Individu dangereux et situations dangereuses : les représentations sociales de la dangerosité chez les citoyens, les magistrats et les surveillants de prison

The notion of “dangerousness” takes an increasing importance currently at the level of the Justice, magistrates and supervisors of jail being brought thus to assess it frequently. A question arises then, that of the significance assigned by these professionals to dangerousness. Results of the interviews achieved close to these two groups as well as with citizens reveal homogeneous representations as for the dangerous individual but greatly heterogeneous representations with respect to the dangerous situations. While confirming the existence of several dangerousness (social, penal and prison), these results also show that all dangerousness assessment can be satisfactory on condition that it is done in an both clinical and social approach.     

Farewell!

No abstract available for this article.     

重建社会实践

《重建社会实践》是F.伽塔里应《交往世界》杂志的稿约所写的一篇文章,也是作者临终前留给人类的最后一份礼物。面对霸权主义横行、唯科技主义泛滥、人口暴增、能源危机、环境污染、贫富悬殊、集权制度和恐怖主义等一系列国际问题,伽塔里提出了“重建社会实践”的方案。这是一个从政治、经济、法律、科技、心理、生态等多方面统筹兼顾的全球性协调治理的方略。今天读来仍然是那么发人深思。     

I Can't Relax! You're Driving me Quasi!

Robust Realists think that there are irreducible, non‐natural, and mind‐independent moral properties. Quasi‐Realists and Relaxed Realists think the same, but interpret these commitments differently. Robust Realists interpret them as metaphysical commitments, to be defended by metaphysical argument. Quasi‐Realists and Relaxed Realists say that they can only be interpreted as moral commitments. These theories thus pose a serious threat to Robust Realism, for they apparently undermine the very possibility of articulating the robust metaphysical commitments of this theory. I clarify and respond to this threat, showing that there is in fact space to develop and defend a robust moral ontology.     

Modality,Si! Modal Logic,No!

This article is oriented toward the use of modality in artificial intelligence (AI). An agent must reason about what it or other agents know, believe, want, intend or owe. Referentially opaque modalities are needed and must be formalized correctly. Unfortunately, modal logics seem too limited for many important purposes. This article contains examples of uses of modality for which modal logic seems inadequate.I have no proof that modal logic is inadequate, so I hope modal logicians will take the examples as challenges.Maybe this article will also have philosophical and mathematical logical interest.