A Democratic Mind: Psychology and Psychiatry with Fewer Meds and More Soul focuses on how an individual lives her life, and on the extent of harm that an individual can inflict on herself or others. In this book, I.W. Charny provides a new lens for understanding regular people rather than treatments that alleviate symptoms.

Israel Gottlieb Canz’s Uberzeugender Beweiß, first published in 1741 and reprinted here in its second, expanded edition stands as his most influential discussion of the soul’s immortality, with one contemporary pronouncing it to be “one of the best [treatments of immortality] that we have.” In this text, Canz seeks to augment and supplement traditional Wolffian proofs by considering, first, the grounds for the soul’s immortality that are contained in its own nature and, second, the grounds for the same that (...) are found in God. In addition, Canz extends his treatment to include a detailed discussion of the souls of children and he offers speculations concerning the soul’s condition in the afterlife. On account of its systematic presentation and original argumentation, Canz’s Beweiß represents a key contribution to Leibniz-Wolffian rational psychology, and through the critical reaction it generated it would help shape the debate concerning the soul’s immortality for years after its original publication. (shrink)

The problem of revisionism, or efforts to deny and censor the incontrovertible history of known genocides, is a growing one. It is now clear that denial is inevitably a phase of the genocidal process, extending far beyond the immediate politically expedient denials of governments who are currently engaging in genocidal massacre or have just recently done so—i.e., the Chinese government's abject denials of the killings of some 5,000 in Tiananmen Square, or the Sri Lanka government's denials of the state-organized massacre (...) of 5,000 Tamil. Denials of genocide continue long after the event by a variety of groups and people, including successor governments or successor enemies of the victim people, such as anti-Semites against Jews, Turks against Armenians, and bigots and celebrants of violence and murder of all sorts. But such denials also occur—and this is the most perplexing fact—among a variety of not obviously malevolent people, including intellectuals who, in the process of calling for a better world, effectively exonerate, support, encourage, and participate in denials of a known genocide, implicitly condoning and even celebrating its occurrence, meanings, and portents for the future. This article is an effort to study and analyze this latter phenomenon, which has been little recognized. Together with previous essays on the psychology of more explicit malevolent denials of genocide, the intention is to generate a broader psychological theory of denials of genocide and revisionism by proposing that there are also a variety of “innocent denials” of the factual reality or significance of known cases of genocide, and a variety of “innocent disavowals of violence” which in truth celebrate the violence. These “innocent denials” join with the well-known explicit bigots in creating a vast panorama of dangerous denials of genocides and implicit calls to new genocides in our world. (shrink)

To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to (...) proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Paragrana Jahrgang: 25 Heft: 2 Seiten: 29-48.

The God of Israel in the theology of Robert Jenson -- Jenson's hermeneutics -- Godd in Israel's life -- The God of Israel and Jesus -- The God of Israel and the Trinity -- The God of Israel, the People of God, and the Eschaton -- The identity of the one and triune God of Israel -- Jenson, the God of Israel, and non-supersessionist theology.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited his people, he has come to their rescue and he has raised up a power for salvation in the House of his servant David.” Thus exclaimed the Lanercost chronicler after recounting the glorious deeds of King Edward III at Crécy and Calais in 1346–47. By the middle years of his reign Edward was already commonly seen as the divinely inspired instrument of English salvation, the epitome of Old Testament (...) kingship, and an exemplar for Christian princes. English writers and artists made enthusiastic comparisons with Samson and David, with Arthur and Charlemagne. Edward was frequently portrayed as the great boar which, according to certain well-known political prophecies, would subdue England's enemies and restore the kingdom to its former greatness. (shrink)

A distinguished New Testament scholar turns his pen to the history of Israel. The result is a lucid and compact narrative, geared to the layman and student rather than the scholar. As the title suggests, the emphasis is on political rather than religious history. Much of this book's value will stem from its intentionally lopsided emphasis on the post-exilic period.--M. W.

Professor Kenneth J. Arrow is one of the most distinguished economic theorists. He has played a major role in shaping the subject and is honoured by the publication of three volumes of essays on economic theory. Each volume deals with a different area of economic theory. The books include contributions by some of the best economic theorists from the United States, Japan, Israel and Europe.

For many years, most AI researchers and cognitive scientists have reserved the topic of consciousness for after dinner conversation. Like "intuition," the idea of consciousness appeared to be too vague or general to be a good starting place for understanding cognition. Work on narrowly-defined problems in specialized domains such as medicine and manufacturing focused our concerns on the nature of representation, memory, strategies for problem-solving, and learning. Some writers, notably Ornstein and Hofstadter, continued to explore the ideas, but implications for (...) cognitive modeling were unclear, suggesting neither experiments, nor new computational mechanisms. (shrink)

