Search

We first show how the classical Marguerre–von Kármán equations modeling the deformation of a nonlinearly elastic shallow shell can be recast as equations whose sole unknowns are the bending moments and stress resultants inside the middle surface of the shell. Thus, these equations allow to compute the stresses inside the shell without having to compute first the displacement field. We then show that the boundary value problem formed by these new equations is well posed by establishing an existence theorem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We first show that the minimization problem associated with the nonlinear shell model of W.T. Koiter becomes coercive over its natural space of admissible deformations when the third fundamental form is added to its functional. Then, under the assumption that the middle surface of the shell is a minimal surface, we approach this minimization problem by a new minimization problem that is well-posed over the same space of admissible deformations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the 'existence theory' proposed by Patrick Baert, Marcus Morgan, and Rin Ushiyama. To this end, it focuses on some key issues that could, and arguably should, be explored in more detail, especially if the authors decide to develop their project further, permitting them to establish a new interdisciplinary branch of inquiry. The comments and suggestions made in this paper are meant to be constructive, supporting the idea that Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's outline could, and should, be turned into a bold, systematic, and long-term research programme. More specifically, the in-depth analysis of Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's theoretical framework demonstrates that their undertaking, which draws on central insights from both existentialism and phenomenology, contributes to bridging the disciplinary gap between philosophy and sociology. The paper concludes by asserting that Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama's model provides a solid foundation for an ambitious, but viable, project that may result in the creation of a new current of research, capable of generating valuable insights into the tension-laden confluence of existential milestones, existential ladders, and existential urgencies in the theatre of human life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This short critical commentary on the article raises some questions about the authors' model of temporality and the linear conception of 'milestones', while endorsing this conception in cases where people feel deprived of something they might have expected to obtain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After exploring the main tenets of existence theory and the affinities between this theory and other philosophical traditions, this introduction lists the central points of each contribution to this special issue. In what follows, we provide a brief synopsis of the critical commentaries by David Inglis, Simon Susen, Robin Wagner-Pacifici, Bryan S. Turner, William Outhwaite, and Thomas Kemple. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Existence theory' is a bold and imaginative contribution to social theory. Baert, Morgan and Ushiyama (hereafter 'the authors') draw on a broad range of existing approaches from Heidegger to Schutz to build a social theory that draws attention to time, the stages of life and the unavoidably precarious nature of human existence. At the same time, they pay careful attention to the social context in which time and existential precariousness combine to form what they call 'the existential ladder'. Our lives are to some degree measured by the 'existential milestones' that we confront over time. These are not invariable stages, but they traditionally included entry into the work force, courtship and marriage, parenthood and maturity, and old age and death. There are in addition norms that attend these transitions. For example, procreation and parenthood are not for the elderly. Old fathers with young children are regarded as foolish if not reprehensible. Failure to pass through the milestones at the appropriate time may result in disappointments, stress and unhappiness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this essay, we provide a comprehensive reply to the critical commentaries by David Inglis, Thomas Kemple, William Outhwaite, Simon Susen, Bryan S. Turner, and Robin Wagner-Pacifici. Our reply is structured along three main pillars. Firstly, we clarify what we aim to achieve with existence theory. Drawing on neo-pragmatist philosophy, our aim is to present a new and useful perspective on a wide range of social phenomena; we do not attempt to tackle or resolve broad philosophical issues. Secondly, we demonstrate that we do not subscribe to an algorithmic notion of society which posits that people's trajectories have to fit a neat, linear pathway. Related, we do not wish to impose a normative model that endorses the existential milestones that are dominant in any particular society. Thirdly, building on various helpful pointers from our critics, we elaborate on various ways in which the theory could be enriched and further developed: for instance, by bringing in insights from the sociology of generations, critical theory, and sociological studies of the body. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rather than refuting or challenging the claims by Baert, Morgan, and Ushiyama to originality, the objective of this commentary is to flesh out "existence theory" by extending its repertoire of examples and by expanding on its classical and philosophical sources. Drawing on precedents in canonical statements by Vico, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, and Marx, this response poses questions about the model's implied assumption of a time-line that traces a "straight" path from the past to the present and future by invoking the alternative imagery of a circular history, cyclical time, or "queer" life course. To support this argument, contemporary queer theories are invoked to supplement the concept-metaphor of "existential milestones" with that of "existential cornerstones," which do not always suggest that human development follows a single path or a binding timeline. The civil institutions of religion, marriage, and burial, as discussed by both classical sociologists and queer theorists, for instance, may be defined by a sense of necessity and inevitability but also by contingency and coincidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]