When considered in the field of aesthetics, the Bilderverbot (biblical ban on pictures) is received with a variety of attitudes ranging between the extremes of Kant’s praise and Hegel’s criticism. Despite being at odds with each other, Kant’s and Hegel’s interpretations suffer from the same theoretical flaw: both assume that the pictures the Bible talks about are representations related to their objects by way of reference. This assumption is proven wrong in the pars destruens of this essay, in which it (...) will be argued that using the notion of ‘representation’ as a key to the reading of the Bilderverbot is a misconception that leads to an anachronistic and partial view of the matter. The concept of ‘gaze,’ elaborated by Régis Debray and other scholars of visual studies, is introduced in the pars construens of this essay to show that the biblical prohibition is actually aimed at a different kind of pictures, to wit at presentifications, which, instead of referring to their objects in a representational way, are rather thought to embody and dominate them. In conclusion, through Nietzsche’s insights into the reasons behind religious cults, the point is finally made that the notion of ‘power’ surpasses that of ‘representation’ in capturing and accounting for the authentic meaning of the Bilderverbot. (shrink)

Das angebliche Bilderverbot, das im Zweiten Gebot des Dekalogs enthalten sein soll, ist eigentlich ein Idolatrieverbot. Das heißt, dass das jüdische Gesetz nicht Bilder an sich, sondern Idole verbietet. Gewiss: Manche Bilder werden als Idole verehrt. Es gibt aber auch Bilder, die keine idolatrische Bedeutung haben, und umgekehrt Idole, die keinen bildlichen Charakter aufweisen. Die Untersuchung dieser komplexen Zusammenhänge ist das Hauptziel des vorliegenden Sammelbandes. Von unterschiedlichen theoretischen Standpunkten ausgehend, eröffnen die hier versammelten Aufsätze neue Perspektiven auf das Verhältnis zwischen (...) Bild und Idol. Mit Beiträgen von Beniamino Fortis, Asher D. Biemann, Ellen Rinner, Mario C. Schmidt, Lars Tittmar, Johannes Bennke und Agata Bielik-Robson. (shrink)

Through the analysis of some of the main categories of Greek philosophy and Jewish thought, this essay highlights a general, decisive antithesis between them, i.e. the theoretical opposition between a Greek conceptual-deductive method and a Jewish storytelling attitude. The attention paid by contemporary philosophy to narrative issues can thus be seen as bearing witness to philosophy’s need to reshape its speculative processes, and at the same time as proving the topicality of Jewish thought as a viable way to delineate new (...) thinking perspectives. (shrink)

Enmarcado dentro del tema principal del pensamiento del futuro, la muerte heideggeriana y la redención de Rosenzweig presentan dos formas diferentes de apuntar a aspectos que pueden arrojar luz sobre la existencia humana. Más en concreto, el modo en que Heidegger y Rosenzweig conciben el futuro se encuentra en las raíces de cuestiones tales como la mortalidad, la otredad y la posibilidad.

We make many decisions in our livesand we weigh the benefits against thedrawbacks. Our decisions are based on whatbenefits are most important to us and whatdrawbacks we are willing to accept. Decisionsabout what we eat are made in the same way; butwhen it comes to safety, our decisions areusually made more carefully. Food containsnatural chemicals and it can come into contactwith many natural and artificial substancesduring harvest, production, processing, andpreparation. They include microorganisms,chemicals, either naturally present or producedby cooking, environmental contaminants, (...) andpesticides. Since the chance of being harmed bythese potential hazards is called risk, riskanalysis might be better termed as the scienceof safety, because risk management is anessential part of it. It would, however, bedifficult and shortsighted to maintain thatquestions about risk and safety can have nomoral dimension. Risk and safety become mattersof moral concern when they raise furtherquestions about responsibility, accountability,and justifiability. The question of risk cannotbe ignored in any ethical investigation ofgenetic engineering, novel foods, animalwelfare, and individual choices. However, foodis more than metabolic fuel. It hasphysiological, psychological, social, cultural,and aesthetic associations that merge to form agestalt that people endanger and maintain. Thecontribution of any food towards anindividual's well being is as complex as theindividual himself. In this context, thebenefits of consuming food that containshazards may outweigh the risk. (shrink)

As long as we care about suffering in the world, says political philosopher Simona Forti, we are compelled to inquire into the question of evil. But is the concept of evil still useful in a postmodern landscape where absolute values have been leveled and relativized by a historicist perspective? Given our current unwillingness to judge others, what signposts remain to guide our ethical behavior? Surveying the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western philosophical debates on evil, Forti concludes that it is time to (...) leave behind what she calls "the Dostoevsky paradigm": the dualistic vision of an omnipotent monster pitted against absolute, helpless victims. No longer capable of grasping the normalization of evil in today's world—whose structures of power have been transformed—this paradigm has exhausted its explanatory force. In its place, Forti offers a different genealogy of the relationship between evil and power, one that finally calls into question power's recurrent link to transgression. At the center of contemporary evil she posits the passive attitude towards rule-following, the need for normalcy, and the desire for obedience nurtured by our contemporary mass democracies. In our times, she contends, evil must be explored in tandem with our stubborn desire to stay alive at all costs as much as with our deep need for recognition: the new modern absolutes. A courageous book, New Demons extends an original, inspiring call to ethical living in a biopolitical age. (shrink)

