			Home About us Contact

Philosophical Views (philosophical + views)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Humanities and Social Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

Actualizing Gadow's moral framework for nursing through research,

NURSING PHILOSOPHY, Issue 2 2003
Daryl Sharp Minicucci PhD RN CS NPP
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to describe how Sally Gadow's perspectives on existential advocacy as the moral framework for the nurse,patient relationship were synthesized with a general theory of motivation, self-determination theory (SDT), to inform the design of a study in which the influence of interpersonal care on the process of tobacco dependence treatment was explored. Consistent with the tenets of existential advocacy, participants who perceived their care providers as interpersonally sensitive and bringing more of their whole selves to the care encounter reported more autonomous motivation and felt competence for stopping smoking. The integration of existential advocacy with SDT, which led to the empirical work in which Gadow's ideas were actualized and her model supported, is described. Study findings are discussed in light of Gadow's philosophical views, and implications for nursing highlighted. [source]

What Are Emotions About?

PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH, Issue 2 2003
LILLI ALANEN
This paper discusses the interrelations between three aspects of human emotions: their intentionality, their expressivity and their moral significance. It distinguishes three kinds of philosophical views of emotions: the cognitivist (classically held by the Stoics), the emotivist which reduces emotions to non-intentional bodily sensations and physiological states, and the moral phenomenologist, the latter being held by Annette Baier, whose work is the focus of the discussion. Her view, which represents an original development of ideas found in Descartes and Hume, avoids the reductionism of congitivist and emotivist accounts. The paper gives special attention to her notion of ,deep'objects of emotions and to her account of the expressivity of emotions, arguing that while the first is problematic, the second is a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of emotions in our moral lives. [source]

The Trinitarian Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards and Nicolas Malebranche

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 2 2002
Jasper Reid
This paper explores both the striking similarities and also the differences between Jonathan Edwards and Nicolas Malebranche's philosophical views on the Holy Trinity and, in particular, the ways in which they both gave important roles to specific Persons of the Trinity in the various different branches of their respective metaphysical systems,ontological, epistemological and ethical. It is shown that Edwards and Malebranche were in very close agreement on ontological questions pertaining to the Trinity, both with respect to the internal, triune nature of the divine substance (characterising the Three Persons as the divine power, as the consubstantial idea of God which was generated as He eternally reflected on Himself, and as the mutual love which proceeded between the Father and this idea), and also with respect to the various roles these Three Persons played in the creation of the world. In epistemology, Malebranche postulated an illuminating union between the mind of man and the divine Word, insisting on an absolutely direct involvement of the Second Person in all human cognition, both intellectual and sensible. On this point Edwards did differ, endorsing instead an empiricist epistemology which left no room for such a direct union with the Word. However, when it came to ethics, Edwards and Malebranche both gave the Third Person an utterly central role, postulating much the same kind of union as Malebranche alone had postulated in the epistemological case, only now between the will of man and the Holy Spirit. [source]

Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific?

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, Issue 2 2001
BERTRAM G. MURRAY Jr.
ABSTRACT Scientists observe nature, search for generalizations, and provide explanations for why the world is as it is. Generalizations are of two kinds. The first are descriptive and inductive, such as Boyle's Law. They are derived from observations and therefore refer to observables (in this case, pressure and volume). The second are often imaginative and form the axioms of a deductive theory, such as Newton's Laws of Motion. They often refer to unobservables (e.g. inertia and gravitation). Biology has many inductive generalizations (e.g. Bergmann's Rule and ,all cells arise from preexisting cells') but few, if any, recognized universal laws and virtually no deductive theory. Many biologists and philosophers of biology have agreed that predictive theory is inappropriate in biology, which is said to be more complex than physics, and that one can have nonpredictive explanations, such as the neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Other philosophers dismiss nonpredictive, explanatory theories, including evolutionary ,theory', as metaphysics. Most biologists do not think of themselves as philosophers or give much thought to the philosophical basis of their research. Nevertheless, their philosophy shows in the way they do research. The plethora of ad hoc (i.e. not universal) hypotheses indicates that biologists are reluctant inductivists in that the search for generalization does not have a high priority. Biologists test their hypotheses by verification. Theoretical physicists, in contrast, are deductive unifiers and test their explanatory hypotheses by falsification. I argue that theoretical biology (concerned with unobservables, such as fitness and natural selection) is not scientific because it lacks universal laws and predictive theory. In order to make this argument, I review the differences between verificationism and falsificationism, induction and deduction, and descriptive and explanatory laws. I show how these differ with a specific example of a successful and still useful (even if now superseded as explanatory) deductive theory, Newton's Theory of Motion. I also review some of the philosophical views expressed on these topics because philosophers seem to be even more divided than biologists, which is not at all helpful. The fact that biology does not have predictive theories does not constitute irrefutable evidence that it cannot have them. The only way to falsify this philosophical hypothesis, however, is to produce a predictive theory with universal biological laws. I have proposed such a theory, but it has been presented piecemeal. At the end of this paper, I bring the pieces together into a deductive theory on the evolution of life history traits (e.g. clutch size, mating relationships, sexual size dimorphism). [source]