The question dealt with in the article is the following: Is reality a Unity, a Plurality or a Whole. We do not expect to get definit results, we are only interested in pointing out a new ideal of scientific research.Under the predominance of physical thinking science was inclined upon nature as a Unity. The philosophy corresponding with this conception is Monism, to which belong all philosophical systems founded on the mecanistic idea from the primitive Monism ofHaeckel to the most sophisticated (...) Positivism. All these conceptions had to be rejected, because they were not able to eliminate the contingences of reality.Every conception of nature consistent with experience must recognize these contingences of reality. On this bases one can take reality either as a plurality or as a whole. According to the doctrine of pluralism contingence of the laws of nature is an original phenomenon which has to be accepted as such. This would mean the definit solution of the philosophical problems, if this would prove to be the only philosophy founded on the principle of contingence.But there is still such an another conception that is Holism. Here contrary to Pluralism, the domains of reality are not absolutely autonomous but form an organic whole comparable to that of the organs of a living body. In a living body each organ besides having its autonomous life, fulfils a special function in the whole of the organism. In the same science the different domains of reality are only the functionally differenciated organs of the whole nature. Consequently nature is not a passive and mecanistic unity, but an active and creative whole. Each cell is a member of a tissue, each tissue a member of an organ and the organ a member of the whole organism; each of them however has its personal and relatively “autonomous” existence. In the same way physical reality forms a member of organical reality, organical reality a member of psiquical reality, psiquical reality a member of social reality and social reality a member of historical reality. These domains also keep their autonomy and contingence. So the members of an organism can only be explained starting from the superior organ, i.e. in order to understand the functions of the cell one must first know those of the tissue etc. Though different domains of reality can only be understood by deriving in each case the less complicated reality from the more complicated, for instance the physical reality must be derived from organical reality, organical reality from psiquical reality etc. ... The details of the argumentation are given in the treatise itself. In summary the result is a biological conception of nature as a whole instead of physical conception prevalent up to now.La question formulée est la suivante: il s' agit de prouver si la réalité est une unité, une pluralité ou une totalité. Nous ne nous proposons pas trouver des résultats définitifs; nous nous bornerons plutôt à renseigner un nouveau ideal de la connaissance des choses, pour ainsi servir les buts de la science avenir.Sous la prévalence de l'orientation physicale la science tendait à comprendre la nature comme une seule unité. La philosophie qui corresponde à cette conception est le Monisme, qui embrasse tous les systèmes philosophiques fondés sur l'idée mécanistique du monisme primitif deHaeckel jusqu'au positivisme sublime. Toutes ces conceptions ont échoué, car ils n'étaient pas capables d'éliminer les contingences de la réalité.Toute la conception de la nature soutenable du point de vue empirique, doit reconnaître ces contingences de la réalité. Sur cette base on peut comprendre la réalité ou comme une pluralité ou comme une totalité. Selon la doctrine de pluralisme “la contingence des lois de la nature” est un phénomène, qu'on doit accepter comme tel. Il donnerait la solution définitive des problèmes philosophiques, à moins qu'il n'existât une autre philosophie de la réalité fondée, elle aussi, sur la contingence de la nature.Cette nouvelle philosophie est le Holisme.À la difference du pluralisme les rayons de la réalité ne constituent pas des domaines absolument autonomes, mais ils forment une totalité organique comparable à celle des membres d'un corps vivant. Dans un corps vivant chaque organe, entre la vie autonome, remplit une fonction spécifique dans l'ensemble total de l'organisme. De la même façon les différents rayons de la réalité ne sont que des organes fonctionnellement différenciés de la nature totale. Par conséquent, la nature n'est pas une unité passive et mécanistique, mais une totalité active et créatrice. Chaque cellule est un membre du tissu, chaque tissu un membre de l'organe et chaque organe un membre de l'organisme total; cependant chacun d'eux a sa propre existence. D'une manière analogue la réalité physique forme un membre de la réalité organique, la réalité organique un membre de la réalité psychique, la réalité psychique un membre de la réalité sociale, et enfin la réalité sociale un membre de la réalité historique. Toute fois ces rayons conservent leur autonomie et leur contingence. Or, les membres d'un organisme ne peuvent être expliqués qu'en partant de l'organe supérieur, c'est à dire pour comprendre les fonctions de la cellule il faut d'abord connaître celle du tissu et ainsi de suite etc. Les différents rayons de la réalité ne peuvent donc être compris qu'en dérivant, en chaque cas, la réalité moins compliquée, ce qui signifie par exemple qu'on doit dériver la réalité physique de la réalité organique, la réalité organique de la réalité psychique etc. Les détails de l'argumentation sont donnés dans le traité lui-même.En résumé il résulte une conception biologique de la réalité totale au lieu de la conception physique qui prévalait jusqu'ici. (shrink)

