The world of scholarship on Husserl’s phenomenology of inner timeconsciousness is a small and very intense one. Most analyses focus either on developments in Husserl’s earliest works, published in Hua. X (Bernet, 1985; Brough, 1972), or on his latest writings on time, found in the unpublished notes called the “C-manuscripts” (Held, 1966). Some compare these two periods, and recently a small number of writings have appeared on Husserl’s analyses found in what are called the “L-manuscripts”, which were written between these (...) two periods (Bernet and Lohmar, 2001). Although these latter manuscripts were studied and written on prior to their publication in Hua. XXXIII, they seemed to have gained renewed interest lately, once they became more accessible. A few scholars may have worked through Husserl’s writings on time from earliest through to the latest on their own; but fortunately for everyone else, Toine Kortooms, in his Phenomenology of Time: Edmund Husserl’s Analysis of Time-Consciousness, presents an analysis of these works, from beginning to end, for us. His work at first appears primarily exegetical and historical; however, Kortooms also introduces some significant interpretations and arguments to the discussions on time-consciousness. (shrink)

Martin HEIDEGGER, Fiinţă şi timp [Être et temps] ; Bruce BÉGOUT, La généalogie de la logique. Husserl, l’antéprédicatif et le catégorial ; François-David SEBBAH, L’épreuve de la limite. Derrida, Henry, Levinas et la phénoménologie ; Marcus BRAINARD, Belief and its Neutralization. Husserl’s System of Phenomenology in Ideas I ; Toine KORTOOMS, Phenomenology of Time. Edmund Husserl’s Analysis of Time-Consciousness ; Roland BREEUR, Singularité et sujet. Une lecture phénoménologique de Proust ; John J. DRUMMOND & Lester EMBREE, Phenomenological Approaches (...) to Moral Philosophy A Handbook. (shrink)

The making and taking of psychotropic drugs, whether on medical prescription or as self-medication, whether marketed by pharmaceutical companies or clamoured for by an anxious population, has been an integral part of the twentieth century. In this modern era of speed, uncertainty, pleasure and anguish the boundaries between healing and enhancing the mind by chemical means have been redefined. Long before Prozac would become a household name for an ‘emotional aspirin’ did consumers embrace the idea and practice of taking psychotropics (...) not only to treat mental illness but also to make them feel better about living in a modern world. The Freudian promise that each individual can remake him- or herself in the pursuit of health and happiness was helpful in promoting and legitimizing the idea and practice of seeking wellness on prescription. We will argue that the modern consumer-driven political culture of medicine will continue to transverse the boundaries of therapy and enhancement of the mind into the largely unexplored territories of human cognition and behaviour. However exciting, this endeavour will come at the cost of further widening the problem of iatrogenic addiction in the age of happiness pills as ‘botox’ for the mind. (shrink)

The feminist movement was from its start in the 19th century involved in the struggle for better health care for women. The first feminists aimed at better information on birth control and sexuality. The second feminist wave focused on the unequal division of power roles between men and women. A lot of the problems women experienced could be seen as a consequence of their subordinate role in society. At the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s, the discipline women (...) and health or women and medicine was developed. In this introduction to the theme, the developments in this discipline are described. The starting points of the new discipline followed the principles of ‘women’s health care’. These principles can be summarized as the emphasis on control and autonomy by the patient, demedicalization, the importance of the psychosocial context of complaints, empowerment of women and good information and communication. The central issue of the article is: what is the actual scientific state of the art and what important changes have been made on the subject gender and health? The article ends with ideas for future research. (shrink)

