The decade that has elapsed since the flight of the world's first cosmonaut, Iu. A. Gagarin, has been marked by considerable successes in mastering the cosmos. Lengthy orbital flights and lunar expeditions are already being conducted. Automatic stations are studying the moon, Mars, Venus, and cosmic space. And although we understand that the major trumphs in space are still ahead of us and that today we are merely at the start of the cosmic era, it is nonetheless already possible, in (...) this year of the tenth anniversary of the first human space flight, to draw certain conclusions and discuss the results of human intrusion into the expanses of the universe. (shrink)

An assessment is made of Rudolf Otto's criticisms of Friedrich Schleiermacher's claim that religious feeling is to be interpreted as essentially involving a feeling of absolute dependence. Otto's criticisms are divided into two kinds. The first suggest that a feeling a dependence, even an absolute one, is the wrong sort of feeling to locate at the heart of religious consciousness. It is argued that this criticism is based on misinterpretations of Schleiermacher's view, which is in fact much closer to Otto's (...) than the latter appreciated. The second kind of criticism suggests that the feeling of absolute dependence cannot play the foundational role assigned to it by Schleiermacher, since it is itself a secondary response. It is argued not only that Otto provides no justification for this criticism, but that Otto's own position is incoherent unless Schleiermacher's view is accepted. (shrink)

A striking aspect of the so-called "Goldhagen debate" has been the bifurcated reception Hitler's Willing Executioners has received: the enthusiastic welcome of journalists and the public was as warm as the impatient dismissal of most historians was cool. This article seeks to transcend the current impasse by analyzing the underlying issues of Holocaust research at stake here. It argues that a "deep structure" necessarily characterizes the historiography of the Holocaust, comprising a tension between its positioning in "universalism" and "particularism" narratives. (...) While the former conceptualizes the Holocaust as an abstract human tragedy and explains its occurrence in terms of processes common to modern societies, the latter casts its analysis in ethnic and national categories: the Holocaust as an exclusively German and Jewish affair. These narratives possess important implications for the balance of structure and human agency in the explanation of the Holocaust: where the universalism narrative emphasizes the role of impersonal structures in mediating human action, the particularism narrative highlights the agency of human actors. Although historical accounts usually combine these narratives, recent research on the Holocaust tends in the universalist direction, and this bears on the sensitive issue of responsibility for the Holocaust by problematizing the common-sense notion of the perpetrators' intention and responsibility. Goldhagen is responding to this trend, but by retreating to the particularism narrative and employing an inadequate definition of intention, he fails to move the debate forward. It is time to rethink the concept of intention in relation to events like the Holocaust. (shrink)

In this paper I want to examine a view of the Darwinian theory of evolution which was put forward fairly recently by A. R. Manser. His approach is of interest not only in itself, but also because it may be expanded to raise some fundamental questions about the nature of the science of biology in general. I shall not consider these further implications here, but shall concentrate on an examination of his thesis in the context in which it is raised. (...) My paper falls into two sections. In the first I shall state Manser's thesis and some of the arguments with which he supports it, and shall try to show how a series of objections raised by A. G. N. Flew and K. Connolly may be answered. In the second I shall offer on my own account a positive argument to provide a possible basis for his point of view, with the aim of indicating why the theory should be of the kind he suggests, and what form the study of evolution must take. (shrink)

The claims that Dr. F. H. George makes on behalf of his machines are obscurely stated. Does he claim that a machine has been made and has actually produced a kind of response which is incalculable, given the specification to which it has been built and also the prescribed conditions, what is put in for the particular performance in question? “Incalculable” does not mean that nobody has bothered to calculate, but that somebody has bothered, that the calculations show that the (...) response in question is not among the calculated ones, that it is not chance or mechanical breakdown, but a specific response to something specific among the given conditions. If he could substantiate this claim, then I would reluctantly agree that some machines are cleverer and more thoughtful than I thought possible, and some men sillier and less thoughtful, for they deliberately design machines to do they know not what. (shrink)

Moral theories which, like those of Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas, give a central place to the virtues, tend to assume that as traits of character the virtues are mutually compatible so that it is possible for one and the same person to possess them all. This assumption—let us call it the compatibility thesis—does not deny the existence of painful moral dilemmas: it allows that the virtues may conflict in particular situations when considerations associated with different virtues favour incompatible courses of (...) action, but holds that these conflicts occur only at the level of individual actions. Thus while it may not always be possible to do both what would be just and what would be kind or to act both loyally and honestly, it is possible to be both a kind and a just person and to have both the virtue of loyalty and the virtue of honesty. (shrink)

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1974.