The fundamental concepts of the theory of knowledge ofKant—“transzendental”, “apriori”, and “aposteriori”, “konstitutiver” and “regulativer Vernunftgebrauch”, “Ding an sich”, “Erkenntnisvermögen”, etc.—are exemplified and examined by the modern theory of axiomatics. Therefrom essential consequences result in respect of modern theoretical biology as well as the elimination of usual misunderstandings about the relation between physics and biology in the philosophical system ofKant. The usual view thatKant would have admitted to physics only the causal-constitutive method of thinking, and on the contrary would have (...) admitted to biology merely a teleologic-regulative process, has to be rejected being entirely erroneous. — Then the theory of the “Ding an sich” is interpreted metabiologically, not metaphysically and finallyKants terminology of knowledge is explained biologically.Les notions fondamentales de la théorie de connaissance deKant — „transzendental”, „apriori” et „aposteriori”, „konstitutiver” et „regulativer Vernunftgebrauch”, „Ding an sich”, „Erkenntnisvermögen” etc. — sont mises en évidence et examinées par la théorie de l'axiomatique moderne. De là s'ensuivent des conséquences essentielles pour la biologie théorique moderne, ainsi que la suppression de malentendus en égard au rapport de la physique et de la biologie dans le système philosophique deKant. L'interprétation usuelle, selon laquelleKant aurait voulu accorder le raisonnement causal-constitutif à seule la physique, et, au contraire, n'aurait voulu accorder qu'un procédé téléologique-régulatif à la biologie, doit être rejetée comme étant entièrement erronnée. Ensuite, la doctrine de la „Ding an sich” est interprétée métabiologiquement au lieu de métaphysiquement, et enfin, la terminologie de la connaissance deKant est expliquée biologiquement. (shrink)

Es wird der Nachweis versucht, dass es — ebenso wie in der Physik — auch in der Biologie komplementäre Erkenntnissysteme gibt. Wie Welle und Korpuskel in der Physik, so sind innerhalb der Biologie u.a. Form und Funktion, Innenwelt und Umwelt sowie auch vor allem Vererbung und Anpassung komplementäre Begriffsgefüge. Das wird im einzelnen diskutiert und nachgewiesen.Für die Erkenntnis der Wirklichkeit im Ganzen folgt daraus, dass systematisch aufgebaute Erkenntnisgefüge nur in Teilbereichen des Wirklichen möglich sind — nur in der klassischen Mechanik, (...) der Elektrodynamik, der vergleichenden Anatomie, der Genetik usw. — Das Wirkliche in seiner Gesamthet hingegen besitzt keine systematische sondern nur eine historisch-dialektische Struktur. Metaphysisch bedeutet das, dass das Wesen der Wirklichkeit in schöpferischer Freiheit im Sinne etwaGoethes, aber nicht in sturer Notwendigkeit besteht.Se demuestra que — como en laFisica — tambien en la Biologia existen complementarios sistemas de conocimiento. Como onda y corpúsculo dentro de la Fisica, asi son dentro de la Biologia entre otros forma y función, mundo internoy ambientey en primer lugar también herencia y adaptación principios complementarios. Esto será discutido y demonstrado en sus particularidades.Para el conocimiento de la realidad como totalidad sigue de tales consideraciones la conclusión que conocimientos sistematicamente construidos son posibles solo en esferas particulares de la realidad — como p.e. en la mecánica racional, en la electrodinámica, en la anatomia comparada, en la genética etc. —. Lo real en su totalidad posee al contrario ninguna estructura sistemática sino solo un históricadialectica. Metafisicamente hablado significa esto que la esencia de la realidad consiste en una libertad creativa en el sentido deGoethe, pero de ninguna manera en una necesidad absoluta en el sentido deSpinoza. (shrink)