This article analyses how the Assyrian Empire and Israel in the Book of Judith are configured through the personification of both: the Assyrian empire is personified by King Nabouchodonosor and his commander Holofernes and the Israelite or Jewish nation is personified by Judith. In her encounter with Holofernes, Judith manages to seduce and mislead Holofernes by her appearance and use of words, which ultimately leads to the defeat of the Assyrian army. The applied methodology builds on narratology concerning space (...) and characterisation and theories of space. It includes a semantic analysis of the key word πρόσωπον (‘face’, ‘presence’, ‘person’).Contribution: The article demonstrates that personification and appearance are important features of the Judith story. (shrink)

Menachem M. Kellner is an American-born scholar of Jewish philosophy, an educator, and a public intellectual who lives in Israel. For over three decades he taught at the University of Haifa, where he held the Sir Isaac and Lady Edith Wolfson Chair of Jewish Religious Thought as well as several high-level administrative positions. Currently he teaches Jewish philosophy at Shalem College, Israel's first liberal arts college, which seeks to integrate Western and Jewish texts. Trained in ethics and political (...) philosophy, Kellner specializes in medieval Jewish philosophy, arguing that Maimonides' rationalist universalism should serve as the ideal for contemporary Jewish life. Creatively fusing Zionism, modern Orthodoxy, and democracy, his vision of Judaism is open to and engaged with the modern world. (shrink)

In his valuable book [3], Israel Scheffler presents an extended critique of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science. Scheffler argues against Kuhn's “main thesis,” namely that “... paradigm change in science is not generally subject to deliberation and critical assessment”. Scheffler does recognize, though, that there are important elements of Kuhn's view that themselves seem to conflict with this “main thesis.” For these elements seem to make possible deliberation, critical assessment, and objectivity in the discussion of scientific paradigms. So it (...) appears from Scheffler's critique that Kuhn's position is inconsistent. The puzzle is compounded by Kuhn's admission—indeed, insistence—that his book does contain “a preliminary codification of good reasons for theory choice. These are... reasons of exactly the kind standard in philosophy of science: accuracy, scope, simplicity, fruitfulness, and the like”. In his recent reply to Kuhn, Scheffler quotes this passage from Kuhn and says: “If these reasons are not... to be construed as utterly free of all constraints or themselves paradigm-dependent, then they allow the comparison of rival paradigms and make paradigm debates intelligible. Such intelligibility is, however, at odds with Kuhn's statement that the proponents of competing paradigms ‘will inevitably talk through each other’”. In this interchange between Scheffler and Kuhn, one gets the impression of people, if not paradigms, talking “through each other.” I think that this nonmeeting of minds is due to interpreting Kuhn as an opponent of objectivity when in fact he is not an opponent but a proponent. It is this misinterpretation which produces the apparent inconsistency in Kuhn's position. In this paper I suggest a way of understanding Kuhn which resolves this apparent inconsistency in his work and might help to focus discussion on the real issue between Kuhn and many of his critics. This suggestion has the crucial consequence of shifting the focus from objectivity to the real issue, namely truth. (shrink)

Profiles of art education in nineteen countries around the world by citizens or longtime residents of those countries comprise the core of this book. Guidelines for the cross-cultural study of art education are presented by the editors in a general introduction and three part introductions, and also by contributing specialists. The nineteen national profiles, with accompanying examples of children's artwork, make up the largest section of the book, Part II. The three chapters in Part I review research that has identified, (...) on one hand, certain universal characteristics of children's artwork attributable to common human stages of development, and, on the other hand, certain differing and unique cultural influences. The need for further research on this distinction is emphasized. Contributors to Part I are Elliot W. Eisner, William Ives and Howard Gardner, and Marjorie and Brent Wilson. The three chapters in Part III discuss three major problems in art education: the use of museum visits, the worldwide attempt to establish valid tests of teacher and pupil proficiency in art, and the design of sound and useful cross-cultural research. Resources for such research are described. Contributors to Part III are Robert Ott and Lois Swan Jones, William Bradley, and Frances E. Anderson. Professionals and students in art education can broaden their perspective through Art in Education, while their counterparts in child development and psychology can gain insights into the creative process. Profiles: Western Europe—England,Finland, Germany, Netherlands; Eastern Europe—Hungary, Poland, Soviet Union; Middle East and South Asia Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Israel; East Asia and the Pacific Australia, China, Japan; Africa—Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa; The Americas—Brazil, United States. (shrink)

Israel Kirzner is to be credited for clarifying and developing the theory of capital and interest set out by Ludwig von Mises and for articulating and defending the pure time preference theory of interest. A revisiting of Mises and his critics suggests that the pure time preference theory is best formulated in terms of economic actions and then applied to the anticipated consequences of those actions. Differences between the Misesian and Knightian reckonings of time preference are to be understood (...) in terms of the contrasting conceptions of a zero time preference. Parallels between the time preference theory of interest and a leisure preference theory of wages are explored. Austrian economics is deemed healthy despite lingering puzzles about its theories of interest and wages.On doit au Professeur Kirzner la clarification et le développement de la théorie du capital et de l’intérêt dans la lignée de Ludwig von Mises et l’articulation et la défense de la théorie de l’intérêt comme étant la préférence pure pour le temps. Une relecture des travaux de Mises et de ses critiques suggère qu la théorie de la préférence pure pour le temps est mieux formulée en termes d’actions économiques et ensuite appliquée aux conséquences anticipées de ces mêmes actions. Les différences entre les acceptions Misessiennes et Knigtienne de la préférence pour le temps doivent être comprises en termes de conceptions différentes d’une préférence nulle pour le temps. Les rapprochements entre la théorie de l’intérêt comme préférence pour le temps et la théorie des salaires comme préférence pour les loisirs sont explorés. L’économie autrichienne est jugée saine en dépit des énigmes persistantes qui entourent ses théories de l’intérêt et des salaires. (shrink)

