Animal ethicists have recently debated the ethical questions raised by disenhancing animals to improve their welfare. Here, we focus on the particular case of breeding hens for commercial egg-laying systems to become blind, in order to benefit their welfare. Many people find breeding blind hens intuitively repellent, yet ‘welfare-only’ positions appear to be committed to endorsing this possibility if it produces welfare gains. We call this the ‘Blind Hens’ Challenge’. In this paper, we argue that there are both empirical and (...) theoretical reasons why even those adopting ‘welfare-only’ views should be concerned about breeding blind hens. But we also argue that alternative views, which (for example) claim that it is important to respect the telos or rights of an animal, do not offer a more convincing solution to questions raised by the possibility of disenhancing animals for their own benefit. (shrink)

The recent drastic development of agriculture, together with the growing societal interest in agricultural practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the general methodology of agricultural research. This paper takes some steps towards developing a systemic research methodology that can meet this challenge – a general self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality.From a philosophy of (...) research perspective,science is seen as an interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a social communicative aspect. This means, first of all,that science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science, is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is not objective in the sense of being value-free.Values play, and ought to play, an important role in science – not only in form of constitutive values such as the norms of good science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter into the very process of science. This goes against the traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive objectivity implies that the communication of science must include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal,intentional, and observational context. Ina ccordance with this, the learning process of systemic research is shown as a self-reflexive cycle that incorporates both an involved actor stance and a detached observer stance. The observer stance forms the basis for scientific communication.To this point, a unitary view of science as a learning process is employed. A second important perspective for a systemic research methodology is the relation between the actual,different, and often quite separate kinds of science. Cross-disciplinary research is hampered by the idea that reductive science is more objective, and hence more scientific, than the less reductive sciences of complex subject areas – and by the opposite idea that reductive science is necessarily reductionistic. Taking reflexive objectivity as a demarcator of good science, an inclusive framework of science can be established. The framework does not take the established division between natural, social, and human science as a primary distinction of science.The major distinction is made between the empirical and normative aspects of science,corresponding to two key cognitive interests.Two general methodological dimensions, the degree of reduction of the research world and the degree of involvement in the research world, are shown to span this framework. The framework can form a basis for transdisciplinary work by way of showing the relation between more and less reductive kinds of science and between more detached and more involved kinds of science and exposing the abilities and limitations attendant on these methodological differences. (shrink)

The recent development and growth oforganic livestock farming and the relateddevelopment of national and internationalregulations has fueled discussions amongscientists and philosophers concerning theproper conceptualization of animal welfare.These discussions on livestock welfare inorganic farming draw on the conventionaldiscussions and disputes on animal welfare thatinvolve issues such as different definitions ofwelfare (clinical health, absence of suffering,sum of positive and negative experiences,etc.), the possibility for objective measuresof animal welfare, and the acceptable level ofwelfare. It seems clear that livestock welfareis a value-laden concept and (...) that animalwelfare science cannot be made independent ofquestions of values and ethics. The questioninvestigated here is whether those values thatunderpin organic farming, in particular, alsoaffect the interpretation of livestock welfare,and, if so, how. While some of the issuesraised in connection with organic farming arerelatively uncontroversial, others are not. Theintroduction of organic farming values seems tointroduce new criteria for what counts as goodanimal welfare, as well as a different ethicalbasis for making moral decisions on welfare.Organic farming embodies distinctive systemicor communitarian ethical ideas and the organicvalues are connected to a systemic conceptionof nature, of agriculture, of the farm, and ofthe animal. The new criteria of welfare arerelated to concepts such as naturalness,harmony, integrity, and care. While the organicvalues overlap with those involved in theconventional discussion of animal welfare, someof them suggest a need to set new prioritiesand to re-conceptualize animal welfare – forexample, with respect to ``naturalness,'''' inrelation to the possibilities for expression ofnatural behavior and in relation to animalintegrity as a concept for organismic harmony.The organic perspective also seems to suggest awider range of solutions to welfare problemsthan changes in farm routines or operations onthe animals. The systemic solutions include thechoice and reproduction of suitable breeds,changes in the farm structure, and changes inthe larger production and consumption system – including consumer perceptions andpreferences. But the organic values may alsocall for sacrifices of individual welfare in aconventional sense in order to advance welfarefrom the perspective of organic farming.Whether this is good or bad cannot be decidedwithout entering into an inquiry and discussionof the values and ethics involved. (shrink)

There are many different meanings of sustainability and precaution and no evident connection between the new normative concepts and the traditional moral theories. We seek an ethical basis for sustainability and precaution—a common framework that can serve as a means of resolving the conceptual ambiguities of the new normative concepts and the conflicts between new and traditional moral concepts and theories. We employ a systemic approach to analyze the past and possible future extension of ethics and establish an inclusive framework (...) of ethical extension. This framework forms the basis for what we call a systemic ethic. (shrink)