Ziel der Abhandlung ist die Untersuchung der grundlegenden Prinzipien einer autonombiologischen Kausalität. Wenn die Biologie in autonomer Weise auf ihr gemässe Prinzipien gegründet werden soll —wie das die Physik in ihrer Sphäre auch durchgeführt hat —, dann muss das biologische Denken sich zunächst von einem Idol befreien, das ihr von der klassischen Physik aufgezwungen ist. Das ist der Begriff des „Mechanismus”, der bei seiner Schaffung gewiss von grossem Werte auch für die Biologie gewesen ist, der aber heute dem biologischen Denken (...) grossen Schaden dadurch zufügt, dass er es in eine ihm völlig fremde Richtung zwängt.Die Organismen und alle ihre Organe von der einfachsten Zellorganelle bis zum komplexesten Organsystem sind aber keine Mechanismen sondern Holismen . Es wird versucht, die wesentlichen Kriterien des Holismusprinzips zu bestimmen. Zunächst gilt für sie das Axiom von v.Ehrenfels, demzufolge jeder Holismus „mehr ist als die Summe seiner Teile”. Das wird im einzelnen genauer analysiert. Weiterhin gilt für Holismen das Kompensationsprinzip vonGoethe. Damit im Zusammenhang stehen die Prinzipien der „spezifischen Energie” vonJohannes Müller, das Prinzip vonRedi , das Prinzip vonVernadsky über die Konstanz der Biosphäre, das Prinzip der phylogenetischen Kompensationen und das Prinzip von der „Ektropie” der Biosphäre.Alle diese Prinzipien werden im einzelnen diskutiert und analysiert. In engstem Zusammenhang miteinander bilden sie ein autonomes Axiomengefüge für die Biologische Erkenntnis, durch welches wiederum die eigentümlich „biologische Kausalität” charakterisiert ist. Genau in diesem Sinne sind Holismen „verae causae” .El presente ensayo tiene por fin supremo la investigación de los principios basicos de una autónoma causalidad biologica. Si se quiere fundar la Biologia en sus propios principios autónomos —como se lo ha hecho también con la Fisica misma —, entonces será primeramente necesario que la Biologia se delibera de una ideologia completamente extraña para ella, la cual la Fisica clásica le ha transferido. Esto es el concepto del “mecanismo”, que en su origin ha sido de gran valor también para la Biologia, pero que hoydia produce enorme daño a la Biologia.Los organismos y todos sus órganos de la mas simple organela celular hasta el mas complicado sistema de órganos sin embargo de ninguna manera no son mecanismos sino al contrario holismos . Ahora se ensaya de determinar los criterios esenciales del principio del holismo. Primero es valido para los holismos el axioma de v.Ehrenfels que dice que cada Organismo representa “más que la suma de sus partes”. Además vale para holismos el principio de la compensación deGoethe. Con esto están relacionados los principios de la “energia especifica” deJuan Müller, el axioma deRedi , el principio deVernadsky acerca de la constancia de la biósfera, el principio de las compensaciones filogenéticas y el principio de la “ectropia” de la biósfera.Todos los mencionados principios y axiomas serán discutidos y analizados en sus particularidades. En su conjunto representan ellos un sistema de axiomas autónomos para el conocimiento biológico, el cual como tal caracteriza también la asi llamada causalidad biologica. Precisamente en tal sentido son los holismos “verae causae”. (shrink)

Adolf Meyer-Abich spent his career as one of the most vigorous and varied advocates in the biological sciences. Primarily a philosophical proponent of holistic thought in biology, he also sought through collaboration with empirically oriented colleagues in biology, medicine, and even physics to develop arguments against mechanistic and reductionistic positions in the life sciences, and to integrate them into a newly disciplinary theoretical biology. He participated in major publishing efforts including the founding of Acta Biotheoretica. He also sought international (...) contacts and worked for long stretches in Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and the United States. His career straddled the Nazi period, which led him into a complex dance of support for and resistance to the regime. Despite the relative failure of his conceptual innovations to catch on, his ideas and writings sit squarely within the trajectory of thought and argument that has led to today’s reinvigoration of thought about conceptual integration in evolutionary developmental biology. (shrink)

