Philosophy (PHIL) 1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lenin and the Russian Civil War
Lenin and the Russian Civil War In the months and years after the fall of Tsar Nicholas II’s government, Russia went through incredible, often violent changes. The society was transformed from a peasant society run by an absolute monarchy into a worker’s state run by an all- powerful group that came to be known as the Communist Party. A key to this transformation is Vladimir Lenin. Who Was Lenin? • Born into a wealthy middle-class family background. • Witnessed (when he was 17) the hanging of his brother Aleksandr for revolutionary activity. • Kicked out his university for participating in anti- Tsarist protests. • Took and passed his law exams and served in various law firms in St. Petersburg and elsewhere. • Arrested and sent to Siberia for 3 years for transporting and distributing revolutionary literature. • When WWI started, argued that it should become a revolution of the workers throughout Europe. • Released and lived mostly in exile (Switzerland) until 1917. • Adopted the name “Lenin” (he was born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) in exile to hide his activities from the Tsar’s secret police. Lenin and the French Revolution Lenin admired the revolutionaries in France 100 years before his time, though he believed they didn’t go far enough – too much wealth was left in middle class hands. His Bolsheviks used the chaotic and incomplete nature of the French Revolution as a guide - they believed that in order for a communist revolution to succeed, it would need firm leadership from a small group of party leaders – a very different vision from Karl Marx. So, in some ways, Lenin was like Robin Hood – taking from the rich and giving to the poor. -
The Significance and Shortcomings of Karl Marx
Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 3 2018 The Significance and Shortcomings of Karl Marx Chris Wright Hunter College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Wright, Chris (2018) "The Significance and Shortcomings of Karl Marx," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 6 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.6.2.008310 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol6/iss2/3 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Significance and Shortcomings of Karl Marx Abstract In this essay I explain both why Karl Marx remains an important thinker and why he is in some respects inadequate. I focus on the central issue of 'materialism vs. idealism,' and briefly explore ways in which contemporary intellectuals still haven't assimilated the insights of historical materialism. In the last section of the paper I examine the greatest weakness of Marxism, its theory of proletarian revolution, and propose an alternative conceptualization that both updates the theory for the twenty-first century and is more faithful to historical materialism than Marx's own conception was. Keywords Karl Marx, Marxism, socialism Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This article is available in Class, Race and Corporate Power: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/ classracecorporatepower/vol6/iss2/3 I often have occasion to think that, as an “intellectual,” I’m very lucky to be alive at this time in history, at the end of the long evolution from Herodotus and the pre-Socratic philosophers to Chomsky and modern science. -
REVIEW Alain Badiou, Theory of the Subject (New York: Continuum, 2009)
Tomas Marttila 2010 ISSN: 1832-5203 Foucault Studies, No. 10, pp. 173-177, November 2010 REVIEW Alain Badiou, Theory of the Subject (New York: Continuum, 2009), ISBN: 978-0826496737 (1) Badiou’s Post-Political Ontology of the Subject Alongside Jacques Ranciere, Jean-Luc Nancy, Gilles Deleuze and Claude Lefort, Alain Badiou is one of the most influential and productive French philosophers of our times. Contemporary French post-foundational philosophy is split into a Lacanian and a Heideggerian stream. The Lacanian stream is more relevant than ever today, as it has been predominant in the works of, amongst others, Ernesto Laclau, Slavoj Žižek and, more recently, Jason Glynos and Yannis Stavrakakis. Marchart has observed the ‘Heideggerian’ influence above all in the works of Alain Badiou, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault.1 Alain Badiou’s Theory of the Subject (French: Théorie du Sujet), published for the first time in 1982, combines both La- canian and Heideggerian philosophy and, in this regard, reflects some of the most central philosophical ideas in recent French post-foundational philosophy. In today’s globalized post-cold-war neo-liberal world, the developments in communist China and the Soviet Union described in Theory of the Subject appear out of time. This anachronism does not, however, account for Badiou’s thought as such. Based on the works of Hegel, Hei- degger and Lacan, Theory of the Subject provides a universal ontology of the political subject. Despite its slightly misleading title, Theory of the Subject is a book about politics as a particular truth event, which makes the political subject appear as the promise of the truth to come. -
