This study explored drug users’ attitudes toward and understanding of randomized controlled trials testing addiction therapies. A video portraying a fictional consent conference for a randomized controlled trial with placebo arm was shown to poor male and female drug users of diverse ethnic status and sexual orientation. The video stimulated focus group discussion in which participants’ comments often reflected “experimental realism”—a realistic view of the trial—and adequate understanding of the uncertain efficacy of the treatment being tested, as well as the (...) concepts of randomization and placebo control. However, participants’ comprehension of the nature of placebos was compromised by the widespread view that placebos are a way of testing a subject’s willpower and personal control over his or her addiction. Comments also showed a mistrust of the video investigator’s integrity and competence and signs of therapeutic misconception and misestimation. The study’s findings underscore the importance of tailoring informed consent encounters to the personal and sociohistorical context of participants’ lived experiences. (shrink)

This book is Stanley Cavell’s definitive expression on Emerson. Over the past thirty years, Cavell has demonstrated that he is the most emphatic and provocative philosophical critic of Emerson that America has yet known. The sustained effort of that labor is drawn together here for the first time into a single volume, which also contains two previously unpublished essays and an introduction by Cavell that reflects on this book and the history of its emergence. Students and scholars working in philosophy, (...) literature, American studies, history, film studies, and political theory can now more easily access Cavell’s luminous and enduring work on Emerson. Such engagement should be further complemented by extensive indices and annotations. If we are still in doubt whether America has expressed itself philosophically, there is perhaps no better space for inquiry than reading Cavell reading Emerson. (shrink)

In one of his earliest essays, Stanley Cavell says that “... we must keep in mind how different their arguments sound, and admit that in philosophy it is the sound which makes all the difference”. This is so whether we discuss the antiphony between Wittgenstein and American Pragmatism, or from within Cavell's own writings. Timothy Gould has set himself to the task of showing how the sound of Cavell's texts—specifically in the form of his voice—is the constituting feature of a (...) philosophical method. This enterprise evolves into a protracted exercise of listening to Cavell's voice for the purpose of working out how that sound can disclose another way that philosophy can be conducted. Gould's text recounts what he has heard, and why the sound of Cavell’s voice makes a difference to philosophy. (shrink)

In May 1996, a five day conference was held in Copenhagen where the essays in this book were presented, among a throng of others. Only the offerings of the keynote speakers are made available here, of which there are twenty-five. It is perhaps more fitting that this collection of speeches adopts the title of David Lodge’s address “Kierkegaard for Special Purposes,” for as the editors of this volume emphasize, “While united in their interest in Kierkegaard, the participants at the conference (...) came from a wide range of different disciplines and academic backgrounds, and each was interested in interpreting and making use of Kierkegaard in a different way, in accordance with his or her own research agenda”. That Kierkegaard was put to use in a variety of ways is clear just from the roster of titles. Yet even after reading the articles it is apparent that the only dominating common feature among them is that Kierkegaard is the subject under consideration. (shrink)

“Even the most careful and sophisticated readers,” suggests Davis, “are frequently left mystified” by Levinas’s writing. In such a climate it would be beneficial, if not obligatory, to develop a clear exposition of Levinas’s project, which does not sacrifice philosophical acumen in an effort to be lucid; it is of little help to have introductions to Levinas that are more impenetrable than Levinas’s own writing. Davis has managed to write an introduction to Levinas’s thought that retains a respect for its (...) complexity while concomitantly presenting it in a way that clearly illuminates its signature features and Levinas’s most compelling concerns. (shrink)