Dans une période particulièrement troublée de la vie intellectuelle de l’Église catholique, Henri Bouillard fut à proprement parler un passeur, ouvrant des voies nouvelles dont nous sommes toujours les héritiers. Dans ce parcours très complexe qui a duré près de quarante ans, on peut repérer trois passages dont nous n’avons pas fini de mesurer la portée. Il y a d’abord la volonté de dépasser un anti-modernisme catholique hanté par l’objectivité de la vérité révélée et soucieux de dénoncer le subjectivisme des (...) théologiens s’efforçant de prendre au sérieux l’expérience du sujet croyant. C’est ici le rapport entre vérité et histoire qui est touché. Il y a ensuite un deuxième passage dont la théologie catholique du XXe siècle lui est redevable, c’est le remplacement de l’Apologétique comme science objective par une vraie théologie fondamentale. Il y a enfin un dernier passage, souvent moins relevé mais d’une grande actualité pour notre théologie contemporaine : celui d’une théologie naturelle - ou mieux d’une théologie philosophique - à une théologie des religions. During a particularly troubled period in the intellectual life of the Catholic Church, Henri Bouillard was a true passeur , opening up new paths of which we are still inheritors. In this very complex itinerary covering more than forty years, we can make out three passages, the consequences of which we are far from having fully taken into account. There is, first of all, the will to go beyond Catholic anti-modernism, haunted by the objectivity of revealed truth and obsessively denouncing those theologians who endeavoured to take seriously the experience of the believing subject. The relationship between truth and history is at stake here. There is then a second passage which twentieth-century Catholic theology owes to Bouillard: replacing apolegetics as objective science with a genuine fundamental theology. And there is a third passage, often less noticed but of paramount import for contemporary theology: the transition from a natural theology – or, more precisely, from a philosophic theology – to a theology of religions. (shrink)

Le présent défi pour l’Église, c’est à la fois celui de la mondialisation et d’un pluralisme religieux croissant, qu’il s’agisse des grandes religions ou des nouvelles religiosités. Mais elle doit affronter aussi un indifférentisme religieux qui peut être l’envers d’un combat passionné pour l’homme. Face à ces défis, il faut tenir compte d’un nouveau paradigme théologique, celui d’un pluralisme religieux de principe qui s’interroge sur la signification de la pluralité des religions à l’intérieur du dessein de Dieu. Ce nouveau paradigme (...) nous invite à instaurer un nouveau rapport à la vérité en théologie. Et c’est en allant jusqu’au bout du paradoxe christologique que l’on peut désigner le christianisme comme une religion essentiellement dialogale. Comme l’œcuménisme, le dialogue interreligieux doit être une dimension de toute la théologie. La théologie des religions tend alors à devenir une théologie interreligieuse qui manifeste la fécondation mutuelle des religions dans notre discours sur Dieu et sur le salut de l’homme. (shrink)

