El objeto del presente trabajo es examinar las relaciones entre la guerra, la política y la moral, desde la Ilustración europea a nuestra Posmodernidad global. Para ello, seleccionamos dos muestras representativas: una defensa política de la guerra, el realismo político, y una defensa moral de la paz, el antibelicismo popular. Analizamos ambos, subrayando sus principales argumentos y mostrando sus consecuencias históricas. Finalmente, abordamos las nuevas guerras de la segunda mitad del siglo XX y el comienzo de este Milenio.
The aim of this text is to examine the issue of truth telling in doctor-patient relationships, namely in the case of terminal patients. We analyze the problems and attitudes regarding truth telling that there are present when patients suffer from mortal diseases. We conclude that it is very important to keep a fluent and truthful communication in the doctor-patient relationship. We also examine and stress the role that general practitioners can play in the care of terminal patients at their home (...) and with their friends and/or relatives. (shrink)
A través de la obra de Aristóteles, en especial la Constitución de Atenas y la Política, podemos hacernos una imagen no demasiado habitual de la democracia ateniense. Esta aparece como un modelo jurídico-político, que aún hoy puede dar que pensar: como una «utopía real». En concreto, nos interesan dos aspectos: la justicia tributaria y la justicia social. Ambas justicias tienen en la democracia ateniense, y en la visión de Aristóteles, un notabilísimo desarrollo. Por eso, hablamos de «fragmentos» de una utopía (...) real. (shrink)
Partiendo de la descripción y caracterización general del poder en la sociedad occidental contemporánea realizada por M. Foucault, tratamos de responder algunas preguntas relativas a la resistencia y alternativa a la dominación, siguiendo la experiencia y la reflexión de X. Tarrío, un preso común, que, a nuestro modo de ver, muestra el papel que la moral y el derecho pueden �y deben� jugar en las prácticas y procesos de apropiación y apoderamiento y de oposición y contestación a la dominación.
Gaëlle Demelemestre | Résumé : Les controverses opposant les dominicains et les jésuites après le concile de Trente renvoient l’image d’une scission qui se serait produite à ce moment au sein de la seconde scolastique, à partir de laquelle deux traditions doctrinales se seraient constituées. Existe-t-il cependant une réelle césure interprétative entre les deux ordres? Peut-on réellement trouver une différence de traitement des données ou de raisonnement permettant de distinguer deux traditions de pensée? Ce sont les questions auxquelles cet article (...) entend apporter des éléments de réponse en comparant la doctrine de deux illustres représentants de ces ordres, Domingo de Soto et Luis de Molina, sur les questions cruciales de la nature et de la fonction du droit et du pouvoir politique. Soto est le premier à proposer un exposé systématique du droit et de la loi, et Molina prolonge ses analyses en reprenant le même projet. Si leurs contemporains ne semblent pas distinguer leurs théorisations du droit, certaines différences définitionnelles préfigurent pourtant des divergences qui se creuseront chez leurs successeurs. |: The controversies between the Dominicans and the Jesuits after the Council of Trent reflect the image of a split that would have occurred at that time within the second scholasticism, from which two doctrinal traditions would have been formed. However, is there a real interpretative break between the two orders? Can we really find a difference in the data process or in the reasoning allowing to distinguish two traditions of thought? These are the questions to which this article intends to give an answer by comparing the doctrine of two illustrious representatives of these orders, Domingo de Soto and Luis de Molina, on the crucial questions of the nature and function of law and political power. Soto is the first to propose a systematic exposition of the right and the law, and Molina extends his analyzes by taking up the same project. If their contemporaries do not seem to distinguish their theorisations from the law, some defining differences prefigure, nevertheless, divergencies which will be widened among their successors. (shrink)
Reichenbachian approaches to indexicality contend that indexicals are "token-reflexives": semantic rules associated with any given indexical-type determine the truth-conditional import of properly produced tokens of that type relative to certain relational properties of those tokens. Such a view may be understood as sharing the main tenets of Kaplan's well-known theory regarding content, or truth-conditions, but differs from it regarding the nature of the linguistic meaning of indexicals and also regarding the bearers of truth-conditional import and truth-conditions. Kaplan has criticized these (...) approaches on different counts, the most damaging of which is that they make impossible a "logic of demonstratives". The reason for this is that the token-reflexive approach entails that not two tokens of the same sentential type including indexicals are guaranteed to have the same truth-conditions. In this paper I rebut this and other criticisms of the Reichenbachian approach. Additionally, I point out that Kaplan's original theory of "true demonstratives" is empirically inadequate, and claim that any modification capable of accurately handling the linguistic data would have similar problems to those attributed to the Reichenbachian approach. This is intended to show that the difficulties, no matter how real, are not caused by idiosincracies of the "token-reflexive" view, but by deep facts about indexicality. (shrink)
