この巨大な専門用語を積んだ(この本は本当に用語集が必要です!)、重い学術的な仕事が教育を受けた世界でベストセラーになったことは驚くべきことであり、フィッティングです。専門用語を学び、551ページのテキ ストと238ページのノートを耕すために専用する必要があります。私たちは何度も何度も言われていますが、これは来るものの輪郭に過ぎないと言われています! 彼は3つの運動の行き過ぎを厳しく批判するが、これは非常にリベラルで精神的な観点から、宗教、哲学、行動科学の非建設的でNew年齢の神秘的でポストモダンな解釈である。 彼は哲学、心理学、社会学、宗教の様々な世界観を詳細に分析し、彼らの致命的な還元主義的欠陥を(主に)ケアと輝きの気持ちで暴露するが、彼が分析する情報源のほとんどは今日はほとんど関連性がない。 彼らは20年前に研究と執筆をしていたときにすでに時代遅れだった用語や概念を使用しています。一つは、専門用語の無限のページをスローする必要があります - ハーバーマス、カント、エマーソン、ユングet.alの議論を積んだ。真珠にたどり着くために。 あなたは悪い書き込み、混乱し、時代遅れのアイデアと時代遅れの専門用語の素晴らしいサンプリングを得る。 現在の教育が良ければ、この本を読むのは二重に苦痛です(そして、ほとんどの人間の行動に関する書き込み)。 それは非常に拷問と混乱しているので、痛みを伴う、そして、あなたがそれが現代の心理学と哲学でいかに単純であるかを認識したときに再び。用語とアイデアは恐ろしく混乱し、日付が付いています(しかし、ウィルバー 自身の分析では、彼の情報源よりもそれほどではありません)。 著者のほとんどはそれに気づいていませんでしたが、この本とその情報源のほとんどは心理学のテキストです。それは、なぜ私たちが私たちがどのように考え、行動するのか、そして将来どのように変わるのかについて、人 間の行動と推論についてです。しかし、(最近までそのような議論のように)説明のどれも本当に説明ではないので、彼らは人間の行動に関する洞察を与えなくなります。誰も関係する精神的なメカニズムについて議論しま せん。これは、ステアリングホイールについて話し合うエンジン、燃料、またはドライブトレインの知識なしに、ハンドルと金属と塗料について議論する車の仕組みを説明するようなものです。実際には、ほとんどの古い' 説明'の行動と同様に、テキストはここでdを引用し、Wilberによるコムメントは、多くの場合、彼らが説明として受け入れる(そして省略する)ものの種類、そしてhey 実際のコンテンツよりも推論の種類のためにより興味深いです。 哲学と認知と進化心理学に取り組むならば、そのほとんどは古風です。ほぼすべての人(学者と公共の人)と同じように-e.g.、デネットの自由の進化や他の本の私のレビューを参照してください)、彼は宗教と倫理の 基礎を理解していない - 実際には、すべての人間の行動は、私たちの遺伝子にプログラムされています。彼が多くの本を書いている間、私たち自身を理解する革命が起こり、それが彼を通り過ぎました。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

이 거대한 전문 용어가 가득한 (이 책은 정말 용어집을 필요로합니다!), 무겁게 학문적 인 작업이 교육의 세계에서 베스트 셀러가되었다는 것은 놀랍고 적합합니다. 하나는 전문 용어를 배우고 텍스트의 551 페이지와 노트의 238 페이지를 통해 쟁기 전념해야합니다. 그 동안에, 우리는 이것이 올 것의 단지 개요라고 몇 번이고 들었습니다! 그는 세 운동의 과잉을 심각하게 비판하지만, 이것은 매우 자유롭고 영적 관점에서 종교, 철학 및 행동 과학의 해체및 새로운 시대 신비주의와 포스트 모더니즘 해석이다- 즉, 최악의 데카곤없이, PM과 NAM 전문 용어, 맹렬한 평등주의와 반 과학적 반 지적. (...) 그는 철학, 심리학, 사회학 및 종교의 다양한 세계관을 자세히 분석하여 (주로) 보살핌과 광채로 치명적인 감소론적 결함을드러내지만, 그가 분석하는 대부분의 출처는 오늘날 거의 관련이 없습니다. 그들은 그가 20 년 전에 연구하고 쓸 때 이미 구식이었던 용어와 개념을 사용합니다. 하나는 하버마스, 칸트, 에머슨, 정 대한 전문 용어의 끝없는 페이지를 통해 슬로깅한다. 진주에 도착합니다. 당신은 나쁜 쓰기, 혼란스럽고 오래된 아이디어와 쓸모없는 전문 용어의 훌륭한 샘플링을 얻을. (shrink)

It is both amazing and fitting that this huge, jargon-laden (this book really needs a glossary!), heavily academic work has become a best seller in the world of the educated. One has to be dedicated to learn the jargon and then plow through 551 pages of text and 238 pages of notes. Meanwhile, we are told time and again that this is just an outline of what is to come! -/- Though he severely criticizes the excesses of the three movements, (...) this is a deconstructive and New Age Mystical and postmodern interpretation of religion, philosophy and the behavioral sciences from a very liberal,spiritual point of view—i.e., without the worst of decon, pm and NAM jargon, rabid egalitarianism and anti-scientific anti-intellectualism. -/- He analyzes in some detail the various world views of philosophy, psychology, sociology and religion, exposing their fatal reductionistic flaws with (mostly) care and brilliance, but most of the sources he analyzes are of almost no relevance today. They use terminology and concepts that were already outdated when he was researching and writing 20 years ago. One has to slog thru endless pages of jargon -laden discussion of Habermas, Kant, Emerson, Jung et.al. to get to the pearls. -/- You get a terrific sampling of bad writing, confused and outdated ideas and obsolete jargon. -/- If one has a good current education, it is doubly painful to read this book (and most writing on human behavior). Painful because it´s so tortured and confusing and then again when you realized how simple it is with modern psychology and philosophy. The terminology and ideas are horrifically confused and dated (but less so in Wilber´s own analysis than in his sources). -/- This book and most of its sources are would-be psychology texts, though most of the authors did not realize it. It is about human behavior and reasoning-about why we think and act the way we do and how we might change in the future. But (like all such discussion until recently) none of the explanations are really explanations, and so they give no insight into human behavior. Nobody discusses the mental mechanisms involved. It is like describing how a car works by discussing the steering wheel and metal and paint without any knowledge of the engine, fuel or drive train. In fact, like most older ´explanations` of behavior, the texts quoted here and the comments by Wilber are often more interesting for what kinds of things they accept (and omit!) as explanations, and the kind of reasoning they use, than for the actual content. -/- If one is up on philosophy and cognitive and evolutionary psychology, most of this is archaic. Like nearly everyone (scholars and public alike--eg, see my review of Dennett´s Freedom Evolves and other books), he does not understand that the basics of religion and ethics-- in fact all human behavior, are programmed into our genes. A revolution in understanding ourselves was taking place while he was writing his many books and it passed him by. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle 59p(2016). For all my articles on Wittgenstein and Searle see my e-book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Wittgenstein and Searle 367p (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may consult my e-book Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

Dieses Buch und die meisten seiner Quellen sind Möchtegern-Psychologie texte, obwohl die meisten Autoren es nicht erkannten. Es geht um menschliches Verhalten und Argumentation, warum wir so denken und handeln, wie wir es tun und wie wir uns in Zukunft verändern könnten. Aber (wie alle diese Diskussionen bis vor kurzem)keine der Erklärungensind wirklich Erklärungen, und so geben sie keinen Einblick in menschliches Verhalten. Niemand diskutiert die damit verbundenen mentalen Mechanismen. Es ist, als würde man beschreiben, wie ein Auto by arbeitet, (...) wenn man dasLenkrad und Metall diskutiert und ohne Kenntnis des Motors, Kraftstoffs oder Antriebsstrangs lackiert. Tatsächlich sind die Texte, wie die meisten älteren "Erklärungen" des Verhaltens,hier und die Kommentsvon Wilber oft interessanter für die Art von Dingen, die sie als Erklärungen akzeptieren (undweglassen!) und die Art der Argumentation, die sie verwenden, als für den eigentlichen Inhalt. (shrink)

