Today, bioethical themes are no longer the exclusive patrimony of university classrooms. Everyone is talking about them ; «secular» and «catholics» alike. Catholics are often accused of imposing a «confessional» point of view. This article wishes to clarify this point given its importance in themes regarding the life and death of man, such as : artificial fecundation, abortion, cloning, brain death, organ transplants, and euthanasia. The article is based on a philosophical reflection starting with anthropological considerations. The extensive number of (...) themes does not allow taking all of them into consideration. Thus the article adheres to the following outline : 1. Establish the epistemological bases for a rational discourse based on universal premises, with particular reference to artificial fecundation and the nature of human sexuality. 2. Analize the «human nature» condition of the embryo, of the physically and mentally disabled, of the terminally ill, and their status as «human persons» ; this discourse is founded on the ontological status of the human body. 3. Present the value of the human body as a psycho-biological unity, which constitutes man's substantial unity. 4. We call this psycho-biological unity «person»: «corpore et anima unus» ; an individual subject with a rational nature, with its own singularity and oneness. The person has an absolute value, therefore cloning, even for «therapeutic reasons», is contrary to its ontological status. 5. From. (shrink)

Research has found that both cisgender and transgender androphilic males (i.e., males sexually attracted to and aroused by other adult males) have female-typical occupational preferences when compared with gynephilic males (i.e., males sexually attracted to and aroused by adult females). Moreover, whereas cisgender androphilic males’ occupational preferences tend to be intermediate between those of gynephilic men and androphilic women, transgender androphilic males tend to have occupational preferences that are more similar to androphilic women. No study has directly compared both types (...) of androphilic males within the same culture. The present study investigated occupational preference and its relation to childhood sex-atypical behavior (CSAB), among gynephilic men (_n_ = 208), androphilic women (_n_ = 138), and cisgender (_n_ = 132) and transgender (_n_ = 129) androphilic males from the Istmo region of Oaxaca, Mexico, where androphilic males are recognized as third gender, _muxes_. The study found large sex differences in occupational preferences (_d_ = 2.80). Furthermore, both cisgender _muxe nguiiu_ (_d_ = 2.36) and transgender _muxe gunaa_ (_d_ = 3.44) reported having more sex-atypical occupational preferences compared with men. However, _muxe gunaa_ reported higher female-typical occupational preferences than women (_d_ = 0.59) and _muxe nguiiu_ (_d_ = 0.57), whereas _muxe nguiiu_ and women did not differ (_d_ = 0.08). These findings are consistent with the conclusion that sex-atypical occupational preferences are a cross-culturally universal aspect of male androphilia. Finally, CSAB was associated with sex-atypical occupational preferences among all participants. These findings suggest that a developmental continuity exists between childhood and adulthood sex-atypicality. (shrink)

Sans perdre de vue la centralité des luttes handies dans l’élaboration d’une pensée anti-validiste l’article détaille les mutations sociotechniques qui affectent les corps humains et en fixent la validité et la disponibilité : il explore les tensions politiques et épistémiques s’éveillant au contact des expériences d’indisposition, d’indisponibilité, et d’indisposabilité. Mais ces corps indociles produisent plus qu’une usure de ce système de mise à disposition : ils développent un autre imaginaire du corps, et de son usage, que nous qualifions de passage (...) de la fRiction, à la fiction. (shrink)

The autho r , after pointing out the reasons w h y the debate in the EU and in Spain continue to ignore w hat he calls the radical l y political meaning of the phenomenon of mig ration, tries to a r gue that the conditions and the consequences of the re c o gnition of immigration are a political question ( e v en the political question). He focuses in pa r ticular on the pro b lem of (...) immi g rants ' access to citizenship, to propose, li k e Rubio or Carens, a g radual g ranting (in time and space) but mere l y temporary -based on sta b le residence- of citizenship to immi g rants that is understood as pa r t of a plural multiple and inclus i v e concept of citizenship. (shrink)

A selection of recent philosophical texts—in Italian translation—dealing with the mereology of material objects and the nature of their boundaries. Introduction by L. Morena. Papers by R. M. Chisholm, P. M. Simons, B. Smith, A. Stroll, A. C. Varzi.

La plupart des études récentes sur le Lysis de Platon considèrent ce dialogue comme un échec philosophique. Si quelques parties du Lysis ont retenu l’at­tention des commentateurs, il en est peu qui ont essayé, dans leur analyse, de défendre l’idée que ce court texte offre un contenu philosophique construit et cohérent. Terry Penner et Christopher Rowe (P&R) relèvent ce défi dans leur commentaire philosophique de ce dialogue en affirmant qu’une analyse systéma­tique du Lysis est insuffisante e...

