Tools for Many Trades: Reaffirming the Use of Grief Counselling by Health, Welfare and Pastoral Workers

The use of counselling is increasingly questioned as an appropriate and viable activity for professionals in statutory and general settings whose work roles and tasks are varied. This paper looks specifically at grief counselling and examines some of the reasons why applications of grief theories and grief counselling by such workers have been narrow and limited. It then suggests a framework for teaching the subject, offering relevant applications. Finally, it points to developing areas of grief counselling in multi-disciplinary contexts and argues that working with grief and loss must be recognised and fostered as core, generic skills for the non-specialist.     

Valuational semantics of rule derivability

If a certain semantic relation (which we call local consequence) is allowed to guide expectations about which rules are derivable from other rules, these expectations will not always be fulfilled, as we illustrate. An alternative semantic criterion (based on a relation we call global consequence), suggested by work of J.W. Garson, turns out to provide a much better — indeed a perfectly accurate — guide to derivability.     

Philosophy and religion in the face of death and bereavement

While the ways in which people deal with dying and bereavement have been comprehensively researched, there is little which integrates psychological, emotional, philosophical, and religious perspectives. The role of religion is generally considered in terms of a simple linear relationship between presence or absence of religious belief and coping capacity. This article uses qualitative material from a small-scale study concerned with individuals' philosophical and religious frameworks to point towards multi-factor analysis. Comment is offered around the themes of theodicy; meaning; death-transcendence modes, and psychological and emotional adjustment.     

Intrinsic/extrinsic

Several intrinsic/extrinsic distinctions amongst properties, current in the literature, are discussed and contrasted. The proponents of such distinctions tend to present them as competing, but it is suggested here that at least three of the relevant distinctions (including here that between non-relational and relational properties) arise out of separate perfectly legitimate intuitive considerations: though of course different proposed explications of the informal distinctions involved in any one case may well conflict. Special attention is paid to the question of whether a single notion of property is capable of supporting the various distinctions.