Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this doctoral thesis is to expose Castoriadis' poïetical and institutional answer to the following question: how can we constitute a practical universality in a postmetaphysical context. Starting with a definition of political philosophy as the progressive and institutional objectification of reason, I first show how the modern radical critic of metaphysical thoughts and the modern emergence of a procedural conception of reason were both problematic for political philosophy. The thesis is then divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to Castoriadis' philosophy and presents his own critics of metaphysical thinking, his ontology and his theory of knowledge. I then follow the interpretative thesis according to which Castoriadis' philosophy can be characterized as an ''ontopoïetical pluralistic constructivism'' The second part is about his conception of practical reason, which I interpret as a "postmetaphysical institutionalism". I conclude by showing that Castoriadis offers not only new mediations between politics and philosophy but also an original conception of practical universality in the history of political philosophy. Using a comparative method, I put forward Castoriadis' thoughts through a comparison with other philosophies that share common problems and thesis, e.g. the Hegelian-Marxian tradition and the philosophies of difference. ; L'objet de cette thèse doctorale est la réponse poïétique et institutionnaliste offerte par Castoriadis au problème de la constitution d'une universalité pratique dans un contexte post-métaphysique. La thèse s'ouvre sur une définition de la philosophie politique comme projet d'objectivation institutionnelle de la raison et sur l'exposition du problème, pour cette discipline, engendré par la critique de la métaphysique et l'émergence d'une conception procédurale de la raison lors de la modernité. La thèse est ensuite divisée en deux parties. La première porte sur la philosophie de Castoriadis, c'est-à-dire sur sa critique de la pensée métaphysique, son ...

The purpose of this doctoral thesis is to expose Castoriadis' poïetical and institutional answer to the following question: how can we constitute a practical universality in a postmetaphysical context. Starting with a definition of political philosophy as the progressive and institutional objectification of reason, I first show how the modern radical critic of metaphysical thoughts and the modern emergence of a procedural conception of reason were both problematic for political philosophy. The thesis is then divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to Castoriadis' philosophy and presents his own critics of metaphysical thinking, his ontology and his theory of knowledge. I then follow the interpretative thesis according to which Castoriadis' philosophy can be characterized as an ''ontopoïetical pluralistic constructivism'' The second part is about his conception of practical reason, which I interpret as a "postmetaphysical institutionalism". I conclude by showing that Castoriadis offers not only new mediations between politics and philosophy but also an original conception of practical universality in the history of political philosophy. Using a comparative method, I put forward Castoriadis' thoughts through a comparison with other philosophies that share common problems and thesis, e.g. the Hegelian-Marxian tradition and the philosophies of difference. ; L'objet de cette thèse doctorale est la réponse poïétique et institutionnaliste offerte par Castoriadis au problème de la constitution d'une universalité pratique dans un contexte post-métaphysique. La thèse s'ouvre sur une définition de la philosophie politique comme projet d'objectivation institutionnelle de la raison et sur l'exposition du problème, pour cette discipline, engendré par la critique de la métaphysique et l'émergence d'une conception procédurale de la raison lors de la modernité. La thèse est ensuite divisée en deux parties. La première porte sur la philosophie de Castoriadis, c'est-à-dire sur sa critique de la pensée métaphysique, son ...

The purpose of this doctoral thesis is to expose Castoriadis' poïetical and institutional answer to the following question: how can we constitute a practical universality in a postmetaphysical context. Starting with a definition of political philosophy as the progressive and institutional objectification of reason, I first show how the modern radical critic of metaphysical thoughts and the modern emergence of a procedural conception of reason were both problematic for political philosophy. The thesis is then divided into two parts. The first part is devoted to Castoriadis' philosophy and presents his own critics of metaphysical thinking, his ontology and his theory of knowledge. I then follow the interpretative thesis according to which Castoriadis' philosophy can be characterized as an ''ontopoïetical pluralistic constructivism'' The second part is about his conception of practical reason, which I interpret as a "postmetaphysical institutionalism". I conclude by showing that Castoriadis offers not only new mediations between politics and philosophy but also an original conception of practical universality in the history of political philosophy. Using a comparative method, I put forward Castoriadis' thoughts through a comparison with other philosophies that share common problems and thesis, e.g. the Hegelian-Marxian tradition and the philosophies of difference. ; L'objet de cette thèse doctorale est la réponse poïétique et institutionnaliste offerte par Castoriadis au problème de la constitution d'une universalité pratique dans un contexte post-métaphysique. La thèse s'ouvre sur une définition de la philosophie politique comme projet d'objectivation institutionnelle de la raison et sur l'exposition du problème, pour cette discipline, engendré par la critique de la métaphysique et l'émergence d'une conception procédurale de la raison lors de la modernité. La thèse est ensuite divisée en deux parties. La première porte sur la philosophie de Castoriadis, c'est-à-dire sur sa critique de la pensée métaphysique, son ...

