A paradigm for peace discovered in the cosmopolitan neighborhoods of poor urban immigrants.

First published in 1982. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This monograph is the first integral study of the views of the Austro-English philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein to appear in Soviet literature, and it is presented in close connection with an analysis of his relations with his contemporaries. The book sheds light on the sociocultural sources of Wittgenstein's philosophy, and it analyzes his book On Certainty for the first time, gives a new reading of his Notebooks, 1914-1916 and a number of other sketches, and very exhaustively treats his lectures on the (...) foundations of mathematics. The book is a critical analysis of the evolution of the philosophical views of Wittgenstein and sheds light on the personal motives behind his philosophical ideas and conceptions. (shrink)

Материалы сборника предназначены для специалистов.

Dialektika mifa -- Raboty 1916-1988 godov -- Istorii︠a︡ filosofii kak shkola mysli.

Introduction: This study, the first of its kind in Iran, was to assess Iranian patients’ preferences for receiving information and participating in decision-making and to evaluate their satisfaction with how medical information is given to them and with their participation in decision-making at present. Method and materials: 299 of 312 eligible patients admitted to general internal medicine or surgery wards from May to December 2006 were interviewed according to a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about patients’ preferences regarding four (...) domains of information and their participation in decision-making. Patients’ responses were measured on a visual analogue scale graded from 1 to 10. Results: The mean (SD) score for desire to receive information was 8.88 out of 10 (1.5) and for participation in medical decision-making was 7.75 out of 10 (3). The desire to receive information was greater in women than men (9.0 (1.5) vs 7.8 (1.4), p = 0.025). It was also correlated with their education (r = 0.2, p = 0.001) and their estimation of the severity of their own disease (r = 0.13, p = 0.027). The score for preference to participate in decision-making was higher in women than in men (7.95 (2.8) and 7.0 (3.2), respectively; β = 0.8, p = 0.022) and was negatively correlated with education (r = −0.14, p = 0.015). Discussion: This study shows that Iranian patients are highly interested in receiving information about their condition and participating in clinical decision-making. No predictive variable for such attitudes was found; therefore, the only way for the physician to recognise patients’ desire is to ask them explicitly. (shrink)

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle appears to use an elegant short argument to attack Plato's doctrine of the good, which argument equally appears to attack Aristotle's own doctrine of the good. I consider these two questions: First: Why does Aristotle reverse the judgment of Socrates/Plato on the issue: Which is better - things that are good in themselves, or things that are both good in themselves and good for their consequences? Second: Why does Aristotle attack Plato's doctrine that the Form (...) of the Good is the chief good, with an argument that appears to threaten his own view that eudaimonia is the chief good? I think the answers to these two questions are related. The elegant short argument in question I call "Aristotle's Fast Argument." After apologizing for criticizing views held by friends of his, Aristotle deploys the Fast Argument as a clincher to cap off his refutation of Plato's view that the Form of the Good is the chief good: "And one might ask the question, what in the world they mean by 'a thing itself', if in man himself and in a particular man the account of man is one and the same. For in so far as they are men, they will in no respect differ; and if this is so, neither will there be a difference in so far as they are good. But again it will not be good any the more for being eternal, since that which lasts long is no whiter than that which perishes in a day.". I explore this sketchily presented Fast Argument. I consider why Aristotle may think it is valid and why he does not seem to realize that, on readings that make it effective against Plato's view, his Fast Argument also seems to apply to his own view that eudaimonia is the chief good. This is what I will call "Aristotle's Dilemma." If the Fast Argument is interpreted too narrowly, its point about the whiteness of a white thing being independent of its duration will not apply to the goodness of the Form of the Good. If it is interpreted broadly enough to undermine the claim of the Form of the Good to be the chief good, it will equally undermine that claim for eudaimonia. Finally, I discuss some of the things Plato and Aristotle say about the chief good, and comparable things Immanuel Kant says about the good will. I draw some speculative conclusions that focus on the importance for Aristotle of the goodness of the chief good not being at risk. (shrink)