यह दोनों अद्भुत और फिटिंग है कि इस विशाल, शब्दजाल से लदी (इस पुस्तक को वास्तव में एक शब्दकोष की जरूरत है!), भारी शैक्षणिक काम शिक्षित की दुनिया में एक सबसे अच्छा विक्रेता बन गया है. एक शब्दजाल जानने के लिए समर्पित किया जाना है और फिर पाठ के 551 पृष्ठों और नोटों के 238 पृष्ठों के माध्यम से हल. एम,हम बार बार कहा जाता है कि यह सिर्फ क्या आ रहा है की एक रूपरेखा है! हालांकि वह गंभीर रूप (...) से तीन आंदोलनों की ज्यादतियों की आलोचना करता है, यह एक विरचनात्मक और New आयु रहस्यमय और धर्म, दर्शन और व्यवहार विज्ञान के एक बहुत उदार, आध्यात्मिक दृष्टिकोण से व्यवहार विज्ञान है अर्थात्, डेसन, पीएम और गुट निरपेक्षता, उग्र समानतावाद और वैज्ञानिक विरोधी बौद्धिकता के बिना। वह कुछ विस्तार में दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, समाजशास्त्र और धर्म के विभिन्न दुनिया विचारों का विश्लेषण करती है, (ज्यादातर) देखभाल और brill iance के साथ उनके घातक रिडक्शनिस्ट खामियों को उजागर,लेकिन स्रोतों वह विश्लेषण के अधिकांश लगभग कोई प्रासंगिकता के आज कर रहे हैं. वे शब्दावली और अवधारणाओं है कि पहले से ही पुराने थे जब वह शोध और 20 साल पहले लिख रहा था का उपयोग करें. एक शब्दजाल के अंतहीन पन्नों के माध्यम से dig है - Habermas, कांत, Emerson, जंग et alias की चर्चा से लदी. मोती को पाने के लिए. तुम बुरा लेखन, उलझन में और पुराने विचारों और अप्रचलित शब्दजाल का एक भयानक नमूना मिलता है. यदि एक एक अच्छा वर्तमान शिक्षा है, यह doubly इस पुस्तक को पढ़ने के लिए दर्दनाक है (और मानव व्यवहार पर सबसे अधिक लेखन). दर्दनाक है क्योंकि यह बहुत अत्याचार और भ्रामक है, और फिर जब आप को एहसास कितना आसान यह आधुनिक मनोविज्ञान और दर्शन के साथ है. शब्दावली और विचारों को भयावह रूप से भ्रमित और दिनांकित कर रहे हैं (लेकिन Wilber में कम तो अपने स्रोतों की तुलना में अपने विश्लेषण). इस पुस्तक और इसके स्रोतों के अधिकांश होगा मनोविज्ञान ग्रंथों, हालांकि लेखकों के अधिकांश यह पता नहीं था. यह मानव व्यवहार और तर्क के बारे में है कि हम क्यों सोचते हैं और जिस तरह से हम करते हैं और कैसे हम भविष्य में बदल सकता है कार्य. लेकिन (हाल ही में जब तक इस तरह के सभी चर्चा की तरह) explanations में से कोई भीवास्तव में स्पष्टीकरण कर रहे हैं, और इसलिए वे मानव व्यवहार में कोई अंतर्दृष्टि दे. कोई भी शामिल मानसिक तंत्र पर चर्चा करता है. यह वर्णन कैसे एक कार काम करता है बीवाईस्टीयरिंग व्हील और धातु और इंजन, ईंधन या ड्राइव ट्रेन के किसी भी ज्ञान के बिना रंग पर चर्चा की तरह है. वास्तव में, व्यवहार के सबसे पुराने स्पष्टीकरण की तरह, ग्रंथों बोलीघ यहाँ और Wilber द्वारा comments अक्सर बातें वे स्वीकारकरते हैं की किस प्रकार के लिए और अधिक दिलचस्प हैं (औरछोड़!) स्पष्टीकरण के रूप में, और तर्क टीहे का उपयोग करें की तरह, वास्तविक सामग्री के लिए की तुलना में. यदि एक दर्शन और संज्ञानात्मक और विकासवादी मनोविज्ञान पर है, इस के अधिकांश पुरातन है. लगभग हर किसी की तरह (स्कॉलर और सार्वजनिक एक जैसे-ई.छ., Dennett स्वतंत्रता विकसित और अन्य पुस्तकों की मेरी समीक्षा देखें), वह समझ में नहीं आता कि धर्म और नैतिकता की मूल बातें - वास्तव में सभी मानव व्यवहार, हमारे जीन में क्रमादेशित रहे हैं. अपने आप को समझने में एक क्रांति हो रही थी जब वह अपनी कई किताबें लिख रहा था और यह उसे पारित कर दिया. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019) . (shrink)

这是既惊人的,适合这个巨大的,行话满载(这本书真的需要一个词汇表!),大量的学术工作已成为畅销书在世界上的教育。一个人必须专心学习行话,然后翻阅551页的文本和238页的笔记。M,我们一次又一次地被告 知,这只是一个即将发生的事情的轮廓! 虽然他严厉批评了三个运动的过激行为,但从非常自由的精神观点来看,这是一种解构的、新时代神秘主义和后现代对宗教、哲学和行为科学的解释,没有最坏的德顿,下午和不结盟运动的行话,狂热的平均主义和反科学的反知 识主义。 他详细分析了哲学、心理学、社会学和宗教的各种世界观,揭露了哲学、心理学、社会学和宗教等不同世界观的致命减少缺陷,但如今他分析的大部分来源几乎毫无关系。 他们使用的术语和概念,已经过时的,当他研究和写作20年前。人们不得不浏览无数页的行话——关于哈贝马斯、康德、爱默生、荣格et.al。去珍珠 你得到一个了不起的样本,糟糕的写作,混乱和过时的想法和过时的行话。 如果一个人有一个良好的当前教育,读这本书(和大多数关于人类行为的写作)是双重痛苦的。 痛苦,因为它是如此的折磨和困惑,然后再次当你意识到它是多么简单与现代心理学和哲学。术语和想法是可怕的混乱和过时的(但在威尔伯自己的分析比在他的来源更不然)。 这本书和它的大部分来源是可能的心理文本,虽然大多数作者没有意识到这一点。它是关于人类行为和推理的,关于我们为什么以我们的方式思考和行动,以及将来我们如何改变。但是(就像直到最近所有的这类讨论一样),没 有一个解释是真正的解释,因此它们不能洞察人类的行为。没有人讨论所涉及的心理机制。这就像描述汽车是如何工作的by讨论方向盘和金属和油漆没有任何了解的发动机,燃料或传动系。事实上,像大多数老人们的行为解释 一样,这里引用的文字和威尔伯的文法通常更有趣,因为他们接受(和忽略!)作为解释,以及推理的种类,而不是实际内容。 如果一个人对哲学、认知和进化心理学有一套,大部分都是古老的。像几乎每个人都一样(学者和公众一样。g g.,看看我对丹奈特的自由进化和其他书籍的评论,他不明白宗教和伦理的基本知识——事实上所有的人类行为,都是被编程到我们的基因中。当他写许多书时,一场了解自己的革命正在发生,它经过他。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019).