This article contributed to a project about Nature and Theology (Prof. Dr. J. Buitendag). The text questioned why our modern concept of nature must be reformulated in a contemporary concept of nature as the anthropocentrism of the modern concept of nature is criticised by a growing knowledge about the cohesion of many phenomena in the evolution of life on planet Earth. This criticism confronts theologians with fundamental deficiencies in their ongoing anthropological approach of life, especially human life. The article looked (...) for a reinterpretation of mystical texts of Gregory of Nyssa in order to question whether this offers a new framework of a theological approach of a contemporary concept of nature. Contribution: Within the project about Nature and Theology new questions arise as the concept of Nature has to be reformulated based on new insights in the evolution of life. Within the debates about the Anthropocene, the planet Earth is approached as being a living reality in one way or another. So theologians have to look for new theological approaches as well. This article suggested that concepts of Gregory of Nyssa contribute in this respect. (shrink)

As our scientific conscience about nature has been deeply changed by the development of so-called ‘quantum theory’ during the 20th century, theology has been confronted with a new horizon of questions about ‘God’ and about how a human being has to be imagined in our cosmos. This article is a tiny comparison between the renaissance of thinking in line with the rediscoveries of Aristotelian thought in the West during 12th century and the renaissance of science we are witnessing in our (...) age.Contribution: In this series of contributions about theology and nature, this article contributes to a way of questioning theology and nature in a new, dazzling perspective about rerouting humanity in recent research about the smallest measurable values in nature, being perhaps a new topos of theological reflection that is characterised by God and contingency. (shrink)

Martin HEIDEGGER, Fiinţă şi timp [Être et temps] ; Bruce BÉGOUT, La généalogie de la logique. Husserl, l’antéprédicatif et le catégorial ; François-David SEBBAH, L’épreuve de la limite. Derrida, Henry, Levinas et la phénoménologie ; Marcus BRAINARD, Belief and its Neutralization. Husserl’s System of Phenomenology in Ideas I ; Toine KORTOOMS, Phenomenology of Time. Edmund Husserl’s Analysis of Time-Consciousness ; Roland BREEUR, Singularité et sujet. Une lecture phénoménologique de Proust ; John J. DRUMMOND & Lester EMBREE, Phenomenological Approaches (...) to Moral Philosophy A Handbook. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:On the Authorship oftheAbstract: AReply to John O. Nelson JeffBroome In "The Authorship of the Abstract Revisited," John O. Nelson argues for the once widely held view that Adam Smith was the author of the Abstract.1 Generally speaking, however, this view has not been seriously maintained since the 1938 reprinting of the Abstract by Keynes and Sraffa. There, in their introduction, Keynes and Sraffa argue that Adam Smith was (...) not the author ofthe Abstract, but rather Hume was.2 The central document from which the traditional view derived its authority comes in an early letter of Hume to Hutcheson (hereafter noted as Hl). It is worth quoting the passage in full. Writes Hume to Hutcheson, My Bookseller has sent to Mr. Smith a copy ofmy book, which I hope he has receiv'd, as well as your letter. I have not yet heard what he has done with the Abstract. Perhaps you have. I have got it printed in London; but not in the Works of the Learned; there having been an Article with regard to my Book, somewhat abusive, printed in that Work, before I sent up the Abstract.3 The once widely held view argues that Adam Smith is the Mr. Smith referred toin this passage, and therefore thatAdam Smith is the author of the Abstract. The argument proceeds: Smith at the time of Hl was a pupil of Hutcheson, and it was a habit of Hutcheson to have his promising students write abstracts of standard and contemporary works. It is then assumed that Adam Smith had written the Abstract, that Hutcheson was so impressed with it that he sent a copy to Hume, and that Hume in turn was so impressed that he arranged for its immediate publication, and, as seemingly mentioned in Hl, rewarded Smith with a presentation copy ofthe first two volumes ofhis Treatise. The Keynes and Sraffa thesis argues that the Mr. Smith in Hl cannot be Adam Smith, but rather must be John Smith of Dublin, "at the Philosopher's Head on the Blind Quay" (Abstract, xxiii). Their argument hinges on the conjecture that Hume was interested in an Irish editionofthe Treatise, andtherefore, Hume isaskingHutcheson's assistance in securing John Smith's help in this endeavour (Abstract, Volume XVII Number 2 95 JEFFBROOME xxii). The removal of Adam Smith as the