Pour les religions comme pour les cultures, la mondialisation présente un double écueil, dialectique : elle peut conduire aussi bien à un syncrétisrne destructeur des identités qu'à des crispations fondamentalistes. Cependant, elle devrait pouvoir favoriser un œcuménisme interreligieux à l'échelle de la planète sans tomber dans le mythe d'une religion mondiale. C'est dans la fidélité à son identité propre que chaque religion peut témoigner de la quête universelle d'une Réalité dernière qu'aucun système religieux ne saurait épuiser. Sans avoir la prétention (...) d'instaurer un nouvel ordre mondial, le christianisme détient un pouvoir prophétique de contre-culture contre les risques à la fois de déshumanisation et de fractures entre personnes et communautés ethniques et religieuses. Religion d'incarnation, il n'annonce pas seulement à tout être humain le salut gratuit de Dieu, il travaille à la guérison des cultures et de la création tout entière. L'Église annonce Jésus-Christ comme événement de salut universel pour tous les hommes, y compris ceux qui appartiennent à d'autres traditions religieuses. Mais les témoins de l'évangile doivent apprendre à ne pas confondre l'universalité du mystère du Christ avec celle du christianisme compris comme religion historique indissociable de sa figure occidentale, et à maintenir une distance entre l'Église comme moyen de salut et le Royaume de Dieu qui ne cesse d'advenir au-delà de ses frontières. For religions as well as cultures, globalization presents a double reef or dialectic : it can not only lead to a destructive syncretism of identities but also to fundamentalist reactions. Il should be able, nevertheless, to favor an inter-religious ecumenism on a planetary scale, without falling into the myth of a world religion. Each religion, faithful to its proper identity, can witness to the universal search of a last Reality, which no religious system can exhaust. Without having the pretension of installing a new world order, Christianity holds a prophetic and counter-cultural power against the risks of, not only dehumanization, but also breakups between persons and ethnic and religions communities. As a religion of incarnation, Christianity not only announces to every human being the gratuitous salvation of God, but it works in healing cultures and all creation. The Church announces Jesus Christ as an event of universal salvation for all humanity, including those who belong to other religious traditions. But the witnesses of the Gospel must learn not to confuse the universality of the mystery of Christ with that of a Christianity understood as a historical religion inseparable from its western form, and to maintain a distance between the Church as means of salvation and the Kingdom of God that doesn’t cease to go beyond its frontiers. (shrink)

Il est urgent de ménager dans l'homme un espace pour Dieu, c'est-à-dire un espace d'interrogation où la Parole de Dieu puisse retentir à nouveau comme une Bonne Nouvelle. De plus en plus, le Dieu de la foi doit être cherché pour lui-même, comme une nouvelle gratuité, au-delà de l'utile et de l'inutile. Mais cette gratuité n'évoque aucune évasion. L'une des formes de la responsabilité historique du chrétien, c'est de créer des espaces pour Dieu dans le monde, en ayant la certitude (...) que c'est aussi le meilleur moyen de travailler à la guérison de tout l'homme. (shrink)

Games may seem like a waste of time, where we struggle under artificial rules for arbitrary goals. The author suggests that the rules and goals of games are not arbitrary at all. They are a way of specifying particular modes of agency. This is what make games a distinctive art form. Game designers designate goals and abilities for the player; they shape the agential skeleton which the player will inhabit during the game. Game designers work in the medium of agency. (...) Game-playing, then, illuminates a distinctive human capacity. We can take on ends temporarily for the sake of the experience of pursuing them. Game play shows that our agency is significantly more modular and more fluid than we might have thought. It also demonstrates our capacity to take on an inverted motivational structure. Sometimes we can take on an end for the sake of the activity of pursuing that end. (shrink)

There seems to be a deep tension between two aspects of aesthetic appreciation. On the one hand, we care about getting things right. On the other hand, we demand autonomy. We want appreciators to arrive at their aesthetic judgments through their own cognitive efforts, rather than deferring to experts. These two demands seem to be in tension; after all, if we want to get the right judgments, we should defer to the judgments of experts. The best explanation, I suggest, is (...) that aesthetic appreciation is something like a game. When we play a game, we try to win. But often, winning isn’t the point; playing is. Aesthetic appreciation involves the same flipped motivational structure: we aim at the goal of correctness, but having correct judgments isn’t the point. The point is the engaged process of interpreting, investigating, and exploring the aesthetic object. Deferring to aesthetic testimony, then, makes the same mistake as looking up the answer to a puzzle, rather than solving it for oneself. The shortcut defeats the whole point. This suggests a new account of aesthetic value: the engagement account. The primary value of the activity of aesthetic appreciation lies in the process of trying to generate correct judgments, and not in having correct judgments. -/- *There is an audio version available: look for the Soundcloud link, below.*. (shrink)

