We study the minimal enumeration degree problem in models of fragments of Peano arithmetic () and prove the following results: in any model M of Σ2 induction, there is a minimal enumeration degree if and only if M is a nonstandard model. Furthermore, any cut in such a model has minimal e-degree. By contrast, this phenomenon fails in the absence of Σ2 induction. In fact, whether every Σ2 cut has minimal e-degree is independent of the Σ2 bounding principle.

We show that the intersection of the class of 2-REA degrees with that of the ω-r.e. degrees consists precisely of the class of d.r.e. degrees. We also include some applications and show that there is no natural generalization of this result to higher levels of the REA hierarchy.

We give a corrected proof of an extension of the Robinson Splitting Theorem for the d. c. e. degrees.

We show that the Δ0 2 enumeration degrees are dense. We also show that for every nonzero n-c. e. e-degree a, with n≥ 3, one can always find a nonzero 3-c. e. e-degree b such that b < a on the other hand there is a nonzero ωc. e. e-degree which bounds no nonzero n-c. e. e-degree.

In this paper we study structural properties of n-c. e. Q-degrees. Two theorems contain results on the distribution of incomparable Q-degrees. In another theorem we prove that every incomplete Q-degree forms a minimal pair in the c. e. degrees with a Q-degree. In a further theorem it is proved that there exists a c. e. Q-degree that is not half of a minimal pair in the c. e. Q-degrees.

We prove that the degree structures of the d.c.e. and the 3-c.e. Turing degrees are not elementarily equivalent, thus refuting a conjecture of Downey. More specifically, we show that the following statement fails in the former but holds in the latter structure: There are degrees f > e > d > 0 such that any degree u ≤ f is either comparable with both e and d, or incomparable with both.

The two volumes of letters by Mikhail Lifschitz, recently published in Russian, reveal for the first time certain aspects of his relationship with György Lukács and his general intellectual and cultural role in the long history of Soviet aesthetics. The first volume contains all the known letters between Lifschitz and Lukács; the second volume contains the letters from Lifschitz to three of his younger colleagues. Both volumes throw considerable light on the development of Marxist aesthetics in the Soviet Union from (...) the 1930s to the 1980s. The extensive commentaries and notes provide context for the various discussions in the letters and situate the main issues under consideration within the wider historical and social context of the period. (shrink)

Rescued in 1972 from a storeroom in which rats and seeping water had severely damaged the fifty-year-old manuscript, this text is the earliest major work (1919-1921) of the great Russian philosopher M. M. Bakhtin. Toward a Philosophy of the Act contains the first occurrences of themes that occupied Bakhtin throughout his long career. The topics of authoring, responsibility, self and other, the moral significance of "outsideness," participatory thinking, the implications for the individual subject of having "no-alibi in existence," the difference (...) between the world as experienced in actions and the world as represented in discourse--all are broached here in the heat of discovery. This is the "heart of the heart" of Bakhtin, the center of the dialogue between being and language, the world and mind, "the given" and "the created" that forms the core of Bakhtin's distinctive dialogism. A special feature of this work is Bakhtin's struggle with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Put very simply, this text is an attempt to go beyond Kant's formulation of the ethical imperative. Toward a Philosophy of the Act will be important for scholars across the humanities as they grapple with the increasingly vexed relationship between aesthetics and ethics. (shrink)

This Book Brings A Clear And Insightful Presentation Of The Wisdom Of Hinduism In All Its Fundamental Principles.

The essays assembled here are all very early and differ in a number of ways from Bakhtin's previously published work.

y title links together kings, war, and the economy, and the linkage is deliberate. I do not of course wish to suggest that Hellenistic kings did nothing but fight wars, that they were responsible for all the wars in the period, that royal wars were nothing but a form of economic activity, or that the economy of the kings was dependent purely on the fruits of military success, though there would be an element of truth in all these propositions. But (...) I wish to react against the frequent tendency to separate topics that are related, the tendency to treat notions relating to what kings were or should be as something distinct from what they actually did, and the tendency to treat political and military history on the one hand as something separate from economic and social history on the other. A number of provisos should be made at the outset. The title promises more than the paper can deliver; in particular, more will be said about kings and war than about kings and the economy. The subject is handled at a probably excessive level of generalization and abstraction. I talk about Hellenistic kings in general, but in practice it would obviously be necessary to draw distinctions between different dynasties, different times and places, and individual rulers, and some of those distinctions I shall indicate. Conclusions are provisional and subject to modification and considerable expansion in detail. Finally, two points of terminology. I use the word ‘Hellenistic’ for no better reason than out of the force of acquired habit, but of course the word and the concept are modern inventions that were unknown to the ancient world. (shrink)

My title links together kings, war, and the economy, and the linkage is deliberate. I do not of course wish to suggest that Hellenistic kings did nothing but fight wars, that they were responsible for all the wars in the period, that royal wars were nothing but a form of economic activity, or that the economy of the kings was dependent purely on the fruits of military success, though there would be an element of truth in all these propositions. But (...) I wish to react against the frequent tendency to separate topics that are related, the tendency to treat notions relating to what kings were or should be as something distinct from what they actually did, and the tendency to treat political and military history on the one hand as something separate from economic and social history on the other.A number of provisos should be made at the outset. The title promises more than the paper can deliver; in particular, more will be said about kings and war than about kings and the economy. The subject is handled at a probably excessive level of generalization and abstraction. I talk about Hellenistic kings in general, but in practice it would obviously be necessary to draw distinctions between different dynasties, different times and places, and individual rulers, and some of those distinctions I shall indicate. Conclusions are provisional and subject to modification and considerable expansion in detail. Finally, two points of terminology. I use the word ‘Hellenistic’ for no better reason than out of the force of acquired habit, but of course the word and the concept are modern inventions that were unknown to the ancient world. (shrink)

Incessantly cited by critics, Bakhtin's work none the less remains relatively unavailable: partly through lack of suitable editions, partly because no individual text conveys all the key concepts or arguments. This anthology provides in a convenient format a good selection of the writing by Bakhtin and of that attributed to Voloshinov and Medvedev. It introduces readers to the aspects most relevant to literary and cultural studies and gives a focused sense of Bakhtin's central ideas and the underlying cohesiveness of his (...) thinking. (shrink)

The word ‘tyrant’ was not originally Greek, but borrowed from some eastern language, perhaps in western Asia Minor. On the other hand, tyranny as it developed in the Greek cities in the archaic age would seem to have been initially an indigenous growth, independent of any intervention by foreign powers. It then became a constantly recurring phenomenon of Greek political and social life, so long as the Greeks enjoyed an independent history.

The word ‘tyrant’ was not originally Greek, but borrowed from some eastern language, perhaps in western Asia Minor. On the other hand, tyranny as it developed in the Greek cities in the archaic age would seem to have been initially an indigenous growth, independent of any intervention by foreign powers. It then became a constantly recurring phenomenon of Greek political and social life, so long as the Greeks enjoyed an independent history.