Tulving posited that the capacity to remember is one facet of a more general capacity—autonoetic consciousness. Autonoetic consciousness was proposed to underlie the ability for “mental time travel” both into the past and into the future to envision potential future episodes . The current study examines whether individual differences can predict autonoetic experience. Specifically, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory was administered to 133 undergraduate students, who also rated phenomenological experiences accompanying autobiographical remembering and episodic future thinking. Scores on two of (...) the five subscales of the ZTPI predicted the degree to which people reported feelings of mentally traveling backward in time and the degree to which they reported re- or pre-experiencing the event, but not ten other rated properties less related to autonoetic consciousness. (shrink)

Although not exactly continuous, the Native American challenge to the canon, as I have tried to show, has been of comparatively long standing. Nonetheless, inasmuch as Native American literary production and Euramerican writing influenced by it have only barely begun to enter the courses in and the anthologies of general American literature, that challenge cannot be said to have been effective as yet. No doubt it will take more time for poets and teachers to recognize what Native American literatures aboriginally (...) were and, to some extent, still are; to recognize when and if the influence of these literatures is present in work by Native and non-Native writers. It is only since the 1950s and 1960s that philological and structural work has begun to make this recognition possible in any case.It is only more recently still that an adequately sophisticated criticism for these literatures has begun to develop, with the publication of Abraham Chapman’s basic and eclectic collection of essays, Literature of the American Indians: Views and Interpretations ; Karl Kroeber’s uneven but valuable introduction to the subject, Traditional Literatures of the American Indian: Texts and Interpretations ; and Hymes’ “In Vain I Tried to Tell You”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics , a collection of Hymes’ seminal and indispensable work. The broadest and most sophisticated collection of essays—gathering work by Hymes, Tedlock, Toelken, Kroeber, and others—has only just appeared: Smooting the Ground: Essays on Native American Oral Literature is edited by Brian Swann, a poet and translator of Mative American song.61 These developments are encouraging for Native American literatures. As American society continues to move away from anthropocentrism and textual authority, the Native tradition may for the first time effectively assert its claim upon the canon of American literature. 61. For his translations, see, for example, Swann’s Song of the Sky: Versions of Native American Songs and Poems . Swann works from texts, not performances, from English language versions, not transcriptions of Native languages; as a result, he has made a point of insisting, “These poems of mine are not translations” but instead “versions” of Native American poetry. Although he has given up specific claims to authenticity, Swann has nonetheless shown how much can be done by the non-Native poet and scholar responding to the Native tradition as a powerful source. Arnold Krupat is a member of the literature faculty at Sarah Lawrence College. He is the coeditor of the University of Nebraska Press’ Native American Autobiography Series and is currently completing an anthology of Native American autobiographies, Indian Lives. His previous contribution to Critical Inquiry, “An Approach to Native American Texts,” appeared in the December 1982 issue. (shrink)

