From Heidegger's letters to Elisabeth Blochmann in 1932, it is apparent that he is on the verge of crossing the Rubicon into the political arena. On December 19, 1932, Heidegger tells her.

This thesis maintains that Friedrich Holderlin's poetic thought is a key element not only in the development of Martin Heidegger's philosophical thought from 1929/30 to 1933 but also in his decision to become politically involved with National Socialism. Although Heidegger was familiar with Holderlin's poetry prior to 1929, he did not perceive the significance of the poet's thought and language until he was able to overcome the position of transcendental subjectivity which haunts Being and Time. Heidegger did so in 1929/30 (...) by shattering the unity of Dasein's temporal horizon--a unity which still preserved the assumption of being as permanent presence. This enabled Heidegger to think through the turn or Kehre to the occurrence of being as difference as the originary event which gave rise not only to Greek philosophy but the Western tradition as a whole. ;It is precisely at this juncture that Holderlin's poetic thought and language became significant for Heidegger. The turn from the unity of Dasein's temporality to the occurrence of being as time implies not only a revolution in thinking but also a revolution in language. Heidegger's attempt to set this revolution in motion by setting the originary sense of the Greek logos to work linguistically in his own work is the philosophical counterpart of what Norbert von Hellingrath first described as Holderlin's harte Fugung or hard style. ;The pre-logical grammar and syntax Heidegger employed, I have called the language of revolution. Its purpose is to dislocate thinking out of metaphysics toward a hidden Greek origin in the past which shows itself in the future as what is left unthought of the Greek beginning and what still remains to be thought. This back-and-forth movement of questioning is the philosophical counterpart to Holderlin's poetic andenken. In dislocating political and ideological thought from its metaphysical foundations, Heidegger intended to shift the political revolution, especially in the universities, toward a second, deeper revolution which would confront the hidden origin of the Western tradition itself. (shrink)

The foundations of aesthetics, the arts, and art education have been re-examined in recent years in light of the resurgence of scientific aesthetics as a research discipline; the development of contemporary cognitive science encompassing aspects of computer science, psychology, philosphy, linguistics, and so on; and the advances of neuroscience.

My paper, written in 1911, was something of a ballon d'essai, and I acknowledge frankly one or two mistakes. Thus I did not know that Euripides wrote a Thyestes; and again one or two of my references were wrong: in excuse I may perhaps plead that I have not had access to a Latin book for nearly two years. Apart from this I will now make only two observations:1. I set aside the evidence of Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 because I (...) was dealing with evidence of saec. i.-iv. Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 shows that some persons at the end of saec. viii. ascribed the Thyestes to L. Varius Rufus. So did persons in saec. iv. In addition, Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 gives a date for the Thyestes. To Mr. Housmanthis date is certain; if it is uncertain a large part of his argument comes to nothing. But who can think it certain ? It comes to us from the end of the eighth century. If it came to us from Jerome's Chronicle we could still not think it certain, though we should know whence Jerome derived it. We do not now whence Cod. Paris. Lat. 7530 derived it. The reference to Actium may have no better source than the wish to connect a great literary and a great political event: and the gossip about the playwright's profits seems to me in itself suspicious.2. The main contention of the early part of my paper was that the evidence of the relevant MSS. as between Vari and Varii, etc., amounts to nothing either way. I do not think Mr. Housman is prepared seriously to contest this proposition. (shrink)

This chapter describes the potential far‐reaching consequences of contemplative higher education for the fields of science and medicine.

This report on research in progress lists ratings of journals useful for business & society scholars for publishing. Ratings by an expert panel of such scholars are presented. Included are journals focused largely on this and closely related fields, and also those that reach a wider audience involved with management studies.

The paper reports the findings of a study of CPAs designed to determine whether they tend to find factors related to their professional environment (especially the guides to professional conduct of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) to be more helpful than factors related to their business environment when faced with ethics problems. Like internal auditors surveyed earlier, the CPAs tend to view a number of factors in their business environment to be even more helpful than factors related to (...) their professional environment in dealing with ethical dilemmas. Implications for CPAs as individuals and for their professional associations are discussed. (shrink)

