Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Die vorkritischen Schriften Kants" verfügbar.

In addition to his artistic work, Paul Klee was a theoretician of the highest rank. Readings of his extensive writings evidence that he was a transformer of the immemorial eidetic concept of form toward its temporalization. As a standard he uses the mobility of nature and the cosmos, to which he anchors his generative concept of form. This essay concerns a reconstruction of some of his lines of argumentation from manuscripts that were not published during his lifetime. Among those (...) are the role of the point as the source of linear and chromatic expression, the relation between kinesis and stasis in the work, and the models with which he analyzes the role of the artist and his position in the world. Klee’s insights are fruitful not only for an understanding of his own work but also for a history of the concept of form in the twentieth century. (shrink)

The Archaic takes as its major reference points C.G. Jung's classic essay, 'Archaic Man' (1930), and Ernesto Grassi's paper on 'Archaic theories of history' (1990). Moving beyond the confines of a Jungian framework to include other methodological approaches, this book explores the concept of the archaic. Defined as meaning 'old-fashioned', 'primitive', 'antiquated', the archaic is, in fact, much more than something very, very old: it is timeless, inasmuch as it is before time itself. Arch,̇ Urgrund, Ungrund, 'primordial darkness', 'eternal nothing' (...) are names for something essentially nameless, yet whose presence we nevertheless intuit. This book focuses on the reception of myth in the tradition of German Idealism or Romanticism (Creuzer, Schelling, Nietzsche), which not only looked back to earlier thinkers (such as Jacob Boehme) but also laid down roots for developments in twentieth-century thought (Ludwig Klages, Martin Heidegger). The Archaic also includes: - studies of the Germanic dimension of the archaic (Charles Bambach, Alan Cardew) - a discussion of the mytho-phenomenological approach to the archaic (Robert Josef Kozljani)̈ - a series of articles on Jung's understanding of the archaic (Paul Bishop, Susan Rowland, Robert Segal). This book will be of interest to psychoanalysts, anthropologists and phenomenologists, as well as students of psychology, cultural studies, religious studies, and philosophy, as it seeks to rehabilitate a concept of demonstrable and urgent relevance for our time. (shrink)

The Archaic takes as its major reference points C.G. Jung's classic essay, 'Archaic Man' (1930), and Ernesto Grassi's paper on 'Archaic theories of history' (1990). Moving beyond the confines of a Jungian framework to include other methodological approaches, this book explores the concept of the archaic. Defined as meaning 'old-fashioned', 'primitive', 'antiquated', the archaic is, in fact, much more than something very, very old: it is timeless, inasmuch as it is before time itself. Arch,̇ Urgrund, Ungrund, 'primordial darkness', 'eternal nothing' (...) are names for something essentially nameless, yet whose presence we nevertheless intuit. This book focuses on the reception of myth in the tradition of German Idealism or Romanticism (Creuzer, Schelling, Nietzsche), which not only looked back to earlier thinkers (such as Jacob Boehme) but also laid down roots for developments in twentieth-century thought (Ludwig Klages, Martin Heidegger). The Archaic also includes: - studies of the Germanic dimension of the archaic (Charles Bambach, Alan Cardew) - a discussion of the mytho-phenomenological approach to the archaic (Robert Josef Kozljani)̈ - a series of articles on Jung's understanding of the archaic (Paul Bishop, Susan Rowland, Robert Segal). This book will be of interest to psychoanalysts, anthropologists and phenomenologists, as well as students of psychology, cultural studies, religious studies, and philosophy, as it seeks to rehabilitate a concept of demonstrable and urgent relevance for our time. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 125 to such a future contingent event, not only does such an event not exist now, it does not even exist in its causes now, and this for the reason that no sufficient causes of the event exist now. Accordingly, if someone were merely to make a guess to the effect that the sea-fight will occur tomorrow, and the fight actually does occur, it still could not (...) be maintained that the original guess at the time it was made was therefore true. It simply could not have been true, because at the time of its assertion there literally was no evidence of any kind that could have rendered it true. Nevertheless, modern logicians have generally been so dead set against the notion that the truth or falsity of a proposition could ever be relative to the time when the proposition was uttered that they seem scarcely to have taken account of a consideration such as the foregoing. Nor is it likely that with the publication of this excellent translation of St. Thomas's commentary, such critics will begin to take account of this Thomistic argument even now. Somehow, one is reminded of Dr. Johnson's purported remark, "Sir, I can only give a man a reason, not an intelligence!" HENRY VEATCtt Northwestern University Pascal e Nietzsche. Scritti di E. Castelli, H. Gouhier, A. del Noce, H. Birault, K. Takeno, K. LSwith, J. D~lhomme, G. Vattimo, R. Boehm, G. Morra. (Padova: Cedam; Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1962. Pp. 218. = Archivio di Filosofia. Organo dell'Istituto di Studi Filosofici. Anno 1962. No 3. L. 2000.) This issue of the Archivio di Filosofia offers essays by the various authors indicated in the title above. Pascal and Nietzsche are here brought together because of what they have in common, that is, suffering, restlessness, dissatisfaction with the human condition, the historical sorrow of post-Copernican man, a paradoxical and chaotic thought. Both Pascal and Nietzsche urge man to measure the real by the possible and not the possible by the real and to risk the present certainties for the uncertainty of the future. They dislodge man from his ordinary seat and launch him on the risky adventure and great experiment of real existence. PA~L T. FUHRMANN Columbia Theological Seminary Pierre Bayle and Voltaire. By H. T. Mason. (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1963. Pp. xv -k 163.) Pierre Bayle and Voltaire confronts the ideas of the two philosophers and formulates some prudent conclusions about their relationship. Since Bayle's works run to nine long folio volumes and Voltaire's come to fifty quartos in the Moland edition, one cannot help but be impressed by the magnitude of Professor Mason's undertaking and by his ability to reduce his findings to a book of just over one hundred and fifty pages. In the case of Bayle and Voltaire, the basic facts concerning influence are readily available. We know what works of Bayle's were in the library at Ferney; we can see the pages the Enlightenment philosopher marked as he read; we have almost two hundred references to Bayle in Voltaire's works and letters (listed chronologically by Mason in an appendix); and critical editions, such as Morize's Candide and Lanson's Lettres philosophiques, have disclosed how consistently Voltaire turned to the Dictionnaire historique et critique or other works from Bayle's pen for information. Yet, when dealing with passages that seem to rely on Bayle for factual content, a scholar runs into many hazards. Voltaire may draw his data from Bayle, from Bayle's source, from an intermediary, or from an outside source. We know that he consulted Richard Simon, Spinoza, Dora Calmet, and Dr. Astruc as well as Bayle for his Biblical criticism. Therefore, it is very frequently impossible to be sure just how much Bayle's thinking... (shrink)

