Mark A. Peterson. Galileo's Muse: Renaissance Mathematics and the Arts. vi + 336 pp., illus., index. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2011. $28.95 (cloth).

Isis ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 837-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Valleriani
Author(s):  
William S.W. Lim

The author, a graduate of the Architectural Association (AA) London , with further studies at the Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University, USA , has since 1960 been professionally involved in architecture , planning and development economics , as principal architect at Malayan Architects Co-Partnership, Design Partnership (later renamed DP Architects) and until 2002, William Lim Associates. In addition to his role as Co-founder and Chairman of the Asian Urban Lab and President of AA Asia, Dr Lim was President of the Singapore Heritage Society and President of the Singapore Planning and Research Group (SPUR). Presently, he is Adjunct Professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), Australia - where he was conferred a Doctor of Architecture Honoris Causa - and Honorary Professor of La Salle-SIA College of the Arts (Singapore). Mr Lim is a member of the World Society for Ekistics. His numerous writings and lectures on a wide range of subjects relating to architecture, urbanism and culture in Asia as well as on current issues relating to the postmodern, "glocality" and social justice, are compiled in nine books, some of which have been translated into Japanese and Thai. Furthermore, he is co-author with Tan Hock-Beng of Contemporary Vernacular: Evoking Traditions in Asian Architecture (1997), co-editor of vol. 10, Southeast Asia (1999) of World Architecture: A Critical Mosaic 1 900-2000, and Editor of Postmodern Singapore (2002). 


2010 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. 171-187
Author(s):  
David E. Hansen ◽  
Robert J. P. Williams

Jeremy Randall Knowles was remarkable both as a celebrated organic biochemist and as a wise administrator, and throughout his career he retained a lasting love of music and the arts. He was for several years a tutorial Fellow of Wadham College and a lecturer in chemistry at the University of Oxford, 1962–74. In 1974 he left Oxford permanently for Harvard University to become Professor of Chemistry; in 1979 he was named the Amory Houghton Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry. To the surprise of many, he later gave up this chair to become the Dean of Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, a post he held with great distinction from 1991 to 2002. He returned to Harvard's University Hall again as Interim Dean from 2006 to 2007.


Erkenntnis ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiana Werner

Abstract Emotional responses to fiction are part of our experience with art and media. Some of these responses (“fictional emotions”) seem to be directed towards fictional entities—entities that we believe do not exist. Some philosophers argue that fictional emotions differ in nature from other emotional responses. (cf. Walton in J Philos 75(1):5–27, 1978, Mimesis as make-believe, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990, Walton, in: Hjort, Laver (ed.) Emotion and the arts, Oxford University, New York, 1997; Currie in The nature of fiction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990; Stecker in Br J Aesthet 51(3):295–308, 2011) The claim is supposed to be supported among others by ‘the argument from action.’ In contrast to genuine emotions, proponents of this argument claim, fictional emotions do not motivate their bearers to act. (cf. Yanal in Paradoxes of emotion and fiction, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, 1999; Lamarque in Br J Aesthet 21(4):291–304, 1981; Carroll in The philosophy of horror: or, paradoxes of the heart, Routledge, London, 1990; Currie 1990; Walton 1978, 1990; Suits in Pac Philos Q 87(3):369–386, 2006; Friend, in: Kind (ed.) The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination, Routledge, New York, 2016) This claim grounds in what may appear to be an obvious fact: that viewers and readers of are not led to act by their fictional emotions. It is certainly true that viewers and readers of fiction do not form intentions to perform actions directed towards fictional entities. In contrast to the proponents of the argument from action, I will argue that the lack of any such intentions can be explained only with reference to intending’s doxastic conditions, conditions that are unsatisfied in the fictional scenario. Decisively, this explanation does not refer to the motivational force of the agent’s emotions; indeed, it doesn’t refer to emotions at all. Thus, the lack of intentions to perform actions directed towards fictional objects provides no support for the claim that fictional emotions are no genuine emotions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document