Vous obtenez un échantillon formidable de mauvaise écriture, des idées confuses et dépassées et un jargon obsolète. Si l’on a une bonne éducation actuelle, il est doublement douloureux de lire ce livre (et la plupart écrit sur le comportement humain). Douloureux parce qu’il est si torturé et déroutant, et puis encore quand vous vous rendez compte à quel point il est simple avec la psychologie moderne et la philosophie. La terminologie et les idées sont horriblement confuses et datées (mais moins (...) dans l’analyse de Wilber que dans ses sources). Ce livre et la plupart de ses sources sont des textes de psychologie en soi, bien que la plupart des auteurs ne s’en soient pas rendu compte. Il s’agit du comportement humain et du raisonnement sur les raisons pour lesquelles nous pensons et agissons comme nous le faisons et comment nous pourrions changer à l’avenir. Mais (comme toute une telle discussion jusqu’à récemment) aucune des explications n'est vraiment des explications, et donc ils ne donnent aucun aperçu du comportement humain. Personne ne discute des mécanismes mentaux impliqués. C’est comme décrire comment une voiture fonctionne by discuter du volant et du métal et de la peinture sans aucune connaissance du moteur, du carburant ou du train d’entraînement. En fait, comme la plupart des anciens «exemples» de comportement, les textes cite ici et les commentaires par Wilber sont souvent plus intéressants pour ce genre de choses qu’ils acceptent (et omettre!) comme explications, et le genre de raisonnement ils utilisation, que pour le contenu réel. Si l’on est sur la philosophie et la psychologie cognitive et évolutive, la plupart de ce qui est archaïque. Comme presque tout le monde (érudits et public—e. g. voir mon examen de La Liberté Evoluie de Dennett et d’autres livres), il ne comprend pas que les bases de la religion et l’éthique - en fait tout comportement humain, sont programmés dans nos gènes. Une révolution dans la compréhension de nous-mêmes a eu lieu alors qu’il écrivait ses nombreux livres et il l’a passé par. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systemes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

Este livro e a maioria de suas fontes gostaria de ser textos da psicologia, embora a maioria dos autores não o realizem. Trata-se de comportamento humano e raciocínio-sobre por que pensamos e agir da maneira que fazemos e como podemos mudar no futuro. Mas (como toda essa discussão até recentemente) nenhum dos explicações são realmente explicações (melhor chamado de descrições na maioria dos contextos, como insistiu Wittgenstein), e assim eles não dão nenhuma visão sobre o comportamento humano. Ninguém discute os (...) mecanismos mentais envolvidos. É como descrever como um carro funciona by discutindo o volante e metal e pintura sem qualquer conhecimento do motor, combustível ou trem de acionamento. Na verdade, como a maioria dos mais velhos ' explicações ' de comportamento, os textos citado aqui e os comentários por Wilber são muitas vezes mais interessante para que tipos de coisas que eles aceitam (e omitir!) como explicações, e o tipo de raciocínio eles usam, do que para o conteúdo real. Se um está acima na filosofia e na psicologia cognitiva e evolucionária, a maioria disto é arcaico. Como quase todos (eruditos e públicos iguais-e.g., veja a minha resenha de Dennett ́S ‘Freedom Evolves’ e outros livros), ele não entende que os fundamentos da religião e da ética-na verdade, todo o comportamento humano, são programados em nossos genes. Uma revolução na compreensão de nós mesmos estava ocorrendo enquanto ele estava escrevendo seus muitos livros e passou por ele. Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019),. (shrink)

please see the full paper for the abstract as the moronic AI used by phil papers won't let me use it as it thinks it has a url in it!

Es increíble y apropiado que esta enorme, cargada de jerga (este libro realmente necesita un glosario!), el trabajo muy académico se ha convertido en un mejor vendido en el mundo de los educados. Uno tiene que ser dedicado a aprender la jerga y luego arado a través de 551 páginas de texto y 238 páginas de notas. Mientras, se nos dice tiempo y otra vez que esto es sólo un bosquejo de lo que está por venir! A pesar de que (...) critica severamente los excesos de los tres movimientos, esto es un deconstructivo y NEW edad mística y posmoderna interpretación de la religión, la filosofía y la Ciencias del comportamiento de un muy liberal, punto de vista espiritual — i. e., sin lo peor de deconstrucion, la jerga de postmodernismo y nuevo edad mysticismo, el igualitarismo rabioso y anti-intelectualismo anti-científico. Analiza en algunos detallar las diversas opiniones del mundo de la filosofía, la psicología, la sociología y la religión, exponiendo sus fallas reduccionistas fatales con (principalmente) cuidado y brilliantez, pero la mayoría de las fuentes que analiza no son casi ninguna relevancia hoy en día. Utilizan terminología y conceptos que ya estaban obsoletos cuando estaba investigando y escribiendo hace 20 años. (shrink)

The Einstein of the New Age holds forth in his unique and brilliant style on the history of world views and how to put spirit back in our life. If you have the patience to learn his jargon and read slowly there is alot of serious brainfood here. I read this and his Sex, Ecology and Spirituality(1995) with Hofstadter´s famous Godel, Escher, Bach(GEB) written in 1980(both of which I have reviewed here). Wilber´s work has many parallels with GEB, both (...) of them massive works attempting to tie together disparate fields and different views of life. Unlike Hofstadter, who was mainly interested in the nature of intelligence, Wilber does not treat math, music or DNA, and he concentrates on world views that have a spiritual relevance but like Hofstadter he lacks any grasp of the logical structure of rationality, the dual systems of thought or the works of Wittgenstein and Searle, which obviates much of his work. For an account of those see my articles. He spent a vast amount of time working out the relationships between ideas and how they relate to individual and society, spirit and science. If you don´t have the time or patience for the whole book, read Superconsciousness Parts 1 and 2 which are an excellent summary. His shortest book, `The Marriage of Self andSoul is a much easier read that gives you a good idea of his style and purpose. He details alot of intellectual history (philosophy, psychology, religion, ecology, feminism, sociology, etc) and shows where nearly everyone went too far in the direction of Ascent (to the spirit) or Descent (to science,materialism, reductionism or Flatland). He trys to show how to heal the rifts by combining sense and soul (spiritual and material life, science and religion, internal and external, individual and social). Everything is related to everything else (holons in holarchies). The Age of Enlightenment denied the the spirit, the individual and the interior life but developed art, morals and science and led to democracy, feminism, equality and ecology, but this reductionism compressed the intellect and the spirit into the Flatland of science, rationality and materialism. He sees the loss of the spiritual point of view with the Age of Enlightenment as the major factor responsible for the malaise of modern times, but real spirituality or ìntelligent religion (i.e., the quest for enlightenment) as opposed to primitive religion (everything else-see my review of Boyer´s 'Religion Explained') was always rare. It is intelligent religion he sees as the panacea, but it is primitive religion that the masses understand, and it too has only materialistic goals. In sum, in spite of its shortcomings it is still unique and well worth the effort. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