Most economists—old and new classical, old and new Keynesian, and Austrian postulate an immutable reality unchangeable by any human action. They differ only over the amount of information decisionmakers have, in the short run, about this unchanging reality. Keynes and the Post Keynesians provide an axiomatic alternative model that presumes a transmutable economic reality. Runde, Torr, Prychitko, and Boehm and Farmer fail to adequately address this dichotomous analysis of reality in responding to my review of O'Driscoll and Rizzo's book.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 125 to such a future contingent event, not only does such an event not exist now, it does not even exist in its causes now, and this for the reason that no sufficient causes of the event exist now. Accordingly, if someone were merely to make a guess to the effect that the sea-fight will occur tomorrow, and the fight actually does occur, it still could not (...) be maintained that the original guess at the time it was made was therefore true. It simply could not have been true, because at the time of its assertion there literally was no evidence of any kind that could have rendered it true. Nevertheless, modern logicians have generally been so dead set against the notion that the truth or falsity of a proposition could ever be relative to the time when the proposition was uttered that they seem scarcely to have taken account of a consideration such as the foregoing. Nor is it likely that with the publication of this excellent translation of St. Thomas's commentary, such critics will begin to take account of this Thomistic argument even now. Somehow, one is reminded of Dr. Johnson's purported remark, "Sir, I can only give a man a reason, not an intelligence!" HENRY VEATCtt Northwestern University Pascal e Nietzsche. Scritti di E. Castelli, H. Gouhier, A. del Noce, H. Birault, K. Takeno, K. LSwith, J. D~lhomme, G. Vattimo, R. Boehm, G. Morra. (Padova: Cedam; Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani, 1962. Pp. 218. = Archivio di Filosofia. Organo dell'Istituto di Studi Filosofici. Anno 1962. No 3. L. 2000.) This issue of the Archivio di Filosofia offers essays by the various authors indicated in the title above. Pascal and Nietzsche are here brought together because of what they have in common, that is, suffering, restlessness, dissatisfaction with the human condition, the historical sorrow of post-Copernican man, a paradoxical and chaotic thought. Both Pascal and Nietzsche urge man to measure the real by the possible and not the possible by the real and to risk the present certainties for the uncertainty of the future. They dislodge man from his ordinary seat and launch him on the risky adventure and great experiment of real existence. PA~L T. FUHRMANN Columbia Theological Seminary Pierre Bayle and Voltaire. By H. T. Mason. (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1963. Pp. xv -k 163.) Pierre Bayle and Voltaire confronts the ideas of the two philosophers and formulates some prudent conclusions about their relationship. Since Bayle's works run to nine long folio volumes and Voltaire's come to fifty quartos in the Moland edition, one cannot help but be impressed by the magnitude of Professor Mason's undertaking and by his ability to reduce his findings to a book of just over one hundred and fifty pages. In the case of Bayle and Voltaire, the basic facts concerning influence are readily available. We know what works of Bayle's were in the library at Ferney; we can see the pages the Enlightenment philosopher marked as he read; we have almost two hundred references to Bayle in Voltaire's works and letters (listed chronologically by Mason in an appendix); and critical editions, such as Morize's Candide and Lanson's Lettres philosophiques, have disclosed how consistently Voltaire turned to the Dictionnaire historique et critique or other works from Bayle's pen for information. Yet, when dealing with passages that seem to rely on Bayle for factual content, a scholar runs into many hazards. Voltaire may draw his data from Bayle, from Bayle's source, from an intermediary, or from an outside source. We know that he consulted Richard Simon, Spinoza, Dora Calmet, and Dr. Astruc as well as Bayle for his Biblical criticism. Therefore, it is very frequently impossible to be sure just how much Bayle's thinking... (shrink)

Originally published in 1957 under the title Sunrise to Eternity, this Seabury edition performs the welcome service of presenting again the outstanding English exposition of Boehme's mystico-philosophical thought. The book is extremely sober and scholarly, systematically demythologizing the standard account of Boehme's life and work. Many expositions of Boehme are cluttered with unlikely and distracting accounts of his personal sanctity and numerous revelations. Stoudt, however, gives a tightly argued, well-documented account of Boehme's biography, alternating chapters on Boehme's life with chapters (...) on the works of the same period. This is extremely helpful, for it exhibits Boehme's development quite clearly. Stoudt makes it very plain that Boehme's early thought is couched in the language of alchemy but that it outgrows that strange vocabulary to become by the end of his life a mature spirituality, steeped in the earlier German mystical tradition and with a speculative depth which anticipates the main lines of German idealism. Boehme is not, then, as the standard hagiographers would have him, an unlettered shoemaker, sprung untainted from the breast of God and untaught by any mortal predecessor. Stoudt is not always as clear as we would hope, but, considering Boehme's notorious obscurity he is clearer than most. While Stoudt points out Boehme's origin in the German tradition that precedes him, he underplays the dependence of Boehme on Meister Eckhardt, or at least leaves that whole problem insufficiently analyzed. There is a brief preface by Paul Tillich.--J. D. C. (shrink)