George Engel’s biopsychosocial model was associated with the critique of biomedical dogmatism and acknowledged the historical precedence of the work of Adolf Meyer. However, the importance of Meyer’s psychobiology is not always recognized. One of the reasons may be because of his tendency to compromise with biomedical attitudes. This paper restates the Meyerian perspective, explicitly acknowledging the split between biomedical and biopsychological approaches in the origin of modern psychiatry. Our present-day understanding of this conflict is confounded by reactions to (...) ‘anti-psychiatry.’ Neo-Meyerian principles can only be reestablished by a challenge to biomedicine that accepts, as did Meyer, the inherent uncertainty of medicine and psychiatry. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Adolf Meyer: Psychiatric AnarchistS. Nassir Ghaemi (bio)KeywordsMeyer, biopsychosocial model, Jaspers, pluralism, philosophy, psychiatryThey had weekly lunches in 1920s New York City: In one door stepped a stooped philosopher, with a mustache and a twinkle, perhaps ruminating on some recent Marxist theory; in the other door came the elegant Swiss physician, goateed and erudite. Every week, for a time, John Dewey (leader of American pragmatism) and Adolf Meyer (...) (dean of mid-twentieth century American psychiatry and long-time chair of the Johns Hopkins psychiatry department) lunched together and, somewhere in those conversations—one might imagine—the field of philosophy and psychiatry was born (Meyer 1948, 152).Yet pragmatism—as a proper school of philosophy—does not capture Meyer’s psychiatry. Rather, the core of his thinking, in my view, is to be found in a vague term that deserves analysis: eclecticism.EclecticismIt has been said that eclecticism is a vice in theory but a virtue in practice (Stone 1981), which highlights why so many are attracted to it. Deep down, practitioners just want to be free: They believe that their freedom of choice will tailor treatments best to patients and thus result in best outcomes. As a conceptual theory for psychiatry, eclecticism is a model that views any theory or method as potentially correct, but no theory or method as definitively incorrect. There is no way to avoid an “anything goes” practice with eclecticism: It is—to use a political analogy—an anarchism of mind.William James once remarked that the basis for all philosophies lies in the personalities of philosophers. So it was with Meyer’s eclecticism: congenial personally, he seemed congenitally incapable of disagreeing with any person. Any idea, even the most unusual, would receive a respectful hearing from Meyer. (Double brings out new, excellent documentary evidence of this extreme indecision in the drafts of Meyer’s unsent letters to the behaviorist John Watson.) Although quaint and commendable pedagogically, this excessive open mindedness left American psychiatry—so dependent on Meyer—prey to hard-headed biological radicals and psychoanalytic dogmatists. This is where his eclecticism failed us.Enabling Biological ExtremismMeyer played a key role in legitimizing extreme biological approaches. In addition to his interest in insulin coma (which Double mentions), Meyer enabled the popularization of colectomy and frontal [End Page 341] lobotomy. Psychiatric colectomy, developed by Henry Cotton, was based on the focal toxin theory of mental illness—the idea that mental illness was caused by toxins released by bacteria in the body, the specific locations of which where were the colon and rotted teeth. In one hundred case reports, with mostly short-term follow-up, published in his prominent text, The Defective Delinquent and Insane (Cotton 1921), Cotton laid out his case, which Meyer legitimized by writing a generous foreword. Meyer’s authority was powerful enough to render Cotton’s limited evidence base much more credible than it might otherwise have been. In the 1920s and 1930s, tens of thousands colectomies and full mouth teeth extractions were conducted in patients with mental illness. (Meyer himself sometimes recommended it).1The other biological extremist story is more famous. In a 1936 conference, with Meyer in attendance, the neurologist Walter Freeman presented, for the first time, cases of refractory schizophrenia treated with a new method: frontal lobotomy. Psychoanalyst attendees protested that Freeman was proposing nothing more than mutilation of the brain; yet Meyer intervened in favor of Free-man (“I am not antagonistic to this work, but find it very interesting” [El-Hai 2005]). Unfortunately, Freeman, like Cotton, was a dogmatist: Over time, he performed frontal lobotomy more and more extensively, not just as a treatment of last resort in the most ill schizophrenics (as in the first cases presented to Meyer), but later as a treatment of first resort for the mildest mood disorders. (By 1950 Freeman had personally conducted 2400 transorbital lobotomies, an “office procedure” that allowed him to lobotomize a patient in 15 minutes [El-Hai 2005]).2Lest my critique of Meyer in that era be seen as a Whiggish interpretation of history (the claim that we are so much smarter than those shrinks of the past; in fact I think... (shrink)

This contribution aims at discussing the agonistic dimension of John Dewey’s pragmatism. The paper starts by reconstructing Dewey’s influence on Albert Meyer, a leading figure of 20th-century American psychiatry. This comparison will shed light on Dewey’s influence on Meyer, focusing on some core psychological notions such as mental health and growth. Moreover, it will show the key role played by the category of conflict in Dewey’s pragmatism, and how the latter can account for the darker and more problematic sides of (...) human life. The paper ends with a quick elaboration on the notion of survivance, which denotes the ability to “go on” – both as individuals and as societies – in the face of conflict and devastation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Eclecticism and Adolf Meyer’s Functional Understanding of Mental IllnessD. B. Double (bio)KeywordsAdolf Meyer, eclecticism, functionalism, biopsychosocial modelGhaemi’s Commentary and Meyer’s ‘Eclecticism’I am not against humanism. How could anyone be against the humanistic wisdom rooted in the worthy writings of Socrates, Hippocrates, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Osler, and the others listed by Nassir Ghaemi? Psychiatry should recognize the dignity and value of all people. The problem is that it may not (...) always do so, coming from a reductionist paradigm as it so often does.Ghaemi appreciates that Meyer’s compromising attitude meant that he was “unable to inoculate psychiatry from biological dogmatism.” My emphasis is on the challenge of Meyer’s psychobiology to biomedicine. In the same way, Engel’s biopsychosocial model acknowledged the need to neutralize the power of an impersonal and mechanical medicine. Doctors tend to overemphasize physical abnormalities at the expense of dealing with difficult personal issues.At the risk of oversimplification, I am juxtaposing biopsychosocial and biomedical models in psychiatry. Or in other terms, for our modern understanding, I am asserting a neo-Meyerian approach in contrast to neo-Kraepelinianism. Merely restating the Meyerian perspective will not do, because of Meyer’s ‘give and take,’ and his consequent failure to follow through the implication of his position. At least the ethical ramifications of his conceptual framework need to be acknowledged.Neo-Meyerianism also needs to be realized in the context of the reaction to anti-psychiatry. After anti-psychiatry’s attack, our modern understanding of mental illness has tended to be been subsumed into the binary opposition of ‘pro-psychiatry’ and ‘anti-psychiatry.’ But neo-Meyerianism is as much pro-psychiatric as biomedical psychiatry. It is in this sense that biopsychological approaches have been undermined by the biomedical reaction to anti-psychiatry. [End Page 355]I also agree with Ghaemi that there is a way in which the failures of the biopsychosocial model allowed the development of anti-psychiatry. For example, even though Laing quoted favorably from psychologically minded psychiatrists such as Manfred Bleuler, as far as I know he never made any reference to Meyer. There was never a systematic Meyerian theory to which Laing could refer. In fact, Laing wished to move beyond an interpretative understanding to abandon the metaphor of pathology (Double 2006). Perhaps if the biopsychosocial model had been more clearly defined, Laing would not have felt he needed to take this step. Or, at least in doing so, he would have been clearer about where he stood on this issue. When labeling Laing’s views as ‘anti-psychiatry,’ biomedical psychiatry would have had to state more precisely how Laing’s position was anti- rather than pro-psychiatric.My main disagreement with Ghaemi is his view of Meyer as eclectic. Meyer’s willingness to allow ‘anything goes’ in psychiatry meant that he did not oppose or challenge too much the views of those with whom he disagreed. Nonetheless, he did not combine together different sources to create an unintegrated philosophical and conceptual understanding. His theoretical position is internally consistent.Modern American psychiatry studied by participant observation is “of two minds,” in that there is a divided consciousness created between the practices of drug therapy and psychotherapy (Luhrmann 2000). In this sense, it is eclectic because there is no consistent theory that combines the two practice modes. True, psychiatry often claims that the foundation for this mixture is the biopsychosocial model. It asserts that everyday psychiatry is not as purely biomedical as is often maintained because it takes into account psychosocial factors that may precipitate mental disorders. It, therefore, says that it bring together the biological and psychosocial. This compromise avoids the adoption of any one model and was proposed to neutralize the dogmatism engendered by the anti-psychiatry debate (Clare 1980). I agree with Ghaemi that such eclecticism has outlived its usefulness.Where I think Ghaemi is mistaken is that he sees Meyer and Engel as the originators of this eclecticism. I regard the Meyerian approach as more genuinely pragmatic than Ghaemi suggests. Meyer’s dynamic psychology sought an integration of mind and brain as a way of dealing with the philosophical dilemma of the mind–body... (shrink)