Evolutionary psychology and human sociobiology often reject the mere possibility of symbolic causality. Conversely, theories in which symbolic causality plays a central role tend to be both anti-nativist and anti-evolutionary. This article sketches how these apparent scientific rivals can be reconciled in the study of disgust. First, we argue that there are no good philosophical or evolutionary reasons to assume that symbolic causality is impossible. Then, we examine to what extent symbolic causality can be part of the theoretical toolbox of (...) the evolutionary social sciences. This examination leads to the conclusion that it is possible to make evolutionary sense of Mary Douglas’s theory of disgust, and that her view of symbolic causality can and should inform evolutionary theories of (sociocultural) disgust. (shrink)

A critical appraisal of the theories founded on the theorem of the multiaxial flower , shows an evolution fromWettstein's original version of 1907 to various hypotheses founded on the the same theme and partly derived from the Wettsteinian doctrine. A number of circumstances such as semantic inconsistencies, but principally the choice of inadequate archetypes, prevented the success of the theory of a polystachyous floral region, because the deductions and interpretations emanating from this concept were not sufficiently convincing to defeat the (...) opposed theory of the uniaxial euanthous flower or anthostrobilus hypothesis. Only after the amendation of the theory of a multiaxial reproductive region on the basis of the anthocorm concept can one arrive at a plausible idea of the evolution of the angiospermous flower which is compatible with all aspects of the phylogeny of the Flowering Plants , and with the floral morphology and anatomy of the various kinds of flowers.Eine kritische Bewertung der Theorien die auf dem Theorem der mehrachsigen Blüte gegründet worden sind zeigt die Entwicklung von einer vonWettstein in 1907 vorgeschlagenen Originalversion zu mehreren, teilweise davon abgeleiteten, Theorien über das Thema der Entstehung der Angiospermenblüte. Verschiedene Umstände, wie z.B. semantische Widersprüche, aber in erster Stelle die Wahl eines inadäquaten Prototypus, verhinderten anfänglich den Erfolg der Hypothese eines mehrachsigen Blütenbereiches, weil es den hervorgehenden Schlussfolgerungen und Deutungen zu viel an Ueberzeugungskraft mangelte um die gegnerische Theorie der einachsigen Ranalesblüte oder Anthostrobilushypothese endgültig zu verdrängen. Erst die Ergänzung der Theorie einer vielachsigen Blüte ermöglichte die plausibele Darstellung der Evolution der Angiospermenblüte, welche Erörterung in befriedigender Weise in Uebereinstimmung ist mit allenA spekten der Phylogenie der Blütenpflanzen , und auch mit den morphologischen and anatomischen Verhältnissen bei Blüten jeder Art im Anklang ist.Une évaluation critique des différentes théories fondées sur le théorème de la fleur pluriaxiale montre une évolution qui commence avec une version originale proposée parWettstein en 1907 et qui mène à plusieurs théories, partiellement dérivées de l'idée wettsteinienne, sur le thème de l'origine de la fleur. Quelques circonstances, comme par exemple des contrariétés sémantiques, mais surtout la choix d'un prototype inadéquat, ont prévenu au début le triomphe de l'hypothèse d'une région florale pluriaxiale, puisque les conclusions et les interprétations qui provenaient de cette théorie étaient privées de toute conviction pour suppléer la théorie opposée de la fleur ranalienne et uniaxiale . Une explication recevable de l'évolution de la fleur angiospermique qui harmonise avec tous les aspects de la phylogénie des plantes floriales , et aussi avec les conditions morphologiques et anatomiques de toutes sortes de fleurs, ne gagnait de terrain qu'après le perfectionnement de la théorie de la fleur pluriaxiale. (shrink)

Everybody is to some extent pacific, as everybody prefers to attain his ends by peaceful means if he can. Even the most bloodthirsty militarist uses threats of war rather than war, if threats will do the work. Though most people prefer persuasion to violence and peace to war, they are prepared as a last resort to go to war and use violence, when that seems the only means to attaining some end they consider to be of vital importance. The one (...) hundred per cent pacifist, however, refuses to engage in war or support warlike action under any circumstances whatever. It is his case that I wish to consider. It is not my purpose to try to persuade anyone to be a pacifist or to be the opposite, but to point out that absolute pacifism carries with it certain logical consequences which are not particularly palatable. The opposed view, which I shall call the case for civic virtues, also carries unpalatable though different consequences. These two appear to be simple and clear-cut opposed views which I propose to state as fairly as I can, with their consequences. Certain qualifications and modifications will have to be considered later, but I do not think that there is actually any possible mean position which avoids the dilemma I am concerned to present. I shall state the case for civic virtue first and the pacifist case second. (shrink)