At the present paper it will be pursued to give account of how discursiveness is configured in the works of Nietzsche and Freud around the notion of life from a Freudian concept, that of underpinning. From the same, the particular discursive field relative to the vital will be characterized ―both in Freud and Nietzsche― as hybrid field ―meaning, a field that does not subscribe to any particular epistemological canon― thus giving account that innovation is produced not only when thinking the (...) very concept, but also when constructing the discourse. (shrink)

Meaning in literary texts such as poetry and novel etc., is not determined on the basis of a literal understanding of the words in it, but through a total evaluation of the devices such as metaphors and similes. This paper deals with metaphor to show its significance, to make us aware that metaphoric expressions do give a different kind of knowledge, and to pave the way to disclose a different kind of truth which is perhaps, more valuable than what the (...) literal sense provides. Ordinarily metaphorical use is taken for rhetorical purposes. Literalists of the Western and Indian philosophical traditions believe that it is only the literal or primary meaning that can give us a precise account of language. Metaphors are viewed by them as fuzzy, lies, not corresponding to actual states of affairs, non-propositional in character, not having truth-conditions, and thus not providing us with any knowledge or truth. However, this paper tries to work out the fundamentality of metaphor, how metaphor widens our experience of the world, and how it has the power to take us to an alternative world to introduce with some new truth by exploring certain notions of the Indian aestheticians. (shrink)

Relativism is one of the most tenacious theories about truth, with a pedigree as old as philosophy itself. Nearly as ancient is the chief criticism of relativism, namely the charge that the theory is self-refuting. This paper develops a logic of relativism that (1) illuminates the classic self-refutation charge and shows how to escape it; (2) makes rigorous the ideas of truth as relative and truth as absolute, and shows the relations between them; (3) develops an intensional logic for relativism; (...) (4) provides a framework in which relativists can consistently promote ethical, mathematical, scientific, religious, and political truths (among others) as being relative; (5) argues that the notion of incommensurability is far less troubling than is commonly thought; and (6) argues that the concept of a perspective as needed by the theory is not prey to Davidson's well-known critique of conceptual schemes. The paper will not defend relativism as the correct theory of truth, nor will it provide a fully satisfying theory about the nature of a perspective. The logic of relativism is primarily meant to provide a formal framework in which relativists can consistently develop their theories. This alone is a considerable step forward, since the debate about relativism often founders upon the rock of self-refutation. It is argued that while 'everything is relative' is inconsistent, 'everything true is relatively true' is not. The latter is all a relativist really needs. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche and Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer had strong personalities and freely expressed unconventional opinions. In particular, they dared to challenge the traditional view that considered Aristotelian logic as being absolute and intrinsic to man. Although they formed this opinion in different ways and in different contexts, they both based it on a view of life that considered it as a struggle for power in which logic was a weapon. Therefore, it is interesting to carry out an in-depth analysis on (...) the origins, the core of their opinions concerning logic and the consequences. As a matter of fact, a detailed analysis and a comparison of their contributions to the philosophy of logic have not yet been carried out. In this paper, I intend to present the results of my research.. (shrink)

Recent publications have traced a relation of influence between Nietzsche's philosophy and Freudian psychoanalysis. While Freud is certainly intellectually indebted to Nietzsche, the present paper emphasises the significant difference between these philosophers' works: Namely, that they exhibit a different economy, and are thus committed to competing theoretical structures. This difference comes to the fore in the approach that each takes to elaborating the mind-body relation, and especially in the contrast between Freud's early neuroscientific speculations and Nietzsche's emphasis upon language, and (...) particularly metaphor. In order to illustrate this 'economical' difference between their theories, the paper critiques Freud's early commitment to neurological discourse using Nietzsche's genealogical method. (shrink)