While blame is not a difficult practice to defend, in part because of its ineradicability in our moral lives, angry blame has been a tougher sell. Critics of angry blame cast it as an unnecessary, punitive, or unproductive practiceâone that should be either avoided or abandoned altogether. Against these views, I argue that anger has positive moral value and should remain on the table in our blaming practices. The argument proceeds by identifying a specific mode of angry blameâwhat I call (...) âauthority-focused resentmentââwhich is both apt and uniquely valuable in cases in which agentsâ standing as equals is under threat. Insofar as anger has value in these cases it should not be dismissed wholesale in favor of other blaming alternatives, as angerâs staunchest critics would recommend. For all the virtues of anger, it is not equally accessible to all. In final chapter of the project, I identify a distinct kind of harm that happens to oppressed agents when their anger fails to receive uptake. While feminist accounts of angerâs dismissal have tended to focus on its epistemic dimensions, I shift to consider the damage to oppressed subjectsâ moral agency. I argue that what is going on in the dismissal of marginalized agentsâ anger is not merely the loss of knowledge or the dismissal of testimony. Instead, we need a different paradigm to conceptualize the dismissal and its harms. If we understand angry blame as an invocation or an assertion of authority, then its dismissal is a refusal to comply and to recognize our authority as subjectsâan altogether different problem. (shrink)

In my dissertation, I engage in a political history of waste; in particular I look at modern philosophers from the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and the way that waste functions alongside narratives of civilization, progress, and perfection. I analyze the political, pedagogical, and other theories of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. I use Julia Kristevaâs concept of abjection to trace the legacies of these philosophers to the continued and continuing practices of wasting life their work (...) supports and maintains. Social contract theory must have its others, those wasted and abjected to limn the boundary of the âclean and properâ civilized order. Locke abjects waste in his theory of property and I link the use of his term âwastelandâ to the wastelanding of Native Americans. As Kristeva says the forgetting, repressing, or disavowal of abjection leads to the return of its repressed in the form of our âapocalypses.â I discuss Rousseauâs treatment of waste and the way it is ambivalently embraced, which I think is a more appropriate treatment of waste. I also compare Emile and Sophieâs education and argue that his education of women makes waste of their lives. Last, I discuss Kantâs theory of waste and race together, arguing that he redeems all waste and that he makes waste of all races except the white race. He assents to the use of people of color as means for the white raceâs ends, rather than treating them as ends in themselves. Thus, I conclude that social contract theories are wasteful of life and lives and that contract theory should be garbaged for a new political principle: to not make waste of life or lives. (shrink)

My Cavellian argument is that the form or space of skeptical questioning -- regardless of whether we are asking about the veridicality of the appearance of another's pain, about the veridicality of the meaning of a word or phrase, about the veridicality of a perception, etc. -- leaves behind the ordinary, finite, and social activities and practices which make meaningful language use possible. But Cavell does not mean "left behind" in the sense that returning to these finite and social practices (...) of language use will defeat skepticism; Cavell thinks that the direct attempt to defeat skepticism has still not adequately understood what the appearance of a skeptical problem has deflected. Rather, in Cavell's philosophy, if we return to the everyday use of language after working through the threat of skepticism and after coming to terms with what led us into skeptical thinking, what we find is a renewed relation to the felt life of the ordinary mind, one which acknowledges those unhandsome elements of our condition which skepticism would seek to deny. In later work, Cavell will describe the proper response to skepticism as a transformation of the actual everyday into the eventual everyday. With respect to the question of how language corresponds to or represents the world, I suggest, throughout this dissertation, that this question is a confused response to the fact of our inheritance of language and culture, the fact that we are born into a social, already-made system of meanings over which in many ways we have astonishingly little freedom. And that conclusion, I argue -- the conclusion that a particular form of skepticism deflects -- is yet another starting point for Cavell's philosophy, an insight brought out only through an engagement with skepticism. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I adapt Aristotle and neo-Aristotelian philosophers to argue that a virtue of playfulness exists, and playfulness is necessary for achieving happiness. Playfulness helps people, uniquely and especially, to use their leisure time to rest, cultivate themselves, and engage their communities. This virtue of playfulness is so important for happiness that a person cannot live a good life without it. This argument offers a framework that can sort good from bad instances of play and playfulness by using the (...) neo-Aristotelian values of virtue and happiness. To make my case, I use philosophy, textual evidence from Aristotle, and empirical evidence from biological and behavioral sciences. I hope that the dissertation serves to fill a gap in contemporary research, which neglects playfulness as a virtue. (shrink)