It is well known that the validity of Choice Principles is problematic in non-standard Set Theories which do not abide by the Limitation of Size Principle. In this paper we discuss the consistency of various Choice Principles with respect to the Generalized Positive Comprehension Principle . The Principle GPC allows to take as sets those classes which can be specified by Generalized Positive Formulae, e.g. the universe. In particular we give a complete characterization of which choice principles hold in Hyperuniverses. (...) Hyperuniverses are structures which arose independently in Non-well-founded Set Theory and in Mathematical Semantics of Concurrent Programming Languages and are hitherto the only existing models of GPC. Hyperuniverses are naturally endowed with a κ-compact uniform κ-topology and are uniformly isomorphic to their exponential space, i.e. the space of their closed subsets endowed with the Exponential Uniformity. (shrink)

This essay focuses on the relationship between biopolitics and race theory. Starting from Foucault, many authors have considered totalitarian anti-Semitism as a depravity of biologism. This essay would like to challenge this all-too-simple positivist, materialist, and evolutionist picture of biopolitics in the Third Reich. It examines another "tradition" of racial theories, central to National Socialism, much closer to the revered Western philosophical tradition than Darwinism ever was. This kind of racism presents itself as the authentic heir of that "Metaphysics of (...) Form," which traces its roots back to classical antiquity, in particular to Plato's work. Through the analysis of some Platonist and racist texts the essay tries to point out the ambivalences that connect some of the assumptions of our philosophical tradition to Nazi totalitarianism. (shrink)

This paper examines the institutional mechanisms supporting the ethical oversight of human participant research conducted by the United Nations (UN). The UN has served an instrumental role in shaping international standards on research ethics, which invariably require ethical oversight of all research studies with human participants. The authors’ experiences of conducting research collaboratively with UN agencies, in contrast, have led to concern that the UN frequently sponsors, or participates in, studies with human participants that have not received appropriate ethical oversight. (...) It is argued that the institutional mechanisms in place to prevent research with human participants from being undertaken by the UN without ethical oversight do not, at present, extend substantively beyond the provision of guidelines and online training offered by a minority of UN bodies. The WHO and UNICEF are identified as notable exceptions, having implemented various measures to prevent health research with human participants from being undertaken without ethical oversight. Yet, it is highlighted that the WHO and UNICEF are not the only UN bodies that undertake health research with human participants and there are countless actors under the umbrella of the UN system that are regularly involved in non-health research with human participants. Arguments for the pursuit of the highest standard of ethical oversight by UN bodies are presented. Moving forward, the paper asks the question: is it time for the UN to set the standards for the oversight of ethical oversight? (shrink)

The proof of Lemma 5 in our paper “Choice Principles in Hyperuniverses” [3], contains an error. In the present note we show that the statement of that lemma is false and hence the Axiom of Choice fails in all κ-hyperuniverses, for uncountable κ. However, a weaker version of Lemma 5 can be proved, which implies that the Linear Ordering Principle holds in all κ-metric κ-hyperuniverses.

In the last decade, we have witnessed the return of one of the most controversial terms in the political lexicon: totalitarianism. What are we talking about when we define a totalitarian political and social situation? When did we start using the word as both adjective and noun? And, what totalitarian ghosts haunt the present? Philosopher Simona Forti seeks to answer these questions by reconstructing not only the genealogy of the concept, but also by clarifying its motives, misunderstandings, and the controversies (...) that have animated its current resurgence. Taking into account political theories and historical discussions, Totalitarianism especially focuses on philosophical reflections, from the question of totalitarian biopolitics to the alleged totalitarian drifts of neoliberalism. The work invites the relentless formulation of a radical question about democratic age: the possibilities it has opened up, the voids it leaves behind, the mechanisms it activates, and the "voluntary servitude" it produces. Forti argues that totalitarianism cannot be considered an external threat to democracy, but rather, one of the possible answers to those questions posed by modernity which democracies have not been able to solve. Her investigation of the uses and abuses of totalitarianism as one of the fundamental categories of 20th and 21st centuries promises to provoke much-needed discussion and debate among those in philosophy, politics, ethics, and beyond. (shrink)

As long as we care about suffering in the world, says political philosopher Simona Forti, we are compelled to inquire into the question of evil. But is the concept of evil still useful in a postmodern landscape where absolute values have been leveled and relativized by a historicist perspective? Given our current unwillingness to judge others, what signposts remain to guide our ethical behavior? Surveying the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western philosophical debates on evil, Forti concludes that it is time to (...) leave behind what she calls "the Dostoevsky paradigm": the dualistic vision of an omnipotent monster pitted against absolute, helpless victims. No longer capable of grasping the normalization of evil in today's world—whose structures of power have been transformed—this paradigm has exhausted its explanatory force. In its place, Forti offers a different genealogy of the relationship between evil and power, one that finally calls into question power's recurrent link to transgression. At the center of contemporary evil she posits the passive attitude towards rule-following, the need for normalcy, and the desire for obedience nurtured by our contemporary mass democracies. In our times, she contends, evil must be explored in tandem with our stubborn desire to stay alive at all costs as much as with our deep need for recognition: the new modern absolutes. A courageous book, New Demons extends an original, inspiring call to ethical living in a biopolitical age. (shrink)