Using newly uncovered archival sources, this essay traces the meteoric rise and fall of the peculiar interdisciplinary German scientific journal Physis, founded by the physicist Pascual Jordan and the biologist Adolf Meyer-Abich in 1941. Launched when victory for Nazi Germany seemed certain, Physis was intended by Jordan and Meyer-Abich to be a premier international journal for all sciences suitable for the new “German-led Europe” forged by conquest. Yet the journal was simultaneously a vehicle for institutionalizing Jordan’s remarkably prescient vision (...) of the future of the scientific enterprise in Hitler’s state—a vision nearly identical to what is now termed “big science,” yet suitably “Nazified” for wartime Germany. Behind the scenes, Physis was accompanied by a campaign of intrigue, through which Jordan and Meyer-Abich hoped to find a patron for the journal and big science among the various power centers of the Nazi state. These efforts failed, yet they nevertheless demonstrate that big science is not inherently democratic. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Adolph Meyer’s Psychobiology in Historical Context, and Its Relationship to George Engel’s Biopsychosocial ModelEdwin R. Wallace IV (bio)Keywordspsychobiology, integrative models of psychiatry, biopsychosocial modelBefore addressing the importance of Adolf Meyer and the question of his impact on the biopsychosocial model of the psychoanalytical internist George Engel, let us tersely sketch the history of functionalism in medicine/psychiatry, and of the nineteenth/early twentieth century’s progressive abandonment of it in favor (...) of basic science reductive models of “disease,” not illness.FunctionalismWhereas Hippocratic physicians diagnosed diatheses in terms of humoral excesses or deficiencies, their primary emphasis was on the ill person. They began with careful histories of the patient’s complaints and his or her daily life course, customary activities, typical foods and beverages imbibed, and the exacerbation or relief of symptoms associated with any or all of these. They also asked questions about his physical and social environment. They carefully looked for any clinically pertinent signs, and might physically examine the patient or his excretions. When they arrived at a diagnosis (say, an excess of yellow or black bile, or of blood or phlegm), they would educate the patient about it and discuss possible approaches. Although leeching, emetics, or purgatives might be prescribed, “dietetics” was the core of the treatment. Much more than recommendations about dietary intake, this involved conversations about “lifestyle” management in general: exercise, fresh air, habit changes, and perhaps bathing in mineral waters or spas. If the patient were “melancholic” (which then included what we would now consider a variety of psychiatric disorders), he or she might be prescribed daily swimming and other forms of vigorous exercise, conversations with a philosopher, [End Page 347] attendance at theatrical comedies, or even referral to an Asklepian temple for “incubation sleep” and priestly dream interpretation. Often doctors worked closely with physical trainers, to whom they sent their patients. In short, their orientation was holistic (“mind”/”body” integration), directed first and foremost toward an individual ill person.In the second century, C.E. Galen, despite his humoral and anatomical pathologies, was similarly holistic or functionalist. He resorted to a variety of physical examinational methods while also attending to the patient’s mental/emotional status. He described one case where he was attending a woman for syncopal episodes. His examinations of her included his customary attention to the pulse. During one evening session, a servant entered and happened to mention that he had just seen the handsome Pylades dancing. Suddenly her pulse became irregular and she fainted straight away. This led Galen to consider love sickness, and perhaps not humoral or organ pathology. He tested his hypothesis during subsequent visits. Whenever another dancer or actor was mentioned, her pulse remained regular and her sensorium alert, but when Pylades was mentioned the irregular pulse and fainting recurred. Because she was married, Galen realized her insoluble conflict, and treated her accordingly.From the fall of Rome until the rise of University Medicine in the later Middle Ages, medical lore and doctoring was in monastic hands—each monastery had its clerical medic, who might also attend outsiders. They were attuned to the traditional triad of major mental disorders—mania, melancholia, and phrenitis—which they explained somatically. However, they also encountered lesser mental/emotional disorders for which they developed their own nosology. “Scrupulosity,” for example, characterized a committed monk with an unrealistic sense of sinfulness and guilt—which often drove him to self-mortification such as flagellation, hair shirts with chains underneath, and so forth, for which the remedy was kindly pastoral counseling. “Accedia” was akin to our “dysthymia,” whose sufferer was affected by sadness, lassitude, and impaired capacity to carry out the monastic routine. This was viewed as straddling the boundary between sickness and sin. Routine physical labor (“occupational therapy”) and prayers, confession, penance, and “pep talks” were prescribed.When universities with medical schools arose in the latter Middle Ages, students’ educations were mostly bookish and theoretical. Hippocratic and Galenic somatic orientations were still preeminent. (Vesalius would not publish his illustrated anatomical text until 1543.) Dietetics and purgatives, bloodletting, and so on were still favored treatments. Nevertheless, doctors gave considerable time and attention to their patients as ill... (shrink)