What kind of futures does agro-food imaginaries enable and who can get involved in the making of agro-food futures? In this respect, what can the increasingly influential idea of circular economy potentially offer in terms of enabling more sustainable agrofood futures? We approach this task by first outlining the interconnected challenges that the agro-food system is facing related to environmental degradation, economic crises and social problems. Then we consider the way these challenges are being addressed in agro-food studies. We argue (...) that agro-food research in recent years has seen important contributions in relation to studies of alternative food networks and the “quality” turn. These research agendas have challenged the current logic of the food system in terms of offering alternative visions of future development. We highlight two examples from the literature—the eco-economy and the integrated territorial agri-food paradigm—that develop broader frameworks for rethinking the future of the agro-food system and which have distinguished themselves in contrast to the industrialized and globalized conventional food system. We find that with respect to reorienting and reconfiguring economic structures and relations all three approaches share a common goal, but circular economy stands out in relation to the actors that are included by, for example, emphasizing collaborations and partnerships with extant agro-food businesses. Also with regards to scalar politics, it would be prudent to consider the potentials offered by the increasingly influential ideas around circular economy. (shrink)

Separate focus on crop fertilization or feeding practices inadequately describes nitrogen (N) loss from mixed dairy farms because of (1) interaction between animal and crop production and between the production system and the manager, and (2) uncertainties of herd N production and crop N utilization. Therefore a systems approach was used to study N turnover and N efficiency on 16 conventional and 14 organic private Danish farms with mixed animal (dairy) and crop production. There were significant differences in N surplus (...) at the farm level (242 kg. N/ha. vs. 124 kg. N/ha. on conventional and organic dairy farms respectively) with a correlation between stocking rate and N surplus. N efficiency was calculated as the output of N in animal products divided by the net N import in fodder, manure and fertilizer. N turnover in herd and individual crops calculated on selected farms showed differences in organic and conventional crop N utilization. This is explained via a discussion of the rationality behind the current way of planning the optimum fertilizer application in conventional agriculture. The concept of marginal N efficiency is insufficient for correcting problems of N loss from dairy farms. Substantial reductions in N loss from conventional mixed dairy farms is probably unlikely without lower production intensity. The concept of mean farm unit N efficiency might be a way to describe the relation between production and N loss to facilitate regulation. This concept is linked to differing goals of agricultural development—i.e. intensification and separation vs. extensification and integration. It is discussed how studies in private farms—using organic farms as selected critical cases—can demonstrate possibilities for balancing production and environmental concern. (shrink)

Atualmente, há um crescente interesse no estudo das sequelas psicológicas em vítimas de queimaduras. Este artigo faz uma revisão da literatura com a finalidade de examinar quais são os danos psicológicos e psiquiátricos mais relevantes apresentados por indivíduos que sofrem acidentes com queimaduras..

The aim of the present investigation was to describe and to classify significant ethical problems encountered by the members of the staff during the daily clinical work at a hospital medical department. A set of definitions was prepared for the purpose, including the definition of a 'significant ethical problem'. During a three month period 426 inpatients and 173 outpatients were admitted. Significant ethical problems were encountered during the management of 106 in-patients (25 per cent) and 9 out-patients (5 per cent). (...) No significant difference was found between the frequency of ethical problems in female and male patients, but a positive correlation was noted between the number of problems and the patients' age. The problem types were classified according to a problem list. The results of this investigation suggest that greater attention must be paid to discussions about ethical problems among doctors and other categories of health personnel and that, among others, medical students ought to be taught the analysis of ethical problems. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

