When a paradigm becomes a paradogma

Every science, every scientific discipline, operates under one or more paradigms; a world view that underlies the theories and methodologies of the discipline. Sometimes a discipline’s paradigms complement or supplement each other while at other times they may contradict or even exclude each other. While paradigms are strong and have longevity, they are also fluid, relative and changeable and can even ‘die’. An anathema of the sciences, scientific disciplines and the process of carrying out science (or as Derek Hodson1 calls it: ‘doing science’) is the dogma. In contrast to a paradigm, a dogma is a set of principles or a doctrine prescribed by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogmata are possibly most often found in religion, forming the core principles that must be upheld by all believers of a religion. As such, dogmata are also strong and have longevity, but are static, immutable and almost unchangeable except by divine decree. This editorial discusses a recent case which I and some colleagues encountered where a highly reputable scientific journal’s editorial decision was not based on the article’s quality (e.g., weak theory, bad methodology, improper statistics, . . .) or misuse of a scientific paradigm (e.g., a methodology that does not fit the paradigm used), but rather on a dogma (i.e., the author questioned something that one of the executive editors found to be incontrovertibly true). In other words, a rejection based on a paradigm that has reached the status of a dogma; a paradogma

When a paradigm becomes a paradogma

Every science, every scientific discipline, operates under one or more paradigms; a world view that underlies the theories and methodologies of the discipline. Sometimes a discipline’s paradigms complement or supplement each other while at other times they may contradict or even exclude each other. While paradigms are strong and have longevity, they are also fluid, relative and changeable and can even ‘die’. An anathema of the sciences, scientific disciplines and the process of carrying out science (or as Derek Hodson1 calls it: ‘doing science’) is the dogma. In contrast to a paradigm, a dogma is a set of principles or a doctrine prescribed by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogmata are possibly most often found in religion, forming the core principles that must be upheld by all believers of a religion. As such, dogmata are also strong and have longevity, but are static, immutable and almost unchangeable except by divine decree. This editorial discusses a recent case which I and some colleagues encountered where a highly reputable scientific journal’s editorial decision was not based on the article’s quality (e.g., weak theory, bad methodology, improper statistics, . . .) or misuse of a scientific paradigm (e.g., a methodology that does not fit the paradigm used), but rather on a dogma (i.e., the author questioned something that one of the executive editors found to be incontrovertibly true). In other words, a rejection based on a paradigm that has reached the status of a dogma; a paradogma