We intuitively think and talk about health care as a human right. Moreover, we tend to talk about health in the language of basic rights or human rights without a clear sense of what such rights mean, let alone whose duty it is to fulfill them. Additionally, in the care ethics literature, we tend to think of a dividing line between care and justice. In this dissertation I aim to draw care and justice together in what I call care justice. (...) To attend to care justice requires the reconceptualization of the value and practice of health care, and of the moral communities in which we enact care and justice. First, I argue for a strong right to health care, though not to health. Second, I argue that health care includes much more than mere medical care. On this account health care is special for the practices of care it values and communicates. Third, I establish a theoretical framework for why, and importantly how, health care entails other forms of care: social, economic and political. My approach engages a complicity framework to rethink moral community formation and participation, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals as participants in a collective moral community. I argue that it is within communities of membership, which I define as ethical homes, that we have duties to and expectations from others. The moral community as complicit ethical home provides a way to reimagine individual shared responsibility within moral communities, and particularly regarding responsibility for practices of care. (shrink)

The aim of my dissertation is to explore philosophical questions motivated by the mass sexual slavery of Yazidi women and girls by the Islamic State. The Islamic State has targeted the Yazidis in Syria for destruction due to religious practices it sees as âdevil worship,â and has engaged in a sustained practice of sexually enslaving Yazidi women and girls. I analyze underlying metaphysical, political, and moral concepts in order to identify the responsibilities of the individual and collective perpetrators, as well (...) bystanders. While the dissertation is motivated by a specific case of violence, I use my analysis of the case and the related concepts to draw out conclusions beyond the circumstances of the Yazidis. I begin by looking at ontological questions about the morality of perpetrators and victims of violence, and I defend a hybrid account of groups that recognizes groups as moral particulars, but also recognizes the individual members of the group as distinct moral and legal entities. I then explore conceptions of harm and wrongdoing, specifically related to sexual slavery, in both individual and group contexts. I defend an account of harm as injury to well-being, which takes into account the subjective experiences of individuals, but I argue for an objective account of the wrongness of sexual slavery. I go on to consider the models we have for thinking about statehood and I argue that the Islamic State should be seen as a non-state actor, rather than as a state, but that it has violated both positive and negative obligations regardless of whether or not it is recognized as a state. I ultimately defend an account of individual, collective, and shared moral responsibility for perpetrators of and bystanders to the harm suffered by the Yazidi women and girls. (shrink)

My research centers on analytic pragmatist approaches to intentionality. One goal that defenders of such approaches set for themselves is to be able to provide a naturalistically sound account of intentionality without being pejoratively scientistic. Many critics argue that this is an unattainable goal, and I begin my dissertation by framing in neutral terms what I take to be the core of these criticsâ objection. I call this the Pincer Objection, and while surveying the works of four prominent analytic pragmatistsâDonald (...) Davidson, John McDowell, Huw Price, and Robert BrandomâI argue that all of them fall prey to the Pincer Objection. The reason they fall prey to this objection is because within their semantic theories they give explanatory priority to the semantic properties of propositions. I argue that, as an analytic pragmatist, I should instead prioritize the semantic properties of inferences, and that once I do so I am faced with the question: How are materially valid inferences possible? Finally, I argue that if I can provide an answer to this question, then I can successfully address the Pincer Objection. In this manner, my dissertation is not directed towards answering this question, but instead towards establishing the naturalistic credentials of accounts of intentionality that take this question seriously. (shrink)