Originally published in 1957 under the title Sunrise to Eternity, this Seabury edition performs the welcome service of presenting again the outstanding English exposition of Boehme's mystico-philosophical thought. The book is extremely sober and scholarly, systematically demythologizing the standard account of Boehme's life and work. Many expositions of Boehme are cluttered with unlikely and distracting accounts of his personal sanctity and numerous revelations. Stoudt, however, gives a tightly argued, well-documented account of Boehme's biography, alternating chapters on Boehme's life with chapters (...) on the works of the same period. This is extremely helpful, for it exhibits Boehme's development quite clearly. Stoudt makes it very plain that Boehme's early thought is couched in the language of alchemy but that it outgrows that strange vocabulary to become by the end of his life a mature spirituality, steeped in the earlier German mystical tradition and with a speculative depth which anticipates the main lines of German idealism. Boehme is not, then, as the standard hagiographers would have him, an unlettered shoemaker, sprung untainted from the breast of God and untaught by any mortal predecessor. Stoudt is not always as clear as we would hope, but, considering Boehme's notorious obscurity he is clearer than most. While Stoudt points out Boehme's origin in the German tradition that precedes him, he underplays the dependence of Boehme on Meister Eckhardt, or at least leaves that whole problem insufficiently analyzed. There is a brief preface by Paul Tillich.--J. D. C. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Controversy Between Schelling and Jacobi LEWIS S. FORD SCHELLING, ALONGWITH FICHTE, has suffered the fate of being labelled one of tIegel's predecessors. Richard Kroner provides the classic expression of this viewpoint in his monumental study, Von Kant bis Hegel, which examines Schelling's thought primarily for its contribution to Hegel's final synthesis.I In English we have Josiah Royce's sympathetic and lively account of Schelling's early romantic exuberance, regarded as (...) a transitional stage in the development of German idealism. 2 But this emphasis on the early ScheUing has led to an unfortunate neglect of his work subsequent to the break with Hegel in 1807. Schelling's romanticism, so ably documented by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., 3 can only be regarded as one phase in the total sweep of his thought, for, after the break with Hegel, Schelling produced at least three major works: the essay •ber das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit,4 wrestling with the problem of evil and human freedom, the fragmentary Weltalter, 5 which in scope and dialectical intricacy should be compared with Hegel's Logic, and the Philosophie der Mythologie und Offenbarung, 6 furnishing a fundamental critique of the whole dialectical enterprise. Save for the essay on human freedom, however, none of these works were published during his lifetinm, as Schelling withdrew from the public eye after his controversies with Hegel and Jacobi. Thus the publishing histories of Schelling and Hegel are exactly reverse. Schelling rushed into print his early speculative gropings, while Hegel suppressed his/making the Ph~nomenologic des Geistes his first major publication. Then while Hegel's Logic and Encyclopedia were being publicly acclaimed, Schelling remained silent. This accident of history is largely responsible for the illusion that Schelling is the older of the two x (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1921-24),2 vols. 2The Spirit of Modern Philosophy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1892), Lecture VI, 164-189. Wordsworth and ScheUing, A Typological Study of Romanticism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960),Yale Studies in English, Vol. CXLV. 4Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph yon Sehelling, Philosophische Untersuchungen i~berdas Wesen der menschlichen Freyheit und die damit zusaramenhdngenden Gegenstdnde, 1809. Reprinted in the Sdmmtliche Werke, Erste Abtheilung, VII. Band (Stuttgart und Augsburg: J. G. Cotta, 1856), 331-416. English translation by James Gutmann: Of Human Freedom (Chicago: Open Court, 1936). 5Three fragmentary versions of the Weltalter have been published. The Urfassungen of 1811 and 1813were edited by Manfrcd SehrSter and published as a separate Naehlassband to the M~nchener Jubildumsausgabe of the collected works: Die Weltalter, Fragmente (Munich: Biederstein, Leibniz, 1946). A later version is published in S.W. I: 8, pp. 195-344,which has been translated by Frederick de Wolfe Bolman, Jr. : The Ages of the World (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1942). 6Philosophie der Mythologie is published in S.W. II: 1-2; Philosophie der Offenbarung in S.W. II: 3-4. These essays were first collected and published by Herman Nohl in Hegels theologische Jugendschriften (Tiibingen: 1907).T. M. Knox translated them into English, with an introduction by Richard Kroner: GeorgWilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Early Theological Writings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948). [75] 76 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY thinkers (actually he was five years Hegel's junior), who retired from the philosophical scene after making his contribution to the Hegelian synthesis. Paul Tillich's doctoral dissertations s and Ernst Cassirer's studies in post-Kantian thought 9 made serious inroads on this conception, yet the iIInsion persisted. Their insistence on the importance of the later Schelling has been brilliantly sustained by two recent studies: Horst Fuhrmans's Schellings Philosophie der Weltalter1~and Walter Schulz's Die Vollendung des deutschen Idealismus in der Spdtphilosophie Schellings, ~ and we may hope that the conventional estimate of Schelling will be drastically revised. Fuhrmans has demonstrated that the split between the early and the later Schelling must be placed in the year 1806 when he came in contact with Franz yon Bander in Munich, who encouraged him to delve deeper into the theological and cosmological ramifications of Jacob Boehme's thought. TM The reorientation this caused is apparent in the essay on human freedom, published in 1809, but it was not fully exploited until the... (shrink)

Paul E. Griffiths argues that most research on the emotions has been as misguided as Aristotelian efforts to study "superlunary objects" - objects...

