• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.407-415
• /
• 2014

Genetic determinism of human behaviors is considered as a philosophical perspective that genes in humans determine biological as well as social traits. However, many biologists agree that human traits are determined by interactions between genes and genes, as well as between genes and environments. In this context, genetic determinism still affect ideas of the general public as well as research directions of biologists. According to Cl$\acute{e}$ment's KVP model (Cast$\acute{e}$ra & Cl$\acute{e}$ment, 2012), teachers' conceptions of genetic determinism influence students' concepts of genetics. This study intends to investigate teachers' conceptions on genetic determinism of human behaviors. For this end, a questionnaire adopted from a previous research (Cast$\acute{e}$ra & Cl$\acute{e}$ment, 2012) has been administered to 308 teachers including 151 pre-service and 157 in-service. Factor analysis has been conducted to extract major factors and one-way ANOVA has been employed to find out differences in extracted factors among different groups of teachers. Four factors have been extracted from 14 items of questionnaire, including factor 1, a perspective of genetic determinism of gender differences in intellectual ability, social status, and emotional traits; factor 2, a perspective of genetic determinism of individual differences in intellectual ability; factor 3, a perspective of genetic determinism of individual differences in biological immune function and behavioral trait; and factor 4, a perspective of genetic determinism of ethnic differences. From the results of One-way ANOVA among teacher groups on four factors, first, it has shown a significant difference in factor 1 (F=3.325, p=.006), factor 3 (F=3.320, p=.006) and factor 4 (F=4.325, p=.001) due to their subject matters. In post-hoc comparison there have been no significant difference between biology teachers and other teachers. It has also been found that there was a significant difference between pre-service and in-service teachers in factor 1 (t=-3.938, p=.000) and factor 4 (t=-3.121, p=.002) and in-service teachers are more genetic deterministic than pre-service teachers. Finally, different religions have no influence on teachers' conceptions of genetic determinism of human behaviors.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.325-350
• /
• 2018

The overemphasis of the priority of reason over will runs the risk of resulting in intellectual determinism. On the contrary, it is also unfair to underestimate the role of reason in Saint Thomas Aquinas' theory of the free will to avoid intellectual determinism. For, according to Thomas, "the will inclines to the good, insofar as it is an appetite, and it follows the judgment of the reason in the pursuit of the good, insofar as it is a 'rational' appetite." It is the objective of this article to show that, for Thomas, the idea of the free will is not contradictory to that of the will's following the judgment of reason. For this purpose, it is decisive to adequately evaluate the role of reason in Thomas's theory of the free will. This article therefore proves that in principle Thomas argues the priority of the will over reason as well as the freedom of the will, and that he nevertheless recognizes the role of reason which precedes the choice of the will by making the second-level judgment even when the will chooses not to follow the first-level judgement of reason. It is entirely up to the will to follow the judgement and order of reason or not. It explains the freedom of the will. But 'not to follow reason' is contradictory to the essential determination of the will as the 'rational' appetite. For from the will's not following reason, wrong-doing follows; the human act which does not conform to reason. This article therefore argues that for Thomas, the 'true' liberty of the will corresponding to its determination as the rational appetite consists in its following the rule and order of reason, not in acting against the judgement of reason.

• Journal of architectural history
• /
• v.13 no.4 s.40
• /
• pp.89-105
• /
• 2004

This paper investigates morphological theory as an intellectual framework for research and design. The first part of the paper will review morphological studies in the fields of urban geography, urban planning and architecture, particularly in England from the 1940s to the 1980s. While urban geographers and planners were concerned primarily with town plans, building forms and land use, architectural theoreticians were more interested in the topological relationship between urban and architectural space. The underlying premises and principles of these two approaches will be reviewed. The second part of the paper will focus on typology in Europe and North America. The reinterpretation of typology by Italian architects helped to bridge the gap between individual elements of architecture and the overall form of the city. However, typological theory became less accessible in post-war England and the United States. After 1980, the debate on typology became muted by the onset of vague notions such as functionalism, bio-technical determinism, and contextualism. This paper will propose a redefinition of morphology as a heuristic device, in contrast with the dichotomic view of urban morphology and architectural typology. Morphology will be shown to combine the geometrical and topological; the intentional and accidental; the real and abstract; and a priori and a posteriori. The last part of the paper discusses the lack of comparative theories and methods surrounding the physical form of architecture and the city by Korea commentators. Empirically rooted facility planning, non-comparative historical studies, and iconographic criticism emerged as a central preoccupation of architectural culture between the 1960s and 1980s, a time when international debate on architecture and urbanism was most intense. This paper will give consideration to the built environment as a dynamic physical entity and space as an epiphenomenon of daily urban life, such that collaboration between urban designers, architects, and landscape architects is seen as both beneficial and necessary.