Search results for 'deep ecology' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. David Pepper (1993). Eco-Socialism: From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. Routledge.score: 240.0
    Presents a provocatively anthropocentric analysis of the way forward for green politics and environmental movements, exposing the deficiencies and contradictions of green approaches to post-modern politics and deep ecology. This title available in eBook format. Click here for more information . Visit our eBookstore at: www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Colette Sciberras (2002). Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism: The Self in Environmental Philosophy. Dissertation, Lancasterscore: 240.0
    I consider the issue of the self and its relation to the environment, focusing on the accounts given in ecofeminism and deep ecology. Though both stress the relatedness of the human self to nature, these accounts differ in various ways. Ecofeminism stresses the value of personal relations with particular others, whereas deep ecology argues that we should expand our sense of self to include all natural others and the whole of nature. Deep ecology’s views (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Terry Hoy (2000). Toward a Naturalistic Political Theory: Aristotle, Hume, Dewey, Evolutionary Biology, and Deep Ecology. Praeger.score: 210.0
    Hoy seeks to establish a basis for a naturalistic political theory as a continuity from Aristotle through the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment contributions ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Andrew McLaughlin (1993). Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology. State University of New York Press.score: 210.0
    Regarding Nature: A conceptual introduction How should we regard nature? Until recently, this question was decisively answered by the practices of ...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Frederic L. Bender (2003). The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Humanity Books.score: 210.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Hans-Dirk van Hoogstraten (2001). Deep Economy: Caring for Ecology, Humanity, and Religion. James Clarke & Co..score: 182.0
    A wide-ranging analysis of the economic world order and its ecological and theological dimensions, this unique and challenging work confronts us with the ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Arne Naess (1984). A Defence of the Deep Ecology Movement. Environmental Ethics 6 (3):265-270.score: 180.0
    There is an international deep ecology social movement with key terms, slogans, and rhetorical use of language comparable to what we find in other activist “alternative” movements today. Some supporters of the movement partake in academic philosophy and have developed or at least suggested philosophies, “ecosophies,” inspired by the movement. R. A. Watson does not distinguish sufficiently between the movement and the philosophical expressions with academic pretensions. As a result, he falsely concludes that deep ecology implies (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ariel Kay Salleh (1984). Deeper Than Deep Ecology: The Eco-Feminist Connection. Environmental Ethics 6 (4):339-345.score: 180.0
    I offer a feminist critique of deep ecology as presented in the seminal papers of Naess and Devall. I outline the fundamental premises involved and analyze their internal coherence. Not only are there problems on logical grounds, but the tacit methodological approach of the two papers are inconsistent with the deep ecologists’ own substantive comments. I discuss these shortcomings in terms of a broader feminist critique of patriarchal culture and point out some practical and theoretical contributions which (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Harold Glasser (1996). Naess's Deep Ecology Approach and Environmental Policy. Inquiry 39 (2):157 – 187.score: 180.0
    A clarification of Naess's ?depth metaphor? is offered. The relationship between Naess's empirical semantics and communication theory and his deep ecology approach to ecophilosophy (DEA) is developed. Naess's efforts to highlight significant conflicts by eliminating misunderstandings and promoting deep problematizing are focused upon. These insights are used to develop the implications of the DEA for environmental policy. Naess's efforts to promote the integration of science, ethics, and politics are related to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Harold Glasser (2011). Naess's Deep Ecology: Implications for the Human Prospect and Challenges for the Future. Inquiry 54 (1):52-77.score: 180.0
    What sets Naess's deep ecology apart from most inquiries into environmental philosophy is that it does not seek a radical shift in fundamental values. Naess offered a utopian, life-affirming grand narrative, a new Weltanschauung that shifted the focus of inquiry to coupling values, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to behavior. The core of Naess's approach is that sustainability hinges on developing more thoroughly reasoned and consistent views, policies, and actions, which are tied back to wide-identifying ultimate norms and a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Ariel Salleh (1992). The Ecofeminism/Deep Ecology Debate. Environmental Ethics 14 (3):195-216.score: 180.0
