Suchergebnisse

"This title was first published in 2001: We are all persons or selves. But what exactly does it mean that we possess an identity and autonomy as persons or selves? This book explores the related problems of self-identity and personal autonomy within the framework of contemporary analytical anthropology, a blend of analytical philosophy of mind and action with moral psychology. Cuypers critically examines the empiricist bundle theory and metaphysical ego theory of self-identity as well as the hierarchical Frankfurt / Dworkin model of personal autonomy. Arguing that all these standard views are found wanting, Cuypers then offers an alternative 'personalist' theory of personal identity, plus an innovative 'moderately heteronomous' theory of autonomy without ever going beyond the analytical frame of reference. In critical discussion with analytical philosophers such as Derek Parfit, John Perry and Harry Frankfurt, this book develops an original perspective on the nature of persons or selves that is orthogonal to the received views in analytical anthropology. Stefaan E. Cuypers is Professor at the Institute of Philosophy, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium"--Provided by publisher.

Evolutionary psychology and human sociobiology often reject the mere possibility of symbolic causality. Conversely, theories in which symbolic causality plays a central role tend to be both anti-nativist and anti-evolutionary. This article sketches how these apparent scientific rivals can be reconciled in the study of disgust. First, we argue that there are no good philosophical or evolutionary reasons to assume that symbolic causality is impossible. Then, we examine to what extent symbolic causality can be part of the theoretical toolbox of the evolutionary social sciences. This examination leads to the conclusion that it is possible to make evolutionary sense of Mary Douglas's theory of disgust, and that her view of symbolic causality can and should inform evolutionary theories of (sociocultural) disgust.

In contrast to several other European countries, a formal philosophy course is at present absent from the curriculum of Flemish SecondarySchools (FSS) in Belgium. In this article, we offer a pleafor the necessary inclusion of philosophy as an independent mandatory subject in the FSS curriculum. Our line of argument takes into accountthree basic parameters: alternative conceptions of (i) teaching and (ii) philosophy,and competing (iii) educational aims of teaching philosophy. We substantiate our preference for a cultural-humanistic approach to teaching, a view of philosophyas an autonomous discipline with its own topics, texts and history,and aninitiation in the philosophical tradition of Western civilisation as the primary aimof teaching philosophy.Against the backdrop of this ideal argumentation,we evaluate in the context of Flanders' contemporary educational reality the informal presence of philosophical practices in, for example, technical schooling,religious educationand other non-philosophical instruction, education for democratic citizenship, and philosophy for children. In addition,we suggest some possible remedies for the current deplorable situation in the hope that the Flemish government- and in its wake the community and catholic educational networks - will int he not too distant future officially legislate for the formal inclusion of philosophy as a separate compulsory course in the FSS curriculum.