P H I L O S O P H Y P A T H W A Y S ISSN 2043-0728
Issue number 62
13th July 2003
I. Anthony Ross at San Quentin
II. Pathways Schools in Sydney: two essays
III. Congress in Novosibirsk on Education and Science
I. ANTHONY ROSS AT SAN QUENTIN
May 9 2003
Dear Mr. Klempner,
I sent this material off several weeks ago but it was returned for more
postage. At any rate, I profoundly thank you for your indefatigable patience. I
can't even begin to describe the daily onslaught of distractions here, but
nonetheless prison contains the elements of both university and battlefield. It
is up to each individual to construct for themselves the sanctuary they choose
to live in. When I first arrived here over twenty years ago I knew I wanted to
study and learn how to think critically for myself, I just didn't know where to
begin. One of the very first books someone gave me was a small book about Plato.
I had no idea who Plato was, let alone what Greek philosophy was for that
matter. But I was interested. I was interested enough to ponder questions like,
'Where does space come from? What is beyond the darkness? is there really such a
being as God?' With no one to guide me in my investigations my enthusiasm
petered out, but not my interest, that was something which has always remained
constant. I look forward to our dialogue and will make every effort to not
allow so much time to elapse between essays.
F. Metaphysics 'The Ultimate Nature of Things' Essay Question 1, Units 1-3.
"What is metaphysics? Is there anything special about the methods of
metaphysics, or about its subject matter? Illustrate your answer with one
example of a metaphysical problem or controversy."
Metaphysics is the philosophical science that seeks to construct a 'unified
field theory' (if you will) of reality. Metaphysics undertakes the Herculean
task of defining a road map that transcends not only the limits of thinking,
but also the limits of the mundane world.
There is nothing particularly special about the methods of metaphysics;
negative dialectic, the reality principle, or rational argument, nor is there
anything uniquely special about it's subject matter; ultimate truth, an
immaterial soul, omniscient being, free will, etc. Both method and subject have
been speculated on and argued for centuries. Yet, what, is special about both
the discourse and methods of metaphysics is that each of them continues to
excite, challenge and frustrate the philosopher with the quest for the
'ultimate'. This mythic quest that metaphysics embodies never ceases to draw
the more curious mind to its endless shores just as it drew the philosopher
Thales. Now, that's special.
One of the oldest metaphysical arguments is the question of whether or not man
has free will or if his destiny and fate was prewritten in a celestial book
somewhere by a divine being long before humans came into existence. Does
mankind have free will?
This a very thought provoking and transcendent question, and for many religious
believers the answer is irrefutable. But let's examine this question
objectively. In theory, and in fact, if some divine being has predetermined the
upshot of your every action, yet invested you with a 'hypothetical' free will,
then it doesn't matter what choices you think you are making because you are in
truth being guided by behavioural determinism, or in this case, theological
determinism. St. Augustine emphasized: 'That though God foresees all events,
they don't happen because he knows they will.' This rationale and others like
it have been used throughout history to confront the contradiction in
predestination. The attempts of St. Augustine and others to reconcile God's
omniscience with man's free will is an attempt that falls in the face of the
fact that God's foreknowledge constitutes a pre-eminent threat to man's free
will. In his classic novel 'Crime and Punishment' Dostoyevsky treats the
consequence of free will unleashed in society, and at the same time attempts to
find a force to restrain the free will. This force is God. But God in turn poses
a contradiction as the pursuit of human happiness collides with the existing
social structure and everything is destroyed. God thus restrains the
destructive aspect of free will by destroying freedom.
What is clear is that some extraordinary leaps in logic must be made in order
to give mankind free will without any strings attached. For example, let's
bestow you with omnipotent and omniscient power. And let's say you predestined
a child to become a great musician, but while growing up the child suffers
several crippling accidents and becomes paralyzed. Instead of becoming a great
musician the child decides (out of physical necessity) to become an artist who
paints by sticking a paint brush between his teeth. Does this mean the child
has free will or that God rewrote the original predestination chapter of the
child? The idea of God changing what he'd already written, again nullifies free
will. For if we were like the characters in a fictional story who have no
control over their actions, save from what the author gives them, then we don't
possess the free will to alter the outcome of the story nor change it somewhere
in the middle, thus any free will the author gives us is imaginary. But on the
other hand once the novel has been published the story is fixed and the author
can't change the ending even if he comes to dislike it.