Concluding Reflection: \u27Where Do We Go From Here?\u27

Women and Men in Theological Education

Biopolitički laboratorij i genetsko modificiranje psihe

In the era marked by the universal fascination and the naïve, “mesianistic” belief in the salvationary and the utilitarian “demiurgistic” grasp of a genetic engineering and subsequent modification of the causal-natural cycle, arises an inevitable question of the critical consideration of the phenomena of the psyche in the context of the given metamorphosation. Namely, in this article, the author will observe the human psyche as a kind of relational, dialectical tangent that vitally connects the mind and body of an individual, both in the cognitive and the material sense. It will also be argued that genetic engineering of it does not require research laboratories in which scientists “play” with mental genes, instead of which the sufficient tools are the ones of “biopolitical laboratory”, with an instrumental methodology marked by the marketing pressures and the media lobotomization, biopolitical manipulation, abiotic education and excessive use of medicaments in the psychiatric treatment of mental disorders. The above-stated questions dominate the discourse of the article, introducing the orientative knowledge and bioprotectionistic1 teleology of discipline of integrative-bioethical paradigm as a potential scientific and social platform for rethinking and pragmatically overcoming the issues presented in the discourse of the articleU eri obilježenoj univerzalnom fascinacijom i naivnom, „mesijanskom” vjerom u spasonosne utilitarističke, „demiurgističke” dosege genetske modifikacije i popratne modifikacije onog kauzalno-prirodnog, nezaobilaznim se nameće pitanje kritičkog razmatranja fenomena psihe u kontekstu postavljenih metamorfoza. Naime, u ovom članku autor će ljudsku psihu razmatrati kao svojevrsnu odnošajnu, dijalektičku tangentu koja živonosno povezuje um i tijelo pojedinca, u kognitivnom i materijalnom smislu. Također će se argumentirati u prilog tezi da genetska modifikacija nad njome ne potrebuje klasične istraživačke laboratorije u kojima se znanstvenici „igraju” mentalnim genima, namjesto čega se kao dostatni instrumentarij nameće onaj „biopolitičkog laboratorija”, aktualiziranog metodološkim instrumentarijem marketinških pritisaka, medijske lobotomije, biopolitičkih manipulacija, abioetičkog obrazovanja i pretjerane upotrebe medikamenata u djelokrugu psihijatrijskog tretmana psihičkih poremećaja. Naznačena pitanja dominirat će diskursom članka, uz uvođenje paradigmi orijentacijskog znanja i bioprotekcionističke teleologije integrativne bioetike kao potencijalne znanstvene i društvene platforme za preispitivanje i pragmatično nadilaženje problematika rasprostrtih diskursom rasprave