    I discuss conceptual confusions shared by deep ecologists over such questions as gender, essentialism, normative dualism, and eco-centrism. I conclude that deep ecologists have failed to grasp both the epistemological challenge offered by ecofeminism and the practical labor involved in bringing about social change. While convergencies between deep ecology and ecofeminism promise to be fruitful, these are celebrated in false consciousness, unless remedial work is done.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Warwick Fox (1989). The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and its Parallels. Environmental Ethics 11 (1):5-25.score: 180.0
    There has recently been considerable discussion of the relative merits of deep ecology and ecofeminism, primarily from an ecofeminist perspective. I argue that the essential ecofeminist charge against deep ecology is that deep ecology focuses on the issue of anthropocentrism (i.e., human-centeredness) rather than androcentrism (i.e., malecenteredness). I point out that this charge is not directed at deep ecology’s positive or constructive task of encouraging an attitude of ecocentric egalitarianism, but rather at (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Jim Cheney (1987). Eco-Feminism and Deep Ecology. Environmental Ethics 9 (2):115-145.score: 180.0
    l examine the degree to which the so-called “deep ecology” movement embodies a feminist sensibility. In part one I take a brief look at the ambivalent attitude of “eco-feminism” toward deep ecology. In part two I show that this ambivalence sterns largely from the fact that deep ecology assimilates feminist insights to a basically masculine ethical orientation. In part three I discuss some of the ways in which deepecology theory might change if it adopted (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Simon P. James (2000). “Thing-Centered” Holism in Buddhism, Heidegger, and Deep Ecology. Environmental Ethics 22 (4):359-375.score: 180.0
    I address the problem of reconciling environmental holism with the intrinsic value of individual beings. Drawing upon Madhyamaka (“middle way”) Buddhism, the later philosophy of Martin Heidegger, and deep ecology, I present a distinctly holistic conception of nature that, nevertheless, retains a commitment to the intrinsic worth of individual beings. I conclude with an examination of the practical implications of this “thing-centered holism” for environmental ethics.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Michael E. Zimmerman (1993). Rethinking the Heidegger-Deep Ecology Relationship. Environmental Ethics 15 (3):195-224.score: 180.0
    Recent disclosures regarding the relationship between Heidegger’s thought and his own version of National Socialism have led me to rethink my earlier efforts to portray Heidegger as a forerunner of deep ecology. His political problems have provided ammunition for critics, such as Murray Bookchin, who regard deep ecology as a reactionary movement. In this essay, I argue that, despite some similarities, Heidegger’s thought and deep ecology are in many ways incompatible, in part because (...) ecologists—in spite of their criticism of the ecologically destructive character of technological modernity—generally support a “progressive” idea of human evolution. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. William Aiken (1994). Is Deep Ecology Too Radical? Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):1-5.score: 180.0
    The theory of Deep Ecology is characterized as having two essential features: the belief that nature is inherently valuable, and the belief that one’s self is truly realized by identification with nature. Four common but different meanings of the term “radical” are presented. Whether the theory of Deep Ecology is “too radical” depends upon which of these meanings one is using.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Deane Curtin (1994). Dōgen, Deep Ecology, and the Ecological Self. Environmental Ethics 16 (2):195-213.score: 180.0
    A core project for deep ecologists is the reformulation of the concept of self. In searching for a more inclusive understanding of self, deep ecologists often look to Buddhist philosophy, and to the Japanese Buddhist philosopher Dōgen in particular, for inspiration. I argue that, while Dōgen does share a nondualist, nonanthropocentric framework with deep ecology, his phenomenology of the self is fundamentally at odds with the expanded Self found in the deep ecology literature. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Benjamin Howe (2010). Was Arne Naess Recognized as the Founder of Deep Ecology Prematurely? Semantics and Environmental Philosophy. Environmental Ethics 32 (4):369-383.score: 180.0
    According to Arne Naess, his environmental philosophy is influenced by the philosophy of language called empirical semantics, which he first developed in the 1930s as a participant in the seminars of the Vienna Circle. While no one denies his claim, most of his commentators defend views about his environmental philosophy that contradict the tenets of his semantics. In particular, they argue that he holds that deep ecology’s supporters share a world view, and that the movement’s platform articulates shared (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. S. Bratton (1999). Luc Ferry's Critique of Deep Ecology, Nazi Nature Protection Laws, and Environmental Anti-Semitism. Ethics and the Environment 4 (1):3-22.score: 180.0
    Neo-Humanist Luc Ferry (1995) has compared deep ecology's declarations of intrinsic value in nature to the Third Reich's nature protection laws, which prohibit maltreatment of animals having "worth in themselves." Ferry's questionable approach fails to document the relationship between Nazi environmentalism and Nazi racism. German high art and mass media historically presented nature as dualistic, and portrayed Untermenschen as unnatural or inorganic. Nazi propaganda excluded Jews from nature, and identified traditional Jews as cruel to animals. Ferry's idealization of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. John Clark (1996). How Wide is Deep Ecology? Inquiry 39 (2):189 – 201.score: 180.0