The doctrine of election and predestination sinks in its own quicksand. And if
we accept St. Aquinas position with respect to God's omnipotence: that God is
omnipotent not in the sense that he can do anything whatsoever, but rather he
can do anything that is possible, then the contradiction of free will remains
the same. As the eighteenth century American theologian Jonathan Edwards
stated: 'Foreknowledge does not cause things to happen, but it nonetheless
renders them certain, and therefore inevitable.' Consider the scenario of the
undercover cop who dresses dishevelly, acts like a drunk, and displays wads of
money to entice possible robbers. Does the cop eliminate the robber's free will
by his knowledge of human greed? Suppose the robber is being driven by the
forces of poverty and hunger, does such forces eliminate choice? The question
is more problematic when the concept of predestination is factored in.
Christians believe without doubt that God knows in advance every action (and
every sin of course) that man is going to commit. If this is so then we are
reduced to mere instinct not free will.
If the school of theological determinism is to stand without absurd
contradiction then it must accept the plausibility of God absent from the
choices man makes. Moreover, whenever we speak of the influence of God or a
divine being on man's behavior and actions we limit our understanding of the
relationship between the "I" and the 'ultimate'. Free will cannot be an
illusional dynamic. It must stand apart from the dictates of any other stream
of consciousness or intellect in order to work and be independent, yet at the
same time be congruent with the laws of science and nature.
Paul Edwards 'The Encyclopedia of Philosophy' Brooklyn College.
(c) Anthony Ross 2003
PO Box C-58000
San Quentin State Prison
San Quentin, California 94974
NOTE: Pathways student Anthony Ross has been a death row prisoner at San
Quentin State Prison for 22 years. Earlier this year, he lost a decision in the
State court and his case is now before a Federal judge.
II. PATHWAYS SCHOOLS IN SYDNEY: TWO ESSAYS
Pathways Schools started this year at Catherine McAuley High, a girl's Catholic
High school in Sydney. Our school year in Australia runs from February to
December. Pathways Schools is an initiative of the International Society for
Philosophers, Pathways to Philosophy and my own Philosophy in Schools practise
in Australia. We have 10 units that students work through month by month. The
units are adapted from Pathways to Philosophy program materials, especially for
High School students. It is run as a distance education programme and extra
curricula activity. Students have a free school hour per week to get together
or work in the library and are expected to put at least 4 hours of their own
time into the programme each week, school holidays excepted.
At Catherine McAuley we have twelve girls enrolled in the programme from years
8 to 10 (that is ages 14-16). Every month I go into the school and run a
Community of Inquiry session in the unit subject. We have a three-hour session
(with breaks) for which the students (to the envy of their friends) come out of
other classes (unless they have a test or something of the sort). The Community
of Inquiry is the particular Philosophy in Schools pedagogy that you will have
heard about if you are a regular reader of this newsletter. In a nut-shell, it
is low-key but influential means of facilitating a group which leads directly
to beneficial outcomes in analytical and intelligent thinking. This is the kind
of thinking crucial in all school subjects across the curriculum these days; one
reason why this pedagogy is important in school.
Outside the three hours of Community of Inquiry per month the girl's read for
their essay in the unit subject, they communicate with each other and can phone
or email me if they get stuck. My experience has been that they get on with it.
The programme makes for autonomous learning. Anyhow, students may ask anyone
they want for help with their work. Each month they have to produce a written
piece of work and we have two samples in this Philosophy Pathways newsletter,
both in answer to the Unit 4 essay question, 'Why be moral?'
In each Community of Inquiry session I give back the assignments that have been
emailed to me and which I have marked. We discuss these. The girls then come up
with a question intrinsic, in their view, to the next assignment for which
everyone is already studying. This question then forms the centre-piece of our
Community of Inquiry. These are vigourous discussions. Having the formal
context of the curriculum provided by Pathways Schools helps in moving the
discussion forward. This is a pilot program but my assessment is that it is
The two essays printed below are by Sophia Kolnar and Jessica Mohr. They are
Year 9 (14 yrs old) girls at Catherine McAuley High in Sydney.
If your school is interested in Pathways Schools you may contact Matthew Del
Nevo at: firstname.lastname@example.org
(c) Matthew Del Nevo 2003
Web site: http://www.sicetnon.com
Pathways for Schools Unit 4
Why be Moral?
By Jessica Mohr
Before answering the questions "Why be Moral?" we first need to know a little
about morality or ethics. Questions we have to ask are "What is morality or
ethics?", "What is right and wrong?" and "How do we make moral decisions?"
