Quelle est la nature et la fonction des sentiments dans l’activité de connaissance et, plus largement, dans l’existence humaine? Cette question, massive, n’a cessé d’inquiéter la philosophie, dont l’histoire paraît à bien des égards se confondre avec celle d’une opposition entre la lucidité de la raison et l’obscurité dangereuse des passions. Si le discours philosophique n’a jamais nié l’importance des sentiments, ni leur rôle dans l’ordonnancement général de la vie humaine, ce discours est cependant empreint d’ambiguïtés, comme l’est, déjà, le (...) statut du « cœur » dans la tripartition fonctionnelle de l’âme présentée par Platon : ni réductible à la droite raison, ni relégué dans la sphère des désirs qui nous empêchent de contempler les Idées, le sentiment est cet intermédiaire allié de la raison qui met en mouvement nos réactions morales. Cette ambiguïté se retrouve à l’âge classique, lorsque le discours philosophique découvre le fonctionnement des passions et cherche les modèles scientifiques susceptibles d’en rendre compte, hésitant entre la physiologie , la géométrie , la médecine et les sciences de la nature .En faisant de l’affectivité l’une des structures fondamentales de l’existence, la phénoménologie a replacé au centre du questionnement philosophique la problématique des sentiments. Mais comment décrire ces expériences singulières – celle de l’amour, de l’angoisse, du désespoir ou de la joie – sans les confondre avec des objets? Comment donner du sens aux affects sans adopter ce point de vue surplombant des sciences de la nature, qui confond le discours des causes et celui des raisons? Comment, en d’autres termes, continuer à parler des sentiments de manière raisonnée, tout en reconnaissant que les sentiments nous font autant que nous les connaissons – tout en continuant, par conséquent, à être réceptifs à leur pouvoir de nous ébranler? (shrink)

This article is part of a For-Discussion-Section of Methods of Information in Medicine about the paper "Biomedical Informatics: We Are What We Publish", written by Peter L. Elkin, Steven H. Brown, and Graham Wright. It is introduced by an editorial. This article contains the combined commentaries invited to independently comment on the Elkin et al. paper. In subsequent issues the discussion can continue through letters to the editor.

Our think tank tasked by the Dutch Health Council, consisting of Radboud University Nijmegen Honours Academy students with various backgrounds, investigated the implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for psychiatric patients. During this investigation, a number of methodological, ethical and societal difficulties were identified. We consider these difficulties to be a reflection of a still fragmented field of research that can be overcome with improved organization and communication. To this effect, we suggest that it would be useful to found a centralized (...) DBS organization. Such an organization makes it possible to 1) set up and maintain a repository, 2) facilitate DBS studies with a larger sample size, 3) improve communication amongst researchers, clinicians and ethical committees, and 4) improve communication between DBS experts and the public at large. (shrink)

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)

An adamant fan of Darwin, F.W. Headley attempts to argue the difficulties of believing in Socialism and Darwinism simultaneously and highlights issues which could prevent Socialism from being put into practice. Originally published in 1909, this study uses examples of communities in countries such as England and India to illustrate Headley’s key belief that societies only function well if they do not interfere with the fight for existence and natural selection. This title will be of interest to students of Philosophy, (...) Sociology and Anthropology. (shrink)