Mr. Smith referred to in Hl consequently seems to explode theAdam Smith authorshiphypothesis. John Nelson first argued fifteen years ago against the Keynes/Sraffa thesis,4 challenging as unlikely the claim that the Mr. Smith in Hl must be John Smith ofDublin, and in the April 1991 issue of Hume Studies he reasserts his position more forcefully, arguing instead that it is impossible that "Mr. Smith" could be John Smith. Since the Mr. Smith of Hl is not John Smith, Nelson goes on to ask "who could he be except the Adam Smith ofthe traditional theory?"5 A closer examination ofeach view, Nelson's and Keynes/Sraffa's, reveals an assumption concerning an Irish publication of the Treatise that precludes any fully coherent resolution of the issue. I shall argue that the proper conclusion tobe drawn from Hl should be that the Mr. Smith is the Dublin publisher John Smith. On this point Keynes and Sraffa are correct; but against their thesis, I shall argue that Hume's purpose in referring toJohn Smith is not to see to his publishing an Irish edition of the Treatise (volumes 1 and 2, and the soon to be published volume 3), but rather to see to his publishing an Irish edition of the Abstract, in the hope that this would help to promote sales of the already publishedvolumes 1 and 2 ofthe Treatise. Thus, Hl should not be taken to decide the authorship ofthe Abstract, as Keynes and Sraffa, as well as John Nelson, argue. If anything, deciding the authorship of the Abstract should be made from Hume's personal copy of the Abstract, annotated in Hume's own hand, which is preserved in the British Museum. We notice in Hl that Hume asks two favours. The first is meant to draw upon Hutcheson's experience in publishing. Hume merely wants to know what... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Authorship of the Abstract Revisited John 0. Nelson More than a dozen years ago, in the pages of The Philosophical Quarterly,1 this writer contested Sraffa and Keynes' claim, advanced in the introduction to their edition ofthe Abstract? that it was Hume and not Adam Smith (as traditionally supposed) who was the author of that work. The traditional view, which might be called the Adam Smith authorship-theory, was largely (...) inspired by and seemed nailed shut by Hume's reference to a "Mr Smith" in a letter to Francis Hutcheson, datedMarch 4, 1740.3There appeared tobe goodreasonsforidentifying this "Mr Smith" with Adam Smith and then the latter with the undivulged author of the Abstract. It was known, for instance, that previous to March 4, 1740, Adam Smith had been a student of Hutcheson's and that Hutcheson was in the habit of setting his students the task of writing abstracts of newly published philosophical works.4 Since Hutcheson had originallylooked with favor on both the Treatise and its author,5 it had to seem more than likely that he had set his students the task ofwriting an abstract ofthe newly published Treatise ofHume. It was known, too, that Adam Smith was in possession of a copy ofthe Treatise soon after the date of H.6 Who, then, might be the "Mr Smith" adverted to in H's "My Bookseller has sent to Mr Smith a Copy of my Book, which I hope he has receive, as well as your Letter," except that same student of Hutcheson's, Adam Smith? What other Smith might have been known to Hutcheson, whom Hume could have wanted to refer to? No other Smith appeared to fit the bill. But why should Hume have wanted to refer in his correspondence with Hutcheson to an obscure, sixteen-year-old student ofHutcheson's, besides going to the trouble of having his bookseller send him a copy of the Treatise, unless that student had in some way made himselfnot only known to Hume but so highly regarded that Hume would want to favor him, presumably at his own expense, with a copy ofthe Treatise? The only tenable answer had to seem to be that this same student had composed such a perceptive and laudatory précis of the Treatise for Hutcheson that the latter had shown it to Hume and Hume, in the honest attempt to excite interest and sales of that languishing work, had seen to its publication as the Abstractl These are the reasonings Volume XVII Number 1 83 JOHN O. NELSON and considerations that inspired and seemed to confirm the Adam Smith authorship-theory.7 As can be perceived, these reasonings and considerations all revolve around the reference to a "Mr Smith"in H andthe identification of that Smith with Adam Smith. When, therefore, Sraffa and Keynes in the introduction to their edition oftheAbstract pointed out that there existed another Smith who might arguably be the Mr Smith