These are just some of the questions that are answered in this essay when we
look into the great world of ethics and morals.
Firstly "what are morals and ethics?" Morals are a set of rules passed to us
through social and religious experiences that serve to govern our independent
actions. Moral beliefs rest only on our sense of right and wrong. It is
important to note that morals only apply to individual action and consequence.
Ethics, however, apply to the actions of two or more people. Ethics are
meaningless unless applied in a social context. Ethics serve to define the
acceptable actions of the individual within the social structure. Ethics are
established through the consensus of many people and with the guidance of human
experience. With morality, ones behaviour is held to an ideal code of conduct.
Ethics, however, deals with an imperfect, but attainable set of practices. It
is left to the individual to take a decision that is moral, regardless of its
Another question we have to ask is "Where do morals come from?" When asked
about morality, many people respond like this: "Oh, that's all just a matter of
personal opinion anyway, right?" But if you look at the way in which moral
values actually work in our everyday lives, you'll see that this is not the
case. Personal intuitions are important, of course. But morality generally
comes into play when people interact with each other. This suggests that
morality is a system of "shared" values which "justify" actions. As such,
morality is about deciding on best courses of action in all situations. Moral
values are generally shared values. If we did not have any values in common, it
would be exceedingly difficult to agree on any one course of action. But since
there is often disagreement as to what is the right thing to do in any
situation, we can see that in fact, various values are shared to a greater or
lesser extent. On some values there will be nearly unanimous agreement. On
others, there may be considerable disagreement.
There are a number of moral values on which there is extremely wide agreement.
For example, all cultures that I know of place value on truth-telling, and
place strong restrictions on lying. As another example, all cultures of which I
am aware have rules against doing unnecessary harm to other people (although
they vary regarding what constitutes "unnecessary harm"). Other such shared
values include (among many others) loyalty, justice, and promise-keeping.
Of course, if everyone agreed on the importance of these values, there would be
no problem. However, even if we all agree on which values are important, we may
still disagree over the relative importance of the various values. For example,
you and I may both agree that telling the truth and avoiding harming others are
important. But which is more important, when these conflict? For example, if
faced with lying to protect someone's feelings, which value should take
priority? It is on questions like this that we are most likely to differ. Why
not just agree to differ, then? Well, as suggested above, morality is in some
sense social. As a result, we are going to need to justify our actions to each
The word "justification" is commonly used in two different senses, one positive
and the other negative. The negative sense is the one which is typically
accompanied by an accusation that the justifier is being insincere. It is in
this sense that fast-talkers are sometimes accused of being able to "justify"
anything and everything. This use is typified by statements like, "Justify your
behaviour however you want...it's still wrong!" It suggests that the "justifier"
is merely coming up with excuses for her behaviour, excuses that even she
doesn't believe. The positive sense of justification, on the other hand,
involves bringing others to see our actions as reasonable. In this sense, a
course of action is justified if there are better reasons in favour of it than
there are against it. Preferably, these reasons should be ones that other
people could agree are good ones. It is this sense of justification that is
important for morality. Moral justification, then, means showing that there are
more or better moral reasons weighing for a course of action than against it.
There probably is no generally correct answer to questions like, "Which is more
important, telling the truth or preventing harm?" A lot depends on context. In
some cases, it is probably more important to tell the truth. In others, it is
probably more important to prevent harm. A number of factors make up the
context, including factors of time and place, the type and nature of the
relationships involved other people's reasonable expectations, and the relevant
history of the situation. A standard example of a context in which it seems
right to lie is this: you are a citizen of Nazi Germany, 1940. You are hiding a
family of Jews in your attic. The German police come to your door and ask
whether you know the whereabouts of that particular family of Jews. This seems
a clear case in which preventing harm seems more important than telling the
A contrary case might be the following: Imagine that an acquaintance of yours
reveals that she has committed manslaughter and that she's very remorseful
about it. You are called into court to testify. You know that if you tell the
truth, she will go to jail (i.e. suffer a harm). The remorse she shows suggests
that she will never commit another crime if she is not sent to jail. Our
instincts probably tell us that you should nonetheless tell the truth in such a
case, even if it seems likely to do more literal harm than good. This decision
might be made on the grounds that truth telling is part of supporting a system
of justice that we think overall fair and very valuable.
