Personality Dimensions and Nicotine Dependence and Withdrawal Symptoms: the Mediating Role of Self-Directness We analyzed the relationship between personality traits and smoking status and nicotine withdrawal symptoms using two comprehensive models of personality: the Five-Factor Model and the Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory. In total 295 people were examined, 149 smokers and 146 who have never smoked. To measure the severity of the nicotine dependence we used the Fagerstroem Tolerance Questionnaire and the DSM-IV criteria of nicotine dependence and to measure (...) the nicotine withdrawal symptoms the Nicotine Dependence History. The results showed significant differences between the groups in particular dimensions: Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. The analyse of the TCI demonstrate, that smokers are higher in Novelty Seeking and lower in Reward Dependence than never smokers and show less Self-Directness and Cooperativeness. The mediation analyses showed that Self-Directness is the significant mediator between Extra-Introversion and nicotine withdrawal symptoms measured by NDHIS and between Neuroticism and DSM-IV criteria of nicotine dependence. (shrink)

The author takes up a provocative question poised by Charles Taylor about the relationship between our commitments to a good such as neighbor love and the possibilities of achieving and sustaining social justice. Taylor's concern is not only that we make such a commitment but that we make it in such a way that we avoid its ability to lead us towards injustice rather than justice. After articulating conceptions of love, justice, and injustice, the author turns to Charles Dickens's treatment (...) of love and injustice in Bleak House, to explore more fully how love can lead to injustice, and also its potential role in promoting justice. Dickens's view, profoundly shaped by his own sense of Christian virtues, helps us see the inner workings of love, justice, and injustice, so that we can appreciate their interconnectedness anew and understand better the urgency of Taylor's question for our time. (shrink)

The author takes up a provocative question poised by Charles Taylor about the relationship between our commitments to a good such as neighbor love and the possibilities of achieving and sustaining social justice. Taylor's concern is not only that we make such a commitment but that we make it in such a way that we avoid its ability to lead us towards injustice rather than justice. After articulating conceptions of love, justice, and injustice, the author turns to Charles Dickens's treatment (...) of love and injustice in Bleak House, to explore more fully how love can lead to injustice, and also its potential role in promoting justice. Dickens's view, profoundly shaped by his own sense of Christian virtues, helps us see the inner workings of love, justice, and injustice, so that we can appreciate their interconnectedness anew and understand better the urgency of Taylor's question for our time. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective by Matthew A. ShadleJoyce Kloc BabyakThe Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective Matthew A. Shadle Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011.246pp. $29.95Matthew A. Shadle’s The Origins of War, in Georgetown University Press’s Moral Traditions series, makes a genuinely fresh contribution to contemporary scholarship on Christianity and war. This is not a work on the morality of war, just war theory, or (...) alternatives to that theory. Instead, Shadle directs our attention to Christian understandings of war’s origins. Through a rich and careful analysis of the early tradition’s treatment of the origin of war in light of its overall understanding of human existence, Shadle sets the stage for his examination of the decentering of Christianity in modernity and the implication of this for assumptions about humanity and human possibilities that became encoded in both political theory and Catholic writings on war. In the process, Shadle offers us not only a primer on international theory but also an account of the transition of fundamental liberal assumptions from their beginnings as anti-Christian to their twentieth-century embrace by Catholic theologians and a thoughtful new approach to understanding the causes of war today.Making his case serially, Shadle moves from biblical and early Christian thought on the origins of war to the Middle Ages and onward. He argues that the overriding context for a Christian understanding of the origins of war is the Christian worldview that sees human life in a theological framework (25), and he locates the impulse to war in the human struggle between sin and grace (5). With modernity, however, war has come to be seen as a result not of sin but