this essay analyzes Vladimir Jankélévitch’s work on death pointing out, in the vast thought of the twentieth century, its original and sharply problematic contribution. if death is generally seen as the perimeter that provides life with sense and autenticity (Heidegger, Lévinas), or more traditionally as the threshold that leads to a salvific other world, Jankélévitch first of all dismantles any reassuring strategy and underlines the elusiveness of death itself, its constituting a “totally other order” that escapes every human category. As (...) a consequence, if on the one hand the philosopher shows how every life has an “own death” that makes every life totally unique, on the other hand he highlights how the elusiveness of death delivers life, any life, to an unavoidable impropriety, which breaks through its individual and personal dimension. (shrink)

La disolución de la noción de sujeto, que atraviesa el siglo XX, ampliamente conseguida hoy, ha hecho necesario, para una parte del pensamiento contemporáneo, impulsar la interrogación reconstructiva hasta su dispositivo preformativo originario: la persona. Merleau-Ponty se sitúa con pleno derecho en este espacio teórico, elaborando una reflexión que, superando tal noción, desplaza la mirada hacia el nivel impersonal y anónima, infra-corporal y pre-individual, más acá de la persona, al cual ésta permanece indisolublemente vinculada. Una reflexión que, por lo tanto, (...) rompiendo al mismo tiempo los bordes del perímetro fenomenológico, no sólo corta de raíz las categorías tradicionales de «yo» e «individuo», de «cuerpo propio» y «subjetividad constituyente», sino que implica una apertura a una nueva antropología y a preguntas tan urgentes como penetrantes a propósito de los derechos humanos.  . (shrink)

Hanno ancora qualcosa da dirci Sartre e Merleau-Ponty oggi? Sessant’anni dopo i loro “contraccolpi” – consumatisi nella redazione di una rivista come “Les Temps Modernes” – vale ancora la pena di ripercorrere quella storia? È questa la domanda che apre l’ultimo numero di “aut aut” curato da Enrica Lisciani-Petrini e Raoul Kirchmayr. Si tratta di una domanda a cui è difficile rispondere e che ha a che fare con che cos’è la filosofia e – soprattutto – che cos’è (...) un filosofo. È una domanda che, nel caso di Sartre e di Merleau-Ponty, non chiama in causa soltanto due differenti scuole di pensiero, ma anche due modi differenti di intendere il mondo, la politica, gli altri e le relazioni con essi. Ma si tratta, in fondo, di una domanda che – con le parole di Sartre – ci porta a riflettere sul fatto che “si è filosofi quando si è morti”, poiché – in fondo – “fino a quando viviamo, siamo uomini che, tra l’altro, scrivono opere di filosofia”. E allora la risposta a quella domanda non può che essere affermativa: il loro “dissidio produttivo” è un atto vitale, un incontro-scontro necessario fra persone che fanno vivere la filosofia.Sartre et Merleau-Ponty ont-ils encore quelque chose à nous dire aujourd’hui? Soixante années après leurs « contrecoups » – qui ont eu lieu dans la rédaction de la revue Les Temps Modernes – vaut-il encore la peine de reparcourir cette histoire? Voilà la question qui ouvre le dernier numéro de la revue « aut aut », sous la direction d’Enrica Lisciani-Petrini et Raoul Kirchmayr. Il s’agit d’une question à laquelle il est difficile de répondre et qui est en rapport avec ce qu’est la philosophie et – surtout – avec ce qu’est un philosophe. Il s’agit d’une question qui, chez Sartre et Merleau-Ponty, ne met pas seulement en cause deux courants de pensée différents, mais aussi deux différentes manières de concevoir le monde, la politique, les autres et les relations qu’on entretient avec eux. Mais il s’agit, au fond, d’une question qui – en employant les mots de Sartre – nous conduit à réfléchir sur le fait que « l’on est philosophes quand on est morts », parce que – après tout – « jusqu’à ce que nous vivons, nous sommes des hommes qui, entre autre, écrivent des oeuvres de philosophie ». Alors la réponse à cette question ne peut être qu’affirmative : leur « différend productif » est un acte vital, en même temps une rencontre et un affrontement nécessaires entre des personnes qui font vivre la philosophie.Do Sartre and Merleau-Ponty still have something to say to us today? Sixty years after their “breakup” – which took place in editing the journal Les Temps Modernes – is it still worthwhile to go over this history? This is the question that opens the last issue of the journal “aut aut,” under the direction of Enrica Lisciani-Petrini and Raoul Kirchmayr. It is a question to which it is difficult to respond and bears on what philosophy is – and especially with what a philosopher is today. It is a matter which, according to Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, does not only call into question two different currents of thought, but also two different ways of conceiving the world, politics, others and the relations between them. But it is a matter, at its core, which – employing the words of Sartre – leads us to reflect on the fact that “we are philosophers when we are dead,” because – after all – “while we are alive, we are men who, among other things, write works of philosophy.” Thus, the response to this question can only be affirmative: their “productive difference” is a vital act, at the same time an encounter and necessary confrontation between persons who breathe life into philosophy. (shrink)