To a large extent, morality is about relationships. Our rights and obligations
spring largely from the relationships which we have with people and
institutions. These include (among others) our relationships to our family,
friends, clients or patients, our students, our workplace, our profession, our
religious or cultural traditions, our fellow citizens, and our nation. These
relationships can give us important moral reasons for certain kinds of actions.
For example, your relationship with certain children -- your own children --
means that you have moral duties to them (namely to feed, clothe, and nurture
them) that you don't have to other people's children. Another example might be
the obligations one has to other members of one's professional group. It is
important in this respect to think not just of the fact that a given
relationship exists, but also about the nature and history of that
relationship, and about the legitimate moral expectations that go along with it.
Another question we have to ask is "What is right and what is wrong?" The
world, as we know, is full of wrongdoing. Crime, family violence, drug abuse,
employee fraud -- each of these problems represents a collection of individual
acts of wrong. And each individual wrong begins with someone's decision to do
something other than right. Typically, we think of wrong in three ways:
Violation of the law. It is wrong, we say, to pass a stopped school bus, take a
candy bar without paying the shopkeeper, cut trees on your neighbour's property,
or toss an empty soda bottle into the road. More significant, it is wrong to
bribe public officials, refuse to pay the rent, pass bad checks, or beat your
spouse. These kinds of wrongdoing involve failures of compliance with clearly
Departure from the truth. We also use wrong to describe that which does not
reflect known facts. So is saying you are sick when you are not, asserting that
someone else is responsible for a mess when you made it, or claiming you did not
hear about a required assignment when you did.
Deviation from generally accepted moral standards. Suppose I do not get around
to feeding my dog today. Suppose I decide not to stay in line at the movie
theatre and move up to the front where a friend of mine already has a place.
Suppose I promise to meet you at noon, but decide to lunch with someone else
and do not bother to call you. If we have even the most basic concept of duty,
we will probably see these as lapses of ethics.
These things are wrong not because they violate law or fail to agree with fact,
but because they go against the moral grain -- against core values widely shared
and broadly understood, at least for our place and time. Usually, in assessing
whether an individual is doing right or wrong, we seek answers to two
questions: How well developed is the individual's sense of ethical values? Does
this person's actions conform to those values? When the answer to either
question is not much! We can be reasonably sure that some kind of action we
would call "wrong" is in the offing.
The final question we have to ask before answering the main one is "How do I
make moral decisions?" There is no formula for moral decision making. It is not
a process which can easily be based on a determinate set of rules. It is also
important to see that good moral decision making involves more than just acting
on hunches or intuitions, though these, too, are important. Good moral decision
making involves knowing the facts of the situation, and careful consideration
of the moral values that are relevant to a given situation. Importantly, it
involves sensitivity to the moral dimensions of everyday situations, and an
awareness of the range of interests involved in specific decisions.
Any attempt to make a good decision has to begin with getting the facts of the
situation straight. In some cases which seem at first quite difficult,
additional facts are enough to make the correct course of action apparent. If,
for example, we wish to decide how much of our forests should be cut down now,
and how much left for future generations, we need first to establish some facts
about the rate at which forests regenerate. These facts might be ascertained
through science, or just through the experiences of people who have observed
forests over long periods of time.
The primary skill involved in making good moral decisions is sensitivity to the
moral issues involved in so many of our everyday activities. Quite often we may
act in a morally questionable manner just because we were insensitive to the
moral nature of the situation. Of course, sometimes we may do the right thing
just by instinct, without reflecting at all on what we are doing. For any
number of trivial decisions, this is entirely appropriate. For example, most of
us do not require intensive moral deliberation to avoid lying in most cases. But
that is not always the case. Often, making the right decision requires a real
sensitivity to the moral dimension of a situation, as well as to the range of
As was suggested above, moral issues surround us all the time. Many decisions
we make have moral importance: often, it's just a matter of recognizing that
fact. This is crucial, since the first step in problem solving is always
identifying the problem.
Sometimes, due to the technical nature of a problem, we fail to recognise that
it also has a moral dimension. We may think that the decision can be made based
on purely technical criteria, and therefore we may be blind to the moral
significance of the situation. It is crucial to be sensitive to the fact that
many technical questions have important moral components. The decision of which
medicine to prescribe for a particular condition, for example, involves making
not just a technical decision about efficacy, but also a value judgment
concerning the relative acceptability of various side effects and various risks.
Sometimes the moral importance of a situation may also be covered up by
statements like, "There's nothing immoral about it: it's just a matter of
economics." As suggested above, the morally best course of action in any
situation takes matters of economics and technical appropriateness into
account, but is not overridden by these.
