Ever since the turn of the century aesthetics has steadily gained momentum as a central field of study across the disciplines. No longer sidelined, aesthetics has grown in confidence. While this recent development brings with it a return to the work of the canonical authors (most notably Baumgarten and Kant), some contemporary scholars reject the traditional focus on epistemology and theorize aesthetics in its ontological connotations. It is according to this shift that speculative realists have proclaimed aesthetics as "first philosophy" (...) and as speculative in nature. With speculative realism aesthetics no longer necessarily implies human agents. This is in alignment with the general speculative realist framework for thinking all kinds of processes, entities, and objects as free from our all-pervasive anthropocentrism, which states, always, that everything is "for us." This special volume of Speculations explores the ramifications of what could be termed the new speculative aesthetics. In doing so, it stages a three-fold encounter: between aesthetics and speculation, between speculative realism and its (possible) precursors, and between speculative realism and art and literature. (shrink)

There is a widespread tendency to see the perils of postsocialism in the revival of the ghosts and myths from the past—namely ethnocentrism, nationalism, exclusiveness, bickering, collectivist-authoritarianism, expansionist chauvinism, and victimisation. I suggest that postsocialism's perils rest with a myth from the future, namely, the myth of capitalism. Those perils, I argue, are rooted in the fetishisation of capitalism by the postsocialist societies as a reflection of their deeply ingrained teleological way of perceiving the future. Political leaders are taking advantage (...) of this situation by putting themselves in the position of those who would lead toward such a utopia. As a consequence, individual freedoms are sacrificed at the altar of communitarian bliss. I suggest that the only hope that we have to secularise the newly re-religiosised postsocialist societies rests with intellectuals. (shrink)

What is narrative? Ridvan Askin brings together aesthetics, contemporary North American fiction, Gilles Deleuze, narrative theory, and the recent speculative turn to answer this question. Through this process, he develops a transcendental empiricist concept of narrative. Askin argues against the established consensus of narrative theory for an understanding of narrative as fundamentally nonhuman, unconscious, and expressive.

With its poetic and highly paratactic style and its reliance on the essay form Emerson’s program, I believe, is best captured with the expression ‘speculative pragmatism’. I will attempt to give this expression some consistency. The trajectory I have chosen for this task is as follows: I will begin with considerations concerning the fundamental relation between metaphysics and aesthetics for Emerson, then move on to the more specific relation between aesthetics and the work of art with literature as its prime (...) example, and end with some thoughts on the relation between art and ethics. What emerges at the end of this trajectory is an understanding of art as the primary means of metaphysical inquiry apt to disclose the fundamental nature of Being. In Emerson’s romantic-idealist framework, such ontological disclosure at the same time amounts to the unearthing of the ethical injunction to attune oneself to the Idea. Emerson’s speculative pragmatism accordingly preaches ‘the practice of ideas, or the introduction of ideas into life’. The primary site of such practice, that is, the paradigmatic speculative pragmatist enterprise is precisely art; hence the form that Emerson’s writings take. (shrink)

Paul Ricœur develops his phenomenological-hermeneutical theory of memory in his seminal Memory, History, Forgetting, and several preliminary studies to his monumental book.[1] As its title indicates, the monograph treats memory in conjunction with forgetting and history, placed within a wider horizon of what could be termed an ethics of forgiving. For the purpose of this article I will focus on the problems of memory and forgetting, ignoring history for the most part. Similarly, I do not explicitly deal with the more (...) specific issue of collective memory, which marks a transitional step from a proper phenomenology of memory to the epistemological problems of history and historiography. Even though the three main objects of Ricœur’s study are firmly interlinked, leaving aside history does not impinge on its general line of thought since the most fundamental problems of Ricœur’s discussion on history are imported from his discussion on memory, most notably that of the Greek eikon – representation. Rather than to engage in a wide-ranging ethical discourse, my aim is to focus on a more basic critique of Ricœur’s understanding of narrative, and the role he assigns to it in his theory of memory. -/- I argue that Ricœur’s Aristotelean-structuralist notion of narrative runs into problems when confronted with narratives which do not comply with its notions of order and synthesis. In addition, despite its pervasiveness in his theory, narrative is not adequately scrutinized by Ricœur. That my critique implies severe consequences for his ethics should become obvious, even though an analysis of what exactly these consequences entail must remain outside of this study. For the purpose of this article, it is enough to know these two points: first, that Ricœur’s theory of memory and forgetting is constitutive for his theory of history, which in turn functions as a critical remedy to our often unreliable memories; and second, that this dialectical relation between memory and history is situated within an ethical horizon. (shrink)

The object of study of this article is narrative.1 My aim is to sketch what exactly constitutes the necessary and sufficient building blocks of narrative as such. The article’s concern is thus with the ontological build-up and status of narrative. In this, it argues against narratology’s prevalent anti-metaphysical Kantianism and for a Deleuze-inflected metaphysical conception of narrative. My account unfolds according to the following trajectory: first, I stage a critique of narratology’s default Kantianism; second, I formulate an alternative Deleuzian program; (...) third, I present short exemplary readings of three literary narratives, two contemporary novels and a nineteenth-century short story. The concept of.. (shrink)

