ABSTRACTAcross two studies majority group children’s perception of positive and negative emotions in ethnic in-group and disadvantaged ethnic out-group peers was examined. Study 1 (N =...

Spinoza ’s letter of June 2, 1674 to his friend Jarig Jelles addresses several distinct and important issues in Spinoza ’s philosophy. It explains briefly the core of Spinoza ’s disagreement with Hobbes’ political theory, develops his innovative understanding of numbers, and elaborates on Spinoza ’s refusal to describe God as one or single. Then, toward the end of the letter, Spinoza writes: With regard to the statement that figure is a negation and not anything positive, it is obvious (...) that matter in its totality, considered without limitation [indefinitè consideratam], can have no figure, and that figure applies only to finite and determinate bodies. For he who says that he apprehends a figure, thereby means to indicate simply this, that he apprehends a determinate thing and the manner of its determination. This determination therefore does not pertain to the thing in regard to its being [esse]; on the contrary, it is its non-being [non-esse]. So since figure is nothing but determination, and determination is negation [Quia ergo figura non aliud, quam determinatio, et determinatio negatio est], figure can be nothing other than negation, as has been said. Arguably, what is most notable about this letter is the fate of a single subordinate clause which appears in the last sentence of this passage: et determinatio negatio est. That clause was to be adopted by Hegel and transformed into the slogan of his own dialectical method: Omnis determinatio est negatio. Of further significance is the fact that, while Hegel does credit Spinoza with the discovery of this most fundamental insight, he believes Spinoza failed to appreciate the importance of his discovery. The issue of negation and the possibility of self-negation stand at the very center of the philosophical dialogue between the systems of Spinoza and Hegel, and in this paper I will attempt to provide a preliminary explication of this foundational debate between the two systems. In the first part of the paper I will argue that the “determination is negation” formula has been understood in at least three distinct senses among the German Idealists, and as a result many of the participants in the discussion of this formula were actually talking past each other. The clarification of the three distinct senses of the formula will lead, in the second part of the paper, to a more precise evaluation of the fundamental debate between Spinoza and Hegel regarding the possibility of self-negation. In this part I will evaluate the validity of each interpretation of the determination formula, and motivate the positions of the various participants in the debate. (shrink)

In recent publications on the Enlightenment, Baruch Spinoza is often associated with the radical “fringe,” advocating against Christianity and giving rise to the incipient process of secularization. In this paper, it is argued that we should look for Spinoza’s influence on the Enlightenment in his ideas inspiring heterodox theologians: radical reformers aiming to “rationalize” revelation but not to dismiss it altogether. Several cases of such thinkers are adduced and shortly discussed: Jarig Jelles, Johan Christian Edelmann, Carl Friedrich Bahrdt and (...) Immanuel Kant. Finally, three ways of conceptualizing the relation between Enlightenment and religion are sketched to address the question whether the sources of secularization can indeed be traced back to the Enlightenment. (shrink)

Metazoa are one of the great monophyletic groups of organisms. They comprise several major groups of organisms readily recognizable based on their anatomy. These major groups include the Bilateria (animals with bilateral symmetry), Cnidaria (jellyfish, corals and other closely related animals), Porifera (sponges), Ctenophores (comb jellies) and a phylum currently made up of a single species, the Placozoa. Attempts to systematize the relationships of these major groups as well as to determine relationships within the groups have been made for nearly (...) two centuries. Many of the attempts have led to frustration, because of a lack of resolution between and within groups. Other attempts have led to “a new animal phylogeny”. Now, a study by Dunn et al.,1 using the expresssed sequence tag (EST) approach to obtaining high‐throughput large phylogenetic matrices, presents an “even newer” animal phylogeny. There are two major aspects of this study that should be of interest to the general biological community. First, the methods used by the authors to generate their phylogenetic hypotheses call for close examination. Second, the relationships of animal taxa in their resultant trees also prompt further discussion. BioEssays 30:1043–1047, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

When Jakob Freudenthal published Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas in 1899, it was the first collection of biographical documents on Spinoza, who was then still seen as something of an ascetic and isolated philosopher. This view had been suggested by Jarig Jelles’ preface to Spinoza’s Opera posthuma. Bayle had also used Spinoza’s unique vita when arguing for his claim that an atheist could live a virtuous life. While this had offered a pretext for reading Spinoza since the end of the seventeenth (...) century, once he was “christianized” by German idealism it became increasingly a way to ignore his critique of religion, as well as his Jewish roots. Our knowledge of Spinoza’s life was further extended by the findings of Carl Gebhardt, who, in a series of articles beginning in 1922, pointed to Spinoza’s association with Jewish heresy in Amsterdam. As a result, Spinoza’s turn to modern science and philosophy was seen as due, to some extent, to his association with Jewish heresy in Amsterdam. The next great step in Spinoza historiography was taken in 1932 by Mordechai Vaz Dias and Willem Tak, who published new biographical material showing us the young merchant Spinoza.Although none of the documents found since have changed our picture of Spinoza’s life as dramatically, they have never been collected in one place. Thanks to Walther’s new edition, we now have almost all of these documents in two large volumes with a rich commentary, the first of which includes the documents and. (shrink)

When Jakob Freudenthal published Die Lebensgeschichte Spinozas in 1899, it was the first collection of biographical documents on Spinoza, who was then still seen as something of an ascetic and isolated philosopher. This view had been suggested by Jarig Jelles’ preface to Spinoza’s Opera posthuma. Bayle had also used Spinoza’s unique vita when arguing for his claim that an atheist could live a virtuous life. While this had offered a pretext for reading Spinoza since the end of the seventeenth (...) century, once he was “christianized” by German idealism it became increasingly a way to ignore his critique of religion, as well as his Jewish roots. Our knowledge of Spinoza’s life was further extended by the findings of Carl Gebhardt, who, in a series of articles beginning in 1922, pointed to Spinoza’s association with Jewish heresy in Amsterdam. As a result, Spinoza’s turn to modern science and philosophy was seen as due, to some extent, to his association with Jewish heresy in Amsterdam. The next great step in Spinoza historiography was taken in 1932 by Mordechai Vaz Dias and Willem Tak, who published new biographical material showing us the young merchant Spinoza.Although none of the documents found since have changed our picture of Spinoza’s life as dramatically, they have never been collected in one place. Thanks to Walther’s new edition, we now have almost all of these documents in two large volumes with a rich commentary, the first of which includes the documents and. (shrink)