Once a problem has been identified as having moral importance, the first and
perhaps most important step in resolving the problem lies in identifying the
range of considerations which should be taken into account. This includes an
awareness of the various parties who will be affected by the decision taken,
sensitivity to the range of values or principles which might be applied to the
question at hand, as well as sensitivity to other contextual or historical
factors which might justifiably influence the decision. Sometimes, just laying
all of these factors out explicitly can help to define or clarify the issue.
Finally we get to our final question, "Why should one be moral?" Even if I am
aware of basic moral standards, such as don't kill and don't steal, this does
not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them.
Some answers to the question "Why be moral?" are to avoid punishment, to gain
praise, to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society. Moral
psychology looks beneath the surface of these answers and attempts to identify
the internal psychological factors that are ultimately responsible for moral
motivation. Four especially noteworthy areas of moral psychology are practical
wisdom, our sense of right and wrong, the second area of moral psychology
concerns the inherent selfishness of humans, even if an action seems selfless,
such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as
experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism;
the third area which is closely related to psychological egoism is a view called
psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the driving force
behind all of our actions and the fourth area is psychological altruism and
maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive
The point of this essay was not only to tell people why they should be moral
but also what it involves being moral. Morality is such a big part of our
society and for us to really understand what it is meant when we say we are
moral or he is wrong and she is right we need to understand why we think that
she is right and not him by making moral decisions.
(c) Jessica Mohr 2003
Pathways for Schools Unit 4
Why be moral?
by Sophia Kolnar
Firstly we must have an understanding of what morality is and how it is
relevant to our lives. According to a defined termed, moral means "pertaining
to or concerned with right conduct of the distinction between right and wrong".
To be moral is to choose the right decision and act upon it. Why should we what
is supposedly right?
There are several reasons to why we as humans proceed to go off (most of the
time) on moral values.
the majority of people use morals in their lives because of emotional
attachment. Society has been structured in a way, which determines what is good
and what is bad and has laid down laws/rules for people to follow. But sometimes
to stick by these rules would be asking everyone to live in a world of black and
white (clear hard fact) and its quite obvious that humans cannot always live by
these conditions. Color and unpredictable circumstances surround us. We are not
anonymous robots lead in a solid (yet empty) system. Morals are not always
rules. Certain situations prevail where rules must be broken and then it comes
down to moral judgement. Now I'm not suggesting that it is ok to go out and
break the law. Certain rules have been put in place as our guide to establish
order, so that we can form common grounds and work together. However evaluate
this scenario: a family of 5 borrowed x amount of money from the bank so that
they could buy a house. They agreed to pay it back through monthly installments
and were bounded by a contract. But in an unfortunate incident, the father/
husband dies and he was the only source of income for the family. Now there is
a widower with 3 children, no job no money and bills to pay. By the terms of
the contact the family should have been forced to move out seeing as they
couldn't repay the money. But would have this been right on the banks behalf to
make a struggling family be turned out of their home over the necessity of money
being paid in a certain time? Usually no, the bank will give leeway by offering
more time or create a different situation for the family to live by. Why be
moral is this instance? Because we as human beings have emotions and common
sense to be able to determine the importance of values in certain things. (We
aren't cold hard creatures who don't care or enjoy the pain of others in
hardship) balancing out the issues of a situation is a key aspect in being
moral because it helps is determine how and why should do what's right.
Another significant reason people act moral is because we have been molded into
thinking that it is right to do what is right. (And too often we have
experienced the consequences of not acting correctly) as a young child we are
open to the world and it's the principle of the ideas our parents give us,
which shape our prospect on life. Example: if a child hits another child the
parent will take the child away and say no, to do that is wrong, do not do it
again. Hopefully, the child will learn from this experience and choose the
right decision for next time.
One could think but, why do you care if you do what's right? Surely you often
feel like doing things that are right for you, who cares if it doesn't fit into
somebody else's agenda or you don't do what somebody wants you to do. In this
instance you could be labeled as a rebel against society. Key word: society.
Society holds down expectations on the way we are suppose to act and holds a
discriminating attitude against the "different" who are out of order. Although
this attitude can be wrong at times, as it can include racism or sexist people,
it does force a lot of people to act properly. Expectations held by other people
can be very influential. Nobody wants to be the person who does something wrong
and lives in a community where rumors are constantly spread and you are treated
like an outlaw, as an individual you would begin to develop a paranoid nature.