    Arne Naess's ?rules of Gandhian nonviolence? might usefully be applied to recent debates in ecophilosophy. The ?radical ecologies? have increasingly been depicted as mutually exclusive alternatives lacking any common ground, and many of the hostile and antagonistic attitudes that Naess cautions against have become prevalent. Naess suggests, however, that fundamental differences concerning theory and practice can coexist with a respect for one's opponents, an openness to the views of others, and a commitment to cooperation in the pursuit of mutually held (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Frank B. Golley (1987). Deep Ecology From the Perspective of Environmental Science. Environmental Ethics 9 (1):45-55.score: 180.0
    Deep ecology is examined from the perspective of scientific ecology. Two norms, self-realization and biocentric equality, are considered central to deep ecology, and are explored in brief. Concepts of scientific ecology that seem to form a bridge to these norms are ecological hierarchical organization, the exchange of energy, material and information, and the development of species within ecosystems and the biosphere. While semantic problems exist, conceptually it appears that deep ecology norms can (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Mick Smith (1999). To Speak of Trees: Social Constructivism, Environmental Values, and the Future of Deep Ecology. Environmental Ethics 21 (4):359-376.score: 180.0
    The power and the promise of deep ecology is seen, by its supporters and detractors alike, to lie in its claims to speak on behalf of a natural world threatened by human excesses. Yet, to speak of trees as trees or nature as something worthy of respect in itself has appeared increasingly difficult in the light of social constructivist accounts of “nature.” Deep ecology has been loath to take constructivism’s insightsseriously, retreating into forms of biological objectivism (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. David Keller (1997). Gleaning Lessons From Deep Ecology. Ethics and the Environment 2 (2):139 - 148.score: 180.0
    By reflecting on deep ecology, several lessons can be culled for environmental philosophy in general. The deep ecology of Arne Naess, Bill Devall, and George Sessions is appropriately characterized as a theory founded on the principles of biocentric egalitarianism and metaphysical holism. After considering each of these principles in turn, and then in relation to each other, the lesson turns out to be that the ontological foundation for environmental ethics must be nonegalitarion and polycentric.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Arne Naess (1990). Man Apart and Deep Ecology: A Reply to Reed. Environmental Ethics 12 (2):185-192.score: 180.0
    Peter Reed has defended the basis for an environmental ethic based upon feelings of awe for nature together with an existentialist absolute gulf between humans and nature. In so doing, he has claimed that there are serious difficulties with Ecosophy T and the terms, Self-realization and identification with nature. I distinguish between discussions of ultimate norms and the penultimate deep ecology platform. I also clarify and defend a technical use of identification and attempt to show that awe and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Deborah Slicer (1995). Is There an Ecofeminism–Deep Ecology “Debate”? Environmental Ethics 17 (2):151-169.score: 180.0
    I discuss six problems with Warwick Fox’s “The Deep Ecology–Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels” and conclude that until Fox and some other deep ecologists take the time to study feminism and ecofeminist analyses, only disputes—not genuine debate—will occur between these two parties. An understanding of the six issues that I discuss is a precondition for such a debate.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Robert Sessions (1991). Deep Ecology Versus Ecofeminism: Healthy Differences or Incompatible Philosophies? Hypatia 6 (1):90 - 107.score: 180.0
    Deep ecology and ecofeminism are contemporary environmental philosophies that share the desire to supplant the predominant Western anthropocentric environmental frameworks. Recently thinkers from these movements have focused their critiques on each other, and substantial differences have emerged. This essay explores central aspects of this debate to ascertain whether either philosophy has been undermined in the process and whether there are any indications that they are compatible despite their differences.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Freya Mathews (1988). Conservation and Self-Realization: A Deep Ecology Perspective. Environmental Ethics 10 (4):347-355.score: 180.0
    Nature in its wider cosmic sense is not at risk from human exploitation and predation. To see life on Earth as but a local manifestation of this wider, indestructable and inexhaustible nature is to shield ourselves from despair over the fate of our Earth. But to take this wide view also appears to make interventionist political action on behalf of nature-which is to say, conservation-superfluous. If we identify with nature in its widest sense, as deep ecology prescribes, then (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Harold Glasser (1997). On Warwick Fox's Assessment of Deep Ecology. Environmental Ethics 19 (1):69-85.score: 180.0
