Thomas Carlyle and Stoicism

Recent studies have pointed to the importance of Thomas Carlyle’s engagement with classical thought, especially Epicureanism and Cynicism. However, in these recent studies, Carlyle’s debts to Stoicism have received only passing attention. Previous scholars hardly considered the question at all, and those who did argued that Carlyle could never have accepted the passive withdrawal and indifference of the Stoics. By way of corrective, the current article offers a comprehensive account of Carlyle’s engagement with Stoicism, showing that he subscribed to an active interpretation of the latter that emphasized will, duty, and heroic action. Indeed, contemporaries were well aware of Carlyle’s debts to Stoicism, pointing out that his thought stood in stark contradiction to Christian doctrines of original sin. Thus, while Carlyle’s Stoicism was compatible with his hereditary Calvinism insofar as divine providence and duty were concerned, there was a significant contradiction regarding the question of sin. In this sense, Carlyle’s Stoicism made an important contribution to the ‘meliorist’ revolt against orthodox Christianity.

Myth and Reality: Pacifism’s Discourse on Violence Revisited

Pacifism is an active form of resistance, and therefore not to be criticised as a passive withdrawal from the world. The defining characteristic of pacifism, in both the institutional and the witness approach, is its categorical commitment to nonviolence. Therefore, pacifism’s discourse on violence deserves special attention. This article identifies incoherencies and developments in pacifism’s discourse on violence, which are due to the almost unbearable burden of thinking and acting categorically in a nonviolent manner. It furthermore identifies two presuppositions in pacifist thinking on the consequences of the use of violence which turn out to be rather myths than reality. It cannot be proven that violence always begets violence nor that violence cannot be tamed in military operations. Therefore, the belief of pacifism that peace can be brought about effectively only when refusing any kind of violent means turns out to be an irrational myth as well.

The Relationship Between Social Behavior and Severity of Language Impairment

The Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (C. H. Hart & C. C. Robinson, 1996) was used to compare the withdrawn and sociable behaviors of 41 children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 41 typically developing peers. Three subtypes of withdrawal (reticence, solitary-active, solitary-passive) and 2 subtypes of sociable behavior (prosocial, impulse control/likeability) were examined. Teachers rated children with SLI as exhibiting higher levels of reticence and solitary-passive withdrawal than typical children. Teachers also rated the children with SLI as demonstrating lower levels of both types of sociable behavior than typical children. The group with SLI was then separated into subgroups of children having more severe and less severe language impairment. These groupings did not differ on comparisons involving withdrawn behavior, except that girls with more severe receptive problems demonstrated higher levels of solitary-passive withdrawal than did girls with less severe language problems. Children with less severe receptive language impairment demonstrated higher levels of proficiency on both types of sociable behavior than their peers with more severe impairment. Children with more severe expressive problems also demonstrated poorer prosocial behavior—but not poorer impulse control/likeability—than children with less severe expressive problems. KEY WORDS : social skills, language impairment, socioemotional, withdrawal, social competence

Withdrawn and Sociable Behavior of Children With Language Impairment

This study examined the dimensions of withdrawal and sociability in children with language impairment (LI) and their typically developing chronological age-matched peers. Classroom teachers rated the withdrawn and sociable behaviors of 41 children with LI and 41 typically developing peers using the Teacher Behavioral Rating Scale (TBRS, Hart & Robinson, 1996). Children were sampled from the age ranges of 5 to 8 years and 10 to 13 years. Subtypes of both withdrawn (solitary-passive withdrawal, solitary-active withdrawal, reticence) and sociable (impulse control/likability, prosocial) behavior were examined. Teachers rated children with LI as displaying higher levels of reticent behavior than typically developing children. Teachers also rated boys with LI as displaying significantly higher levels of solitary-active withdrawal than girls with LI or typically developing children of either gender. The groups did not differ on solitary-passive withdrawal, although boys were rated higher than girls. In the dimension of sociable behavior, children with LI were rated significantly below typical peers on subtypes of impulse control/likability and prosocial behavior. The relationship between language impairment and withdrawn and sociable behavior is complex. Although language impairment is an important factor in social difficulty, the current results suggest that language impairment is not the sole factor leading to social problems in children with LI. Assessment and intervention procedures for children with language and social problems should take the complex nature of this relationship into account.

The central nervous system, neurohypophysis and milk ejection

Lactation may be divided into two main phases. First, milk secretion which consists of the synthesis of milk by the cells of the alveolar epithelium and the passage of the milk from the cytoplasm of these cells into the alveolar lumen. And secondly, milk removal from the mammary gland. A small part of the milk may be withdrawn from the mammary gland by suckling young in the absence of any active process on the part of the maternal animal, passive withdrawal ; but the greater part of the contained milk requires for its removal the participation of a neurohumoral reflex resulting in contraction of mammary tissue and thereby expulsion of contained milk. This active process is called milk ejection .