E 'sia sorprendente e appropriato che questo enorme, gergo-carico (questo libro ha davvero bisogno di un glossario!), lavoro pesantemente accademico è diventato un best seller nel mondo degli istruiti. Bisogna dedicarsi a imparare il gergo e poi ad arare attraverso 551 pagine di testo e 238 pagine di note. Meanwhile, ci viene detto più e più volte che questo è solo un contorno di ciò che verrà! Anche se critica severamente gli eccessi dei tre movimenti, si tratta di un'interpretazione mistica (...) e postmoderna decostruttiva e New Age della religione, della filosofia e delle scienze comportamentali da un punto di vista molto liberale e spirituale, cioè senza il peggior decon, pm e Vietnam gergo, egualitarismo rabbioso e anti-intellettualismo. Si ottiene un fantastico campionamento di scritte sbagliate, idee confuse e obsolete e gergo obsoleto. Se uno ha una buona istruzione attuale, è doppiamente doloroso leggere questo libro (e la maggior parte della scrittura sul comportamento umano). Doloroso perché è così torturato e confuso, e poi di nuovo quando ti rendi conto di quanto sia semplice con la psicologia moderna e la filosofia. La terminologia e le idee sono orribilmente confuse e datate (ma meno nell'analisi di Wilber che nelle sue fonti). Questo libro e la maggior parte delle sue fonti sono testi di psicologia aspiranti, anche se la maggior parte degli autori non se ne rese conto. Si tratta del comportamento umano e del ragionamento sul perché pensiamo e agiamo come facciamo e come potremmo cambiare in futuro. Ma (come tutte queste discussioni fino a poco tempo fa) nessuna delle esplicazionisono davvero spiegazioni, e quindi non danno alcuna comprensione del comportamento umano. Nessuno discute i meccanismi mentali coinvolti. È come descrivere come funziona un'auto discutendoil volante e il metallo e vernice senza alcuna conoscenza del motore, del carburante o del treno a trazione. Infatti, come la maggior parte delle più vecchie spiegazioni di comportamento, i testi citatiqui e i comments di Wilber sono spesso più interessanti per che tipo di cose che accettano (eomettere!) come spiegazioni, e il tipo di ragionamento they uso, che per il contenuto effettivo. Se si è sulla filosofia e la psicologia cognitiva ed evolutiva, la maggior parte di questo è arcaico. Come quasi tutti (studiosi e pubblico allo stesso modo-e.g. vedi la mia recensione di Freedom Evolves di Dennett e di altri libri), non capisce che le basi della religione e dell'etica, in realtà tutti i comportamenti umani, sono programmati nei nostri geni. Una rivoluzione nella comprensione di noi stessi stava avvenendo mentre scriveva i suoi numerosi libri e lo passava davanti. Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Anda bisa mendapatkan ringkasan singkat dari buku ini di p 135 atau 326. Jika Anda tidak sampai dengan kecepatan pada psikologi evolusi, Anda harus terlebih dahulu membaca salah satu dari banyak teks baru-baru ini dengan istilah ini dalam judul. Salah satu yang terbaik adalah "buku pegangan psikologi evolusi" 2nd Ed oleh Buss. Sampai sekitar 15 tahun yang lalu, ' penjelasan ' dari perilaku belum benar-benar telah penjelasan proses mental sama sekali, tapi agak kabur dan sebagian besar tidak berguna deskripsi dari (...) apa yang orang lakukan dan apa yang mereka katakan, tanpa wawasan mengapa. Kita mungkin mengatakan bahwa orang berkumpul untuk memperingati sebuah peristiwa, memuji Tuhan, menerima nya (atau mereka) berkat, dll. , tapi tak satu pun dari ini menggambarkan proses mental yang relevan, jadi kita bisa mengatakan bahwa mereka adalah penjelasan dalam banyak cara yang sama bahwa ia menjelaskan mengapa sebuah apel turun ke tanah jika kita mengatakan yang karena kita dirilis itu, dan itu berat-tidak ada mekanisme dan tidak ada penjelasan atau kekuatan prediktif. Buku ini melanjutkan penjelasan dasar genetik perilaku manusia yang hampir secara universal diabaikan dan ditolak oleh para akademisi, agama, politik dan masyarakat (Lihat buku yang sangat bagus Pinker ' ' The Blank Slatè '). Pernyataan-Nya (P3) bahwa tidak ada artinya untuk menanyakan apakah agama adalah genetik keliru sebagai persentase variasi dari setiap perilaku karena gen dan lingkungan dapat dipelajari, sama seperti mereka adalah untuk semua perilaku lain (Lihat misalnya, Pinker). Judul harus "awal upaya untuk menjelaskan beberapa aspek agama primitif", karena ia tidak memperlakukan kesadaran yang lebih tinggi sama sekali (misalnya, Satori, pencerahan dll) yang sejauh ini fenomena yang paling menarik dan satu-satunya bagian dari agama kepentingan pribadi untuk cerdas, berpendidikan orang di abad ke-21. Membaca seluruh buku ini, Anda tidak akan pernah menebak hal seperti itu ada. Demikian juga, untuk bidang narkoba dan agama yang sangat besar. Ini tidak memiliki kerangka untuk rasionalitas dan tidak menyebutkan sistem ganda pandangan pemikiran yang sekarang begitu produktif. Untuk thadalah saya sarankan saya sendiri Recent Papers. Namun demikian, buku ini memiliki banyak bunga, dan meskipun diberi tanggal masih layak dibaca. Mereka yang ingin komprehensif up to date kerangka perilaku manusia dari dua systems tampilan modern dapat berkonsultasi buku saya 'struktur Logis filsafat, psikologi, mind dan bahasa dalam Ludwig wittgenstein dan John Searle ' 2nd Ed (2019). Mereka yang tertarik pada tulisan saya lebih mungkin melihat 'berbicara monyet--filsafat, psikologi, ilmu pengetahuan, agama dan politik di planet yang ditakdirkan--artikel dan review 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) dan bunuh diri utopian delusi di 21st Century 4th Ed (2019). (shrink)

Ken Wilber insists that valid knowledge must be derived from paradigms: sets of injunctions and social practices that lead to replicable experiences. In this article, I examine Wilber's claims that the theory still includes the essentials of premodern traditions, because the essentials of those traditions consist of a phenomenological core of practices leading to mystical experience. Drawing on the works of Robert Sharf and Wilhelm Halbfass and on close readings of primary texts, this article argues that mystical paradigms (...) of replicable experience are not in fact the essentials of these traditions--neither for the majority of practitioners nor even for their revered teachers or masters. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of this point for constructive integral work. (shrink)

I argue that Descartes' Second Causal Proof of God in the Third Meditation evidences, and commits him to, the belief that time is "strongly discontinuous" -- that is, that there is actually a gap between each consecutive moment of time. Much of my article attempts to reconcile this interpretation, the "received view," with Descartes' statements about time, space, and matter in his other writings, including his correspondence with various philosophers.

This paper draws on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy to sketch a phenomenological interpretation of the enactivist notion of sensorimotor understanding. I begin by situating Noë’s enactive theory of vision in relation to Husserlian phenomenology. I then raise three related objections to Noë’s treatment of sensorimotor understanding in terms of practical knowledge of possibilities for action. Finally, I appeal to Phenomenology of Perception to show how two of its major operative concepts – the ‘body schema’ and ‘sedimentation’ – can help to plug (...) the gaps in Noë’s account. (shrink)

I explicate the conditions required for criminal responsibility, provide an overview of criminal defenses, distinguish criminal responsibility from both tort liability and moral responsibility, and explicate the current state of the insanity defense.

I argue for two propositions. First, contrary to the common wisdom, we may justly punish individuals who are not morally responsible for their crimes. Psychopaths – individuals who lack the capacity to feel sympathy – help to prove this point. Scholars are increasingly arguing that psychopaths are not morally responsible for their behavior because they suffer from a neurological disorder that makes it impossible for them to understand, and therefore be motivated by, moral reasons. These same scholars then infer from (...) this conclusion that they must also lack criminal responsibility and therefore that our continuing to punish psychopaths for their crimes is unjust. My response is that this inference is entirely fallacious. -/- Criminal responsibility turns out to be quite distinct from moral responsibility. The two kinds of responsibility require very different conditions to be satisfied. In particular, criminal responsibility, unlike moral responsibility, does not require an agent be able to grasp and follow moral reasons; it requires only that the individual be able to grasp and follow criminal laws. Once this point is recognized, it becomes much easier to accept my thesis: while the subset of psychopaths who commit crimes are not morally responsible for their criminal behavior because they cannot understand moral reasons, they are still criminally responsible because they can understand what the consequences will be if they get caught. For this reason, even though I concede that psychopaths are not morally responsible for the crimes that they commit, our practice of punishing them for these crimes is still just. -/- Second, I argue that psychopathy is a mental illness and should be recognized as such. One reason that it should be recognized as a mental illness is simply because it is; it satisfies the main criteria for inclusion in the DSM-IV, the “bible” of mental disorders. The other reason is more practical than conceptual. It starts with two facts: the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the preventive detention of any individual who is not a criminal suspect is not constitutional unless the individual is not only dangerous but also mentally ill; and psychopathy is not currently considered to be a mental illness. So, as things now stand, we cannot preventively commit dangerous psychopaths – that is, psychopaths who have clearly indicated that they will be committing serious crimes. Instead, we must wait for them to commit the crimes before we can lock them up. Unfortunately, this incarceration always comes too late for the victims. It would therefore be better if we could lock them up before they actually inflict any harm. Once again, then, I propose that the legal and psychological communities classify psychopathy as a mental illness. (shrink)

