<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>DSpace Collection: Monographica: Pragmatism and Democracy</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4674</link>
    <description>Monographica: Pragmatism and Democracy</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:32:56 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2013-05-22T14:32:56Z</dc:date>
    
    <item>
      <title>Etica &amp; Politica / Ethics &amp; Politics</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4713</link>
      <description>Title: Etica &amp; Politica / Ethics &amp; Politics
Type: Fascicolo rivista</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4713</guid>
      <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Remarks on The Ontology and The Normative Aspect of Constitutive Rules</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4712</link>
      <description>Title: Remarks on The Ontology and The Normative Aspect of Constitutive Rules
Authors: Żełaniec, Wojciech
Abstract: After some introductory remarks on constitutive rules I proceed to one problem still insufficiently&#xD;
handled in the constitutive rules research: that of how coordinate the definitional&#xD;
exigence that constitutive rules should define new (types of ) activities and, on the other&#xD;
hand, the claim that constitutive rules should be a disjoint class with that of regulative or&#xD;
prescriptive rules. I analyse briefly several examples, such as promises or interest-charging,&#xD;
or ‘sprezzatura’, and set out a number of problems and complexities inherent in these examples.&#xD;
Yet I also indicate commonalities shared by all of them.Short of offering a solution,&#xD;
I put forward the hypothesis that constitutive rules may in some cases be in rerum natura&#xD;
bound up with prescriptive norms and can be divided from them only in virtue of a theoretical&#xD;
analysis.
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4712</guid>
      <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Teodicee: una nota su S. Nadler, Il migliore dei mondi possibili</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4711</link>
      <description>Title: Teodicee: una nota su S. Nadler, Il migliore dei mondi possibili
Authors: Morfino, Vittorio
Abstract: The book of Steven Nadler, The Best of all possible World. A Story of Philosophers, God and&#xD;
Evil gives an account of the philosophical discussions among Leibniz, Malebranche and Arnauld&#xD;
about the freedom of God and the problem of evil. Starting from an imaginary encounter&#xD;
of the three philosopher in Paris, Nadler reconstructs the complex web of intellectual&#xD;
relations between Leibniz and Malebranche about the Theodicy, between Malebranche&#xD;
and Arnauld about the Treatise on the nature and grace, and between Leibniz and Arnauld&#xD;
about the Discourse of metaphysics. From this reconstruction emerges a sketch of the controversy&#xD;
in which Leibniz’s and Malebranche’s conceptions of God are characterized by the&#xD;
primacy of the intellect over will, whereas Arnauld’s conception of God, according to Descartes’&#xD;
perspective, states the absolute freedom of God’s will. According to Nadler, Arnauld’s&#xD;
battle against Malebranch’s and Leibniz’s rationalist conception of God is subterraneously&#xD;
guided by his feeling of great proximity between these conceptions and the position&#xD;
about God expressed by Spinoza in the Ethics: a God without will and understanding, a&#xD;
power that simply produces the world in a necessary, meaningless way.
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4711</guid>
      <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Il confine permeabile: la negoziazione del confine animali-umani</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4709</link>
      <description>Title: Il confine permeabile: la negoziazione del confine animali-umani
Authors: de Mori, Barbara
Abstract: The paper is devoted to a re-examination of the issue of the Human-Animal boundary in&#xD;
the light of the idea that the boundary has been renegotiated every time humans has perceived&#xD;
a challenge to their supremacy in the hierarchy of beings. By making reference to&#xD;
the Darwinian framework and also to the reflections developed by the philosopher and anthropologist&#xD;
Raymond Corbey in his book The Methaphysics of Apes. Negotiating the Animal-Human Boundary, the paper invites to focus the attention to the necessity of reestablishing&#xD;
some balance between humans and animals by doing reference to the quality of&#xD;
life of all living beings.
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/4709</guid>
      <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

