No Moonlight in My Cup: Sinitic Poetry from the Japanese Court, Eighth to the Twelfth Centuries. Edited and translated by Judith N. Rabinovitch and Timothy R. BradstocK. East Asian Comparative Literature and Culture, vol. 10. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Pp. xxvi + 474. $232.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Vorlesungen über Anthroplogieby Immanuel KantKarl AmeriksImmanuel Kant. Vorlesungen über Anthroplogie. Edition Reinhard Brandt und Werner Stark. Vol. XXV (Division 4, Vorlesungen, vol. 2) of Kants gesammelte Schriften. Hrsg. von der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Part 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Part I. Pp. cli + 728. Part II. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Pp. 729–1,691. Half-leather, $460.00This massive double tome is the long-awaited beginning of a whole new era (...) in Kant research, and it represents much more than just another volume in the Academy edition. It is the first work in the edition to be brought out from the new Marburg Kant Archive (an edition of the parallel lectures on Physical Geography, vol. XXVI, is to be completed within a few years), and it reflects an entirely different level of scholarship than that found in earlier volumes, especially the lecture volumes edited by the late Gerhard Lehmann.The famous historical tradition of German editing, and the special respect and difficulty that tends to surround work on Kant, have probably left most English-speaking scholars with the comfortable but naive presumption that the Academy edition for Kant is a paradigm of its kind. The sad and little-known fact is that this presumption is far from the truth, notwithstanding many path-breaking editorial achievements years ago, especially by Erich Adickes. As the new editors note (cxxi), even most of the main texts of Kant’s Critical era lack the full apparatus of references that one would expect in a critical edition today. An up-to-date publication that guides readers to the main shortcomings of the previous volumes is sorely needed, and fortunately it is now in preparation. In the future, the volumes containing the opus postumumand the other lectures may need to be redone in their entirety, although it is unclear whether adequate personnel and support can be found for completing such a project within the lifetime of this journal’s readers. Germany still faces many rebuilding tasks, and the edition of the sage of Königsberg does not seem to have the priority that pure practical reason and the rest of the world might expect. [End Page 370]There are notorious special difficulties for the volumes of notes concerning Kant’s lectures. Work on this last section of the Academy edition (section IV; the three other sections are Kant’s publications, letters, and manuscripts) was suspended in 1920, and when it was resumed after the war under the directorship of Lehmann in Berlin, the daunting task clearly exceeded his meager resources, with matters becoming only more difficult after the Berlin crisis of 1961. Fascinating new sets of lecture notes on logic, metaphysics, and ethics were found and brought out through the 1970s and 1980s, but they were published on the basis of editorial methods that left much to be desired. The chaotic apparatus that Lehmann provided was presented in a form that was often unhelpful or misleading.In contrast, volume XXV will be like a new continent for readers. Here one finds an enormous mass of new material accompanied by a clear and thorough introduction, with a meticulous account of all sources and a concise review of the relevant philosophical as well as historical issues. These issues are quite complicated because of the extensive background of Kant’s anthropological discussions, and the problem of using what are only reworked copies of notes made by groups of students long ago. The editors provide a very helpful account of the tradition of note-taking for Kant’s lectures in general, as well as extremely well-researched remarks covering the dating and authenticity of all the sets of the Anthropologynotes. Another nice feature is that, unlike previous Academy volumes, emendations and relevant references are provided in the text itself, with two levels of footnotes, including indications of hundreds of parallel passages, so there is no longer any end material that one has constantly to chase after (although there is a 126-page bibliography and index section). The printing style is modern and very readable. The editors have chosen to print underlining wherever it appears in the manuscripts, to mark no... (shrink)

This page provides the journal cover design, which can be used as the cover page of a hard copy of the whole or partial set of the contents of the current issue (vol 1, no 2) of the journal.

