Search results for 'Daniel H. Mathalon' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  5
    Ralph E. Hoffman, Daniel H. Mathalon, Judith M. Ford & John H. Krystal (2004). Cortico – (Thalamo) – Cortical Interactions, Gamma Resonance, and Auditory Hallucinations in Schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (6):797-798.
    Transcranial magnetic stimulation, EEG, and behavioral studies by our group implicate spurious activation of speech perception neurocircuitry in the genesis of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. The neurobiological basis of these abnormalities remains uncertain, however. We review our ongoing studies, which suggest that altered cortical coupling underlies speech processing in schizophrenia and is expressed via disrupted gamma resonances and impaired corollary discharge function of self-generated verbal thought.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  3
    Joshua Daniel (2016). H. Richard Niebuhr's Reading of George Herbert Mead: Correcting, Completing, and Looking Ahead. Journal of Religious Ethics 44 (1):92-115.
    In this essay, I reconstruct H. Richard Niebuhr's interpretation of George Herbert Mead's account of the social constitution of the self. Specifically, I correct Niebuhr's interpretation, because it mischaracterizes Mead's understanding of social constitution as more dialogical than ecological. I also argue that Niebuhr's interpretation needs completing because it fails to engage one of Mead's more significant notions, the I/me distinction within the self. By reconstructing Niebuhr's account of faith and responsibility as theologically self-constitutive through Mead's I/me distinction, I demonstrate (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  15
    Joshua L. Daniel (2013). Robust Liberalism: H. Richard Niebuhr and the Ethics of American Public Life by Timothy A. Beach-Verhey (Review). American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 34 (2):189-192.
    Those most intimate with the works of H. Richard Niebuhr, who return to them time after time for theological and ethical sustenance, know that they exemplify a more interesting thinker than his brother, Reinhold. Of course, Reinhold was and remains the more public figure, read seriously in his time by politicians and theologians, celebrated by our current president, and enjoying renewed scholarly interest resulting in new editions of out-of-print works and a number of critical studies. Meanwhile, H. Richard continues to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  91
    Joshua Daniel (2013). Toward a Perfectionist Liberal Theology: Reading H. Richard Niebuhr Through Stanley Cavell. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 34 (2):97-116.
    This essay responds to the contemporary anxiety in theology over the relationship between Christian and non-Christian discourse. My argument proceeds as follows. First, I construe the debate between liberal and postliberal theology as turning on the wrestle between the idiosyncrasy and intelligibility of Christian discourse. While the liberal tradition insists that Christian discourse can be rendered intelligible to non-Christian forms of thought and life, and so can contribute to the flourishing of a shared social life, postliberal critics worry that this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Stephen H. Daniel (1984). John Toland: His Methods, Manners, and Mind. Mcgill-Queen's University Press.
    This study is the first sympathetic philosophical treatment in English of the complete works of John Toland . Professor Daniel presents Toland as a champion of religious toleration and civil liberty whose writing is important because it brings together many of the ideas, themes, and controversies that dominated the early modern period in Europe. Best known for his call for common-sense thinking in the deist manifesto Christianity Not Mysterious, Toland gained notoriety as editor and biographer of Milton, Harrington, and (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. F. Crépel, N. Hemart, D. Jaillard & H. Daniel (1996). Cellular Mechanisms of Long-Term Depression in the Cerebellum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (3):347-353.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. H. Daniel (1968). Piow Capture. In Peter Koestenbaum (ed.), Proceedings. [San Jose? Calif. 1--291.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Stephen H. Daniel (2015). Berkeley, Hobbes, and the Constitution of the Self. In Sébastien Charles (ed.), Berkeley Revisited: Moral, Social and Political Philosophy. Voltaire Foundation 69-81.
    By focusing on the exchange between Descartes and Hobbes on how the self is related to its activities, Berkeley draws attention to how he and Hobbes explain the forensic constitution of human subjectivity and moral/political responsibility in terms of passive obedience and conscientious submission to the laws of the sovereign. Formulated as the language of nature or as pronouncements of the supreme political power, those laws identify moral obligations by locating political subjects within those networks of sensible signs. When thus (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  35
    Stephen H. Daniel (1986). Metaphor in the Historiography of Philosophy. Clio 15 (2):191-210.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  55
    Stephen H. Daniel (2011). Stoicism in Berkeley's Philosophy. In Bertil Belfrage & Timo Airaksinen (eds.), Berkeley's Lasting Legacy: 300 Years Later. Cambridge Scholars 121-34.
