WHY IS THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY WORTH OUR STUDY?

Abstract: Assume for the sake of argument that doing philosophy is intrinsically valuable, where “doing philosophy” refers to the practice of forging arguments for and against the truth of theses in the domains of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and so on. The practice of the history of philosophy is devoted instead to discovering arguments for and against the truth of “authorial” propositions, that is, propositions that state the belief of some historical figure about a philosophical proposition. I explore arguments for thinking that doing history of philosophy is valuable—specifically, valuable in such a way that its value does not reduce to the value of doing philosophy. Most such arguments proffered by historians of philosophy fail, as I show. I then offer a proposal about what makes doing history of philosophy uniquely valuable, but it is one that many historians will not find agreeable.     

The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire: A psychometric evaluation

Eplov, L.F., Petersen, J., Jørgensen, T., Johansen, C., Birket‐Smith, M., Lyngberg, A. C. & Mortensen, E. L. (2010). The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire: A psychometric evaluation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 51, 548–554. The Mental Vulnerability Questionnaire was originally a 22 item scale, later reduced to a 12 item scale. In population studies the 12 item scale has been a significant predictor of health and illness. The scale has not been psychometrically evaluated for more than 30 years, and the aim of the present study was both to evaluate the psychometric properties of the 22 and 12 item scales and of three new scales. The main study sample was a community sample comprising more than 6,000 men and women. In this sample the coefficients of homogeneity were all over 0.30 for the three new scales, but below 0.30 for the 12 and the 22 item scales. All five Mental Vulnerability scales had positively skewed score distributions which were associated significantly with both SCL‐90‐R symptom scores and NEO‐PI‐R personality scales (primarily Neuroticism and Extraversion). Coefficient alpha was highest for the 22 and 12 item scales, and the two scales also showed the highest long‐term stability. The three new scales reflect relatively independent dimensions of Psychosomatic Symptoms, Mental Symptoms, and Interpersonal Problems, but because of reliability problems it remains an open question whether they will prove useful as predictors of health and morbidity.     

Younger Adults' Communication Experiences and Contact With Elders and Peers

Intergenerational communication research has overemphasized dissatisfying experiences and treated elderly conversation partners as an undifferentiated category. To redress these limitations, the authors surveyed 100 younger adults' (16–46 years) satisfying and dissatisfying experiences with both family and nonfamily elders, and compared these with own-age peers. Measures of social contact were also taken. As hypothesized, positivity of experiences and contact increased from nonfamily to family elders and to peers. Barriers of communication with nonfamily elders were due to contact more than experiences. For family elders and especially for peers, most measures of contact and experiences were positive. The authors also tested for effects due to respondents' gender and culture (New Zealanders of Chinese or European descent). Females had more positive experiences and contact on some of the measures. Views about elders held by Chinese were more favorable, yet this did not translate into improved experiences or contact.     

Relationships and the self‐concept

Progress in the study of relationships has depended in part on the recognition that relationships have properties not relevant to interactions or to the behavior of individuals, and may require additional principles of explanation. This has led to an emphasis on relationships as linking individuals. In this article we argue that relationship processes occur in the heads of individuals, with the participants having their own idiosyncratic views of the relationship as well as a shared one. The relationship is both affected by and affects the self‐concepts of the participants, so that the influences of the self‐concept may be critical for understanding the properties and dynamics of relationships Furthermore, consideration of the self‐concept can assist in the integration of different but not necessarily incompatible explanations for the same relationship phenomena.