Norms, Reasons and Constructivism. Constructivism and Objectivity. Varieties of Constructivism. Constructivism and Its Premises. Re-Defining Constructivism. ; Norms, Reasons and Constructivism. Constructivism and Objectivity. Varieties of Constructivism. Constructivism and Its Premises. Re-Defining Constructivism. ; LUISS PhD Thesis

In this dissertation I show that constructivist liberal philosophers are confronted by a dilemma. On the one hand, the conceptions of persons that they appeal to are so thin that contradictory conclusions can be derived from those very same conceptions. Where one philosopher thinks that his or her conception excludes the capitalistic economic liberties from the list of basic rights, it is possible to show with great plausibility the opposite conclusion and vice-versa. The status of the capitalist economic liberties carries significant implications not only for the structure of the economy but also for the place and role of other normative values that more directly affect other areas of life. If it can be shown that a conception of persons leads to contradictory results when it comes to the status of the economic liberties in particular, then the general shape of society will change in significant and inevitable ways as well. In order to avoid this horn of the dilemma, some philosophers seek to thicken their conceptions of persons. In doing so, I maintain that they come to beg too many questions and subsequently undermine whatever normative conclusions they sought to derive from their conception of persons. I analyze this connection within the context of the theories of political philosophers writing from different traditions of liberal thought. To do so I first distinguish between how the concept of personhood has been employed in moral philosophy as opposed to political philosophy. The chapters then move from liberal theories more progressively oriented, such as John Rawls's theory of justice, to more moderate positions, such as John Tomasi's market democracy, to Robert Nozick's libertarianism. In the first two cases I argue that the conceptions of persons employed by Rawls and Tomasi are thin, and that it is possible to show that their conceptions lead to conclusions in conflict with their own stated positions. In the case of libertarianism, I argue that libertarians generally construe self-ownership thickly ...

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller's historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey's hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce's pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of 'science' was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics. © 2015 The Journal of Economic Theory.

El artículo expone la justicia como un problema político desde la perspectiva del filósofo John Rawls. En su desarrollo se señalan las implicaciones del constructivismo kantiano en el constructivismo político rawlsiano. Se discute cómo la conexión entre estos dos tipos de constructivismo, proporciona un procedimiento de construcción, en el que agentes racionalmente autónomos, sujetos a condiciones razonables, elaboran acuerdos sobre principios públicos de justicia para lograr un sistema justo de cooperación que trascienda generacionalmente. Se concluye, mostrando las limitaciones y alcances de esta propuesta en el pensamiento filosófico y político contemporáneo. ; This paper discusses justice in terms of political problem as viewed by John Rawls' philosophy. It claims that the Kantian politic constructivism has some implications on the base of the Rawlsian liberalism. It argues about how the connection between these two different types of constructivism provides a construction procedure in which rational autonomous agents, submitted to reasonable conditions, make agreements concerning public principles about justice in order to reach a fair system of cooperation that goes beyond the generations. It concludes showing the limitations and achievements of the proposal in contemporary political philosophy.

Radical constructivists appeal to self-legislation in arguing that rational agents are the ultimate sources of normative authority over themselves. I chart the roots of radical constructivism and argue that its two leading Kantian proponents are unable to defend an account of self-legislation as the fundamental source of practical normativity without this legislation collapsing into a fatal arbitrariness. Christine Korsgaard cannot adequately justify the critical resources which agents use to navigate their practical identities. This leaves her account riven between rigorism and voluntarism, such that it will not escape a paradox that arises when self-legislation is unable to appeal to external normative standards. Onora O'Neill anchors self-legislation more firmly to the self-disciplining structures of reason itself. However, she ultimately fails to defend sufficiently unconditional practical norms which could guide legislation. These endemic problems with radical constructivist models of self-legislation prompt a reconstruction of a neglected realist self-legislative tradition which is exemplified by Christian Wolff. In outlining a rationalist and realist account of self-legislation, I argue that it can also make sense of our ability to overcome anomie and deference in practical action. Thus, I claim that we need not make laws but can make them our own.

El artículo expone la justicia como un problema político desde la perspectiva del filósofo John Rawls. En su desarrollo se señalan las implicaciones del constructivismo kantiano en el constructivismo político rawlsiano. Se discute cómo la conexión entre estos dos tipos de constructivismo, proporciona un procedimiento de construcción, en el que agentes racionalmente autónomos, sujetos a condiciones razonables, elaboran acuerdos sobre principios públicos de justicia para lograr un sistema justo de cooperación que trascienda generacionalmente. Se concluye, mostrando las limitaciones y alcances de esta propuesta en el pensamiento filosófico y político contemporáneo. ; This paper discusses justice in terms of political problem as viewed by John Rawls' philosophy. It claims that the Kantian politic constructivism has some implications on the base of the Rawlsian liberalism. It argues about how the connection between these two different types of constructivism provides a construction procedure in which rational autonomous agents, submitted to reasonable conditions, make agreements concerning public principles about justice in order to reach a fair system of cooperation that goes beyond the generations. It concludes showing the limitations and achievements of the proposal in contemporary political philosophy.