    I examine Fox’s tripartite characterization of deep ecology. His assessment abandons Naess’s emphasis upon the pluralism of ultimate norms by distilling what I refer to as the deep ecology approach to “Self-realization!” Contrary to Fox, I argue that his popular sense is distinctive and his formal sense is tenable. Fox’s philosophical sense, while distinctive, is neither necessary nor sufficient to adequately characterize the deep ecology approach. I contend that the deep ecology approach, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Mathew Humphrey (1999). Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality: A Response. Environmental Ethics 21 (1):75-79.score: 180.0
    In his article “Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality,” Eric H. Reitan contends that, contrary to the disavowals of Fox and Naess, the “ecosophy T” concept of “Self-realization” constitutes a precondition of morality according to a “robust” Kantian moral framework. I suggest that there is a significant problem involved in rendering Self-realization compatible with a Kantian moral framework. This problem of ontological priority demonstrates that Naess and Fox are in fact correct in their assertion that Self-realization is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. David M. Johns (1990). The Relevance of Deep Ecology to the Third World: Some Preliminary Comments. Environmental Ethics 12 (3):233-252.score: 180.0
    Although Ramachandra Guha has demonstrated the importance of cross-cultural dialogue on environmental issues and has much to tell us about the problems of wildemess preservation in the Third World, I argue that Guha is partly wrong in claiming that deep ecology equates environmental protection with wilderness protection and simply wrong in calling wilderness protection untenable or incorrect as aglobal strategy for environmental protection. Moreover, I argue that the deep ecology distinction between anthropocentrism and biocentrism is useful (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Ariel Salleh (1993). Class, Race, and Gender Discourse in the Ecofeminism/Deep Ecology Debate. Environmental Ethics 15 (3):225-244.score: 180.0
    While both ecofeminism and deep ecology share a commitment to overcoming the conventional division between humanity and nature, a major difference between the two is that deep ecology brings little social analysis to its environmental ethic. I argue that there are ideological reasons for this difference. Applying a sociology of knowledge and discourse analysis to deep ecological texts to uncover these reasons, I conclude that deep ecology is constrained by political attitudes meaningful to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Robin Attfield (1993). Sylvan, Fox and Deep Ecology: A View From the Continental Shelf. Environmental Values 2 (1):21 - 32.score: 180.0
    Both Richard Sylvan’s trenchant critique of Deep Ecology and Warwick Fox’s illuminating reinterpretation and defence are presented and appraised. Besides throwing light on the nature and the prospects of the defence of Deep Ecology and of its diverse axiological, epistemological and metaphysical strands, the appraisal discloses the range of normative positions open to those who reject anthropocentrism, of which Deep Ecology is no more than one (and, if Fox’s account of its nature is right, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Mathew Humphrey (1999). Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality. Environmental Ethics 21 (1):75-79.score: 180.0
    In his article “Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality,” Eric H. Reitan contends that, contrary to the disavowals of Fox and Naess, the “ecosophy T” concept of “Self-realization” constitutes a precondition of morality according to a “robust” Kantian moral framework. I suggest that there is a significant problem involved in rendering Self-realization compatible with a Kantian moral framework. This problem of ontological priority demonstrates that Naess and Fox are in fact correct in their assertion that Self-realization is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Eric H. Reitan (1996). Deep Ecology and the Irrelevance of Morality. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):411-424.score: 180.0
    Both Arne Naess and Warwick Fox have argued that deep ecology, in terms of “Selfrealization,” is essentially nonmoral. I argue that the attainment of the ecological Self does not render morality in the richest sense “superfluous,” as Fox suggests. To the contrary, the achievement of the ecological Self is a precondition for being a truly moral person, both from the perspective of a robust Kantian moral frameworkand from the perspective of Aristotelian virtue ethics. The opposition between selfregard and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Glen Mazis (2004). Deep Ecology, The Reversibility of the Flesh of the World and the Poetic Word. Environmental Philosophy 1 (2):46-61.score: 180.0