Experimental results on the Ellsberg paradox typically reveal behavior that is commonly interpreted as ambiguity aversion. The experiments reported in the current paper find the objective probabilities for drawing a red ball that make subjects indifferent between various risky and uncertain Ellsberg bets. They allow us to examine the predictive power of alternative principles of choice under uncertainty, including the objective maximin and Hurwicz criteria, the sure-thing principle, and the principle of insufficient reason. Contrary to our expectations, the principle of (...) insufficient reason performed substantially better than rival theories in our experiment, with ambiguity aversion appearing only as a secondary phenomenon. (shrink)

Prof. Cohen and I answer six questions: (1) Why do we lock people up? (2) How can involuntary civil commitment be reconciled with people's constitutional right to liberty? (3) Why don't we treat homicide as a public health threat? (4) What is the difference between legal and medical approaches to mental illness? (5) Why is mental illness required for involuntary commitment? (6) Where are we in our efforts to understand the causes of mental illness?

Analytic philosophers of religion typically take God to be ‘the personal omniGod’ – a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, and who creates and sustains all else that exists. Analytic philosophers also tend to assume that the personal omniGod is the God of ‘classical’ theism. Arguably, this is a mistake. To be consistent, a classical theist or her supporter must deny that God is literally a person. They need not, however, deny the aptness of using personal language, or of (...) thinking of God as a person or personal at the level of religious psychology. (shrink)

In this Article, I will argue that a person may be deserving of criminal punishment even in certain situations where she is not necessarily morally responsible for her criminal act. What these situations share in common are two things: the psychological factors that motivate the individual’s behavior are environmentally determined and her crime is serious, making her less eligible for sympathy and therefore less likely to be acquitted. -/- To get to this conclusion, I will proceed in four steps. In (...) Part II, I will offer the first two of these steps. First, I will argue that our foundational assumption that moral responsibility is necessary for just blame and punishment is not self-evident and is actually rather difficult to explain and justify. Second, I will offer an explanation and justification that appeals to our moral psychology. Specifically, I will argue that we subscribe to this assumption ultimately because we sympathize with agents who lack responsibility for their actions. -/- Third, in Part IV, I aim to show that even if moral responsibility is not conceptually — only “emotionally” — necessary for just blame and punishment, the traditionally recognized criminal excuses are not at risk because, contrary to popular wisdom, they do not really rely on this assumption to begin with. Instead, they stand less for the metaphysical proposition that we should refrain from blaming and punishing the non-responsible and more for the normative/ethical proposition that we should refrain from blaming and punishing those whom we cannot reasonably expect to have acted better. I will further argue that the latter proposition does not necessarily reduce to the former. -/- Fourth, once I have defended my account of the excuses, I will question in Parts V and VI the increasingly popular notion that we should add certain conditions or circumstances to the list of recognized excuses. I will focus on one in particular — the psychological theory of “situationism” — and will argue that, despite its initial plausibility, it should be kept off the list. While situationism arguably does negate moral responsibility, it does not negate criminal responsibility. -/- Of course, this is a controversial point. Criminal responsibility is almost universally thought to require moral responsibility. But in a previous article, "Dangerous Psychopaths: Criminally Responsible But Not Morally Responsible, Subject to Criminal Punishment And to Preventive Detention," 48 San Diego L. Rev. 1299, I used personality psychology to drive a wedge between the two. In this article, I will use the opposite end of the psychological spectrum — social psychology — to drive the same important wedge. (shrink)

Sometimes neuroscientists discover distinct realizations for a single psychological property. In considering such cases, some philosophers have maintained that scientists will abandon the single multiply realized psychological property in favor of one or more uniquely realized psychological properties. In this paper, we build on the Dimensioned theory of realization and a companion theory of multiple realization to argue that this is not the case. Whether scientists postulate unique realizations or multiple realizations is not determined by the neuroscience alone, but by (...) the psychological theory under examination. Thus, one might say that, in the splitting or non-splitting of properties, psychology enjoys a kind of autonomy from neuroscience. (shrink)

Language theorists have recently come to have an increasing appreciation for the fact that context contributes heavily in determining our interpretation of what is said. Indeed, it now seems clear that no complete understanding of a natural language is possible without some account of the way in which context affects our interpretation of discourse. In this paper, I will attempt to explore one facet of the language – context relationship, namely, the relation between conditionals and context. The first part of (...) the paper develops an account of truth for conditionals which allows them to depend on momentary features of the context in which they are uttered. In the second half of the paper, comparisons with other recent theories of the conditional will be considered. Particular attention will be given to the problem of whether the conditional really violates classical inferences such as Hypothetical Syllogism and Contraposition as has often been claimed in recent years. (shrink)

I argue that the three strongest arguments against metaphysical libertarianism—the randomness objection, the constitutive luck objection, and the physicalist objection—are actually unsuccessful and therefore that metaphysical libertarianism is more plausible than the common philosophical wisdom allows. My more positive thesis, what I will refer to as “Agent Exceptionalism,” is that, when making decisions and performing actions, human beings can indeed satisfy the four conditions of metaphysical libertarianism: the control condition, the rationality condition, the ultimacy condition, and the physicalism condition.

This invited entry offers a brief overview of criminal responsibility. -/- The first part starts with a question: is Clyde criminally responsible for killing his girlfriend Bonnie? The answer: it depends. Particular circumstances determine whether Clyde is guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, not guilty because he has a good excuse, or not guilty because he has a good justification. -/- The second part addresses the complicated relationship between criminal responsibility and moral responsibility. Until recently, both concepts were considered to (...) be more or less interchangeable. But there is a growing movement, which I refer to as "responsibility skepticism," which maintains that moral responsibility is either physically or metaphysically impossible. If the responsibility skeptics are right (that moral responsibility is impossible), then what are the implications for criminal responsibility and just criminal punishment? Should we abandon these as well? Or can they survive without moral responsibility? I try to answer these questions. -/- The third part addresses social causation. The criminal justice system tends to be "dispositionalist"; it tends, that is, to assume that criminal responsibility resides entirely within the defendant. Dispositionalism, however, overlooks the fact that who we are and what we do are significantly determined by environmental influences. I then try to show that this "situationist" alternative to dispositionalism should not radically alter our approach to criminal punishment. -/- The final part briefly discusses the difficulty in evaluating criminal responsibility when the defendant is both an offender and a victim - especially when the defendant is an offender *because* of his victimization. (shrink)

Some New Mechanists have proposed that claims of compositional relations are justified by combining the results of top-down and bottom-up interlevel interventions. But what do scientists do when they can perform, say, a cellular intervention, but not a subcellular detection? In such cases, paired interlevel interventions are unavailable. We propose that scientists use abduction and we illustrate its use through a case study of the ionic theory of resting and action potentials.