Sir Karl Popper is well known for explicating science in falsificationist terms, for which his degree of corroboration formalism, C(h,e,b), has become little more than a symbol. For example, de Queiroz and Poe in this issue argue that C(h,e,b) reduces to a single relative (conditional) probability, p(e,hb), the likelihood of evidence e, given both hypothesis h and background knowledge b, and in reaching that conclusion, without stating or expressing it, they render Popper a verificationist. The contradiction they impose is (...) easily explained--de Queiroz and Poe fail to take account of the fact that Popper derived C(h,e,b) from absolute (logical) probability and severity of test, S(e,h,b), where critical evidence, p(e,b), is fundamental. Thus, de Queiroz and Poe's conjecture that p(e,hb) = C(h,e,b) is refuted. Falsificationism, not verificationism, remains a fair description of the parsimony method of inference used in phylogenetic systematics, not withstanding de Queiroz and Poe's mistaken understanding that "statistical" probability justifies that method. Although de Queiroz and Poe assert that maximum likelihood has the power "to explain data", they do not successfully demonstrate how causal explanation is achieved or what it is that is being explained. This is not surprising, bearing in mind that what is assumed about character evolution in the accompanying likelihood model M cannot then be explained by the results of a maximum likelihood analysis. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Hume's Skepticism about Inductive Inference N. SCOTT ARNOLD IT HAS BEEN A COMMONPLACE among commentators on Hume's philosophy that he was a radical skeptic about inductive inference. In addition, he is alleged to have been the first philosopher to pose the so-called problem of induction. Until recently, however, Hume's argument in this connection has not been subject to very close scrutiny. As attention has become focused on (...) this argument, a debate has been shaping up concerning just what Hume intended to establish here. The principal purpose of this article is to settle this interpretive issue as decisively as the texts permit. I should also like to locate Hume's main argument about induction in the larger context of his discussion of skepti- cism in book 1 of the Treatise. I shall suggest that arguments for the radical skepticism commonly attributed to Hume can be found only very late in book 1 of the Treatise and that the most famous argument about inductive inference establishes and is intended to establish only a relatively modest form of skepticism. The argument under consideration can found in book l, part 3, section 6 of the Treatise. It can also be found in essays 4 and 5 of the Enquiries and in the abstract of the Treatise published anonymously by Hume. I shall concen- trate on the Treatise version since it is the first and perhaps most explicit formulation of the argument and because part of my purpose is to place this argument in the larger context of book 1 of the Treatise. The received opinion concerning Hume's argument has it that Hume was highly skeptical about the mind's claims to knowledge about the future (or, more generally, about the unobserved). All beliefs arrived at via inductive I should like to thank M. G. Anderson, John Bahde, Jon Nordy, and Robert Paul Wolff, as well as David Fate Norton and a referee for the Journal of the History of Philosophy, for helpful comments on earlier drafts on this article. 32 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY inferences are unreasonable or unjustified. The alternative interpretation, to be defended below, is that Hume held that no such belief is or can be rendered certain relative to past experience and that such beliefs are not, upon that account, unreasonable or unjustified. Something like this inter- pretation has been defended by Tom L. Beauchamp, Thomas Mappes, and Alexander Rosenberg. ~ My view differs from theirs in that I shall argue that Hume did offer arguments for the more radical skepticism commonly attri- buted to him (though it is unclear whether he regarded them as decisive). These arguments, however, come at the end of book ~ of the Treatise and are independent of the more famous argument to be discussed below. Defenders of the received view are both numerous and distinguished. Versions of this interpretation of the main argument can be found in the writings of Karl Popper, Wesley Salmon, F. L. Will, and Norman Kemp Smith; most recently a variation on the standard interpretation has been defended by Barry Stroud. The fullest and most elaborate defense of the standard interpretation can be found in a monograph by D. C. Stove. '~ Stove's discussion is perhaps the most impressive because of his painstaking efforts to lay bare the structure of Hume's reasoning and to give a line-by- line analysis of the argument. This has the effect of bringing more clearly into focus the main grounds for the standard view. If this standard interpre- tation is correct, then Hume's position is that scientific method is epistemically no better than "superstition" and "enthusiasm." And, Hume would be among those for whom this claim, if true, would be very bad news, because one of his primary purposes in the Treatise is to construct a science of man. Thus, this argument is of considerable internal significance because, if my opponents are correct, Hume appears to have cut the ground out from under what he took to be one of his most important projects -- the construc- tion of a science of man. The other feature of this argument that makes it worthy of serious con- sideration is that it is philosophically... (shrink)

1. Die Hymnen des Rigveda, herausgegeben Oldenberg von Hermann. Band.I. Metrische und Textgeschichtliche Prolegomena. Berlin, 1888. 14 Mk.2. Vedische Studien, Pischel von Richard und Karl F. Geldner. Stuttgart, 1888–1889. 12 Mk.

A provocative new view of Marx stressing his humanist philosophy and challenging both Soviet distortion and Western ignorance of his basic thinking.

