On the Semiotic Position of ‘Potential Subject’

2020 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 49-70
Author(s):  
Tea-Mi Song
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 192-212
Author(s):  
Johan Liljestrand

The paper argues that Swedish preschool teachers tend to be depicted mainly as subjects for policy implementation when it comes to their mission to teach in preschool. Taking the perspective of inside-out-professionalism, the paper aims to make visible how preschool teachers have developed professional knowledge about teaching from within the preschool context. The methodology is based on content analysis of semi-structured interviews with ten experienced preschool teachers. Teaching is defined openly as a conscious arrangement for learning. Dewey’s notions of experience, environment and subject content further informed the interpretation of the results. Two main categories were discerned, both emphasising the experience and active participation of the child: identifying potential subject components in children’s experience, and arranging an environment in which the child becomes a part. Each main category further included two sub-categories. Thus the present issue of implementing teaching in preschool could gain from research on established preschool practice based on inside-out-professionalism and made visible through Dewey’s theorical lens.


1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-502
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Williams

It is argued that in spite of the methodological and interpretive problems with them, experiments on laterality in normal subjects must continue in view of other problems with direct neuroclinical investigations. A variety of such problems are listed, ranging from the relative paucity of the potential subject population to the difficulty in inferring normal function from damaged brains. The main justification for such studies must be the possible amelioration of the lot of brain-damaged patients and improvement of their treatment rather than scientific curiosity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 231-250
Author(s):  
Kateryna Nekit ◽  
Vira Tokareva ◽  
Volodymyr Zubar

The article analyzes the possibility to provide legal capacity to artificial intelligence, which would lead to the emergence of a new subject in legal relations. The aim of the article is to reveal whether it is possible to recognize, that artificial intelligence is able to have property and intellectual property rights. To achieve this aim, dialectical, comparative, dogmatic and legal methods are used. It is noted that according to recent studies, there are more and more grounds for recognizing artificial intelligence as subjects of legal relations. Particular attention in the article is paid to the specifics of the status of artificial intelligence in property relations. The consequences of empowering artificial intelligence with the right to property are analyzed. The conclusion is drawn on the appropriateness of such an approach, since this will solve the problem of liability for damage caused by artificial intelligence. The possibility of endowing artificial intelligence with property on the basis of trust before resolving the issue of its legal personality is proposed. Modern approaches to the problem of rights to objects of creativity created by artificial intelligence are considered in the article. The options for the distribution of rights to such objects are analyzed depending on the degree of human participation in their creation and on the level of complexity of the artificial intelligence that creates these objects. The general conclusion is made about the possibility to qualify artificial intelligence as a subject of legal relations, in particular, of property and intellectual property relations.


Author(s):  
Torstein Theodor Tollefsen

We have seen that the iconoclast council of 754 set forth an argument against the holy icons that St Theodore took very seriously. How is it possible to make a true image of the incarnate God? Christ united divine and human nature in Himself. One should expect then that an image would represent both these natures. However, we have seen that Theodore makes the rather obvious claim that it is not natures that are the subject of painting, it is the hypostasis. This, unfortunately, does not solve the problem, since the hypostasis of Christ is the hypostasis of the eternal Son of God, and this is obviously invisible. In order to solve this problem Theodore works out a Christological position of some complexity, the main elements of which are drawn from the tradition of Orthodox Christology. His purpose is to show that if Christ became a human being, He should assume and manifest a particularized humanity. Since that is what He did, He would also be a potential subject of painting. In fact, the painting of an icon of Christ is important, both as a witness to the Incarnation and as a means of contemplation. The last point is essential, since the icon gives access not only to the concrete humanity of Christ, but even creates a possibility for the human mind to ascend to God through contemplating the icon....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document