Emotions in International Politics. Beyond Mainstream International Relations

In recent years, social scientists have increasingly recognized the interconnectedness of thought on emotions. Nowhere is the role of passions more evident than international politics, where pride, anger, guilt, fear, empathy, and other feelings are routinely on display. But in the absence of an overarching theory of emotions, how can we understand their role at the international level? Emotions in International Politics fills the need for theoretical tools in the new and rapidly growing subfield of international relations. Eminent scholars from a range of disciplines consider how emotions can be investigated from an international perspective involving collective players, drawing evidence from such emotionally fraught events as the Rwandan genocide, World War II, the 9/11 attacks, and the Iranian nuclear standoff. The path-breaking research collected in Emotions in International Politics will be a valuable theoretical guide to understanding conflict and cooperation in international relations.

Parts, places, and perspectives : a theory of spatial relations based an mereotopology and convexity

This thesis suggests to carry on the philosophical work begun in Casati's and Varzi's seminal book Parts and Places, by extending their general reflections on the basic formal structure of spatial representation beyond mereotopology and absolute location to the question of perspectives and perspective-dependent spatial relations. We show how, on the basis of a conceptual analysis of such notions as perspective and direction, a mereotopological theory with convexity can express perspectival spatial relations in a strictly qualitative framework. We start by introducing a particular mereotopological theory, AKGEMT, and argue that it constitutes an adequate core for a theory of spatial relations. Two features of AKGEMT are of particular importance: AKGEMT is an extensional mereotopology, implying that sameness of proper parts is a sufficient and necessary condition for identity, and it allows for (lower- dimensional) boundary elements in its domain of quantification. We then discuss an extension of AKGEMT, AKGEMTS, which results from the addition of a binary segment operator whose interpretation is that of a straight line segment between mereotopological points. Based on existing axiom systems in standard point-set topology, we propose an axiomatic characterisation of the segment operator and show that it is strong enough to sustain complex properties of a convexity predicate and a convex hull operator. We compare our segment-based characterisation of the convex hull to Cohn et al.'s axioms for the convex hull operator, arguing that our notion of convexity is significantly stronger. The discussion of AKGEMTS defines the background theory of spatial representation on which the developments in the second part of this thesis are built. The second part deals with perspectival spatial relations in two-dimensional space, i.e., such relations as those expressed by 'in front of, 'behind', 'to the left/right of, etc., and develops a qualitative formalism for perspectival relations within the framework of AKGEMTS. Two main claims are defended in part 2: That perspectival relations in two-dimensional space are four- place relations of the kind R(x, y, z, w), to be read as x is i?-related to y as z looks at w; and that these four-place structures can be satisfactorily expressed within the qualitative theory AKGEMTS. To defend these two claims, we start by arguing for a unified account of perspectival relations, thus rejecting the traditional distinction between 'relative' and 'intrinsic' perspectival relations. We present a formal theory of perspectival relations in the framework of AKGEMTS, deploying the idea that perspectival relations in two-dimensional space are four-place relations, having a locational and a perspectival part and show how this four-place structure leads to a unified framework of perspectival relations. Finally, we present a philosophical motivation to the idea that perspectival relations are four-place, cashing out the thesis that perspectives are vectorial properties and argue that vectorial properties are relations between spatial entities. Using Fine's notion of "qua objects" for an analysis of points of view, we show at last how our four-place approach to perspectival relations compares to more traditional understandings.

Theory of mind tasks and executive functions: A systematic review of group studies in neurology.

A growing number of studies have been addressing the relationship between theory of mind (TOM) and executive functions (EF) in patients with acquired neurological pathology. In order to provide a global overview on the main findings, we conducted a systematic review on group studies where we aimed to (1) evaluate the patterns of impaired and preserved abilities of both TOM and EF in groups of patients with acquired neurological pathology and (2) investigate the existence of particular relations between different EF domains and TOM tasks. The search was conducted in Pubmed/Medline. A total of 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. We considered for analysis classical clinically accepted TOM tasks (first- and second-order false belief stories, the Faux Pas test, Happe's stories, the Mind in the Eyes task, and Cartoon's tasks) and EF domains (updating, shifting, inhibition, and access). The review suggests that (1) EF and TOM appear tightly associated. However, the few dissociations observed suggest they cannot be reduced to a single function; (2) no executive subprocess could be specifically associated with TOM performances; (3) the first-order false belief task and the Happe's story task seem to be less sensitive to neurological pathologies and less associated to EF. Even though the analysis of the reviewed studies demonstrates a close relationship between TOM and EF in patients with acquired neurological pathology, the nature of this relationship must be further investigated. Studies investigating ecological consequences of TOM and EF deficits, and intervention researches may bring further contributions to this question.

A test of Jessor's problem behavior theory in a Eurasian and a Western European developmental context.