I propose to study one problem for epistemic dependence on experts: how to locate experts on what I will call cognitive islands. Cognitive islands are those domains for knowledge in which expertise is required to evaluate other experts. They exist under two conditions: first, that there is no test for expertise available to the inexpert; and second, that the domain is not linked to another domain with such a test. Cognitive islands are the places where we have the fewest resources (...) for evaluating experts, which makes our expert dependences particularly risky. -/- Some have argued that cognitive islands lead to the complete unusability of expert testimony: that anybody who needs expert advice on a cognitive island will be entirely unable to find it. I argue against this radical form of pessimism, but propose a more moderate alternative. I demonstrate that we have some resources for finding experts on cognitive islands, but that cognitive islands leave us vulnerable to an epistemic trap which I will call runaway echo chambers. In a runaway echo chamber, our inexpertise may lead us to pick out bad experts, which will simply reinforce our mistaken beliefs and sensibilities. (shrink)

An adequate theory of rights ought to forbid the harming of animals to promote trivial interests of humans, as is often done in the animal-user industries. But what should the rights view say about situations in which harming some animals is necessary to prevent intolerable injustices to other animals? I develop an account of respectful treatment on which, under certain conditions, it’s justified to intentionally harm some individuals to prevent serious harm to others. This can be compatible with recognizing the (...) inherent value of the ones who are harmed. My theory has important implications for contemporary moral issues in nonhuman animal ethics, such as the development of cultured meat and animal research. (shrink)

Value capture occurs when an agent’s values are rich and subtle; they enter a social environment that presents simplified — typically quantified — versions of those values; and those simplified articulations come to dominate their practical reasoning. Examples include becoming motivated by FitBit’s step counts, Twitter Likes and Re-tweets, citation rates, ranked lists of best schools, and Grade Point Averages. We are vulnerable to value capture because of the competitive advantage that such crisp and clear expressions of value have in (...) our private reasoning and our public justification. There is, however, a price. In value capture, we take a central component of our autonomy — our ongoing deliberation over the exact articulation of our values — and we outsource it. And the metrics to which we outsource usually engineered for the interests of some external force, like a large-scale institution’s interest in cross-contextual comprehensibility and quick aggregability. That outsourcing cuts off one of the key benefits to personal deliberation. In value capture, we no longer adjust our values and their articulations in light of own rich experience of the world. Our values should often be carefully tailored to our particular selves or our small-scale communities, but in value capture, we buy our values off the rack. In some cases – like decreasing CO2 emissions – the costs of non-tailored values are outweighed by the benefit of precise collective coordination. In other cases, like in our aesthetic lives, they are not. This suggests that we should want different values suited to different scales. We should want value federalism. Some values are perhaps best pursued at the largest-scale level, others at smaller scales. The problem occurs when we exhibit an excess preference for the largest-scale values – when we consistently let the universal metrics swamp our quieter interests. (shrink)

We offer an account of the generic use of the term “porn”, as seen in recent usages such as “food porn” and “real estate porn”. We offer a definition adapted from earlier accounts of sexual pornography. On our account, a representation is used as generic porn when it is engaged with primarily for the sake of a gratifying reaction, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with the represented content. We demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of generic (...) porn by using it to isolate a new type of such porn: moral outrage porn. Moral outrage porn is representations of moral outrage, engaged with primarily for the sake of the resulting gratification, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with morally outrageous content. Moral outrage porn is dangerous because it encourages the instrumentalization of one’s empirical and moral beliefs, manipulating their content for the sake of gratification. Finally, we suggest that when using porn is wrong, it is often wrong because it instrumentalizes what ought not to be instrumentalized. (shrink)

Recent conversation has blurred two very different social epistemic phenomena: echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Members of epistemic bubbles merely lack exposure to relevant information and arguments. Members of echo chambers, on the other hand, have been brought to systematically distrust all outside sources. In epistemic bubbles, other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined. It is crucial to keep these phenomena distinct. First, echo chambers can explain the post-truth phenomena in a way that epistemic (...) bubbles cannot. Second, each type of structure requires a distinct intervention. Mere exposure to evidence can shatter an epistemic bubble, but may actually reinforce an echo chamber. Finally, echo chambers are much harder to escape. Once in their grip, an agent may act with epistemic virtue, but social context will pervert those actions. Escape from an echo chamber may require a radical rebooting of one's belief system. (shrink)

