Whether or not conscious recollection in autobiographical memory is affected in schizophrenia is unknown. The aim of this study was to address this issue using an experiential approach. An autobiographical memory enquiry was used in combination with the Remember/Know procedure. Twenty-two patients with schizophrenia and 22 normal subjects were asked to recall specific autobiographical memories from four lifetime periods and to indicate the subjective states of awareness associated with the recall of what happened, when and where. They gave Remember, Know (...) or Guess responses according to whether they recalled these aspects of the event on the basis of conscious recollection, simply knowing, or guessing. Results showed that the frequency and consistency of Remember responses was significantly lower in patients than in comparison subjects. In contrast, the frequency of Know responses was not significantly different, whereas the frequency of patients’ Guess responses was significantly enhanced. It is concluded that the frequency and consistency of conscious recollection in autobiographical memory is reduced in patients with schizophrenia. (shrink)

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

First Published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Abordée dès 1948 avec la conférence sur « Parole et Silence », la question du langage et de son sens parcourt l’ensemble des inédits d’Emmanuel Levinas avant d’être reprise de manière magistrale dans Totalité et Infini. On tente de montrer ici la systématicité paradoxale d’analyses qui ne dégagent l’originalité signifiante de l’appel et de la réponse que sur fond de séparation psychique et de cohésion culturelle : issue de l’obligation de répondre à autrui, la responsabilité des sujets parlants est également (...) vouée à répondre du monde, de la civilisation et de l’histoire dans lesquels elle s’inscrit. Dès cette époque, Levinas apparaît en quête d’un discours dont la cohérence s’ouvre à l’accueil de ce qui lui interdit toute clôture. (shrink)

Editorial: Religious Diversity and the Future of Philsophy of Religion.

The general plan of the volume is this: 1) an introductory essay argues that it is the task of the philosopher to define the nature of human freedom; 2) the philosophers take over and consider the metaphysics of freedom, freedom of thought, and the acts of freedom; 3) following the distinction between individual and social freedom, external or social freedom is considered in its relation to government, to law, to international society, to economic systems, to labor, to education, and to (...) the expression of the beautiful; 4) finally, religious freedom, both individual and social, rounds out the volume. As this plan indicates, the fourteen essays are intended to form a whole, with philosophy supplying the unifying principles. The introductory essay, by W. E. Carlo, concludes. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Contemporary scholars writing on sovereignty can be roughly divided between those who believe that we should get rid of the concept (because it is inherently confusing, or essentially contested) and those who grant many of the criticisms of the first group, but add that we nevertheless cannot do without the concept, since much of our thinking about politics in general, and the state in particular, seems to be structured by this notion. I hope to demonstrate that much of the confusion (...) surrounding the notion is due precisely to fact that sovereignty is an inherently religious concept. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:NECESSARY PROPOSITIONS AND THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION MARK ROBERTS University of Rhode Island Kingston, Rhode Island IT IS COMMONPLACE to define contradictory, contrary, and subcontrary propositions in the following way: contradictory propositions cannot both be true and cannot both be false; contrary propositions cannot both be true but can both be false; and subcontrary propositions can both be true but cannot both be false. In his Introduction to Logic (...) 1 Irving Copi raises a problem with two of these definitions which he believes forces him to limit the range of propositions which can be used in the square of opposition. Since contrary propositions can both be false, but the falsity of a necessarily true proposition is not possible, a necessarily true proposition has no contrary. Therefore, only contingent propositions can be contraries. Subcontrary propositions can both be true, but the truth of a necessarily false proposition is not possible.2 This problem is rarely raised in other logic texts, but, it is interesting to note, it is mentioned by a number of neoscholastic philosophers, for example, P. Nicholas Russo,3 Rev. H. Grenier,4 1 Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan, 1986), pp. 178-179. Copi first introduced this problem in the fifth edition of his work on the basis of an article by David H. Sanford entitled " Contraries and Subcontraries,'' Nous 2 (1968) : 95-96. Sanford argues that the most reasonable way to resolve the problem of necessary propositions is to assume that contingent propositions comprise the square of opposition. 2 Copi, pp. 178-179. 8 Nicholas Russo, Summa Philosophica (Boston: Apud Marlier et Socios, 1[;85), p. 23. 4 Henri Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, Vol. I (Charlottetown, Canada: St. Dunstan's University, 1950), p. 69. 427 428 MARK ROBERTS G. Sanseverino,5 Jacques Maritain,6 F.-X. Maquart,7 P. Coffey,8 and others.9 (It is also mentioned by Bishop Whately.10 ) Each of these philosophers makes necessarily true or false propositions an exception to the definition of contrary and subcontrary propositions. The reason is they and Copi interpret the definitions of contrary and subcontrary propositions to mean that the falsity of each contrary proposition is possible and the truth of each subcontrary proposition is possible. It should be mentioned, however, that the position of the philosophers cited above is not entirely the same as Copi's. Copi reasons that these definitions imply that necessary propositions have no contrary or subcontrary. The other philosophers believe that necessary propositions can be contraries and subcontraries. Thus, in the case of necessary propositions contrary and subcontrary propositions are, instead, defined merely in terms of their quantity and quality, not by whether or not they can both be false or can both be true. In fact, Coffey and some of the other philosophers cited above assert that, when the propositions composing the square are necessary, one can infer the truth of the universal from the truth of 5 Gaietano Sanseverino, Philosophia Christiana, Vol. II (Neapoli: Vincentii Manfredi, 1862), pp. DCCXXXVIII ff. 6 J. Maritain, An Introduction to Logic (London: Sheed & Ward, 1937), p. 135, notes 1 & 2. 7 F.-X. Maquart, Elementa Philosophiae, Vol. I (Parisiis: Andreas Blot, 1937)' p. 126 ff. 8 P. Coffey, The Science of Logic, Vol. 1 (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1918), p. 225, 226. 9 Joseph Gredt, Elementa Philosophiae, Vol. I (Friburgi: Herder, 1929), p. 46, notes 1 & 2; Sylvester J. Hartman, A Textbook of Logic (New York: American Book Co., 1936), p. 162 ff; Roland Houde and Jerome J. Fischer, Handbook of Logic (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1954), p. 61; Eduard Hugon, Cursus Philosophiae Thomisticae, Vol. I (Parisiis: P. Lethielleux n.d), p. 155; Dennis C. Kane, Logic: The Art of Predication and Inference (Providence: Providence College Press, 1978), p. 98 ff; Francis P. Siegfried, Essentialia Philosophiae (Philadelphia: Dolphin Press, 1927), p. 25; Francis Varvello, Minor Logic, trans. and supplemented Arthur D. Fearon (San Francisco: Univ. of San Francisco Press, 1933), p. 73 ff. 10 Richard Whately, Elements of Logic (Boston: James Munroe & Co., 1854), p. 77 ff. PROPOSITIONS AND THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION 429 the particular and the falsity of the particular from the falsity of the universal.11 Maritain maintains that in the case... (shrink)

