Some Comments on the Reviews

We comment on the preceding reviews of our book “Memory Evolutive Systems”, discussing the improvements proposed by some of the reviewers and answering to critics of others, in particular on the use of category theory for modeling living systems.     

The legal consensus about foregoing life-sustaining treatment: its status and its prospects

The legal consensus that has evolved through adjudication and legislation since the Karen Quinlan case in 1976 is founded on the premise that there is a bright line between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Indeed, the term passive euthanasia is often eschewed in favor of less emotionally-laden terminology such as "forgoing life-sustaining treatment" or "terminating life support" so as to further sever any possible connection with active euthanasia. Legal approval has been bestowed upon passive euthanasia under certain circumstances while active euthanasia is routinely condemned. This consensus was put to a test in 1990 when the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Cruzan case. However, the Court's narrow decision did not upset the consensus, and in the most significant appellate decisions handed down by state courts since Cruzan, there has been a reaffirmation--and possibly even an extension--of the consensus. Two other threats to the legal consensus about forgoing life-sustaining treatment have begun to manifest themselves: the increasing pressure for mercy killing and "futility" cases. Both of these challenge the fundamental premises on which the consensus is grounded.     

Resisting revenge: An investigation of reasons for foregoing revenge in romantic relationships

The reasons people offered to explain why they resisted the desire to retaliate when provoked by a romantic partner were investigated in two studies. Undergraduates recalled an instance when they wanted to get even with a romantic partner but chose not to and either explained their reasons for foregoing revenge (Study 1, N = 27) or selected reasons from a checklist (Study 2, N = 91). Results suggest people succumb to the temptation to take revenge when they (a) do not stop to question the morality of responding vengefully, (b) do not consider the costs of retaliating (or perceive its benefits to outweigh its costs), or (c) weigh the harm that vengeance might cause their avengee/relationship less heavily than its benefits.     

德里达对我们究竟意味着什么？——关于10月10日《纽约时报》刊登德里达逝世讣告的风波

通过关于德里达逝世一份意味深长的讣告,2004年10月下旬,以《纽约时报》为载体,引发了一场关于德里达的哲学对我们这个世界究竟意味着什么的讨论.这场讨论的实质在于,德里达的解构精神究竟是一种一味摧毁形而上学的力量,还是通过对这种形而上学传统的分析,指出"一分为二"式的"二元论"的片面性,以致所导致的,从古至今绵延不断的一种固执的思维定式.德里达试图告诉我们,形而上学和古典辩证法传统在把一对和多对范畴相互对应、提升、同化过程中,势必排除或遗漏掉许多可能是更为重要的要素,因为这些要素可能是使事物得以出场和传播的更为真实的方式.解构不是破坏,不是摧毁,不是在消灭一个旧世界的基础上建立一个新世界.应该把解构理解为事物在出场或传播过程中其结构的某种实际上的变形,一种实际效果.     

佛外说佛——读经漫言

一、佛教的社会福利事业 佛教徒服务社会、济度世人的行为是有教义做理论基础的,并不只是一般宗教性的善行.佛教徒的主要修行德目是六波罗蜜(六度)与四无量心.六度是布施、持戒、忍辱、精进、禅定与般若(智慧).四无量心是慈、悲、喜、舍四种心态的充量至极.这些德目包含两类内容:     

Comments on the paradox of analysis

A version of the so‐called paradox of analysis is enunciated which involves two principles of synonymy, referred to respectively as that of substitution and that of triviality. It is argued that for most “familiar” concepts of synonymy the former principle can be maintained whereas the latter one has to be rejected. I deal with some solutions to the paradox that have been proposed or discussed by Carnap, Lewy, Feyerabend and Hare, and adhere to Carnap's view that the puzzle arises from the use of unclarified and imprecise notions of synonymy.