PURPOSE: The current study tested the applicability of Jessor's problem behavior theory (PBT) in national probability samples from Georgia and Switzerland. Comparisons focused on (1) the applicability of the problem behavior syndrome (PBS) in both developmental contexts, and (2) on the applicability of employing a set of theory-driven risk and protective factors in the prediction of problem behaviors. METHODS: School-based questionnaire data were collected from n = 18,239 adolescents in Georgia (n = 9499) and Switzerland (n = 8740) following the same protocol. Participants rated five measures of problem behaviors (alcohol and drug use, problems because of alcohol and drug use, and deviance), three risk factors (future uncertainty, depression, and stress), and three protective factors (family, peer, and school attachment). Final study samples included n = 9043 Georgian youth (mean age = 15.57; 58.8% females) and n = 8348 Swiss youth (mean age = 17.95; 48.5% females). Data analyses were completed using structural equation modeling, path analyses, and post hoc z-tests for comparisons of regression coefficients. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the PBS replicated in both samples, and that theory-driven risk and protective factors accounted for 13% and 10% in Georgian and Swiss samples, respectively in the PBS, net the effects by demographic variables. Follow-up z-tests provided evidence of some differences in the magnitude, but not direction, in five of six individual paths by country. CONCLUSION: PBT and the PBS find empirical support in these Eurasian and Western European samples; thus, Jessor's theory holds value and promise in understanding the etiology of adolescent problem behaviors outside of the United States.

Debating the centre : the theory of principal qualificand (mukhyavisesya) in classical Indian philosophy

The theory of language has occupied a special place in the history of Indian thought. Indian philosophers give particular attention to the analysis of the cognition obtained from language, known under the generic name of śābdabodha. This term is used to denote, among other things, the cognition episode of the hearer, the content of which is described in the form of a paraphrase of a sentence represented as a hierarchical structure. Philosophers submit the meaning of the component items of a sentence and their relationship to a thorough examination, and represent the content of the resulting cognition as a paraphrase centred on a meaning element, that is taken as principal qualificand (mukhyaviśesya) which is qualified by the other meaning elements. This analysis is the object of continuous debate over a period of more than a thousand years between the philosophers of the schools of Mimāmsā, Nyāya (mainly in its Navya form) and Vyākarana. While these philosophers are in complete agreement on the idea that the cognition of sentence meaning has a hierarchical structure and share the concept of a single principal qualificand (qualified by other meaning elements), they strongly disagree on the question which meaning element has this role and by which morphological item it is expressed. This disagreement is the central point of their debate and gives rise to competing versions of this theory. The Mïmāmsakas argue that the principal qualificand is what they call bhāvanā ̒bringing into being̒, ̒efficient force̒ or ̒productive operation̒, expressed by the verbal affix, and distinct from the specific procedures signified by the verbal root; the Naiyāyikas generally take it to be the meaning of the word with the first case ending, while the Vaiyākaranas take it to be the operation expressed by the verbal root. All the participants rely on the Pāninian grammar, insofar as the Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas do not compose a new grammar of Sanskrit, but use different interpretive strategies in order to justify their views, that are often in overt contradiction with the interpretation of the Pāninian rules accepted by the Vaiyākaranas. In each of the three positions, weakness in one area is compensated by strength in another, and the cumulative force of the total argumentation shows that no position can be declared as correct or overall superior to the others. This book is an attempt to understand this debate, and to show that, to make full sense of the irreconcilable positions of the three schools, one must go beyond linguistic factors and consider the very beginnings of each school's concern with the issue under scrutiny. The texts, and particularly the late texts of each school present very complex versions of the theory, yet the key to understanding why these positions remain irreconcilable seems to lie elsewhere, this in spite of extensive argumentation involving a great deal of linguistic and logical technicalities. Historically, this theory arises in Mimāmsā (with Sabara and Kumārila), then in Nyāya (with Udayana), in a doctrinal and theological context, as a byproduct of the debate over Vedic authority. The Navya-Vaiyākaranas enter this debate last (with Bhattoji Dïksita and Kaunda Bhatta), with the declared aim of refuting the arguments of the Mïmāmsakas and Naiyāyikas by bringing to light the shortcomings in their understanding of Pāninian grammar. The central argument has focused on the capacity of the initial contexts, with the network of issues to which the principal qualificand theory is connected, to render intelligible the presuppositions and aims behind the complex linguistic justification of the classical and late stages of this debate. Reading the debate in this light not only reveals the rationality and internal coherence of each position beyond the linguistic arguments, but makes it possible to understand why the thinkers of the three schools have continued to hold on to three mutually exclusive positions. They are defending not only their version of the principal qualificand theory, but (though not openly acknowledged) the entire network of arguments, linguistic and/or extra-linguistic, to which this theory is connected, as well as the presuppositions and aims underlying these arguments.