This paper offers a critical insight into the present moment of Croatian literary and cultural theory by combining an overview of the main actors and interests with a problem-specific approach to the underlying tension or quarrel that is defining and shaping the field of Theory in the Croatian context. The paper depicts a cross-generational debate on the fictionality and reification of/by Theory. Deconstructive operations and the broad historicizing of Theory itself are used along with the specificities of the Eastern gaze: (...) “othering,” interstitiality and the traces of previous conjunctures that strongly influence the Croatian theoretical scene. (shrink)

This paper offers a critical insight into the present moment of Croatian literary and cultural theory by combining an overview of the main actors and interests with a problem-specific approach to the underlying tension or quarrel that is defining and shaping the field of Theory in the Croatian context. The paper depicts a cross-generational debate on the fictionality and reification of/by Theory. Deconstructive operations and the broad historicizing of Theory itself are used along with the specificities of the Eastern gaze: (...) “othering,” interstitiality and the traces of previous conjunctures that strongly influence the Croatian theoretical scene. (shrink)

According to Kant, we gain mathematical knowledge by constructing objects in pure intuition. This is true not only of geometry but arithmetic and algebra as well. Construction has prominent place in scholarly accounts of Kant’s views of mathematics. But did Kant have a clear vision of what construction is? The paper argues that Kant employed two different, even conflicting models of construction, depending on the philosophical issue he was dealing with. In the equivalence model, Kant claims that the object constructed (...) in intuition is equivalent to the properties included in the conceptual rule. In the overstepping model of construction, Kant argues that construction goes beyond the concept which is a “mere definition”. What is more, both models of construction can be found in the Doctrine of Method in the first Critique. The paper examines reasons that have led Kant to adopt the two models of construction, and proposes a reading that alleviates the apparent contradiction between the two models. (shrink)