SARS, like HIV, placed healthcare workers at risk and raised issues about the duty to treat. But philosophical accounts of the duty to treat that were developed in the context of HIV did not adequately address some of the ethical issues raised by SARS. Since the next epidemic may be more like SARS than HIV, it is important to illuminate these issues. In this paper, we sketch a general account of the duty to treat that arose in response to HIV. (...) Our purpose is not to defend or criticise this account, but to show that it needs to be developed in order to address three important issues. The first issue concerns how risks should be distributed among healthcare professionals. The second issue concerns the conflicts that arise between professional duties and family duties. The third issue concerns the forms of support that societies owe healthcare workers during epidemics. Our descriptions of these issues are drawn from our experience of the SARS epidemic in Taiwan. (shrink)

Scribal copying is investigated as a test case for the memetic and epidemiological models for explaining the distribution of cultural items. We may hypothesize that the incidence of errors could be low enough to allow two conditions for neo-Darwinian explanation (or an analogue of it) to be fulfilled: first, that there be a rather reliable mechanism for heredity, and second that occasional mutations might produce a version more likely to survive and be propagated than the exemplar. Scriptorial conventions are reviewed. (...) Textual criticism is investigated. Finally, some attention is given to the psychology of language perception and production. In conclusion, it is argued that the memetic model for cultural transmission is not generally fecund while the epidemiological model is. (shrink)

This is a book about the philosophy of Henri Bergson which shows how relevant Bergson is to much contemporary philosophy. The book takes as its point of departure Bergson's insistence on precision in philosophy. It then discusses a variety of topics including laughter, the nature of time as experienced, how intelligence and language should be construed as a pragmatic product of evolution, and the antinomies of reason represented by magic and religion. This is not just another exposition of Bergson's work. (...) It offers an account of why Bergson commanded such a massive reading public in his own day and why he deserves to be read now. Written in a terse and clear style, this book will prove appealing to teachers and students of philosophy, cognitive science, psychology, religious studies and literature. (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)

Hooglands commentaar op mijn ‘Pluralisme’ komt hierop neer dat levensbeschouwelijke neutraliteit niet mogelijk is, noch voor de overheid, noch voor de individuele burger. We kunnen geen radicale buitenstaanderspositie innemen tegenover de levensbeschouwing die we erop nahouden. Dat zou een vorm van hybris zijn. Wie niettemin levensbeschouwelijke neutraliteit bepleit en deze identificeert met tolerantie voor de levensbeschouwingen van anderen, pretendeert in feite dat het eigen tolerante standpunt moreel superieur is aan het standpunt van al diegenen die aan hun levensbeschouwing vastgeklonken zitten. (...) Dat is moreel verwerpelijk. (shrink)