Suchergebnisse

Mark Lilla's (2001) investigation of modern European philosophers' apparent support for tyrannical political regimes is examined; specific attention is dedicated to identifying common characteristics among the selected thinkers. Although Lilla explicitly charged Heidegger & Schmitt with "philotyranny," defined as philosophical support for tyrannical regimes, it is contended that Lilla associates Benjamin, Kojeve, Foucault, & Derrida with philotyranny. Nevertheless, careful analysis of the aforementioned thinkers' biographies, especially those of Benjamin & Derrida, invalidates Lilla's contention. However, two characteristics shared by the aforementioned philosophers are highlighted: antagonism toward the liberal Enlightenment movement & concern with religious or theological issues. The extent to which modern European philosophers have actually resisted Adam Smith's "politics of imperfection" is also considered. The need for philosophers to develop a third way in intervening in political issues is articulated. J. W. Parker

Part of a symposium responds to comments on Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment (1999). Griswold defends the concept of the impartial spectator as the best & most sophisticated version of a theory that is Aristotelian in its commitment to ethical judgment because of a subtle understanding of sympathy. The impartial spectator is normative in Smith's view because of the ability to detach from one's own experiences. Griswold recognizes that Smith's treatment of this multilayered problem is not totally adequate & might be helped by a pared-down Platonism, but this was not a suggestion that Smith's moral theory was a failure. To the charge that any theory confined to a psychological account of moral feelings is an inadequate description of the phenomenon of morality, Griswold again appeals to the concept of sympathy. Smith believed that his theory of moral claims were truth-evaluable, rather than based on emotivist or expressivist theory. 4 References. L. A. Hoffman