Emotions play a prominent role in social life, yet the direct impact of emotions on behavior and judgment remains a point of disagreement. The current investigation used meta-analysis to test two theoretical perspectives. The emotion-as-direct-causation perspective asserts that current emotions guide behavior and judgment, whereas the emotion-as-feedback perspective asserts that anticipated emotions guide behavior and judgment. Although the emotion-as-direct-causation perspective was frequently tested, only 22% of tests were significant. Although the emotion-as-feedback perspective was rarely tested, 87% of tests were significant. (...) Our findings suggest that empirical evidence is weak for the default assumption that emotion is the proximal cause of behavior and judgment. Our preliminary findings also suggest that anticipated emotion reliably impacts social behavior and judgment. (shrink)

In an essay on pantheism Schopenhauer observes that his chief objection against it is that it says nothing, that it simply enriches language with a superfluous synonym of the word “world.” It can hardly be denied that by this remark the great pessimist, who was himself an atheist, scored a real point. For if a philosopher starts off with the physical world and proceeds to call it God, he has not added anything to the world except a label, a label (...) which, if we take into account the ordinary significance of the word “God,” might well appear unnecessary and superfluous: one might just as pertinently say that the world is the world as that the world is God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian nor the Moslem understand by “God” the physical world, so that, if someone calls the physical world God, he cannot be taken to mean that the world is God according to the Jewish or Christian or Moslem understanding of God. Does he mean any more than that the physical world is ultimately self-explanatory, that no Cause external to the world, no transcendent Being is requisite or admissible, i.e. that there is no God? If that were all there is in pantheism, the latter would indeed be indistinguishable from atheism, and those who called Spinoza an atheist would be fully justified. (shrink)

Curio’s six lictors with laureled fasces (Cic. Att. 10.4.9) are best explained by his holding command in 49 BC not as Caesar’s legatus, but pro praetore with imperium nominally in his own right, granted (‘extra-constitutionally’) by Caesar directly, without vote of Senate and People.

Les résultats de la physique quantique rendent manifeste une vérité que les philosophes sont en général mal disposés à reconnaître : c’est que le déterminisme n’est pas une affirmation sur la structure des choses, mais une méthode qui ne sert qu’à prédire le cours futur des événements. Les savants, en découvrant ses limites, ont donné aux philosophes et surtout aux logiciens une leçon inestimable sur la methode de la science et la nature de la eonnaissance.

Companies do have ethical responsibility and are not protected by limited liability from the consequences of their actions. A company's record and the preception of its ethics affect its reputation and ensure long term success or failure.The financial community has a history of placing moral considerations above legal or opportunistic expedients. But we are often exposed to moral dangers and the dangers of contamination are increasing. Deregulation and the technological revolution are sharpening ethical conflicts.

In this paper a semantics for dynamic predicate logic is developed that uses sequence valued assignments. This semantics is compared with the usual relational semantics for dynamic predicate logic: it is shown that the most important intuitions of the usual semantics are preserved. Then it is shown that the refined semantics reflects out intuitions about information growth. Some other issues in dynamic semantics are formulated and discussed in terms of the new sequence semantics.

Liebe Frau Henry! Soeben bekomme ich Ihren Brief, Die Freude, die mir Ihre Ankündigung macht, veranlaßt mich, Ihnen sofort zu antworten. Sie wissen wohl, daß ich seit Jahren wünsche, Sie möchten Ihre philosophischen Arbeiten fortsetzen und möchten die dafür notwendige Muße finden. Ich weiß nicht, ob Sie wissen, daß ich Sie mehrfach für philosophische Lehrstühle, über deren Besetzung ich unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Naturphilosophie gefragt worden bin, vorgeschlagen habe.

Contrary to the widely held view that the Roman-Carthaginian naval encounter Polybios reports at 1.21.9-11 was separate from the one off Mylae (260 BC) told at length right afterwards (1.23), the battle at the ‘Cape of Italy’ is in fact - as suspected by some scholars long ago - identical with the one at Mylae. However, far from mistaking (as has been suggested) Philinos’ account of the latter for a separate engagement, Polybios knowingly and deliberately told the battle of Mylae (...) twice: first in a brief summary, stripped of all detail, to illustrate how the Roman commander Cn. Scipio Asina (cos. 260) and his Punic counterpart, Hannibal, were both guilty of equally inappropriate acts of recklessness; then for a second time in detail and in its proper chronological place. Compositional considerations prompted this approach: to wait with the moralizing parallel until after his full account of Mylae (preceded in turn by the long technical disquisition on the Roman boarding bridges) would spoil the effect, and Polybios chose to place it immediately after Asina’s capture. (shrink)