{"title":"Nachruf auf Friedrich Kambartel","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2022-0039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2022-0039","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42227347","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In which sense can human beings be conceived as social animals? To elucidate this question, the present paper (I) distinguishes the logical sociality of all living beings from the material sociality of social animals and the political sociality of self-conscious social animals. (II) The self-conscious political sociality that characterises the human genus-being requires a complex interplay of first and second person through which alone we can participate in our form of life and determine its content. (III) The human form of life thus constituted is characterised by a particularly open, and at the same time precarious, membership which involves specific forms of vulnerability and power. (IV) Against this background, forms of objective spirit are necessary which grant us a generalized recognition and relieve us from the contingency of each particular second-personal recognition, without abandoning the openness of the sociality of the human form of life. This double requirement has led to paradoxical institutions in modern society which strive to protect and ensure the sociality of the human form of life precisely by naturalising and individualising our access to it.
{"title":"Gattungswesen","authors":"T. Khurana","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2022-0023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2022-0023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In which sense can human beings be conceived as social animals? To elucidate this question, the present paper (I) distinguishes the logical sociality of all living beings from the material sociality of social animals and the political sociality of self-conscious social animals. (II) The self-conscious political sociality that characterises the human genus-being requires a complex interplay of first and second person through which alone we can participate in our form of life and determine its content. (III) The human form of life thus constituted is characterised by a particularly open, and at the same time precarious, membership which involves specific forms of vulnerability and power. (IV) Against this background, forms of objective spirit are necessary which grant us a generalized recognition and relieve us from the contingency of each particular second-personal recognition, without abandoning the openness of the sociality of the human form of life. This double requirement has led to paradoxical institutions in modern society which strive to protect and ensure the sociality of the human form of life precisely by naturalising and individualising our access to it.","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"70 1","pages":"373 - 399"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48744660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Von der Relevanz, den akademischen Elfenbeinturm zu verlassen","authors":"H. C. Hänel","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2022-0036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2022-0036","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"70 1","pages":"540 - 550"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48787829","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article traces and analyses the negative globality of pandemic fears. It follows them through literary texts, psychological theories of individual and collective fears as well as legal documents. Rather than treating fears as law’s other, notably pandemic fears are included in the controversial discussion on how law protects (or should protect) peoples’ freedom in a pandemic. In closing, the article presents different forms of fear defence and fear denial such as conspiracy myths.
{"title":"Negative Globalität der Angst","authors":"G. Frankenberg","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2022-0028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2022-0028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article traces and analyses the negative globality of pandemic fears. It follows them through literary texts, psychological theories of individual and collective fears as well as legal documents. Rather than treating fears as law’s other, notably pandemic fears are included in the controversial discussion on how law protects (or should protect) peoples’ freedom in a pandemic. In closing, the article presents different forms of fear defence and fear denial such as conspiracy myths.","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"70 1","pages":"457 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46130251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-12DOI: 10.1186/s13014-022-02058-7
Dominik Henzen, Daniel Schmidhalter, Gian Guyer, Anna Stenger-Weisser, Ekin Ermiş, Robert Poel, Moritz Caspar Deml, Michael Karl Fix, Peter Manser, Daniel Matthias Aebersold, Hossein Hemmatazad
Background and purpose: To assess the feasibility of postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with hybrid implants consisting of carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone and titanium (CFP-T) using CyberKnife.
Materials and methods: All essential steps within a radiation therapy (RT) workflow were evaluated. First, the contouring process of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) was done for patients with CFP-T implants. Second, after RT-planning, the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions was tested in a slab phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom using film dosimetry. As a third step, the accuracy of the mandatory image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) including automatic matching was assessed using the anthropomorphic phantom. For this goal, a standard quality assurance (QA) test was modified to carry out its IGRT part in presence of CFP-T implants.
Results: Using CFP-T implants, target volumes could precisely delineated. There was no need for compromising the contours to overcome artifact obstacles. Differences between measured and calculated dose values were below 11% for the slab phantom, and at least 95% of the voxels were within 5% dose difference. The comparisons for the anthropomorphic phantom showed a gamma-passing rate (5%, 1 mm) of at least 97%. Additionally the test results with and without CFP-T implants were comparable. No issues concerning the IGRT were detected. The modified machine QA test resulted in a targeting error of 0.71 mm, which corresponds to the results of the unmodified standard tests.