Peter Baumann uses the Monty Hall game to demonstrate that probabilities cannot be meaningfully applied to individual games. Baumann draws from this first conclusion a second: in a single game, it is not necessarily rational to switch from the door that I have initially chosen to the door that Monty Hall did not open. After challenging Baumann's particular arguments for these conclusions, I argue that there is a deeper problem with his position: it rests on the false assumption that what (...) justifies the switching strategy is its leading me to win a greater percentage of the time. In fact, what justifies the switching strategy is not any statistical result over the long run but rather the "causal structure" intrinsic to each individual game itself. Finally, I argue that an argument by Hilary Putnam will not help to save Baumann's second conclusion above. (shrink)

In this paper we show that being blameworthy for not blaming and being blameworthy for victim blaming are structurally similar. Each involve the two traditional contours of moral responsibility: a knowledge condition and a control condition. But interestingly, in these cases knowledge and control are importantly interrelated. Being in a relationship with another person affords us varying degrees of knowledge about them. This knowledge in turn affords agents in relationships varying degrees of influence over one another. Cases where an agent (...) is especially blameworthy for failing to blame a friend, a close colleague, or a spouse highlight this. The interdependence of these two conditions in interpersonal relationships sheds (partial) light on why victim blaming is morally wrong. We argue that victim blamers suffer from a kind of moral myopia by only focusing on what the victim could do, in virtue of their being in a relationship of some sort with their abuser, to avoid abuse. We focus specifically on cases where such moral myopia is fueled by misogynistic and hierarchical gender schema and scripts. (shrink)

The Blockage Argument is designed to improve upon Harry Frankfurt’s famous argument against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by removing the counterfactual intervener altogether. If the argument worked, then it would prove in a way that Frankfurt’s argument does not that moral responsibility does not require any alternative possibilities whatsoever, not even the weakest “flicker of freedom”. -/- Some philosophers have rejected the Blockage Argument solely on the basis of their intuition that the inability to do otherwise is incompatible with (...) moral responsibility. I will argue, however, that it is not merely the inability to do otherwise by itself but rather the inability to do otherwise in combination with the absence of a counterfactual intervener that is incompatible with moral responsibility. If I cannot do otherwise and it is not because of a counterfactual intervener, then it must be the case that I am being forced to choose and therefore act as I do, in which case I cannot be morally responsible for this action. -/- Because the Blockage Argument fails, and because it was really the only way to establish that moral responsibility does not require any alternative possibilities whatsoever, it follows that moral responsibility does indeed require at least one alternative possibility in any given situation. But it turns out that this conclusion does not tip the balance in favor of incompatibilism over compatibilism. It would have if blockage and determinism were equivalent. But they are not. Unlike blockage, determinism is compatible with certain counterfactuals that compatibilists traditionally believed the ability to do otherwise reduces to. So even though moral responsibility is incompatible with blockage, it does not necessarily follow that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism. (shrink)

I argue for three conclusions. First, responsibility skeptics are committed to the position that the criminal justice system should adopt a universal nonresponsibility excuse. Second, a universal nonresponsibility excuse would diminish some of our most deeply held values, further dehumanize criminals, exacerbate mass incarceration, and cause an even greater number of innocent people (nonwrongdoers) to be punished. Third, while Saul Smilansky's ‘illusionist’ response to responsibility skeptics – that even if responsibility skepticism is correct, society should maintain a responsibility‐realist/retributivist criminal justice (...) system – is generally compelling, it would not work if a majority of society were to convert, theoretically and psychologically, to responsibility skepticism. In this (highly improbable) scenario, and only in this (highly improbable) scenario, the criminal justice system would need to be reformed in such a way that it aligned with the majority's responsibility‐skeptical beliefs and attitudes. (shrink)

Gregory Kavka's 'Toxin Puzzle' suggests that I cannot intend to perform a counter-preferential action A even if I have a strong self-interested reason to form this intention. The 'Rationalist Solution,' however, suggests that I can form this intention. For even though it is counter-preferential, A-ing is actually rational given that the intention behind it is rational. Two arguments are offered for this proposition that the rationality of the intention to A transfers to A-ing itself: the 'Self-Promise Argument' and David Gauthier's (...) 'Rational Self-Interest Argument.' But both arguments – and therefore the Rationalist Solution – fail. The Self-Promise Argument fails because my intention to A does not constitute a promise to myself that I am obligated to honor. And Gauthier's Rational Self-Interest Argument fails to rule out the possibility of rational irrationality. (shrink)

Consider the reaction of Trayvon Martin’s family to the jury verdict. They were devastated that George Zimmerman, the defendant, was found not guilty of manslaughter or murder. Whatever the merits of this outcome, what does the Martin family’s emotional reaction mean? What does it say about criminal punishment – especially the reasons why we punish? Why did the Martin family want to see George Zimmerman go to jail? And why were – and are – they so upset that he didn’t? (...) -/- This Article will argue for three points. First, what fuels this kind of outrage is vengeance: the desire to see defendants like George Zimmerman be forced to “pay” for the harms that they needlessly and culpably inflict on others. While this point may seem obvious, it isn’t. Most people repudiate revenge and therefore the notion that it plays any role in the criminal justice system. -/- Second, this attitude toward revenge is misguided and needs to change. We need to recognize that vengeance not only does but should play a significant role in motivating criminal punishment. Our vengeful reactions to harmful crimes are not ugly or shameful; on the contrary, they manifest a deep valuation of victims and a bitter denunciation of individuals who actively renounce this valuation through their criminal behavior. -/- Third, these two points have significant implications for the two main theories of criminal punishment: “retributivism,” which says that criminals should be punished in order to give them their “just deserts,” and “consequentialism,” which says that criminals should be punished in order to bring about such good consequences as deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Traditionally, these two theories have been at war with one another. But I will show how recognizing revenge as a motivation and justification for punishment can help to end this war and bring these two theories together. (shrink)

This Article falls into three general parts. The first part starts with an important question: is the insanity defense constitutionally required? The United States Supreme Court will finally try to answer this question next term in the case of Kahler v. Kansas. -/- I say “finally” because the Court refused to answer this question in 2012 when it denied certiorari to an appeal brought by John Joseph Delling, a severely mentally ill defendant who was sentenced to life in prison three (...) years earlier for two murders. Delling never had the opportunity to plead the insanity defense because his home state, Idaho, had abolished it in 1982. -/- By depriving Delling of the right to plead insanity, Idaho violated Delling’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his Eighth Amendment right against “cruel and unusual” punishment. Naturally, the same is true for many other mentally ill and disabled defendants who have been prosecuted in Idaho and in the other three states that have abolished the insanity defense: Kansas, Montana, and Utah. -/- The second general part of this Article notes an insight that I stumbled upon in the course of researching the first part: the insanity defense and the mistake of law defense both require ignorance of the law, what I refer to as “normative ignorance.” Indeed, normative ignorance is what makes both of these defenses exculpatory in the first place. -/- Given this critical connection, there is a way for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah to resume compliance with the Constitution. Instead of reinstating the insanity defense per se, which might be politically unpopular, they should just broaden their mistake of law defense to include normative ignorance caused by cognitive incapacity that is itself caused by mental illness or disability. -/- Still, this Article is not merely directed at these four western states. It is directed at the other forty-six states as well. Because they already have an insanity defense, they need not incorporate it into their mistake of law defense. But in the third general part, I will argue that they should still expand their mistake of law defense to cover defendants who either lack a reasonable opportunity to learn the law or reasonably but mistakenly infer from widely accepted norms or ethics that their conduct is lawful. (shrink)

Disclosure of true but reputation-damaging information is generally legal. But threats to disclose true but reputation-damaging information unless payment is made are generally criminal. Many scholars think that this situation is paradoxical because it seems to involve illegality mysteriously arising out of legality, a criminal act mysteriously arising out of an independently legal threat to disclose conjoined with an independently legal demand for money. -/- But this formulation is not quite right. The real paradox raised by the different legal statuses (...) of blackmail threats to disclose and disclosure itself involves a contradiction between our strong intuition that blackmail threats should be criminal and some equally strong arguments, all of which depend on the fact that disclosure is legal, that blackmail threats should be legal. So an adequate solution to the real Blackmail Paradox requires us either to drop the intuition or to refute the pro-legalization arguments. -/- This Article will adopt the latter approach. It will explain why the six main arguments for legalizing blackmail threats all fail. In the course of refuting one of these arguments, it will also offer a novel positive justification for criminalizing blackmail threats: they should be criminal for the same reason that menacing, harassment, and stalking are criminal--namely, because they involve the reasonable likelihood, and usually the intent, of putting the victim into a state of especially great fear and anxiety. -/- Of course, one might object that disclosure itself is likely to have the same effect, if not malicious purpose. Yet, again, it is still legal. But this point shows only that we as a society value freedom of speech more than we value freedom from infliction of emotional injury. It does not show that we do not value freedom from infliction of emotional injury sufficiently to protect it when competing moral or institutional interests such as freedom of speech are not at stake. (shrink)