In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan argues that although all subjects-of-a-life have equal inherent value, there are often differences in the value of lives. According to Regan, lives that have the highest value are lives which have more possible sources of satisfaction. Regan claims that the highest source of satisfaction, which is available to only rational beings, is the satisfaction associated with thinking impartially about moral choices. Since rational beings can bring impartial reasons to bear on decision making, (...) Regan maintains that they have an additional possible source of satisfaction that nonrational beings do not have and, consequently, the lives of rational beings turn out to have greater value.. (shrink)

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical subdisciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work (...) and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self-described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life. (shrink)

Анотація. У статті проаналізовані досягнення Соціального Вчительства Католицької Церкви, репрезентовані працями Лева ХІІІ, Пія ХІ, Пія ХІІ, Івана Павла ІІ, що розкривають змістовні характеристики поняття «принцип субсидіарності», його роль і значення в системі християнських цінностей. Принцип субсидіарності робить можливими такі взаємовідносини в соціальному житті, коли спільнота вищого порядку не втручається у внутрішнє життя спільноти нижчого порядку, перебираючи на себе належні тій функції; заради спільного добра, спільного блага вона надає їй у разі потреби підтримку й допомогу, узгоджуючи у такий спосіб її (...) взаємодію з іншими соціальними структурами. Принцип субсидіарності скеровує соціальну практику на утвердження спільного блага в людському співтоваристві. Поширення і застосування принципу субсидіарності протистоїть небезпеці «одержавлення» суспільства та найзагрозливіших проявів колективізму, обмежує абсолютизацію влади, бюрократизацію державних і соціокультурних структур, стає одним із гарантів дотримання прав і свобод громадян своєї країни. (shrink)

In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over expert domains. (...) I offer two versions of the criticism. First, the epistemic intrusion argument: The drive to transparency forces experts to explain their reasoning to non-experts. But expert reasons are, by their nature, often inaccessible to non-experts. So the demand for transparency can pressure experts to act only in those ways for which they can offer public justification. Second, the intimate reasons argument: In many cases of practical deliberation, the relevant reasons are intimate to a community and not easily explicable to those who lack a particular shared background. The demand for transparency, then, pressures community members to abandon the special understanding and sensitivity that arises from their particular experiences. Transparency, it turns out, is a form of surveillance. By forcing reasoning into the explicit and public sphere, transparency roots out corruption — but it also inhibits the full application of expert skill, sensitivity, and subtle shared understandings. The difficulty here arises from the basic fact that human knowledge vastly outstrips any individual’s capacities. We all depend on experts, which makes us vulnerable to their biases and corruption. But if we try to wholly secure our trust — if we leash groups of experts to pursuing only the goals and taking only the actions that can be justified to the non-expert public — then we will undermine their expertise. We need both trust and transparency, but they are in essential tension. This is a deep practical dilemma; it admits of no neat resolution, but only painful compromise. (shrink)

Claude Geffré is one of the most important theologians in the past decades for his work in hermeneutics and in theological methodology. In the present article, he proposes his own intellectual biography and looks back at the evolution of catholic theology over the last forty years. While remaining faithful to the theological posture of Thomas of Aquinas, Geffré seeks to define theology as a hermeneutical science. For him, the task of theology is the presentation of a critical correlation between the (...) human experience and the texts of the Christian tradition. (shrink)