    This essay seeks to supplement Arnie Naess’s avowed project of replacing the often cited model of “humans and environment,” which retains a dualistic and anthropocentric connotation, with the articulation of a “relational total-field image” of human being’s insertion in the planetary field of energy and becoming. In response to the interview “Here I Stand” in which Naess rejects Merleau-Ponty’s ontology, this essay details the ways in which Merleau-Ponty provides the kind of ontology that Naess requires for his deep (...). Naess’s use of Hindu terms and metaphysics is shown to be at odds with his descriptions of human’s relations with the world. Much of the essay critiques as well Naess’s rejection of poetic language as inadequate to the philosophical task of articulating the human-world intertwining. Using Merleau-Ponty’s work, the need for the poetic as uniquely articulating “the flesh of the world” and “reversibility” is described, hopefully showing that deep ecology’s goal of making people feel their insertion in the world’s field of becoming can only occur through inaugurating poetic uses of language. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Tony Lynch (1996). Deep Ecology as an Aesthetic Movement. Environmental Values 5 (2):147 - 160.score: 180.0
    Many deep ecologists call for a 'new ecological ethic'. If this ethic is meant to be a moral ethic, then deep ecology fails. However if deep ecology is interpreted as an aesthetic movement, then it is both philosophically coherent and practically adequate.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Christian Diehm (2014). Darwin and Deep Ecology. Ethics and the Environment 19 (1):73-93.score: 180.0
    Upon first encountering the writings of deep ecology theorists, people are sometimes surprised to learn that, despite its moniker, deep ecology is not a branch of the natural sciences. It is, rather, a branch of the environmental movement that was formally introduced to the English-speaking world by Arne Naess in his essay “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary” (Naess 1973). Naess’s goal in this article was, as its title indicates, to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Joseph H. Lane & Rebecca R. Clark (2006). The Solitary Walker in the Political World The Paradoxes of Rousseau and Deep Ecology. Political Theory 34 (1):62-94.score: 180.0
    Rousseau argued forcefully for the superiority of a life lived in accordance with “the simplest impulses of nature,” but his complex (somewould say contradictory) understanding of the relationship between humans and “nature” is rarely cited as a source of inspiration by those seeking to reform the human relationship with the natural world. We argue that the complexities of Rousseau's political thought illuminate important connections between his works and the programs put forth by deep ecology. In Part One, we (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Michael Vincent McGinnis (1996). Deep Ecology and the Foundations of Restoration. Inquiry 39 (2):203 – 217.score: 176.0
    Throughout the globe, degraded ecosystems are in desperate need of restoration. Restoration is based on world?view and the human relationship with the natural world, our place, and the landscape. The question is, can society and its institutions shift from development and use of natural resources to ecological restoration of the natural world without a change in world?view? Some world?views lead to more destructive human behavior than others. Following Naess's ecosophical comparison of the deep and shallow ecology movements, this (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Christian Diehm (2004). Deep Ecology and Phenomenology. Environmental Philosophy 1 (2):20-27.score: 156.0
    This essay is written as a companion to the interview “Here I Stand,” and it examines the place of phenomenology in the environmental thought of deep ecologist Arne Naess. Tracing a line through Naess’s somewhat sporadic references to phenomenology, and his comments in the interview, the article argues that Naess’s interest in phenomenology is tied to his attempts to develop an ontology, and tries to show how this project situates Naess in relation to several phenomenologists. The essay concludes with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Harold Glasser (forthcoming). Demystifying the Critiques of Deep Ecology. Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Upper Saddle River, Nj: Prentice Hall.score: 156.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. William Grey (1993). Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (4):463 – 475.score: 150.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Alan Carter (1995). Deep Ecology or Social Ecology? Heythrop Journal 36 (3):328–350.score: 150.0
  44. Karen Houle (2005). Review of Eccy de Jonge, Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2005 (5).score: 150.0
  45. Christian Diehm (2002). Arne Naess, Val Plumwood, and Deep Ecological Subjectivity: A Contribution to the "Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate". Ethics and the Environment 7 (1):24-38.score: 150.0
  46. Gal Kober (2013). For They Do Not Agree In Nature: Spinoza and Deep Ecology. Ethics and the Environment 18 (1):43-65.score: 150.0
    In the Ethics,1 Spinoza presents a rigorous naturalistic view of man and nature. Man is a part of nature, a subject of the same domain—not a domain separate from it, nor a domain within that of nature. Man cannot act against nature or in an unnatural way; in comparison with any other part or creature of nature, man is not special, more important or qualitatively different. All general laws of nature apply equally to animals, inanimate objects, humans, God, the mind, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. D. W. Lauer (2002). Arne Naess on Deep Ecology and Ethics. Journal of Value Inquiry 36 (1):111-117.score: 150.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Hwa Yol Jung (1991). The Way of Ecopiety: An Essay in Deep Ecology From a Sinitic Perspective. Asian Philosophy 1 (2):127 – 140.score: 150.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000