Heidegger on the way of thinking

This thesis attempts to clarify what Heidegger meant by the term "thinking" (Denken), where this ^'meanr is submitted in the double sense: firstly, in the sense of what Heidegger intended by the use and exposition of this term that we find in his lecture series. Was Heisst Denken?, where Heidegger quickly makes it clear that this intention is to actually bring thinking on the way, viz. making provision for the leap into thinking, and where this intention was carried out with the employment of a specific guiding phrase. In the second sense, it is an attempt at clarifying the meaning of the term. But this is not to say that we are here simply out to see how Heidegger defines the word '*thinking." It is in fact precisely within such definitive discourse that thought dies out. It is not merely be a case of defining a word, because this enterprise would be just as shallow as much as it would be unworkable. It is for this reason that Heidegger decided to establish for himself the task, not merely of explaining thinking as something to be beheld at a distance, but rather of bringing thinking underway by means of his lecture, proclaiming that, "Only the leap into the river tells us what is swimming. The question 'What is called thinking?' can never be answered by proposing a definition of the concept thinking, and then diligently explaining what is contained in that definition." (WCT, 21) This being Heidegger's intention, in order to understand Heidegger in his treatment of the term thinking, it is clear that we must also undergo an experience with thinking. It is in this spirit that the present work was written so as to collaborate the two senses of what Heidegger meant by "thinking."

Deinstitutionalization and community inclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities in Ontario : a case analysis

In the last few decades, there have been significant changes in the way people with intellectual disabilities (ID) live in many countries around the world. Large isolated institutions have been replaced by community-based housing. This study examined the deinstitutionalization process in Ontario and it's effects on the lives of three individuals with ID. A case analysis approach was used allowing for in depth evaluation of the quality of life of these participants following their discharge with a focus on family involvement, community engagement, and choice making. A discrepancy analysis between the Essential Elements Plan (EEP), constructed when they were entering the community placement, and the current living arrangements was also done. The results of this study suggested that with community living comes improvements in family interactions, community engagement, and decision-making. However, these improvements were found to be minimal. Also, little discrepancy was found between the EEPs and their actual placements.

Capacity to Attend to the Needs of Persons with Dual Diagnoses in the Criminal Justice System: Views of Mental Health and Criminal Justice Professionals

Currently, individuals with intellectual disabilities are overrepresented within the Criminal Justice System (Griffiths, Taillon-Wasmond & Smith, 2002). A primary problem within the Criminal Justice System is the lack of distinction between mental illness and intellectual disabilities within the Criminal Code. Due to this lack of distinction and the overall lack of identification procedures in the Criminal Justice System, individuals with disabilities will often not receive proper accommodations to enable them to play an equitable role in the justice system. There is increasing evidence that persons with intellectual disabilities are more likely than others to have their rights violated, not use court supports and accommodations as much as they should, and be subject to miscarriages of justice (Marinos, 2010). In this study, interviews were conducted with mental health (n=8) and criminal justice professionals (n=8) about how individuals with dual diagnosis are received in the Criminal Justice System. It was found that criminal justice professionals lack significant knowledge about dual diagnosis, including effective identification and therefore appropriate supports and accommodations. Justice professionals in particular were relatively ill-prepared in dealing effectively with this population. One finding to highlight is that there is misunderstanding between mental health professionals and justice professionals about who ought to take responsibility and accountability for this population.