Tax policy discussions are dominated by economic theories, and do not often involve philosophical analysis. Because tax is applied distributive justice, it makes sense to bring the insights of philosophy to bear on the work of creating and implementing tax laws. As one model of how philosophy can inform discussions of tax policy, this dissertation looks in particular at the taxation of wealth transfers from three different philosophical perspectives. Because wealth transfer taxes, more than most income or consumption taxes, are (...) enacted primarily to redistribute wealth and to increase equality of opportunity, focusing on these taxes, rather than on the more widely used income tax, allows the analysis to focus on how the tax does or does not comply with the philosophical goals of the society that enacted the rule. In order to evaluate whether a system of wealth transfer taxation is compatible with the philosophical beliefs of contemporary American society, the dissertation examines three commonly held philosophical belief systems: libertarianism, liberalism, and utilitarianism. In each case, after explicating the theory, the dissertation adopts the perspective of that theory to analyze whether a wealth transfer tax system is desirable. Further, the dissertation analyzes what form of wealth transfer tax system is most compatible with the system. The final chapter of the dissertation explores what form of wealth transfer tax system is most compatible with all of the philosophical theories explored in the dissertation. (shrink)

This dissertation examines the injustices perpetrated against Indigenous people in Canada within the explicit framework of democratic theory. I examine the ability of Deweyan democracy as a purported problem-solving mechanism to deal with this problem of widespread social injustice. Deweyan democracy is distinctively epistemic, and depends upon diversity and inclusion in order to function effectively as a social and political mechanism for problem-solving. I argue that the inclusion within Deweyan democracy is insufficiently theorized to provide justice-based solutions to social problems, (...) is overly instrumental, and can actually create injustice. Finally, I suggest that while contemporary Deweyans have applied Deweyan democracy in ways that do not provide sufficient solutions for social and political problems, there may yet be resources in Deweyan democratic theory to be explored, specifically with regard to reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people within a democratic society. (shrink)

Drawing on empirical evidence in medicine, economics, law, and anthropology, I argue that a market is uniquely capable of meeting the demand for transplantable kidneys, and that it may be arranged so as to operate safely. The welfare gains, expected to accrue to both vendors and recipients, are sufficient to justify sales. Having spelled out the considerations recommending a kidney market, I address the most forceful objections facing the proposal. Despite its currency, the claim that incentives will crowd out altruistic (...) donors and result in a decrease in supply is empirically unsupported and predicated on an implausible view of donorsâ motives. A host of objections claim vendorsâ will not give informed consent. Many such objections identify easily remediable problems, or impose unreasonable standards â standards that would rule out morally permissible kidney donation. And all presuppose a model of morally transformative consent that, I argue, is deficient. Two further challenges point to harms inflicted on those who do not participate in the market. Some claim that those in poverty will be subject to harmful social and legal pressure to vend. This objection fails to distinguish between being pressured to perform a specific act, and being under general economic pressure and having the option to perform an act. It, moreover, presupposes vending more common than is possible. Others worry that the market will give rise to unfair pecuniary externalities. This objection also presupposes that kidney sales will occur more often than is possible. But more importantly, the normative consideration that is supposed to make such externalities especially objectionable, in fact, recommends allowing sales. I also make a political case for kidney sales. I offer an account of the stateâs proper role in the market. I begin with a conception of democratic equality according to which the state is responsible to secure for its citizens the preconditions for democratic participation. I then show that this end would be promoted were the state to end the current prohibition on sales. (shrink)

This dissertation proposes the central elements of a Social Enactive Theory of Perception. According to SEP, perception consists in sensory-based practices of interaction with objects, events, and states of affairs that are socially constituted. I oppose the representational view that perception is an indirect contact with the world, consists of the passive receiving and processing of sensory input, is in need of constant assessment of accuracy, and is a matter of individuals alone. I share the basic enactivist insight that perception (...) is a type of activity, but I depart from standard enactivism on the grounds of its individualistic bias and its limited conception of activity. Instead of motor actions, I formulate the concept of perceptual practices as the appropriate framework to understand perception. Perception is woven into socially informed, contextual, sensory-based everyday activities, such as food, dance, and dress, and even seemingly independent, basic perceptual activities and concepts are constituted by such practices. Perceptual individual interactions instantiate social perceptual practices but are not just repetitions of a script. We perceive objects in virtue of perspectives or appearances, not in spite of them, and on this basis I offer SEPâs take on experience, properties, and contents. I conceive perceptual experience as finely grained interactions between subjects and objects, both of which are spatially, temporally, and pragmatically situated. Objects and their sensory properties are perceived dynamically and always in multiple appearances. Perceptual content offers a pragmatic specification of the perceptual objects in the specific ways they appear to subjects. For SEP, perception is normatively structured. SEPâs perceptual normativity is not a worry about a supposed constant threat that our perceptions be nonveridical, but about the placement of perceptual things in a system of possibilities and expectations, cast in terms of degrees of fulfillment of expectations and in a horizon of pragmatic significance, both of which are functions of the socially constituted interactions between a perceiver and a rich theory of appearances. (shrink)

