Eleonora Mingarelli

Parental burnout is an increasingly common phenomenon in Western countries, affecting not only parents with extra-ordinary familial situations (e.g., a child with handicap), but also ‘regular’ parents confronted with the ordinary challenges of parenthood. The question then rises as why is parents’ everyday life perceived as so peculiarly stressful? One hypothesis that is explored in this paper is that the widespread regime of intensive parenting in the West offers misleading images of what everyday life for parents should look like. By analyzing two exemplary cases, namely momfluencers and government parental advice in Flanders, the article presents two types of representation of daily parental life: one that glorifies the everyday (i.e., perfect blog post of instamums) and one that charges daily moments with educational power (i.e., parental advice’s emphasis on daily activities as learning opportunities). From the analysis above, four core traits of ‘intense’ representations of everyday life can be found: novelty, excitement, filling time, and usefulness. The article reflects on these characteristics and for each trait formulates a counter-narrative which preserves the ordinariness of everyday life, without either glorifying it or concealing it. The goal then is to sketch an alternative framework to conceptualize parental everyday life without masking its more ordinary and banal character, a framework that might also be more attuned with parents’ lived experiences.

Das Problem des Einen und der Vielen ist eines der ältesten in der Geschichte der Philosophie und befasst sich mit dem endgültigen Status der Realität: Ist die Realität homogen (d. h. eine Einheit) oder ist sie vielfältig (d. h. eine Vielzahl)? Besteht die Welt aus einem Wesen oder aus einer Vielzahl von Wesen? Schon im antiken Griechenland wurden beide Optionen, als ausschließlich oder zumindest als in scharfem Gegensatz zueinanderstehend betrachtet: Entweder ist die Wirklichkeit eins oder sie ist vielfältig. Für Parmenides ist das Sein eins, ewig, unverändert und unwandelbar. Für Platon ist das Eine „über den vielen“ – um den Ausdruck des Aristoteles zu verwenden. Aristoteles klassifiziert Eigenschaften und Substanzen, um zu verstehen, wie Individuen aus vielen generiert werden können (siehe Matthews/Cohen 1968). In Plotins Enologie ist das Eine dasjenige, von dem das Viele ausgeht. Im weiteren Verlauf der Geschichte der Philosophie bleiben das Eine und das Viele meist unwiderruflich getrennt.

In this paper, I will provide both a historical and a theoretical perspective through which I will analyse the conceptual affinities between the TAT and process philosophy, arguing that the TAT is in fact built on process principles. I will first elucidate the type of personality test the TAT is, and then will briefly sketch the historical relation between Murray, Morgan and Whitehead. Finally, I will explicate the relevant points of contact between the TAT and the process framework, paying attention to specific aspects of the test that suggest the influence of Whitehead’s process philosophy on its genesis.

The chora is one of the most perplexing as well as neglected concepts in Whitehead's metaphysics. Explicitly drawing on Plato's Receptacle, Whitehead reinterprets the chora as the place, in between physics and metaphysics, where connections among actual entities happen. However, the relation between Whitehead's and Plato's choral remains widely unexplored. This article aims to correct this oversight By comparing the two philosophers, I intend to argue that, differences aside, the two philosophers adopted the chora to answer the common question as to how things can be identified in the flux of events. In this way, I hope not only to clarify the obscure role of the chora in Whitehead's metaphysics and its relation to Plato, but also to explore the complex process of identification