One of the more controversial articles published in the philosophy of criticism during the past twenty-five years is “The Intentional Fallacy” by W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and Monroe Beardsley. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have expended a lot of energy in attacking and defending the Wimsatt-Beardsley position. Their efforts fall mainly into two classes. Either they have been exploratory with respect to the nature of the concept ‘intention’, but so exploratory as to present no tangible discovery; or they have (...) merely been occasions to air the author’s own views, views which take sides, but views which in the end only serve to define what positions may be taken without really convincing anyone whether one position is clearly better than the other. This dilemma is really rather odd because in a certain sense it is pitifully easy to understand what the intentional fallacy amounts to. There is a kind of minimal meaning to it, and I suspect that introductory students in courses in Aesthetics and Criticism have little difficulty in understanding it. ‘Difficulties’ seem to arise primarily in connection with its implications and general scope within the totality of criticism. However, it would be wrong to conclude that these difficulties have nothing to do with the intentional fallacy. They do. And the reason is this: the way in which one argues for, that is, establishes, the intentional fallacy has much to do with its implications and general scope within the realm of criticism. (shrink)

One of the more controversial articles published in the philosophy of criticism during the past twenty-five years is “The Intentional Fallacy” by W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and Monroe Beardsley. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have expended a lot of energy in attacking and defending the Wimsatt-Beardsley position. Their efforts fall mainly into two classes. Either they have been exploratory with respect to the nature of the concept ‘intention’, but so exploratory as to present no tangible discovery; or they have (...) merely been occasions to air the author’s own views, views which take sides, but views which in the end only serve to define what positions may be taken without really convincing anyone whether one position is clearly better than the other. This dilemma is really rather odd because in a certain sense it is pitifully easy to understand what the intentional fallacy amounts to. There is a kind of minimal meaning to it, and I suspect that introductory students in courses in Aesthetics and Criticism have little difficulty in understanding it. ‘Difficulties’ seem to arise primarily in connection with its implications and general scope within the totality of criticism. However, it would be wrong to conclude that these difficulties have nothing to do with the intentional fallacy. They do. And the reason is this: the way in which one argues for, that is, establishes, the intentional fallacy has much to do with its implications and general scope within the realm of criticism. (shrink)

One of the more controversial articles published in the philosophy of criticism during the past twenty-five years is “The Intentional Fallacy” by W. K. Wimsatt, Jr. and Monroe Beardsley. Scholars from a variety of disciplines have expended a lot of energy in attacking and defending the Wimsatt-Beardsley position. Their efforts fall mainly into two classes. Either they have been exploratory with respect to the nature of the concept ‘intention’, but so exploratory as to present no tangible discovery; or they have (...) merely been occasions to air the author’s own views, views which take sides, but views which in the end only serve to define what positions may be taken without really convincing anyone whether one position is clearly better than the other. This dilemma is really rather odd because in a certain sense it is pitifully easy to understand what the intentional fallacy amounts to. There is a kind of minimal meaning to it, and I suspect that introductory students in courses in Aesthetics and Criticism have little difficulty in understanding it. ‘Difficulties’ seem to arise primarily in connection with its implications and general scope within the totality of criticism. However, it would be wrong to conclude that these difficulties have nothing to do with the intentional fallacy. They do. And the reason is this: the way in which one argues for, that is, establishes, the intentional fallacy has much to do with its implications and general scope within the realm of criticism. (shrink)

Hailed by the Journal of the History of Astronomy as "charming and witty," this chronicle by a renowned physicist traces the development of scientific thought from the works of the "founding fathers" — Galileo, Huygens, and Newton — to the more recent discoveries of Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Gibbs. 1984 edition.

