Humanities and Social Sciences

The first comprehensive discussion of love in Western literature was provided by Plato, who using the Greek word eros, left us a book called the Symposium, which featured a number of speakers at a drinking party, each of whom gave a speech about the nature of love. Plato seems to say that love starts as a sexual passion and that it gradually transforms itself into a union in beauty, or to quote him in “the vast ocean of the beautiful". The term Platonic Love was never used by him, but was coined by a Platonist almost 2000 years later, Ficino. Unlike eros in Plato, Platonic Love is asexual, but equally involves the idea that the object of love is some kind of mystery. Its purpose is in the end a negation of eros.

Narcissism has a definition in modern psychology, but also a long history in the culture of the West. This address goes back to the deep roots of the Western understanding of narcissism, looks at the myth itself and the poem of Ovid, the commentary of Plato, and modern philosophical vestiges of the ancient western fable. The paper takes the vantage point of Plato in that narcissism is said to involve the preoccupation with one's reflection in the eyes of other people, and posits the view that narcissism is not only limited to individuals. Preoccupation with one's image is a characteristic of nations as well. This address will be published in written form in a Bond University Press book shortly to appear, edited by Jonathan Ping, Constructivism in the Twenty-First Century.

The awe-struck men who stood in the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945, were reduced to introspection by the enormous mushroom cloud that filled the sky. Most of them recognized they had witnessed a turning point in the history of human civilization, for they had let the nuclear genie out of the bottle with little likelihood of putting it back. They had built an atomic bomb with the hope of ending a war, but reaped history's unintended consequences. More than any other weapon humankind had yet unleashed, nuclear weapons were designed not to target just military forces but urban-industrial centres as well. Because they could protect as they threatened the very essence of life on earth, past nuclear weapons strategies often appeared bizarre as any use projected global devastation. Since 1945 critics of the bomb have expressed alarm that the spread of nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to worldwide destruction. So far, that prediction has not been proved right, but is that due, borrowing a phrase from former secretary of state Dean Acheson after the Cuban Missile Crisis, to just plain dumb luck? Or is it, due to the growing realization that nuclear weapons possessed inherently limited political and military utility, therefore, abstaining from their use was the only sane policy? The nine current members of the nuclear weapon club - the U.S., Russia, Great Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea - today possess thousands of operational nuclear weapons of various types among them. Additionally, at least another 15 countries have on hand enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. But the question remains: What does a nation do with the bomb once it has it? It is a question all members of the nuclear club have confronted at one time or another. Most national nuclear weapons programs thus far have had as their objective simply having the bomb, not using it. Why divert so much in the way of national resources to developing a weapon that is politically limited and theoretically self-deterring? Security and prestige are the most frequently cited justifications for national nuclear ambitions but neither of those ends is served by actual use. In fact, during the post-Nagasaki era, the bomb acquired such a political or moral stigma that security and prestige would likely be rapidly undone for any nation that broke the nuclear taboo and actually used an atomic or nuclear weapon against an adversary. But how long will this taboo govern the use of nuclear weaponry?

Thinking of studying Psychology? A group of talented Bond alumni share their experiences in an ‘on the couch’ style quiz, query and question session. They provide valuable insider knowledge and advice on how to kick start your Psychology career. The alumni guests include Dr Sarah Walker, a Clinical Specialist in eating disorders, Vanessa Basch and Courtney Joy from Queensland Health, Lisa Appleby who is a Foster Care Worker at Mercy Family Services and Brendan Evans who is an experienced psychologist at the Hart Centre.

A panel of experts take us on a journey into the cultural underground of the Gold Coast, exploring issues that have formed the stereotypes and discovering a much deeper side to the coast beyond the ‘Glitter Strip'

In the case of victimology there are often forgotten survivors who are also victims. Bruce and Denise Morcombe answer questions about their experiences.

In the case of victimology there are often forgotten survivors who are also victims. This is particularly the case with crimes of homicide where the actual victim has passed, but family and loved ones must deal with the ongoing effect of the crime. To investigate these issues the parents of Daniel Morcombe, Bruce and Denise, will speak with the students of this semester's Victimology class. Daniel James Morcombe (19 December 1989 – c.7 December 2003) was a 13-year-old Australian boy who was abducted from the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, on 7 December 2003. In August 2011 Brett Peter Cowan, a former Sunshine Coast resident, was charged with Daniel’s murder. In the same month, DNA tests confirmed bones found in an area being searched by police were Daniel’s. What followed after Daniels disappearance was one of the largest and highly publicized murder investigations in Australian history. The experiences of Bruce and Denise will provide a deep understanding of the issues surrounding victimology and a better appreciation of happenings behind the scenes in tragic events like this