referred toin H, namely, the DubUn publisher oftwo ofHutcheson's works, John Smith "at the Philosopher's Head on the Blind Quay," its major prop being seemingly knocked out from under it, the Adam Smith authorship-theory crashed—at least in the eyes of the general world—to the ground. And in thelatter's place, various ofits supporting reasons being given a lease on life, such as Hume's well-known endeavors and desires to excite interest in this first work of his, the Hume authorship-theory, so to speak, seated itself. In my previous venture into this subject, "Has the Authorship of An Abstract ofa Treatise ofHuman Nature Really Been Decided?"8 I tried, I believe with some success, to show that Sraffa and Keynes' arguments were not so unanswerable as they were generally taken to be and that, in fact, they presented various difficulties which the traditional theory avoided. But what then occasions this new excursion into these troubled waters? What more is to be said that I did not say in "Decided"? In "Decided" I presented various arguments and considerations that showed that it was unlikely either that Hume was the author of theAbstract or that the Mr Smith referred to in H... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 95-99 [Access article in PDF] The Distinction between ego (e) and ego-Self (e/S): Notes on Religious Practice Based upon Buddhist-Christian Dialogue Yagi Seiichi Toin University The Goal of Religious Practice We cannot see the transcendent as an object. Nor is it the case that the transcendent and the human are two separated realities that are united afterwards. When the Self (Christ in me--Gal. 2:19-20) reveals (...) itself to and in the ego (Gal. 1:16), the ego becomes aware of the Self, which is divine--human or transcendent--immanent. This is called enlightenment.In enlightenment, the ego (hereafter: e) does not vanish.When the Self (hereafter: S) appears to and in the ego, the ego (now a relatively independent part of S) becomes the function of S. The ego, understanding itself as the knot of inner and outer reality, plays the role of the reason of the whole body, the center of which is S. In this case we represent such a person as e/S. e/S is the subjectivity of the religious life. D.T.Suzuki and one of his disciples, Ryomin Akizuki called e/S the "individual qua trans-individual." 1 In enlightenment, e/S as the authentic subject, which remains potential before enlightenment, is actualized or realized so that it understands itself as e/S, no more as the mere ego. In order for e/S to be realized and understand itself as e/S, egocentricity, egoism and the confusion of the verbalized reality with "reality as it is" must be overcome. This is the goal of religious practice. e/S From the point of view of interreligious dialogue,"Christ who lives in me" corresponds to "actualized Buddha-nature" or "the Formless Self" in Buddhist language, that is, the Self as we call it. 2 In the case of Paul,"Christ who lives in me" is the ultimate subject of him on the one hand, and "Christ the Son of God" is the object of his faith on the other (Gal. 2:19-20). That means: the ego of Paul that believes in the Son of God is borne by "Christ in me"; as Paul says, "Christ was revealed to and [End Page 95] in me" (Gal. 1:16). In this way, the subjectivity of Paul consists of e/S. Of S, namely, Paul is aware as e/S--neither as e, which is ignorant of S, nor as S. It is impossible for S to exist alone. Egocentricity and Egoism The distinction between e and e/S is of fundamental importance to our theme. e means in this essay the mere ego that is ignorant of S.When it becomes aware of S we represent it as the ego of e/S. e is egocentric and egoistic. It goes without saying that the ego-centered "I" driven by desires produces immorality and social anomies. The biblical word for this is sin, the transgression of the Law.But there is another problematic concerning e, namely egoism, which can be at work even in the effort to attain a high level of morality. We understand the egoistic ego as follows: the ego is to itself the only reality that concerns and moves it. It posits itself solely on itself apart from the relation to others and to S. By itself it projects itself and strives to realize itself. It can, among others, set up its own ideals and pursue their realization. It can, for example, conceive the moralistic ideal that seems to be the reverse of immorality and social anomie. Indeed, it can succeed in controlling egocentricity so that it seems to have attained perfect morality. In reality, it is interested only in its own moral perfection, not in the person encountered (moralistic egoism). Such e is illustrated in Luke 18:9-14 and described in Romans 7:7-24. Egoistic ego must die to itself and must be freed from egoism. (In Romans 6, for example, Paul does... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 113-114 [Access article in PDF] Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Paul Swanson Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture The annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies (Tözai Shukyö Köryu Gakkai) met on 24-26 July 2000 at the Palaceside Hotel in Kyoto. Major papers were given on the general theme "Spirituality, Nature, and the Self," in preparation for participation in the Sixth Conference of (...) the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies on "Buddhism, Christianity and Global Healing" held at Pacific Lutheran University on 5-12 August 2000. Although the papers were repeated (in English) at the conference at PLU, the respondents were different.The first paper was given by Okumura Ichirö (a Carmelite priest) on "A Spiritual Pilgrimage: From Buddhism to Christianity." Father Okumura related the story of his spiritual journey, beginning with an interest in Zen and the works of Dögen; his first encounters with Christianity (which were negative); his struggle to understand the teachings of the Bible; his vision of a black-covered Bible with blank pages, and a scorched crucifix; the advice of his Zen Master Nakagawa to be baptized; and his encounter with St. John of the Cross and St. Therese, leading to his becoming a Carmelite priest. A response was given by Nishimura Eshin (Zen priest and Vice President, Hanazono University) who, in his usual feisty manner, noted an empathy for Fr. Okumura's spiritual journey while reaffirming the differences of his own Zen Buddhist faith.The second paper was by Hanaoka Eiko (Professor, Osaka Prefecture University) on "Problems of Spirituality: Facing the Twenty-first Century." Hanaoka approached the issue from her own background in Kyoto School philosophy, presenting five paradigms from which to consider spirituality--relative being, relative nothingness, nihil, absolute being, and absolute nothingness--promoting the paradigm of "absolute nothingness" as the most appropriate for the twenty-first century. The response by Onodera Isao (Professor, Seisen University) reaffirmed the significance of Nishida's philosophy while raising specific questions concerning Hanaoka's presentation, including the query as to how and where "Shinto" would fit in her proposed scheme.The third presentation, opening up the activities on the second day,wasa "research report" by Yagi Seiichi (Professor, Töin University of Yokohama) on "Developing a Theory of Practice for Dialogue Between Buddhism and Christianity." Yagi expressed [End Page 113] a desire to think about "religious practice" as the most important element in religion and couched his discussion in terms of jiga (ego) and jiko (self). He concluded that our contemporary civilization is built with an emphasis on the ego and that Buddhist-Christian dialogue should point to a way beyond egocentrism.The fourth paper was by Kobayashi Enshö (Professor, Hanazono University) on "Maya and Mary: Spirituality and Nature ofTwo Sacred Wombs." Kobayashi examined the respective developments concerning Maya, the mother of Siddhartha, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Buddhism and Christianity, pointing out various common elements as well as differences in the role and influence of "mother images" in the history of the two religious traditions. In response, Kawanami Akira (Professor, Töyö University) speculated that a reason for significant differences in the role of Maya and Mary could be due to the presence of Mary throughout Jesus' career, while Maya passed away one week after Siddhartha's birth.The fifth and final paper consisted of another "research report," this time by Takada Shinryö(Professor, Ryukoku University) on "Mappö and Eschatology: What Can Buddhism Learn from Christianity?"Takada, inspired by a symposium on the theme "What Can Christianity Learn from Buddhism"(sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in 1997), attempted to compare the meaning of eschatology in Christianity and that of mappö (the degenerate "latter" age) in Buddhism. Speaking from the perspective of Pure Land Buddhism, he emphasized the importance of the idea that "mappö is now" rather than a specific historical period.On the third day, a final summary and discussion was led by Ueda Shizuteru. As is the common practice for the meeting, all participants (about thirty) were invited to give a... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Buddhist-Christian Studies 21.1 (2001) 113-114 [Access article in PDF] Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies Paul Swanson Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture The annual meeting of the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies (Tözai Shukyö Köryu Gakkai) met on 24-26 July 2000 at the Palaceside Hotel in Kyoto. Major papers were given on the general theme "Spirituality, Nature, and the Self," in preparation for participation in the Sixth Conference of (...) the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies on "Buddhism, Christianity and Global Healing" held at Pacific Lutheran University on 5-12 August 2000. Although the papers were repeated (in English) at the conference at PLU, the respondents were different.The first paper was given by Okumura Ichirö (a Carmelite priest) on "A Spiritual Pilgrimage: From Buddhism to Christianity." Father Okumura related the story of his spiritual journey, beginning with an interest in Zen and the works of Dögen; his first encounters with Christianity (which were negative); his struggle to understand the teachings of the Bible; his vision of a black-covered Bible with blank pages, and a scorched crucifix; the advice of his Zen Master Nakagawa to be baptized; and his encounter with St. John of the Cross and St. Therese, leading to his becoming a Carmelite priest. A response was given by Nishimura Eshin (Zen priest and Vice President, Hanazono University) who, in his usual feisty manner, noted an empathy for Fr. Okumura's spiritual journey while reaffirming the differences of his own Zen Buddhist faith.The second paper was by Hanaoka Eiko (Professor, Osaka Prefecture University) on "Problems of Spirituality: Facing the Twenty-first Century." Hanaoka approached the issue from her own background in Kyoto School philosophy, presenting five paradigms from which to consider spirituality--relative being, relative nothingness, nihil, absolute being, and absolute nothingness--promoting the paradigm of "absolute nothingness" as the most appropriate for the twenty-first century. The response by Onodera Isao (Professor, Seisen University) reaffirmed the significance of Nishida's philosophy while raising specific questions concerning Hanaoka's presentation, including the query as to how and where "Shinto" would fit in her proposed scheme.The third presentation, opening up the activities on the second day,wasa "research report" by Yagi Seiichi (Professor, Töin University of Yokohama) on "Developing a Theory of Practice for Dialogue Between Buddhism and Christianity." Yagi expressed [End Page 113] a desire to think about "religious practice" as the most important element in religion and couched his discussion in terms of jiga (ego) and jiko (self). He concluded that our contemporary civilization is built with an emphasis on the ego and that Buddhist-Christian dialogue should point to a way beyond egocentrism.The fourth paper was by Kobayashi Enshö (Professor, Hanazono University) on "Maya and Mary: Spirituality and Nature ofTwo Sacred Wombs." Kobayashi examined the respective developments concerning Maya, the mother of Siddhartha, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, in Buddhism and Christianity, pointing out various common elements as well as differences in the role and influence of "mother images" in the history of the two religious traditions. In response, Kawanami Akira (Professor, Töyö University) speculated that a reason for significant differences in the role of Maya and Mary could be due to the presence of Mary throughout Jesus' career, while Maya passed away one week after Siddhartha's birth.The fifth and final paper consisted of another "research report," this time by Takada Shinryö(Professor, Ryukoku University) on "Mappö and Eschatology: What Can Buddhism Learn from Christianity?"Takada, inspired by a symposium on the theme "What Can Christianity Learn from Buddhism"(sponsored by the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in 1997), attempted to compare the meaning of eschatology in Christianity and that of mappö (the degenerate "latter" age) in Buddhism. Speaking from the perspective of Pure Land Buddhism, he emphasized the importance of the idea that "mappö is now" rather than a specific historical period.On the third day, a final summary and discussion was led by Ueda Shizuteru. As is the common practice for the meeting, all participants (about thirty) were invited to give a... (shrink)