*Weitere Angaben Inhalt: Mit der Frage nach der Zuständigkeit der eigenen Nase in Religionsangelegenheiten beginnt diese ungewöhnliche Reise in Erfahrungsbereiche, die von Theologen bislang eher gemieden wurden. Nicht der Inhalt von Glaubensbekenntnissen ist Gegenstand des Interesses, sondern der Tonfall, in dem sie vorgetragen werden. Von bestimmten Kirchengerüchen geht die Rede, von Körperhaltungen beim Gottesdienst, von Kindheitserinnerungen und vom Läuten der Glocken. Dabei stellt sich heraus, dass mit dem abgenützten Etikett des Religiösen die Sinnenfälligkeit des Erlebten nur sehr oberflächlich bezeichnet wird.

Beneath the stylized violence and thrilling car crashes, the Mad Max films consider universal questions about the nature of human life, order and anarchy, justice and moral responsibility, society and technology, and ultimately, human redemption. In Mad Max and Philosophy, a diverse team of political scientists, historians, and philosophers investigates the underlying themes of the blockbuster movie franchise, following Max as he attempts to rebuild himself and the world. -/- This book guides you through the barren wastelands of a post-apocalyptic (...) future as you explore ethics and politics in The Wasteland, the importance of costumes and music, humankind's relationship with nature, commerce, gender, religion, madness, and more. (shrink)

Thus, Meyers provides a valuable account, not only of current medical attitudes, but also of relevant case and statute law as it stands at present.

This paper offers a refutation of P. Duhem's thesis that the falsifiability of an isolated empirical hypothesis H as an explanans is unavoidably inconclusive. Its central contentions are the following: 1. No general features of the logic of falsifiability can assure, for every isolated empirical hypothesis H and independently of the domain to which it pertains, that H can always be preserved as an explanans of any empirical findings O whatever by some modification of the auxiliary assumptions A in conjunction (...) with which H functions as an explanans. For Duhem cannot guarantee on any general logical grounds the deducibility of O from an explanans constituted by the conjunction of H and some revised non-trivial version R of A: the existence of the required set R of collateral assumptions must be demonstrated for each particular case. 2. The categorical form of the Duhemian thesis is not only a non-sequitur but actually false. This is shown by adducing the testing of physical geometry as a counterexample to Duhem in the form of a rebuttal to A. Einstein's geometrical articulation of Duhem's thesis. 3. The possibility of a quasi a priori choice of a physical geometry in the sense of Duhem must be clearly distinguished from the feasibility of a conventional adoption of such a geometry in the sense of H. Poincare. And the legitimacy of the latter cannot be invoked to save the Duhemian thesis from refutation by the foregoing considerations. (shrink)