Anhand von unveröffentlichten Briefen an die Herausgeber Hans Delbrück und Karl Muth wird im vorliegenden Beitrag nachgewiesen: Bernarda von Nell, die Mutter des Jesuitenpaters und Sozialethikers Oswald von Nell-Breuning, ist die Verfasserin des anonymen Artikels „Wie denkt Professor Harnack über die Enzyklika Pascendi?“ . Ihr Angriff auf Adolf Harnack ist Teil einer über Jahre andauernden, teils kritischen, teils bewundernden Auseinandersetzung mit dem protestantischen Gelehrten. Harnacks Antwort an die – ihm namentlich bekannte – Angreiferin ist vor dem Hintergrund seiner Unterstützung (...) für das „Bildungsstreben der Frauen“ zu sehen.Anhang; aus: A. Harnack, Die päpstliche Enzyklika des Jahres 1907. Ein Schlußwort.*[Man ist] der Enzyklika die Erklärung schuldig, die mir in den Kritiken kaum entgegengetreten ist, daß sie nach langer, langer Zeit von höchster katholischer Stelle die Glaubens- und Weltanschauungsfrage, nicht aber die Frage des Papsttums, in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Wir sind daran gewöhnt worden, von Rom aus vor allem diese Frage uns aufgerückt zu sehen; in der Enzyklika aber tritt sie ganz hinter jene andere zurück. Ich stehe nicht an, darin einen Fortschritt zu erkennen. Fast möchte ich sagen, der Papst rüttelt die Gewissen seiner Gläubigen auf! Sollten wir uns darüber nicht freuen? Er zwingt sie freilich alsbald auf einen ganz bestimmten Weg und bringt seine Macht in den Disziplinarvorschriften, die er erläßt, in eine fürchterliche Erinnerung; aber er lenkt ihre Aufmerksamkeit doch auf Glaubensfragen, er lenkt sie auf den „Modernismus“, den er nicht ohne Aufbieten von Kenntnissen eingehend schildert! Er nimmt also die unausbleiblichen Folgen aller geistigen Unruhe in den Kauf, weil er die Sache, den wahren, rechten Glauben, für so wichtig hält. Wäre es ihm nur um die eigene Herrschaft zu tun, so wäre diese Enzyklika das ungeschickteste Schriftstück von der Welt – es ist ihm wirklich um den christlichen Glauben und die rechte Theologie zu tun, wie er sie versteht, also um das Seelenheil seiner Gläubigen! Das soll man nicht verkennen, und darin liegt bei aller Rückständigkeit in bezug auf das Wesen des Wahrheitssinns und der Wissenschaft doch ein erfreuliches Moment. Auch wird ja der Versuch gemacht, den „Modernismus“ zu widerlegen, und so kläglich dieser Versuch auch ausgefallen ist – einige unvermeidliche Schatten und Fehler der modernen Wissenschaft sind nicht ungeschickt benutzt, und auf die Abgründe, die sie umgeben, ist nicht ohne Recht hingewiesen.Drawing its evidence from hitherto unpublished letters to the editors Hans Delbrück and Karl Muth , the present study proves the following fact: Bernarda von Nell, mother of the Jesuit priest and professor of social ethics Oswald von Nell-Breuning, is the author the anonymous article „Wie denkt Professor Harnack über die Enzyklika Pascendi?“ . This attack on Adolf Harnack is part of her continuous, sometimes critical, sometimes admiring discussion of the protestant scholar. Harnack’s reply to his challenger – known to him by name – should be appreciated in connection with his public support of “women’s pursuit of education”. (shrink)