Das Paradogma der psychischen Entropie des Bösen und die Palingenese der Alleinheit

Cilj je rada ukazati na neadekvatan opći teorijski pristup percepciji zla, čime se doprinosi permanenciji »zla u svijetu«. Analiza će se provesti usmjeravanjem na logijski neprecizno usvajani i razmatrani antropocentrički i romantičarski odnos dobra i zla kroz diskusijski uvriježene parove poput vrlina–grijeh, raj–pakao i bijelo–crno. Iznosi se koncept koji tumači zlo kao apriorno psihički i epistemički fenomen kakav transmutacijom kroz navedene kategorije prerasta u problem morala. Javlja se u okviru društvene (političke) zajednice kao omjer energije »otvorenosti« i »zatvorenosti«. Parnjakom otvorenost–zatvorenost zamjenjujem sve tradicionalne parnjake i oprimjerujem ga na temelju analize narcizma. Narcizam poimam kao rezultat manjkavosti znanja bivstvujućih koji se potencira srdžbom i strahom u odnosu na sebstvo i onemogućuje spoznavanje Svejednote, mereološkog principa koji pod sobom podrazumijeva cjelinu biotičke zajednice. Doprinos rada sastoji se od ukazivanja na postupke umanjivanja zla u svijetu.Objective of this paper is to indicate inadequate general theoretical approach to the perception of evil, which in return contributes to the permanence of “evil in the world”. Analysis will focus on the logially imprecisely adopted and observed anthropocentric and romantic relation between good and evil through debatable pairs of notions such as virtue–sin, heaven–hell, white–black et cetera. I will lay out concepts that interpret evil as a priori psychic and epistemic phenomenon producing moral issues by the transmutation via mentioned pairs. It appears in the framework of social (political) community as the ratio of the energy of “openness” and “closeness”. With this pair I replace all the traditional pairs, and I further describe it on the grounds of the analysis of narcissism. I understand narcissism as being one of the results of the lack of knowledge potentiated by fury and fear in the relation to the self. It prevents us from knowing All-Oneness, a mereological principle that takes into consideration the entire biotic community. Expected contribution consists of pointing at the methods for the reduction of evil in the world.Le but de ce travail est de montrer que l’approche théorique et générale de la perception du mal, par laquelle on contribue à la constance du « mal dans le monde », est inadéquate. Ce travail procédera à l’analyse de la relation du bien et du mal anthropocentrique et romantique, que l’on s’est approprié et qui a été analysée de manière imprécise d’un point de vue logique, à travers des couples de discussion ancrés tels que valeur-péché, paradis-enfer et blanc-noir. Le concept qui interprète le mal en tant que phénomène psychique et épistémique apriorique comme la transmutation est exposé à travers les catégories mentionnées dans le problème de la morale. Il apparaît dans le cadre de la communauté sociale (politique) comme un rapport de l’énergie d’« ouverture » et d’« fermeture ». Je remplace, par le couple ouverture-fermeture, tous les couples traditionnels et j’applique ce couple à l’analyse du narcissisme. Je conçois le narcissisme comme le résultat d’un défaut de connaissances des étants, qui s’élève à la puissance par la colère et la peur sur le soi et ne permet pas la connaissance du Tout-Un, principe méréologique qui suppose l’ensemble de la communauté biotique. Ce travail contribue à montrer les procédés qui réduisent le mal dans le monde.Das Ziel der Arbeit ist es, auf eine inadäquate allgemeine theoriehafte Herangehensweise an die Wahrnehmung des Bösen hinzuweisen, wodurch der Permanenz des „Bösen in der Welt“ beigetragen wird. Die Analyse wird durchgeführt, indem der Schwerpunkt auf die durch Logie unpräzise angeeignete und betrachtete anthropozentrische und romantisierende Beziehung zwischen Gut und Böse gelenkt wird, und zwar durch diskussionsbezogen eingewurzelte Paare wie Tugend-Sünde, Paradies-Hölle und Weiß-Schwarz. Es wird ein Konzept dargelegt, welches das Böse als ein apriorisch psychisches und epistemisches Phänomen deutet, das infolge der Transmutation durch die angeführten Kategorien in ein Problem der Moral hinüberwächst. Es erscheint im Rahmen einer sozialen (politischen) Gemeinschaft als Verhältnis der Energie der „Offenheit“ und „Geschlossenheit“. Durch die Paarbildung Offenheit-Geschlossenheit ersetze ich sämtliche traditionellen Paarbildungen und exemplifiziere die angebrachte Paarbildung aufgrund der Analyse des Narzissmus. Den Narzissmus begreife ich als Ergebnis des Wissensmangels bei Seienden, das durch Zorn und Angst in Bezug auf das Selbst potenziert wird und die Erkenntnis der Alleinheit unterbindet, eines mereologischen Prinzips, welches unter sich die Gesamtheit der biotischen Gemeinschaft mit einbegreift. Der Beitrag der Arbeit besteht darin, auf die Vorgehensweisen zu verweisen, welche das Böse in der Welt reduzieren