Life is challenging. Philosophy is, among other things, a response to the challenges of life. Among the methods of philosophy is rational reflection on the nature of reality and the significance of life. This conceptual aspect of philosophy is very powerful, but it has its limitations. If correctly interpreted, it can be a great indicator of the way; if wrongly appreciated, it can be an obstacle to understanding. Concepts can reveal but they can also conceal. In particular, concepts can generate (...) a mistaken view of the nature of the finite individual, a view in which the finite individual is supposed to be self-contained and independently real. In truth, supposed finite individuals are without concrete boundaries, and are dependent upon a larger reality. The Totality is the whole of this larger interdependent reality. The Totality is not a simple unity, but rather, an extended order of dependence. This order of dependence is the basis for the directionality of time and the openness of the future. Each moment is eternal, neither arising nor ceasing. Even so, since the earlier is independent of the later, the future, which is just the later relative to any moment, is not strictly determined. This means that creation is in a sense ongoing, and we all play a role in the making of reality. In recognizing the deep interconnectivity of reality, one sees one's ultimate non-difference from supposed others. Concern for others then arises spontaneously. This is the ultimate ground of ethics. Through recognizing and acting upon this truth, our deepest fulfillment and happiness is achieved. (shrink)

Rawlsian political liberalism is often rejected by feminist philosophers on the grounds that it reinstates a problematic public/private divide and includes sexist comprehensive doctrines as reasonable. My dissertation reclaims a revised version of Rawlsian political liberalism for feminist objectives. Using children who are raised in accordance with sexist comprehensive doctrines as a test case, I investigate the permissible limitations for reasonable pluralism. In the first half of my dissertation, I investigate challenges posed to Rawlsian stability and civic education. I argue (...) that Rawlss aim of making reasonableness broadly inclusive for political purposes is in tension with his goal of using reasonableness to delineate the scope of liberal legitimacy. To resolve this tension, I suggest that we separate liberal legitimacy from reasonableness. I then broaden the analysis by exploring the implications of the bifurcation of reasonableness for both feminism and political liberalism. I argue that the resulting theory is a defensible version of political liberalism that serves some crucially important feminist aims without becoming a comprehensive feminist theory. (shrink)

In this project, I combine theoretical resources from metaethics and philosophy of language with contemporary issues in critical philosophy of race. Drawing from these literatures, I examine the nature of racial norms by developing a non-ideal, situated, and intersectional approach to second-personhood. Second-personhood, as I propose in the first half of the dissertation, serves two explanatory functions with respect to the nature of racial norms. First, second-personhood highlights how manifestations of moral and political agency are embedded in interdependent forms of (...) I-you and we-you relationships. Second, with respect to language, second-personhood provides an account of how speech acts, when understood as a subset of embodied action, come to bear normative force. These features of second-personhood then undergird the three distinct sites of analysis that I examine in the latter half of the dissertation. There, I propose that we can examine collective, interpersonal, and personal levels of racial discourse to see the functioning of racial norms through second-personhood. (shrink)