The inclusion of engineering standards in US science education standards is potentially important because of how limited engineering education for K-12 learners is, despite the ubiquity of engineering in students’ lives. However, the majority of learners experience science education throughout their compulsory schooling. If improved engineering literacy is to be achieved, then its inclusion in science curricula is perhaps the most efficient means. One significant challenge that arises, however, is in the framing of engineering relative to science by both teachers (...) and curriculum. Science and engineering are both distinct and interdependent. The nature of the contributions of science and engineering to one another has been an area of some examination in philosophy of technology and engineering, but little framing of this relationship has been conducted with K-12 science and engineering education contexts in mind. Nature of science is a critical layer of scientific understanding that has been used to explicitly support literacy in K-16 science classrooms for decades. However, engineering cannot be authentically and appropriately supported by NOS framing. There is an immediate need for discourse on the nature of engineering knowledge but not in isolation of NOS. Given the increasing inclusion of engineering in science classrooms, relationships between NOS and NOEK are in need of explication and argument. Our purpose is to promote a discussion about NOS, engineering, and the relationship between them without misrepresenting engineering as a subdomain of science or as an oversimplification of itself. (shrink)

Prompted by the "Panel Discussion of Grünbaum's Philosophy of Science" (Philosophy of Science 36, December, 1969) and other recent literature, this essay ranges over major issues in the philosophy of space, time and space-time as well as over problems in the logic of ascertaining the falsity of a scientific hypothesis. The author's philosophy of geometry has recently been challenged along three main distinct lines as follows: (i) The Panel article by G. J. Massey calls for a more precise and more (...) coherent account of the Riemannian conception of an intrinsic as opposed to an extrinsic metric, which the author has invoked as his basis for the distinction between non-conventional and convention-laden ascriptions of metrical equality and inequality; (ii) the latter distinction has been claimed to suffer from the liabilities of the so-called "standard conception" of scientific theories [36]; and (iii) pursuant to H. Putnam's "An Examination of Grünbaum's Philosophy of Geometry" [56], J. Earman [16, 17] and R. Swinburne [65] have contended that the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic metrics is scientifically unilluminating, and that the associated distinction between non-conventional and convention-laden metrical comparisons does not have the kind of relevance to extant scientific theories that the author has claimed for it. The essay consists of two installments. The present installment, comprising the Introduction and Part A, is devoted to the clarification, correction and further development of the author's prior writings on the philosophy of geometry. Its main objective is constructive elaboration rather than offering polemics. But rebuttals to Earman, [16, 17], Swinburne [65] and Demopoulos [13] are included, because their inclusion conduced to clarity in giving the new exposition. Part B is to appear in a subsequent issue and will be devoted to replies to critiques contained in the Panel Discussion and in other recent literature. It will range over issues in the philosophy of geometry and in the logic of ascertaining the falsity of a scientific hypothesis. By way of merely elliptical anticipation of much more precise statements given in Part A, section 3(ii), the Introduction dissociates the notion of convention-ladenness developed in Part A from the quite different notion integral to the so-called "standard conception" of scientific theories. Thereby, the Introduction prepares the ground for seeing, as a corollary to Part A, section 3(ii), that the notion advocated in the present essay has nothing to fear from the following fact, noted by C. G. Hempel ([36]; cf. also his 1970 Carus Lectures): "even though a sentence may originally be introduced as true by stipulation, it soon joins the club of all other member-statements of the theory and becomes subject to revision in response to further empirical findings and theoretical developments." Part A, which begins with a fairly detailed table of contents, endeavors to meet the aforementioned three-fold challenge to the author's philosophy of geometry. Massey's call for the provision of clear and detailed characterizations of intrinsic and extrinsic metrics is answered with the invaluable aid rendered personally by Massey himself. These characterizations are shown to permit a precise explication of the portions of Riemann's Inaugural Dissertation relevant to (1) Riemann's brilliant anticipation of Einstein's dynamical conception of physical geometry, and (2) the author's philosophical characterization of the metrics and geometries of space, time, and space-time {section 2(c)}. A byproduct of the analysis is to raise two major philosophical doubts concerning Clifford's sketch of a so-called "space-theory of matter" as elaborated in J. A. Wheeler's relativistic geometrodynamics. That theory's vision of understanding matter as a manifestation of empty curved space is questioned in regard to (1) the existence of an intra-geometrodynamic basis for individuating the metrically homogeneous world points of its space-time manifold {section 1(a)}, and (2) the compatibility of the theory with the Riemannian metrical philosophy apparently espoused by its proponents {section 2(c)(i)}. (shrink)

Meyers examines the question of personal autonomy. She observes the effects of childrearing practices and sexual biases, and reflects upon the results in women. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

According to some cosmologists, the big bang cosmogony and even the (now largely defunct) steady-state theory pose a scientifically insoluble problem of matter-energy creation. But I argue that the genuine problem of the origin of matter-energy or of the universe has been fallaciously transmuted into the pseudo-problem of creation by an external cause. A fortiori, it emerges that the initial "true" and "false" vacuum states of quantum cosmology do not vindicate biblical divine creation ex nihilo at all.

