Hohfeld’s analysis on the different types of rights and duties is highly influential in analytical legal theory, and it is considered as a fundamental theory in AI&Law and normative multi-agent systems. Yet a century later, the formalization of this theory remains, in various ways, unresolved. In this paper I provide a formal analysis of how the working of a system containing Hohfeldian rights and duties can be delineated. This formalization starts from using the same tools as the classical ones by (...) Kanger and Lindahl used, but instead of focusing on the algebraic features of rights and duties, it aims at providing a comprehensive analysis of what these rights and duties actually are and how they behave and at saying something substantial on Power too—maintaining all along the Hohfeldian intentions that these rights and duties are sui generis and inherently relational. (shrink)

This study offers a fresh reappraisal of the philosopher, political thinker, and historian of ideas Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) from childhood to the height of his intellectual career. It provides the first historically contextualized study of Berlin's formative years and identifies different stages in his intellectual development, allowing a reappraisal of his theory of liberalism. Applying a 'double perspective' that examines Berlin both as an East European Jewish émigré; as well as a British Liberal intellectual, author Arie Dubnov stresses (...) the very ambivalent relation between Berlin's liberal philosophy and his pro-Zionist sentiments. (shrink)

This essay seeks to examine the history of the intellectual comradeship between J.L. Talmon and the philosopher, political thinker, and historian of ideas, Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997). The scholarly dialog between the two began in 1947, continued until Talmon's death in 1980, and is well documented in their private correspondence. I argue that there were two levels to this dialog: First, both Berlin and Talmon took part in the Totalitarianism discourse, which was colored by Popperian terminology, and thus I claim that (...) their ideas should be examined as part of the Cold-War political discourse. The second level stemmed from their similar East-European origin, their mutual Jewish identity, and their attitude towards the Zionist movement. At times the two levels of discourse conjoined commensurably, but in other cases the juxtaposition of the two created conceptual tensions. Examining Berlin and Talmon's thought from this dual perspective, I argue, can shed new light on the inner conflicts and conceptual tensions that each of them had to face. In particular, I claim that both thinkers tried to integrate their Anglophile liberal heritage with their support of National movements in general, and the Jewish National movement in particular. Nevertheless, the different approaches of Talmon and Berlin present two concepts of liberal Nationalism: While Talmon assumed that Zionism solved the Jewish individual's dilemmas by making Jews members of a commune attached to soil; Berlin sought to preserve the individual in an inviolable sphere and thus was more ambivalent in his attitude towards the state of Israel. In conclusion, I offer to see Talmon as a classic Zionist liberal and Berlin as a supporter of what I call “Diaspora Zionism”, an approach, which would later provide the grounds for Berlin's celebrated pluralism. (shrink)

This essay examines Isaiah Berlin's ambivalent relationship with the ideas and practices of Jewish nationalism and the ways in which this ambivalence shaped some of the key premises of his political thought. Drawing upon extensive archival research in his unpublished letters from the mid-1930s to the late 1950s, this essay reconstructs Berlin's attempt to reconcile himself with the national idea. This attempt forced him to enrich his liberalism, and pushed him to develop and adopt the Jewish normalization discourse. In the (...) course of those intra-Jewish debates Berlin also began to conceptualize freedom as an opportunity concept, an idea that would later become central both in Berlin's famous negative concept of freedom and in his pluralism. Adopting a dual perspective, which considers Berlin as both a British liberal and a Russian-Jewish émigré intellectual, I therefore offer to see the Jewish Zionist writings as complementary rather than secondary to Berlin's enterprise. (shrink)

Reflections on Seyla Benhabib’s a. Exile, Statelessness, and Migration: Playing Chess with History from Hannah Arendt to Isaiah Berlin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.