This dissertation examines the relationship between the concepts of ethics and politics in political theory. It does so by asking how conceptions of subjectivity result in formulations of ethics and politics and what this means for how ethics and politics relate to one another. It identifies two major trends in political theory: The prioritization of ethics over politics, and the prioritization of politics over ethics. It identifies Kant and Rawls as exhibiting the former trend and Marx and Arendt as exhibiting (...) the second trend. Parts I and II deal with these two trends, respectively. In each it is shown that when a theory of the political either ethics or politics is placed in a position of primacy over the other, i.e., when one concept is defined as merely subordinate to, or derivative of, its compliment concept, this results in internal tensions that undermine the stated aims of that theory of the political. Part III claims that Levinas offers an alternative formulation of the relationship between ethics and politics. What sets Levinas apart from the preceding theoretical accounts is the dual character of the subject as ethically and politically responsible. The subject between ethics and politics is, then, the active location of the interplay between ethics and politics. Their relation is found in the active, embodied political subject. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I respond to the feminist critique of traditional theories of autonomy, which revolves around the charge that such theories are too individualistic. Feminists argue against the liberal atomism that they see at the center of traditional autonomy theories. Their resulting theory of relational autonomy is meant to remedy that traditional theories of autonomy posit an individualistic conception of both the self and autonomy. Instead, feminists have argued for a theory of autonomy that takes account of the ways (...) in which persons are irreducibly social, and the ways in which autonomy itself is only possible within certain types of social relationships. I separate the feminist charges against liberalism from the feminist charges against traditional autonomy, since it is at least prima facie possible to consider personal autonomy separately from political autonomy. I thus isolate the feminist critique of liberal atomism from the feminist critique of individualistic autonomy. The first chapter examines the feminist critique of liberalism to determine why it is that the charge of liberal atomism continues to stick, even though it has been clearly established by both feminist and mainstream liberals that liberalism is not guilty of such a charge. While I do not provide a full defense of liberalism, I do argue that such a defense is possible, and possible in a way that upholds feminist goals. Having separated the critiques of liberalism from the critiques of traditional autonomy, the rest of the dissertation focuses exclusively on the autonomy debate. I present an argument against the most robustly relational feminist accounts of autonomy those which accept a relational account of both the self and autonomy. I argue that, although such theories are explicitly designed to vindicate the normative commitments of feminism, their implications yield unwelcome results from this very same feminist perspective. I then present my own procedural account of autonomy. Because it is not constitutively social, it is unlikely to be characterized as a relational account at all. I argue, however, that it is this very feature which allows my account to vindicate the feminist normative commitments espoused by constitutively relational accounts. (shrink)

Against non-analytic naturalism and quietist realism, I defend a robust form of non-naturalism. The argument proceeds as follows: In the face of extensional underdetermination, quietist realism cannot non-question-beggingly respond to alternative accounts that offer formally identical but substantively different interpretations of what reasons are. They face what we might call the reasons appropriation problem. In light of this problem, quietists ought to abandon their view in favor of robust realism. By permitting substantive metaphysical claims we can then argue, based on (...) reasonhood being a relation, that reasonhood is an abstract universal. If reasonhood is an abstract universal, then we can non-question-beggingly assert that the counting in favor of relation is a general kind or genus. This poses a dilemma for non-analytic naturalists: either they need to give the same reductive analysis for epistemic and practical reasons, or they can give a different analyses by treating epistemic and practical reasons as a species of the larger genus. However, the former looks extensionally implausible epistemic reasons are not desire-based and the latter entails that the reduction, via a violation of irreflexivity, fails to ground reasonhood. Naturalistic reductions of the normative, accordingly, face a damning dilemma. We should, in the face of this argument, thus accept a robust form of non-naturalist realism. (shrink)

Scholars have begun to explore Baruch Spinozas critique of rationalism, largely because of his importance for later thinkers deeply concerned about the nature of body, including Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt school critical theorists, and feminists. Until now, however, Spinozas epistemological writings have not been properly addressed in this revival of interest in his materialism. My dissertation reconstructs Spinozas materialist method of knowing in an effort to reclaim it from Cartesian and idealist readings, offering instead a materialist reading of Spinozas epistemological (...) writings that shows him as the first serious critic of modern rationalism. Contrary to the predominant reading of Spinoza in Anglo-American philosophy, which presents him as a metaphysician dependent on Cartesian epistemology, I argue that Spinoza offers something separate, akin to an epistemology, that distinguishes him from the Cartesian model and allows him to critique it. The dissertation explores how Spinozas method of knowing must involve material conditions, including concrete history, psychology, society, and politics, that are experienced through the body and that render a purely mental criterion for knowledge impossible. (shrink)