This essay is a second attempt to reconcile the perspectives of Merleau-Ponty and Guattari, following on the examination of the unconscious in a previous issue of Chiasmi. Here the focus concerns an ontology that overcomes the dualistic heritage of Western metaphysics. More precisely, I compare the concept of flesh as Merleau-Ponty employs it in his later texts with that of the machine as Guattari uses this from the end of the 1960s until his last writings in the early 1990s. The (...) machine concerns the potential for transformation in a given social and political configuration, so that the ontology to be drawn from this concept is a thought of transformation. The position of individual subjectivity in this context is not so different from that granted to it by Merleau-Ponty in his last writings: a curvature of the flesh or, as Deleuze and Guattari write about the artisan in A Thousand Plateaus, “one who is determined in such a way as to follow a flow of matter.”Cet essai est une deuxième tentative de rapprochement des perspectives de Merleau-Ponty et de Guattari, après la problématique de l’inconscient traitée dans un précédent numéro de Chiasmi. Cette fois elle a lieu sous l’angle d’une ontologie qui surmonte l’héritage dualiste de la métaphysique occidentale. Plus précisément, je mets en comparaison la notion de chair telle que Merleau-Ponty la met en oeuvre dans ses textes tardifs et celle de machine telle que Guattari l’emploie depuis la fin des années 1960 jusqu’à ses derniers écrits du début des années 1990. La machine concerne le potentiel de transformation dans une configuration sociale et politique donnée, de sorte que l’ontologie qu’on peut tirer de cette notion est une pensée de la transformation. La position de la subjectivité individuelle dans ce contexte n’est pas très différente de celle que lui accorde Merleau-Ponty dans ses derniers écrits : une courbure de la chair, ou comme l’écrivent Deleuze et Guattari dans Mille plateaux à propos de l’artisan, « celui qui est déterminé à suivre un flux de matière ».Questo saggio è un secondo tentativo di avvicinare le prospettive di Merleau-Ponty e di Guattari, dopo quanto fatto in un precedente numero di Chiasmi attorno alla problematica dell’inconscio. Questa volta, tale raffronto sarà nella prospettiva di un’ontologia che superi l’eredità dualistica della metafisica occidentale. Più precisamente, intendo confrontare la nozione di carne, nel modo in cui essa prende corpo nei testi dell’ultimo Merleau-Ponty, e quella di macchina di Guattari, nella maniera in cui è caratterizzata dall’autore a partire dalla fine degli anni Sessanta fino ai suoi ultimi scritti dell’inizio degli anni Novanta. La macchina riguarda il potenziale di trasformazione in una configurazione sociale e politica data, e quindi l’ontologia che ne deriva implica un pensiero della trasformazione. In questo contesto, la posizione della soggettività individuale non è molto diversa da quella caratterizzata da Merleau-Ponty nei suoi ultimi scritti: una curvatura della carne, o, come scrivono Deleuze e Guattari in Millepiani a proposito dell’artigiano, “colui che è determinato a seguire un flusso di materia”. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

Jean-Luc Godard’s Eye and MindIn his commentary concerning Jean-Luc Godard’s film, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, the film critic, Alain Bergala, writes that certain sequences of this film are “at the same time cinema and philosophy of cinema, a philosophy not very far from that of Merleau-Ponty in Eye and Mind, but a joyful and actually cinematic philosophy.” Here I propose a reading of Godard’s certain works found in different periods (Deux ou trois choses que je sais (...) d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion et JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), according to this precise axis, namely, as a cinematic response to Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. To do that presupposes that we open up the stakes of this famous text, which is at the limit of the philosophical and political, and that we grasp the work of the filmmaker as a movement of thought which continues and deepens Merleau-Ponty’s questions concerning the political dimensions of flesh.L’occhio e lo spirito di Jean-Luc GodardNelle sue osservazioni sul film di Jean-Luc Godard, Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, il critico cinematografico Alain Bergala scrive che alcune sequenze del film sono “allo stesso tempo cinema e filosofia del cinema, una filosofia non troppo lontana da quella elaborata da Merleau-Ponty in L’occhio e lo spirito, una filosofia gioiosa e davvero cinematografica.” Propongo qui una lettura di alcune opere godardiane di periodi differenti (Deux ou trois choses que je sais d’elle, Ici et ailleurs, Passion e JLG – Autoportrait de décembre), muovendomi lungo questa stessa linea, dunque intendendo quelle opere come una risposta “cinematografica” a L’occhio e lo spirito. Fare questo significa, d’altra parte, rianimare la posta in gioco di questo celebre testo, situata al limite tra il filosofico e il politico, e assumere l’opera del regista come un movimento di pensiero che prolunga e approfondisce l’interrogazione merleau-pontyana sulle dimensioni politiche della carne. (shrink)

A ocorrência de comorbidade psiquiátrica concomitante à dependência química é frequente, indicando um prognóstico desfavorável para o tratamento desse transtorno. O objetivo do presente estudo foi investigar a ocorrência de comorbidade psiquiátrica em 31 pacientes dependentes de álcool (51,6%) e de ..

