TRANSCENDENTALISM OR EMPIRICISM? A DISCUSSION OF A PROBLEM RAISED IN E. O. WILSON'S BOOK CONSILIENCE

Abstract. E. O. Wilson writes that the “choice between transcendentalism and empiricism” is this century's “version of the struggle for men's soul” (1998, 240). The transcendentalist argues for theism—that there is a God, a creator of the world. The empiricist instead makes the point that the notion of God, including morality and ethics, are adaptive structures of human evolution. Before entering the debate of the transcendentalist/empiricist controversy I analyze how things exist and suggest that all that is exists as united diversity, as identity in difference. I argue that oneness by itself is intangible because wholes are concrete only through their tangible parts. I briefly discuss this understanding of existence in the realm of art to show that transcendence and immanence are not mutually exclusive but constitute each other. I conclude that existence, the hypostasis of unity in diversity, might be seen as a gift from absolute existence. In this view, the world might reveal itself as a gift that reflects the trinitarian existence of the Giver.     

采用自由分类的方法探析汉族的人格结构

采用自由分类和多维标度的方法,分析了582名汉族被试的人格结构。结果表明,汉族拥有“积极/消极”、“性格/气质”和“外倾/内倾”这三种人格结构维度。     

Is A Purely First Person Account Of Human Action Defensible?

There are two perspectives available from which to understand an agent's intention in acting. The first is the perspective of the acting agent: what did she take to be her end, and the means necessary to achieve that end? The other is a third person perspective that is attentive to causal or conceptual relations: was some causal outcome of the agent's action sufficiently close, or so conceptually related, to what the agent did that it should be considered part of her intention? Recent goods based views in ethics are divided as to whether only the first person perspective, or a mix of both perspectives, are necessary to understand intention and action. But resolution of the issue is necessary if goods based views are to be able to deploy to principle of double effect; for that principle requires an account of how to distinguish what is genuinely a matter of intention in human action from what is not. I argue that the pure first person account is better than the mixed account.     

Equality of whom? a genetic perspective on equality (of opportunity)

Rawls’ principle of fair equality of opportunity has been regularly discussed and criticized for being inadequate regarding natural inequalities. In so far as this egalitarian goal is sound, the purpose of the paper is to see how the prospect of radical genetic intervention might affect this particular inadequacy. I propose that, in a post-genetic setting, an appropriate response would be to extend the same rules regulating societal inequalities to a regulation of comparable genetic inequalities. I defend this stance against recent arguments from the authors of From Chance to Choice and from Colin Farrelly’s alternative of the genetic difference principle. Thanks and appreciation to Dr. Pete Morris, Noreen McGuire and Ann Feeney for their support and encouragement. My thanks also to the participants of the Ninth Manchester Graduate (Brave New World 2005) Conference in Political Theory, where a shorter version of this paper was read.     

Mand acquisition across different teaching methodologies

Many children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder lack functional independent communication. The current study used a combined multiple‐baseline and alternating‐treatments design to evaluate whether the presence or absence of a verbal prompt (asking a question) during teaching affected independent verbal manding. Two teaching procedures were used to teach specific responses (two per teaching condition) and evaluate if the acquired response, once trained, occurred independently (in the absence of stimuli or supplemental prompts). One student learned more rapidly under the mand training condition whereas the other learned at a similar rate under both conditions. The assessment methodology presented may be beneficial in future practice to determine if one teaching procedure is more effective than the other for a learner.     

Spirituality and natural mentoring relationship among adolescent girls and boys in Slovakia

The aim of the article is to explore the association between natural mentoring relationships and spirituality among adolescent boys and girls, controlling for perceived parental support and year of high school attendance. The sample consisted of 177 Slovak adolescents (53% girls; M_age = 16.92, SD = 1.69). Spirituality was measured by the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory, the existence of a mentoring relationship by single item measure, and the perceived parental support was examined via the Resilience and Youth Development Module questionnaire. Binary logistic regression was used for data analysis. Results confirm an association between spirituality and the existence of a natural mentoring relationship. Mentoring relationships were associated with a lower level of cognitive orientation towards spirituality among boys and girls and with a lower level of existential well-being among girls. Results confirm the importance of mentoring due to the development of adolescent spirituality and emphasize the need to examine its correlates.     

IS THERE A FUTURE FOR THE DIALOGUE?

The title question was raised by Philip Hefner in an editorial in the March 2007 issue of Zygon, and answered in various ways in sixteen guest editorials in the June, September, and December 2007 issues. In this article, after defining some pertinent concepts, I comment on these essays. I review critical statements made by the guest editorialists and survey their proposals for further dialogue topics. I conclude with my own views on the future of the dialogue and the role of Zygon therein.     

On Reduction Rules,Meaning-as-use,and Proof-theoretic Semantics

The intention here is that of giving a formal underpinning to the idea of ‘meaning-is-use’ which, even if based on proofs, it is rather different from proof-theoretic semantics as in the Dummett–Prawitz tradition. Instead, it is based on the idea that the meaning of logical constants are given by the explanation of immediate consequences, which in formalistic terms means the effect of elimination rules on the result of introduction rules, i.e. the so-called reduction rules. For that we suggest an extension to the Curry– Howard interpretation which draws on the idea of labelled deduction, and brings back Frege’s device of variable-abstraction to operate on the labels (i.e., proof-terms) alongside formulas of predicate logic. Presented by Heinrich Wansing