Real Fit: Identity, Society, and Viewer Investment in Reality TV is first and foremost a philosophical experiment in how to articulate the space between viewer and screen. Its driven by a methodological investment in bringing theories of normativity into an experiential terrain typically dominated by media studies. What does it mean to study an audience? And how does this knowledge speak to, or challenge our existing models? Its an investigation into the political dimension of seemingly innocuous entertainment, and a deep (...) consideration of how this comes to bear on invested viewers. Staying within the confines of the virtual, my dissertation studies the ways that TV exploits affect to reinforce current personalized narratives of obesity as a problem that can be managed by self-discipline. (shrink)

In this dissertation I explore the conceptual relationship between equality and resistance in political philosophy. Through examination of the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, John Dewey, and Jacques Rancière, I formulate a position called Fractured Social Holism. This is a problematic that attempts to articulate core issues at stake in the debates surrounding the purposes, meanings, and possibilities for politics. Through Fractured Social Holism I articulate a theory of equality that emphasizes the communities upon which societys institutions intend to (...) distribute equality, arguing that resistance on the part of a populationgroup opposition, formal or informal, to some element of the societal status quoconceptually grounds equality and its distribution by articulating its very possibilities. My central questionHow is equality constituted?focuses on the community itself in order to shift agency from institutions that distribute equality to those who demand it. It emphasizes the active role of the people in the constitution of a community of equals, as well as the fact that the very notion of the people is what is at stake in that constitution; popular resistance challenges the very meaning and content of any given people. I understand equality in the broadest possible sense, in terms of the opportunity of each and all within society to participate in dictating the terms of their public engagement with that society and with others within it. I argue for the possibility of resistance within egalitarian community in Rousseau, the limits of what that resistance in egalitarian society looks like in Marx, how egalitarian communities can organize themselves in Dewey, and how subjectivity relates to mechanisms of resistance and political action within society in Rancière. These historical interpretations and the conceptual framework they engender provide a novel means of thinking about issues of paramount importance in contemporary political philosophy, including pluralism, oppression and domination, and the purposes and meaning of politics, remaining true to a normative vision of equality while insisting on the necessity of the peoples resistance to the status quo in the name of a re-imagined vision of social harmony. (shrink)

This dissertation engages the question of the relation between nature and rationality, and the conditions of our freedom, through the lens of the concept of Life. It begins by analyzing biological life in Kants Critique of Judgment as a form of judgment bridging theoretical and practical reason. Kants argument is limited, however, because it returns us to ourselves with new insight only about our judgment, but not about natural life. Hegel, by contrast, begins his treatment of self-consciousness in the Phenomenology (...) of Spirit in Life, showing how rationality develops out of a mutually constitutive relation with objects in their independence. Hegels dialectical relation of subject and object develops into a world increasingly worked over as social structures, norms and institutions that provide the conditions for our situated freedom. Contra the reading that positive liberty entails that we are fully determined by our social conditions, my contention is that Hegel provides a robust theory of our freedom as socially and historically situated. Through a dialectical process of alienation from and interaction with norms and institutions, both we and these external conditions are changed, giving meaning to our agency as the ability to interact with, rather than merely react to, our lifeworld. In the Phenomenology, this interaction first appears as work, through which we create the social structures that come to stand against us in culture. By recognizing the role that work plays in the creation and reinforcement of these institutions, we also realize our own activity as a tool for reforming these social conditions towards an increasingly free and just society. (shrink)