Conclusion: Dose calculation and delivery of postoperative spine SBRT is feasible in proximity of CFP-T implants using a CyberKnife system.
{"title":"Feasibility of postoperative spine stereotactic body radiation therapy in proximity of carbon and titanium hybrid implants using a robotic radiotherapy device.","authors":"Dominik Henzen, Daniel Schmidhalter, Gian Guyer, Anna Stenger-Weisser, Ekin Ermiş, Robert Poel, Moritz Caspar Deml, Michael Karl Fix, Peter Manser, Daniel Matthias Aebersold, Hossein Hemmatazad","doi":"10.1186/s13014-022-02058-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13014-022-02058-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>To assess the feasibility of postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with hybrid implants consisting of carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone and titanium (CFP-T) using CyberKnife.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All essential steps within a radiation therapy (RT) workflow were evaluated. First, the contouring process of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) was done for patients with CFP-T implants. Second, after RT-planning, the accuracy of the calculated dose distributions was tested in a slab phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom using film dosimetry. As a third step, the accuracy of the mandatory image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) including automatic matching was assessed using the anthropomorphic phantom. For this goal, a standard quality assurance (QA) test was modified to carry out its IGRT part in presence of CFP-T implants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using CFP-T implants, target volumes could precisely delineated. There was no need for compromising the contours to overcome artifact obstacles. Differences between measured and calculated dose values were below 11% for the slab phantom, and at least 95% of the voxels were within 5% dose difference. The comparisons for the anthropomorphic phantom showed a gamma-passing rate (5%, 1 mm) of at least 97%. Additionally the test results with and without CFP-T implants were comparable. No issues concerning the IGRT were detected. The modified machine QA test resulted in a targeting error of 0.71 mm, which corresponds to the results of the unmodified standard tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dose calculation and delivery of postoperative spine SBRT is feasible in proximity of CFP-T implants using a CyberKnife system.</p>","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"35 1","pages":"94"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9097088/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88932525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In this paper, the term “qualifying disqualification” is introduced to express an intersection of several different types of power that (in a Foucauldian terminology) are differentiated as disciplinary, sovereign, and biopolitical formations. The paper concurs with a viewpoint that has emerged in much post-Foucauldian scholarship that these should not be understood as replacing each other in a historically emerging, linear succession. The resulting question is how to interpret instances of their convergence and intersection – for example, are they best understood as mutually consolidating (as seen in some understandings of domination)? The paper points to the friction caused by a simultaneity of heterogeneous formations of power given that they are understood to “subjectivise” differently. In turn, different understandings and conducts of “capacity” and “qualification” correspond to those differences in addition to different techniques of inclusion, exclusion, and exception. “Qualifying disqualification” is proposed as a terminology to express this friction. The fields in which its implications are explored include critical race studies (particularly the work of Saidiya Hartman), “capacity”-based rights arguments, and new interpretations of power in the work of Foucault, particularly as theorised in his Collège de France lectures.
{"title":"Qualifizierende Disqualifizierung und ihre Umkehrungen","authors":"P. Deutscher","doi":"10.1515/dzph-2022-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dzph-2022-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, the term “qualifying disqualification” is introduced to express an intersection of several different types of power that (in a Foucauldian terminology) are differentiated as disciplinary, sovereign, and biopolitical formations. The paper concurs with a viewpoint that has emerged in much post-Foucauldian scholarship that these should not be understood as replacing each other in a historically emerging, linear succession. The resulting question is how to interpret instances of their convergence and intersection – for example, are they best understood as mutually consolidating (as seen in some understandings of domination)? The paper points to the friction caused by a simultaneity of heterogeneous formations of power given that they are understood to “subjectivise” differently. In turn, different understandings and conducts of “capacity” and “qualification” correspond to those differences in addition to different techniques of inclusion, exclusion, and exception. “Qualifying disqualification” is proposed as a terminology to express this friction. The fields in which its implications are explored include critical race studies (particularly the work of Saidiya Hartman), “capacity”-based rights arguments, and new interpretations of power in the work of Foucault, particularly as theorised in his Collège de France lectures.","PeriodicalId":54099,"journal":{"name":"DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"70 1","pages":"195 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46228626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：