People also tend to act moral to impress people and give off a good image. This
is also another very society based pressure, but the more you meet the demands
of the people the more respected and liked you are. Look at it like this: If
you had to choose to be like one of these two people:
A) Exceptional Eddy, who (in a stereotypical view) goes to church, holds down a
good job, spends his time with the homeless, gives away his money, always does
the right thing etc.
B) Rebellious Ron who spends his time on the dole, doesn't compile to the
rules, had a criminal record for various crimes, sticks to the liquor and tends
to choose the greater evil in life
I'm sure you would choose to be Eddy because you would be respected, welcomed
and excepted by many more people.
To be moral is a choice that comes down to the individual in the end and the
reason why many conflicts arise is because the types of values we place in
morals can be different to somebody else's, such as cultures. We can't say that
our culture is better then anyone else's either because we aren't a position to
make that decision. Who said that being good is the right thing? However,
although we have different races, we are humans and should remember that we are
still united in many things.
Our morals are driven by societies needs but also personal needs. We can't deny
the feeling of guilt we acquire when we have done something wrong. We do not
wish to hurt other people. We want to live in the best situation possible and
make decisions, which hopefully will better our outcomes. Why be moral? Why
choose to do the correct decision? Because we all depend on each other and what
we do effects others and if we can work as a whole by doing the right thing then
hopefully we can create harmony and maybe one day peace.
(c) Sophia Kolnar 2003
III. CONGRESS IN NOVOSIBIRSK ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
Education and Science for XXI Century:
Problems of Integration and Legal Regulation
Organizers of the Congress:
- Philosophy of Education Scientific Research Institute of Novosibirsk State
Pedagogical University (Ministry of Education of Russian Federation)
- Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
- The Institute of Philosophy and Law of SB RAS
Aims and tasks of the Congress:
- Definition of the basic principles of formation of state policy in the field
of integration of scientific-educational potential oriented on formation of the
open society outlook and entering the world educational space.
- Creation of the new conception of education, working out the legal basis of
construction of the modern state system of upbringing, education, enlightenment
of Russian population.
- Search of the ways to optimize the role of science and education in solution
of global problems and provision of the sustained social development;
transformation of civilization value system and problems of education and
- Study of the existing progressive technologies of science and education,
their methodological and conceptual synthesis.
Concrete directions of the Congress work
- Science and education: problems and perspectives of integral development.
Scientific technologies on the threshold of the XXI century.
- National and regional strategies of science and education development.
Scientific and educational potential of Siberia and the North: problems of
preservation and revival.
- Legal problems of administrating and organization in science and education at
the present stage.
- Scientific and educational theoretical approaches in developing the
- Conception of school of the XXI century. New technologies of ecological
education and upbringing. Education as the spiritual basis of the social life.
- Cultural-ethnic value technologies in the strategy of educational process.
- Nations health: enlightenment, education and upbringing. Family's role on the
threshold of the third millennium. The problem of child neglect and crimes and
the ways to solve it.
Terms of the Congress:
21-25 November 2003
Duration of the Congress - 4 days
Schedule of the Congress:
1st day: Registration the participants
2nd day: Plenary Meeting. Discussions.
3rd day: Sections and Round tables.
4th day: Closing Plenary meeting. Discussion and admission of the final
documents of the Congress.
Materials of the Congress:
The publication of the Congress papers is planned. Papers are taken until the
15th of July 2003, 1000 words in the printed and electronic form (diskette
3.5). Word processor Word 7.0 (2000). Font Times New Roman 12. Indentation 2.5
cm from all sides. Interval 1.0. Texts are without tables and graphs. Footnotes
are entered by the common numeral in square brackets and are numbered in the
order of their introduction to the text; footnote list at the end of the paper.
Nina V. Nalivaiko
Scientific Research Institute of Philosophy of Education
(Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University)
Ul. Viluyiskaya, 28
Web-site of the Congress:
7 (3832) 301206;
7 (3832) 680731
7 (3832) 301206;
7 (3832) 681161
Co-Chairman of the Organizing Committee:
Nina V. Nalivaiko
Philosophy Pathways is the electronic newsletter for the
Pathways to Philosophy distance learning program
To subscribe or cancel your subscription please email your
request to email@example.com
The views expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily
reflect those of the editor. Contributions, suggestions or
comments should be addressed to firstname.lastname@example.org