My article concerns constitutional interpretation and substantive due process, issues that played a central role in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), one of the two same-sex marriage cases. (The other same-sex marriage case was United States v. Windsor (2013).) -/- The late Justice Scalia consistently maintained that the Court “invented” substantive due process and continues to apply this legal “fiction” not because the Constitution supports it but simply because the justices like it. Two theories underlay his cynical conclusion. First is the (...) theory of “Constitutional Textualism”—or just plain “Textualism”—which says that the meaning of the Constitution lies entirely within the “four corners” of the document. Second is the theory of “Originalism,” which says that this meaning was fixed at the time of ratification. (Likewise, the meanings of the amendments were fixed at the time of their ratification.) -/- While Justice Scalia helped to inspire a Textualist/Originalist (and anti-substantive-due-process) movement, his Originalism has received far more attention than his Textualism. Since Judge Robert Bork first introduced Originalism to the general public during his Supreme Court nomination hearings in 1987, this theory has ignited passions on all sides and effectively re-framed the entire debate about how to interpret the Constitution. Constitutional scholars, left and right, now define themselves as either for or against Originalism. Meanwhile, Textualism has merely retreated into the background. -/- Part of the reason for this disparate treatment is that many who reject Originalism still consider themselves to be Textualists. They agree with Justice Scalia (and Judge Bork) that the text is all-important. They disagree, however, that its meaning was fixed for eternity at ratification. Instead, they maintain that either the meaning of the text or applications of this meaning to new cases can change as society changes. -/- In this Article, I bring Textualism out of Originalism’s shadow and into broad daylight. I argue that once we dig just a little deeper into the proposition that all of the meaning in the Constitution inheres in its words, we find that this theory simply cannot work. In order to interpret the nation’s foundational document, we must resort to assumptions that it does not explicitly state. (Indeed, even Textualism itself is a theory that the Constitution does not explicitly endorse.) And the notion that “extra-textual” assumptions necessarily inform our interpretations of the Constitution poses a direct and insurmountable threat to Textualism. -/- The Constitution actually requires each judge, when faced with a case concerning the right to privacy, not merely to consider the text but also to anticipate and evaluate the moral, social, and political consequences of both possible decisions before choosing between them. While this position may initially sound counterintuitive, it turns out to be a much more realistic theory of constitutional interpretation than Textualism (and Originalism). -/- I ultimately conclude that, contrary to Justice Scalia, the Constitution most certainly does protect a right to privacy. For what it’s worth, the Obergefell majority agree with me (and oppose Justice Scalia). I aim to show exactly why they are correct. (shrink)

For over a century now, American scholars (among others) have been debating the merits of “bad Samaritan” laws — laws punishing people for failing to attempt easy and safe rescues. Unfortunately, the opponents of bad Samaritan laws have mostly prevailed. In the United States, the “no-duty-to-rescue” rule dominates. Only four states have passed bad Samaritan laws, and these laws impose only the most minimal punishment — either sub-$500 fines or short-term imprisonment. -/- This Article argues that every state should criminalize (...) bad Samaritanism. There are three main reasons. First, criminalization is required by the supreme value that we place on protecting human life, a value that motivates laws against both homicide and manslaughter. Second, criminalization is recommended by the “proportionality principle” — i.e., the principle that a law’s level of punishment should be directly proportional to the moral severity of the offense. Third, criminalization would yield a number of significant benefits, including helping to minimize needless deaths and injuries and providing society with an institutional outlet for its outrage against bad Samaritans. -/- Still, many objections have been leveled against bad Samaritan laws. This Article will argue that while some of these objections — for example, the objections involving foundational criminal law principles such as the actus-reus requirement, the harm principle, and causation — are all easily refuted, five other objections are not. These five objections involve pragmatic considerations such as the difficulties with obtaining evidence against bad Samaritans and psychological considerations such as people’s understandable reasons for not wanting to “get involved.” This Article will then put these five objections into reflective equilibrium with the moral arguments for bad Samaritan laws and conclude that while bad Samaritanism should indeed be criminalized, the punishment that convicted bad Samaritans receive should be mild — certainly milder than the level of punishment recommended by the “proportionality principle.” The corollary of this conclusion is that the criminal law should sometimes abandon the proportionality principle. (shrink)

It is generally thought that ought implies can. If this maxim is correct, then my inability to do otherwise entails that I cannot be blamed for failing to do otherwise. In this article, however, I use Harry Frankfurt’s famous argument against the "Principle of Alternative Possibilities" (PAP) to show that the maxim is actually false, that I can be blamed for failing to do otherwise even in situations where I could not have done otherwise. In these situations, I do not (...) act otherwise not because I cannot act otherwise but because I choose not to act otherwise.None. (shrink)

In this article, I weigh in on the debate between "Humeans" and "New Humeans" concerning David Hume's stance on the existence of causal connections in "the objects." According to New Humeans, Hume believes in causal connections; according to Humeans, he does not. -/- My argument against New Humeans is that it is too difficult to reconcile Hume's repeated claims that causal connections are inconceivable with any belief that they these inconceivable somethings still exist. Specifically, Hume either assumes or does not (...) assume that causal connections do or must exist. If he does not, then the New Hume is false. If he does, then it is only reasonable to expect him to do one of two things: (1) provide explicit and unambiguous statements to the effect that he still believes that causal connections do or must exist despite his belief that we cannot even conceive of them and/or (2) provide textual evidence that he subscribes to a reason for believing that causal connections do or must exist in the objects despite his belief that we cannot even conceive of them. I then argue that Hume never satisfies either (1) or (2). -/- My ultimate conclusion is not that the New Hume is false. On the contrary, in section IX, I will argue that the New Hume is still a viable possibility if we attribute a certain other position to Hume – what I will refer to as "Newtonian Empiricism." But I will also argue that this rather plausible interpretation of Hume is equally consistent with Hume's being an agnostic about causal connections and Hume's being a Humean about causal connections. Therefore while we have no good reason to subscribe to the New Hume (rather than Hume's being an agnostic or a Humean), we cannot conclusively rule out this interpretation. (shrink)