The article conceptualizes the term Pedagogy of Fear as the master narrative of educational systems around the world. Pedagogy of Fear stunts the active and vital educational growth of the young person, making him/her passive and dependent upon external disciplinary sources. It is motivated by fear that prevents young students—as well as teachers—from dealing with the great existential questions that relate to the essence of human beings. One of the techniques of the Pedagogy of Fear is the internalization of the (...) view that without evaluation and assessment we cannot know a child’s level or “worth”—and therefore are unable to help him/her if he is “slow in learning.” In contrast, Philosophy for/with Children offers a space for addressing existential questions, some of which deal with urgent social issues. The willingness to make philosophy inquiry an alternative already from an early age seeks to allow the child to challenge him/herself with new and fresh questions. Philosophy for/with Children does not regard children as a “space of lack” (experience, knowledge, values, etc.) The new and fresh philosophical perspective of children demands the presence of a willingness to engage in dialogue and rejection of the fear of the innocent and deep questions of philosophy. Shaking free of the Pedagogy of Fear and restoring honor to children’s questions demands a fundamental conceptual change within education. The replacement of existential certainty as it is depicted by adults in the existing education system with an existential question is a heavy intellectual task that in most cases is viewed as subversive—primarily on the part of the adult. It demands a return to starting points and a willingness to allow children a free and safe educational space in which to ground preliminary and fertile questions about themselves, their lives, their environment, and, most of all, the changing world they discover with the form of originality that is right for them. (shrink)

I deny that the world is fundamentally causal, deriving the skepticism on non-Humean grounds from our enduring failures to find a contingent, universal principle of causality that holds true of our science. I explain the prevalence and fertility of causal notions in science by arguing that a causal character for many sciences can be recovered, when they are restricted to appropriately hospitable domains. There they conform to loose and varying collections of causal notions that form folk sciences of causation. This (...) recovery of causation exploits the same generative power of reduction relations that allows us to recover gravity as a force from Einstein's general relativity and heat as a conserved fluid, the caloric, from modern thermal physics, when each theory is restricted to appropriate domains. Causes are real in science to the same degree as caloric and gravitational forces. (shrink)

This page provides some basic journal information (the constitution of the international editorial board of the journal, the identity of itsl publisher, its emphasis, coverage and orientation, etc.).

This page provides the table of contents of the current issue.

Expediente: Horizonte, vol. 13, no. 38, Abr./Jun. 2015.

Presentation - vol. 14, no. 43, April/June 2016.

Frank Koughan and Walt Bogdanich's response to my article, “From Pittsburgh to Cleveland: NHBD Controversies and Bioethics,” reminds me of the Shakespearean line, “The lady protests too much, methinks.” My article was not about the specifics of the 60 Minutes April 13, 1997, story on NHBD at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation , even though the story formed the basis for the reflection. I did not attack the critics, though I do believe that bioethicists are accountable for their scholarly and public (...) pronouncements. Although I do not see why the 60 Minutes' story should be treated with deference, my article was designed to raise questions for a primarily bioethics audience about the involvement of bioethicists in media coverage of bioethics topics. I am flattered that they took notice of my piece, but think their efforts to set the record straight only obfuscate matters further. (shrink)

Because we are often nagged by the thought that we might not have behaved any differently than those good citizens whose respect for the law and fear of punishment led them to support the Nazi regime, we are fascinated with the behavior of ordinary Germans. Careful to first strip away the pathological explanations of German behavior, Pellegrino and Thomasma ask simply whether ordinary Germans could have reasoned and, by implication, acted differently. Although their affirmative answer is consistent with the activism (...) we have all come to demand of the Germans, it is not clear whether we, ourselves, can lay full claim to the moral high ground. (shrink)

It is now a widely shared opinion in the Western countries that a child's disability would probably place an unexpected burden on her parents, a burden that the parents have not committed themselves to dealing with. A child with a physical or mental disability is not, so to speak, a part of the package the parents ordered. This line of reasoning has recently been supported by Rosamond Rhodes in her article.

Expediente: Horizonte, vol. 13, no. 37, Jan./Mar. 2015.