Suchergebnisse

The article reconsiders the problematics of the "Deleuzian heritage" & especially the role played by the Deleuzian concept of deterritorialization in the conceptual framework of the Empire by Hardt & Negri. The concept of deterritorialization has a very special place in Deleuze's theory for it simultaneously makes possible & impossible his analysis of capitalism as well as his theory of the political & democracy. Finally, some consequences following from the ambiguities of this concept in Deleuze are shown for the theoretical edifice of the Empire. Adapted from the source document.

The author starts with the relationship between Badiou's otherwise severe critique of democracy & Lefort's theory of democracy. Though accused of not being democratic, Badiou's theory in a certain sense presupposes democracy & even deepens it, yet not the democracy of today, the democracy of consensus, but a democracy that is not based on exclusion. Through the comparison of Badious's & Deleuze's critiques of representation, the author shows some consequences of Badiou's starting-point that "people think" for the conceptualization of the community, equality, & universality. Adapted from the source document.

Karl Popper's distinction between science & metaphysics (pseudoscience) is analyzed, arguing that the principle of demarcation (falsification) cannot support Popper's thesis. Although falsification can be useful for distinguishing between empirical & nonempirical sciences, it also leads to clustering logic & mathematics, theory of induction, metaphysical theories, & philosophy in general. It is argued that Popper misinterprets A. Tarski's (1949) notion of the pursuit of truth in science & assumes that it can meet some objective criteria. One of the major problems of Popper's view of science in his theory of verisimilitude, allegedly capable of solving the problems of correspondence & objectivity. Instead, a blend of Popper's & Feyerabend's positions on scientific progress is suggested. 17 References. Adapted from the source document.

(Originally published in History and Theory, 1987, 26, 1-29.) It is postulated that, despite the best efforts of professional historians, there is no way of inventing a direct assessment of historical events. In fact, the professional standards of historians' honesty & professionalism are measured against the very conventions that include or exclude certain aspects of historical events. Even the thickest synchronic or quantified description must be understood by its readers as an excerpt from an explicit or implicit narrative. The desire for a source of an unprocessed story is a futile, frustrating effort, since all historical texts or materials are part of a society's cultural system. Adapted from the source document.