a fact which may have contributed to some of their misconceptions. Although not stressed in our original report, our view of mental health services is eclectic and pragmatic, encompassing a wide range of psychosocial approaches. We agree with Salem that a range of options needs to be developed and maintained. The motivation for the development of both the ACT and DIC programs was to address the needs of a population neglected by existing mental health services. By contrast, the commentators' agendas converged on the promotion of nonprofessional forms of help-giving. Like the commentators, we have long advocated for consumer choice, self-help groups, and the use of natural supports. Where we part company with them is what we hypothesize would be a minimally sufficient response to over 2 million persons with SMI in the United States. For us, it is not enough to assert that self-help groups might be a partial answer. For us, the self-selection into self-help groups and drop-in centers (which all of the commentators readily acknowledge) leaves open some troubling questions from apolicy standpoint about what happens to those who do not self-select into such groups, especially because we believe that those who select themselves out are likely to include some of the most vulnerable segments of the SMI population. Editor's Note. This paper is an invited reply to several commentaries on an earlier paper by the authors.Preparation of this report was supported in part by Research Scientist Development Award MH 00842-01 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the first author. Our thanks to Debra Pavick for her help in preparing the drop-in center statistics cited in the report.     

The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment: A comment on Zimmerman's critique

This paper is a reply to an article in this journal by M. Zimmerman titled “The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment: A Comment on Elardo and Bradley's Review”. We found Zimmerman's critique of our original review article (Developmental Review, 1981, 1, 113–145) to contain points which were well taken, and several which seemed pedantic. Specifically, we address his concerns about our discussion of the HOME scale's interrater reliability, test-retest stability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity; and we reply to his comments about the uses of the HOME scale for purposes of screening and matching environments.     

Reply to critics

Philosophical Studies - I reply to commentaries by Justin Bruner, Robert Sugden and Gerald Gaus. My response to Bruner focuses on conventions of bargaining problems and arguments for characterizing...     

Further Development of the Interpersonal Contingencies Model: Our Reply to the Mezulis & Funasaki and Burwell & Shirk Commentaries

In our reply to the commentaries on Cambron, Acitelli, & Pettit’s paper (this issue), we address the issue discussed in both commentaries: the need to take a developmental approach to the study of gender differences in depression. In response to Mezulis and Funasaki (this issue), we attempt to specify where the Cambron et al. paper supports their point that vulnerability, stress, and vulnerability-stress interaction may vary across domains. We also enumerate several hypotheses that are derived from our model of gender differences in depression. In response to Burwell and Shirk (this issue), we agree with the need to investigate the origin of self-esteem contingencies, and that the measurement of self-esteem contingencies is fraught with problems. We also remind readers that whether examining interpersonal relationship or physical appearance risk factors for depression, we must focus on the extent to which one’s self-esteem is based on that domain.     

Lateral preferences and writing hand posture in left-handers: A reply to Levy

In reply to the commentary from J. Levy about a recent article of ours (A. Searleman, C. Porac, & S. Coren, 1984, Brain and Cognition, 3, 86–93), we find that she has shifted the level of analysis from between-sex comparisons (as demanded by our original hypothesis) to within-sex comparisons. Since she is addressing a different set of questions, we therefore find no compelling reasons to alter any of our conclusions or the confidence that we have in these conclusions.     

Studying employee well-being: moving forward

In this article, we attempt to integrate the commentaries to our position paper on intra-individual models of employee well-being (EWB; Ilies, R., Aw, S. S. Y., & Pluut, H. (2015). Intraindividual models of employee well-being: What have we learned and where do we go from here? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Advance online publication) of Bakker (2015. Towards a multilevel approach of employee well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Advance online publication) and Cropanzano and Dasborough (2015. Dynamic models of well-being: Implications of affective events theory for expanding current views on personality and climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Advance online publication) with our original suggestions into a discussion and a set of recommendations aimed at moving theory and research on EWB forward. We hope that this effort, along with our position paper and the two commentaries, will lead to the development of a more comprehensive model of EWB and will stimulate new and interesting research on the topic.     

Wittgenstein's picture‐theory

In a paper published in this journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1962, pp. 46–64, Mr. H. R. G. Schwyzer has argued that ‘the current view (as held by, eg., Wamock, Anscombe and Stemus) of Wittgenstein's theory of language in the Tractatus is mistaken’. The editor of the journal has asked me for a reply. My reply concerns only my own book, and it amounts to the statement that Mr. Schwyzer's attack on the book has very little to do with what is said in it.     

Homophobia as a Boundary Phenomenon: The Dynamic Dance Between Different Tensions

From the commentaries presented in this issue, the main goal of this reply is to improve the analysis of homophobia as a boundary phenomenon of affective meaning-making, a collective historical–cultural construction. According to dialectical philosophical tradition, the notion of tension of opposites united within the same whole is a central notion that assumes an important role in the studies of meaning-making processes (Josephs and Valsiner, Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(1):68–83, 1998). Therefore, this paper intends to analyze homophobia issues from the dynamic dance between different tensions: (a) the tension between the general and the particular; (b) the tension between the HEIMWEH and the FERNWEH processes; and (c) the tension between stability and change. Presented in the conclusion are some suggestions for future approaches about homophobia that could be advanced within the general area of cultural psychology.     

The Standard Metre in Paris

In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues that we can neither say of the standard One Metre in Paris that it is a single metred length, nor that it is not. Kripke's reply to the puzzle is well known: the sentence expressing the assertion that the standard One Metre is one metre in length (at time t₀) is a true, a priori and contingent sentence. In this paper, I would like to show the nature of the intuition that runs behind Kripke's reply to the puzzle, and why, in the final analysis, it is not satisfactory, with respect to the point made by Wittgenstein. In addition, I will show that the case of the One Metre in Paris exemplifies the radical break Wittgenstein makes with traditional concepts of meaning. I then draw a general lesson that shows that the structure of concepts and functions (measures) in Wittgenstein is given by the idea of an arbitrary choice of “an object of comparison.” Concepts and functions (measures) are materialised and internalised in the form of objects that are arbitrarily sampled from a sample space of same logical‐type objects.