「主体」はもちろんsubjectの翻訳語である。明治以降、この語がわが国に入ってくると、「主観」「主体」「主語」などさまざまな翻訳語があらわれる。たとえば西田幾多郎は、初期は「主観」をつかっているが、 後期になると「主体」しか出てこなくなる。この移行ははたして何を意味するのだろうか。戦後には、「主体性論争」がわき起こり、たとえば学生運動では「主体性」という言葉がキーワードとなった。明治期の受容から、 戦後、そして現代に至るまで、それぞれの時代の趨勢となった思想に伏流する「主体」を追い続け、日本近代思想史にあらたな視座を提供する、知的興奮にあふれた一冊。.

These essays are concerned with developing a dialogue between humanism and historical materialism in human geography, and to demonstrate the creative tension which emerges through the mediation of their different frames of reference.

「法の支配に基づく実践理性の制度化」という法構想の基本的な方向をさぐり、その全体的な理論枠組を再構築する意欲的論文集。.

We investigate stationarity of types over models in simple theories. In particular, we show that in simple theories with finite SU-rank, any complete type over a model having Cantor-Bendixson rank is stationary.

The nucleolus is a region of the nucleus with high protein density and it acts as a ribosome factory. The nucleolus contains a distinct region of the genome, the ribosomal RNA gene repeats (rDNA) that supply ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules. The rDNA is the most‐abundant gene and occupies a large part of the genome, for example, there are thousands of rDNA copies in the genomes of plant cells. Therefore, it is natural to suppose that the condition of the rDNA, such (...) as its stability, might affect cellular functions. Here I would like to propose a new model regarding the roles of the rDNA and nucleolus. The key point of this model is that they act to preserve genome stability and trigger aging. BioEssays 30:267–272, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

How is it possible to say that truth can be of one kind at the conventional level and totally different in the ultimate plane? As Matilal ( 1971 , p. 154) points out, Kumārila (ca. 600–650), a Mīmāṃsaka philosopher, claims that the Buddhist doctrine of two truths is “a kind of philosophical ‘double-talk’.” It is Prajñākaragupta (ca. 750–810), a Buddhist logician, who tries to give a direct answer to this question posed by Kumārila from the Buddhist side. He argues that (...) even a Mīmāṃsaka cannot demonstrate the validity ( prāmāṇya ) of the Veda without accepting two truth levels. His point is this. Consider the proposition to be proved: the Veda is valid. If the Veda is already known as valid, then it is useless to prove this proposition. But if it is already known as invalid, then it is impossible to prove this proposition. Therefore in the argument to prove the proposition, the Veda is not to be regarded either as valid or as invalid. This means that at the first stage of the argument one has the concept of the Veda as neutral in validity. However, as soon as one acquires the knowledge of the Veda as valid through the argument, one has to repudiate such a conception of the Veda. The acceptance of the Veda as neutral in validity is to the acceptance of the Veda as valid as the conventional truth is to the ultimate truth. (shrink)

In this article Kobayashi Toshiaki discusses the importance in all periods of Karatani’s oeuvre of the notion of an “exterior” that necessarily falls beyond the bounds of a system, together with the notion of “singularity” as that which cannot be contained within a “universal.” The existential dread vis-à-vis the uncanny other that Karatani in his early works of literary criticism had initially found to be the underlying tone in Sōseki’s works remained with Karatani himself throughout his career and is (...) what had drawn him closer to philosophy. This sense of the “exterior” to—or other than—the normality of consciousness and the meaningfulness of the world is then extended and applied as the “exterior to systems” in his analyses of logical, mathematical, and linguistic systems, in his reading of Marx’s discussion of capitalist economics, and most recently in his analysis of commodity exchange between communities. (shrink)

In this chapter, Kobayashi and Marion first provide reasons to reject the many readings of Collingwood that sought to draft him as a participant in the Hempel-Dray debate about the status of covering laws in history. After all, this debate was not part of Collingwood’s context and, although one can pry from his writings a contribution to it, one may simply, by doing so, misunderstand what he was up to. In the second part, they present the Gabbay-Woods Schema for (...) abductive reasoning, as it occurs in the context of inquiry, as triggered by an ignorance problem, and as being ‘ignorance preserving’. They then argue that this allows us better to see the point of Collingwood’s ‘logic of questions and answers’, as derived from his own practice in archaeology, and his use of the ‘detective model of the historian’, as opposed to merely focussing on understanding what ‘re-enactment’ could mean as a contribution to the Hempel-Dray debate. (shrink)

Job-shop Scheduling Problem (JSP) is one of the most difficult benchmark problems. GA approaches often fail searching the global optimum because of the deception UV-structure of JSPs. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework model of GA, Innately Split Model (ISM) which prevents UV-phenomenon, and discuss on its power particularly. Next we analyze the structure of JSPs with the help of the UV-structure hypothesys, and finally we show ISM's excellent performance on JSP.

本研究は、史料的裏付けにもとづく、東アジア三地域における気の思想・文化の歴史や内容、特徴を明らかにし、東アジアにおける気の総合的・体系的研究の基礎を構築している。.

It has been suggested that preparing to teach and teaching are conditionally effective in enhancing one’s own learning. This paper focuses on interactivity—the level of teacher-student interaction in expected or actual teaching—as the potential key to understanding and controlling the variability in the effectiveness of learning by preparing to teach and teaching. By summarizing and reanalyzing the results of previous studies, I suggest that the learning benefits of studying with the expectation of direct teaching (i.e., teaching a student face-to-face) are (...) greater than those of studying with the expectation of indirect teaching (i.e., teaching a student indirectly by creating a lecture video, providing written explanations, or using other means) and that learning by direct teaching surpasses learning by explaining to oneself or indirect teaching at least after preparing to do so. Next, three candidate explanations for the impact of interactivity are discussed: the advantages of asking and answering questions, obtaining additional information about and from one’s student, and enhancing one’s motivation to process learning material deeply while preparing to teach and teaching. Finally, I conclude with the remaining questions and directions for future research. (shrink)

Social or relational egalitarians try to defend democracy non-instrumentally as a constitutive element of a society where no one stands as inferior or superior to anyone else. However, they face an instrumentalist challenge from within: Why not uphold a non-democratic regime if it outperforms democracy in protecting or promoting egalitarian social relations, for example, by stably producing substantive political decisions that guard against social hierarchies? This article explores the best response to this challenge from the social egalitarian non-instrumentalist standpoint. It (...) argues that the instrumentalist challenge can be accommodated without abandoning the essential non-instrumentalist commitment to democracy; while a nondemocratic regime may be justified under less-than-ideal circumstances as a contingently effective means to realize more social equality, democracy can nevertheless be viewed as a necessary condition for the realization of full social equality. (shrink)