Soccer has long been known as 'the beautiful game'. This multi-disciplinary volume explores soccer, soccer culture, and the representation of soccer in art, film, and literature, using the critical tools of aesthetics, poetics, and rhetoric. Including international contributions from scholars of philosophy, literary and cultural studies, linguistics, art history, and the creative arts, this book begins by investigating the relationship between beauty and soccer and asks what criteria should be used to judge the sport's aesthetic value. Covering topics as diverse (...) as humor, national identity, style, celebrity, and social media, its chapters examine the nature of fandom, the role of language, and the significance of soccer in contemporary popular culture. It also discusses what one might call the 'stylistics' of soccer, analyzing how players, fans, and commentators communicate on and off the pitch, in the press, on social media, and in wider public discourse. The Aesthetics, Poetics, and Rhetoric of Soccer makes for fascinating reading for anybody with an interest in sport, culture, literature, philosophy, linguistics, and society. (shrink)

This forward-thinking, non-traditional reference work uniquely maps out how new developments in 21st century philosophy are entering into dialogue with the study of literature. Going beyond the familiar methods of analytic philosophy, and with a breadth greater than traditional literary theory, this collection looks at the profound consequences of the interaction between philosophy and literature for questions of ethics, politics, subjectivity, materiality, reality and the nature of the contemporary itself.

Forced population migration is not a modern phenomenon. It is often an integral part of totalitarian policies and has been used repeatedly to ensure the survival of political regimes or achieve specific political ambitions. Violent migration is present practically throughout history when considering the time scope and everywhere, practically in all continents of the world, with a specter of variations depending on the context imposed by the political circumstances, we can encounter it under different names. These variations have also reflections (...) in the terminology used, among others, they are also indicators that speak of the different methods applied in order to achieve particular policies. Individuals, families, or even whole peoples are forced to migrate violently, abandon their homes and leave behind them all their lives, including the material goods created up to that moment. Seen from a normal retrospective, forced migration represents the culmination of a regime’s goals to dominate the territory without hindrance from any possible resistance. This fact has brought so many tragedies to humanity, and even worse, it has often ended with “legitimization” by international treaties or has even been the product of inter-state agreements. Forced population migration has clearly brought to the surface the evil purpose and has revealed territorial ambitions. (shrink)

