We all think we know who Batman and Superman are. They are polar opposites who both happen to wear their underwear over spandex pants, or at least they once did. So, for comic purists and fans of the cinematic DC Universe it may seem bold to claim that Batman is a true superhero and that Superman is not a true superhero. As a matter of a fact, we want to claim something even stronger: something we will prove independently, without only (...) comparing them and without having to worry if one comic character happens to depend on the other. We plan to demonstrate that it is not a matter of comparison between Batman and Superman when it comes to the concept: a true superhero. There is something else that is crucial for each comic character that makes one a true superhero, whereas the other is not—and we are going to reveal what this is exactly. (shrink)

In his Violence and the Sacred, literary critic René Girard presented a bold thesis that revealed his increasing preoccupation with philosophical anthropology. There he claims that all societies are founded in violence that arises from unconscious imitation and subsequent rivalry. Sacred ritual is a means of avoiding, attenuating, or postponing this discord resulting from what he calls "mimetic appropriation." If his contentions in the earlier book seemed striking and original, their correlatives in the present volume are even more radical. In (...) it he adopts the dialogue form with interlocutors Oughourlian and Lefort; the text consists partly of edited transcriptions of their discussions and partly of inserted passages from Girard's writings. (shrink)

Until recently, the philosophy of history has involved large patterns spanning many centuries and covering phenomena on a large scale of integration. In the last decade, however, the focus has shifted to concerns more in line with Collingwood than with Toynbee. The question of what constitutes historical explanation, for example, has taken on a new look. One reason is that historians themselves have begun to forsake the ideal of history as a social science for the old-fashioned notion of history as (...) narrative. Another is that structuralists and semiologists have shown a great interest in exploring the nature of storytelling. Philosophers and practicing historians like Louis Mink, Hayden White, Peter Munz, or Frederick Olafson have turned from the model of the sciences-especially as reflected in the Annales school or the American strain of cliometrics--and found more viable possibilities in literary criticism. Thus they return history to the bosom of the humanities, sometimes even describing it without shame as a form of literature. Two journals, Clio and History and Theory have been hospitable to this point of view; and the hospitality has been repaid in kind by the editors of New Literary History, in whose pages some of the same writers have appeared. Contemporary with the literary critics who have marked out a new field called "narratology," these theorists have begun to explore concepts like plot, theme, and style; they are interested in defining event not as something that really was but as something that is historical because it can be talked about in a certain way. (shrink)