The Introduction sets out the central question that this book aims to tackle: when, why, and how did we evolve the peculiar and paradoxical inclination for both war and peace that characterises our species? The book argues that the inclination for both intergroup coalitionary killing and peaceful cooperation have deep roots and that they co-evolved through a gradual, incremental trajectory over millions of years. This co-evolution unfolded in a mosaic-like pattern, with distinct but interacting components emerging at different moments and becoming integrated over evolutionary time.

This chapter contrasts the growing acceptance of anger and grief in political theory with the persistent, one-sided pathologization of fear. While anger and grief are now frequently defended as politically valuable, fear is still dismissed as a primitive, irrational force threatening public life. Rather than defend fear, however, I criticise a pervasive argument against it, which relies on two dubious claims: (1) neuroscientific findings supposedly prove fear is inherently destructive in politics and (2) entire groups are driven by fear. I dispute the first claim by drawing on the work of LeDoux to show that ‘fear’ in neuroscientific research often differs fundamentally from the subjective experience of fear that critics often target. I dispute the second by arguing that attributions of fear to social groups and populations frequently hinge on weak evidence, such as conflating perceived threat with the emotional state of fear. Finally, I argue that the fear of fear in political theory is harmful. It fuels unwarranted attributions of fear that oversimplify the complexities of political behaviour and risk compounding the marginalisation of socio-economically disadvantaged people.

Beyond Words has been an introduction to psycholinguistics, the study of language and the mind. This field merges linguistics and psychology, as its name suggests, but it’s much more complicated than that. Psycholinguistics is a multidisciplinary science that also combines insights from philosophy, cognitive science, and neuroscience, among other areas. To get more granular, there are the branches of study that fall under the umbrella of this field, including first language acquisition, second language acquisition, language comprehension and production, and what happens when this all goes wrong. At first, it is baffling to fathom how so many different branches could possibly belong to a single field. However, as the story unfolded it revealed how these pieces all fit together to help us understand the ways that we learn, use, and lose language.

Chapter 7 begins with Kornblith’s attempt to resurrect a teleology of the mind or intellect. I countenance his semantic, desire and pragmatic arguments, maintaining that none of them shows truth or true belief to be an objective good. By contrast, Aristotle’s idea that the intellect is constitutively directed at truth does show this (in virtue of the Aristotelian functionalist schema: i.e. all functions are correlated with perfections or goods). And Aristotle’s idea is corroborated not only by ‘folk’ and theoretical psychology, but also by cognitive science. For the latter is wedded to the notion that the brain is a cognitive system, functionally directed at cognition (viz. true belief). I go on to address three critiques of this intellectual teleology – those put forward by William James, evolutionary biology and global scepticism respectively – and argue that none of them is cogent. Next, I unpack two alternative accounts of the relation between truth and goodness – those of Ayer and Davidson – and maintain that they, too, fall short. Last, I tackle intellectual goods beyond true belief – such as knowledge and understanding – asking whether they or their objects form discernible hierarchies.

This article, titled “A Unified Understanding of the Human Mind - A Neuroethical Perspective,”examines the evolution of the concept of the human mind in Western thought and its integration with neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and relational dimensions. The author explores how the understanding of the mind has changed over time, influenced by shifts in philosophical paradigms, scientific advancements, and societal perspectives. The article traces the historical development of the mind’s concept, starting from ancient Greece, through influential thinkers like Plato and René Descartes, and progressing to contemporary perspectives. It highlights various philosophical and scientific approaches, including structuralism, functionalism, empiricism, and associationism, which have shaped our understanding of the mind. The article also delves into contemporary integration, where advancements in neuroimaging and the rise of holistic approaches offer a more nuanced understanding of the human mind. The author emphasizes the importance of the relational dimension and the interconnectedness of mental processes, the brain, and the external environment. This integrated perspective can benefit psychiatric treatment and psychological assessments by fostering a holistic approach to mental health. In conclusion, the article advocates for a multidimensional perspective that bridges subjective and objective aspects of human experience, offering promise for theoretical knowledge and practical applications in psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience.

This chapter provides multiple-choice questions designed to reinforce and expand your knowledge of basic neuroscience, including synaptic neurotransmission, chemical neurotransmission, receptors, ion channels, enzymes, and the relationship between genes, environment, and behavior.

Takes up another aspect of free will, the challenge of scientific determinism. I argue that Jewish tradition contains surprisingly many thinkers who either deny free will or (more commonly) greatly limit its scope, question its value, or embrace compatibilism (the thesis that free will and determinism are compatible). Some of what these thinkers say can be transferred to the challenge of determinism as it exists today.