Suchergebnisse

THE FULL EXPLANATION OF HOW WINCHIAN PHILOSOPHY DEALS WITH THE GREAT RANGE OF DIVERSITY OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE PROVED TO BE A LENGTHY JOURNEY THROUGH EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METAPHYSICAL BYWAYS, WHERE THE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS OF INTERNAL RELATIONS AND RULES WERE INTRODUCED THEIR CULMINATION IN THE DIFFICULT NOTION OF FORMS OF LIFE. HOWEVER, BROUGHT THE ESSAY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION OF DIVERSITY IN MODES OF EXPERIENCE AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO A SIMPLE FACT-VALUE DICHOTOMY.

Collingwood's... descendants... will be engaged in conceptual analysis not unlike other modern forms of conceptual analysis but not so isolated, in principle and in practice, from the panorama of the human past, from the rich diversity of contemporary cultures, and from the perplexities of individual experience in art, religion, the privacies of thought, and the publicity of action. They will search out the a priori elements in experience and the empirical genesis of thought. They may try, although they will surely fail, to make the scope of philosophy as wide as life itself, and this attempt would at least be not unwelcome in a time when some of the descendants of Socrates try, although they too will fail, to make the scope of philosophy as narrow as an academic department. Louis O. Mink

AbstractConstruct validation theory is founded upon conflicting metaphysical principles, methodological approaches and standards of adequacy.

Originally published in 1982. Aside from Jacques Derrida's own references to the "possible articulation" between deconstruction and Marxism, the relationship between the two has remained largely unexplored. In Marxism and Deconstruction, Michael Ryan examines that multifaceted relationship but not through a mere comparison of two distinct and inviolable entities. Instead, he looks at both with an eye to identifying their common elements and reweaving them into a new theory of political practice. To accomplish his task, Ryan undertakes a detailed comparison of deconstruction and Marxism, relating deconstruction to the dialectical tradition in philosophy and demonstrating how deconstruction can be used in the critique of ideology. He is a forceful critic of both the politics of deconstruction and the metaphysical aspect of Marxism (as seen from a deconstructionist perspective). Besides offering the first book-length study of Derrida in this context, Ryan makes the first methodic attempt by an American scholar to apply deconstruction to domains beyond literature. He proposes a deconstructive Marxism, one lacking the metaphysical underpinnings of conservative "scientific" Marxist theory and employing deconstructive analysis both for Marxist political criticism and to further current anti-metaphysical developments within Marxism. Marxism and Deconstruction is an innovative and controversial contribution to the fields of literary criticism, philosophy, and political science.

Contents: Introduction, Bibliography and Textual Note Lecture I: The Present Dilemma in Philosophy Lecture II: What Pragmatism Means Lecture III: Some Metaphysical Problems Pragmatically Considered Lecture IV: The One and the Many Lecture V: Pragmatism and Common Sense Lecture VI: Pragmatism''s Conception of Truth Lecture VII: Pragmatism and Humanism Lecture VIII: Pragmatism and Religion

One: Preliminary Essays -- I. The aesthetic structure of waka -- II. The metaphysical background of the theory of Noh: an analysis of Zeami's 'Nine Stages' -- III. The Way of tea: an art of spatial awareness -- IV. Haiku: an existential event -- Two: Texts, translated by Toshihiko and Toyo Izutsu -- I. Maigetsush? -- II. The Nine Stages -- III. 'The Process of Training in the Nine Stages' (Appendix to 'The Nine Stages') -- IV. Observations on the Disciplinary Way of Noh -- V. ollecting Gems and Obtaining Flowers -- VI. Record of Nanb? -- VII. The Red Booklet.

William James used to say that temperaments determine philosophies. People who respond to international affairs divide temperamentally into two schools: those who see policies as wise or foolish, and those who see them as good or evil. One cannot presume an ultimate metaphysical antagonism here. No person can escape perceptions of good and evil—even Machiavelli counseled the Prince not to forget, when circumstances impelled him to do a bad thing, that he was doing a bad thing—and no policy can wholly divorce political from moral principles. Nor in the impenetrability of human motives can we easily know when the moral reasons are political reasons in disguise (very often the case) or when political reasons are moral reasons in disguise (more frequent than one might think).

AS A PHILOSPHICAL CONCEPT 'NEED' IS USUALLY OVERBURDENED, FOR THE GENERAL LACK OF PRECISION OF THE TERM EQUIPS IT POORLY FOR THE TASK OF DEFINING HUMAN PROPERTIES, POWERS, AND POTENTIALITIES, AS IT HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN USED TO DO. THERE ARE THUS FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS AMONG PHILOSOPHERS OF NEED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER NEEDS ARE ESSENTIALLY GOOD, OR WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE EVIL NEEDS; A DISPUTE GROUNDED IN THE AMBIVALENCE BETWEEN NEEDS AS A METAPHYSICAL AND EMPIRICAL CATEGORY. THE CORPUS OF LITERATURE ON THE PROBLEM OF NEEDS IN ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY DIVIDES RATHER NEATLY ALONG THESE LINES BETWEEN THE PELAGIANS, WHO BELIEVE THAT NEEDS ARE ESSENTIAL HUMAN REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE GOOD, HAVING 'A PRIMA FACIE RIGHT TO BE SATISFIED' AND THE MANICHEANS WHO BELIEVE THAT, HUMAN NATURE BEING WHAT IT IS, NEEDS CAN BE GOOD AND BAD, DEMONSTRATING THIS EMPIRICALLY BY POINTING TO HITLER, SADO-MASOCHISTS, ETC.

To refer to Prince Andrei as a rational man seems to flout Tolstoian psychological theory. In a passage from the second (unpublished) part of Youth that Boris Eikhenbaum treats as autobiographical, Tolstoi explains that one of his earliest maxims arose from a refutation of Descartes's "I think, therefore I am."I recall that the basis of my new philosophy was that man consisted of body, feelings, reason and will, but that the essence of the soul was will, not reason: that Descartes, whom I had not read then, in vain had said Cogito, ergo sum, because he had thought because he had wanted to think. Consequently it was necessary to say Volo, ergo sum.Tolstoi alters Descartes's maxim to make it consistent with the metaphysical underpinnings of science and psychology as he understands them. Life is self-propelled motion, while reason is the principle that defines it or, as he puts it in the second epilogue of War and Peace, gives it form. The essence of a living being, therefore, must be desire or impulse, not thought, which gives form to impulse but does not itself move. To live is to will, not to think.