Dem Beispiel Edmund Husserls folgend unternimmt M.-P. einen grosz angelegten Versuch, die Grundlagen der Sozialphilosophie philosophisch zu erhellen. Er verbindet dabei transzendentalphänomenologische, existenzialphilosophische und lebensphilosophische Denkmotive zu einer sehr persönlichen und ursprünglichen Synthese. Im Hinblick auf den schwierigen Charakter und die undurchsichtige Struktur seiner Ausführung wird zunächst eine Interpretation gegeben. M.-P. geht dialektisch vor. Seine These beruht auf seiner ausführlich entwicelten und sorgfältig dokumentierten Philosophie der menschlichen Leiblichkeit (vergi. Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung übers, und eingeführt von RUDOLF BOEHM, Berlin 1966, (...) S. 1-396 ; vergi, auch WILLI MAIER : Das Problem der Leiblichkeit bei Jean-Paul Sartre und Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Tübingen 1964, S. 21-101). Diese steht im schroffen Gegensatz zur Cartesianischen Tradition. M.-P. zufolge ist die geistige Existenz eine fortwährende Inkarnation. Hieraus ergibt sich, dasz das Bewusztsein notwendigerweise einen Leib besitzt. Der Leib ist ferner weder Ding noch Bewusztsein ; er hat eine eigene, „dritte” Seinsweise. Eben daher verleiht der Leib mir Zugang zur Welt ; ja noch mehr : Leib und Welt sind genau aufeinander abgestimmt. -Schlieszlich ist der Leib Träger typischer Intentionen motorischer, wahrnehmender, expressiver, elementar-praktischer und sexueller Art. Kurzum die leibliche Existenz ist vital-unpersönlich, sie sichert lediglich das mundane Leben im allgemeinen ; sie ist die Vorbedingung und Grundlage aller Objektivierung, aller Reflexion, aller bewuszten Entscheidung. Doch ist es M.-P. zufolge möglich, unumgänglich von einem subjektiven Leib, einem Leib-Subjekt zu sprechen. Der vorpersönliche Leib und die persönliche geistige Existenz des Menschen sind dabei nicht sauber voneinander geschieden ; ihr Verhältnis darf auch nicht als ein statisches gedacht werden. Es ist vielmehr durch fluktuierende Übergänge in beide Richtungen gekennzeichnet. Höchst persönliche Akte sedimentieren, verwandeln sich in habituelle Erwerbe und Automatismen. Andererseits spielen derartige Habitualitäten in dem kulturellen, geistigen und persönlichen Leben des Menschen eine bedeutsame Rolle. Auf Grund dieser Voraussetzungen vermag M.-P. die Wahrnehmung des alter ego völlig anders zu beschreiben als Husserl. -Wenn mein Blick auf ein anderes Leib-Subjekt fällt, das handelt, dann empfangen alle Dinge, die das andere Subjekt umgeben, eine neue Bedeutung. Sie sind nunmehr das, was das Verhalten des Anderen aus ihnen macht. Eben deshalb sehen wir das andere Leib-Subjekt nie und nimmer als ein ausgedehntes Stück Materie an. Wir betrachten es auch nicht als einen Bestandteil der Welt. Das andere Leib-Subjekt ist vielmehr etwas, was mit der Welt umgeht, sie im Griff hat und auf sie einwirkt. So ist es erklärlich, dasz mein Leib, wenn er den Leib des Anderen wahrnimmt, darin eine vertraute Weise erkennt, sich mit den mundanen Dingen einzulassen. Er sieht in dem andern Leib ein Organ seiner eigenen möglichen Intentionen. Dieses Erkennen soll nun nach M.-P. zu einer Verschmelzung führen. So wie die Glieder meines Leibes ein System bilden, so bilden nunmehr mein Leib und der Leib des Anderen ein einziges Ganzes, das von einer einzigen namenlosen, vorpersönlichen Existenz bewohnt wird. Auf diese Weise ist die Koexistenz psychophysischer Subjekte erklärlich, nicht aber die von Mitmenschen. Doch scheint die Erhellung der letzteren keine Schwierigkeiten mehr zu bieten. Der Mitmensch ist ein Subjekt, das mit Kulturobjekten umzugehen weisz. Unter den Erzeugnissen der Kultur nun spielt die Sprache eine entscheidende Rolle. Im Dialog entwerfen ich und der Andere eine gemeinsame geistige Landschaft. Wir kommunizieren miteinander, weil wir eine gemeinschaftliche Welt besitzen. Die Antithese erinnert in mancherlei Hinsicht an die Existenzphilosophie Jean-Paul Sartre's. Mit der Einführung der subjektiven Leiblichkeit ist das Problem nicht gelöst, betont M.-P. Die Schwierigkeit ist darin gelegen, dasz das alter ego genau dieselben Ansprüche erhebt wie das ego. Ist das wahrnehende Ich ein im vollen Sinne persönliches Ich, dann kann es kein anderes persönliches Ich wahrnehmen. Ist es dagegen ein anonymes Subjekt, dann ist der Andere gleichfalls ein namenloser Organismus. Gehen wir von der letztgenannten Voraussetzung aus, dann nivellieren wir alles, was die Einmaligkeit und Einzigkeit persönlicher Existenz ausmacht. Die Unzulänglichkeit der These seigt sich, wenn wir versuchen, sie auf die Problematik des „cogito” anzuwenden. Das „cogito” legt Zeugnis von meiner individuellen Existenz ab. Zu meiner Existenz gehört ein „transzendentales Feld”, d. h. ein Bereich, warin sich alle Seiende in Objekte-für-mich verwandeln. Bevor wir ein affirmatives oder negatives Urteil über etwas fällen können, musz ich diesem Etwas einen „Platz” in meinem transzendentalen Feld zuerkannt haben. Dies gilt auch mit Bezug auf die Kommunikation und die kommunizierenden Wesen. Sie müssen gleichfalls cogita meines cogito's sein. Es gibt, versichert M.-P., einen erlebten Solipsismus der nicht transzendiert werden kann. Es ist auch nicht möglich, diesen Solipsismus durch die Einführung eines göttlichen ego aufzuheben, dessen geheime Wirksamkeit ich in mir selbst entdecke. Es ist wahr, dasz wir, ich und der andere, im Bezug auf ein überindividuelles göttliches Bewusztsein empirische Objekte wären. Wir wären dann beide den Blicken des unendlichen Zuschauers ausgesetzt ; keiner hätte dem andern gegenüber eine Vorrang. Doch hätte ich dann die Wirksamkeit des göttlichen Bewusztseins in mir infolge eines reflexiven Aktes entdeckt. Dies würde aber bedeuten, dasz ich, der ich nur Schatten bin, durch meine Erkenntnis die Fülle des Lichtes erhellt habe, die ich Gott nenne. Etwas Derartiges würde dem Wesen Gottes widersprechen. Die Antithese kann daher auch durch die Annahme eines unendlichen Bewusztseins nicht widerlegt werden. Die Negation der Negation. Inmitten der Welt begegne ich Anderen. Dies ist ein Phänomen, das sich nicht wegdisputieren läszt. Wenn solipsistische Philosophen von der volkommenen Einsamkeit des ego sprechen, dann musz betont werden, dasz selbst der Begriff der Einsamkeit einen Hinweis auf mögliche Andere enthält. Auch die Alternative : „Ich oder der Andere” ist unhaltbar. Das Denken und Formulieren der Alternative bringt ja bereits mit sich, dasz sowohl Ich wie der Andere implizite gesetzt werden. -Sartre's berühmte „ Dialektik des Blickes" besitzt nicht die Beweiskraft, die ihr vielfach zu erkannt wird. Es ist wahr, dasz der objektivierende Blick des Anderen, solange dieser tatenlos bleibt und sich nicht mitteilt, die Kommunikation zeitweilig suspendiert. Es genügt aber, dasz der Andere ein Wort spricht, um ihn der Kommunikation zugänglich zu machen. Die Antithese wäre unwiderlegbar, wenn ihre Voraussetzungen zuträfen, wenn es nur zwei Seinsweisen gäbe : das Subjekt-und das Objekt-sein, das bewuszte und das dingartige Sein, das Für-sich-und das An-sich-sein. Diese Voraussetzungen weist M.-P.ab. Er hat -einigermaszen im Anschlusz an Husserl -den Beweis dafür geliefert, dasz das wahrgenommene Ding immer als einem groszen Zusammenhang angehörig aufgefaszt wird, letztlich dem Zusammenhang einer Welt. Unser Sein zur Welt geht daher immer der Wahrnehmung von „ diesem" und „jenem” voran. Die Welt ist offenbar weder Subjekt noch Objekt, weder Bewusztsein noch Ding. Was im Bezug auf die natürlichen Welt festgestellt worden is, gilt auch von der sozialen Welt. Unser ursprüngliches Verstehen des Sozialen macht es uns erst möglich, objektivierende Urteile über Individuen und Gruppen zu fällen. -M.