    Commentators have not said much regarding Berkeley and Stoicism. Even when they do, they generally limit their remarks to Berkeley’s Siris (1744) where he invokes characteristically Stoic themes about the World Soul, “seminal reasons,” and the animating fire of the universe. The Stoic heritage of other Berkeleian doctrines (e.g., about mind or the semiotic character of nature) is seldom recognized, and when it is, little is made of it in explaining his other doctrines (e.g., immaterialism). None of this is surprising, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  56
    Stephen H. Daniel (2013). How Berkeley Redefines Substance. Berkeley Studies 24:40-50.
    In several essays I have argued that Berkeley maintains the same basic notion of spiritual substance throughout his life. Because that notion is not the traditional (Aristotelian, Cartesian, or Lockean) doctrine of substance, critics (e.g., John Roberts, Tom Stoneham, Talia Mae Bettcher, Margaret Atherton, Walter Ott, Marc Hight) claim that on my reading Berkeley either endorses a Humean notion of substance or has no recognizable theory of substance at all. In this essay I point out how my interpretation does not (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Stephen H. Daniel (2008). Berkeley's Stoic Notion of Spiritual Substance. In New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books
    For Berkeley, minds are not Cartesian spiritual substances because they cannot be said to exist (even if only conceptually) abstracted from their activities. Similarly, Berkeley's notion of mind differs from Locke's in that, for Berkeley, minds are not abstract substrata in which ideas inhere. Instead, Berkeley redefines what it means for the mind to be a substance in a way consistent with the Stoic logic of 17th century Ramists on which Leibniz and Jonathan Edwards draw. This view of mind, I (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  45
    Stephen H. Daniel (1976). Fringes And Transitive States In William James' Concept Of The Stream Of Thought. Auslegung 3:64-78.
  14.  35
    Stephen H. Daniel (2004). Les limites de la philosophie naturelle de Berkeley. In Sébastien Charles (ed.), Science et épistémologie selon Berkeley. Presses de L’Université Laval 163-70.
    (Original French text followed by English version.) For Berkeley, mathematical and scientific issues and concepts are always conditioned by epistemological, metaphysical, and theological considerations. For Berkeley to think of any thing--whether it be a geometrical figure or a visible or tangible object--is to think of it in terms of how its limits make it intelligible. Especially in De Motu, he highlights the ways in which limit concepts (e.g., cause) mark the boundaries of science, metaphysics, theology, and morality.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). The Ramist Context of Berkeley's Philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 9 (3):487 – 505.
    Berkeley's doctrines about mind, the language of nature, substance, minima sensibilia, notions, abstract ideas, inference, and freedom appropriate principles developed by the 16th-century logician Peter Ramus and his 17th-century followers (e.g., Alexander Richardson, William Ames, John Milton). Even though Berkeley expresses himself in Cartesian or Lockean terms, he relies on a Ramist way of thinking that is not a form of mere rhetoric or pedagogy but a logic and ontology grounded in Stoicism. This article summarizes the central features of Ramism, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Pantheistic Discourse. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 49 (3):179-194.
    Berkeley's immaterialism has more in common with views developed by Henry More, the mathematician Joseph Raphson, John Toland, and Jonathan Edwards than those of thinkers with whom he is commonly associated (e.g., Malebranche and Locke). The key for recognizing their similarities lies in appreciating how they understand St. Paul's remark that in God "we live and move and have our being" as an invitation to think to God as the space of discourse in which minds and ideas are identified. This (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  76
    Stephen H. Daniel (2010). Edwards' Occasionalism. In Don Schweitzer (ed.), Jonathan Edwards as Contemporary. Peter Lang 1-14.
  18.  22
    Stephen H. Daniel (1986). Wilhelm Dilthey: Selected Works. Vol. 5: Poetry and Experience, Ed. Rudolf Makkreel & Frithjof Rodi. [REVIEW] New Vico Studies 4:175-178.
  19.  52
    Stephen H. Daniel (2007). Edwards as Philosopher. In Stephen J. Stein (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards. Cambridge University Press 162-80.
  20. Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Christian Neoplatonism, Archetypes, and Divine Ideas. Journal of the History of Philosophy 39 (2):239-258.
    Berkeley's doctrine of archetypes explains how God perceives and can have the same ideas as finite minds. His appeal of Christian neo-Platonism opens up a way to understand how the relation of mind, ideas, and their union is modeled on the Cappadocian church fathers' account of the persons of the trinity. This way of understanding Berkeley indicates why he, in contrast to Descartes or Locke, thinks that mind (spiritual substance) and ideas (the object of mind) cannot exist or be thought (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  21.  66
    Stephen H. Daniel (2013). Berkeley's Doctrine of Mind and the “Black List Hypothesis”: A Dialogue. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):24-41.