Suppose you are at the gym trying to see some naked beauties by peeping through a hole in the wall. A policeman happens by, he asks you what you are doing, and you honestly tell him. He then arrests you for voyeurism. Are you guilty? We don’t know yet because there is one more fact to be considered: while you honestly thought that a locker room was on the other side of the wall, it was actually a squash court. Are (...) you guilty now? -/- Probably. You might argue that your scopophiliac ambition was impossible to satisfy given that you were peeping into a squash court, not a locker room. But this “Impossibility Defense” would fail because most jurisdictions follow the very influential Model Penal Code (MPC), which says that what is important about attempt is not the likelihood of success but rather what was going on in your head. You tried to peer into a locker room with the intention of seeing some nudity; that is enough for culpability. The fact that you were mistaken about the location does not exonerate you. -/- But now suppose that the particular jurisdiction you are in does not criminalize voyeurism. While most people think that voyeurism is just plain wrong, if not disgusting, the legislature just never got around to drafting a statute against it. Are you guilty now? The answer is no. But you might just be out of luck and convicted anyway. -/- The reason for this strange conclusion is that most jurisdictions have followed the Model Penal Code in yet another respect: along with the MPC’s “subjectivist” emphasis on what is in your head, they have followed the MPC’s lead in abolishing the Impossibility Defense entirely. As a result, people who believe that they are breaking laws when they really are not may still be subject to arrest, prosecution, and conviction respectively by police, prosecutors, and judges/juries merely if all three parties regard your conduct — especially your trying to violate a law that you mistakenly believed in — as morally reprehensible. The best, if not only, defense against this charge is the Impossibility Defense, but — again — most jurisdictions have decided to make this defense unavailable to defendants. -/- Depriving eligible defendants of the Impossibility Defense is unjust. It violates one of the most basic principles of criminal justice: the legality principle. The legality principle says that there cannot be just punishment without a crime, and there should not be a crime without an explicit law designating it as such. So you cannot be charged with, and convicted of, attempted voyeurism if voyeurism, reprehensible as it may be, was not explicitly prohibited at the time that you made the attempt. -/- If we believe in the legality principle, then we must restore the Impossibility Defense. Without the latter, too many defendants are being — and will continue to be — punished for attempts to perform acts that were not themselves illegal but which various parties in the criminal justice system (except the legislature) thought should be illegal based on their extralegal, moral prejudices. -/- In addition to the MPC, the principal obstacle to resurrecting the Impossibility Defense is a good deal of conceptual confusion that permeates relevant cases and scholarship. Too many courts and academics have conflated “factual impossibility” with “legal impossibility” and have fallaciously inferred “hybrid impossibility” from “hybrid mistakes” (that is, legal mistakes that derive from factual mistakes). One of the principal goals of this Article, then, is to clear up all of this confusion. I will explicate in the simplest possible terms (a) the difference between factual impossibility and legal impossibility, (b) why only legal impossibility qualifies as exculpatory, and (c) why hybrid impossibility simply does not exist. (shrink)

A surprisingly large number of scholars believe that (a) we are blameworthy, and therefore punishable, only for what we have control over; (b) we have control only over our actions and intentions, not the consequences of our actions; and therefore (c) if two agents perform the very same action (e.g., attempting to kill) with the very same intentions, then they are equally blameworthy and deserving of equal punishment – even if only one of them succeeds in killing. This paper argues (...) against these “equivalence theorists” that harmful consequences do make a moral difference, that the harm produced by the killer’s attempt retroactively makes her action more blameworthy, and therefore deserving of more punishment, than the failed attempter’s attempt. The primary argument for this “non-equivalence theory” is an analogy with gambling. Just as a gambler makes a deal with the casino to allow metaphysical luck to retroactively determine the “profit status” of her bet, so too the attempted killer makes a deal with “the casino of morality” to allow metaphysical luck to retroactively determine the moral status of her attempt. She makes the “moral deal” that if her attempt succeeds, her attempt was more blameworthy than if her attempt does not succeed. And it is the greater blameworthiness of the killer’s attempt that justifies our intuition that the killer should be punished more harshly than the failed attempter. (shrink)

The euthanasia literature typically discusses the difference between “active” and “passive” means of ending a patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide differs from both active and passive forms of euthanasia insofar as the physician does not administer the means of suicide to the patient. Instead, she merely prescribes and dispenses them to the patient and lets the patient “do the rest” – if and when the patient chooses. One supposed advantage of this process is that it maximizes the patient’s autonomy with respect (...) to both her decision to die and the dying process itself. Still, despite this supposed advantage, Oregon is the only state to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. After summarizing the most important Supreme Court opinions on euthanasia (namely, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health; Vacco v. Quill; Washington v. Glucksberg; and Gonzales v. Oregon), this paper argues that while there are no strong ethical reasons against legalizing physician-assisted suicide, there are some very strong policy reasons for keeping it criminal in the other forty-nine states. (shrink)

In his paper "Why a Class Can't Change Its Members," Richard Sharvy appears to establish the impossibility of the existence of a variable class—that is, a class that at one time has a member that is not a member of it at another time. I first indicate the importance of Sharvy's argument for our understanding of the concept of identity in the contexts of time and modality, and I summarize his argument. Sharvy says that a class C that has one (...) (non-variable) group of members at t2 and another (nonvariable) group of members at t2 would be identical with both the class C1 that always has the first group as members and the class C2 that always has the second group as members. This is an impossibility, since in general, one thing cannot be identical with two.I then criticize Sharvy's argument by pointing out a weakness in the defense of the claim that C = C1 and C = C2. This weakness is due to an ambiguity in Sharvy's Principle of Extensionality. (shrink)

Tricycles are one of the most popular, most accessible, and least expensive forms of public transit in the Philippines. In addition to being common modes of transportation, motorcycles, and tricycles also contribute significantly to the livelihoods of millions of Filipinos who rely on them for a living. Hence, this study explores the lived experiences and challenges faced by female tricycle drivers. Employing the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, the findings of this study were: The participants strive to assist their husbands in providing (...) for their families. Their motivation comes primarily from their families. They each make every effort to provide a better life for their children. Thus, have faced challenges related to their ability to make ends meet, find time to balance job and family obligations, and encounter discrimination and stereotypes in others, and day-to-day life. Moreover, they evade and disregard the problem and discrimination as a coping mechanism. They feel that if they ignore their problem and focus on achieving their goal of providing for their family, it would eventually disappear. (shrink)

Over the last 25 years, there has been a concerted effort to settle questions about multiple realization by bringing detailed scientific evidence to bear. Ken Aizawa and Carl Gillett have pursued this scientific approach to multiple realization with a precise theory and applications. This paper reviews the application of the Dimensioned approach to human color vision, addressing objections that have appeared in the literature.

Libertarians like Robert Kane believe that indeterminism is necessaryfor free will. They think this in part because they hold both (1) thatmy being the ultimate cause of at least part of myself is necessary forfree will and (2) that indeterminism is necessary for this ``ultimateself-causation''. But seductive and intuitive as this ``USCLibertarianism'' may sound, it is untenable. In the end, nometaphysically coherent (not to mention empirically valid) conception ofultimate self-causation is available. So the basic intuition motivatingthe USC Libertarian is ultimately (...) impossible to fulfill. (shrink)

Coherentism in epistemology has long suffered from lack of formal and quantitative explication of the notion of coherence. One might hope that probabilistic accounts of coherence such as those proposed by Lewis, Shogenji, Olsson, Fitelson, and Bovens and Hartmann will finally help solve this problem. This paper shows, however, that those accounts have a serious common problem: the problem of belief individuation. The coherence degree that each of the accounts assigns to an information set (or the verdict it gives as (...) to whether the set is coherent tout court) depends on how beliefs (or propositions) that represent the set are individuated. Indeed, logically equivalent belief sets that represent the same information set can be given drastically different degrees of coherence. This feature clashes with our natural and reasonable expectation that the coherence degree of a belief set does not change unless the believer adds essentially new information to the set or drops old information from it; or, to put it simply, that the believer cannot raise or lower the degree of coherence by purely logical reasoning. None of the accounts in question can adequately deal with coherence once logical inferences get into the picture. Toward the end of the paper, another notion of coherence that takes into account not only the contents but also the origins (or sources) of the relevant beliefs is considered. It is argued that this notion of coherence is of dubious significance, and that it does not help solve the problem of belief individuation. (shrink)

We explicate and evaluate arguments both for and against the insanity defense itself, different versions of the insanity defense (M'Naghten, Model Penal Code, and Durham (or Product)), the Irresistible Impulse rule, and various reform proposals.

We use probability-matching variations on Ellsberg’s single-urn experiment to assess three questions: (1) How sensitive are ambiguity attitudes to changes from a gain to a loss frame? (2) How sensitive are ambiguity attitudes to making ambiguity easier to recognize? (3) What is the relation between subjects’ consistency of choice and the ambiguity attitudes their choices display? Contrary to most other studies, we find that a switch from a gain to a loss frame does not lead to a switch from ambiguity (...) aversion to ambiguity neutrality and/or ambiguity seeking. We also find that making ambiguity easier to recognize has little effect. Finally, we find that while ambiguity aversion does not depend on consistency, other attitudes do: consistent choosers are much more likely to be ambiguity neutral, while ambiguity seeking is much more frequent among highly inconsistent choosers. (shrink)