-P. illustriert dies an den Beispielen des Klassenbewusztseins und des Nationalbewusztseins. Weder Klasse noch Nation dürfen als ein Fatum betrachtet werden, das von auszen her über mich verhängt worden ist. Ebensowenig sind sie „Werte”, die ich als souveraine Freiheit in meiner Immanenz „gesetzt” habe. „Klasse” und „Nation” sind vielmehr bestimmte Formen der Koexistenz, die für menschliche Individuen einen Aufforderungscharakter besitzen. In ruhigen Zeiten gehen Reize von ihnen aus, die nur gelegentliche Reaktionen auslösen. Man ahnt, dasz es sie gibt, aber man weisz es nicht. In einer revolutionären Situation oder in der Stunde einer nationalen Katastrophe können sie aber Anlasz zu einer klassenbewuszten bezw. nationalbewuszten Stellungnahme geben. Was dann in der Form einer Wahl, einer Entscheidung, eines Bekentnissen in Erscheinung tritt, ist lediglich die ausdrückliche Bestätigung eines vorhergehenden stillschweigenden Engagements. In diesem Sinne bezeichnet M.-P. das Soziale als etwas, das nicht primär Objekt unseres Bewusztseins sondern eine Dimension unseres Existierens ist. Die Frage nach der Transzendenz. Sind M.-P. zufolge soziale Gebilde wie z. B. „Klasse” oder „Nation” bewutetseinstranszendente Realitäten oder bewusztseinsimmanente Inhalte ? -Es ist für M.-P. charakteristisch, dasz er diese Alternative ablehnt. Er wirft zwar das Problem der Transzendenz auf, aber er stellt es auf eine neuartige Weise. Transzendent nennt er diejenigen Phänomene, die mich übersteigen, die aber dennoch nur insoferne für mich sind, als ich sie erfasse und erlebe. Er illustriert jene Problematik an der Hand der Phänomene „Vergangenheit” und „Welt”. Die Vergangenheit ist für den Realisten eine Spur, die sich auf meiner Hirnrinde oder in meiner Pyche befindet. Für den Idealisten ist sie ein cogitatum, das ein transcendentaler Geist in meiner Innerlichkeit konstituiert. In beiden Fällen wäre die Vergangenheit Gegenwart. M.-P. zufolge hat es die Vergangenheit immer schon für mich gegeben, auch wenn ich sie nicht mittels thetischer Akte vergegenwärtigt habe. In analoger Weise ist die Welt allerdings das, was mich umringt, aber sie befaszt mich, auch ohne dasz ich mir davon reflexiv bewuszt werde. Sofern mein Bewusztsein ausdrücklich Zeugnis von ihr ablegt, musz ich die Welt immanent nennen. Sofern sk aber mein Leben bestimmt hat, bevor ich von ihr gewuszt habe, ist sie bewusztseinstranszendent. Dieselbe „negatio supposti” wendet M.-P. nun auch auf das alter ego an. Der Andere ist transzendent, denn sein Sein-für-mich kommt nicht durch irgendwelche intenþionale Leistungen - Analogieschlusz, Introjektion oder Einfühlung -zustande. Ich konstituiere den Anderen nicht, denn ich bin kein göttliches Bewusztsein. Er ist bei mir, bevor ich ausdrücklich kennende, strebende oder wertende Akte vollziehe. -Dennoch ist es wahr, dasz das alter ego der Andere in Bezug auf mich ist. Das könnte er nicht sein, wenn mein Bewusztsein sein Sein nicht bezeugte. Das Zeugnis meines Bewusztseins ist dabei die ausdrückliche Bekräftigung von etwas, das im Stillen bereits in mir lebte. Es ist jedoch erforderlich, damit der Andere mir wirklich gegenübersteht. Infolge dieser wesentlich notwendigen bewuszten Affirmation ist der Andere meinem Bewusztsein auch immanent. - Wenn M.-P. daher behauptet, dasz das alter ego sowohl transzendent als immanent ist, dann darf man das nicht als eine spielerische Ausflucht betrachten. Es bedeutet, dasz sich mein gesamtes Leben in einer Sphäre von Sozialität abspielt, und dasz diese Sphäre das bewuszte Beurteilen und Sich-Verhalten gegenüber sozialen Partnern erst möglich macht. Das transzendentale Motiv im Denken M. P.'s. Das Problem der Transzendenz stellt sich demnach bei M.-P. auf eine sehr besondere Weise : es ist die Frage nach der Seinsart eines Transzendenten, das nicht ohne weiteres Überstieg des Selbst und eines Immanenten, das nicht schlechthin Wohnen in dem Selbst ist. Überdies formuliert er das Problem nicht in statischen, sondern in dynamischen Ausdrücken und Begriffen. Wie kann ich „ Urpräsenz" sein, die jede Anwesenheit eines Anderen bei mir bedingt, und gleichzeitig „Entgegenwärtigung”, die mich entrückt, fragt er sich. -Die Lösung dieser für ihn entscheidende Frage sucht er in der Richtung einer Transzendentalphilosophie. Das Paradox der immanenten Transzendenz kann nur dann philosophisch begreiflicher werden, wenn etwas gefunden wird, das die beiden Pole : „ Mich” und „den Anderen” umspannt ; das den Gegensatz zwischen Innerlichkeit und Äuszerlichkeit aufhebt ; das Interiorität zur Äuszerlichkeit erweitert und die Exteriorität verinnerlicht. M.-P. führt zunächst einen einigermaszen veränderten Begriff der Subjektivität ein. Das Bewusztsein, das cogito, die Subjektivität ist ihm zufolge nicht ohne weiteres als Identität mit sich selbst, als Selbstanwesenheit, als Wohnen in sich selbst zu charakterisieren. Ja, die absolute Selbstanwesenheit wird in Wahrheit niemals vollkommen realisiert, da die Subjektivität gleichzeitig auch Gerichtet-sein auf den Andern, Offenstehen für die Welt und Sprung nach der Zukunft ist. Sofern nun die Subjektivität nicht starre, unveränderliche Identität sondern ek-statisches Sein beim Anderen ist, ist ihre Seinsweise keine andere als die der Temporalität. So wie die Zeit in jeder ihrer temporalen Ekstasen das zur Entfaltung bringt, was in der vorgehenden als Keim angelegt war, so ist auch die Subjektivität der Drang, das zum Ausdruck zu bringen, was bereits implizit in ihre gelebt hat. -Nach M.-P. ist es falsch zu behaupten, das Subjekt befinde sich „ in" der Zeit. Er betrachtet vielmehr Subjekt und Zeit als ein und dieselbe alles gründende Wirklichkeit. Damit hat er auch das Problem der immanenten Transzendenz seiner Lösung näher gebracht. Die Zeit ist ja einerseits Anwesen, Gegenwart, Urpräsenz ; andererseits ist sie Flusz, Entgegenwärtigung, Ekstase. Sie ist das „wahre Transzendentale”, der „Ursprung der Transzendenzen”. Damit ist auch klar, welche Rolle das transzendentale Motiv im Denken M. P.' s spielt. M.-P. befaszt sich nicht mit der Möglichkeit formaler apriorischer Prinzipien. Er entwirft auch keine Lehre von den konstituierenden Leistungen eines transzendentalen Bewusztseins. M.-P. glaubt, das „wahre Transzendentale”, das der Ursprung der Realitäten ist, in der Temporalität entdeckt zu haben. Im Lichte dieser Entdeckung meint M.-P. nun auch, das Rätsel des alter ego lösen zu können. Es ist wahr, dasz ein Bewusztsein das andere ausschlieszt. Mit der Temporalität ist es aber anders gestellt. Die Zeit ist ja das Transzendens schlechthin. Sie überfliegt alle Grenzen und überbrückt alle Abgründe. So wie meine Gegenwart einer Zukunft entgegenwächst, die ich nicht kenne und vielleicht nie kennen lernen werde, so öffnet sich eine Gegenwart auch der Gegenwart des Anderen, die mir unbekannt ist. Ich verstehe auf vorprädikative Weise, dasz im Anderen derselbe Drang derZeitungen am Werk ist wie in mir, und dieses Verständnis gestattet mir, in dem Anderen den möglichen geistigen Partner zu erkennen. Die Analyse und Interpretation der Sozialphilosophie M.-P. gibt dem Verfasser Anlasz zu einigen kritische Betrachtungen. Sie betreffen vier Denkmotive M.-P.' s : die vermeintliche Verschmelzung der psychophysischen Subjekte, seinen Begriff der Welt, seinen existenzphilosophischen und seinen transzendentalphilosophischen Ansatz. Gezeigt wird, dasz aus den beiden letztgenannten Ansätzen keine geeignete Grundlage für eine personale Sozialphilosophie zu gewinnen ist. (shrink)

