Counselor or change agent: support from the profession

This article supplements the ideas on counseling and the social revolution which appeared in the May 1971 P&G—especially regarding the common behavior models of the counselor and the change agent. Because adherence to a model often places a counselor in jeopardy, the authors call on the profession to offer support and leadership on a national level to those counselors who wish to act as change agents.     

NEWTON AND WOLFF: THE LEIBNIZIAN REACTION TO THE PRINCIPIA, 1716–1763

Newton rested his theory of mechanics on distinct metaphysical and epistemological foundations. After Leibniz's death in 1716, the Principia ran into sharp philosophical opposition from Christian Wolff and his disciples, who sought to subvert Newton's foundations or replace them with Leibnizian ideas. In what follows, I chronicle some of the Wolffians' reactions to Newton's notion of absolute space, his dynamical laws of motion, and his general theory of gravitation. I also touch on arguments advanced by Newton's Continental followers, such as Leonhard Euler, who made novel attempts to defend his mechanical foundations against the pro‐Leibnizian attack. This examination grants us deeper insight into the fate of Newton's mechanics on the Continent during the early eighteenth century and, more specifically, sheds needed light on the conflicts and tensions that characterized the reception of Newton's philosophy of mechanics among the Leibnizians.     

ANONYMITY,STRENGTH OF ATTITUDE,AND THE INFLUENCE OF PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Subjects were given questionnaires asking their responses to six statements on public issues. On some of the issues subjects were highly committed to their own views, while other issues were selected for the subjects' lack of knowledge and commitment. Some subjects were asked to respond anonymously, and others were led to believe that their responses would be made public. Each questionnaire contained a bogus distribution of responses from students at the subjects’ university. Each statement of interest was supported by the bogus majority in one questionnaire form and rejected by it in the other form. Several types of conformity were considered. For the low-commitment issues, subjects were influenced in the direction of the bogus consensus. For the high-commitment issues, the bogus consensus had no significant effect. Implications for understanding the effect of polls on public opinion are discussed.     

Icebreakers: Environmentalism and Natural Aesthetics

ABSTRACT What have natural aesthetics and environmentalism in common? Not much if the former deals with nature as if it were an artwork or a gallery of art objects, or if the latter grounds the protection of nature in consequentialist terms. Suppose, however, one adopts a non-consequentialist environmentalism which, further, stakes out a primary view of nature as terrain rather than as habitat; i.e., a view which is not biocentric (life-centred), let alone anthropocentric. This environmentalism is rooted in the belief that we are prima facie bound not to interfere in any of the world undefined by culture whether or not it supports life. There is a reason forbidding us from strip-mining the far side of the moon, say, even though no habitat is thereby destroyed, nor is there any blight creating visual offence to those immediately affected. To furnish the reason for such an ‘acentric’environmentalism, one needs a natural aesthetic. Why? By elimination, because the stock appeals grounding any moral stance—to rights or interests or happiness or autonomy—are unavailable. The ‘subject’of an acentric environmentalism is insensate. But an ‘acentric’aesthetic seems even more curious than its environmentalist dependent. It would entail an aesthetic viewpoint indifferent to human scale and perspective, the very factors which underwrite any cultural aesthetic. So, is such an aesthetic possible? The barest glimpse of how it might look concludes this paper.     

Aesthetic Protectionism

ABSTRACT  Aesthetic protectionists think nature worth preserving and protecting from harm on aesthetic rather than moral grounds. Their outlook can be compared with the drive to shelter and sustain artworks. As such, protectionists seem rather like curators. However, this kind of attention to natural objects leads to a minimisation of the significance of the naturalness of those objects. This raises questions about the protectionist's real regard for nature. By examining what in nature is aesthetically worthy of protection, and then asking how far one is entitled to go in one's protective mission, it transpires that protectionists have no special stake in sustaining the independence of nature. Indeed, its independence often conspires against their aims. Since that very independence is essential to the natural, protectionism is exposed as having no intrinsic regard for nature.