Lockean theories of personal identity maintain that we per-sist by virtue of psychological continuity, and most Lockeans say that we are material things coinciding with animals. Some animalists ar-gue that if persons and animals coincide, they must have the same intrinsic properties, including thinking, and, as a result, there are ‘too many thinkers’ associated with each human being. Further, Lockeans have trouble explaining how animals and persons can be numerically different and have different persistence conditions. For these reasons, the idea of a person being numerically distinct but coincident with an animal is rejected and animalists conclude that we simply are animals. However, animalists face a similar problem when confronted with the vagueness of composition. Animals are entities with vague boundaries. According to the linguistic account of vagueness, the vagueness of a term consists in there being a number of candidates for the denotatum of the vague term. It seems to imply that where we see an animal, there are, in fact, a lot of distinct but overlapping entities with basically the same intrinsic properties, including think-ing. As a result, the animalist must also posit ‘too many thinkers’ where we thought there was only one. This seems to imply that the animalist cannot accept the linguistic account of vagueness. In this paper the author argues that the animalist can accept the linguistic account of vagueness and retain her argument against Lockeanism.
In modern Hindi literature, the imagery of animals is usually employed in order to present an insight into the complexity of the human mind and human relations. A positive attitude towards useful animals is reflected; the motifs of animals are employed to depict cruel social inequalities. In particular, in the New Short Story, the imagery of an animal is mostly employed as a symbol; often as a symbol of something unpleasant or of a painful memory. In many texts, it is used to make people give serious thought to the possibility that things might appear differently from what they really are.
V reakci na recenzi své biografie českého historika Václava Chaloupeckého (1882-1951) Václav Chaloupecký: Hledání československých dějin (Praha, Karolinum 2014), kterou v minulém čísle tohoto časopisu publikovala Antonie Doležalová (Hledání Václava Chaloupeckého. In: Soudobé dějiny, roč. 23, č. 1-2, 2016, s. 211-216), se autor zamýšlí nad problémem figurace historiografického textu budovaného na materiálu primárních pramenů a v souvislosti s tím rovněž nad vnitrooborovou i širší recepcí současné české historiografie a nad mezemi i proměnami popularizace výsledků historického výzkumu., In response to a review of his biography of the Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký (1882-1951), Václav Chaloupecký: Hledání československých dějin (Prague: Karolinum, 2014), published in the previous issue of this journal (Antonie Doležalová, ''Hledání Václava Chalupeckého'', Soudobé dějiny, vol. 23 (2016), nos. 1-2, pp. 211-16), the author discusses the problem of composing a historical text built on primary sources and, in connection with that, the reception, both in the field and amongst the general public, of contemporary Czech historiography. He also considers the limits of, and changes in, the popularization of the results of historical research., Milan Ducháček., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy