Externalism says that many ordinary mental contents are constituted by relations to things outside the mental subject’s head. An infl uential objection says that externalism is incompatible with our commonsense belief in mental causation, because such extrinsic relations cannot play the important causal role in producing behavior that we ordinarily think mental content plays.An extremely common response is that it is simply obvious, from examples of ordinary causal processes, that extrinsic relations can play the desired causal role. In this paper (...) I argue that such examples show no such thing, and that the only reason to think they do is to endorse an unacceptable principle concerning the sufficient conditions for causal efficacy. Internalists might be wrong that externalism is incompatible with mental causation; but the most common defense against that allegation should not move us at all. (shrink)
This paper explores a remarkable convergence of ideas and evidence, previously presented in separate places by its authors. That convergence has now become so persuasive that we believe we are working within substantially the same broad framework. Taylor's mathematical papers on neuronal systems involved in consciousness dovetail well with work by Newman and Baars on the thalamocortical system, suggesting a brain mechanism much like the global workspace architecture developed by Baars (see references below). This architecture is relational, in the (...) sense that it continuously mediates the interaction of input with memory. While our approaches overlap in a number of ways, each of us tends to focus on different areas of detail. What is most striking, and we believe significant, is the extent of consensus, which we believe to be consistent with other contemporary approaches by Weiskrantz, Gray, Crick and Koch, Edelman, Gazzaniga, Newell and colleagues, Posner, Baddeley, and a number of others. We suggest that cognitive neuroscience is moving toward a shared understanding of consciousness in the brain. (shrink)
In a recent essay review of William R. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy (2006), Ursula Klein defends her position that philosophically informed corpuscularian theories of matter contributed little to the growing knowledge of "reversible reactions" and robust chemical species in the early modern period. Newman responds here by providing further evidence that an experimental, scholastic tradition of alchemy extending well into the Middle Ages had already argued extensively for the persistence of ingredients during processes of "mixture" (e.g. chemical reactions), (...) and that this corpuscular alchemical tradition bore important fruit in the work of early modern chymists such as Daniel Sennert and Robert Boyle. (shrink)
This book explores the impact of poststructuralism on contemporary political theory by focussing on a number of problems and issues central to politics today. Drawing on the theoretical concerns brought to light by the 'poststructuralist' thinkers Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Deleuze and Max Stirner, Newman provides a critical examination of new developments in contemporary political theory: post-Marxism, discourse analysis, new theories of ideology and power, hegemony, radical democracy and psychoanalytic theory. He re-examines the political in light of these developments in (...) theory to suggest new ways of thinking about politics through a reflection on the challenges that confront it. This will volume will be of great interest to students of postmodernism and poststructuralist theory in political science, philosophy, sociology, philosophy and cultural studies. (shrink)
Author Meets Critics Panel: Paul B. Thompson’s (2010) The Agrarian Vision: Sustainability and Environmental Ethics Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9340-4 Authors Raymond Anthony, Department of Philosophy, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA Journal Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Online ISSN 1573-322X Print ISSN 1187-7863.
Abstract I consider Paul Thompson’s Agrarian Vision from the perspective of the philosophy of technology, especially as it relates to certain questions about public engagement and deliberative democracy around food issues. Is it able to promote an attitudinal shift or reorientation in values to overcome the view of “food as device” so that conscientious engagement in the food system by consumers can become more the norm? Next, I consider briefly, some questions to which it must face up in order to (...) move closer in dismantling the barriers that inhibit the capacity for virtuous caretaking of the food system at various levels. Lastly, and more deeply, how successful might agrarianism be in inculcating citizenship values (ones that go beyond food ethics as a private affair), for the democratization of agricultural technologies? Might the Jeffersonian foundation to which the agrarianism (a la) Thompson appeals need something like a contemporary theory of justice in order to facilitate the reconstitution of our politico-moral selves? How can it help guide appropriate ruminations on the intra and intergenerational question, “What do we want the shape of our current and future social and political institutions to look like in relation to food?” Content Type Journal Article Category Articles Pages 1-10 DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9339-x Authors Raymond Anthony, Department of Philosophy, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA Journal Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Online ISSN 1573-322X Print ISSN 1187-7863. (shrink)
In this essay Olivia Newman critically examines two opposing rights claims: the liberal claim that children have a right to become liberal choosers and the fundamentalist claim that children have a right to not become liberal choosers. These positions reflect differing views regarding the value of critically choosing, rather than simply accepting, a way of life. Given their assumptions regarding preference formation, both of these rights appear untenable in light of recent scholarship in psychology: we can neither select a (...) way of life independent of our social milieu, as liberals often imply, nor can we predict how different experiences will affect our preferences, as fundamentalists assume. Nevertheless, each position points to important concerns. Children have a substantive right of exit from constraining social milieus, as liberals purport, as well as a right to respect in public institutions, as fundamentalists insist. When liberals and fundamentalists assert these more modest rights claims, educators can and should strive to satisfy both. (shrink)
Educational theorists frequently invoke rights claims to express their views about educational justice and authority. But the unyielding nature of rights claims presents a significant quandary in democratic contexts, given the tension between rights claims and majoritarian democracy. Educational theorists have given limited attention to this tension, while political theorists tend to sideline education in their analyses. In this essay Anne Newman addresses this gap by advancing a democratic rationale for educational rights. Newman's purpose is to provide a (...) framework for advancing educational rights that protects these rights from the whims of majoritarian politics. Her central argument is that the importance of educational rights warrants giving democratic bodies far less deference than they are typically accorded. Yet the assertion of a right to a quality education, Newman emphasizes, should not be viewed as an undue constraint on democratic authority but rather is consistent with and required by the values that underlie democracy. (shrink)
How do we reconstruct our world when modernist ideas have been refuted and many social problems appear unsolvable? Fred Newman and Lois Holzman offer the alternative of "performed activity"--a non-academic way forward to develop and add meaning to our lives. The authors believe that it is through participation in cultural, educational and psychological projects that one can achieve personal enrichment. These projects and ideas have been formulated from 25 years of practice in the authors' own "anti-institution," a development community (...) free of political and academic affiliations. (shrink)
David, king in Hebron.—Battle near Gibeon.—Murder of Abner.—Jerusalem.—State of Hebrew industry.—Conquest of Moab.—First war with the Zobahites.—Conquest of Edom.—Prosperity of David.—Ammonite war.—Destruction of the Ammonites.—Career of Absalom.—Death of Absalom.—Disgrace of Mephibosheth.—Immolation of Saul’s descendants.—The pestilence.—Conspiracy of Adonijah.—Death of David.
