Pancreatitis is a complex, progressively destructive inflammatory disorder. Alcohol was long thought to be the primary causative agent, but genetic contributions have been of interest since the discovery that rare PRSS1, CFTR and SPINK1 variants were associated with pancreatitis risk. We now report two associations at genome-wide significance identified and replicated at PRSS1-PRSS2 and X-linked CLDN2 through a two-stage genome-wide study. The PRSS1 variant likely affects disease susceptibility by altering expression of the primary trypsinogen gene. The CLDN2 risk allele is (...) associated with atypical localization of claudin-2 in pancreatic acinar cells. The homozygous CLDN2 genotype confers the greatest risk, and its alleles interact with alcohol consumption to amplify risk. These results could partially explain the high frequency of alcohol-related pancreatitis in men. © 2012 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. (shrink)

At Protagoras 353de, Socrates gives three possible reasons for calling some pleasures ‘wrong’. Scholarly attention has focused on the second of these, according to which pleasures are ‘wrong’ when they have negative consequences. This paper argues that the first reason corresponds to beliefs held by Democritus, among others; and that the third reason is the view adopted by Socrates in the dialogue.

A l'été 2019, le parlement français se saisira de la loi sur la bioéthique. Ajouter une pierre au débat, tel est l'objectif de ce court livre qui aborde les différentes questions liées à l'éthique et aux sujets actuellement en débat au sein de la société française et sur lesquels le parlement sera amené à délibérer : - procréation (PMA, GPA), - fin de vie (assistance au suicide, accompagnement des malades en fin de vie), - dons d'organes, - intelligence artificielle.

Is rabbinic Judaism as a religious philosophy basically critical of the state as a form of human life? Does it contain an ethics of cohabitation with non-Jews? The paper argues that rabbinical Judaism is essentially in favor of states, but against a special Jewish state. The rabbinic principle “Dina de Malkhut Dina” combined with the universalistic principles of the “noahidic covenant” is the adequate formula for statehood in the era of globalization. Concerning modern Jewish philosophy the paper argues that Leo (...) Strauss fulfills the requirements of a political philosophy, while the thought of Emmanuel Levinas remains in the moral domain. (shrink)

Speakers’ perception of a visual scene influences the language they use to describe it—which objects they choose to mention and how they characterize the relationships between them. We show that visual complexity can either delay or facilitate description generation, depending on how much disambiguating information is required and how useful the scene's complexity can be in providing, for example, helpful landmarks. To do so, we measure speech onset times, eye gaze, and utterance content in a reference production experiment in which (...) the target object is either unique or non-unique in a visual scene of varying size and complexity. Speakers delay speech onset if the target object is non-unique and requires disambiguation, and we argue that this reflects the cost of deciding on a high-level strategy for describing it. The eye-tracking data demonstrate that these delays increase when speakers are able to conduct an extensive early visual search, implying that when speakers scan too little of the scene early on, they may decide to begin speaking before becoming aware that their description is underspecified. Speakers’ content choices reflect the visual makeup of the scene—the number of distractors present and the availability of useful landmarks. Our results highlight the complex role of visual perception in reference production, showing that speakers can make good use of complexity in ways that reflect their visual processing of the scene. (shrink)

The article reviews the various ramifications in the discussion on leadership, focusing on the view of leadership as relationships between leaders and followers. Three main types of leader-follower relations are discussed, and their specific characteristics are described: regressive relations, symbolic relations, and developmental relations. After analyzing the major implications, as well as the conceptual limitations, of these perspectives, the article suggests directions for a more integrative conceptualization of leader-follower relations.