This essay provides a general introduction to the special number on Jacob L. Talmon (1916–1980). The essay sketches the outlines of Talmon's intellectual biography, beginning with his study of the origins of totalitarian democracy, moving through his analysis of nationalism and political messianism, and ending with his study of the ideological clash of the 20th century. The essay raises the question of whether Talmon should be seen as a thinker wishing to defend existing traditions (i.e. a “priest”), or as a (...) radical anti-authoritarian skeptic (i.e. a “jester”). Moreover, being both an anti-nationalist liberal, and a zionist at the same time, Talmon, the essay shows, was aware of the fact his own stance was problematic and at times even paradoxical. The last section of the essay presents the seven essays, which are included in the special issue. (shrink)

The article examines the role and place of the Mystery within the structure of Mamleev’s metaphysics. The author of the article implicates the concept of “chaosmos’’, introduced by James Joyce in the experimental novel “Finnegans Wake”, to the Mamleev’s Universe. This leads to the transformation of the formula “chaos – osmosis – cosmos”, actualized by postmodern discourse, into the formula “Chaos – Osmosis – Cosmos”. Chaos here is Sacred Chaos, being one of the metaphysical manifestations of Eternal Russia. Osmosis appears (...) to be an antinomic Russian life, which combines the incompatible, and sets itself fundamentally impossible tasks. The Сosmos brings us to the tradition of Russian cosmism with its problem of microcosm and macrocosm conformity. The author of the article points out that the all-pervading and unifying element of Mamleev’s chaos is the Mystery. It is one of the five key metathemes of Mamleev’s oeuvre. The particularity of the Mystery is that it provides a link between other metathemes: utrism “I”, Death, the Abyss and Russia. In the plane of utrism “I” the Mystery is seen as the mystery of man. The Mystery is related to Death by the person’s interest of his own destiny and finiteness. The problem of overcoming death and the passion for eternal life are the central themes that concern almost all the heroes of Mamleev’s novels and short stories. For Mamleev they are the source of values aimed at the human need to achieve a higher “I”. The connection between the Mystery and the Abyss, as well as the connection between the Mystery and Russia are the strongest and the most important for Mamleev. Consideration of these connections prompts the author to conclude that Yuri Mamleev describes such dimensions of the Mystery, which go beyond the categories “unfathomable-to-us” and “unfathomable-in-itself”, introduced by S. Frank. This requires the introduction of new concepts that would bring out the essence of Mamleev’s innovations. The author of the article proposes to consider the Abyss as a “Last Mystery” by the fact it is transcendent to the transcendents themselves, that is it goes beyond the Absolute, as well as to consider Eternal Russia as a Russia-Mystery on the grounds that Mamleev gives it the status of the third metaphysical Beginning, along with the Absolute and the Abyss. (shrink)

Authors of Greek and Roman philosophical protreptics imitate a kind of exhortation initially associated with Socrates, creating a thread of typically protreptic intertextuality that classifies protreptic as a genre of philosophical literature. Tracing this intertextuality from the Socratic authors to Boethius, the book shows how Greek and Roman protreptics define philosophy as a revisionary form of education, articulate the ultimate goals of this education, and associate their authors and audiences with philosophy as a new discursive practice and a new way (...) of living. These texts constitute the first chapter in the history of educational revision and thus offer thoughts that continue to inform every debate on educational goals. (shrink)

V nastoi︠a︡shchem izdanii raskryvaetsi︠a︡ biografii︠a︡, a takzhe publikuetsi︠a︡ znachitelʹnai︠a︡ chastʹ ėpistoli︠a︡rnogo nasledii︠a︡ poluzabytogo filosofa Adolʹfa Markovicha Lazareva (1872-1944), odnogo iz blizhaĭshikh druzeĭ, edinomyshlennika i uchenika Lʹva Shestova, istolkovateli︠a︡ ego filosofskikh ideĭ. V knigu vkli︠u︡cheny takzhe statʹi A. Lazareva o L. Shestove -- kak opublikovannye, tak i neizvestnye, sokhranivshiesi︠a︡ v ego arkhive. Prinadlezha k t.n. "shestovskomu" krugu -- k chislu tekh, dli︠a︡ kogo byla blizka i nesomnenna, govori︠a︡ ego sobstvennymi slovami, "volnui︠u︡shchai︠a︡ ubeditelʹnostʹ" mysli velikogo filosofa, A. Lazarev okazalsi︠a︡ fakticheski vne issledovatelʹskogo (...) i chitatelʹskogo vnimanii︠a︡. Dannai︠a︡ kniga i︠a︡vli︠a︡etsi︠a︡, po sushchestvu, pervym opytom privlechʹ interes k ego lichnosti i trudam. (shrink)