In the Hebrew Bible, food assumes a sacramental dimension as the physical manifestation of God’s grace and blessing. YHWH requires Israel to eat responsibly according to the rules of YHWH’s fief, acknowledging YHWH’s provision with gratitude, abstaining from prohibited food, and distributing the bounty of the earth equitably.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 seems to have broken, for the first time, the immunity from sustained criticism previously enjoyed by Israel and its American supporters. For a variety of reasons, Israel’s status in European and American public life and discourse has always been special, just as the position of Jews in the West has always been special, sometimes for its tragedy and horrendous suffering, at other times for its uniquely impressive intellectual and aesthetic triumphs. On (...) behalf of Israel, anomalous norms, exceptional arguments, eccentric claims were made, all of them forcibly conveying the notion that Israel does not entirely belong to the world of normal politics. Nevertheless, Israel—and with it, Zionism—had gained this unusual status politically, not miraculously: it merged with a variety of currents in the West whose power and attractiveness for supporters of Israel effaced anything as concrete as, for example, an Israeli policy of rigid separation between Jew and non-Jew, or a military rule over hundreds of thousands of Arabs that was as repressive as any tyranny in Latin America or Eastern Europe. There are any number of credible accounts of this, from daily fare in the Israeli press to studies by Amnesty International, to reports by various U.N. bodies, Western journalists, church groups, and, not least, dissenting supporters of Israel. In other words, even though Israel was a Jewish state established by force on territory already inhabited by a native population largely of Muslim Arabs, in a part of the world overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab, it appeared to most of Israel’s supporters in the West that the Palestinian Arabs who paid a large part of the price for Israel’s establishment were neither relevant nor necessarily even real. What changed in 1982 was that the distance between Arab and Jew was for the first time perceived more or less universally as not so great and, indeed, that any consideration of Israel, and any perception of Israel at all, would have to include some consideration of the Palestinian Arabs, their travail, their claims, their humanity.Changes of this sort seem to occur dramatically, although it is more accurate to comprehend them as complex, cumulative, often contradictory processes occurring over a long period of time. Above all else, however, no such process can be viewed neutrally, since for better or for worse there are many interests at work in it and, therefore, many interests also at work whenever it is interpreted or reported. Moreover, while it is worthwhile and even possible to reduce and curtail the gross pressure of those interests for the purpose of analysis or reflection, it is useless to deny that any such analysis is inevitably grounded in, or inevitably affiliated to, a particular historical moment and a specific political situation. Edward Said, Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, is the author of, among other works, The Question of Palestine , The World, the Text, and the Critic , and After the Last Sky . He will give the 1985 T. S. Eliot Lectures, on Culture and Imperialism, at the University of Kent later this year. His previous contributions to Critical Inquiry include “Opponents, Audiences, Constituencies, and Community” and “On Professionalism: Response to Stanley Fish”. (shrink)

Since neither of these two inordinately long responses deals seriously with what I said in “An Ideology of Difference” , both the Boyarins and Griffin are made even more absurd by actual events occurring as they wrote. The Israeli army has by now been in direct and brutal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for twenty-one years; the intifadah, surely the most impressive and disciplined anticolonial insurrection in this century, is now in its eleventh month. The daily killings (...) of unarmed Palestinians by armed Israelis, soldiers and settlers, numbers several hundred; yesterday two more Palestinians were killed, the day before four were killed. The beatings, expulsions, wholesale collective punishments, the closure of schools and universities, as well as the imprisonment of dozens of thousands in places like Ansar III, a concentration camp, continue. A V sign flashed by a young Palestinian carries with six months in jail; a Palestinian flag can get you up to ten years; you risk burial alive by zealous Israel Defense Forces soldiers; if you are a member of a popular committee you are liable to arrest, and all professional, syndical, or community associations are now illegal. Any Palestinian can be put in jail without charge or trial for up to six months, renewable, for any offense, which needn’t be revealed to him or her. For non-Jews, approximately 1.5 million people on the West Bank and Gaza, there are thus no rights whatever. On the other hand, Jews are protected by Israeli law on the Occupied Territories. In such a state of apartheid—so named by most honest Israelis—the intifadah continues, as does the ideology of difference vainly attempting to repress and willfully misinterpret its significance. Edward W. Said is Parr Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. His most recent contribution to Critical Inquiry is “Representing the Colonized: Anthropology’s Interlocutors”. (shrink)