The present paper is a commentary on an article by Drew Leder [1]. Leder identifies a series of texts in the clinical encounter, emphasizes the central role of interpretation in making sense of each of these texts, and articulates ordering principles to guide the interpretive work.The metaphor of clinical work as textual explication, however, creates the expectation that there is a text somewhere to be found. Such an expectation invites doctors and patients to search for the text and runs the (...) risk of conceptualizing patients as more static than they are. If one is to use the textual metaphor, one must appreciate the radical extent to which the clinical encounter is a mutually produced and shifting entity. The qualities of mutuality and indeterminacy are not those one usually associates with texts. One might ultimately be better served by a different metaphor based more directly on uncertainty. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that traditional medical views of illness systematically exclude intuitive knowledge from their description of disease and thus result in a functionally impressive but humanly ungrounded medicine. Physicians trained in a technologized anatomico-pathologic view of disease find themselves cut off from much of what they knew about illness when they began their training. Not only do they lack a rigorous or formal way to confront the non-technical aspects of medical practice, but many have even lost sight (...) of the motives for medicine. I argue here for an intuitively based humanly grounded ontology of illness. Such an ontology begins in an understanding of the experience of the sick person rather than in an "objective" description of pathology. It is only through a science of illness-as-lived that one may achieve a truly humanistic medicine. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

The topic of this book is the thinking in which we engage when we reflectively decide what to do, and when we reflectively reach conclusions as to the correct answers to questions. The main objective is to identify a way of looking at ourselves and at our deliberations that is adequate to our lives. It must accommodate both our conception of ourselves as free, rational and self-directed subjects, and our feeling that we deliberate freely. It must also identify a place (...) for us that will feel like home, doing justice to our status as subjects, within the world as we relate to it when we practise the natural sciences. The central claims are not about how we are, but about how we should look at ourselves. A key task is to show that this limited ambition, which is forced on us by the need to avoid metaphysical implausibility, nonetheless allows us to develop a position that has sufficient strength to do its work. The aim is to show something that is all too easily taken for granted. This is that we can limit ourselves to a strictly naturalistic ontology, while still having access to a generous idiom that allows us to speak of ourselves as free in the exercise of our rationality. (shrink)

This article considers the application of utilitarian and deontological theories to questions that arise in the conduct of government, including whether a government may mislead the public without actually lying, how far civil servants should maintain political neutrality, whether civil servants should leak information to the press, and whether a government should avoid getting legal advice that it might not like.

A discussion of ethical issues related to taxation.

Book reviewed in this article: Ethics and the Clinical Encounter. By Richard Zaner.

A Review of Joshua Alexander, Experimental Philosophy.

A review of Boris Kment, Modality and Explanatory Reasoning.

A review of Wolfgang Spohn, The Laws of Belief.

The Limits of Free Will: Selected Essays. By Russell Paul.

A review of Annalisa Coliva (ed.), The Self and Self-Knowledge.

A review of Frances Kamm and others, The Trolley Problem Mysteries.