Das Paradogma der psychischen Entropie des Bösen und die Palingenese der Alleinheit

Cilj je rada ukazati na neadekvatan opći teorijski pristup percepciji zla, čime se doprinosi permanenciji »zla u svijetu«. Analiza će se provesti usmjeravanjem na logijski neprecizno usvajani i razmatrani antropocentrički i romantičarski odnos dobra i zla kroz diskusijski uvriježene parove poput vrlina–grijeh, raj–pakao i bijelo–crno. Iznosi se koncept koji tumači zlo kao apriorno psihički i epistemički fenomen kakav transmutacijom kroz navedene kategorije prerasta u problem morala. Javlja se u okviru društvene (političke) zajednice kao omjer energije »otvorenosti« i »zatvorenosti«. Parnjakom otvorenost–zatvorenost zamjenjujem sve tradicionalne parnjake i oprimjerujem ga na temelju analize narcizma. Narcizam poimam kao rezultat manjkavosti znanja bivstvujućih koji se potencira srdžbom i strahom u odnosu na sebstvo i onemogućuje spoznavanje Svejednote, mereološkog principa koji pod sobom podrazumijeva cjelinu biotičke zajednice. Doprinos rada sastoji se od ukazivanja na postupke umanjivanja zla u svijetu.Objective of this paper is to indicate inadequate general theoretical approach to the perception of evil, which in return contributes to the permanence of “evil in the world”. Analysis will focus on the logially imprecisely adopted and observed anthropocentric and romantic relation between good and evil through debatable pairs of notions such as virtue–sin, heaven–hell, white–black et cetera. I will lay out concepts that interpret evil as a priori psychic and epistemic phenomenon producing moral issues by the transmutation via mentioned pairs. It appears in the framework of social (political) community as the ratio of the energy of “openness” and “closeness”. With this pair I replace all the traditional pairs, and I further describe it on the grounds of the analysis of narcissism. I understand narcissism as being one of the results of the lack of knowledge potentiated by fury and fear in the relation to the self. It prevents us from knowing All-Oneness, a mereological principle that takes into consideration the entire biotic community. Expected contribution consists of pointing at the methods for the reduction of evil in the world.Le but de ce travail est de montrer que l’approche théorique et générale de la perception du mal, par laquelle on contribue à la constance du « mal dans le monde », est inadéquate. Ce travail procédera à l’analyse de la relation du bien et du mal anthropocentrique et romantique, que l’on s’est approprié et qui a été analysée de manière imprécise d’un point de vue logique, à travers des couples de discussion ancrés tels que valeur-péché, paradis-enfer et blanc-noir. Le concept qui interprète le mal en tant que phénomène psychique et épistémique apriorique comme la transmutation est exposé à travers les catégories mentionnées dans le problème de la morale. Il apparaît dans le cadre de la communauté sociale (politique) comme un rapport de l’énergie d’« ouverture » et d’« fermeture ». Je remplace, par le couple ouverture-fermeture, tous les couples traditionnels et j’applique ce couple à l’analyse du narcissisme. Je conçois le narcissisme comme le résultat d’un défaut de connaissances des étants, qui s’élève à la puissance par la colère et la peur sur le soi et ne permet pas la connaissance du Tout-Un, principe méréologique qui suppose l’ensemble de la communauté biotique. Ce travail contribue à montrer les procédés qui réduisent le mal dans le monde.Das Ziel der Arbeit ist es, auf eine inadäquate allgemeine theoriehafte Herangehensweise an die Wahrnehmung des Bösen hinzuweisen, wodurch der Permanenz des „Bösen in der Welt“ beigetragen wird. Die Analyse wird durchgeführt, indem der Schwerpunkt auf die durch Logie unpräzise angeeignete und betrachtete anthropozentrische und romantisierende Beziehung zwischen Gut und Böse gelenkt wird, und zwar durch diskussionsbezogen eingewurzelte Paare wie Tugend-Sünde, Paradies-Hölle und Weiß-Schwarz. Es wird ein Konzept dargelegt, welches das Böse als ein apriorisch psychisches und epistemisches Phänomen deutet, das infolge der Transmutation durch die angeführten Kategorien in ein Problem der Moral hinüberwächst. Es erscheint im Rahmen einer sozialen (politischen) Gemeinschaft als Verhältnis der Energie der „Offenheit“ und „Geschlossenheit“. Durch die Paarbildung Offenheit-Geschlossenheit ersetze ich sämtliche traditionellen Paarbildungen und exemplifiziere die angebrachte Paarbildung aufgrund der Analyse des Narzissmus. Den Narzissmus begreife ich als Ergebnis des Wissensmangels bei Seienden, das durch Zorn und Angst in Bezug auf das Selbst potenziert wird und die Erkenntnis der Alleinheit unterbindet, eines mereologischen Prinzips, welches unter sich die Gesamtheit der biotischen Gemeinschaft mit einbegreift. Der Beitrag der Arbeit besteht darin, auf die Vorgehensweisen zu verweisen, welche das Böse in der Welt reduzieren

