Introduction: Human-Animal Relationships From a Long-Term Perspective

Humans, like other animals, are inextricably bound to their local complex web-of-life and cannot exist outside of relationally interwoven ecosystems. Humans are, as such, rooted in a multispecies universe. Human and non-human animals in their variety of forms and abilities have been commensal, companions, prey, and hunters, and archaeology must take this fundamental fact – the cohabiting of the world – to heart. Human societies are, there-fore, not so much human as web-of-species societies. Recently, anthropological theory has explored non-modern societies from the perspective of an anthropology of life which incorporates relationality of local humans and non-human animals, a pursuit that is significant for the diverse contributions in this special section of Current Swedish Archaeology: a themed section which deals with past multispecies intra-actions in a long-term perspective.

The Imaginary Species

This article is a work of theory that establishes a fundamental mental basis for the diversity of worldviews that underlie every seemingly unsolvable conflict between nations, political parties, organizations, and individuals. The four-part typology postulated here is found, with different labels, throughout the history of human philosophy and underscores four basic worldviews people use to view their understanding of, and relationship with, the world. These four types fundamentally underlie cultural values and beliefs. Understanding this fundamental fact about human mentality will illuminate why persistent conflicts around the world are seemingly unsolvable and why populations can become so deeply polarized that political repression or civil war can come to seem to be a rationally conceivable way to rectify the situation.

Harm

The standard consequentialist account of harm is given by the following principle: HARM An act A harms a person P just in case P is worse off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. An act A benefits a person P just in case P is better off, as a consequence of A, than she would have been if A hadn’t been performed. In most cases, there are multiple different alternatives, and no context-free method of determining which is the appropriate one with which to compare A. Judgments of harm are thus always implicitly relative to alternatives. There is no fundamental fact of the form: A really harms (or benefits) P.

8. Mistake

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and other features. This chapter discusses the three broad classifications of mistake: common, mutual and unilateral. In common mistake (sometimes confusingly referred to as mutual mistake) both parties share the same mistake about a fundamental fact of the contract. With mutual mistake the parties are at cross-purposes but neither realizes it. In unilateral mistake only one of the parties is mistaken and the other party either knows of the mistake or possibly is deemed to know.

Stanley Cavell’s Argument of the Ordinary

My overall aim is to show that there is a serious and compelling argument in Stanley Cavell’s work for why any philosophical theorizing that fails to recognize what Cavell refers to as “our common world of background” as a condition for the sense of anything we say or do, and to acknowledge its own dependence on that background and the vulnerability implied by that dependence, runs the risk of rendering itself, thereby, ultimately unintelligible. I begin with a characterization of Cavell’s unique way of inheriting Austin and Wittgenstein – I call it “ordinary language philosophy existentialism” – as it relates to what Cavell calls “skepticism”. I then turn to Cavell’s response to Kripke in “The Argument of the Ordinary”, which is different from all other responses to Kripke’s Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language in that Cavell’s response, while theoretically powerful, is at the same time also existentialist, in the sense that Cavell finds a way of acknowledging in his writing the fundamental fact that his writing (thinking) constitutes an instance of what he is writing (thinking) about. This unique achievement of Cavell’s response to Kripke is not additional to his argument, but essential to it: it enables him not merely to say, but to show that, and how, Kripke’s account falsifies what it purports to elucidate, and thereby to show that the theoretical question of linguistic sense is not truly separable, not even theoretically, from the broadly ethical question of how we relate to others, and how we conduct ourselves in relation to them from one moment to the next.

In the Shadow of Phoenicia: North Syria and ‘Palestinian Syria’ in Herodotus

Scrutiny of Herodotus’ ethnographic accounts of northern Syria and the region he calls ‘Palestinian Syria’ reveals oddities and inconsistencies. Here it is argued that such problems may be resolved if a fundamental fact is recognized: the enormous early literary prestige of the Phoenicians has obscured the historical roles of these other peoples in the Histories. The character and extent of this process, specifically as it bears on Syria-Palestine during Iron Age II, is analysed here. It is hoped that a new appreciation of the Syrians as an ethnicity may be gained as a result. It is suggested as well that for important historical problems researchers should ascertain whether Herodotus is not actually talking about Syrians when he discusses Phoenicians.

SANKSI PIDANA PLAGIARISME DALAM HUKUM POSITIF DI INDONESIA

One of the norms that must be obeyed by everyone when writing a scientific literature is to mention the source of citation and other people’s opinion, this has been acknowledged among academics especially in universities, the most fundamental fact is, many writers do not pay attention to this matter or they do it intentionally, if this matter is done, then this action is called plagiarism and the person who performs the action is called a plagiarist, in regard to this matter, the law regulates the matter by imposing a criminal threat. Keyword: Sanksi Pidana Plagiarisme

Christian Soul and the Revolt of the Slave

This chapter considers how Friedrich Nietzsche had seized on a fundamental fact about Christianity: that it bears the ignoble mark of a slave. In Nietzsche's view, Christianity represents a slave revolt against all the noble principles of antiquity and the introduction of base and grotesque values into Western civilization. As an affront to classic aristocratic taste, Christianity took vengeance on Rome by adopting the ghetto tongue and style of its Jewish brothers and sisters and used it to curse and subvert the patrician values of Greco-Roman culture. For Nietzsche, these “oriental slaves” upended the cherished achievements of Greco-Roman culture and instigated a carnival-like subversion of Roman hierarchies, a world turned upside down.

GERSTEN COMPLEX FOR SHEAVES WITH TRANSFERS FOR NOETHERIAN SCHEMES

V. Voevodsky introduced Gersten complex for sheaves with transfers in one of the first papers where the category of motives was constructed. Becides he proved Gersten conjecture which states that the Gersten complex for the local ring of point of smooth variety over field k is resolution of the group of global sections over this ring. Because of this fundamental fact Gersten complex can be used for calculations of cohomologies of sheaves with transfers over smooth k -varieties. In this paper we construct Gersten complex for sheaves with trans- fers, which defined on the category of noetherian k -schemes, where char k = 0. After this we proof the Gersten conjecture in case of local noetherian ring over field k . This generalises Voevodsky’s result.

The Law of Dress in Lord of the Flies

Instead of reading William Golding’s Lord of the Flies in standard terms of the boys’ descent from clothing to nakedness, or in terms of truth disguised in false appearance, this paper reads the novel in terms of the constancy of dress. The form of the dress may change from clothes to painted masks, but the fundamental fact of dress remains. The boys’ relationship to rules can be read in a similar way. Instead of reading their story in terms of descent from law and order to lawlessness and disorder, it is read in terms of the on-going presence of rules of some sort. The form of the rules changes, but the essential fact of government by rules remains. It is argued that dress and law are constant in the novel and that Golding is warning us, through the parallel performance of law and dress, that we should suspect that external indicators of civilization are hollow; that we should be cynical about all systems of norms established by society and look, instead, to be saved by individual insight and self-sacrifice.