Suchergebnisse

The author argues that the concept of justification is viewed best through elucidation of the processes of ethical and epistemic justification, with specific attention paid to what has been dubbed the "internalist/externalist" distinction in such justification. The first part of the argument clarifies the nature of the distinction as it occurs in ethics and then epistemic justification, noting that there is a parallel between the uses of the distinction, but that it is the way in which the uses are not parallel that is most salient for conceptual purposes. The author then claims that there is an analogous distinction, frequently made in ethical justification, and that is the alleged normative/descriptive distinction. A look at the intersection of that distinction with the internalist/externalist juncture yields the notion that epistemic justification, in particular, could benefit from an externalist/ descriptive approach. Finally, the author argues that we would do well to apply some of the work of the social sciences to epistemic justification theory. The author concludes that the concept of justification includes all four components (internalist, externalist, nor mative, and descriptive) and that clarification of justification simpliciter involves an examination of justification in its various modes.

Much theorising in our field is focused on what planning should do. Such work is generally informed by perspectives borrowed from social and political theory that are used as an analytical lens to examine where planning practice has gone wrong and as a platform to prescribe how planning should be corrected to deliver better ends. For example, the work of Dewey and Habermas has deeply influenced the communicative and collaborative approaches to planning by informing stances on how planning should be democratically orientated to provide an effective means to identify and provide for ends. Associated with these theories but differentiated by emphasis, is a strand of planning theory that combines social and political thinking to focus on the ends to which planning practice should be directed and specifying the means necessary to deliver such ends. This family of planning theory includes Just City, advocacy planning and phronetic planning approaches. Another prominent vein of planning theory is primarily occupied with critiquing consensus focused approaches, and is illustrated by neoliberal and post-political critiques, as well as work on the dark side of planning. Although different in their particularities, what all these approaches have in common is a concentration on what planning should or shouldn't do, rather than what planning is. 1 Linking these approaches together is an implicit prioritisation of means over ends, such that democracy, participation, recognition, respect, (re)distribution and avoiding abuses of power become the focus through which the formulation and delivery of ends are evaluated. In this sense, a concern with means is implicitly privileged over, or even conflated with ends in theorising and interpreting practice. For example, a common theory-infused planning analysis would seek the provision of more affordable housing (ends) through greater state intervention in house building (means #1) and collaborative methods in decision-making (means #2), rather than seeking the provision of more affordable housing (ends #1), by relying primarily on a private sector dominated system of property companies acquiring and developing land banks in response to market dynamics (means), with the ultimate aim of maximising shareholder profit (ends #2).

Theological errors regarding sin.--Divine authorship of the scriptures.--Divine authorship further considered.--The origin of sin.--God's system of moral government.--The nature and effect of sin.--Heaven and eternal life.--Paul's doctrine of redemption--Concluding remarks. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The classical and the former Catholic doctrines of tyrannicide remind us that in the Western tradition of citizenship and political thought, tyrannicide is worthy. Recent legislation against the glorification of terrorism is too wide and vague, and denies any link between tyrannicide and liberty. A good production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar should not make the act of tyrannicide per se problematic, but should seize the dilemma of whether or not Julius Caesar was becoming a tyrant rather than a consul with constitutional powers for war or emergency. Both Hannah Arendt and our contemporary Ted Honderich offer philosophical justifications of violence in defined and not uncommon circumstances. Terrorism is sometimes the only resort of the poor and oppressed.

This work addresses the question of the standardization of space by means of visual language. Through the analysis and subversion of different means of communication – typography, traffic signs, sign language, maps and blueprints – the artist questions the modes of legislating space by bringing to light the limited legibility of the codes. ; La obra aborda el problema de la normativización del espacio por medio del lenguaje visual. A través del análisis y subversión de diferentes medios de comunicación visual -tipografía, señales de tránsito, lenguaje de señas, mapas, "blueprints"-, el artista cuestiona los modos de legislar el espacio al poner en evidencia la limitada legibilidad de los códigos. ; Cet ouvrage aborde la question de la normalisation de l'espace au moyen du langage visuel. Par l'analyse et la subversion de différents moyens de communication – typographie, panneaux de signalisation, langage gestuel, cartes et plans – l'artiste s'interroge sur les façons de légiférer l'espace en clarifiant la lisibilité limitée des codes. ; Este trabalho aborda a questão da padronização do espaço através da linguagem visual. Com a análise e subversão de diferentes meios de comunicação (tipografia, sinais de trânsito, língua de sinais, mapas e blueprints), o artista questiona os modos de legislação do espaço ao lançar luz sobre a limitada legibilidade dos códigos.