of unresolved conflicts, clashes of interest and power—all viewed in materialist rather than transcendent terms. Moving into the twentieth century, he demonstrates that Roman Catholic writings on war, including church writings, have adopted a liberal framework for articulating positions on the causes of war. This liberal framework has in turn supported the hope that international institutions will be able to resolve the conflicts of interests that lead to war by fostering dialogue across divides but at the same time have also led away from the more fundamental Christian view that sees war as the result of sin.Shadle criticizes the liberal optimism that has infused Catholic writings with the hope that international structures will succeed at preventing war. Linking [End Page 215] that optimism to dominant versions of international relations theory, he argues instead for a new version of international relations theory known as “constructivism.” This theory challenges presumptions of earlier versions of international relations theory and sees war as the result of “a clash of the identities, interests, and norms of states... all of which are socially constructed by both domestic and international factors” (86). In Shadle’s view, constructivism is a theory that is more compatible with traditional Christian views on the origin of war as well as contemporary Catholic theology because it focuses on clashes in socially constructed (though not entirely relativistic) identities and values as causes of war. Avoiding war on this view will take more than relying on international structures such as the United Nations to resolve conflicts by translating conflicting interests into terms erroneously presumed to be accessible to all.The Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective deserves serious study. From its careful account of the biblical and early Christian understanding of the origin of war to its analysis of the ways that liberal assumptions came to undergird Catholic writings on war, it sheds new light on how assumptions about the origins of war influence all aspects of our thinking about war. And it is in the end provocative. Shadle’s historicist orientation reminds us that the liberal optimism that undervalued the role of sin as a cause of war was itself tempting because of the challenges of the time and dominant political theories. Yet Shadle’s preference for constructivism is no less historically shaped. Liberalism’s fit with Catholic understanding of human existence has certainly been strained, but it remains to be seen whether a historicist, constructivist set of assumptions can do... (shrink)

Marek J. Siemek’s idea of the transcendental social philosophy seems paradoxical, because it aspires to combine the allegedly “non-historical” and “timeless” transcendental sphere with the social and historical dimension. But the uniqueness of Siemek as a philosopher consists precisely in being Fichtean as well as Hegelian. Siemek’s philosophy is an undertaking to reconstruct the field of rationality in its social and historical dimension. The leading question of this philosophy is not if history is rational, but how it is possible for (...) the rationality to be historical. Siemek seems to maintain, that the noninstrumental rationality has it’s own history: it is a history of self-de-instrumentalization of the initial one-sided instrumental reason. Historical process can be seen as a vehicle of rationality, although not always and necessary rational itself. For Siemek, as well as for Hegel, the historical contradiction is a contradiction of the thing itself, not a development scheme imposed on the history by theoretician from his allegedly external position. On one side: there is no history without the rational interpretation of history. On the other side: the interpretation itself is a part of historical process. (shrink)

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGHegelsche Philosophie wird oft als eine metaphysische Konstruktion angesehen.Demgegenüber wird in dem Beitrag eine Position eingenommen, laut der Hegel,innerhalb seines holistischen philosophischen Rahmens, eine perspektivistischeVorgehensweise verwendet, um immer neue, immer konkretere, weil begrifflichimmer mehr vermittelte, Einsichten zu erreichen. Die perspektivistische Methode Hegels wird anhand des Phänomens des freien Willens gezeigt. Hegel glaubt, dass es sich nicht auf einen Schlag erklären lässt, ob und in welchem Sinne der Wille frei ist. Der Beweis, der diese Versicherung begründen soll, wird erst auf dem (...) Weg der vielschichtigen philosophischen Deduktion geliefert. Einer neuen Auffassung des Trägers der Willensfreiheit entspricht dabei immer ein neues Konzept des Gegenstandbereiches. So impliziert etwa das moralische Konzept des Willens eine völlig neue