PHILOSOPHY Echoing Demystified Aspirations: Human Flourishing and the Dialectic of Happiness Patrick Joseph Ahern Dissertation under the direction of Idit Dobbs-Weinstein The question of the possibility or even the concern for human happiness has proven to be a point of contention for political thinkers confronting the ideological injunction to be happy in the face of material conditions that stifle the capacity for human flourishing. It can be argued that the appeal to human happiness as a political norm occludes as much (...) as it may reveal, and that the cult of happiness is the domain of the internalized oppressor, severing the avenues of self-reflection, social critique, or political praxis. In the writings of Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin, a dialectical notion of happiness emerges that critiques naïve conceptions of happiness that depend upon redemptive flight or accommodation. A historical approach to political theorizing, through the lens of the concern for human flourishing is enacted through a careful critical engagement with three political theorists that attempt to construct a politics dedicated to human flourishing while informed by human beings in their practical social activity. The notions of happiness for each of these thinkers is addressed and critiqued in the context of the broader aspirations of their respective political theories. Hobbess reversion to the idolatry of the Leviathan, Spinozas attempt to form a theory of the organization of social institutions informed by a defense of radical democracy, and Marxs attempt to perform a critique of ideology and the modern state while constructing a revolutionary politics illuminate the challenges that confront the development of a praxis that is resistant to accommodation while not relinquishing the constructive capacity to transform and organize a world in which the promise of happiness could be realized. In this dissertation, I argue that the dialectic of happiness as presented by Adorno and Benjamin, in its affinity with embodied and historical experience, forms the negative relief upon which the demand for human happiness can find expression. In providing an accounting of the manner in which attempts to realize happiness have failed, this dissertation elucidates what is left for the critical idea of happiness. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt theorizes that public spaces for thought and private spaces of reflection are constitutive components necessary for the production of a robust political world of thinkers, story-tellers and meaning-makers. Arendts conception of the transformative potential of public and private spaces can be particularly illuminating when applied to the context of the modern American prison, where prisoners are often subjected to both severe forms of social deprivation on the one hand, and lack of privacy on the other. That prison spaces (...) exist as such is not a coincidenceor, as the rhetoric often goes, necessary or practicalbut rather stands as the literal, spatial verification of the prisoners status as one in exile. The prisoner, as a subject that has violated the social contract, and has as a consequence lost her right to flourish in a community. Prison spaces are designed to limit the ability of insiders to reflect, privately, and to act and communicate, publically. Analyzing prison spaces through an Arendtian lens, I argue, can be helpful for understanding the very real stakes of subjecting prisoners to such conditions. (shrink)

Since its 1929 publication, philosophers have been more or less unsure what to make of Heidegger's Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Although it wielded more than its fair share of influence over the course of the twentieth century, its chief interpretive claims are mostly untenable today. Of course, it has always been recognized that the book was never intended as a straightforward piece of Kant interpretation. But neither does it appear to be a reliable presentation of Heidegger's own thought. (...) The result has been that, for all its influence, Heidegger's book has fallen into a kind of academic limbo, a concern for neither scholars of Heidegger nor scholars of Kant. My goal is to help return to Heidegger's reading of Kant its provocative power. I do so by means of a conceptual genesis of Heidegger's reading of Kant that takes both thinkers, as far as possible, on their own terms, but includes an investigation into why Heidegger was so convinced--for a few decisive years, at least--that he had to be able to find in Kant a precedent for his own path of thinking. (shrink)

Recent philosophical research on normativity has clarified the nature and dynamics of social norms. Social norms are distinguished from legal and moral norms on the basis of their scope, their grounds, their characteristic forms of accountability, or some combination of these features. Because of their distinct character, social norms can reinforce practical prescriptions, prohibitions, and permissions provided to particular actors by legal or moral norms. They also can conflict drastically with those prescriptions, prohibitions, and permissions resulting in serious practical dilemmas. (...) The identification of normative principles capable of resolving practical dilemmas arising from conflicts between different kinds of norms is a major aim of contemporary moral and political philosophy. This dissertation contributes to this aim by establishing the significance of conflicts between social norms and legal or moral norms during mass atrocities and liberalizing political transitions. The dissertation argues that social norms, and changes in social norms, are critical components of accurate descriptions and responsible evaluations both legal and moral of the actions of individuals and groups before, during, and after mass atrocities. The dissertation contends, further, that distinct principles of justice may apply to transitional efforts by non-state actors to transform social norms in societies recovering from large-scale crimes. Three principal results follow from this dissertations effort to integrate the conceptual framework of social norms into the study of mass atrocity. First, the dissertation clarifies and extends the historiographical thesis of norm transformation, according to which participation by ordinary individuals in mass atrocities is at least partially explained by transformations in basic norms that structure social and political life. Second, the dissertation identifies a novel basis on which to apportion legal and moral accountability for mass atrocities between individuals and groups or collectivities i.e. on the basis of the specific contributions of social norms. Third, the dissertation provides new support for the disputed claim that distinct principles of justice apply to the various actors involved in liberalizing political transitions. (shrink)

