ALBERT,AQUINAS, AND DIONYSIUS

Beyond the usual distinction between East and West, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas stand not only as commentators, but also appear to be close readers, of Dionysius' works. While Albert's own metaphysics of the Good tends to underline the diffusive dimension of the Good in a creation conceived of as an emanation, Thomas uses Dionysius to elaborate his notion of God as a free creator and to define His unique relation to creatures. If Albert's own via negativa is closer to Dionysius than one might have expected, it nonetheless stands within the same scope as Thomas' conception of proximity to God, as they both borrow the Dionysian exitus/reditus pattern to offer a divinization process of salvation through peace and praise.     

Informed Consent: Autonomy and Self-Ownership

abstract    Using the example of an unconsented mouth swab I criticise the view that an action of this kind taken in itself is wrongful in respect of its being a violation of autonomy. This is so much inasmuch as autonomy merits respect only with regard to 'critical life choices'. I consider the view that such an action is nevertheless harmful or risks serious harm. I also respond to two possible suggestions: that the action is of a kind that violates autonomy; and, that the class of such actions violates autonomy. I suggest that the action is wrongful in as much as it is a bodily trespass. I consider, and criticise, two ways of understanding how morally I stand to my own body: as owner and as sovereign. In respect of the latter I consider Arthur Ripstein's recent defence of a sovereignty principle. Finally I criticise an attempt by Joel Feinberg to explain bodily trespass in terms of personal autonomy.     

THE ENCOUNTER BETWEEN FAITHS AND AN ‘AESTHETIC ATTITUDE’

This paper contains a discussion of the idea of using what could loosely be called an ‘aesthetic attitude’ (stemming largely from Kantian notions of disinterest and explicitly articulated by such writers in the 20^th century as Edward Bullough and Jerome Stolnitz) in the context of the encounter between religions. The ‘problem’ that is addressed is formulated as an attempt to find a space in which the participation of those with committed faith positions (e.g. conservative evangelicals) in sympathetic and empathetic meeting with other faiths can be facilitated. To this end, the paper is critical of the use of spirituality (or inter‐spirituality) as an oft‐suggested mode by which religions meet and ‘converse’ in depth‐encounters. That is, it is argued that the language of inter‐spirituality that is employed by some interfaith writers often betrays liberal assumptions that are unsettling for more committed religious persons. Thus, it is suggested that by changing the language of encounter from ‘inter‐spirituality’ to a more aesthetic (or playful) mode of discourse, one is creating a different, but nonetheless experientially recognisable, space of empathetic meeting and encounter that might be deemed ‘safer’.     

Issues in the Pharmacological Induction of Emotions

abstract   In this paper, we examine issues raised by the possibility of regulating emotions through pharmacological means. We argue that emotions induced through these means can be authentic phenomenologically, and that the manner of inducing them need not make them any less our own than emotions arising 'naturally'. We recognize that in taking drugs to induce emotions, one may lose opportunities for self-knowledge; act narcissistically; or treat oneself as a mere means. But we propose that there are circumstances in which none of these concerns arise. Finally, we consider how the possibility of drug-regulation might affect duties to feel emotions.