Suchergebnisse

"Machiavelli is rarely discussed in depth by philosophers working in what is commonly called 'continental philosophy, ' but which with more accuracy might be called post-Heideggerian philosophy. Likewise, few scholars working on Machiavelli attempt to engage post-Heideggerian philosophy. Both tendencies, Brian Harding believes, are lamentable, since many of the problems that engage major figures in the continental tradition also engaged Machiavelli: themes such as the relationship between violence, religion and politics; the origin or foundations of authority; the relationship between philosophy and politics; and the critique or overcoming of Platonism. He suggests that a careful reading of Machiavelli in dialogue with at least some post-Heideggerian philosophers (Heidegger himself, Jacques Derrida, and René Girard) will shed more light on these themes than either Machiavelli or those post-Heideggerian philosophers could in isolation. His book is an attempt at exactly such cross-pollination. Instead of looking at Machiavelli from the usual standpoint of political philosophy, it concentrates on such topics as Machiavelli's discussion of the debate about the world's eternity, the roles of fortune and God in human affairs, sacrificial violence, and the consequences of believing that the world is eternal. But instead of examining these topics from a historical perspective, Harding examines the interplay between Machiavelli's work and the ideas of contemporary European thinkers."--

Augustine and Roman Virtue seeks to correct what the author sees as a fundamental misapprehension in medieval thought, a misapprehension that fuels further problems and misunderstandings in the historiography of philosophy. This misapprehension is the assumption that the development of certain themes associated with medieval philosophy is due, primarily if not exclusively, to extra-philosophical religious commitments rather than philosophical argumentation, referred to here as the ''sacralization thesis''. Brian Harding explores this problem through a detailed reading of Augustine''s City of

For the millions who had fought in the Great War, and for their families, the 'land fit for heroes' turned out to be an illusion; instead there was suffering and deprivation. Out of this, on 1 July 1921 was born the British Legion. In the years that followed the Legion fought for justice for the ex-service community, meanwhile seeking to protect them. It introduced the Poppy Appeal and insisted on an annual act of national Remembrance for the fallen. It went to extraordinary lengths to try to prevent another war, ultimately finding itself in controversial discussions with Hitler. Even after th

Este artículo tiene cuatro partes. Primero, es una discusión de la teoría crítica de la tecnología de Andrew Feenberg en su libro Questioning Technology. Se defiende que la teoría de Feenberg es parecida, a grandes rasgos, a la teoría política de Maquiavelo, siendo posible una comparación con su filosofía política. En segundo lugar, se discute, por tanto, la filosofía política de Maquiavelo, en particular su descripción de la constitución de la sociedad. Tercero, se plantea la relación entre la virtud y el mundo natural según este autor. En último lugar, se argumenta que esta comparación saca a la luz algunos problemas para la teoría crítica de Feenberg. Este autor sostiene una política y una tecnología de la liberación, mientras que Maquiavelo indica que la política (y la tecnología) está siempre ligada a la coerción. ; This paper has four major parts. First is a discussion of the critical theory of technology offered by Andrew Feenberg in his book, Questioning Technology. I argue that Feenberg's theory is similar, in important respects, to the political theory of Machiavelli and that consequently, a comparison of the political philosophy of Machiavelli is possible. Second, I discuss the political philosophy of Machiavelli, in particular his description of the foundation of society. Third I discuss the relationship between virtue and the natural world according to Machiavelli. Fourth, I argue that this comparison reveals problems for the critical theory of Feenberg. Feenberg wants a politics and technology of liberation and Machiavelli shows that politics (and also technology) is always linked to coercion.

"Taking the term "phenomenologist" in a fairly broad sense, Early Phenomenology focuses on those early exponents of the intellectual discipline, such as Buber, Ortega and Scheler rather than those thinkers that would later eclipse them; indeed the volume precisely means to bring into question what it means to be a phenomenologist, a category that becomes increasingly more fluid the more we distance ourselves from the gravitational pull of philosophical giants Husserl and Heidegger. In focusing on early phenomenology this volume seeks to examine the movement before orthodoxies solidified. More than merely adding to the story of phenomenology by looking closer at thinkers without the same fame as Husserl or Heidegger and the representatives of their legacy, the essays relate to one of the earlier thinkers with figures that are either more contemporary or more widely read, or both. Beyond merely filling in the historical record and reviving names, the chapters of this book will also give contemporary readers reasons to take these figures seriously as phenomenologists, radically reordering of our understanding of the lineage of this major philosophical movement."--Bloomsbury Publishing

"Providing theoretical and applied analyses of Michel Henry's practical philosophy in light of his guiding idea of Life, this is the first sustained exploration of Henry's practical thought in anglophone literature, reaffirming his centrality to contemporary continental thought. This book ranges from the tension between his methodological insistence on life as non-intentional and worldly activities to Henry's engagement with the practical philosophy of intellectuals such as Marx, Freud, and Kandisky to topics of application such as labor, abstract art, education, political liberalism, and spiritual life. An international team of leading Henry scholars examine a vital dimension of Henry's thinking that has remained under-explored for too long"--

Introduction: Thickening the Web of Asian Security Cooperation -- Japan: Strengthening Defense Cooperation to Reinforce Region Order in the Shadow of a Rising China -- The Republic of Korea: Middle Power Diplomacy, "Asia's Paradox" Spur Expanding Defense Cooperation Under Constraints -- India: From Nonalignment to Engagement with Strategic Autonomy -- Australia: Expanding Defense Cooperation amid Alliance Dependency -- Indonesia: Growing Defense Cooperation in a Period of Transition -- Vietnam: Seeking Partners Through Omnidirectional Engagement -- The Philippines: Modernization with a More Diverse Set of Partners -- Conclusions: The Future of a Densely Networked Indo-Pacific Defense Community.

This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation. ; publishedVersion

This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation. ; publishedVersion

This paper critically reviews the outcomes of internationally-funded interventions aimed at climate change adaptation and vulnerability reduction. It highlights how some interventions inadvertently reinforce, redistribute or create new sources of vulnerability. Four mechanisms drive these maladaptive outcomes: (i) shallow understanding of the vulnerability context; (ii) inequitable stakeholder participation in both design and implementation; (iii) a retrofitting of adaptation into existing development agendas; and (iv) a lack of critical engagement with how 'adaptation success' is defined. Emerging literature shows potential avenues for overcoming the current failure of adaptation interventions to reduce vulnerability: first, shifting the terms of engagement between adaptation practitioners and the local populations participating in adaptation interventions; and second, expanding the understanding of 'local' vulnerability to encompass global contexts and drivers of vulnerability. An important lesson from past adaptation interventions is that within current adaptation cum development paradigms, inequitable terms of engagement with 'vulnerable' populations are reproduced and the multi-scalar processes driving vulnerability remain largely ignored. In particular, instead of designing projects to change the practices of marginalised populations, learning processes within organisations and with marginalised populations must be placed at the centre of adaptation objectives. We pose the question of whether scholarship and practice need to take a post-adaptation turn akin to post-development, by seeking a pluralism of ideas about adaptation while critically interrogating how these ideas form part of the politics of adaptation and potentially the processes (re)producing vulnerability. We caution that unless the politics of framing and of scale are explicitly tackled, transformational interventions risk having even more adverse effects on marginalised populations than current adaptation.