We present a preliminary high-level formal theory, grounded on knowledge representation techniques and foundational ontologies, for the uniform and integrated representation of the different kinds of (quali- tative and quantitative) knowledge involved in the designing process. We discuss the conceptual nature of engineering design by individuating and analyzing the involved notions. These notions are then formally charac- terized by extending the DOLCE foundational ontology. Our ultimate purpose is twofold: (i) to contribute to foundational issues of design; and (ii) to support (...) the development of advanced modelling systems for (qualitative and quantitative) representation of design knowledge. (shrink)

Product structures are represented in engineering models by depicting and linking components, features and assemblies. Their understanding requires knowledge of both design and manufacturing practices, and yet further contextual reasoning is needed to read them correctly. Since these representations are essen- tial to the engineering activities, the lack of a clear and explicit semantics of these models hampers the use of information systems for their assessment and exploita- tion. We study this problem by identifying different interpretations of structure rep- resentations, (...) and then discuss the formal properties that a suitable language needs for representing components, features and combinations of these. We show that the representation of components and features require a non-standard mereology. (shrink)

Providing the first English translation of Análisis del ser del mexicano, this book features a full biography of Uranga, a detailed overview of the translated text, and discussion of Uranga's relevance to contemporary debates in the phenomenology of culture, the philosophy of liberation, Latin American philosophy and phenomenology itself. Reading Uranga's brilliant words expertly translated and introduced by Carlos Alberto Sánchez finally allows us to understand why this Mexican philosopher is considered one of the most fearless and original thinkers of (...) the 20th century. (shrink)

The parallel distributed processing (PDP) perspective brings forward the important point that all semantic phenomena are based on analog underlying mechanisms, involving the weighted summation of multiple inputs by individual neurons. It falls short of indicating, however, how the essentially discrete nature of semantic processing may emerge at the cognitive level. Bridging this gap probably requires attractor networks.

El movimiento transhumanista tiene, entre sus propuestas principales, el proyecto de alargar la vida para poder alcanzar la inmortalidad en una vida indefinida o en una forma cibernética de existencia. En este artículo se presenta la propuesta del transhumanismo y se reflexiona sobre el deseo de ser inmortales y sobre las implicaciones antropológicas de la muerte. La crítica se hace desde la consideración de aspectos fundamentales del ser humano, como la finitud, la historicidad y la vulnerabilidad. Además, el proyecto transhumanista (...) de vencer la muerte supone una propuesta de salvación, que coincide en su formulación con la misma que hace el cristianismo. Ambos pretenden una victoria sobre la muerte. La crítica teológica se centra en la comprensión de la muerte y en la reflexión sobre los medios para vencerla. En este artículo la crítica al proyecto transhumanista se dirige, más que a lo que propone, a lo que queda sin plantear, provocando una reducción en la comprensión de la muerte y en la forma de vencerla. (shrink)

The act of iudicare hostes (‘declare public enemy’) was a formal pronouncement of the Roman Senate, voted for the first time in 88 BCE following a proposal by L. Cornelius Sulla after his first march on Rome. Legal historians have generally interpreted it as an emergency measure intended to preserve legality in a situation of civil strife and viewed it as a consistently defined institutional framework throughout the final decades of the Republic. Through an analysis of Sulla’s performative political communication, (...) before, during and in the immediate aftermath of the march, this paper argues that the act of judging (iudicare) someone a public enemy (hostis publicus) was first deployed as a political action, void of legal effects. Later instances of iudicare suggest that this act underwent a process of institutionalization after 63 BCE. (shrink)

Stakeholder engagement and dialogue have a central role in defining the relations between organisations and their internal and external interlocutors. Drawing upon the analysis of dialogic motifs, power–conflict dynamics and sociopolitical perspectives, and based on a set of interviews with the stakeholders of a consumer-owned cooperative, the research explores the dialogic potential of stakeholder engagement. The analysis revealed a fragmented picture where the co-design and co-implementation aspects were mainly related to the non-business areas of cooperative life, while business logic dominated (...) the most central aspects. Stakeholder engagement was mainly related to consensus building, while dialogic engagement based on a pluralistic understanding was only partially considered and then neglected. The social capital in the local area, the growing size of the organisation and the related power structure embrace stakeholder engagement, influencing the orientation of the dialogic dynamic. The analysis indicates that a dialogic exchange is a relative concept which depends on the interests involved and the topics discussed. It also reveals that the key factors in the democratisation of stakeholder engagement are a mutual understanding and long-term opportunities. Common sociopolitical aspects are also important, but they do not necessarily guarantee the creation of dialogism paths. The research contributes to the critical dialogic literature in revealing whether and how stakeholder engagement has been implemented in a specific setting. It also shows the limitations of voluntarist stakeholder engagement initiatives. (shrink)