Heidegger approaches the problem of evil in an unusual way. He disregards its moral connotations, intending to analyze it as a purely ontological problem intertwined with the concept of nothingness and the forgetfulness of being. A problem with this approach that is frequently commented upon is that it omits the aspect of human responsibility, as it portrays humans merely as passive recipients of fate. The aim of this study is to show that in his 1936 Schelling-Lecture Heidegger approaches the problem of evil in a more complex manner: on the one hand, he portrays evil as a necessary part of being; on the other hand, he leaves a certain space for decision making. This dimension, mostly overlooked in the literature, is highlighted in the study by means of three main steps: 1) analyzing the relevant paragraphs of Heidegger’s Schelling-Lecture; 2) identifying the inconsistencies that emerge in these paragraphs; and 3) offering a coherent interpretation of evil as a real possibility of human freedom. and Heidegger k problému zla pristupuje nezvyčajným spôsobom. Odhliada od jeho morálnych konotácií a chce ho analyzovať ako číro ontologický problém, prepojený s konceptom ničoty a zabudnutosti bytia. Často komentovaným problémom tohto poňatia je, že v ňom absentuje aspekt ľudskej zodpovednosti, keďže človeka zobrazuje len ako pasívneho prijímateľa údelu. Cieľom tejto štúdie je ukázať, že Heidegger v prednáškovom cykle k Schellingovi z roku 1936 pristupuje k problému zla diferencovanejším spôsobom: Na jednej strane označuje zlo za nevyhnutnú súčasť bytia, na strane druhej človeku ponecháva určitý priestor na rozhodovanie. Tento, v literatúre väčšinou prehliadaný, rozmer prednáškového cyklu je v štúdii vyzdvihnutý prostredníctvom troch základných krokov: 1) analýzou príslušných paragrafov prednáškového cyklu k Schellingovi; 2) identifikovaním rozporov, ktoré sa objavujú v týchto paragrafoch; a 3) ponúknutím koherentnej interpretácie zla ako reálnej možnosti ľudskej slobody.
We deployed branch traps in an ash (Fraxinus) plantation to investigate how Agrilus planipennis behavior is associated with Fraxinus pennsylvanica condition and dispersal patterns. Data were collected from traps with or without the presence of beetle visual decoys, and from a yearly survey of exit holes. The traps were placed on trees that were either clearly declining, with most foliage arising from epicormic sprouting, or on apparently healthy trees, with little evidence of damage or decline. We calculated correlations of exit holes among neighboring tree rings and also between exit holes and male trap captures. The damaged trees the traps were hung upon had more cumulative exit holes observed than the corresponding healthy trees. However, there was otherwise no evidence that the experiment was biased by differences in exit hole patterns of the surrounding trees. Male captures were greater on decoy-baited traps than controls and this decoy effect was most clearly apparent late in the season when traps were placed on healthy trees. There were also patterns of correlations between male captures and exit hole numbers that may be indicative of short-range mate finding-and dispersal behaviors. Female captures were sparser, but were positively affected by decoys on healthy and declining trees early in the season. Thus, the results suggest that the placement of such traps on healthier trees will maximize detection, and the branch traps also show promise for further use in dispersal studies., Michael J. Domingue, Jennifer Berkebile, Kim Steiner, Loyal P. Hall, Kevin R. Cloonan, David Lance, Thomas C. Baker., and Obsahuje bibliografii