Dans le contexte d’une mondialisation qui n’est pas sans ambiguïtés ni opacités, il convient d’examiner à quelles conditions pluralisme culturel et pluralisme religieux sont des chances pour un humanum plus authentique. Le consensus porté par la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme pourrait réorienter le dialogue interreligieux et le nourrir alors que les religions suscitent aujourd’hui un certain scepticisme. Quant au message évangélique, en résonance profonde avec l’attente légitime de plus d’humanité, il porte en lui une capacité de résistance, plus (...) forte que la crise institutionnelle et culturelle des Églises. (shrink)

Dans cet article, le théologien dominicain propose une sorte de biographie intellectuelle qui recoupe l’évolution de la théologie catholique durant les quarante dernières années. Héritier de la tradition intellectuelle dont Marie-Dominique Chenu fut l’initiateur dans son ouvrage, Une École de théologie: le Saulchoir, il explique comment, tout en restant fidèle à la posture théologique de Thomas d’Aquin, il a pris peu à peu ses distances vis-à-vis de la théologie thomiste en tant que théologie métaphysique. En charge à la suite d’Henri (...) Bouillard de la chaire de théologie fondamentale de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, il a cherché à définir celle-ci comme une science herméneutique qui assure la crédibilité du message chrétien à partir d’une corrélation critique entre l’expérience de la communauté chrétienne primitive et l’expérience historique des hommes et des femmes d’aujourd’hui. Il précise alors les conséquences de ce tournant herméneutique de la théologie tant pour la relecture des Écritures que pour la réinterprétation de la tradition théologique et dogmatique. En conclusion, dans la fidélité à l’orientation herméneutique de sa théologie, il fait état de ses principales options dans le chantier toujours ouvert de la théologie des religions ou mieux du pluralisme religieux. (shrink)

According to most accounts of trust, you can only trust other people (or groups of people). To trust is to think that another has goodwill, or something to that effect. I sketch a different form of trust: the unquestioning attitude. What it is to trust, in this sense, is to settle one’s mind about something, to stop questioning it. To trust is to rely on a resource while suspending deliberation over its reliability. Trust lowers the barrier of monitoring, challenging, checking, (...) and questioning. Trust sets up open pipelines between yourself and parts of the external world. Trust permits external resources to have a similar relationship to one as one’s internal cognitive faculties. This creates efficiency, but at the price of exquisite vulnerability. We must trust in this way because we are cognitively limited beings in a cognitively overwhelming world. Crucially, we can hold the unquestioning attitude towards objects and technologies. When I trust my climbing rope, I stop worrying about its reliability. When I trust my online calendaring system, I simply go to the events indicated, without question. But, one might worry, how could one ever hold such a normatively loaded attitude as trust towards mere objects? How could it ever make sense to feel betrayed by an object? Trust is our engine for expanding and outsourcing our agency — for binding external processes into our practical selves. Thus, we can be betrayed by our smartphones in the same way that we can be betrayed by our memory. When we trust, we try to make something a part of our agency, and we are betrayed when our part lets us down. To unquestioningly trust something is to let it in—to attempt to bring it inside one’s practical functioning. This suggests a new form of gullibility: agential gullibility, which occurs when agents too hastily and carelessly integrate external resources into their own agency. (shrink)

Recent discussions in the just war literature suggest that soldiers have a duty to assume certain risks in order to protect the lives of all innocent civilians. I challenge this principle of risk by arguing that it is justified neither as a principle that guides the conduct of combat soldiers, nor as a principle that guides commanders in the US military. I demonstrate that the principle of risk fails on the first account because it requires soldiers both to violate their (...) strict duty of obedience and loyalty and to exceed their special obligations to protect their fellow comrades, the state, the state's constituents and other protected civilians. I then illustrate that the principle of risk fails on the second account since it conflicts with the commander's primary obligation to protect and promote the welfare and lives of his or her soldiers. I conclude by arguing that we cannot reasonably expect soldiers and commanders to adhere to the principle of risk until there is a radical, institutional-level transformation of militaristic goals, values, strategies, policies, warrior codes and expectations of service members in the US Armed Forces. (shrink)

Монографія "Функціональність релігії: український контекст".

