Recently, both in the Netherlands and in Belgium, legislation has been approved to depenalize »euthanasia «. From the background of a theological perspective and in the light of a justified aspiration for >death with dignity requirements of due care the gift of life<.
In this article, I respond to critiques of my book Kant’s Radical Subjectivism: Perspectives on the Transcendental Deduction (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). I address issues that are raised concerning objectivity, the nature of the object, the role of transcendental apperception and the imagination, and idealism. More in particular I respond to an objection against my reading of the necessary existence of things in themselves and their relation to appearances. I also briefly respond to a question that relates to the debate (...) on Kantian nonconceptualism, more in particular, the question whether Kant allows animals objective intentionality. Lastly, I respond to one objection against my reading of Hegel’s critique of Kant. (The copy uploaded here is an English translation of the original Dutch version that is published in the journal.). (shrink)
Patients with schizophrenia have an impairment in the inhibition of reflexive saccades, as a consequence of a functional impairment of the prefrontal cortex, which has not yet been encapsulated in terms of a formal model. A number of novel and testable hypotheses can be generated from the framework proposed by Findlay & Walker that will stimulate further research. Their framework therefore marks an important step in the development of a comprehensive functional model of saccadic eye movements. Further advances will be (...) assisted by (1) a recognition of important distinctions in the executive control of volitional saccades and (2) addressing the capacity for cross-model integration of spatial information in the generation of the spatial properties of saccadic eye movements. (shrink)
The effects of natural selection as a process in natural populations differs from ''survival of the fittest'' as it was formulated by Darwin in his ''Origin of Species''. The environment of a population exists of continuous changing conditions, which are heterogeneous in space. During its life each individual successively meets with differing conditions. During these confrontations the individual may appear to be ''unfit'' or ''unlucky'' and may die. If it survives it will meet the following conditions to which it is (...) ''tested'' anew, a.s.o. Hence, many individuals being less fit under certain conditions will survive and reproduce, because they did not meet a deadly moment. Therefore, being ''fit'' only refers to special prevalent conditions. In each generation the individuals thus being ''unfit'' will be eliminated together with the ''unlucky'' ones. All other individuals will survive and reproduce, notwithstanding their properties.Hence, natural selection results in the ''non-survival of the non-fit'' rather than in ''survival of the fittest'', because being ''fit'' simply means ''having survived and reproduced'', whereas being ''unfit'' can be connected with many kinds of properties and environmental conditions, e.g. being killed by a predator. Only after many generations (hundreds or even thousands) the effect of eventually dominating properties of the survivors may result in a set of properties suggesting an overall ''survival of the fittest''. This was what Darwin wanted to explain as he was mainly interested in evolutionary processes. (shrink)
This short article offers a summary comparison of the narrative syntagm of Greimas (Contract, including competence), Performance and Recognition) with MacCormick’s institutional theory (institutive, consequential and terminative rules) and introduces the symposium articles by Anna Pintore, Monica den Boer, François Paychère, Bert van Roermund and Geoffrey Samuel.