Cet entretien réalisé avec une personne transsexuelle Male to Female témoigne de l’impact que la transformation physique du corps peut avoir sur la perception de Soi. Si les catégories de sexe et de genre paraissent, aux observateurs que nous sommes, bien distinctes, naturalisées et, de ce fait, « allant de soi », l’itinéraire d’un androgyne montre, au contraire, qu’elles s’imposent à un certain moment de la vie – ici après la trentaine – après avoir été tenues pour insignifiantes. Il montre (...) aussi combien leurs chevauchements sont complexes et s’articulent, souvent mal, avec des pratiques sexuelles présumées féminines ou masculines. Avec sa dimension intimiste, le témoignage proposé pose directement la question du rapport à l’autre : pour qui change-t-on de sexe? Le poids du regard d’autrui parait primordial, davantage que le sentiment de Soi qui, semble-t-il, s’accommode très facilement des discordances entre genre, sexe et sexualité. Le témoignage de Sandrine montre également comment une construction identitaire subjective de « femme », y compris en termes de sexualité, peut entièrement s’appuyer sur une expérience de vie en tant qu’« homme », fût-il androgyne. (shrink)

Cet entretien réalisé avec une personne transsexuelle Male to Female témoigne de l’impact que la transformation physique du corps peut avoir sur la perception de Soi. Si les catégories de sexe et de genre paraissent, aux observateurs que nous sommes, bien distinctes, naturalisées et, de ce fait, « allant de soi », l’itinéraire d’un androgyne montre, au contraire, qu’elles s’imposent à un certain moment de la vie – ici après la trentaine – après avoir été tenues pour insignifiantes. Il montre (...) aussi combien leurs chevauchements sont complexes et s’articulent, souvent mal, avec des pratiques sexuelles présumées féminines ou masculines. Avec sa dimension intimiste, le témoignage proposé pose directement la question du rapport à l’autre : pour qui change-t-on de sexe? Le poids du regard d’autrui parait primordial, davantage que le sentiment de Soi qui, semble-t-il, s’accommode très facilement des discordances entre genre, sexe et sexualité. Le témoignage de Sandrine montre également comment une construction identitaire subjective de « femme », y compris en termes de sexualité, peut entièrement s’appuyer sur une expérience de vie en tant qu’« homme », fût-il androgyne. (shrink)

Buddhist ethics on environment protection.

Philosophy, social problems, and global environmental change.

Philosophy of Cārvāka, classical Indian materialist.

Singer's study of the technical problems of Santayana's systematic thought will not satisfy his friends nor his detractors. Her reduction of Santayana's Lucretian materialism to epiphenomenalism will seem inadequate to the former. The latter may see Santayana as merely technically inept. While Singer does not claim to offer a comprehensive study of Santayana's thought, her theses " that Santayana was a naturalist and a materialist in the same sense and on the same grounds throughout; that despite even radical changes in (...) terminology his 'later' ontology is a development of, and not inconsistent with, his 'earlier' philosophy; and that, nevertheless, from the start his materialism was touched with ambiguity", do need a comprehensive understanding of Santayana's materialism. The "ambiguities" of his materialism and his social theory in Dominations and Powers derive from the ontological complexities of his realms of Being. Santayana plays with the perspectives possible from each realm and Singer sometimes misses his viewpoint. Santayana's challenge to the liberalism of democracy is indeed based on his a-teleological materialism. Singer's study does draw attention to the analogy of the individual to the state implicit in Santayana's philosophy; she offers refutations of M. K. Munitz's theory of "early and "late" Santayana and W. K. Dennes' interpretation of Santayana's materialism.--A. T. (shrink)

Shaffer takes a tour of some perennial questions in this lucid and simply written primer. How do I know I am not dreaming? How does reality differ from a dream? How can we be certain of our knowledge? Varying viewpoints are briefly summarized. The fallibilist view that even a priori mathematical truths and first person reports of feelings and perceptions are subject to error is examined, as is the anti-fallibilist reply that the theoretical possibility of error, without actual evidence, is (...) not sufficient to disturb the certainty of certain kinds of knowledge. Our knowledge of the external world is questioned by Berkeleyan idealism, which treats matter as nothing but a perception of our minds, and by phenomenalism, which treats material objects as nothing but collections of sense data. Opposed to these views are causal theories, which view physical objects as existing independently of observers, and sense data as the result of the causal interaction of material objects and particular bodies. It should be noted that the book's format requires such drastic foreshortening of Descartes' and Berkeley's views that its characterization of the former's system as "one of the great achievements in man's intellectual history" is in no way confirmed by the textual references. Other questions discussed in lively fashion are the self ; identity theory ; epiphenomenalism ; and interactionism. Is the mind best defined as the collection of mental events one has during a lifetime? If these events are all connected with the same body, the mind seemingly cannot survive the death of the body. Finally, theistic and atheistic views about the meaning of life are compared, with the Aristotelian view of teleological causation as the common denominator. The book asks many questions, provides few answers, but serves as an enticement to further exploration.--A. T. (shrink)