Man essentially is a being who pursues meaning and love. Socrates’ speech in the Symposium well characterizes man as driven by Eros, or Love. Socrates, expounding Diotema’s Ladder of Love, explains that man is driven by the erotic impulse. Nowhere in her teachings does Diotema mention the concept of self-interest or maximizing profit as the essential nature of man. Despite this, the concept of man as the rational economic man dominates the human stage of thought. Why and how has this (...) concept of man taken precedence over the Platonic description? What has made for the triumph of Homo economicus? (shrink)

In this chapter, we will argue that the very concept of risk management must be called into question. The argument will take the form that the use of the phrase ‘risk management’ operates to cover over the ethical dimensions of what is at the bottom of the problem, namely, risky decision making. Risky decision making takes place whenever and wherever decisions are taken by those whose lives are not immediately threatened by the situation in which the risk to other people’s (...) lives is created by their decision. The concept of risk management implies that risk is already there, not created by the decision, but lies already inherent in the situation that the decision sets into motion. The risk that exists in the objective situation simply needs to be “managed”. By changing the semantics of ‘risk management’ to ‘risk taking’ or ‘risky decision making’, the ethics of responsibility for risking other people’s lives will come into focus. The argument of the chapter is that by heightening the ethical sensitivity of decision makers, these decision makers will be less likely to make decisions that will cause harm and/or death to those who are the principal actors in the situation created by the decision. (shrink)

The argument of this paper, written by an ethicist and a philosopher, is that self-interest economics is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced by a spiritual economics or a value based economics. Its argument contains two interwoven threads. One thread is an attempt to show why the fundamental philosophical notions of Adam Smith, taken as an illustration of self-interest economics, cannot lead to an equitable society. Smith’s Wealth of Nations, according to Jacob Viner, ‘ became a significant factor in (...) determining the course of national policy not only in Britain but in other countries as well. This is much more than any other economic work has ever achieved; and Smith probably has had much more influence than any other economist.’ One wonders if it is Smith that Keynes had in mind when he famously quipped that all of us are slaves of some defunct economist. This despite Schumpeter’s trumpeted dictum that ‘the Wealth of Nationsdoes not contain a single analyticidea, principle or method that was entirely new in 1776.’. (shrink)

Man essentially is a being who pursues meaning and love. How is it possible that today, the concept of man as the rational economic man dominates the current human stage of thought? Why and how has this concept of man taken precedence over the Platonic description? What has made for the triumph of Homo oeconomicus? What has happened to the human race since money has vanquished beauty as the defining essence of humanity? What does it mean that Plato’s ideas sound (...) so alien to us now, so far-fetched, when to the Athenians, they made perfect sense? What does it mean that contemporary man would consider it to be absurd to define the motivating drive of the human being as being led by Eros to the pursuit of beauty when to the ancient Athenians it would be absurd to define the motivating drive of the human being as being led by the goal of the maximization of profit? (shrink)

This article is a response to the paradoxical nature of Moore's views on sense perception. By arguing that Moore's later stance on the objective world (that there are both mind-dependent and mind-independent features) requires a causal theory of perception, this article suggests that Moore lacks the epistemic justification needed to make assertions about the nature of mind-independent matter. Instead, the idealistic reply proposed in this article is to first dissolve Moore's distinction between mind-dependent and mind-independent features of the world, and (...) to then argue that shape, colour and other such qualities are known only in virtue of their similar perceptual (mind-dependent) origins. This article further diverges from Moore by concluding that objects are not mind-independent at all, but always indebted to various acts of cognitive construction. (shrink)

The immediate purpose of this article is to examine Hannah Arendtʼs analysis of Adolf Eichmann in order to point out the groundlessness of her argument that evil, whether in the person of Eichmann himself or in general, can be treated as banal. The wider purpose of this article is to divest any argument that is based on the concept that evil is banal, ordinary, or trivial of any valid grounding. To develop the immediate purpose, the article begins with a close (...) analysis of the word ‘banal’ in the context of discussions of evil to highlight the immense (and dangerous) power of language. It discusses plausible reasons for Arendt’s choice of ‘The Banality of Evil’ as part of the subtitle of her book Eichmann in Jerusalem. It then addresses two major questions: How did Arendt obtain the impression of the banality of Adolf Eichmann in the first place? What are the consequences of considering evil as trivial? The argument is made that Arendt communicated, regardless of her intention, that evil was trivial. Moreover, Arendt’s description of evil as banal and trivial directly contradicts evidence that Arendt presented in Eichmann in Jerusalem. The article then turns to address the widespread adoption of Arendt’s account in the prominent literature on Eichmann and the Holocaust as a ‘thoughtless’ move, pointing out that this is precisely the kind of perverse account of evil that such subtle and evil mind as Eichmann’s would want us to entertain. To introduce its wider purpose, the article concludes with a discussion of the pernicious consequences of equating evil with banality and of the need to abandon definitively this point of view. The argument is made that ordinariness is not and should never be an excuse for crime, for doing so is akin to inviting evil into our homes and shrugging our shoulders upon its entrance. (shrink)

The stated intent of the volume is "to broaden the exposure of Chinese Studies outside America and Great Britain" (p. vii). In this respect, the book succeeds admirably, as one of its distinctive features is the introduction of German scholarly approaches to an Anglo-American audience. As this fills a lacuna in Chinese studies, this volume is to be welcomed.

This book is co-written in a lively, engaging form by Karen Carr, from the discipline of religious studies and Philip Ivanhoe, whose background is in the disciplines of religious studies and Asian languages and philosophy. Unlike typical co-authorship, these two authors write separate pieces about Zhuangzi and Soren Kierkegaard and then together offer a combined vision. Refreshingly, the emphasis is on contrast of exemplars of two different and irreconcilable ways instead of comparison between similar thinkers. The two authors are to (...) be congratulated for this in-depth interchange both with each other and with these two iconoclastic thinkers. It is hoped that this innovative genre-a study of contrasts that partially crosses disciplines, maintains the integrity of each coauthor, and yet attempts a comprehensive vision-will provide inspiration for comparative studies in the future. (shrink)