This primer of research on how television affects children and families is organized around the perceptions and insights of four ordinary families who are raising their children without any television in their homes. Readers will learn about the methods and findings of over 40 years of research on TV and, in the process, may change the way they look at television forever.

Bertrand Russell once pointed out that modern science doesn’t deal with causal laws and that assuming otherwise is not only wrong but such thinking is erroneously thought to do no harm. However, looking into the scientific practice of simulation or experimentation reveals a general causal comprehension of physical processes. In this paper I trace causal experiences to the existence of innate causal capacity by which we organize sensory information. This capacity, I argue, is something we have got in virtue of (...) natural selection as can be seen from experiments with intelligent animals like crows and chimpanzees. So understanding the empirical world is impossible without the use of causal categories. The reason why Russell believed that modern science does not refer to causal laws is, I think, because he argued that the laws of mathematical physics give us a non-causal description of reality. In contrast to such a claim I hold that theoretical laws are prescriptive rules of description rather than descriptions themselves. (shrink)

Après Condition de l'homme moderne et La crise de la culture, l'essai De la révolution (1963) est le troisième ouvrage d'une série dans laquelle Hannah Arendt expose le nouveau paradigme du politique qu'elle entend développer ainsi qu'un nouveau paradigme de la révolution. Dans un contexte de Guerre froide, elle propose de tirer les leçons de l'histoire en opposant ce qu'elle nomme le "désastre" de la Révolution française aux leçons d'une révolution supposée réussie, incarnée par la "Déclaration des droits" américaine. Les (...) contributions des historiens et philosophes réunies dans ce volume, analysent la manière dont Arendt instrumentalise l'histoire des Révolutions américaine et française et se détermine par rapport à la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. Elles étudient également la place qu'Arendt attribue au peuple au cours de ces processus et dans quel esprit elle se réfère, dans le dernier chapitre de son essai de 1963, aux "conseils" révolutionnaires. La formule arendtienne du "droit à avoir des droits" amorce-t-elle, comme certains le soutiennent aujourd'hui, un tournant politique dans la considération des droits de l'homme? Ne représente-t-elle pas plutôt une machine de guerre contre la notion même de droit naturel, qui se trouve au fondement de ces droits? Dès lors, que reste-t-il de l'idée d'humanité dans la perspective construite par Arendt?"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