The first part of the article discusses the conditions under which the “school” of thought known as “philosophical anthropology” arose and the relevance today of the problems it posed, concluding with a look at the recent prevalence taken by biological research. The second part examines the conceptions advanced by its leading figures, Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen, and shows how each of them contributed to a “sociologization of anthropological knowledge.” On the basis of this analysis, philosophical anthropology (...) proves itself capable of making a significant contribution to an interdisciplinary understanding of the conditions of human life and to reflection on the foundations of sociological research and social theory. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Nietzsche in the Light of his Suppressed Manuscripts WALTER KAUFMANN SINCE THE EIGHTEEN-NINETIES there has been considerable discussion about the adequacy of the editing of Nietzsche's late works, and occasionally bitter polemics about suppressed material have appeared in German newspapers and periodicals as well as in a few books. In the mid-fifties the controversy was revived in the wake of a new three-volume edition of Nietzsche's works, edited by (...) Karl Schlechta, ~ but the acrimonious debate was not very illuminating, and the sensational claims that traveled across the ocean were largely misleading. More and more often it was asked how reliable our printed texts are; also, what new revelations may be expected from unpublished manuscripts. I shall try to answer both questions. The discussion will revolve largely around a recent German work by Erich F. Podach 2 who makes sensational claims about The Antichrist and, above all, Ecce Homo, and who wants to supersede all previous editions of these works, including Schlechta's. 3 II Erich Podach holds a unique place in the Nietzsche literature: nobody else has contributed five genuinely important books. Yet Podach is not a philosopher, and he has never shown any profound understanding of Nietzsche 's thought. The point is that all of his books make use of unpublished documents. His study of Nietzsches Zusammenbruch (1930) was translated i Werke in drei Biinden (Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1954-1956), 1282, 1276, and 1476 pp..2Friedrich Nietzsches Werke des Zusammenbruehs (Heidelberg: Wolfgang Rothe Verlag, 1961), 432 pp. and 24 plates with 29 facsimiles of MS pages. 3My article was completed before two reviews of Podach's book appeared in The Philosophical Review, April 1964, pp. 282-285, and in The Journal ot Philosophy, April 23, 1964, pp. 286-288. Both reviews are by Henry Walter Brann; both accept uncritically Podach's editing and Podach's claims; and both add original errors. Brann says that Podach tells "the amazing story of the most brazen literary fraud committed in recent times," and he quotes Podach as saying that "Nietzsche is the most brazenly falsified figure of recent literary and cultural history with regard both to his life and to his works." (The last sentence is rendered into smoother English in The Philosophical Review, and the two reviews arc altogether slightly different.) I shall try to show how Podach and Brann themselves have contributed to this "amazing story" by trying to convince us that one of Nietzsche's best hooks was not written by him. [2051 206 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY into English in 1931. Gestalten um Nietzsche (1932) 4 is his most interesting book and deserves to be translated: it offers chapters on Nietzsche's mother, Rohde, Gast, Bernhard and Elisabeth F6rster (Nietzsche's sister and her husband), and Julius Langbehn. In 1937 Podach published Der kranke Nietzsche : Briefe seiner Mutter an Franz Overbeck, and after that Friedrich Nietzsche und Lou Salom& All of these volumes are important for the biography of Nietzsche. The fifth book aims to offer philologically reliable texts of Nietzsches Werke des Zusammenbruchs, i.e., Nietzsche contra Wagner, Der Antichrist, Ecce Homo, and Dionysos-Dithyramben. All of these were first published after Nietzsche had become insane (in January, 1889), and while no philosophically important changes were made, the early editors were not greatly concerned about philological exactitude. Nietzsche contra Wagner, for example, as published first in 1895 and reprinted many times since, differs quite strikingly from the final version of which Nietzsche himself was reading proofs in January, 1889, when he collapsed. Yet a very few copies of the original version were actually printed in 1889. This version contained a third chapter, "Intermezzo," deleted in 1895 and ever since, and this, a page and a half long, ended with the poem variously called, in later collections of Nietzsche's verse, "Venice" or "Gondola Song." The reason for this omission was not at all sinister. Nietzsche was working on several books late in 1888. Initially, this section formed part of Ecce Homo; then he inserted it in Nietzsche contra Wagner; then he wrote his publisher that after all he preferred to move it back into Ecce Homo; but when soon thereafter he received proofs of... (shrink)

This anthology of readings in the survey of Western philosophy--from the Ancient Greeks to the 20th Century--is designed to be accessible to today's readers. Striking a balance between major and minor figures, it features the best available translations of texts--complete works or complete selections of works-- which are both central to each philosopher's thought and are widely accepted as part of the canon. The selections are readable and accessible, while still being faithful to the original. Includes Introductions to each historical (...) period and to each philosopher, and an abundance of drawings, diagrams, photographs, and a timeline. This Combined Volume contains the most important works from Baird's Philosophic Classics, Volumes I-V. ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY. Plato. Aristotle. HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY. Epicurus. Epictetus. Plotinus. MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY. Augustine. Boethius. Anselm (and Guanilo). Moses Maimonides. Thomas Aquinas. William of Ockham. Pico Della Mirandola. MODERN PHILOSOPHY. Ren Descartes. Thomas Hobbes. Blaise Pascal. Baruch Spinoza. John Locke. Gottfried Leibniz. George Berkeley. David Hume. Immanuel Kant. NINETEENTH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHY. G.W.F. Hegel. John Stuart Mill. Soren Kierkegaard. Karl Marx. Friedrich Nietzsche. TWENTIETH-CENTURY PHILOSOPHY. Edmund Husserl. Bertrand Russell. Martin Heidegger. Ludwig Wittgenstein. A.J. Ayer. Jean-Paul Sartre. Willard Van Orman Quine. Jacques Derrida. For anyone interested in Philosophy, History of Philosophy, or History of Intellectual Thought. (shrink)

Introduction to a translation of two letters by Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx originally published in the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (1844).

