Group-based reasons for action

This article endorses a familiar, albeit controversial, argument for the existence of group-based reasons for action, but then rejects two doctrines which other advocates of such reasons usually accept. One such doctrine is the willingness requirement, which says that a group-based reason exists only if (sufficient) other members of the group in question are willing to cooperate. Thus the paper argues that there is sometimes a reason, which derives from the rationality of some group action, to play one's part unilaterally in that group action. This seems implausible only because we tend wrongly to accept a second doctrine, monism about the unit of agency. Monism claims that, for any given deliberative problem, there is only one unit of agency to which reasons attach. If we are monists who believe in group-based reasons, the willingness requirement will seem necessary in order to avoid recklessness. We should reject monism, and if we do so we can recognise genuine conflict between individual-based and group-based reasons, and in doing so we can explain, without endorsing the willingness requirement, why we should not act recklessly.     

A psychoanalytical phenomenology of perversion1

After stating that the current tasks of psychoanalytic research should fundamentally include the exploration of the analyst's mental processes in sessions with the patient, the author describes the analytical relation as one having an intersubjective nature. Seen from the outside, the analytical relation evidences two poles: a symmetric structural pole where both analyst and patient share a single world and a single approach to reality, and a functional asymmetric pole that defines the assignment of the respective roles. In the analysis of a perverse patient, the symmetry‐asymmetry polarities acquire some very particular characteristics. Seen from the perspective of the analyst's subjectivity, perversion appears in the analyst's mind as a surreptitious and unexpected transgression of the basic agreement that facilitates and structures intersubjective encounters. It may go as far as altering the Aristotelian rules of logic. When coming into contact with the psychic reality of a perverse patient, what happens in the analyst's mind is that a world takes shape. This world is misleadingly coloured by an erotisation that sooner or later will acquire some characteristics of violence. The perverse nucleus, as a false reality, remains dangling in mid‐air as an experience that is inaccessible to the analyst's empathy. The only way the analyst can reach it is from the ‘periphery’ of the patient's psychic reality, by trying in an indirect way to lead him back to his intersubjective roots. At this point, the author's intention is to explain this intersubjective phenomenon in terms of metapsychological and empirical research‐based theories. Finally, some ideas on the psychogenesis of perversion are set forth.     

Science and Religion in the Twenty-First Century

Abstract. To achieve peace on our planet we must bridge the gap not only between science and religion but also among faith traditions. Accepting the doctrine of multiple paths can reduce interreligious tensions. Every view of the Divine is partial, every faith system rests upon supreme spiritual experiences, and each one provides fulfillment in the yearning to connect with the Cosmic Mystery.     

Dialogue in Dialog: Christology

David R. Mason, A Christology of Universal Redemptive Love , p.149
Carol Jacobson, Universality and Uniqueness: A Response to David Mason , p.160
Lois Malcolm, Generative Christology: A Response to David Mason , p.162
Paul Sponheim, Probing and Protesting: A Response to David Mason , p.164
David R. Mason, Response to Jacobson, Malcolm, and Sponheim , p.166     

Grasping psychoanalysts’ practice in its own merits1

The central objective of this presentation is to reflect on the obstacles involved in the task proposed by the Chicago Congress, which is to explore convergences and divergences in psychoanalytic practice. The author discusses two major obstacles. First, the epistemological and methodological problems in relation to the construction of theory in psychoanalysis and especially the inaccessibility, in any reliable way, of what psychoanalysts really do in the intimacy of their practice. He proposes to separate, at least in part, theory from practice in psychoanalysis, in an attempt to grasp psychoanalysts' practice in its own merits. He then outlines a phenomenology of the practice of psychoanalysis, which reveals that, in their work with patients, analysts are guided more by practical reasons than theoretical reasons; that is, their interventions are predictions rather than explanations. Since these practical reasons need to be validated constantly in the analytic relationship based on their effects, he discusses the subject of validation in the clinical context of the core theory of therapeutic change in psychoanalysis, that is, the conditions required for clinical practice to satisfy the thesis of an inseparable union between gaining knowledge and cure. He ends by challenging the core of the psychoanalytic theory of change, arguing that it neither does justice to the practice of psychoanalysts nor to contemporary knowledge of processes and mechanisms of therapeutic change. Finally, he proposes that we detach practice from theory, in order to study the former in its own merits, utilising a plurality of methods ranging from systematic investigation to the recent methodology of the Working Party.     

价值多元主义审视

今天我们已进入一个价值多元化的时代,然则其理论基础价值多元主义却有着不可避免的内在紧张——一元与多元,与逻辑悖论一普遍与特殊,并有着滑向相对主义的危险。走出多元主义的这种困境,可能的出路在于在反基础主义的视野中,在实践中解决价值的冲突。     

Polish historians and Marxism after World War II

Born 20 September 1928, professor at the Adam Mickiewicz University at Poznan, member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. His speciality is European History of the early modern period, methodology and theory of history, and history of historical and political thought. He is the author of numerous books of which the most recent is Freedom and Coercion in the Creation of History (in Polish) 1990.     

Quality Criteria Under Methodological Pluralism: Implications for Conducting and Evaluating Research

Many community psychologists adhere to a methodological pluralist orientation to research; however, it is often unclear what such a position means in practice. This paper draws out the practical implications of methodological pluralism for community research. It proposes four sets of criteria for how research might be appraised under a pluralistic ethos: criteria applicable to all research, research-relevant community psychology values and principles, criteria specifically applicable to quantitative research, and criteria specifically applicable to qualitative research. The paper also addresses how pluralistic community research may be conducted, at each of three levels: integrating methods within a single study, using different approaches within a research program, and pluralism in the field as a whole.     

A Back-Turning Harmony: Conflict as a Source of Political Community

It is widely assumed that community presupposes consensus on the good. As a result, liberals who acknowledge the permanence of pluralism have struggled to explain how a liberal society could realise the good of community. Here it is argued that our initial assumption is wrong. Conflict can serve as a source of political community. Our devotion to the things we care about provides us with reason to embark on a quest aimed at the elimination of conflict. The quest will require us to engage in the cooperative activity of dialogue with our moral adversaries. It is in this activity of dialogue, and not at the quests end, that political community can be located.     

THE FRUITS OF PLURALISM: A VISION FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS IN RELIGION/SCIENCE

This article offers a vision for work at the intersection of science and religion over the coming seven years. Because predictions are inherently risky and are more often than not false, the text first offers an assessment of the current state of the science‐religion discussion and a quick survey of the last 50 years of work in this field. The implications of the six features of this vision for the future of the field are then presented in some detail. Rather than bemoaning the current diversity of approaches and conclusions as a negative result, I endorse it as a healthy sign—if acknowledged honestly and managed well.