Ce volume collectif traite des relations entre philosophie et pouvoir politique dans l’Antiquité, des sophistes jusqu’aux néoplatoniciens, dans huit contributions issues pour la plupart du Hannah Arendt and Reiner Schürmann Symposium in Political Philosophy - Tyrants, Kings, Emperors, and Philosophers : Philosophy and Political Power in Antiquity à la New School for Social Research à New York en mai 2013. Les éditeurs rappellent dans l’introduction l’invention de la philosophie politique par...

Resenha de Arruzza, C. A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato’s Republic.

_Feminismo para el 99% Un Manifiesto_, __publicado mundialmente el 8 de marzo de 2019, pretende configurarse como una apuesta político-discursiva capaz de trascender, tanto en su aspecto literario como en su contenido político, fronteras y territorios. Nuestra versión en castellano, traducida del inglés original por Renata Prati, convive con cerca de veinte ediciones, localizadas en distintos países, distribuidas en distintas lenguas, y que reúnen a tres mujeres con trayectorias signadas tanto por la producción académica como por el activismo político. Entre (...) la multiplicidad de preguntas que aparecen a lo largo de las páginas, una parece destacarse: cuál es el sentido o, incluso, cuál es el _deber ser_ de un feminismo cuyo horizonte coincide con la emancipación. (shrink)

Review of Arruzza, C. _A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato’s Republic_.

A review of Cinzia Arruzza's book A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato's Republic.

Book Review: ARRUZZA, Cinzia. 2019. A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato’s Republic. New York, Oxford University Press, 312 p.

In this article I reply to three critics. Responding to Cinzia Arruzza, I argue that capital encounters a large spectrum of differences of gender, religion and ethnicity, as well as differences generated by racism. Capital is able to use these differences to its own profit in order to differentiate wages and intensities of exploitation and thereby divide the working class. Responding to Peter Osborne, I contend that my temporal-layered framework elucidates how capital organises and synchronises different temporalities according to (...) the dominant temporality of socially-necessary labour time. I combine Bloch’s idea of ‘multiversum’ and Benjamin’s idea of history in order to show how conflicting temporalities can disclose new political possibilities of liberation. Responding to Harry Harootunian, I articulate the relationship between my reading of Marx and the Postcolonial critique. (shrink)

This chapter reviews four books published in 2018 which are not readily categorized as works in ‘modern European philosophy’: Gurminder K. Bhambra, Kerem Nişancloğlu, and Dalia Gebrial’s edited volume Decolonising the University, Chantal Mouffe’s For a Left Populism, Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya, and Nancy Fraser’s Feminism for the 99%, and Andreas Malm’s The Progress of this Storm. Yet their uneasy relationship to this philosophy is precisely the reason they constitute a significant contribution to it. The philosophical originality and critical (...) purchase of these books proceed from the fact that each is a singular case of philosophy’s dependence on ‘non-philosophy’; each exposes the impossibility of viewing philosophy as a self-sufficient discipline. In particular, they are a timely reminder that the best political philosophy is produced through actually existing social movements to change (which ecologically now means simply saving) the world. The chapter is divided into six sections: 1. Introduction; 2. Decolonizing Philosophy: Decolonising the University; 3. Anti-Post-Politics: For a Left Populism; 4. Anti-Post-Marxism: Feminism for the 99%; 5. Anti-Postmodernism: The Progress of This Storm; 6. Conclusion. (shrink)

In this dense, intelligent, but often frustrating work, Cinzia Arruzza argues that Plato's depiction of tyranny and the character of the tyrant in the Republic is best interpreted as, ‘an intervention in a debate concerning the transformed relation between political leaders and demos in Athenian democracy’ (p. 9) in the last decades of the fifth century BCE. Her central claim is that Plato's critique of tyranny in the Republic was aimed at showing that this particular historical form of Athenian (...) democracy, along with its institutional mechanisms, was morally, psychologically, and politically continuous with the forms of tyranny to which its ideology was opposed. (shrink)