Search Results

1 - 10 of 346 items :

  • "friendship" x
Clear All

References Annas, Julia. 1977. Plato and Aristotle on friendship and altruism. Mind 86: 532–54. Biletzki, Anat; and Matar, Anat. 2018. Ludwig Wittgenstein. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/wittgenstein/ >. Cocking, Dean; and Kennett, Jeanette. 1998. Friendship and the self. Ethics 108: 502–27. Cocking, Dean; and Kennett, Jeanette. 2000. Friendship and moral danger. Journal of Philosophy 97: 278–96. Cooper, John Madison. 1980. Aristotle on

References Annas, Julia. 1977. Plato and Aristotle on friendship and altruism. Mind 86(344): 532–54. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics . Translated by Joe Sachs. Hackett Publishing Company, 2009. Aristotle. The Eudemian Ethics . Translated by Peter L. P. Simpson. Transaction Publishers, 2013. Badhwar, Neera Kapur. 1987. Friends as ends in themselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48(1): 1–23. Badhwar, Neera Kapur. 1993. Friendship: A Philosophical Reader . Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Cooper, John. 1980. Aristotle on friendship. In

. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bauminger, Nirit, Ricky Finzi-Dottan, Sagit Chason, and Dov Har-Even. 2008. “Intimacy in Adolescent Friendship: The Roles of Attachment, Coherence, and Self-disclosure.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25 (3), pp. 409-428. Berscheid, Ellen, Mark Snyder, and Allen M. Omoto. 1989. “The Relationship Closeness Inventory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5), pp. 792-807. Brunell, Amy B. 2007. “Self-disclosure.” In Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs, eds., Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 810

/08/listen-to-your-employees-not-just-your-customers Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, Jr, M. N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review , 62(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00172 Boyd, N. G., & Taylor, R. R. (1998). A developmental approach to the examination of friendship in leader-follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly , 9(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90040-6 Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Soderquist, K. E., & Prastacos, G. (2007

References [1] Michael Albert. Notes on the friendship theorem, http://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/-~olympiad/training/2006/friendship.pdf. [2] Grzegorz Bancerek. Cardinal arithmetics. Formalized Mathematics , 1( 3 ):543-547, 1990. [3] Grzegorz Bancerek. Cardinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics , 1( 2 ):377-382, 1990. [4] Grzegorz Bancerek. The fundamental properties of natural numbers. Formalized Mathematics , 1( 1 ):41-46, 1990. [5] Grzegorz Bancerek. The ordinal numbers. Formalized Mathematics , 1( 1 ):91-96, 1990. [6] Grzegorz Bancerek and Krzysztof

Lindsay, Jonathan Culler, and Eduardo Cadava]. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Derrida J (1999b) On a Newly Arisen Apocalyptic Tone in Philosophy [translated by John Leavey, Jr.]. In Fenves P (ed) Raising the Tone of Philosophy. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 117-171. Derrida J (2005) Politics of Friendship [translated by George Collins]. London and New York: Verso. Derrida J (2007b) Psyche: Invention of the Other [translated by Catherine Porter]. In Kamuf P, Rottenberg E (eds) Psyche. Inventions of the Other , volume 1

Analysis. Psychological Methods , 1 , 16–29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 Daly, B., & Suggs, S. (2010). Teachers’ Experiences with Humane Education and Animals in The Elementary Classroom: Implications for Empathy Development. Journal of Moral Education , 39 (1), 101–112. Damon, W. (2008). Path to Purpose: Helping Our Children Find Their Calling in Life . New York: Free Press. Davis, J. H. (1995). The Preadolescent/Pet Friendship Bond. Anthrozoös , 8 (2), 78–82. de Waal, F. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are ? New York: W.W. Norton & Co. de

discourses of emotionally charged language: discourses of identity, services and relationships. To further understand the types of emotions used in these discourses, and how they become attractive to others, we turn to classical rhetoric. Pathos in classical rhetoric defines the emotions and the extent to which the speaker is able to involve and move the audience to do something. Friendship, one of Aristotle’s positive emotions, symbolises the person who “shares one’s pleasure in good things and one’s pains in painful ones for no other reason than for the sake of their

Abstract

Giraffe social behaviour and relationships are currently in the period of scientific renaissance, changing the former ideas of nonexisting social bonds into understanding of complex social structures of giraffe herds. Different giraffe subspecies have been studied in the wild and only one was subject of detailed study in captivity. Our study focused on the neglected Cape giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis giraffa). We investigated the social preferences of 28 introduced giraffes in semi-captivity in Bandia reserve, Senegal. Our aim was to assess the group size of Cape giraffes outside their native range and describe their social relationships. Mean group size in Bandia was 7.22 ± 4.06 (range 2-17). The dyads were classified according to strength of relationship (weak, medium, strong) using the association index. We reported weak and medium relationships in all types of dyads except female-juvenile. The strongest bond was found in mother-calf dyads. Three of 21 possible female dyads also demonstrated strong relationships. Those three dyads included six of seven adult females, which we labelled as friends. Females associated more frequently with calves of their friends then with calves of non-friend females. The strength of the relationship between calves depended on the strength of relationship between their mothers. We concluded that Cape giraffes in new environment have shown similar group size and nonrandom preference for conspecifics as shown in wild and captive studies. The research was supported by CIGA 20135010, CIGA 2134217, IGA FTZ 20135123, ESF/MŠMT CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0040.

Abstract

In the present article, we discuss norms of friendship and privacy on social network sites by examining strategies of privacy among users, arguing that tacit norms of friendship are now more easily observed. The article is based on a quantitative survey among 1710 Internet users in Denmark, among them 970 Facebook users, subsequent focus group meetings with 20 respondents and finally access to their profiles for a period of twelve months. In line with the research literature on social network sites, our study shows that users’ “friends” consist of a variety of strong, weak and even latent ties and thus supports notions such as social divergence and networked publics, suggested by danah boyd. Regarding privacy issues, we distinguish between level of access to information on participants’ profiles and the way participants perform on their profiles, the level of intimacy. As to the first level most respondents seem to emphasize whom they friend, while they do not distinguish among friends once they are in; everybody is treated equally. As to the second level, our research deviates from findings suggesting that in particular young people are rather unaware of risks, as we can identify what we call a “cautious sensible” strategy in all age groups that allows users to be cautious without being too self-restrictive. Regarding the status updates, we identify a schism between saying and doing, as our respondents tend to downgrade small talk in the focus groups, whereas their profiles reveal that they in fact do engage in small talk. We understand this seeming paradox in a generic and linguistic perspective, using the notions of phatic and indexical communication, respectively, in an analysis of the status updates on the profiles.