Empowering development: capabilities and Latin American critical traditions

This thesis theoretically and critically examines the move towards people-centred approaches to development. It offers a critical examination of the work of Amartya Sen using theoretical resources emerging from Latin American traditions. Amartya Sen’s calls to understand Development as Freedom (1999) have significantly influenced mainstream development thinking and practice, constituting the clearest example of people-centred approaches to development today. Overcoming the limitations of previous state-centred notions of development articulated around ideas of economic growth, in Sen’s Capability Approach (CA) development is seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. In this understanding, the agency of development shifts from the state to individuals and the analytic focus moves from economic growth to individual capabilities. In this manner, this framework is structured towards the central goal of empowerment, wherein the expansion of capabilities is seen both as the means and end of development. Since its inception, the widespread support for the CA has allowed for the expansion of ethical considerations within mainstream development thinking. Even while the remarkable advances offered by Sen’s work should be praised, this thesis argues that these have come with new limitations. These limitations stem from, what is termed here, a “Paradox of Empowerment” that effectively encloses Sen’s approach within Western notions of development. While Sen’s approach is poised to provide a theoretical framework that is built on the expansion of freedom and individual agency, there is little agency here to move beyond the ideas of development fundamentally linked to liberal democracies and market economies. This thesis engages with several critical traditions from Latin America, recovering their often undervalued insights for development thinking. Crucially, this engagement provides the critical framework to illustrate the aforementioned paradox and explore multiple dimensions of empowerment central for contemporary development thinking and practice. In this, the thesis engages Sen’s work with the Liberation Theology of Gustavo Gutierrez, with Paulo Freire’s Critical Pedagogy and with the contemporary discussions of ‘Buen Vivir’ associated with Indigenous philosophies of the Andean region. Throughout its chapters,it uncovers the conceptual baggage within the Paradox of Empowerment in Sen’s work and examines the ethical challenges and boundaries of this approach in relation to the collective dimension of development processes, the possibilities for structural transformation and concerns for sustainability. Progressively engaging the different dimensions of this paradox, this thesis advances the recovery of the transformative potential of the ideas of empowerment for development

Subalternity and counter-revolution: the social drivers of the Egyptian state transformation

Many scholarly works address extensively the causes of revolution, but surprisingly little work has been done to develop a theory on counter-revolution. Generally, counter-revolution has been understood simply as the failure of revolution; counter-revolution is rarely considered as a process in its own right. This thesis argues that counter-revolution is an important form of the transformation of state–societal relations that should be investigated in its own right, and not merely regarded as ‘failed revolution’ or as the restoration of the pre-revolutionary order. Between 2011 and 2013, Egypt experienced two uprisings. In 2011, the mass uprising led to the resignation of Mubarak and put his 30-year rule to an end, while in 2013 a second mass uprising allowed the military to take full control of the country. Therefore, Egypt provides an excellent example, and the opportunity for a better understanding, of counter-revolution. Revolutionary studies have failed to explain why the Egyptian revolution was so fragile. What was a promising start to the democratisation process, with free parliamentary and presidential elections, came to an abrupt end and remained misunderstood as counter-revolution. To address an important question regarding the study of the Egyptian counter-revolution, this thesis builds on the work of Antonio Gramsci, by reinterpreting its concept of subalternity – social groups who lack political power. This new interpretation of the concept of subalternity allows this thesis to argue that the Egyptian counter-revolution was not the result of a top-down restoration process due to the exclusion of civil society; rather, that it was the result of the shifting alliance between civil society groups and the military. This work aims to make a threefold contribution: (1) to establish a model that explains counter-revolution as the outcome of the open-ended revolutionary process depending on the interaction of the state transformation and the autonomy of civil society. I argue that the counter-revolution was the result of the power dynamics between the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the revolutionary movements. (2) To apply the concept of subalternity to the case of counter-revolutionary Egypt. This thesis identifies the main weaknesses that characterise the fragility of the revolutionary process. By comparing the strategies used by different social groups during the 2011 uprising, I seek to show that the strategy of cooperation used by the Muslim Brotherhood, while initially successful, failed to conquer political power because it excluded the confrontational strategy of revolutionary movements. (3) To reconsider state–society relations in Egypt. The post-coup state is not based on form of corporatism as was the case pre-2011; rather, Sisi’s regime attempts to allow a meaningful participation of social forces in the formation of the counter-revolution state. By looking at the social drivers of the counter-revolution in Egypt through the lens of subalternity, this thesis offers a better understanding of the relationship between structure and agency during counter-revolutions that could be applied beyond the case of Egyp