One of the major intellectual figures of the twentieth century, Paul Ricoeur has influenced a generation of thinkers. In this, the first philosophically informed biography of Ricoeur, student, colleague, and confidant Charles E. Reagan provides an unusually accessible look at both the philosophy of this extraordinary thinker and the pivotal experiences that influenced his development. "A valuable introduction to Ricoeur; highly recommended."—_Library Journal_ "[A] lively introduction to the life and thought of one of this century's most notable philosophers."—Norman Wirzba, (...) _Christian Century_ "Reagan lucidly explains Ricoeur's difficult philosophy while shining overdue light on the personality behind it."—Carlin Romano, _Philadelphia Inquirer_ "Combines biographical and philosophical essays with a more personal memoir that makes Ricoeur's humane and magnanimous nature abundantly evident. Four revealing interviews, coupled with photographs, and an extensive bibliography of primary and secondary sources, complete this illuminating study."—_Choice_. (shrink)
Like every great word, “representation/s “ is a stew. A scrambled menu, it serves up several meanings at once. For a representation can be an image—visual, verbal, or aural. Think of a picture of a hat. A representation can also be a narrative, a sequence of images and ideas. Think of the sentence, “Nancy Reagan wore a hat when she visited a detoxification clinic in Florida.” Or, a representation can be the product of ideology, that vast scheme for showing (...) forth the world and justifying its dealings. Think of the sentence, “Nancy Reagan, in her hat, is a proper woman.” In the past twenty years, feminist thinking about representation has broken apart. This fracture is both cause and symptom of the larger collapse of a feminist cultural consensus. Some of the rifts have been thematic. That is to be represented? Others have been theoretical. What is the nature of representation itself? I wish to map these rifts, especially those in the United States, and to wonder about the logic of a new cultural consensus.In the late 1960s, feminists began to share a cultural consensus about the representation of women and gender. Few who built up that consensus were village idiots. Even without being semioticians, everyone more or less knew that the marriages between the signifier and the signified in that odd couple, the sign, were ones of convenience. Everyone more or less knew that the marriages between the sign and the referent, that hubbub out there, or somewhere, were also ones of convenience. Some survived. Others were obsolete, cold, hostile, ending in separation or divorce. Everyone more or less knew that when I exclaimed, “Nancy Reagan wears a hat,” it was easier for a fellow citizen of my linguistic community to understand me than for a stranger to do so. Nevertheless, the consensus offered a rough, general theory of representation that extolled the possibility of a fit between “reality” and its “description” or “image.” Catharine R. Stimpson is professor of English and dean of the Graduate School at Rutgers University. She is presently at work on a book about Gertrude Stein. (shrink)
Policy Review, the organ of the conservative Heritage Foundation, devoted their winter 1984 issue to lamenting the failures of the Reagan administration. Publisher M. Stan ton Evans complained that “This has been essentially another Ford Administration, … not much different from any other Republican administration in our lifetime. While the other Senator from Colorado, arch-conservative William Armstrong noted that Reagan had ‘managed to polarize the country over budget cuts that didn't happen.” “He cut the budget,” bemoaned Armstrong, “enough (...) to make the special interests and the press mad, but not enough” to restructure the government. For his part, National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) chair Terry Donlan has complained of the administration failure to move on its social agenda. (shrink)
The introductory piece attempts to set forth as objectively as possible the economic legacy of the Reagan Administration, with emphasis on its international aspects, and thereby to provide the background for the other articles.
As many before have done, Richards uses several brief reflections on ethics as a springboard to his discussion of values. In the reviewer’s opinion, much of his seemingly endless wandering during the bulk of the book is due to his mistaken notions about ethics. Richards begins by confusing the justification of moral judgments with the genesis of moral language in a child. Then he speaks of the collapse of ethics because of the amorality of nature and the amorality of man. (...) The first can properly be only a figure of speech; while the second is to mistake what men do for what they ought to do. (shrink)
Occasionally a book is difficult to review because it comes so close to fulfilling the promises of its preface that the reviewer becomes self-conscious and worries that his assessment sounds like advertising copy rather than a critical evaluation. Professor Ardley’s concise and elegant monograph on Berkeley is just such a book.