Throughout the biological and biomedical sciences there is a growing need for, prescriptive ‘minimum information’ (MI) checklists specifying the key information to include when reporting experimental results are beginning to find favor with experimentalists, analysts, publishers and funders alike. Such checklists aim to ensure that methods, data, analyses and results are described to a level sufficient to support the unambiguous interpretation, sophisticated search, reanalysis and experimental corroboration and reuse of data sets, facilitating the extraction of maximum value from data sets (...) them. However, such ‘minimum information’ MI checklists are usually developed independently by groups working within representatives of particular biologically- or technologically-delineated domains. Consequently, an overview of the full range of checklists can be difficult to establish without intensive searching, and even tracking thetheir individual evolution of single checklists may be a non-trivial exercise. Checklists are also inevitably partially redundant when measured one against another, and where they overlap is far from straightforward. Furthermore, conflicts in scope and arbitrary decisions on wording and sub-structuring make integration difficult. This presents inhibit their use in combination. Overall, these issues present significant difficulties for the users of checklists, especially those in areas such as systems biology, who routinely combine information from multiple biological domains and technology platforms. To address all of the above, we present MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations); a web-based communal resource for such checklists, designed to act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for those exploring the range of extant checklist projects, and to foster collaborative, integrative development and ultimately promote gradual integration of checklists. (shrink)

Buddhisms and Deconstructions considers the connection between Buddhism and Derridean deconstruction, focusing on the work of Robert Magliola. Fourteen distinguished contributors discuss deconstruction and various Buddhisms—Indian, Tibetan, and Chinese —followed by an afterword in which Magliola responds directly to his critics.

Introduction, by G. Holton.--Three eighteenth-century social philosophers: scientific influences on their thought, by H. Guerlac.--Science and the human comedy: Voltaire, by H. Brown.--The seventeenth-century legacy: our mirror of being, by G. de Santillana.--Contemporary science and the contemporary world view, by P. Frank.--The growth of science and the structure of culture, by R. Oppenheimer.--The Freudian conception of man and the continuity of nature, by J. S. Bruner.--Quo vadis, by P. W. Bridgman.--Prospects for a new synthesis: science and the humanities as (...) complementary activities, by C. Morris.--A humanist looks at science, by H. M. Jones. (shrink)

Resumen En esta nota crítica presento un análisis de los materiales textuales que constituyen el capítulo 19 de la serie Early Greek Philosophy de A. Laks y G. Most dedicado a Parménides. Después de comparar cuantitativamente los textos de este capítulo con las ediciones de H. Diels y A.H. Coxon, así como de precisar cuáles son los textos "nuevos" que figuran en esta edición y las formas en que los editores decidieron presentarlos, ofrezco algunas consideraciones sobre el concepto mismo de (...) recepción y su operatividad en este capítulo, sobre la superación definitiva de la distinción entre testimonios y fragmentos y sobre las ventajas y desventajas que supone cortar los textos para la presentación esquemática y temática de los contenidos. Por último, examino el modo en que la doctrina de Parménides se presenta en este capítulo y muestro algunas de las decisiones que los autores tomaron sobre los innumerables problemas de transmisión textual del Poema.In this critical note, I will present an analysis of the textual materials that constitute the 19th chapter, dedicated to Parmenides, of the Early Greek Philosophy series by A. Laks and G. Most. After offering a quantitative comparison of the texts in this chapter and the editions of H. Diels and A.H. Coxon, and after specifying which "new" texts figure in this edition and how they are presented, I will provide considerations on the concept of reception and how it operates throughout this chapter, on the definite overcoming of the distinction between testimonia and fragmenta, and on the advantages and disadvantages of cutting out the texts for the schematic and thematic presentation of its contents. Finally, I examine how Parmenides' doctrine is presented and comment on some of the decisions that the authors made on a few of the innumerable problems related to the textual transmission of the Poem. (shrink)

Positivists since the time of Comte have defined objectivity in science in terms of the absence of prejudice on the part of the scientist towards the phenomena with which he deals. It has been assumed that if the observer would contemplate the facts himself, this objectivity—an absence of bias—could be attained. However, social psychologists, notably C. H. Cooley and G. H. Mead, have shown that this is not necessarily the case. In the study of culture, an outstanding positivist, W. G. (...) Sumner, in his discussion of folkways and mores, has shown that this objectivity is impossible to attain. These men have described the process through which objects arise in one's experience, and come to be defined in terms of that experience, so that the same object may mean different things to different people. This seems to be the case with certain areas of social theory. (shrink)