Bereby‐Meyer, Hayakawa, Shalvi, Corey, Costa and Keysar investigate lying for self‐serving reasons. Participants in their experiments had to report the outcome of rolling a die only known to them. They inflated their outcomes less, and thus lied less, when using a foreign language than when using their native language. The authors suggest that lying for self‐serving reasons is an automatic tendency that can be overcome by speaking in a foreign language. [71].

Ellis and Bowman's account of nonstandard signal synchronizations is examined as a prolegomenon to this paper. Attention is called to some consequences of an important ambiguity in their account of the transitivity of nonstandard synchrony. Then an analysis is given of the principle of relativity to assess E & B's claim that this principle either restricts nonstandard signal synchronisms or rules them out altogether. It is argued that the latitude for choices of nonstandard synchronisms is not circumscribed by the factual (...) content of the principle of relativity; instead, the exclusion of such synchronisms by this principle depends on a tacit appeal to the particular conventions implicit in certain formulations of the principle. Hence E & B's claim is rejected as an argument against the factual tenability of nonstandard synchronisms. (shrink)

Since the introduction of radio and television news, journalism has gone through multiple transformations, but each time it has been sustained by a commitment to basic values and best practices. Journalism Ethics is a reminder, a defense and an elucidation of core journalistic values, with particular emphasis on the interplay of theory, conceptual analysis and practice. The book begins with a sophisticated model for ethical decision-making, one that connects classical theories with the central purposes of journalism. Top scholars from philosophy, (...) journalism and communications offer essays on such topics as objectivity, privacy, confidentiality, conflict of interest, the history of journalism, online journalism, and the definition of a journalist. The result is a guide to ethically sound and socially justified journalism-in whatever form that practice emerges. Journalism Ethics will appeal to students and teachers of journalism ethics, as well as journalists and practical ethicists in general. (shrink)

It is a commonplace in the analytic geometry of physical space-time that an extended straight line segment, having positive length, is treated as “consisting of” unextended points, each of which has zero length. Analogously, time intervals of positive duration are resolved into instants, each of which has zero duration.

This book provides a systematic introduction to the debate on historical emissions and climate change, for students, researchers and policymakers.

The last decade has witnessed the beginnings of a remarkable convergence of Husserlian phenonenology and analytic philosophy of language, and the present volumes provide original and important texts of the phenomenological philosophy of language. Powerfully influenced by the writings of the early Husserl, Reinach fashioned Husserl’s ideas into a rigorous analytical methodology of his own, which he applied in particular to problems in logic and the theory of knowledge, and to the philosophies of law and psychology. The central role of (...) the concept of state of affairs in Reinach’s philosophy will bring to mind immediately the formal ontology of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Reinach’s most significant contribution, however, is contained in his The a priori foundations of civil law (1913), above all in the detailed analysis of the a priori structure of the act of promising. This amounts to an elaborate phenomenological theory of speech acts which anticipates, and in some respects goes beyond, the later theories of Austin and Searle. The present edition is in two volumes. Volume 1, which includes a biographical and thematic introduction by the editors, contains critical editions of those pieces published by Reinach himself. Volume II is a collection of all those items in Reinach’s surviving Nachlass which are in publishable form, including a number of important pieces not hitherto obtainable on such themes as ethical predicates, speech acts (“soziale Akte”), perception and the theory of number, together with a comprehensive sketch of the problems in the theory of knowledge, logic and ethics. Appended to this is a text-critical apparatus which also contains extensive discussions of the origins and sources of the materials in question. (shrink)

Consider where κ is an uncountable regular cardinal. By a result of Shelah's we have for almost all witnessing this. Here we consider the question if there could be a similar result for. We will discuss some basic facts implying that this cannot hold in general. We will use these facts to construct an interesting example of a pseudo Prikry forcing, answering a question of Sinapova.

Public health interventions, particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), are implemented with the never‐ending challenge of limited resources and the ever‐present challenge of choosing between interventions. While necessary, the application of ethical analysis is absent in most of such decision‐making, resulting in fewer favourable consequences. In applying ethical principles to the saving of women from the burden of cervical cancer, I argue in favour of saving statistical lives (investing in prevention) in LMICs, by mapping the principles of justice in (...) resource allocation to the prevailing circumstance. The key facts in this circumstance are that providing treatment (which is saving identified lives), involves mostly providing palliative treatment, which is associated with a high likelihood of death among the identified lives while undergoing treatment or shortly thereafter. I focus on the dilemma of having a national cancer prevention program versus the expansion of cancer treatment facilities. (shrink)

Cette traduction inedite de l'oeuvre principale d'Adolf Reinach (1883-1917) apporte des contributions fondamentales a divers champs de la connaissance. Disciple de Husserl, Reinach propose une interpretation du monde social qui engage la phenomenologie sur le terrain des actes sociaux et des experiences individuelles qui les accompagnent, afin d'isoler les structures a priori qui sont au principe meme du droit positif. Le travail de Reinach s'inscrit egalement dans un champ d'analyse philosophique et linguistique centre sur les enonces dits performatifs, baptises (...) tels par Austin quelques decennies plustard. (shrink)