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

Two questions are addressed in this article: 1. Why are people attracted to leaders? 2. How are leaders' images construed? The first question is analyzed by using the concept of “deity” as a frame of reference for an “ideal model” of leadership. God as a “screen of projections” can satisfy the believer's fundamental needs and desires, as well as serving as a reference for causal attributions and a provider of transcendental meaning. Using Construal Level Theory, deity, as a frame of (...) reference, also facilitates analysis of the second question. This analysis explains universal principles underlying the leadership construal, and the psychological principles and culture-bound processes relevant to construing different images of leadership in different collectives. (shrink)

Two questions are addressed in this article: 1. Why are people attracted to leaders? 2. How are leaders' images construed? The first question is analyzed by using the concept of “deity” as a frame of reference for an “ideal model” of leadership. God as a “screen of projections” can satisfy the believer's fundamental needs and desires, as well as serving as a reference for causal attributions and a provider of transcendental meaning. Using Construal Level Theory, deity, as a frame of (...) reference, also facilitates analysis of the second question. This analysis explains universal principles underlying the leadership construal, and the psychological principles and culture-bound processes relevant to construing different images of leadership in different collectives. (shrink)

In der Technikethik spielt das Konzept der Verantwortung eine zentrale Rolle. ›Verantwortung‹ ist ein Basiskonzept, das, ähnlich wie die Konzepte ›Pflicht‹ oder ›Schuld‹, in vielfältigen Kontexten gebraucht wird. Dennoch lassen sich einige allgemeine Aussagen über seine Bedeutung treffen. Gerade Autoren, die im Bereich der Technik- und Wissenschaftsethik aktiv sind, haben sich nachdrücklich um eine Klärung des allgemeinen Verantwortungsbegriffs und seiner verschiedenen Aspekte und Gebrauchsweisen bemüht.

" L'énigme, c'est précisément qu'il semble évident que le monde existe pour nous. " C'est à cette énigme que se confronte Kant dès ses premiers écrits. Le projet critique de Kant prend son origine dans la critique de la cosmologie classique. A chaque étape de son développement, des écrits pré-critiques à l'Opus postumum, le rapport au monde est spécifié, que ce soit du point de vue de la sensibilité, de la connaissance ou de la morale. Avec Kant s'ouvre un nouvel (...) horizon pour l'homme, comme " habitant du monde ". Le monde moral et surtout le concept de liberté dont l'origine est cosmologique prennent une nouvelle dimension et se substituent à un hypothétique " monde intelligible ". C'est l'occasion pour Michaël Foessel de revisiter la " maison Kant " dans ses coins et recoins, de mettre à l'épreuve la rationalité de l'édifice, dans une confrontation féconde entre Kant, Husserl et Heidegger. Une lecture forte et vivifiante. (shrink)

The article examines philosophical conceptions of responsibility found in the contributions of Martin Buber, Hans Jonas and Emmanuel Levinas. It argues that, despite the significant differences of these contributions, they all share important goals, significant structural features, and corresponding challenges. All three thinkers try to overcome the solipsistic limitations of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology as well as the egocentrism of Heidegger’s concept of "solicitude" or "self-care." All three try to overcome the Kantian subject-object dichotomy. All three understand responsibility as a bipolar (...) relation only. In consequence, all of them face similar challenges resulting from new forms of dichotomies and the exclusion of “thirdness” that are the result of their conceptual decisions. (shrink)

The book introduces a conception of discourse ethics, an intersubjectivist version of Kantian ethics. Analyzing contributions from Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Otto Apel, Wolfgang Kuhlmann, Albrecht Wellmer, Robert Alexy, Klaus Günther, Rainer Forst, Marcel Niquet and others, it reconstructs critical discussions on the justification of the principle of morality (part I) and on the various proposals on how to apply it (part II). It defends an alternative model of how discourse ethics can provide guidance under non-ideal circumstances and avoid both arbitrariness and (...) rigorism. (shrink)

