ANNOUNCING THE SPRING 2018 APA NEWSLETTERS.

Dear DAVID, The spring 2018 APA newsletters are now available online. Below, you’ll find the table of contents for each issue along with a link to that particular newsletter. The complete volume is available as a single downloadable file as well. The APA newsletters contain a wide variety of scholarly material, discussion on relevant and timely topics, book reviews, and much more. We encourage you to check them out and share them with your colleagues and students. If you are interested in contributing to a future issue, please contact the appropriate editor(s). All the best, Erin Shepherd Publications Coordinator APA Newsletters, Spring 2018 (Volume 17, Number 2) Newsletter on Asian and Asian-American Philosophers and Philosophies From the Guest Editor, Manyul Im Submission Guidelines and Information Articles “’Three Sacrificial Rituals’ (sanji) and the Practicability of Ruist (Confucian) Philosophy,” Bin Song “Traditional Chinese Body Practice and Philosophical Activity,” Steven Geisz “East Asian Martial Arts as Philosophical Practice,” Alexus McLeod Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy From the Editors, Serena Parekh and Julinna Oxley About the Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy Submission Guidelines News from the CSW Article“Policing Families: The Many-Headed Hydra of Surveillance,” Mechthild Nagel “Doubly Other: Black Women’s Social Death and Re-enslavement in America’s Genocidal Prison Nation,” Susan Peppers-Bates “On Minor Publications, Thematic Divisions, and Biases in Philosophy: Insights from the Book Review Sections,” Anna Leuschner and Anna Lindemann Book Reviews José Jorge Mendoza: The Moral and Political Philosophy of Immigration, reviewed by Amy Reed-Sandoval Shannon Dea: Beyond the Binary: Thinking about Sex and Gender, reviewed by Sally Markowitz Martha Holstein: Women in Late Life: Critical Perspectives on Gender and Age, reviewed by Louise Collins Contributors Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues in Philosophy From the Guest Editors, Matthew Lister and José Jorge Mendoza Submission Guidelines Call for Submissions: The 2018 Essay Prize on Latin American Thought Articles “Surviving Social Disintegration: Jorge Portilla on the Phenomenology of Zozobra,” Francisco Gallegos “The Contradiction of Crimmigration,” José Jorge Mendoza “Under the Umbrella of Administrative Law: Immigration Detention and the Challenges of Producing Just Immigration Law, ” Stephanie J. Silverman “Private Contractors, Foreign Troops, and Offshore Detention Centers: The Ethics of Externalizing Immigration Controls,” Alex Sager “‘Dreamers’ and Others: Immigration Protests, Enforcement, and Civil Disobedience,” Matthew Lister Contributor Bios Newsletter on Native American and Indigenous Philosophy From the Managing Editor, Agnes B. Curry Submission Guidelines Articles “Listening to Our Future: On Pre-College Outreach and Enrichment for Native Youth,” Andrea Sullivan-Clarke “A Brief History of a New Course at Rutgers University: Philosophy 366—African, Latin American, and Native American Philosophy,” Alexander Guerrero Book Review Delphine Red Shirt: George Sword’s Warrior Narratives: Compositional Processes in Lakota Oral Tradition, reviewed by Rachel Phillips Newsletter on Philosophy and the Black Experience From the Editors, Stephen C. Ferguson II and Dwayne Tunstall Submission Guidelines and Information Articles “Howard Thurman as Philosopher,” Anthony Sean Neal “The Man-Not and the Dilemmas of Intersectionality,” Olúfemi Táíwò Book ReviewTommy J. Curry: The Man-Not: Racce, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood, reviewed by Ronald B. Neal Contributors Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers From the Editor, Peter Boltuc From the Chair, Marcello Guarini Articles“On the Autonomy and Threat of ‘Killer Robots’,” Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, Catherine Tessier, and Thomas M. Powers “New Developments in the LIDA Model,” Stan Franklin, Steve Strain, Sean Kugele, Tamas Madl, Nisrine Ait Khayi, and Kevin Ryan “Distraction and Prioritization: Combining Models to Create Reactive Robots,” Jonathan R. Milton “Using Quantum Erasers to Test Animal/Robot Consciousness,” Sky Darmos “The Explanation of Consciousness with Implications to AI,” Pentti O. A. Haikonen “Digital Consciousness and Platonic Computation: Unification of Consciousness, Mind, and Matter by Metacomputics,” Simon.X.Duan “Toward a Philosophy of the Internet,” László Ropolyi “Organized Complexity: Is Big History a Big Computation?” Jean-Paul Delahaye and Clément Vidal Call for Papers Newsletter on Philosophy in Two-Year Colleges From the Editor, Thomas Urban Articles “Taylorism, Heidegger, and the Modern Academy,” Ian Duckles “How Hard Should an Introduction to Philosophy Class Be?” Andy Wible Call for Papers Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy From the Editors, Tziporah Kasachkoff and Eugene Kelly Submission Guidelines Articles“Teaching Affirmative Action,” Steven M. Cahn “The Case for Discussion-Intensive Pedagogy,” John Capps “The Hidden Graduate Curriculum,” Steven M. Cahn Addresses of Contributors

The American Philosophical Association
University of Delaware
31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716

Unsubscribe or update your communication preferences.
If you cannot log in to change your preferences, unsubscribe here.
This email was sent from an unmonitored address.
Questions can be sent to info@apaonline.org.

LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 1.

It may be a Local Politician, Co-Worker, Friend, or even a Family Member. Yet, it is Inevitable that occasionally someone you know will Voice an Opinion about an Issue that will be in Direct Conflict with your own.  What should you do? What is at Stake if you Decide to Open up and be Honest?  Before you Decide, try to go through the Following Process, and see what Answer it leads you to. 

1.  Is the Subject Matter of Such Importance that it must be Addressed Immediately?-  What is Important to You, Friends and Family, may not really matter to others.  Pick your Battles.  If You have an Opinion on a Subject, but it lies in conflict with Others, is the Disagreement so Vast that you are willing to make a Stand Then and There?  Can it wait for a Different Time and Place?  What Do You Gain, or Lose, by Postponing such a Discussion?

2.  Many Times it is Better to say NOTHING AT ALL, LET THE SPEAKER MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR SIDE OF AN ISSUE.-  Are you Familiar with the Saying:   

                 "BETTER TO BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO OPEN YOUR 

                  MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."   

How Many Times have you been present at a Gathering or Event, where Someone Attending is making a Fool of Themselves, Blurting out Meaningless Drivel that has everyone Rolling Their Eyes and Walking Away.  If it is within a group of Fairly Well- Informed People, They will see the Individual for what He Is;  Ill-Informed, Ignorant, and Lacking the Basic Skills for Intellectual Discourse.  No Opinion They Offer will be Taken Seriously, and Hopefully, it is on the Opposite Side of an Issue that you land on.

3.  The Most Important Disagreements to Confront Immediately are Deliberate Falsehoods and Bad Information-  Before you can point out an IRRATIONAL AND INVALID ARGUMENT, MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER CAN BACK UP ANY FACTS AND FIGURES THEY ARE STATING AS FACT.  Don't point out the Flaws in the REASONING AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IGNORE ANY MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PREMISES.  THEY CAN JUST REFORMULATE THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT VALID, BUT IT MAY STILL CONTAIN THE SAME FACTUAL FLAWS.

HERE IS A BASIC EXAMPLE;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A  VICIOUS DOG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.  SPOT MAY 

BE A VICIOUS DOG, BUT ANY BREED OF DOG 

CAN BECOME VICIOUS, IT IS NOT A BEHAVIOR 

EXCLUSIVE TO THE ROTTWEILER.

TO MAKE IT A VALID ARGUMENT, IT IS CHANGED

TO THIS;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A VICIOUS DOG.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID.

HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF TRUTH FOR THE CONCLUSION

THAT SPOT IS VICIOUS, LIES IN THE PREMISE THAT 

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS. THAT IS A FACTUAL

CLAIM THAT MUST BE BACKED UP WITH PROPER

DATA.

Whenever someone Draws a Conclusion about a Specific 

Subject, make sure the Supporting Information backs it up.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. PORTRAITS OF EVIL- WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE EVIL? PT 1.

Quite a Question, isn't it?  I can imagine asking a Dozen different people, and getting Twelve separate answers. 

However, let's try and come up with a Satisfactory Definition that could satisfy Social, Cultural and Ethical Guidelines, while at the same time Satisfying the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking. 

You may have noticed that I Didn't include "Religion'', as a Term that needed to be included in a Universal Definition of Evil. 

WHY?

RELIGION, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS A SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES FAITH AND ADHERENCE TO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST OUTSIDE THE REALM OF THE NATURAL WORLD. 

THEREFORE, ANY SYSTEM OF PROPER MORAL BEHAVIOR THAT IS FOUNDED ON HUMAN REASON AND RATIONAL THOUGHT, CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. SO ANY DEFINITION OF "EVIL", BEING APPLIED TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR, MUST COME FROM ELSEWHERE.

This is not a Judgment on whether or not Religion is the proper source for finding the Truth about Evil, either the Definition or the Source.  However, Since Ethical and Criminal Behavior, in Practical Terms, must be Judged by Legal Systems grounded in the Physical World, THE "SPIRITUAL  WORLD" is not a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

You have to remember Religious Faith, and any Teachings that stem from such Beliefs, which include Any and All Doctrines about Moral Behavior, are not Revelations to be Denied as Untrue, or even Questioned outside the Realm of a Churches Hierarchy.

The Hierarchy is the Established Authority, within the Particular, Recognizable, and Unique Body of Faith Itself, that Interprets Doctrine from Sources considered to be Divinely Inspired. Decisions are then made, and become Part of Established and Recognized Church Law.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

Steve Bannon’s plan for the midterms. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE JENNIFER WEXTON

Republicans have a plan for the midterm elections, David. Far-right figurehead and ousted political advisor Steve Bannon has called for putting Trump on the ticket in every district. “You have to put Donald Trump on the ticket. You’re not voting for Congress. You’re voting for Donald Trump.”

We can’t let this happen. We need to vote out congressional rubber stamps of Donald Trump and flip the House and Senate this November.

Coming from Steve Bannon, we know that this is a dog whistle for more extreme, anti-women, xenophobic rhetoric and policies. We can’t suffer through another 2 years of constant scandal and dangerous legislation that harms our citizens and our values.

Thank you for helping us flip the House, 

Meaghan Johnson
Finance Director