N'y a-t-il pas une contradiction dans l'oeuvre d'Arendt? On y trouve une description critique du totalitarisme national-socialiste, mais aussi l'apologie de Heidegger érigé, malgré son éloge de la "vérité interne et grandeur" du mouvement nazi, en roi secret de la pensée. L'étude des Origines du totalitarisme montre qu'Arendt développe une vision heideggérienne de la modernité. Dans Condition de l'homme moderne, la conception déshumanisée de l'humanité au travail et le discrédit jeté sur nos sociétés égalitaires procèdent également de Heidegger. En outre, (...) des lettres inédites montrent qu'Arendt a décidé de marcher sur les pas de Heidegger avant leurs retrouvailles de l'année 1950. Il s'agit d'une adhésion intellectuelle, irréductible à la seule passion amoureuse, et qui mérite d'être prise au sérieux. Certes, Arendt ne partage pas l'antisémitisme exterminateur de Heidegger confirmé par ses Cahiers noirs. Que devient cependant la pensée, instrumentalisée dans l'opposition - nouveau mythe moderne - entre Heidegger, le "penseur" retiré sur les hauteurs neigeuses de sa hutte de Todtnauberg, et Eichmann, l'exécutant sans pensée, le "clown" muré dans sa cage de verre? (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Criminal Law, Pain Relief, and Physician Aid in DyingFaye Girsh, Ed.D., Executive DirectorMadam:The article by Cantor and Thomas on “Pain Relief, Acceleration of Death, and Criminal Law” (KIEJ, June 1996) was a tortured attempt to develop criteria for the humane and compassionate physician who tries to serve the needs of a patient in unremitting pain. There are three areas that merit comment.The authors dealt with pain medications that might (...) have the undesirable side effect of causing death. They did not mention tolerance, which usually occurs in a patient with chronic pain and which would require exceedingly high doses to be effective. They did not mention barbiturates, which are preferable to opiates in causing death and which are used increasingly by compassionate physicians to answer the pleas of their suffering patients, but for which there is no excuse about alleviating pain. Would the criminal law just call the prescription of a lethal dose of barbiturates a reckless act and require conviction? Fortunately, juries, as the authors point out, do not balance these formulas on the head of a pin. When they see the circumstances under which these doctors do help their patients, they choose to nullify the law and would ignore the suggestions made in this article.The authors refer to the “consent” of the patient. They do not mention that these doctors are operating with more than consent; they are administering these medications because suffering patients are begging them to put them out of their pain and the indignities of the dying process. The article discusses the process as though it were the same as consent to elective surgery. These patients—with AIDS, cancer, and hopeless neurological degeneration—are not simply agreeing to a procedure; they are desperately seeking a way out. If the criminal law were to develop criteria for physician aid in dying, certainly one of them should be the active, witnessed, repeated request of such a patient for a certain, quick, painless, gentle death.The third point is that physicians do not face prosecution when administering no treatment to a patient whose life could be saved with treatment but who chooses not to receive it. This has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court; no criteria for suffering, alternatives, terminality, justifiability, or unbearability are required. The doctor can stand by while the patient dies what may be a protracted, difficult death, but it is within the law. What matters in this situation is the decision of the patient to refuse treatment, and that is absolute. How ironic that the patient who cannot refuse treatment must, with his or her doctor, jump through all these hoops to achieve a peaceful death.One worries that the physician who must balance the risk of “risky pain relief” against the accusation of recklessness will err in the direction of allowing [End Page 103] the patient to bear the pain rather than help with a dose of analgesics that might be considered beyond the stipulated “risk.”Why don’t we just be honest about it? Allow dying or hopelessly ill patients to make the decision about what they want by passing a carefully defined law allowing euthanasia rather than balancing the risk and trying to determine the “purpose” of the physician’s ministrations. We protect some patients from themselves while allowing others almost complete autonomy to make the choice of ending their lives. The authors were right in saying that proponents of rational laws consider this sheer hypocrisy.Faye Girsh, Executive DirectorHemlock Society U.S.A. Denver, COFaye Girsh misconceives our article’s objective as an “attempt to develop criteria” for the humane physician. Our goal in writing the paper was to analyze the current criminal law framework in the hope of sharpening debate and engendering normative critiques. We readily acknowledge tensions in the current legal framework and would support changes in that framework.Copyright © 1997 The Johns Hopkins University Press... (shrink)

Jusqu'à quel point Descartes emprunte-t-il à Suarez les notions de « dieu trompeur » et de « mauvais génie » ? En fait, bien qu'elles aient leur source dans la scolastique en général (et pas seulement chez Suarez), l'originalité de Descartes est de les avoir utilisées dans le cadre d'une recherche du fondement de la science. L'auteur de cet article y discute les opinions d'Emanuela Scribano. The question at stake is to know up to what point Descartes borrows the concepts (...) of a deceitful God and an evil genius from Suarez. In fact, though the latter concepts may find their origins in scolastics as such (and not only in Suarez), Descartes' originality rests in having used them within the framework of a research of the foundations of science. The author of the present paper hebery studies and discusses Emanuela Scribano's opinions. (shrink)

A. The Vestine Inscription with brat. T. Vetio | duno | didet | Herclo | Iovio | brat. | data. 1. This inscription, most easily consulted in Diehl's Alt-lat. Inschriften, No. 70, has been explained, beyond any reasonable doubt, by von Planta as follows: ‘ The entire inscription is accordingly to be rendered thus: T. Vettius donum dat Herculi Iouio; merito data, sc. est or sunt, according as the votive offering was feminine singular or neuter plural.’ The very abbreviation of (...) brat. favours a formulaic word such as merito. Von Planta accounts also for all other dialectic occurrences of the stem brato-, vindicating a sense of meritum for all of them. (shrink)

