Thesis (D.Phil.)--University of Oxford, 2008. / Supervisors: Professor D.M. Edgington, Professor John Hawthorne. Bibliography: leaves 222-226.

Thesis (M.A.)--Stony Brook University, 2008. / This official electronic copy is part of the DSpace Stony Brook theses & dissertations collection maintained by the University Libraries, Special Collections & University Archives on behalf of the Stony Brook Graduate School. It is stored in the SUNY Digital Institutional Repository and can be accessed through the website. Presented to the Stony Brook University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy; as recommended and accepted by the candidate's degree sponsor, the Dept. of Philosophy. Includes bibliographical references (p. 38-39).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 179-198).

Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2004. / Bibliogr.: f. 123-127. Publ. aussi en version électronique.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 151-160).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity International University, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 179-198).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2006. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Techn. Universiẗat, Diss., 2004--Darmstadt.

Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-07T18:56:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 000397517-Texto+Completo-0.pdf: 366103 bytes, checksum: bee6237c5a651542294a2ab9ddfc889b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 / This research will discuss important aspects of Donald Davidson´s Philosophy. He was one of the most influent philosophers of analytic tradition in the second half of twenty century. For this, we focus on two key concepts of his writings: Radical Interpretation and Principle of Charity. Through these concepts, Davidson defends the possibility to talk about objectivity. Since the communication between people occurs, so a considerable part that we share is common. The first person looses his ontological and epistemological priviledge and is seen as a topic in relation with world and other people, because man is inserted in a social and natural world, interacting with that. His writings offer a coherent image of mind, language and human rationality, adding a rigorous argumentation with an alive dialogue. / Esta pesquisa visa discutir aspectos importantes da filosofia de Donald Davidson, um dos mais influentes filósofos da tradição analítica da segunda metade do século XX. Para tanto, foram escolhidos dois conceitos-chave de sua obra: Interpretação Radical e Princípio de Caridade. Por meio desses conceitos, Davidson defende a possibilidade de falar em objetividade, uma vez que, se a comunicação entre pessoas ocorre, então é porque uma parte considerável do que partilhamos é comum. A primeira pessoa perde seu privilégio ontológico e epistemológico e passa a ser vista como um pólo em relação com o mundo e com as outras pessoas, pois o homem está inserido em um mundo social e natural, interagindo com ele. Sua obra oferece uma imagem coerente da mente, linguagem e racionalidade humana, aliando uma argumentação rigorosa com um diálogo vivo.

Why did Americans vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential election? Social scientists have proposed a variety of explanations, including economic dissatisfaction, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. The current study establishes that, independent of these influences, voting for Trump was, at least for many Americans, a symbolic defense of the United States’ perceived Christian heritage. Data from a national probability sample of Americans surveyed soon after the 2016 election shows that greater adherence to Christian nationalist ideology was a robust predictor of voting for Trump, even after controlling for economic dissatisfaction, sexism, anti-black prejudice, anti-Muslim refugee attitudes, and anti-immigrant sentiment, as well as measures of religion, sociodemographics, and political identity more generally. These findings indicate that Christian nationalist ideology—although correlated with a variety of class-based, sexist, racist, and ethnocentric views—is not synonymous with, reducible to, or strictly epiphenomenal of such views. Rather, Christian nationalism operates as a unique and independent ideology that can influence political actions by calling forth a defense of mythological narratives about America’s distinctively Christian heritage and future.