Despite pervasive variation in the content of laws, legal theorists and anthropologists have argued that laws share certain abstract features and even speculated that law may be a human universal. In the present report, we evaluate this thesis through an experiment administered in 11 different countries. Are there cross‐cultural principles of law? In a between‐subjects design, participants (N = 3,054) were asked whether there could be laws that violate certain procedural principles (e.g., laws applied retrospectively or unintelligible laws), and also (...) whether there are any such laws. Confirming our preregistered prediction, people reported that such laws cannot exist, but also (paradoxically) that there are such laws. These results document cross‐culturally and –linguistically robust beliefs about the concept of law which defy people's grasp of how legal systems function in practice. (shrink)

Intuitionistic logic is presented here as part of familiar classical logic which allows mechanical extraction of programs from proofs. to make the material more accessible, basic techniques are presented first for propositional logic; Part II contains extensions to predicate logic. This material provides an introduction and a safe background for reading research literature in logic and computer science as well as advanced monographs. Readers are assumed to be familiar with basic notions of first order logic. One device for making this (...) book short was inventing new proofs of several theorems. The presentation is based on natural deduction. The topics include programming interpretation of intuitionistic logic by simply typed lambda-calculus (Curry-Howard isomorphism), negative translation of classical into intuitionistic logic, normalization of natural deductions, applications to category theory, Kripke models, algebraic and topological semantics, proof-search methods, interpolation theorem. The text developed from materal for several courses taught at Stanford University in 1992-1999. (shrink)

In the book, basic principles of syncretic logic (sycretics) are expounded upon, with the help of which group relationships of a philosophical nature are treated. Classical philosophical laws are analyzed, new assertions are formulated, laying claim to the position of laws. Syncretic logic is used for constructing the axiomatic theory of carriers and the analysis of its consequences. The problem of the origins of life is considered, the connection between the course of existence and the laws of conservation in physics (...) is expounded upon, the universal scheme of logical operations is described, the components of the structure of a world view are specified. The work is intended for a wide circle of individuals with philosophical and general scientific interests. (shrink)

The Irish poet W. B. Yeats once wrote, with great sapience and perception: Nor dread, nor hope attend A dying animal; A man awaits his end Dreading and hoping all. That death has ever been a problem to man is attested as far back as we can trace our species in the archaeological record—indeed, it seems to have been a problem even for that immediate precursor of homo sapiens, the so-called Neanderthal Man; for he buried his dead.

This challenging interdisciplinary collection of essays sets out to find cultural significance and value in America’s post modern society. The book includes analyses of a wide range of contemporary cultural artifacts—poetry, novels, myths, painting, cinematic images—from different vantage points, but especially from the perspective of those working in the area of religion and culture. While the contributors recognize that there are no simple solutions for identifying satisfactory values in today’s society, they all emphasize the close kinship between ethics and aesthetics (...) in their interpretations. Imagery of many sorts comes up for a closer look: the imagery of the anti-abortion movement, heroic and mythic figures, rituals, politics, gender issues, and race relations. Giving voice to “difference” and “the other,” the essays provide a lively discussion about where our common future is headed and how we can remain responsible to values that are beneficial to the largest number of people. _Contributors: William G. Doty, David H. Fisher, Matthew Fox, Stephen Karatheodoris, Gary Kochhar-Lindgren, Hank Lazer, Mark Ledbetter, Irena S. M. Makarushka, Daniel C. Noel, Jerome Rothenberg, Lynda Sexson_. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:FEYERABEND'S EPISTEMOLOGY AND BRECHTS THEORY OF THE DRAMA by S. G. Couvalis In his early paper, "On the Improvement of the Sciences and the Arts," Feyerabend argues that, just as rival hypotheses show the shortcomings of entrenched scientific hypotheses, so theatre which presents hypotheses contrary to common beliefs about human beings shows the shortcomings of these beliefs. It develops understanding of human relations more effectively than intellectual debate because (...) it is a more complex medium whose elements can "represent the contrary hypotheses at the same time."1 He takes Brecht to be the first theorist of such a theatre. I shall argue that Brecht's epistemology is similar to Feyerabend's early epistemology and that his dramatic theory is a consequence of it.2 1 shall also argue, however, that Feyerabend is wrong in saying that Brechtian theatre presents contrary hypotheses at the same time, because plays, like descriptions, are theory-laden and Brecht, in any case, intends to show on stage that tragedies have social origins and not to present contrary hypotheses about human beings. According to Brecht, most people improperly assume that human behavior and social relations follow fixed patterns inherent in nature because they have been unable to compare the human behavior they know with that in other societies. They take what they experience to be typically human. Moreover, they interpret their social world as they have been taught: "A child, living in a world of old men... knows the run of things before he can walk."3 Feyerabend brings out the effect of such training very vividly: "The teaching procedures both shape the 'appearance,' or 'phenomenon' and establish a firm connection with words, so that finally the phenomena seem to speak for themselves...."4 Because these interpretations of the social world which children are taught are descriptive, explanatory, and prescriptive, they are more 117 118Philosophy and Literature complex and more dangerous than the interpretations of physical objects they are taught. For example, children learn different evaluations of precisely the same behavior in males and females through being taught how to describe it. In being taught to describe certain behavior as "manly" they are taught both that it arises from a male's nature and that it is laudable behavior for boys but not for girls. "Manly" behavior in a woman is not "confident" or "forthright," but "aggressive" or "pushy." In order to stop us from regarding traditional behavior patterns and social relations as unchangeable, and to enable us to question our descriptions of them, Brecht argues that the dramatist must cause us to cease to regard such patterns and social relations as familiar givens that can only be described in one way. To achieve this, he must not structure his plays on the Aristotelian model. The Aristotelian model makes audiences incapable of criticizing the dramatic message, imparts the view that the sources of tragedy lie in an inexplicable human essence, and presents social rules as if they were unquestionable natural laws. Instead, he should structure his plays to induce in audiences a scientific attitude to social relations and patterns of behavior. Like Feyerabend, Brecht realizes that a scientific attitude is not displayed by collecting descriptions of experience without considering whether the interpretations contained in the descriptions are correct. In Galileo, his view of those who mechanically describe experience in traditional terms is shown in Galileo's replies to the Aristotelian arguments of Andrea. When Andrea argues, "I can see that the sun's not in the same place in the evening and morning. So it can't stand still. It just can't," Galileo replies, "You 'W! What do you see? You see nothing at all. You're just gaping. Gaping isn't seeing." He then demonstrates to Andrea that the apparent motions of objects need not be their real motions because an apparent motion can be caused in more than one way. 5 Brecht shows that the central question for the scientist is not "How shall I collect descriptions of appearances?" but "What is it that I really perceive and how is it caused?" He argues elsewhere that "there's a vast difference between experiment and experience" because experiments are set up to test... (shrink)

What is Comparative Philosophy? -/- Synkretic: Journal of Indo-pacific Philosophy.