Jonathan Edwards

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

The idea that individual nerve cells might have conscious experiences has been around ever since cells were identified in the seventeenth century, but in the era of modern neuroscience the case for individual human neuronal experience has received little attention. A series of arguments will be presented suggesting that all the human conscious experiences that we talk about are events in individual neurons, not global to the brain or organism. We conclude that cellular consciousness is the only plausible way to explain ‘our’ experiences within current physics and biology, however implausible it might at first seem. This implies that our experiences are multiple in space as well as time, consistent with the neuroscience watchword that there is ‘no single place where everything comes together in the brain’. The central argument is that events of experience must involve rich integration of information and individual neurons are the only places in brains where integration of information occurs. Any more global ‘binding’ is neither required nor physically possible. The detailed nature of events of integration of signals in a neuron’s dendrites remains uncertain but recent developments provide some candidates.

Jonathan Edwards is known as one of the most respected thinkers in American history and presided over the Great Awakening, one of the formative colonial events. What many don't realize is Edwards lived during a time of widespread conflict, which eventually touched the people of Northampton personally. Through these collected sermons, many of which are unpublished, Edwards sought to instruct, train, and comfort his congregation during a precarious season in provincial life. These sermons demonstrate the scope of Edwards's greatness: a global thinker intimately connected to the British Empire as well as shepherd of the Northampton flock. The first part of this collection presents the sermons Edwards preached while the theater of war centered on the continent and the Caribbean. During this phase, Edwards's sermons leveraged martial language to promote the burgeoning revivals. In 1744, war was transplanted to the colonies in which the Northampton congregation personally participated. After a short hiatus of international conflict, warfare spread throughout the colonies. While he served a frontier mission, Edwards prepared his Indian congregation for yet another season of war. These sermons present Edwards as theologian, historian, philosopher, but most importantly, as pastor.

Humanitarian aid workers typically reject the accolade of hero as both untrue and undesirable. Untrue when they claim not to be acting beyond the call of duty, and undesirable so far as celebrating heroism risks elevating “heroic” choices over safer, and perhaps wiser ones. However, this leaves unresolved a tension between the denial of heroism and a sense in which certain humanitarian acts really appear heroic. And, the concern that in rejecting the aspiration to heroism an opportunity is lost to inspire more and better humanitarian action. Having set out this problem in more detail in Part I, the argument in Part II will suggest that a virtue ethics approach to humanitarian moral obligations can make good sense of our intuitions concerning the role of heroism in humanitarian action. In Part III I will argue that at least “professional” humanitarians, instead of rejecting heroism, should aim to be heroes, in the sense of displaying a virtue of humanity in high-stakes contexts, because this is consistent with the aim of humanitarian action. Finally, some lingering problems of demandingness and motivation are considered.