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller's historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey's hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce's pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of 'science' was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller's historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey's hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce's pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of 'science' was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

Since the turn of this century, constructivism has dramatically influenced science education and, particularly in Muslim countries, the teaching of evolution. This influence came about gradually. After the 1980's, Muslim graduate students studying Education in Western universities have been taught constructivism both as a theory of learning and a philosophy, more specifically, as an epistemological theory. This has impacted these students' views of the nature of science, scientific argumentation, multiculturalism, and the function of democratic values and practices in education. The scope of this influence raises a number of serious questions: Has constructivism introduced a mode of reasoning into science and science education that is foreign to, and even anathema to, scientific discourse? Why does almost every science education research paper suggest or imply negotiation with clergy and religious NGOs? Such questions are discussed in the present paper. To answer these questions, this paper examines in the context of Enlightenment and secularism theoretical frameworks, the methodologies, and suggestions regarding the teaching of evolution in Muslim countries. ; Since the turn of this century, constructivism has dramatically influenced science education and, particularly in Muslim countries, the teaching of evolution. This influence came about gradually. After the 1980's, Muslim graduate students studying Education in Western universities have been taught constructivism both as a theory of learning and a philosophy, more specifically, as an epistemological theory. This has impacted these students' views of the nature of science, scientific argumentation, multiculturalism, and the function of democratic values and practices in education. The scope of this influence raises a number of serious questions: Has constructivism introduced a mode of reasoning into science and science education that is foreign to, and even anathema to, scientific discourse? Why does almost every science education research paper suggest or imply negotiation with clergy and religious NGOs? Such questions are discussed in the present paper. To answer these questions, this paper examines in the context of Enlightenment and secularism theoretical frameworks, the methodologies, and suggestions regarding the teaching of evolution in Muslim countries.

This thesis examines the relation between two contrasting approaches to justice: the constructive and reconstructive projects of Rawls and Habermas on the one hand, and the deconstructive projects of Levinas and Derrida on the other. First, I identify the central difference between the two projects, reconstructing each account of justice as it develops in relation to Kant s practical philosophy. I then argue that the two projects are complementary. [New Paragraph] Whilst Rawls and Habermas emphasise the possibility of objectively realising Kant s idea of an impartial standpoint among autonomous persons, Levinas and Derrida defend the impossibility of determining the content of justice. Rawls and Habermas subscribe to the art of the possible , rendering Kant s impartial standpoint by means of the original position (Rawls) or the procedures of discourse ethics (Habermas). By contrast, Levinas argues for justice s failure, discovering, in Kant s moral law, a principle of responsibility for the particular other which conflicts with impartiality. Distinguishing himself from both the reconstructive tradition and Levinas, Derrida affirms, in part through his readings of Kant, the undecidability of the critical function of justice. Committed to the possibility of justice, Derrida also acknowledges its impossibility: no local determination can reconcile responsibility before the other with impartiality among all. [New Paragraph] Having identified the central difference between the two traditions, I then defend their complementarity. Reasonable faith in the possibility of justice must be supplemented by the acknowledgment of its impossibility. Conversely, attesting to justice s failure is unsatisfactory without commitment to the possibility of constructing just social forms. Distancing myself from the liberal critique whereby deconstruction withdraws from the political (Fraser, McCarthy, Benhabib, Gutmann), I instead add my voice to a dissenting group (Young, Cornell, Mouffe, Honig, Honneth, Patton, Thomassen) which ...

The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller's historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey's hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce's pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of 'science' was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

The paper compares Pierre Bourdieu's sociological approach with the one developed by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. The aim of the paper is to identify the complementarities and incongruences of these approaches. The main similarity consists in the intention to "dialectically" overcome/bridge the gap between "objectivism" and "subjectivism" in social theory. Another parallel includes a negative attitude towards the relativistic tendencies of postmodernism. These authors share the thematization of: the body as a locus of social influences, the centrality of language in social life, the social functions of knowledge, and the importance of power in social relations. Differences in theorizing are attributed to the different intellectual, theoretical, and socio-cultural contexts in which these scientists operated. The divergences of these theoretical approaches become evident when one examines the different meaning and significance attached to the concepts of individuation, structure, action, habitus and habitualization, structure of relevance and relation of common-sense and scientific knowledge. Finally, there is a visible difference in political views: Bourdieu was a critic "from the left," while Berger and Luckmann were self-proclaimed liberal conservatives. ; U radu se poredi sociološki pristup Pjera Burdijea sa onim koji su razvili Peter Berger i Tomas Lukman. Cilј rada je da se identifikuju komplementarnosti i razilaženja ovih pristupa. Glavna sličnost se sastoji u nameri da se "dijalektički" prevaziđe/premosti jaz između "objektivizma" i "subjektivizma" u društvenoj teoriji. Druga paralela uključuju negativan stav prema relativističkim tendencijama postmodernizma. Ono što je zajedničko za ove autore je tematizacija: tela kao mesta društvenih uticaja, centralnosti jezika u društvenom životu, društvenih funk cija znanja i značaja moći u društvenim odnosima. Razlike u teoretisanju se pripisuju različi tim intelektualnim, teorijskim i socio-kulturnim kontekstima u kojima su ovi naučnici delovali. Razilaženja ...