Karl Pflock has done a thorough job of deflating the widely held myth that an alien spacecraft , with aliens aboard, crashed in New Mexico in early July 1947. To bolster his case he spent a great deal of time and effort in tracking down “eyewitnesses,” unearthing obscure documents, and untangling the tangled story from its beginning up to the present. Primary sources are used wherever possible, and the relevant affidavits, formerly classified reports, and so forth are not only (...) cited fully but in many cases reproduced in the text or in one of the appendixes.Pflock often goes into very fine and intricate detail indeed, but as a result he makes a convincing case. For example, it is fascinating to “follow the trail back” and watch the purported hundreds of eyewitnesses dwindle to a handful, none of whom produced any hard evidence of extraterrestrials. Equally engrossing are matters such as how the myth spread and grew ever more complex, the role of the media in the whole affair, and the enshrinement of “Roswell” as an accepted fact by many.The Roswell incident took place just a couple of weeks after the famous first sighting of UFOs by Kenneth Arnold near Mount Rainier on 24 June 1947. The media played the latter story for all it was worth, and for months afterward newspapers large and small ran prominent stories about the literally hundreds, if not thousands, of flying saucer reports that suddenly poured in from “reliable witnesses” . Roswell got on this bandwagon early, so it is not surprising that it achieved widespread fame. Moreover, that prominence has lasted, as one can confirm by visiting many a bookstore or public library.Of course there was something found in New Mexico in July 1947, and there were indeed secret projects going on at that time and place, although aliens and their spaceships played no part in matters. Instead, as Pflock demonstrates pretty clearly, the explanation is much more mundane .While this book is a thorough refutation of the Roswell affair, one may ask why we should read it, let alone buy it. After all, isn't this just another case of mass delusion, of interest to psychiatrists, sociologists, and the like, but not to many more?One answer is that the Roswell myth is recent, and indeed still forming, so that we can examine the process in almost as much detail as we like and from almost any aspect we choose. And while this immediacy may deny us historical perspective, it does provide us with a point of view that no future generation can have.Another answer is that no reader of Isis is immune from the possibility of being asked sometime, somewhere, by someone, “Do you believe in flying saucers?” “Are aliens visiting Earth?” or, more to the point, “What about Roswell?” As the last is the most famous and widely believed‐in topic in all of ufology, it might be useful to keep Pflock's book handy. There should be little fear of the subject going out of date, as half a century later the television series Roswell is now in its third successful year, public interest is renewed after every TV “documentary” on the topic, and the International UFO Museum and Research Center is still the main attraction in the city of Roswell.As Pflock points out, the Roswell affair is yet another example of how myth can take precedence over reality and how the will to believe can be strengthened by evidence to the contrary. In this respect we might all glance in a mirror, for similar delusions can be held not only by the uninformed but also by scholars; no doubt many readers can recall, with wry chuckles, examples in their own fields.Perhaps this New Mexican fable will never die. However, at least we can do our best to speed it on its way, and this book can be a big help in such an effort. In short, buy this book, read it, keep it available, and above all donate a second copy to your local public library. (shrink)

This volume examines Arnold Gehlen’s theory of the state from his philosophy of the state in the 1920s via his political and cultural anthropology to his impressive critique of the post-war welfare state. The systematic analyses the book contains by leading scholars in the social sciences and the humanities examine the interplay between the theory and history of the state with reference to the broader context of the history of ideas. Students and researchers as well as other readers interested (...) in this subject will find this book offers an informative overview of how one of the most wide-ranging and profound thinkers of the twentieth century understands the state. With contributions by Oliver Agard, Heike Delitz, Joachim Fischer, Andreas Höntsch, Tim Huyeng, Rastko Jovanov, Frank Kannetzky, Christine Magerski, Zeljko Radinkovic, Karl-Siegbert Rehberg and Christian Steuerwald. (shrink)

Om Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Arnold Gehlen, Helmuth Plessner, Ernst Bloch, Theodor W. Adorno, Alexander Mitscherlich, Karl Löwith, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Hannah Arendt, Wolfgang Abendroth, Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, Gershom Scholem, Hans Georg Gadamer, Alfred Schütz, Max Horkheimer og Leo Löwenthal.