This slender volume attempts to determine the role of logic in Heidegger’s thought and its incompatibility with logic as others understand it, so as to show that Heidegger’s overcoming of logic entails an overturn of philosophy as conceived since Plato. Fay carries this out in six steps: 1) Heidegger’s critique of logic is motivated by metaphysics’ forgetfulness of Being and by the need for a fundamental ontology of alëtheia; 2) the primacy of the preconceptual, prelogical grasp of Being shows that (...) not logic but "the command of Being," grasped "by a thankful gesture of acceptance", rules thought; 3) discussion of "Nothing" in Wegmarken, Carnap’s attacks thereupon, and Heidegger’s counterclaims; 4) discussion of the devolution from truth as the bond of physis-alëtheia-logos to truth as correspondence; 5) a Heideggerian view of the development of symbolic logic and its relation to technicity; 6) the overcoming of technicity in Heidegger’s meditation on language. Professor Fay concludes that Heidegger’s reflection on logos is incompatible with logic as ordinarily understood but that the attempt to overcome traditional logic delivers Heidegger’s thought not to irrationalism but to the original sense of logos. (shrink)

T. A. Cavanaugh defends double-effect reasoning (DER), also known as the principle of double effect. DER plays a role in anti-consequentialist ethics (such as deontology), in hard cases in which one cannot realize a good without also causing a foreseen, but not intended, bad effect (for example, killing non-combatants when bombing a military target). This study is the first book-length account of the history and issues surrounding this controversial approach to hard cases. It will be indispensable in theoretical ethics, applied (...) ethics (especially medical and military), and moral theology. It will also interest legal and public policy scholars. (shrink)

In early major works, Cassirer and Schlick differently recast traditional doctrines of the concept and of the relation of concept to intuitive content along the lines of recent epistemological discussions within the exact sciences. In this, they attempted to refashion epistemology by incorporating as its basic principle the notion of functional coordination, the theoretical sciences' own methodological tool for dispensing with the imprecise and unreliable guide of intuitive evidence. Examining their respective reconstructions of the theory of knowledge provides an axis (...) of comparison along which to locate Cassirer's Neo-Kantianism and Schlick's pre-positivist empiricism, and an immediate background of contrast to the subsequent rise of logical empiricism. For in the absence of intuition all our knowledge is without objects and therefore remains entirely empty. (Kant A62/B87) And how awkward is the human mind in diving the nature of things when forsaken by the analogy of what we see and touch directly? (Boltzmann 1895). (shrink)

T. A. Cavanaugh's Hippocrates' Oath and Asclepius' Snake: The Birth of the Medical Profession articulates the Oath as establishing the medical profession's unique internal medical ethic - in its most basic and least controvertible form, this ethic mandates that physicians help and not harm the sick. Relying on Greek myth, drama, and medical experience (e.g., homeopathy), the book shows how this medical ethic arose from reflection on the most vexing medical-ethical problem -- injury caused by a physician -- and argues (...) that deliberate iatrogenic harm, especially the harm of a doctor choosing to kill (physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion, and involvement in capital punishment), amounts to an abandonment of medicine as an exclusively therapeutic profession. The book argues that medicine as a profession necessarily involves stating before others what one stands for: the good one seeks and the bad one seeks to avoid on behalf of the sick, and rejects the view that medicine is purely a technique lacking its own unique internal ethic. It concludes noting that medical promising (as found in the White Coat Ceremony through which U. S. medical students matriculate) implicates medical autonomy which in turn merits respect, including honoring professional conscientious objections. (shrink)

Exgesis on Mīmāṃsābhāṣya, Śabarasvāmi's commentary on Jaiminī's Mīmāṃsāsūtra, basic aphoristic work of the Mīmāṃsā school in Hindu philosophy; includes supercommentaries.

The author, a cardiac surgeon specialising in heart transplantation, argues that excellence in medicine must always be pursued and confronts the problems of specialties and super-specialties with widely varying costs and benefit in which the pursuit of excellence results. He advocates that decisions on resource allocation should be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, acting on the advice of the public's elected representatives on the one hand and the medical profession on the other. The profession has (...) an ever-increasing responsibility to ensure that its advice is soundly based on rigorous self-audit, which should include considering the costs and benefit of its work. His commentator, Lady McCarthy, until recently chairman of an area health authority, responds by arguing that the tripartite system for resource allocation does not work. Doctors resent the imposition of any priorities other than their own. Their two-dimensional medical ethics, concerning doctors' obligations to individual patients, must be supplemented by concern for society as a whole. Both papers are based on contributions to the 1982 annual conference of the London Medical Group on Appropriate Medicine. (shrink)

Ghazzālī, 1058-1111; views on behaviorism ; religious aspects; Islam.