Heraklits Denken und seine philosophischen Positionen haben einen ungeheuren Einfluss im Altertum, in der Neuzeit und bis in die Moderne hinein ausgeübt. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes machen die kulturellen Bedingungen sichtbar, unter denen dieses Denken entstanden ist, und helfen, sowohl den,Dunklen' selbst, wie er seit der Antike genannt wurde, als auch seine Wirkung systematisch besser zu verstehen. Alle Beiträge gehen auf eine internationale Konferenz zurück, die im Oktober 2013 ausgewiesene Spezialisten zu einem umfassenden Dialog in Ephesos zusammenführte. Im Zusammenwirken verschiedener (...) Disziplinen ließ sich Heraklits Ort in der Philosophie- und Geistesgeschichte genauer bestimmen, als das in den bisher vorwiegend auf philosophiehistorisch-philologische Aspekte fokussierten Darstellungen geschehen ist. Das Alleinstellungsmerkmal der Konferenz in ihrer Orientierung am genius loci und auch die damit einhergehende Einbeziehung historischer und archäologischer Fragestellungen bedeutet etwas Neues für die Heraklit-Forschung: Das Aufzeigen der Verbindungen zwischen der naturräumlichen Situation in Ephesos zur Zeit Heraklits, dem Verhältnis des Denkers zu seiner Stadt sowie der Rolle seiner Reflexion auf die Bedingungen menschlicher Erkenntnis und ihrer Vermittlung. (shrink)

Experiments on intertemporal consumption typically show that people have difficulties in optimally solving such problems. Previous studies have focused on contexts in which agents are faced with risky future incomes and have to plan over long horizons. We present an experiment comparing decision making under certainty, risk, and ambiguity, over a shorter lifecycle. Results show that behavior in the ambiguity treatment is markedly different than in the risk condition and it is characterized by a significant pattern of under-consumption.

Translational research is a main focus of current health policy (Albani and Prakken 2009; PLoS Medicine 2008). Translation of biomedical research knowledge to effective clinical treatment is essential to the public good (Lavis et al. 2003). Only 5% of basic science studies showing significant therapeutic promise are successfully translated into clinical application (Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Ntzani, and Ionannidis 2003; FDA 2004). As Hall (2001) observes, this is a problem: "When too many important discoveries lie dormant, the public good suffers" (p. G1127). Recent (...) health policy initiatives intended to foster the translation of basic science into clinical advances must consider the unique bioethical issues raised by .. (shrink)

This article offers a critical view of the process of material constitutionalization of the European citizenship, through an analysis of the transformations of its outer borders in the phase of enlargement. The repositioning and deterritorialization of the inner and outer borders of the EU lead to a decomposition of its judiciary space, which illustrates the way in which borders have become an instrument of governance of Europe’s postcolonial condition. The analysis focuses on the recent legislative transformations introduced in Poland, Romania (...) and Bulgaria in order to adapt their national judicial systems to EU common rules. (shrink)

The article considers the changes that have affected European border regimes of migration control as a testcase for discussing arbitrariness. The argument highlights the limited capacity of notions of arbitrariness defined as a departure from the rule of law to capture the ongoing conflict at the borders of Europe and brings, instead, to the foreground the ambivalent meaning of arbitrariness. By comparing Santi Romano’s classical theory of legal pluralism with recent analyses of legal globalization processes, arbitrariness emerges either as an (...) authoritative attempt to impose a different order on society or as a means to contrast acts of resistance to border regimes. In both cases, arbitrariness forcefully blurs the limits between the ordered and unordered, indicating the paradoxical impossibility of excluding the law’s outside from the legal order. On these premises, the article advocates the importance of reframing the demand for open borders as a call for freedom of those who challenge the pragmatic order of migration regimes. Indeed, arbitrariness is necessarily limited when the legal order recognizes, to an extent, the agency and the claims of subjectivities that resist the dichotomy between inclusion and exclusion. Keywords: migration, arbitrariness, borders, legal order. (shrink)

According to Howick (2009a), the three main reasons for believing that placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) are methodologically superior to active-controlled trials (ACTs)—sensitivity, absolute effect...