The article dealt with the question of the ratio of Yuri Mamleev’s I-utrism to Tradition. The problem is in the contradiction between two positions, which Mamleev notes in different places of “The Destiny of Being” – a view of the I-utrism as a new approach within the framework of Tradition, and as going beyond it with the introduction of extraneous elements. Based on the connection between the I-utrism and the “Last Doctrine”, which clearly lies outside the Tradition, the author of (...) the article concludes that the I-utrism should not be considered as a new approach within the framework of the Tradition, but as an autonomous construction to it. According to the author, the I-utrism due to its own radicalism contains two key problems that lead not only to a break with Tradition but also to a violation of the inner integrity of Mamleev’s philosophy itself. These two problems are defined as the radicalization of the Vedanta formula “Atman = Brahman” and the absence of the figure of the Other. I-utrism forms unified I, which the author of the article proposes to call “I-total”, because it displaces everything but itself, including the classical concept of the Absolute. Hence the lack of a topos for Mamleev’s concepts such as “Abyss” and “Eternal Russia”. It is compounded by the prevention of the metaphysical event of the Other, which is especially important for the idea of a metaphysical and mysterious Russia that requires intersubjectivity. In the process of analyzing these problems and issues, the article compares the philosophical positions of Stirner and Mamleev, as well as addresses the topic of demonic I-utrism. After all, the author concludes that the I-utrism needs to be revised and softened. This would allow it to exist organically in the overall picture of Mamleev’s worldview and not lose touch with Tradition despite the inevitable exit from it. (shrink)

This paper arose out of the 2017 international conference on AI and law doctoral consortium. There were five students who presented their Ph.D. work, and each of them has contributed a section to this paper. The paper offers a view of what topics are currently engaging students, and shows the diversity of their interests and influences.

The author of the article studies the creative legacy of Yuriy Mamleev, trying to establish the correlation between of his philosophical and fiction writings. The conventional editorial distinction between philosophical and literary texts as different and autonomous categories is rejected. Instead of the idea, that philosophical and fictional aspects of texts by Mamleev are inextricably linked, it is claimed that they should be considered together. In the author’s opinion, these texts present different perspectives and implementations of his oeuvre that contains (...) the rational dimension and on the other hand – irrational dimension of artistic images and obscure allusions. Mamleev’s writings considered by means of 5 crucial “metathemes”: Аbyss and the “Ultimate relationships” concerned with it, the Mystery which has two levels – one cognizable and the another – uncoognizable in principal, the “root of self-being” and metaphysic of “I”, death and immortality, Russia and the Russian soul which are existed between West and East with special historical and cosmological mission. It is concluded that these 5 metathemes pervade all Mamleev’s texts and comprise his spiritual search. The characters of Mamleev’s fiction are mostly people of post-Soviet world, who ask questions with no set answers to become acquainted with the secrets of being. At the same time they are concerned with their own existence, their self destiny. Their actions are extraordinary and illogical. Supposedly Mamleev’s artistic images not only correspond with his philosophical ideas, for instance – utrism or the “Ultimate relationships”, but also reveal them from unexpected perspective. The author determines that distinction between philosophy and literature of Mamleev is incorrect, as these areas are conflated. Any distinction of this kind will ruin the logic of Mamleev’s thinking and outlook. Thus, metaphysical realism can be viewed as the crossing, distinction blurring area, productive and creative transgression. Or as the situation when philosophy is more than it is itself. (shrink)

This article provides the original perspective on esotericism. Two author distinguishes between the two polar directions of esotericism – "transcendental" and "latent" ; as well as introduces the two postulates characteristic to the first direction that in previous research received the name of "classical". The article discusses what binds esotericism and philosophy, religion, and art; outlines the common aspects of these fields of knowledge and life activity are indicated ; examines the cases of interaction, and what caused the decline of (...) interest in esoteric teachings. The research consists of two parts. The first part explores the three cases that reveal a close link between esoteric, philosophical, scientific and literary thought, as well as the fact that esoteric ideas and concepts often enrich philosophy, science and art. The second part discusses the key reasons for the slump in esotericism: new cultural challenges that to which there is yet no esoteric answer, interception of esoteric discourse in a number of directions of contemporary art and philosophy. However, this pause is temporary, since esoteric path is one of the ways to prevail in personality culture; it can be assumed that esotericists will soon eliminate the existing gap. On the example of current interest in vampires, the author discusses certain peculiarities of the phenomenon of mysticism, which indicate that the phenomenon of vampirism is real, perhaps related to the forms of communication widely used in modern life. (shrink)