A set of hypotheses is formulated for a connectionist approach to cognitive modeling. These hypotheses are shown to be incompatible with the hypotheses underlying traditional cognitive models. The connectionist models considered are massively parallel numerical computational systems that are a kind of continuous dynamical system. The numerical variables in the system correspond semantically to fine-grained features below the level of the concepts consciously used to describe the task domain. The level of analysis is intermediate between those of symbolic cognitive models (...) and neural models. The explanations of behavior provided are like those traditional in the physical sciences, unlike the explanations provided by symbolic models. (shrink)

Firstly, Paul Ricoeur takes a phenomenological approach to memory. He then addresses recent work by historians by reopening the question of the nature and truth of historical knowledge. Finally, he describes the necessity of forgetting as a condition for the possibility of remembering.

In _ Plato's Camera_, eminent philosopher Paul Churchland offers a novel account of how the brain constructs a representation -- or "takes a picture" -- of the universe's timeless categorical and dynamical structure. This construction process, which begins at birth, yields the enduring background conceptual framework with which we will interpret our sensory experience for the rest of our lives. But, as even Plato knew, to make singular perceptual judgments requires that we possess an antecedent framework of abstract categories (...) to which any perceived particular can be relevantly assimilated. How that background framework is assembled in the first place is the motivating mystery, and the primary target, of Churchland's book. Unexpectedly, this neurobiologically grounded account of human cognition also provides a systematic story of how such low-level epistemological activities are integrated within an enveloping framework of linguistic structures and regulatory mechanisms at the social level. As Churchland illustrates, this integration of cognitive mechanisms at several levels has launched the human race on an epistemological adventure denied to all other terrestrial creatures. (shrink)

In this work, Paul Weithman offers a fresh, rigorous and compelling interpretation of John Rawls' reasons for taking his so-called 'political turn'.

The Spirit of the Soil challenges environmentalists to think more deeply and creatively about agriculture. Paul B. Thompson identifies four `worldviews' which tackle agricultural ethics according to different philosophical priorities; productionism, stewardship, economics and holism. He examines current issues such as the use of pesticides and biotechnology from these ethical perspectives. This book achieves an open-ended account of sustainability designed to minimise hubris and help us to recapture the spirit of the soil.

With clarity, precision and economy, Paul Patton synthesizes the full range of Deleuze's work. He interweaves with great dexterity motifs that extend from his early works, such as Nietzsche and Philosophy , to the more recent What is Philosophy? and his key works such as Anti-Oedipus and Difference and Repetition . Throughout, Deleuze and the Political demonstrates Deleuze's relevance to theoretical and practical concerns in a number of disciplines including philosophy, political theory, sociology, history, and cultural studies. Paul (...) Patton also presents an outstandingly clear treatment of fundamental concepts in Deleuze's work, such as difference, power, desire, multiplicities, nomadism and the war machine and sets out the importance of Deleuze to poststructuralist political thought. It will be essential reading for anyone studying Deleuze and students of philosophy, politics, sociology, literature and cultural studies. (shrink)

Paul Ricoeur was one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century. In this short and accessible book, he turns to a topic at the heart of much of his work: What is translation and why is it so important? Reminding us that The Bible, the Koran, the Torah and the works of the great philosophers are often only ever read in translation, Ricoeur reminds us that translation not only spreads knowledge but can change its very meaning. In (...) spite of these risk, he argues that in a climate of ethnic and religious conflict, the art and ethics of translation are invaluable. Drawing on interesting examples such as the translation of early Greek philosophy during the Renaissance, the poetry of Paul Celan and the work of Hannah Arendt, he reflects not only on the challenges of translating one language into another but how one community speaks to another. Throughout, Ricoeur shows how to move through life is to navigate a world that requires translation itself. Paul Ricoeur died in 2005. He was one of the great contemporary French philosophers and a leading figure in hermeneutics, psychoanalytic thought, literary theory and religion. His many books include Freud and Philosophy and Time and Narrative. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss three different kinds of disagreement that have been, or could reasonably be, characterized as deep disagreements. Principle level disagreements are disagreements over the truth of epistemic principles. Sub-principle level deep disagreements are disagreements over how to assign content to schematic norms. Finally, framework-level disagreements are holistic disagreements over meaning not truth, that is over how to understand networks of epistemic concepts and the beliefs those concepts compose. Within the context of each of these kinds of (...) disagreement it is not possible for the parties to the dispute to rationally persuade one another through only offering epistemic reasons for their conflicting points of view. However, in spite of the inability to rationally persuade, we explore how it may nevertheless be possible to rationally navigate each of these varieties of deep disagreement. (shrink)

Disgust is reasoned to operate in conjunction with the immune system to help protect the body from illness. However, less is known about the factors that impact the degree to which individuals invest in pathogen avoidance (disgust) versus pathogen management (prophylactic immunological activity). Here, we examine the role that one’s control over pathogen contact plays in resolving such investment trade-offs, predicting that (a) those from low control environments will invest less in pathogen-avoidance strategies and (b) investment in each of these (...) two strategies will occur in a compensatory fashion (i.e. they will be traded off with one other). Across four studies, we found support for these predictions, using a variety of manipulations and measures. By providing novel insights into how one’s control over pathogen exposure influences disgust sensitivity and immune system activity, the current research poses an important contribution to the literature on disgust, pathogen avoidance, and the immune system. (shrink)

In the modern day, it is understood that the role of the teacher comprises aspects of therapy directed towards the child. But to what extent should this relationship be developed, and what are its concomitant responsibilities? This book offers a challenging philosophical approach to the inherent problems and tensions involved with these issues.

