Search results

Peirceana provides a forum for the best current work on Peirce worldwide. Besides monographs, the series will publish thematically unified anthologies and edited volumes with a defined topical focus and untranslated English selections of Peirce's writings.

Examines the nature of the relationship between social science and philosophy and addresses the sort of work social science should do, and the role and sorts of claims that an accompanying philosophy should engage in. This book argues against the excesses of philosophising and provides a philosophical approach grounded in the social sciences

Theories about the ontological structure of the world have generally been described in informal, intuitive terms, and the arguments for and against them, including their consistency and adequacy as explanatory frameworks, have generally been given in even more informal terms. The goal of formal ontology is to correct for these deficiencies. By formally reconstructing an intuitive, informal ontological scheme as a formal ontology we can better determine the consistency and adequacy of that scheme; and then by comparing different reconstructed schemes with one another we can much better evaluate.

In histories of Serbian painting Sreten Maric is listed among the protagonists of socialist realism, and that on the basis of a single article - his criticism of an exhibition staged by the Association of Visual Artists of Serbia to the benefit of wounded veterans (the exhibition was opened in Belgrade in late 1944, and the article was published in the Christmas 1945 issue of ?Politika?). Without denying the historical basis for this judgment, the author of the present paper pleads for a more nuance approach and propounds the thesis that socialist realism was primarily a complex pattern of social relations, and only in the second place a substantively defined doctrine. On the basis of an insight into the relevant sources it is argued that Maric was not a theorist of socialist realism; on the other hand, an ideologue of social painting he was indeed, believing in a synthesis of Art and Revolution. By way of comparison, the figures of Miroslav Krleza and Georg Luk?cs are referred to: neither of the two was a protagonist of socialist realism, though both belonged firmly to the so-called leftist thought.

The main claim in this article is that humanitarianism can be depicted as an attempt of establishing a realistic utopia. The claimed is supported by comparison between More's Utopia and Dunant's A memory of Solferino. Despite the differences in style and context, both authors show a sensitive analysis of human nature and war as a phenomenon. They both show that war should be conducted in a way that reduces suffering. It is also important that several of their ideas that were far flung at the time have become political mainstream. This in turn illustrate that some utopian depictions can turn out to be realistic. Dunant's text illustrates this by making concrete proposals that brought about long lasting changes in the conduct of war. Despite coming short of abolishing war his text represent a realistic utopia that expanded the field of what was politically possible.

THE AUTHOR OFFERS CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAKE THE POINT THAT THERE ARE LIMITS TO THE UTILITY OF POLITICAL REALISM. HE SUGGESTS THAT IF REALISM DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE WHOLE OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND FOREIGN POLICY IT STILL EXPLAINS A GREAT DEAL. EVEN MORE, IT ENCOURAGES AN OUTLOOK TOWARD FOREIGN POLICY THAT IS SORELY NEEDED IN A TIME OF TRIUMPHALISM AND UNBOUNDED OPTIMISM. HE CONCLUDES THAT IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT IT WILL GAIN THE HEARING THAT IT DESERVES.

A review essay on books by (1) Raymond Geuss, History and Illusion in Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge U Press, 2001; & (2) Raymond Geuss, Public Goods, Private Goods (Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2001).

AbstractThe usefulness of 'realism' in explaining Russia's decision to invade Ukraine has become a keenly contested debate not only in International Relations but in wider public intellectual discourse since the onset of the war in February 2022. At the centre of this debate is the punditry of John J. Mearsheimer, a prominent offensive realist who is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago. This article argues that although Mearsheimer is indeed a realist, his offensive realism is but one of many different realist theories that can forward an explanation of the Ukraine War. Beyond the apparent hegemony of structural realism (the branch of realism to which Mearsheimer's offensive realism belongs), it is argued that classical and neoclassical realist frameworks can provide more nuanced and, ultimately, convincing arguments as to why Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine. This is because both classical and neoclassical realism can incorporate insights from non-realist studies—such as the concepts of civilization and ontological security—and combine them into an overarching power politics framework. Although neither classical nor neoclassical realism is flawless in their explanations, they demonstrate that realism does not just have to be about international power structures but can offer multivariate accounts of why a state, like Russia, decided to act, such as invading Ukraine.