    Clues about what Berkeley was planning to say about mind in his now-lost second volume of the Principles seem to abound in his Notebooks. However, commentators have been reluctant to use his unpublished entries to explicate his remarks about spiritual substances in the Principles and Dialogues for three reasons. First, it has proven difficult to reconcile the seemingly Humean bundle theory of the self in the Notebooks with Berkeley's published characterization of spirits as “active beings or principles.” Second, the fact (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  54
    Stephen H. Daniel (2000). Berkeley, Suárez, and the Esse-Existere Distinction. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (4):621-636.
    For Berkeley, a thing's existence 'esse' is nothing more than its being perceived 'as that thing'. It makes no sense to ask (with Samuel Johnson) about the 'esse' of the mind or the specific act of perception, for that would be like asking what it means for existence to exist. Berkeley's "existere is percipi or percipere" (NB 429) thus carefully adopts the scholastic distinction between 'esse' and 'existere' ignored by Locke and others committed to a substantialist notion of mind. Following (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23.  17
    Stephen H. Daniel (1990). Transforming the Hermeneutic Context, Ed. Ormiston & Schrift. [REVIEW] New Vico Studies 8:127-129.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  13
    Stephen H. Daniel (1988). Gerald E. Myers. "William James: His Life and Thought". [REVIEW] New Vico Studies 6:181.
  25.  38
    Stephen H. Daniel (2011). Berkeley's Rejection of Divine Analogy. Science Et Esprit 63 (2):149-161.
    Berkeley argues that claims about divine predication (e.g., God is wise or exists) should be understood literally rather than analogically, because like all spirits (i.e., causes), God is intelligible only in terms of the extent of his effects. By focusing on the harmony and order of nature, Berkeley thus unites his view of God with his doctrines of mind, force, grace, and power, and avoids challenges to religious claims that are raised by appeals to analogy. The essay concludes by showing (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  19
    Stephen H. Daniel (1979). Preparations for a Research Paper in Philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 3 (2):185-188.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  13
    Stephen H. Daniel (2007). The Harmony of the Leibniz-Berkeley Juxtaposition. In P. Phemister & S. Brown (eds.), Leibniz and the English-Speaking World. Springer 163--180.
  28.  15
    Stephen H. Daniel (2010). Berkeley and Spinoza. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 200 (1):123-134.
    There is a widespread assumption that Berkeley and Spinoza have little in common, even though early Jesuit critics in France often linked them. Later commentators have also recognized their similarities. My essay focuses on how Berkeley 's comments on the Arnauld-Malebranche debate regarding objective and formal reality and his treatment of god's creation of finite minds within the order of nature relate his theory of knowledge to his doctrine in a way similar to that of Spinoza. On estime souvent que (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  11
    Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Edwards, Berkeley, and Ramist Logic. Idealistic Studies 31 (1):55-72.
    I will suggest that we can begin to see why Edwards and Berkeley sound so much alike by considering how both think of minds or spiritual substances notas things modeled on material bodies but as the acts by which things are identified. Those acts cannot be described using the Aristotelian subject-predicatelogic on which the metaphysics of substance, properties, attributes, or modes is based because subjects, substances, etc. are themselves initially distinguishedthrough such acts. To think of mind as opposed to matter, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30.  9
    Stephen H. Daniel (1982). Ethical Theory and Journalistic Ethics. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 1 (1):19-25.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Stephen H. Daniel (1991). Lawrence J. Hatab, Myth and Philosophy: A Contest of Truths. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 11 (5):324-326.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  12
    Stephen H. Daniel (1988). The Narrative Character of Myth and Philosophy in Vico. International Studies in Philosophy 20 (1):1-9.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  28
    Stephen H. Daniel (2011). Berkeley's 'Alciphron': English Text and Essays in Interpretation. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (3):563 - 566.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Stephen H. Daniel (ed.) (2008). New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books.