8 March, now known as International Women’s Day, is a day for feminist claims where demonstrations are organized in over 150 countries, with the participation of millions of women all around the world. These demonstrations can be viewed as collective rituals and thus focus attention on the processes that facilitate different psychosocial effects. This work aims to explore the mechanisms involved in participation in the demonstrations of 8 March 2020, collective and ritualized feminist actions, and their correlates associated with personal (...) well-being and collective well-being, collective efficacy and collective growth, and behavioral intention to support the fight for women’s rights. To this end, a cross-cultural study was conducted with the participation of 2,854 people from countries in Latin America and Europe, with a retrospective correlational cross-sectional design and a convenience sample. Participants were divided between demonstration participants and non-demonstrators or followers who monitored participants through the media and social networks. Compared with non-demonstrators and with males, female and non-binary gender respondents had greater scores in mechanisms and criterion variables. Further random-effects model meta-analyses revealed that the perceived emotional synchrony was consistently associated with more proximal mechanisms, as well as with criterion variables. Finally, sequential moderation analyses showed that proposed mechanisms successfully mediated the effects of participation on every criterion variable. These results indicate that participation in 8M marches and demonstrations can be analyzed through the literature on collective rituals. As such, collective participation implies positive outcomes both individually and collectively, which are further reinforced through key psychological mechanisms, in line with a Durkheimian approach to collective rituals. (shrink)

English summary: The objective of this volume is to change the image of Hegel as a philosopher of the Prussian state, as one who, concerned only about his career, spoke in praise of the king of Wurttemberg, and as an author who, under the influence of the Carlsbad Decrees, completely changed his philosophy of right. In addition to historical studies, the volume presents a number of predominantly systematic works in order to shed light on the history of the development of (...) Hegels philosophy of right as a whole. German description: Der Band stellt sich die Aufgabe, das Bild Hegels als des 'Preussischen Staatsphilosophen', des karrierebedachten Lobredners des wurttembergischen Konigs und als eines Autors, der unter dem Einfluss der Karlsbader Beschlusse seine Rechtsphilosophie grundsatzlich umkonzipierte, entscheidend zu korrigieren. - Der Band prasentiert neben historischen Untersuchungen eine Reihe uberwiegend systematischer Arbeiten, um so die Entwicklungsgeschichte der Rechtsphilosophie Hegels im Ganzen erhellen zu konnen. - Mit Beitragen von G. Planty-Bonjour, J. D'Hondt, E. Fleischmann, Z. A. Pelczynski, N. Waszek, H. Kimmerle, Ch. Jamme, H.-Ch. Lucas, W. Jaeschke, R. Grawert, O. Poggeler, W. Bonsiepen, L. Siep, G. Lubbe-Wolff, A. Peperzak und K. R. Meist. (shrink)

Fruit d’un colloque organisé en 2009 par l’Université de l’Oregon, le présent ouvrage dirigé par Sarah LaChance Adams et Caroline Lundquist, paru en 2013, tente d’esquisser une philosophie de la grossesse, de l’accouchement et de la maternité. Les différentes contributions tendent à montrer que ces thèmes, loin d’être en marge des questions philosophiques, peuvent permettre une redéfinition du sujet, de l’intersubjectivité, ou encore de l’éthique, tout en prenant soin d’éviter l’essentialisme...

We show that if κ is a weakly compact cardinal then the embeddability relation on trees of size κ is invariantly universal. This means that for every analytic quasi-order R on the generalized Cantor space View the MathML source there is an Lκ+κ-sentence φ such that the embeddability relation on its models of size κ, which are all trees, is Borel bi-reducible to R. In particular, this implies that the relation of embeddability on trees of size κ is complete for (...) analytic quasi-orders on View the MathML source. These facts generalize analogous results for κ=ω obtained in Louveau and Rosendal [17] and Friedman and Motto Ros [6], and it also partially extends a result from Baumgartner [3] concerning the structure of the embeddability relation on linear orders of size κ. (shrink)

This book is a collection of secondary essays on America's most important philosophic thinkers—statesmen, judges, writers, educators, and activists—from the colonial period to the present. Each essay is a comprehensive introduction to the thought of a noted American on the fundamental meaning of the American regime.

David Lewis criticizes an argument I put forward against mechansim on the grounds that I fail to distinguish between OL, Lucas's ordinary potential arithmetic output, and OML, Lucas's arithmetical output when accused of being some particular machine M; and correspondingly, between OM the ordinary potential arithmetic output of the machine M, and ONM, the arithmetic output of the machine M when accused of being a particular machine N. For any given machine, M, N, O, P, Q, R,... etc., (...) I can in principle calculate a Godel sentence for that machine - indeed infinitely many, depending on the Godel numbering scheme adopted. The Godel sentence of a particular machine can, I claim, be seen to be true, if that machine is adequate for Elementary Peano Arithmetic. Hence, if I were accused of being M, I can on that supposition see that the Godel sentence of M is true, since I am capable of Elementary Peano Arithmetic and the machine M is said to be an adequate characterization of me. (shrink)