The Theaetetus is one of the most widely studied of any of the Platonic dialogues because its dominant theme concerns the significant philosophical question, what is knowledge? In this book Paul Stern provides a full-length treatment of its political character in relationship to this dominant theme. He argues that this approach sheds significant light on the distinctiveness of the Socratic way of life, with respect to both its initial justification and its ultimate character. More specifically, he argues that Socrates' (...) revolutionary decision to subject political life to philosophic reflection, the decision that leads directly to his trial and execution, is based on his awareness of the elusiveness of comprehensive knowledge and the implications of that elusiveness for the validity of philosophic inquiry. This view of Socrates' rationale has important consequences for our understanding of political philosophy and of the validity of the life of reason itself. (shrink)

This volume brings together Paul Williams's previously published papers on the Indian and Tibetan interpretations of selected verses from the eighth and ninth chapters of the Bodhicaryavatara. In addition, there is a much longer version of the paper 'Identifying the Object of Negation', and nearly half the book consists of a wholly new essay, 'The Absence of Self and the Removal of Pain', subtitled 'How Santideva Destroyed the Bodhisattva Path'. This book will be of interest to those concerned with (...) the history and interpretation of Indian and Tibetan philosophy. (shrink)

A resume and analysis of Plato's writings whith synopses and critical comment.

In ‘Levinas: Ethics or Mystification?’ (Miller, 2017), Alistair Miller presents a searing indictment of the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas and a dismissal of claims for its importance for education. He provides a summary account of Levinas's philosophy and, in relation to this, refers briefly to a number of authors who have related Levinas's work to education. This account is at fault, however, in fundamental ways, and this leads to errors in the conclusions that he draws. The present short paper does (...) not attempt to address these problems in the round but rather focuses on a particular aspect of his phrasing in constructing the account, taking this as a significant pointer to the nature of the misinterpretation as a whole. (shrink)

_An investigation into the foundations of democratic societies and the ongoing struggle over the power of concentrated wealth_ Much of our politics today, Paul Starr writes, is a struggle over entrenchment—efforts to bring about change in ways that opponents will find difficult to undo. That is why the stakes of contemporary politics are so high. In this wide‑ranging book, Starr examines how changes at the foundations of society become hard to reverse—yet sometimes are overturned. Overcoming aristocratic power was the (...) formative problem for eighteenth‑century revolutions. Overcoming slavery was the central problem for early American democracy. Controlling the power of concentrated wealth has been an ongoing struggle in the world’s capitalist democracies. The battles continue today in the troubled democracies of our time, with the rise of both oligarchy and populist nationalism and the danger that illiberal forces will entrench themselves in power. _Entrenchment_ raises fundamental questions about the origins of our institutions and urgent questions about the future. (shrink)

Paul Noordhof; Discussion: Micro-Based Properties and the Supervenience Argument: A Response to Kim, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 99, Issue 1.

Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, EarlyView.

The macaque washes a potato in a stream. It does this because it has seen the dirt come off as another macaque washed its potato, and it knows that clean potato.

This article explores aspects of eros in education in relation to ideas of indirectness associated with the French concept of pudeur, sometimes translated as ‘modesty’. It explores lines of thought extending through Emerson and Nietzsche but reaching back to Plato's Symposium. This is a means of exposing the ‘impudence’ of some aspects of contemporary education and of pointing towards a conception of eros that is otherwise obscured.

The Franciscan William of Ockham was an English medieval philosopher, theologian, and political theorist. Along with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, he is regarded as one of the three main figures in medieval philosophy after around 1150. Ockham is important not only in the history of philosophy and theology, but also in the development of early modern science and of modern notions of property rights and church-state relations. This volume offers a full discussion of all significant aspects of Ockham's thought: (...) logic, philosophy of language, metaphysics and natural philosophy, epistemology, ethics, action theory, political thought and theology. It is the first study of Ockham in any language to make full use of the new critical editions of his works, and to consider recent discoveries concerning his life, education, and influences. (shrink)

This paper sets out Peter Winch's central ideas about the nature of the social sciences, and reappraises their potential for educational research. It is argued that the dichotomy between ‘reasons’ and ‘causes’ has done much harm, and that the important matter of understanding ‘what is real for us’ has recently been neglected. Winch's philosophy suggests a more adequate framework for educational research: one that embraces a pluralistic interpretive position, accommodating various methods and various kinds of understanding of the social, and (...) that views educational science as involving opportunity for reflection and a degree of distance from the world of practice, yet at the same time as essentially part of the political debate about education. (shrink)

