Does the world we inhabit offer us hospitality or indifference? This question is central to the spiritual literature of all cultures. In We Find Ourselves Put to the Test James Crooks returns to the Bible’s book of Job to explore the enduring relevance of that question and its philosophical dimensions. Beginning with the puzzle of Job’s famous stoicism and nihilism in the face of loss, Crooks explores the contradictions of suffering as dramatized in the dialogue between Job and his friends. (...) How is it that the friends’ attempt to comfort Job with a rational explanation of his misfortune devolves seamlessly into victim blaming? How is it that Job’s own renunciation of life at the nadir of his pain converts into an intellectual patience that outlasts the advocates of rational explanation? We Find Ourselves Put to the Test gives a portrait of the suffering protagonist looking into the heart of a creation that is, by necessity, both indifferent and hospitable. A philosophical exploration of one of the most enigmatic books in the Bible, We Find Ourselves Put to the Test goes beyond critical interpretation and suggests a way of reading the book of Job that is animated by a consideration of the reader’s narratives and communities, and the limits of his or her own understanding. (shrink)

There are at least three reasons why present circumstances favor a renewal of dialogue on Hegel’s political philosophy. First, it seems increasingly clear that the collapse of the “big left” over the past two decades has produced a crisis of imagination in political theory and practice. Debate in North America particularly has polarized—on one side the splintering and perhaps ultimately cynical forces of postmodernism, on the other, the triumphal indifference of corporate capitalism. Since most thoughtful people reject both alternatives, the (...) post-Cold War years, their promise and opportunity notwithstanding, have been marked by an ethos of political disenfranchisement and the growing desire for other options. Secondly, the recent attacks on American targets and the subsequent mobilization of military/propagandist might in the war on terrorism have made evident the necessity of rethinking geopolitical paradigms. In the past year especially, the consequences of the West’s essentially colonial foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere have become frighteningly evident. Instead of surveying unsatisfying but comparatively harmless theoretical options we have seen concrete political activity around the globe becoming reduced to the dilemma of terror or armed intervention. This reduction, in turn, has exposed mere languishing in desire for other options as a species of moral cowardice. The situation now demands a positive counterproposal. Finally, and almost paradoxically, recognition of the fact that Western institutions stand under threat, that besieged by forces within and without they could fail, has produced across the political spectrum a new determination to defend them. As if danger itself were a reminder that the structures we have been descrying from the left or the right as politically compromised are nevertheless essential to the accommodation of human freedom. I can think of no time since the end of the Second World War more ripe for reflective engagement of the possibility of an autonomy won through and vouchsafed in an authentically rational state and its institutions. (shrink)

There are at least three reasons why present circumstances favor a renewal of dialogue on Hegel’s political philosophy. First, it seems increasingly clear that the collapse of the “big left” over the past two decades has produced a crisis of imagination in political theory and practice. Debate in North America particularly has polarized—on one side the splintering and perhaps ultimately cynical forces of postmodernism, on the other, the triumphal indifference of corporate capitalism. Since most thoughtful people reject both alternatives, the (...) post-Cold War years, their promise and opportunity notwithstanding, have been marked by an ethos of political disenfranchisement and the growing desire for other options. Secondly, the recent attacks on American targets and the subsequent mobilization of military/propagandist might in the war on terrorism have made evident the necessity of rethinking geopolitical paradigms. In the past year especially, the consequences of the West’s essentially colonial foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific Rim and elsewhere have become frighteningly evident. Instead of surveying unsatisfying but comparatively harmless theoretical options we have seen concrete political activity around the globe becoming reduced to the dilemma of terror or armed intervention. This reduction, in turn, has exposed mere languishing in desire for other options as a species of moral cowardice. The situation now demands a positive counterproposal. Finally, and almost paradoxically, recognition of the fact that Western institutions stand under threat, that besieged by forces within and without they could fail, has produced across the political spectrum a new determination to defend them. As if danger itself were a reminder that the structures we have been descrying from the left or the right as politically compromised are nevertheless essential to the accommodation of human freedom. I can think of no time since the end of the Second World War more ripe for reflective engagement of the possibility of an autonomy won through and vouchsafed in an authentically rational state and its institutions. (shrink)

The philosophical historiography of postwar Europe has, for the most part, abandoned the "idea" as a standard, independent unit of measure. By the late 1940s, Heidegger had already promoted the view that history was a series of epochs governed not by human ingenuity and accomplishment but by something much more like fate or destiny. In the 1950s, Merleau-Ponty enjoined his readers to see it as the embodiment of general material structures to which scientific, philosophical, and literary works invariably respond. The (...) 1960s and 1970s brought the works of Foucault, recasting history as a dynamic network of power relations the play of which was most evident in the genesis and development of shared institutions. More recently, leading poststructuralists have treated it as a troublesome side effect of Western metaphysics—an effluvium of the logocentric text. (shrink)