begriffliche Konstellation, mit welcher der Wille und seine Welt aufgefasst wird, als das rechtliche Konzept des Willens. Im letzten Teil des Beitrags wird analysiert, welche Schlüsse aus Hegelscher Rekonstruktion des freien Willens für heutige Debatten zu ziehen wären. Demgemäß sollte ein hegelianisch gesinnter Denker nicht das von dem Naturalisten entworfene Bild des empirisch determinierten Willens, sondern dessen absoluten Anspruch auf Erklärung desavouieren. Es wird klar, dass empiristische Vorgehensweise im Fall der Willensfreiheit einen gewaltigen Teil unserer sozialen Erfahrung und unseres Diskurses gar nicht erklären kann. Mann sollte die theoretische Ebene vertiefen (sie um moralische, rechtliche, so ziale Perspektiven bereichern), auf der die Polemik mit den naturalistischen Gegnernder Willensfreiheit aufzunehmen ist.SCHLÜSSELBEGRIFFE:FREIHEIT, WILLE, PERSPEKTIVE, HOLISMUS, MORALITÄTABSTRACTHegel's Philosophy is often seen as a metaphysical construction. Contrary to that, the author of the paper tries to show that Hegel uses - in the context of his holistic philosophy - a perspectivist strategy which allows him to present newer and more and more detailed insights, which are conceptually richer. This perspectivist strategy of Hegel is demonstrated using the example of the problem of the freedom of will. According to Hegel there is no possibility to show at one blow that, and in what sense, the will is free. The argument that vindicates this assumption can only be given in the context of multi-layered philosophical deduction. A new concept of the subject of the free will always implicates a new concept of the objective sphere. For example, the moral understanding of the will implies a wholly new configuration of concepts to grasp the will and its world than the legal understanding of it. At the end of the paper an analysis is given of what kind of conclusions may be drawn from Hegel's reconstruction of the free will that could bring new insights in the actual debates on the free will. According to this analysis a hegelian thinker should not disavow the naturalist’s picture of the empirically determined will, but should instead disavow the claim of this picture to have an absolute explanatory status. It is suggested that the empirical strategy of the denial of the free will is not able to explain a huge range of our social experience and our social discourse. The theoretical level on which the discussion with a naturalistic opponent to the freedom of will is being undertaken should be deepen, i.e. enriched with moral, legal and social perspectives.KEYWORDSFREEDOM, WILL, PERSPECTIVE, HOLISM, MORALITY. (shrink)

In the paper I try to interpret Fichte’s Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters as a reflective self-critique of the Enlightenment. Identifying the ›third historical period‹ of Fichte with the time of Enlightenment, I try to read his lectures as an ambitious and differentiated critique of it. The aim of Fichte’s devastating criticism on dominant characteristics of the Enlightenment is in my opinion not to refuse it entirely. It is rather to continue it with an increased sense of self-criticism. The proposed reading (...) enables to place Fichte’s arguments in the context of today’s debates over issues like the role of religion in civil society, or the meaning and fundamental values of Europe’s integration. For all his critique on modernity, Fichte refrains from treading a conservative, communitarian or collectivist path. This can be seen as the great advantage of his standpoint. What he intends is rather the »enlightenment of Enlightenment«, the continuous differentiation of knowledge and liberating the human being from the constrained form of modern consciousness.Der Beitrag bildet einen Versuch, Fichtes Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters als eine reflexive Kritik der Aufklärung zu deuten. Ich identifiziere Fichtes ›drittes Zeitalter‹ aus den Grundzügen mit der als Aufklärung verstandenen Moderne. Sie bildet, meines Erachtens, den Gegenstand einer anspruchsvollen und differenzierten Kritik: das vernichtende Urteil über die in ihr dominierenden ›Züge‹ des Egoismus, der Oberflächlichkeit und des Selbstinteresses haben keineswegs den Zweck, Modernität als solche zu desavouieren. Vielmehr handelt es sich um eine zukunftsorientierte Fortsetzung der Aufklärung im Sinne einer gesteigerten Reflexivität. Durch eine solche Deutung kann Fichtes Position in die gegenwärtigen Debatten – etwa um die Rolle und Funktion der Religion innerhalb der säkularen Gesellschaft oder um die Grundwerte und den Sinn der europäischen Einigung – einbezogen werden. Aus der Sicht der heutigen Debatten besteht die Originalität des Fichteschen Standpunktes genau darin, dass er, bei aller Kritik der egoistischen Zügen der aufklärerischen Kultur weder auf konservative, noch auf kommunitaristische oder kollektivistische Lösungen zurückgreift. Gemeint ist von ihm eher eine ›Aufklärung der Aufklärung‹, weitere Differenzierung des Wissens, aber auch Befreiung der Menschen von dem zwanghaften Charakter ihres modernen Bewusstseins. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective by Matthew A. ShadleJoyce Kloc BabyakThe Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective Matthew A. Shadle Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011.246pp. $29.95Matthew A. Shadle’s The Origins of War, in Georgetown University Press’s Moral Traditions series, makes a genuinely fresh contribution to contemporary scholarship on Christianity and war. This is not a work on the morality of war, just war theory, or (...) alternatives to that theory. Instead, Shadle directs our attention to Christian understandings of war’s origins. Through a rich and careful analysis of the early tradition’s treatment of the origin of war in light of its overall understanding of human existence, Shadle sets the stage for his examination of the decentering of Christianity in modernity and the implication of this for assumptions about humanity and human possibilities that became encoded in both political theory and Catholic writings on war. In the process, Shadle offers us not only a primer on international theory but also an account of the transition of fundamental liberal assumptions from their beginnings as anti-Christian to their twentieth-century embrace by Catholic theologians and a thoughtful new approach to understanding the causes of war today.Making his case serially, Shadle moves from biblical and early Christian thought on the origins of war to the Middle Ages and onward. He argues that the overriding context for a Christian understanding of the origins of war is the Christian worldview that sees human life in a theological framework (25), and he locates the impulse to war in the human struggle between sin and grace (5). With modernity, however, war has come to be seen as a result not of sin but of unresolved conflicts, clashes of interest and power—all viewed in materialist rather than transcendent terms. Moving into the twentieth century, he demonstrates that Roman Catholic writings on war, including church writings, have adopted a liberal framework for articulating positions on the causes of war. This liberal framework has in turn supported the hope that international institutions will be able to resolve the conflicts of interests that lead to war by fostering dialogue across divides but at the same time have also led away from the more fundamental Christian view that sees war as the result of sin.Shadle criticizes the liberal optimism that has infused Catholic writings with the hope that international structures will succeed at preventing war. Linking [End Page 215] that optimism to dominant versions of international relations theory, he argues instead for a new version of international relations theory known as “constructivism.” This theory challenges presumptions of earlier versions of international relations theory and sees war as the result of “a clash of the identities, interests, and norms of states... all of which are socially constructed by both domestic and international factors” (86). In Shadle’s view, constructivism is a theory that is more compatible with traditional Christian views on the origin of war as well as contemporary Catholic theology because it focuses on clashes in socially constructed (though not entirely relativistic) identities and values as causes of war. Avoiding war on this view will take more than relying on international structures such as the United Nations to resolve conflicts by translating conflicting interests into terms erroneously presumed to be accessible to all.The Origins of War: A Catholic Perspective deserves serious study. From its careful account of the biblical and early Christian understanding of the origin of war to its analysis of the ways that liberal assumptions came to undergird Catholic writings on war, it sheds new light on how assumptions about the origins of war influence all aspects of our thinking about war. And it is in the end provocative. Shadle’s historicist orientation reminds us that the liberal optimism that undervalued the role of sin as a cause of war was itself tempting because of the challenges of the time and dominant political theories. Yet Shadle’s preference for constructivism is no less historically shaped. Liberalism’s fit with Catholic understanding of human existence has certainly been strained, but it remains to be seen whether a historicist, constructivist set of assumptions can do... (shrink)

Preface by the Editors to the special thematic volume dedicated to the memory of Jakub Kloc-Konkołowicz.