Jhoan garcia

This paper is concerned with the ancient discussion on privative negation (e.g., 'unjust') and infinite negation (e.g., 'not-just'). We formalize and compare the positions of Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias, of Proclus and Ammonius Hermiae, and of Porphyry (as presented by Boethius). Each of these formalizations takes the form of a logical system, which is intended to capture the main tenets of the position it formalizes. As an additional point of reference, we also discuss the system of contemporary, Boolean predicate logic. Our comparison focuses on the diagrams that each position gives rise to, and we show how our formalizations provide a unified and systematic perspective on these diagrams. In particular, we argue that the ancient discussion on privative and infinite negation can be understood through the lens of the so-called 'logic-sensitivity' of Aristotelian diagrams. © 2025 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Kant held that an agent can perform her moral duty only if she acts from a special incentive or motive, the sense of duty. Philosophers have objected to this, arguing that motives, intentions, and reasons are relevant in determining whether she acted well or evilly, virtuously or viciously, but not in determining whether she did her duty. Note that these arguments, if successful, would show not only that pace Kant, an agent can do her duty without acting from a sense of duty, but more strongly, that she can do it even though her action was wickedly motivated or done with evil intentions. This stronger conclusion is, I think, false and in this essay I want to examine and criticize several arguments put forward in defense of the view that duty and virtue are so divorced from each other that one can discharge one’s moral duty and do what is morally right with a vicious action.

Background: Current interventions to enhance patient self-efficacy, a key mediator of health behavior, have limited primary care application. Objective: To explore the effectiveness of an office-based intervention for training resident physicians to use self-efficacy-enhancing interviewing techniques. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Family medicine and internal medicine resident physicians at an academic medical center. Measurements: Resident use of SEE IT was coded from audio recordings of the physician-patient portion of two standardized patient instructor training visits and two unannounced post-training SP visits, all involving common physical and mental health conditions and behavior change issues. One post-training SP visit involved health conditions similar to those experienced in training, while the other involved new conditions. Results: Experimental group residents demonstrated significantly greater use of SEE IT than controls, starting after the first training visit and sustained through the final post-training visit. The mean effect of the intervention was significant [adjusted incidence rate ratio for increased use of SEE IT∈=∈1.94 ]. There were no significant effects of resident gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, training level, or SP health conditions. Conclusions: SP instructors can teach resident physicians to apply SEE IT during SP office visits, and the effects extend to health conditions beyond those used for training. Future studies should explore the effects of the intervention on practicing physicians, physician use of SEE IT during actual patient visits, and its influence on patient health behaviors and outcomes.