Avec son livre La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen réalise, de façon magistrale, deux objectifs. D’abord, il met en lien la pensée de deux philosophes qui sont à première vue très éloignés l’un de l’autre. Il s’agit de Félix Guattari et de Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Traditionnellement, Merleau-Ponty est considéré comme le philosophe du corps, tandis que Guattari est connu comme le philosophe du corps sans organes. Merleau-Ponty est un phénoménologue, tandis que Guattari prétend abandonner le point de vue du sujet. (...) class='Hi'>Kristensen démontre avec succès quel est le terrain commun des deux auteurs : la critique de la conception psychanalytique du sujet.Le deuxième objectif du livre découle directement du premier : présenter au lecteur une alternative à la conception intimiste de la subjectivité, soit comprendre la subjectivité comme fondamentalement parcourue par une altérité. Merleau-Ponty a été l’un des premiers, à l’instar de Paul Schilder, à mettre l’accent sur le caractère collectif et intersubjectif de cette altérité. Guattari a compris que cette altérité possède des sédiments politiques et historiques.With his book La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen accomplishes two goals in a masterly way. First, he links the works of two philosophers who are very different at first sight: Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Félix Guattari. Traditionally, Merleau-Ponty is considered the philosopher of the body, whereas Guattari is known as the philosopher of the body without organs. Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist, whereas Guattari pretends to abandon the point of view of the subject. Kristensen identifies the common ground of the two authors: the criticism of the psychoanalytical conception of the subject.The second goal of the book derives directly from the first: present the reader with an alternative for the intimate conception of subjectivity, that is, present him or her with the idea that subjectivity is always characterized by an alterity. Merleau-Ponty, following the example of Paul Schilder, has been one of the first to stress the collective and intersubjective nature of this alterity. Guattari has understood that this alterity has political and historical sediments.Con il suo libro La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen realizza magistralmente due obiettivi. Innanzitutto, egli mette in relazione il pensiero di due filosofi a prima vista molto distanti tra loro: Félix Guattari e Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Se tradizionalmente Merleau-Ponty è considerato il filosofo del corpo, Guattari è invece noto come il filosofo del corpo senza organi. Merleau-Ponty è un fenomenologo, mentre il pensiero di Guattari intende abbandonare il punto di vista del soggetto. Kristensen propone allora di leggere la critica della concezione psicoanalitica del soggetto come terreno comune tra i due autori. Il secondo obiettivo del libro discende direttamente dal primo: presentare al lettore un’alternativa alla concezione intimista della soggettività, ovvero concepire la soggettività come fondamentalmente percorsa da un’alterità. Merleau-Ponty è tra i primi, sulla scorta di Paul Schilder, a porre l’accento sul carattere collettivo e intersoggettivo di questa alterità. Dal canto suo, Guattari ha compreso che questa alterità possiede dei sedimenti politici e storici. (shrink)

La sensation d'être soumis à une contrainte implacable peut déclencher une souffrance intense, une activité délirante, ou bien une créativité irrépressible. Elle peut prendre la forme d'une "machine" à influencer. Cette figure majeure de la maladie psychique depuis deux cents ans est le point de départ et le fil conducteur pour éclairer la structure complexe et paradoxale de la subjectivité. Loin d'être un outil technique, elle est un enjeu d'abord existentiel et esthétique. De Tausk à Szondi et Maldiney, de Merleau-Ponty (...) à Guattari et Deleuze, de Deligny à Nauman et Duchamp, de Sobchack à Epstein et Godard, et enfin, à nouveau, de Merleau-Ponty à Guattari, on voit émerger les contours d'une subjectivité en tension,toujours déjà habitée d'une altérité qui la garde en mouvement. Et l'ontologie de la chair apparaît finalement comme un champ essentiellement politique. (shrink)

To what degree can language be acquired from linguistic input alone? This question has vexed scholars for millennia and is still a major focus of debate in the cognitive science of language. The complexity of human language has hampered progress because studies of language–especially those involving computational modeling–have only been able to deal with small fragments of our linguistic skills. We suggest that the most recent generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) might finally provide the computational tools to determine empirically (...) how much of the human language ability can be acquired from linguistic experience. LLMs are sophisticated deep learning architectures trained on vast amounts of natural language data, enabling them to perform an impressive range of linguistic tasks. We argue that, despite their clear semantic and pragmatic limitations, LLMs have already demonstrated that human-like grammatical language can be acquired without the need for a built-in grammar. Thus, while there is still much to learn about how humans acquire and use language, LLMs provide full-fledged computational models for cognitive scientists to empirically evaluate just how far statistical learning might take us in explaining the full complexity of human language. (shrink)

"In this edited collection, an international ensemble of scholars examine what contemporary cinema tells us about neoliberal capitalism and cinema, exploring whether filmmakers are able to imagine progressive alternatives under capitalist conditions. Individual contributions discuss filmmaking practices, film distribution, textual characteristics and the reception of films made in different parts of the world. They engage with topics such as class struggle, debt, multiculturalism and the effect of neoliberalism on love and sexual behaviour. Written in accessible, jargon-free language, Contemporary Cinema and (...) Neoliberal Ideology is an essential text for those interested in political filmmaking and the political meanings of films."--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

Responds to the reply by L. T. Hoshmand and J. Martin to S. C. Yanchar and K. B. Kristensen's comments on Hoshmand and Martin's proposal for a naturalistic epistemological approach to psychological science. Hoshmand and Martin argue that in Yanchar and Kristensen's stance toward some aspects of their proposal, they have attributed to Hoshmand and Martin a relationship between theory, method, and data that they do not hold. According to Hoshmand and Martin, in making their case Yanchar and (...) Kristensen have objected to empirical means of evaluation, and essentially undermined their own argument. The authors clarify their position by responding to these claims. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)