As the cognitive sciences reveal more and more to us about the ways in which ours brains function, legal scholars, philosophers, and bioethicists are but a few of the academics that will have accommodate this increasing knowledge into theory and practice. Herein, I argue that several problematic areas in the United States legal system might be ameliorated in coming years by augmenting our conception of mental capacity. While the term is broad and carries many possible applications, I focus on two (...) particular applications, patient decision making capacity in hospitals, and the capacity of mentally ill defendants to form a guilty mindset, or mens rea. Through these two examinations, I show that other closely related terms, such as diminished capacity, mental competency, and legal insanity, already in use in our legal system are insufficient to capture the exact nature of some cases better examined through the lens of actual capacities for thoughts, mental states, or cognitive processes. Additionally, I attempt to indicate a trajectory through which advances in cognitive legal theory might take, guided by an interdisciplinary union between theorists, scientists, and legal scholars. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I argue that an account of epistemic injustice sensitive to interlocking oppressions must take us beyond injustice to human knowers. Although several feminist epistemologists argue for the incorporation of all forms of oppression into their analyses, feminist epistemology remains for the most part an anthropocentric enterprise. Yet insofar as a reduction to animal irrationality has been central to the epistemic injustice of both humans and animals, I propose that in addition to axes of gender, race, class and (...) sex, feminist epistemology must register the animal-human dichotomy as a fundamental driving mechanism inherent in epistemic injustice. From the perspective of a truly liberatory epistemology, I thus argue for an expanded account of epistemic injustice that is both 1) sufficiently attentive to the way injustices to human knowers continue to rely on animal oppression and 2) that accommodates epistemic injustices against animal knowers. (shrink)

This dissertation is intended as an intervention in the interminable and apparently antinomical philosophical exchange between political theories of radical democracy descended from Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe and liberal democracy descended from John Rawls. Radical democrats have deployed the friend-enemy distinction of Carl Schmitt to criticize liberal democracy as hypocritical and ultimately undemocratic in its refusal to critique its own ground; liberal democrats have riposted by characterizing radical democracy as dangerously anarchic. In this project, I read Immanuel Kant in (...) dialog with the work of Ingeborg Maus to show in a novel way that contemporary radical democratic theories ultimately fall to the very critique upon which they indict liberal democracy, that they degenerate into the valorization of mere war, and that it was in fact in full recognition of this dynamic that Kants theory of liberal democracy begins. Kants theory of countervailing liberalism is ultimately discovered to be a politics of love over barbarism. The project ranges over a wide ground, from a close reading of Kant, to the 19th Century Pantheismusstreit, to works by Arendt, Hardt and Negri, Žižek, and Strauss. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I establish that Ludwig Wittgensteins and Michel Foucaults thoughts share a common philosophical ethos of freedom which shapes the political dimensions of their works. As opposed to accusations on and interpretations of their works as suggesting and prescribing a conservative line of political thought, I argue that being shaped by the normative demands of the ethos of freedom, their thoughts resist such conservative understandings and press us to read and judge them in the medium of radical transformative (...) politics. This is because while the conservative interpretations of their works diminish the range and effectiveness of Wittgensteins and Foucaults philosophical claims on our political thought, the context of radical transformative politics allow us to appreciate and use their thoughts in a wider and richer range to politically articulate our concerns, discontents, and dissatisfactions. Such an ethos steers their thoughts towards an incessant questioning of the limits and constraints imposed on our lives by grammar and the discursive order. The ethos of freedom, in this sense, conveys a sense of politics as a battle against these false necessities that deny us a wide range of possibilities available in our human form of life. I call such a philosophical/political endeavor politics of grammar because both Wittgenstein and Foucault point to the level of the grammar of our concepts as the site in which these false necessities are formed and sustained. Accordingly, they both suggest that a critique of the grammar of our concepts is a critique of our form of life shaped by the constraints of our grammar. The form of this critique is therapeutic in the sense that it constantly reminds us of the historical contingency of such constraints rendering them accessible and available for political interventions and negotiations. (shrink)