Reagan, Lawson This article will argue that a Humanist future is a technoprogressive one. It will first give an overview of the emerging third dimension of 21st century politics, that of biopolitics. It will define the broad differences between the transhumanist and bioconservative movements. Then it will turn to the two main ideologically competing strands of the transhumanist movement: that of right wing 'Libertarian Transhumanism' and left wing 'Technoprogressivism'.
Over a 20-year period, the United States has developed a consensus of legal opinion concerning living wills and other advance directives. At the heart of this consensus are two interconnected principles. First, the state should minimally interfere with the wishes of patients and surrogates and the decisions of physicians about foregoing life-sustaining treatments. Second, state interference is permissible for the sake of protecting a compelling state interest. The overwhelming majority of states with advance directive laws have attained this balance of (...) minimal interference and compelling state interest in developing their laws. (shrink)
Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE Cet article traite des notions de reconnaissance, de justice, et de vie bonne, d'abord, séparément, et ensuite comme un réseau où elles se renforcent et s’impliquent. Je commence en abordant les significations de “la reconnaissance,” et en prenant comme texte de référence Parcours de la reconnaissance de Paul Ricoeur. On peut distinguer la reconnaissance au sens épistémologique, la reconnaissance de soi, la reconnaissance d’autrui sur le plan social et politique. Dans un second (...) temps, je concentre mon attention sur le sens de la justice, dans le sens de la justice judiciaire, c’est-à-dire toute la structure des cours et le système pénal et policier. Enfin, je décris les exigences sociales, légales et politiques pour accéder à "la vie bonne" dans un pays moderne. Des systèmes de transport, d'éducation, marchand, bancaire, etc. sont aussi requis pour atteindre "la vie bonne". L'importance de ces éléments est particulièrement saillante lorsque nous observons ce qui arrive dans des pays en pleine guerre civile comme la Syrie, ou des pays détruits par des forces naturelles, comme le tremblement de terre en Haiti. Ma conclusion est que la "vie bonne" exige la reconnaissance de l’un et de l’autre et d’un gouvernement légitime ainsi que des systèmes de justice. Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE. (shrink)
How can citizens construct the political authority under which they will live? I argue that Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651) answers this question concerning the constitutive power of political and normative agency by employing four dimensions of mimesis from the Greek and Roman traditions. And I argue that mimesis accounts for the know-how, or power/knowledge, the general ‘man’ draws upon in constructing the commonwealth. Hobbes revalues poetic mimesis through his stylistic decisions, including the invitation to the reader to read ‘himself’ in (...) the portrait of the general man depicted in the text. Hobbes aims for Leviathan to change the ethical dispositions of its readers, turning them from bad to good men as they witness the general man undergoing this ethical transformation in the transition from the state of nature to the civil state. He emphasizes the anthropological dimension of mimesis to explain political disorder since he argues that men assess the honor others attribute them by observing signs and gestures in others’ behavior. Hobbes employs the linguistic dimension of mimesis to describe how men acting as agents can build a normative consensus out of the state of nature. This article positions mimesis as a key term for understanding the intersection between aesthetics and politics before the term ‘aesthetics’ came into parlance. (shrink)
"...This book combines inspiration for the mind and spirit by juxtaposing.... photographs of the cosmos next to... words by scientists, poets and theologians. Introduced by an essay from... science writer Sharon Begley, the book creates for the reader an... experience of the wonder of the universe...."--Book flap.
Advances in reproductive technology have already revolutionized our culture in various ways, and future potential developments, particularly in genetics, promise more of the same. The practice of surrogacy threatens to upend the way we understand the family. Germline engineering of human embryos could, among other things, lead to the treatment of genetic diseases hitherto incurable; but the widespread use of such engineering could have broader ramifications for our culture, for better and for worse. Parents may eventually be able to select (...) for desirable traits in their offspring, whether by genetic modification at conception or by choosing to implant one of several genetically profiled embryos. Authors in this issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy address some of the ethical implications of these technological and cultural changes. (shrink)