The most important reason underlying the success of the Crusaders taking Antakya from Muslims and entering the Syrian and Palestinian territories is undoubtedly the division among the Muslims. This division was not only among the dynasties, but also the cities. The Muslim rulers of Damascus have sat up alliances with the Crusaders to protect themselves from neighboring Muslim rulers. Of course, this alliance was more of a role for the Crusaders, making it easier for them to hold on to the (...) region, and strengthening them by acquiring new lands. Damascus's opposition posture caused power and time loosing to Muslim rulers, which served the Crusaders and to take the advantage of this controversy. Damascus continued its opponent position after Saladin (d. 589/1193), and quarrels within the dynasty caused the Crusaders to breathe deeply and as well as Jerusalem to fall into the hands of the Crusaders for a while again. During the Mamluks period, Damascus, who showed his opposing face for a short period of time, but afterwards he attained peace and obedience and also occupied comply with Rukn al-Dīn Baybars al-Bunduqdārī (d. 676/1277). In this article we will analyze the opposing stance of Damascus and his role in the Crusades. Summary: Pearl of Syria, Damascus has a rebellious and oppositional aspect as well. This feature of the city came into prominence further with the coming of the Crusaders to the region. Its oppositional stance and uncompromising aspect sometimes played into the hands of the Crusaders unintentionally. When the Crusaders first came to the surrounding of Antakya, the governor of Damascus, Duqāq did not provide the necessary support to Yaghisiyan who was encircled in Antakya by the Crusaders, due to his inexperience, jealousy and his hostile competition with his brother, Ridvan who is emir of Aleppo. Thus, the Crusaders used this opportunity.Atabeg of Duqāq, Tughtakīn who started to command the city after the death of Duqāq did not support especially Mawdūd who struggled against the Crusaders in Urfa, adequately. Besides, he was accused of getting Mawdūd killed by another separatist power of the region, the Assassins in the great mosque of the city. On top of it, he allied with the Crusaders, because he was troubled with the commander Porsuk sent to the region by the Sultan of Great Saljūq Empire, Mohammed Tapar. He caused the heroic warrior, Porsuk to be defeated near Tel-Dānis by the Crusaders and to die in Al Jazīrah after a short time.Soon after the above events, ‘Imāduddīn Zengī focused on Damascus and tried to establish the Islamic unity. The son of the ruler Böri, called Ismail became isolated because of the poor administration in the city. He resorted to inviting Zangī to the city. However, Ismail was killed by the opponents before the arrival of Zangī, so no result could be accomplished. Later, Zangī focused on the city again. Although he mercilessly treated the resisters in Ba’lebek after occupying there to demotivate the community of Damascus, he faced the serious resistance of the forces of Damascus. While Zangī spent all his energy to Damascus, the king of Jerusalem, Foulque improved his policy for Syria to some extent and could reestablish communication with the states of the Crusaders. The community Damascus helped the Crusaders and eased their work unintentionally once more.The Mamlūk called Uner began to govern Damascus on behalf of the forces of Bori who lost their influence in the city. Uner who developed a close relationship with the Crusaders to prevent the dominance of Zangī in the city did not hesitate to send an envoy to them. He promised to give Banyas to the Crusaders in return for moving Zangī away from Damascus. After the Franks accepted the proposal of Uner, Zangī remained in between the forces of Damascus and the Crusaders and was obliged to recede to Aleppo. In this way, the Crusaders occupied the castle of Banyas. Several locations until Buzaa were seized by the Crusaders in Antakya who found the opportunity.Zangī was martyred in front of Jaabar castle in 541/1146, so his son Nūr al-dīn became the new ruler of Damascus. Nevertheless, the following incidents caused Nūr al-dīn and Uner to get closer to each other, and the Crusaders had to move away from Damascus. First, the administrator of Havran under the control of Uner rose against his governor and turned to the Crusaders. Besides, the Second Crusade in Damascus contributed to the association of Damascus and Aleppo for a while. Following the elimination of both endangers, the association of Damascus and Aleppo resumed. Uner established a close contact with the Crusaders and made a two-year agreement with them to prevent Nūr al-dīn from seizing the city. Uner died after some time, but almost nothing changed. The new governor of the city Mucīruddin ‘Abaq kept the association of the Crusaders. An operation of Nūr al-dīn against the city was averted with the help of the Crusaders again. Mucīruddin got closer to the Crusaders after their help. Their close relationship was strengthened with the mutual visits of the committees of the Crusaders and Damascus. The Artuquid governor Timurtāsh decided to organize a military expedition to Jerusalem after a little while. However, Mucīruddin who worried about the possible dissolution of their association with the Crusaders stopped supporting him, so Timurtāsh failed in his expedition. Mucīruddin improved his relations with the Crusaders further and started to pay tribute to them following their invasion of ‘Asqalān’s in 548/1153. Even, ‘Abaq offered officially his commitment to Jerusalem. Even though the spoilt Crusaders plundered and destroyed the surrounding of Damascus, they kept the administrators of Damascus with them. Moreover, they went further and offered them to give Ba’lebek to them in return for moving Nūr al-dīn away from Damascus. Such acts provoked the community of Damascus who opposed to the dynasty of Bori in the city afterward. Nūr al-dīn welcomed this opportunity and seized Damascus in 549/1154 by means of the public without giving any chance to coming of the Crusaders. Damascus was governed by Nūr al-dīn for approximately twenty years. A disagreement arose among the community of Zangī in the city after the decease of Nūr al-dīn in 569/1174, thus leading to the dominance of Ṣalādīn Ayyubi in the city. The Ayyubids began to govern Damascus, but internal conflicts started among them with the death of Ṣalādīn in 589/1193. Similarly, Damascus was the focus of these conflicts. The Ayyubids in Egypt were the other party of the disagreement. Unfortunately, the Crusaders benefited from such rivalries. When the senior member of the family al-Adil dominated Damascus in 592/1196, the Crusaders who increased their domain had seized Beirut. Egypt and Damascus got closed temporarily during the Fifth Crusade. After the Crusaders withdrew from Damietta, two brothers, al-Muazzam and al-Kᾱmil fought with each other again. Damascus and Egypt chose the Khwarezmian dynasty and Friedrich in Sicilia as ally, respectively. Unexpected death of al-Muazzam during the preparations for the Sixth Crusade resulted in the siege of Damascus by the forces of Egypt. Friedrich reached Akkā over the course of the siege. al-Kᾱmil who played for time to seize Damascus delivered Jerusalem to the Crusaders. Later, the internal conflicts about the new dynasty which arose in Damascus weakened the Ayyubids and made the Crusaders advantageous. Finally, Damascus found tranquility with the dominance of Baybars in the city. (shrink)

In this eighth book of scilogs collected from my nest of ideas, one may find new and old questions and solutions, – in email messages to research colleagues, or replies, and personal notes handwritten on the planes to, and from international conferences, about all kind of topics, centered mostly on Paradoxism and Neutrosophy. -/- Exchanging ideas with: Robert Neil Boyd, Joseph Brenner, Ahmed Cevik, Victor Christianto, Adrian Curaj, Jean Dezert, Andrei-Lucian Drăgoi, Ervin Goldfain, Young Bae Jun, Yale Landsberg, Radu Munteanu, (...) Paul Piștea, Viorel Roman, Ridvan Sahin, Said Broumi, Selcuk Topal, Eric W. Weisstein, Xiaohing Zhang.‬‬‬ . (shrink)