    In this set of previously unpublished essays, noted scholars from North America and Europe describe how the Irish philosopher George Berkeley (1684-1753) continues to inspire debates about his views on knowledge, reality, God, freedom, mathematics, and religion. Here discussions about Berkeley's account of physical objects, minds, and God's role in human experience are resolved within explicitly ethical and theological contexts. This collection uses debates about Berkeley's immaterialism and theory of ideas to open up a discussion of how divine activity and (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  11
    Stephen H. Daniel (1986). Myth and Rationality in Mandeville. Journal of the History of Ideas 47 (4):595.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  17
    Stephen H. Daniel (2010). How Berkeley's Works Are Interpreted. In Silvia Parigi (ed.), George Berkeley: Science and Religion in the Age of Enlightenment. Springer
    Instead of interpreting Berkeley in terms of the standard way of relating him to Descartes, Malebranche, and Locke, I suggest we consider relating him to other figures (e.g., Stoics, Ramists, Suarez, Spinoza, Leibniz). This allows us to integrate his published and unpublished work, and reveals how his philosophic and non-philosophic work are much more aligned with one another. I indicate how his (1) theory of powers, (2) "bundle theory" of the mind, and (3) doctrine of "innate ideas" are understood in (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  36
    Stephen H. Daniel (1980). Civility and Sociability: Hobbes on Man and Citizen. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (2):209-215.
  38.  10
    Stephen H. Daniel (1976). Spinoza on Knowing, Being and Freedom, Ed. J. G. Van der Bend. [REVIEW] Modern Schoolman 53 (3):329-330.
  39.  5
    Stephen H. Daniel (1985). Vico on Mythic Figuration as Prerequisite for Philosophic Literacy. New Vico Studies 3:61-72.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  8
    Stephen H. Daniel (1976). L'Anthropologie de Saint Thomas, Ed. N. A. Luyten. [REVIEW] Modern Schoolman 53 (3):319-319.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  8
    Stephen H. Daniel (1983). Hobbes and America. [REVIEW] Review of Metaphysics 36 (3):698-700.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  4
    Stephen H. Daniel (1994). The Semiotic Ontology of Jonathan Edwards. Modern Schoolman 71 (4):285-304.
    Jonathan Edwards' marginalization in modern philosophy stems from his refusal to endorse the predicational logic and substantialist ontology of the rationalist-empiricist debate. Instead, he appeals to a communicative, semiotic logic of propositions grounded in Stoic thought and thematized by Peter Ramus and his Puritan followers. That alternative logic displays an "ontology of supposition" that guarantees God's existence, justifies typological, magical, and even astrological inferences, undermines modernist dichotomies (e.g., between mind and matter), and invalidates efforts to speak of Edwards' thought in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  7
    Stephen H. Daniel (1985). The Deconstructive Turn: Essays in the Rhetoric of Philosophy by Christopher Norris. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Literature 9 (1):117-119.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  14
    Stephen H. Daniel (1993). Paramodern Strategies of Philosophical Historiography. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 1 (1):41-63.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  12
    Stephen H. Daniel (2008). Review of Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy. [REVIEW] International Philosophical Quarterly 48 (3):410-412.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  9
    Stephen H. Daniel (1995). Postmodernity, Poststructuralism, and the Historiography of Modern Philosophy. International Philosophical Quarterly 35 (3):255-267.
    Well-known for its criticism of totalizing accounts of reason and truth, postmodern thought also makes positive contributions to our understanding of the sensual, ideological, and linguistic contingencies that inform modernist representations of self, history, and the world. The positive side of postmodernity includes structuralism and poststructuralism, particularly as expressed by theorists concerned with practices of the body (Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze), commodity differences (Adorno, Althusser), language (Derrida), and gender (Kristeva, Irigaray). Though these challenges to modernity do not privilege subjectivity, they suggest (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  5
    Stephen H. Daniel (1980). A Philosophical Theory of Literary Continuity and Change. Southern Journal of Philosophy 18 (3):275-280.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  5
    Stephen H. Daniel (1978). Descartes' Treatment of 'Lumen Naturale'. Studia Leibnitiana 10 (1):92 - 100.
    Descartes’ “natural light” has been interpreted as a faculty of the mind, the sense-imagination-reason-under-standing composite, the principle of intellectual integrity and growth, or even God himself. In Meditations III and IV in particular, the meaning of lumen natural depends on recognizing how light and nature define one another and how “my nature” serves as the basis for pointing to what is beyond the domain of natural reason, including religious faith and natural belief (especially regarding morality).
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  15
    Stephen H. Daniel (1995). Vico's Historicism and the Ontology of Arguments. Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (3):431-446.
  50.  1
    Stephen H. Daniel (2001). Berkeley's Principles and Dialogues: Background Source Materials, Ed. McCracken & Tipton. [REVIEW] Philosophy in Review 21 (5):362-364.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000