The paper examines an alleged distinction claimed to exist by Van Gelder between two different, but equally acceptable ways of accounting for the systematicity of cognitive output (two “varieties of compositionality”): “concatenative compositionality” vs. “functional compositionality.” The second is supposed to provide an explanation alternative to the Language of Thought Hypothesis. I contend that, if the definition of “concatenative compositionality” is taken in a different way from the official one given by Van Gelder (but one suggested by some of his (...) formulations) then there is indeed a different sort of compositionality; however, the second variety is not an alternative to the language of thought in that case. On the other hand, if the concept of concatenative compositionality is taken in a different way, along the lines of Van Gelder's explicit definition, then there is no reason to think that there is an alternative way of explaining systematicity. (shrink)
Descriptive semantic theories purport to characterize the meanings of the expressions of languages in whatever complexity they might have. Foundational semantics purports to identify the kind of considerations relevant to establish that a given descriptive semantics accurately characterizes the language used by a given individual or community. Foundational Semantics I presents three contrasting approaches to the foundational matters, and the main considerations relevant to appraise their merits. These approaches contend that we should look at the contents of speakers’ intuitions; at (...) the deep psychology of users and its evolutionary history, as revealed by our best empirical theories; or at the personal-level rational psychology of those subjects. Foundational Semantics II examines a fourth view, according to which we should look instead at norms enforced among speakers. The two papers aim to determine in addition the extent to which the approaches are really rival, or rather complementary. (shrink)
The dominant position in Philosophy of Science contends that downward causation is an illusion. Instead, we argue that downward causation doesn’t introduce vicious circles either in physics or in biology. We also question the metaphysical claim that “physical facts fix all the facts.” Downward causation does not imply any contradiction if we reject the assumption of the completeness and the causal closure of the physical world that this assertion contains. We provide an argument for rejecting this assumption. Furthermore, this allows (...) us to reconsider the concept of diachronic emergence. (shrink)
Espino, Santamaria, and Garcia-Madruga (2000) report three results on the time taken to respond to a probe word occurring as end term in the premises of a syllogistic argument. They argue that these results can only be predicted by the theory of mental models. It is argued that two of these results, on differential reaction times to end-terms occurring in different premises and in different figures, are consistent with Chater and Oaksford's (1999) probability heuristics model (PHM). It is argued that (...) the third finding, on different reaction times between figures, does not address the issue of processing difficulty where PHM predicts no differences between figures. It is concluded that Espino et al.'s results do not discriminate between theories of syllogistic reasoning as effectively as they propose. (shrink)
This article elaborates the epistemic indispensability argument, which fully embraces the epistemic contribution of mathematics to science, but rejects the contention that such a contribution is a reason for granting reality to mathematicalia. Section 1 introduces the distinction between ontological and epistemic readings of the indispensability argument. Section 2 outlines some of the main flaws of the first premise of the ontological reading. Section 3 advances the epistemic indispensability argument in view of both applied and pure mathematics. And Sect. 4 (...) makes a case for the epistemic approach, which firstly calls into question the appeal to inference to the best explanation in the defense of the indispensability claim; secondly, distinguishes between mathematical and physical posits; and thirdly, argues that even though some may think that inference to the best explanation works in the postulation of physical posits, no similar considerations are available for postulating mathematicalia. (shrink)
Page generated Tue Jul 27 10:12:49 2021 on philpapers-web-84c8c567c7-mhfn6
cache stats: hit=19147, miss=17124, save= autohandler : 3037 ms called component : 3018 ms search.pl : 2859 ms initIterator : 1909 ms render loop : 946 ms next : 542 ms addfields : 354 ms publicCats : 334 ms menu : 91 ms save cache object : 88 ms retrieve cache object : 54 ms autosense : 48 ms match_cats : 38 ms prepCit : 21 ms quotes : 7 ms applytpl : 6 ms match_other : 5 ms match_authors : 3 ms search_quotes : 3 ms intermediate : 2 ms init renderer : 0 ms setup : 0 ms auth : 0 ms writelog : 0 ms