It Is My Pleasure To Introduce this discussion of Naoko Saito's American Philosophy in Translation. We have contributions from three experts in American philosophy, all of whom have been in conversation with the author for many years: Jim Garrison, Vincent Colapietro, and Steven Fesmire. Prior to their contributions, I would like to set the scene with some brief remarks to introduce the book and to explain something of its background.Over the past two decades, I have worked closely with Saito on (...) a number of projects, and I have been familiar with her ideas for this book since its inception. In some respects, the book is the product of studies in American philosophy that go back to her time as an undergraduate in Tokyo in the 1980s, ideas that were advanced considerably when she did an MA at Harvard, taking classes with Stanley Cavell and Hilary Putnam, and subsequently when she completed her PhD at Teachers College, with René Arcilla as her advisor and Cavell as a member of her committee. It was against this background that, in 2006, Saito published her first singly authored book, The Gleam of Light: Moral Perfectionism and Education in Dewey and Emerson. As that title indicates, she was already exploring the relation between Dewey and pragmatism, on the one hand, and American transcendentalism, on the other. Her sense back then of some separation between these traditions of thought, and of the nature of the tensions between them, has been refined and, for the most part, strengthened in the years since that earlier publication. No doubt she has been influenced in this by Cavell, who, in one essay, for example, asks: “What's the use of calling Emerson a pragmatist?” In any case, her account of this relationship is extended and altered significantly in American Philosophy in Translation.Through the course of her research, Saito has been conscious of the fact that she is studying American philosophy from a distance—a distance that is geographical, cultural, and linguistic—and she retains a thoughtful humility in relation to this. But she also sees here a possible opening to the perception and release of untapped aspects of these traditions of thought, in ways that might fertilize and extend the ground in which the inheritance of American philosophy has flourished. This is very much the line that she pursues in this book. In the light of this, and as the book's title indicates, there is a particular focus on language and translation. It is important that the latter term is understood not merely as an attractive metaphor for change and transformation: crucial to her developing argument is the experience of translating between languages and the reality of the experience in the lives of so many today, within the academy and without. In the course of this experience, one is sometimes confronted, quite self-consciously, with a word or phrase that resists translation. But sometimes—more often in the life of the accomplished or habituated speaker of the foreign language in question—the experience persists as an undercurrent, subtly opening a world that is other in some respects from the one that comes to light in the mother tongue.By contrast, to the many (especially Anglophone) monolingually minded, the need for translation can appear as an unwanted barrier, something of a nuisance, a problem to be solved. This is by no means a response confined, however, to the uneducated (or the Anglophone or the monolingual). There is also a sophisticated variant of this narrowness of outlook where faith is placed in an artificial or technical language with the power, the fantasy runs, to overcome the vagaries of natural language. Hilary Putnam recalls how Rudolf Carnap, whose stature as a thinker and as a human being he does not doubt, felt strongly that “for all x, planned x is better than unplanned x” and was drawn to the idea of a common world language: Thus the idea of a socialist world in which everyone spoke Esperanto (except scientists, who, for their technical work, would employ notations from symbolic logic) was one which would have delighted him. And I recently had a conversation with a student who remarked quite casually that it would not be a bad idea if there were only one language and one literature: “We would get used to it, and it might help to prevent war.” (Putnam 185)Putnam does not deign to respond to the latter assertion. What is foregrounded in his discussion is that monolingualism is likely to hide the plurality of goods that is realized in different cultures. The importance of that plurality is surely something that the luminaries of American philosophy bring to light. Indeed, Putnam's key point of reference in making these remarks is William James.The undercurrent of translation in the experience of the more accomplished speaker of a foreign language can act then as a sensitization to cultural difference, to different possibilities of thought and being. But in fact, this shifting of thought can apply within any language itself, not just inter- but intra-lingually, opening an insight that is close to the heart of American philosophy. If one can hear the cry of the rooster, then one may be wakened also by Thoreau's turn of expression in the idea of the “father tongue”: through a maturing experience of the language we are brought up with, we come to “a reserved and select expression, too significant to be heard by the ear, which we must be born again in order to speak” (Thoreau 69). This renewed investment in language, this continual return to our words, is what opens them to new thought and gives them interest. It is first an inheritance from the culture we are brought up in, but it dies in our speech and thinking if we do not turn it to something new. To build, we must begin by borrowing an axe, but we can return it sharper than when we borrowed it.If translation is operative in our language as a whole, as Saito's argument shows, this points to the many little rebirths within ourselves and in our interactions with one another. In fact, the point becomes political in that democracy depends upon this renewal of our words. This renewal resists not only the allure of ideology but also the now familiar etiolated rhetoric of “political realism.” Moreover, it points beyond the reliance, within the politics of recognition, on the defining of groups and categories toward a politics of acknowledgment.In this vein, Saito's outsider perspective is in tune with what Richard Bernstein has called the “global resurgence of American pragmatism.” The borderline or outsider perspective can have a powerful effect on thought, in relation to which Saito invites the reader to recall that America's past was itself an outsider-past: it was outside Europe, a relation with which it was bound to struggle, but it was also ready, as Emerson and Thoreau demonstrate, to draw from greater cultural distances, where it found congenial aspects in East Asian thought.Saito stresses the anti-foundationalist character of American philosophy as of critical importance for both philosophy and politics, and again her discussion of language is crucial to this. Dewey's emphasis on communication, with his relatively flat style of prose, is contrasted with the stylistic experiment and invention that she finds in Emerson, Thoreau, and Cavell. She sees the style of these writers, in some contrast to that of Dewey, as having a salutary, destabilizing effect. She wants to destabilize Dewey. It is entirely consonant with her position, furthermore, that she raises doubts about the bland acceptance of a politics of inclusion. Not only can this become a surreptitious form of discipline and control: it can engender the conformism that Emerson worked so hard to prevent.The book finishes on a more aesthetic note, taking up lines of thought in Dewey's aesthetics but turning this toward the more extravagant elision, in Thoreau, of the functional and the beautiful. The thematization of the aesthetic in this way is, she tries to show, crucial to our (political) world. (shrink)

The paper contains two yet unknown letters that Feyerabend wrote to Kuhn in 1960 or 1961 on a draft of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In these letters, Feyerabend criticises both details of Kuhn's book and its general direction. The letters anticipate many of the arguments that were put forward in the public controversy against Kuhn's position, including some of the (numerous) misunderstandings. Feyerabend's assertions and arguments are very characteristic of his position in the early sixties.

Paul Standish; Bibliography, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 36, Issue 3, 16 December 2002, Pages 503–512, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00290.

On the strength of a clarification of the nature of philosophy of education, a critical overview is offered of Wittgenstein's impact on the field. The focus then narrows to give attention to Wittgenstein's claim that “Nothing is hidden”, pitched here in a questionable relation to contemporary concerns with transparency. Familiar readings of this passage are challenged in connection with Wittgenstein's late writings on psychology, especially with regard to imagination and pretence. These are argued to be essential to the development of (...) mind and world, from the child's first entry into language, and hence crucial to education. (shrink)

Alasdair MacIntyre's landmark book After Virtue, first published in 1981, begins with sobering words, the resonance of which has, in the three decades since then, been felt by many. We live in a wo...

'This sentence is false' - is that true? The 'Liar paradox' embodied in those words exerted a particular fascination on the logicians of the Western later Middle Ages, and, along with similar 'insoluble' problems, forms the subject of the first group of articles in this volume. In the following parts Professor Spade turns to medieval semantic theory, views on the relationship between language and thought, and to a study of one particular genre of disputation, that known as 'obligationes'. The focus (...) is on the Oxford scholastics of the first half of the 14th century, and it is the name of William of Ockham which dominates these pages - a thinker with whom Professor Spade finds himself in considerable philosophical sympathy, and whose work on logic and semantic theory has a depth and richness that have not always been sufficiently appreciated. (shrink)

It is suggested that the best way to interpret animalism is as an identity thesis saying that each of us is identical to an animal. Since there are disagreements about the nature of animal persistence, this means that animalism itself not does not explicitly propose criteria of identity for persons. It implies the negative claim that features that have nothing to do with animal persistence have nothing to do with our persistence. Thinking of it as an identity thesis also makes (...) sense of the nature of the arguments surrounding the thesis. Central to such arguments are claims about the persistence of animals and persons in certain imagined scenarios. To adjudicate such arguments, we need a secure grip on some claims about animal persistence. Often these are generated by a theory of animal persistence. In the second part of the paper, it is argued that the attempt to build such theories on the assumption that life is essential for animal existence is implausible. In the way we speak, we seem not to recognise death as the ceasing to exist of an animal. No better way to think of animals is proposed in this paper. (shrink)