Notre temps est, dit-on, celui des catastrophes. Sur les nouveaux fronts de l’écologie, du changement climatique ou de la menace nucléaire, les idéologies du progrès ont cédé la place à l’angoisse. Mais la résurgence des thèmes apocalyptiques est bien plus que le symptôme d’une période de crise : dès les XVIe et XVIIe siècles, avec la disparition du cosmos comme ordre hiérarchisé au sein duquel l’homme occupait une position privilégiée, est née une nouvelle inquiétude : celle de devoir vivre « (...) après la fin du monde ». Ce livre voudrait montrer que le plus urgent n’est pas d’éviter la catastrophe à venir, mais de repenser et de réinvestir le monde de manière nouvelle. Michaël Foessel interprète les peurs apocalyptiques actuelles à partir des expériences contemporaines où les sujets se sentent dépossédés du monde : triomphe de la technique sur l’action, du capital sur le travail, du besoin sur le désir. Pour cela, il propose une généalogie de l’idée de « fin du monde » qui distingue deux voies de la modernité : celle qui privilégie la vie et sa conservation, aujourd’hui à l’oeuvre dans la plupart des conceptions écologiques et précautionneuses du réel ; celle qui fait du monde le thème principal de la philosophie en même temps qu’un enjeu politique de premier ordre. Nous sommes désormais face à une alternative : perpétuer la vie ou édifier un monde. Les théories de la catastrophe ne se soucient plus de savoir quel monde mérite d’être défendu. En ce sens, le fait que la fin du monde a déjà eu lieu est une bonne nouvelle : cela nous invite à inventer des espaces pour l’action et à fonder un nouveau cosmopolitisme. (shrink)

En 1789, la Révolution française met la liberté à l'ordre du jour. C'est un événement pour la philosophie qui, au siècle des Lumières, a activement participé à la critique du despotisme. C'est aussi un événement philosophique qui délivre à la pensée de nouveaux horizons où les maîtres-mots sont souveraineté politique du peuple et autonomie morale du sujet. De Rousseau, qui fait de la liberté le fondement de toute légitimité, à Hegel pour qui "l'esprit est liberté", en passant par Kant qui (...) consacre le droit inaliénable des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes, Michaël Foessel revient sur cette période philosophique si intense. Au cours de ces bouleversements historiques s'élabore une définition de la liberté irréductible au libéralisme. C'est parce que notre époque est incertaine sur le sens de la liberté qu'il vaut la peine d'entendre à nouveau l'exigence d'autonomie portée par la philosophie, de Rousseau à Hegel. (shrink)

La loi de la nuit se décline suivant une grande variété de situations : festives ou angoissées, solitaires ou politiques. Consentir à la nuit, c'est accepter de se soumettre aux expériences singulières qu'elle seule rend possibles. Bonne ou mauvaise, intime et sensible, elle ouvre un espace où il devient possible de vivre sans témoin. Au fil des pages, le lecteur s'apercevra qu'il peut être minuit à midi, et que les expériences nocturnes contribuent à montrer les choses sous un nouveau jour.

1. In the opening chapter of his arresting book on Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of international and cosmopolitan right, Kant and the Law of War,1 Arthur Ripstein presents Kant’s position as a respon...

One of the few points of consensus in the Kantian literature is that Kant’s Moral Law is binding universally and unconditionally. Hence, the Moral Law is binding for all human agents (universally) irrespective of the agents’ particular interests (unconditionally). Whether or not we intend to act on the Moral Law, this is the law we ought to follow. Beyond this point of consensus, however, even the most important details are matters of controversy. What exactly does the Moral Law require of (...) us? What, if anything, grounds its bindingness? In particular, does Kant argue that the Moral Law is binding because it is ‘self-legislated’? What is the relation between the Moral Law (supreme principle of morality) and substantive moral laws such as the law that we ought to promote the happiness of others? What does Kant mean by his claim that the will has autonomy? In the four articles discussed in this special issue, Kleingeld proposes novel answers to these questions. This introduction presents the articles and brings to the fore the larger theme tying them all together. (shrink)

Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia contains one of the earliest and best-known criticisms of John Rawls’s theory of justice in general and the difference principle in particular. The discussion of Nozick’s critique of Rawls in the literature has focused on his argument against “patterned” conceptions of justice, of which the difference principle as Nozick understands it constitutes merely one version among others. In this article I consider the objection Nozick raises against the difference principle specifically, namely that it unfairly (...) favors the “worse endowed” over the “better endowed” members of society. I argue that Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle is ambiguous between two distinct interpretations of the difference principle and as such divides into two distinct objections, the pre-cooperative and the cooperative fairness objection. I then argue that neither of these two interpretations of the difference principle represents the actual, Rawlsian difference principle accurately and that, more fundamentally, Nozick lacks the concept of politics as the distinctive moral category implicitly at work in Rawls’s theory of justice. Not as much of Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle therefore remains on reflection as may have appeared at first sight. (shrink)