The purpose of the present study is to present a critical view on Hans Kelsen's new work, Secular Religion , finished in 1964 but published only in 2012. The treatise starts with a reflection on the contemporary relevance of the problem of the bonds between Science, Politics and Religion in the Modern Times, and examines the main theses contained in Secular Religion , by pointing out its strong and weak points, and concludes with a general account on Kelsen's point of (...) view concerning the nascent "political theology". In short, Kelsen intends to demonstrate the conservative and deceptive outlines of the attitude held by many intellectuals – Erich Voegelin, Karl Löwith, Arnold J. Toynbee, Etienne Gilson, Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger etc. – who see religious elements in the fundamental structures of the Modern times, such as: Philosophy, Science and Politics. According to Kelsen, such identification is not only false but also dangerous, given the fact that the characterization of the laic and democratic project of the Modern Times as some kind of religion can lead to the theologization of the thought, which is typical of totalitarian political systems. (shrink)

This paper has two purposes: to provide a contextualised account of the Young Hegelian theory of the state, and to argue that Marx began working on the manuscript known as his ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’, not in the Summer of 1843, as most commentators assume, but at least as early as the Spring of 1842. The established narrative describes the Young Hegelians as ‘liberals’, and suggests that Marx ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law’ represents his rejection of their (...) liberalism and turn towards a more radical democratic and revolutionary position. Conversely, I argue that the Young Hegelians (notably Arnold Ruge and Bruno Bauer) were never liberal (at least not by any standard definition of that term) but articulated a radical and revolutionary theory of the state from the outset – one that understood freedom, not as independence, but as political participation, and that characterised the modern state, not as the guarantor of private rights, but as the institutional framework in which all citizens could realise their public freedom. In this sense, Marx’s ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy Law’ does not represent a break with the Young Hegelians theory of state, but a contribution to it. (shrink)

This article examines E.H. Gombrich’s critical appraisal of Arnold Hauser’s book, The Social History of Art. Hauser’s Social History of Art was published in 1951, a year after Gombrich’s bestseller, The Story of Art. Although written in Britain for an English-speaking public, both books had their origins in the intellectual history of Central Europe: Gombrich was an Austrian art historian and Hauser was Hungarian. Gombrich’s critique, published in The Art Bulletin in 1953, attacked Hauser’s dialectical materialism and his sociological (...) interpretation of art history. Borrowing arguments from Karl Popper’s critique of historicism, Gombrich described Hauser’s work as collectivist and deterministic, tendencies at odds with his own conception of art history. However, in his readiness to label Hauser a proponent of historical materialism, Gombrich failed to recognize Hauser’s own criticism of deterministic theories of art, especially formalism. This article investigates Gombrich’s reasons for rejecting Hauser’s sociology of art. It argues Gombrich used Hauser as an ideological counterpoint to his own version of art history, avowedly liberal and individualist in outlook. (shrink)

While popular cultural representations portray the “new father” of the past two decades as more involved, more nurturing, and capable of coparenting, many argue that actual fathering conduct has not kept pace. Others, however, question the extent to which the culture of fatherhood does indeed support involved fathering and, if so, what this involvement entails. This study aims to contribute to the exploration of the culture of fatherhood through an analysis of a yearlong Canadian newspaper series dedicated to family issues. (...) Findings suggest that through representations of parental guilt, parental responsibility, work—family balance issues, and hegemonic masculinity, mothers continue to be positioned as primary parents. Support for father involvement, to the extent that it exists, occurs within the framework of fathers as part-time, secondary parents whose relationship with children remains less important than mothers'. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Frühmittelalterliche Studien Jahrgang: 49 Heft: 1 Seiten: 301-346.

De tweespalt tussen wetenschap en emotionele waarneming werkt ontluisterend. Donder en Bliksem, de regenboog en andere als wonderbaarlijk ervaren natuurverschijnselen worden herleid tot fysieke fenomenen. Hoewel dit ook bevrijdend kan werken, blijft het verschil tussen realiteit en ons perceprievermogen een grote tweespalt genereren.