The Philistines.—Hebrew monotheism.—Administration of Samuel.—Early Hebrew psalmody.—Exterior marks of the Prophet.—Modes of divination.—Foreigndangers of Israel.—Appointment of Saul.—Romantic Philistine campaign.—Ammonite inroad.—Enmity with Amalek.—Massacre of the Amalekites.—David, anointed by Samuel.—David, Saul’s armour-bearer.—David, Saul’s son-in-law. —David, a freebooter.—David with Achish of Gath.—David reinforced from Israel.—David’s return to Ziklag.—Battle of Mount Gilboa.
Assyrian siege of Tyre.—Hezekiah’s passover.—Invasion by Sennacherib.—Ethiopian embassy.—Submission of Hezekiah.—New complication of affairs.—Renewal of hostilities.—Disasters of Sennacherib.—Hezekiah’s illness.—Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Egypt.—Zenith of Hebrew prophecy.—Character of Manasseh.—Paganism and persecution.—State of the Assyrian power.—Rise of scholastic learning.—Scythian irruption into Media.—Rise of the Chaldees.—Final ruin of Nineveh.—Renewal of prophecy.—Josiah’s reform.—Recency of Deuteronomy.—Peculiarities of Deuteronomy.—The Pentateuch a gradual growth.—Uncritical proceedings.—False prophets in Judæa.—Contemporary Egyptian affairs.—Battle near Megiddon.
Foreign commotions.—Political executions.—Solomon’s trade by the Red Sea.—Trade over the Syrian Desart.—Visit of the Queen of Sheba.—Gold vessels of theTemple.—Building of the Temple.—Bondmen in Israel.—The Temple worship.—The Decalogue.—Dowry of an Egyptian Princess.—Solomon’s idolatry.—Hostilities against Solomon.—Death of Solomon.—Chronology of the Kings.—Chronological table.
Division of the Monarchy.—Calves of Dan and Bethel.—Jeroboam’s neglect of Levites.—Invasion by Shishak.—Later years of Rehoboam.—Massacre of the house of Jeroboam.—Power of Damascus.—War of Baasha and Asa.—Asa’s later reign.—Massacre of the house of Baasha.
City of Nineveh.—New parties in Israel.—Disorganization of Israel.—Zechariah’s Prophecy.—League against Judæa.—Sufferings of Judah.—Isaiah encouragesAhaz.—Fall of Damascus.—Religious character of Ahaz.—Sargon and the Philistines.—First invasion of Shalmaneser.—Revolt of Judah and of Ephraim.—Final transplanting of Israel.—Anticipations of Isaiah and Micah.—Decline of prophecy in Israel.—Rough dates of certain prophecies.
Building of Samaria.—Phoenician worship in Israel.—Miracles of Elijah.—Syrian chariot warfare.—Syrian campaigns west of Jordan.—Benhadad at RamothGilead.—Greatness of Jehoshaphat.—Joint war of Ahab and Jehoshaphat.—Doctrine of lying spirits.—Combined war against Moab.—Siege of Samaria.—Revolt of the Edomites.—Second battle at Ramoth.—Naboth’s vineyard.—Massacres of Jehu.—Massacre by Athaliah.
Priests and Levites in Jerusalem.—Revolution conducted by Jehoiada.—Regency of Jehoiada.—Reigns of Jehu and his son.—Dispersion of Judah and Israel.—Repairs of the Temple.—Prophecy of Joel.—Peace is bought of Hazael.—Invasion of Idumæa.—Decline of Damascus.—Victorious career of Jeroboam II.—Internal state of Israel.—Prophecy of Amos.—Uzziah’s long prophecy.—Internal state of Judæa.—Genealogies of the High Priests.
Popular election from the Dynasty.—Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim.—Defeat of Necho at Carchemish.—Jeremiah’s Political Prophecies.—Babylonian invasions.—Firstdeportation of Jews to Babylon.—Rebellion of Zedekiah.—Destruction of Jerusalem.—Gedaliah the Babylonian Satrap.—Prophecies against Egypt.—Later School of Prophecy.—Function of the Jewish Nation.
