The Ontological Status of Persons*

Chisholm held that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View affords a non‐Chisholmian way m defend the thesis that persons are essentially persons. The Constitution View shows how persons are constituted by‐but not identical to‐human animals. On the Constitution View, being a person determines a person's persistence conditions. On the Animalist View, being an animal determines a person's persistence conditions. Things of kind K have ontological significance if their persistence conditions are determined by their being members of K. On Chisholm's view, persons have ontological significance, but animals do not. On Animalism, animals have ontological significance, but persons do not. After explaining the notion of ontological significance, this article argues that persons do have ontological significance, and hence that Animalism is not true     

Understanding Spirituality in Counseling Psychology: Considerations for Research,Training, and Practice

Selective understandings of spirituality among early, contemporary, and current theorists were reviewed. The purpose is to suggest the multiple implications these varied understandings of spirituality have for practicing clinicians in the field of counseling psychology. Sources of literature were primarily drawn from published literature and classical texts. The conclusions suggest that professionals within the field may need to increase objective and subjective interpretations of spirituality in the therapeutic realm. With this awareness, it is assumed that clinical sensitivity to multiculturalism, recovery movements, and dysfunctional religious systems may be achieved and, subsequently, therapeutic competence may be increased.     

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A ROSE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RETICENCE,COMMUNICATION APPREHENSION,UNWILLINGNESS TO COMMUNICATE,AND SHYNESS

Theorists claim that reticence, communication apprehension, unwillingness to communicate, and shyness are different problems, but the interrelationships among those constructs has not been systematically explored. The purpose of this paper is to examine theoretical assumptions underlying these four constructs regarding the nature of the problem, how it is identified, its etiology, and proposed solutions. This analysis reveals that the four labels do not denote four discrete problems; rather, the constructs overlap to a great extent. A systematic interview in conjunction with self-report scales is recommended as the means of identification of the problem, since present methods do not provide a precise account of the specific nature of individual difficulties. The particular treatment used should depend on the exact nature of the problem as it is reported by the individual, rather than applying one specific mode of treatment in every case.