Le Centre autonome d'enseignement et de pédagogie religieuse (CAEPR) également appelé département de théologie est un département pédagogique de l'UFR de Sciences humaines et sociales de l'université de Lorraine situé à Metz. Les particularités statutaires du CAEPR découlent d’une convention du 25 mai 1974 conclue entre le Saint-Siège et la République française. Elle fixe les prérogatives de l’évêque de Metz dans le fonctionnement de ce département notamment pour la nomination des enseignants chercheurs. L’objectif principal de ce centre est de fournir (...) aux clercs et aux laïcs chargés de l'enseignement religieux catholique dans les écoles primaires et secondaires de la Moselle une formation appropriée. Les autorités religieuses ont de plus sur une longue période demandée aux futurs prêtres de se former dans le cadre du CAEPR. L’évêque de Metz a décidé en 2018 de rompre les liens avec le CAEPER et de mettre fin à la formation universitaire publique des cadres religieux en regrettant que ces formations trop élitistes ne prennent pas en compte les « dimensions humaine, spirituelle et pastorale ». (shrink)

The normative theory of multilateral democratic integration starts within the context of liberal peoples engaged in the common realization of rights, freedoms, and life chances for their citizens while seeking to preserve self-government and popular sovereignty. The point argued in the paper is that the fair terms of multilateral democratic integration must be determined by an integrated original position of citizen and people representatives choosing basic principles of liberal multilateralism. The proposal to merge the two Rawlsian original positions offers a (...) political solution to the contrast between rival conceptions of grand universalism and national particularism. After a general discussion of the wider problematic and the original position, I explain the concept and the reality of multilateral democratic integration. In part three, I justify why citizen and people representatives ought to be seen as participants of the original position of multilateral democratic integration. I then assess the rational motives of both types of representatives and determine the veil of ignorance of the integrated original position. In section, the original position is applied to the test of several normative hypotheses prima facie considered as candidates for basic principles of multilateral democratic integration. These principles are not necessarily new, but they are principles which presumably apply to multilateral democratic integration as a specific political order and system of cooperation. (shrink)

Rapports fondamentaux.--Développements transcendantaux de la pensée (la loi de création d'après Wronski)--Développements métaphysiques de la réalité (l'armature métaphysique).

However, metaphysics itself has presuppositions. In the order of explanation the governing presupposition of intelligible metaphysics is that the world itself is intelligible. By 'intelligible' I mean 'free from contradiction'. By 'the world' I mean the range of things that possess being of any kind, or, in other words, the realm of being. If the presupposition referred to is accepted metaphysics is possible; if not, it is not. The word 'presupposition' must be taken literally. The presupposition in question is, in (...) fact, a presupposition and cannot be proved. It is not possible to prove that the world--the aggregate of things--is intelligible. Any attempted proof is circular. It would, in essence, be obliged to say: the world is noncontradictory for, were it contradictory, this circumstance itself would involve a contradiction. But this is equivalent to the assumption that the contradictory is impossible; which in turn is nothing but the conclusion given as a premise. To say that the contradictory is impossible is simply to say, in other words, that nothing is or can be contradictory, which was the point to be proved. Hence, though the presupposition that the world is intelligible is necessary, it is, nevertheless, a presupposition and cannot be demonstrated. (shrink)