This study provides a formal framework for considering the so-called "Universalizability Principle" in morality and its relation to such metaphysical theses as "Leibnizianism". That these claims are thought to be ethical and metaphysical in import provides the point of the subtitle. In spite of this, however, Rabinowicz's study is less an examination of the arguments which may be given for or against these claims or the uses which may be made of them in morals or metaphysics, than an attempt on (...) a possible worlds model to frame them clearly and to explore their logical mesh. In the introductory chapter Rabinowicz is concerned first to make clear to us what principle it is which he wishes to designate as the Universalizability Principle and to distinguish it from certain others, e.g., the Golden Rule, Kant's Categorical Imperative, Singer's Generalization Principle, Hare's "thesis of universalizability," and principles of impartiality and fairness, with which it may be confused. Specifically, UP represents a claim that the moral properties of things are essentially independent of what might be called their "individual aspects." In terms of his framework, where w, v, u, and z are possible worlds, E represents an equivalence relation of some unspecified manner of sufficient similarity in non-individual aspects, and D is read as "is a deontic alternative to," UP has the following form: if wEv and wDu, then there is a z such that vDz and uEz. On this formulation we are enabled to see where the main problem with UP lies: E must be specified in such a way as to provide significance for UP, i.e., so as to provide us with a clear, non-trivial, non-vacuous formulation of UP which yet conforms to the intuitions of those ethicists who are "universalists." It is this problem and its proposed solution which constitutes the real theme of this book. For suppose that E is specified in terms of either of the two most intuitively obvious and appealing candidates, namely, "exact similarity" and "morally relevant similarity." Then, on Leibnizianism, the exact-similarity variant becomes trivial, whereas the relevant-similarity variant is, by virtue of the systematic unclarity of the notion of "relevance," confusing and useless. Because he accepts the possibility that Leibnizianism may be true, Rabinowicz conceives of his task as one of inquiring whether some third variant of UP can be framed which slips between the horns of this dilemma. (shrink)
Intercultural encounters generally imply dynamics of elaboration of symbolic universes by the social groups affected. Imperial domination of Asia, from the 18 th to the 20 th century, furthered the reinterpretation of existing symbolic universes, such as religious communities, as well as the creation of new modes of symbolic organization of social life, as national communities. This paper analyzes the construction of a religious-nationalist symbolic universe in a context strongly influenced by otherness. We consider the discourse on Hindu nation and (...) its Muslim other, by V.D. Savarkar, a Hindu nationalist ideologue that was written in the early decades of the 20 th century. We adopt phenomenology as theoretical framework and undertake content analysis of a primary source – Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? We argue that the Hindu nationalist ideologue elaborated a rhetoric of annihilation, in which the other of Hindu nation, the Muslim, is depicted as inferior through a double strategy: selective exaggeration of characteristics attributed to the Muslim; transfer of socially negative definitions to the other. (shrink)
The author attempts to apply semiotic analysis to a question of family law. By examining the language used by the Supreme Court in the title case, Michael H. v. Gerald D., along with the case briefs, lower court opinions, other Supreme Court cases and prior legal scholarship, the author attempts to determine the requisite relationships between father–child and father–mother in order for a legal tie to exist between a father and his biological child. The author tries to not only determine (...) the necessary circumstances but also the political ideology that distinguishes these familial ties. The author further attempts to analyze the goals of these underlying political ideologies. (shrink)
Lorsqu’il fait référence, dans les traités 31 (V,8) et 48 (III,3) à la beauté d’Hélène, Plotin reprend un topos de la littérature grecque antique. Après avoir rappelé les différentes interprétations de cette figure controversée, on examine ici la façon dont Plotin, tout en rejoignant certaines de ces interprétations, retravaille ce topos (dans le cadre de sa polémique contre les Gnostiques) pour lui donner un sens nouveau.