Twitter makes conversation into something like a game. It scores our communication, giving us vivid and quantified feedback, via Likes, Retweets, and Follower counts. But this gamification doesn’t just increase our motivation to communicate; it changes the very nature of the activity. Games are more satisfying than ordinary life precisely because game-goals are simpler, cleaner, and easier to apply. Twitter is thrilling precisely because its goals have been artificially clarified and narrowed. When we buy into Twitter’s gamification, then our values (...) shift from the complex and pluralistic values of communication, to the narrower quest for popularity and virality. Twitter’s gamification bears some resemblance with the phenomena of echo chambers and moral outrage porn. In all these phenomena, we are instrumentalizing our ends for hedonistic reasons. We have shifted our aims in an activity, not because the new aims are more valuable, but in exchange for extra pleasure. (shrink)

This classic and controversial book examines the roots of the idea of virtue, diagnoses the reasons for its absence in modern life, and proposes a path for its recovery.

The feeling of clarity can be dangerously seductive. It is the feeling associated with understanding things. And we use that feeling, in the rough-and-tumble of daily life, as a signal that we have investigated a matter sufficiently. The sense of clarity functions as a thought-terminating heuristic. In that case, our use of clarity creates significant cognitive vulnerability, which hostile forces can try to exploit. If an epistemic manipulator can imbue a belief system with an exaggerated sense of clarity, then they (...) can induce us to terminate our inquiries too early — before we spot the flaws in the system. How might the sense of clarity be faked? Let’s first consider the object of imitation: genuine understanding. Genuine understanding grants cognitive facility. When we understand something, we categorize its aspects more easily; we see more connections between its disparate elements; we can generate new explanations; and we can communicate our understanding. In order to encourage us to accept a system of thought, then, an epistemic manipulator will want the system to provide its users with an exaggerated sensation of cognitive facility. The system should provide its users with the feeling that they can easily and powerfully create categorizations, generate explanations, and communicate their understanding. And manipulators have a significant advantage in imbuing their systems with a pleasurable sense of clarity, since they are freed from the burdens of accuracy and reliability. I offer two case studies of seductively clear systems: conspiracy theories; and the standardized, quantified value systems of bureaucracies. (shrink)

God and moral obligations -- What is a divine command theory of moral obligation? -- The relation of divine command theory to natural law and virtue ethics -- Objections to divine command theory -- Alternatives to a divine command theory -- Conclusions: The inescapability of moral obligations.

Стаття С. Присухіна «Іван Павло ІІ про логіку діалогу між Католицькою Церквою та ісламом» присвячена філософськобогословським напрацюванням Папи Римського Івана Павла ІІ щодо аналізу змістовних характеристик поняття «діалог між католицизмом і ісламом», а також логіки його здійснення в непростому й суперечливому сьогоденні.

The goal of this study was to determine whether it is possible to teach children with serious decoding problems four text comprehension strategies in listening contexts. The subjects were 9-11 year old students from special schools for children with learning disabilities. All the students were very poor at decoding; half of the group were also poor listeners, whereas the other half consisted of normal listeners. The experimental children were trained in strategies of clarifying, questioning, summarising and predicting through a combination (...) of reciprocal teaching and direct instruction. The results indicated significant programme effects on a strategic listening comprehension test. A transfer effect on general listening comprehension and general reading comprehension tests was not found. The poor listeners within the experimental group did not perform better than the normal listeners. (shrink)

A selection of speeches and essays from the author's second decade as president of Yale University.

The Truth of History questions how modern historians, confined by the concepts of their own cultures, can still discover truths about the past. Through an examination of the constraints of history, accounts of causation and causal interpretations, C. Behan McCullagh argues that although historical descriptions do not mirror the past, they can correlate with it in a regular and definable way. Far from debating only in the abstract and philosophical, the author constructs his argument in numerous concrete historical examples and (...) explores a new position between believing that history perfectly represents the past and that history can tell us nothing true of the past. (shrink)