In this article, Lucas maintains the falseness of Mechanism - the attempt to explain minds as machines - by means of Incompleteness Theorem of Gödel. Gödel’s theorem shows that in any system consistent and adequate for simple arithmetic there are formulae which cannot be proved in the system but that human minds can recognize as true; Lucas points out in his turn that Gödel’s theorem applies to machines because a machine is the concrete instantiation of a formal system: (...) therefore, for every machine consistent and able of doing simple arithmetic, there is a formula that it can’t produce as true but that we can see to be true, and so human minds and machines have to be different. Lucas considers as well in this article some possible objections to his argument: for any Gödelian formula we could, for instance, construct a machine able to produce it or we could put the Gödelian formulae that we had proved as axioms of a further machine. However - as Lucas underlines - for every of such machines we could again formulate another Gödelian formula, the Gödelian formula of these machines, that they are not able to proof but that we can recognize as true. More general arguments, such as the possibility to escape Gödelian argument by suggesting that Gödel’s theorem applies to consistent systems while we could be inconsistent ones, are moreover refuted by Lucas by maintaining that our inconsistency corresponds to occasional malfunctioning of a machine and not to his normal inconsistency; indeed, a inconsistent machine is characterized by producing any statement, on the contrary human being are selective and not disposed to assert anything. (shrink)

Arguments have been much misunderstood. Not only has it been assumed that they must be deductive, but it has been assumed also that, although often expressed in loose and elliptical form, they must be capable, if they are valid at all, of being expressed with absolute precision, as a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the action in question to be appropriate. Mathematical arguments are capable of being stated precisely, and it has long been a reproach to workers in (...) other disciplines that they do not manage to achieve equal precision in their work. The assumption is made that absolute precision is in principle available, and it is only a lack of rigour by practitioners in the non-mathematical disciplines that prevents them casting their arguments in satisfactory form, and the philosopher should, therefore, reconstruct arguments to conform with these requirements, evaluating those that do, and rejecting any that do not. (shrink)

According to the legend, Bishop Wilberforce at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford on Saturday, June 30th, 1860, turned to Thomas Huxley, and asked him ``Is it on your grandfather's or your grandmother's side that you claim descent from a monkey''; whereupon Huxley delivered a devastating rebuke, thereby establishing the primacy of scientific truth over ecclesiastical obscurantism. Although the legend is historically untrue in almost every detail, its persistence suggests that it may nonetheless (...) be true in some deeper, mythical, sense. To explore this possibility the British Academy has invited Dr Janet Browne to be a neo-Huxley confronting Mr J.R. Lucas, as a neo-Wilberforce, with each reconsidering their earlier arguments. (shrink)

In this paper Lucas suggests that many of his critics have not read carefully neither his exposition nor Penrose’s one, so they seek to refute arguments they never proposed. Therefore he offers a brief history of the Gödelian argument put forward by Gödel, Penrose and Lucas itself: Gödel argued indeed that either mathematics is incompletable – that is axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule and so human mind surpasses the power of any finite machine – (...) or there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems, and he suggest that the second disjunct is untenable; on the other side, Penrose proposed an argument similar to Lucas’ one but making use of Turing’s theorem. Finally Lucas exposes again his argument and considers some of the most important objections to it. (shrink)

Dear Mr. Lucas, I was wondering if you had come across Query 44 of George Berkeley's ``Analyst: A discourse addressed to an infidel mathematician"?. It reads: ``Whether the difference between a mere computer and a man of science be not that one computes on principles clearly conceived and by rules evidently demonstrated, whereas the other [i.e a man] doth not?" Not bad for 1734!

That space and time should be integrated into a single entity, spacetime, is the great insight of Einstein's special theory of relativity, and leads us to regard spacetime as a fundamental context in which to make sense of the world around us. But it is not the only one. Causality is equally important and at least as far as the special theory goes, it cannot be subsumed under a fundamentally geometrical form of explanation. In fact, the agent of propagation of (...) causal influence is electromagnetic radiation. In this examination, the authors find support for a rationalist approach to physics, never neglecting experimentation, but rejecting a simple empiricist or positivist view of science. (shrink)

The ontological argument has run for a long time, regularly refuted, regularly re-appearing in a new form. Something can be learnt from its longevity. Its proponents must be on to something, or it would not have survived its many refutations. But equally, it must have been much misformulated, or it would not have seemed evidently fallacious to its many critics. Perhaps it does express a deep philosophical intimation. Certainly it has been taken to prove more than it really can establish. (...) Like many other philosophical arguments it has suffered by being made out to be more rigorous than in the nature of the case it can be. For some philosophers addressing some questions it may have been decisive in leading them to adopt one of the few options open to them: but it is quite inconclusive for others, with different presuppositions or different problems, and cannot be reduced into a valid proof cogent for all comers and compelling them to accept the conclusion it claims to demonstrate. (shrink)

The latest round of cuts will be painful. There is little fat left. But there are some areas where we are, although lean, extravagant. We are extravagant in our provision of lectures and our use of tutorials. Although we are justly proud of our teaching, it is worth looking at our practices to see whether we could not be more economical in our use of resources without damaging our achievement.