Badiou Beyond Formalization? on the Ethics of the Subject
FILOZOFIA ___________________________________________________________________________Roč. 72, 2017, č. 9 BADIOU BEYOND FORMALIZATION? ON THE ETHICS OF THE SUBJECT JAN-JASPER PERSIJN, Centre for the History of Philosophy and Continental Philosophy (HICO), Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium PERSIJN, J.-J.: Badiou beyond Formalization? On the Ethics of the Subject FILOZOFIA 72, 2017, No. 9, pp. 724-735 The paper addresses the tension between Badiou’s claim that his theory of the sub- ject must be considered first of all as a ‘formal’ theory, and a certain genealogical history of his notion of the subject. In the latter case, it seems that a very specific political experience has played a crucial role (at least) for Badiou in his early con- ception of the subject. More particularly, the paper addresses this tension from an ethical perspective. As for the claim repeatedly made in his work (that the subject poses in the first place a formal problem), one can identify an implicitly ethical disposition in the formalization itself. At the same time, there are several formula- tions in his writings that seem to exceed the formal level. The paper examines four concepts or formulations appearing in his three main books (Theory of the Subject, Being and Event, Logics of Worlds) that seem to express a more or less explicit ethical dimension, namely his theory of affects, the principle ‘to decide the unde- cidable’, the contrast between ‘fidelity’ and ‘confidence’ and Badiou’s answer to the question What is it to live? The paper’s aim is to pinpoint the difference be- tween the ethical stance implied in the formal description of Badiou’s theory of the subject and an explicit ‘ethics of the subject’. -
J.S. Mill and Marx on Freedom and Alternative Structures of Political Economy: a Reconstructive, Critical and Comparative Inquiry ［ 第一日目 ］ 第二会場 Armando C
J.S. Mill and Marx on Freedom and Alternative Structures of Political Economy: A Reconstructive, Critical and Comparative Inquiry ［ 第一日目 ］ 第二会場 Armando C. Ochangco, Ph.D. Associate Professor University of the Philippines Abstract: The proposed paper is intended to provide critical and comparative perspectives on the ideas of freedom to be found in the works of John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, and how these normative conceptions relate to their visions of alternative economic, social and political systems. Drawing ideas and perspectives from their classic texts (by Mill, such as those from: On Liberty, Principles of Political Economy, On the Subjection of Women, Utilitarianism; and by Marx, such as those from: The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Critique of the Gotha Program, German Ideology, Capital, among others), I shall provide interpretive and reconstructive accounts of the conceptions of freedom which may be implicit or explicit in their written works, and how they relate to their alternative conceptions of the political economy—the latter understood as alternative configurations of socio-economic and political structures. With these possible interpretations and reconstructions, I shall proceed to argue that these, in certain ways, different but related conceptions of freedom, based on ideas which may be implicit or explicit in their works, are crucial to understanding their normative conceptions of political economy. Moreover, I shall suggest that their views on freedom go deeper and more systematic than what tends -
Against the Heteronomy of Halakhah: Hermann Cohen's Implicit Rejection of Kant's Critique of Judaism
Against the Heteronomy of Halakhah: Hermann Cohen’s Implicit Rejection of Kant’s Critique of Judaism George Y. Kohler* “Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and ordained the virtues to be part of religion…” Josephus, Against Apion 2.17 Hermann Cohen (1842–1918) was arguably the only Jewish philosopher of modernity whose standing within the general philosophical developments of the West equals his enormous impact on Jewish thought. Cohen founded the influential Marburg school of Neo-Kantianism, the leading trend in German Kathederphilosophie in the second half of the nineteenth and the first decade of the twentieth century. Marburg Neo-Kantianism cultivated an overtly ethical, that is, anti-Marxist, and anti-materialist socialism that for Cohen increasingly concurred with his philosophical reading of messianic Judaism. Cohen’s Jewish philosophical theology, elaborated during the last decades of his life, culminated in his famous Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism, published posthumously in 1919.1 Here, Cohen translated his neo-Kantian philosophical position back into classical Jewish terms that he had extracted from Judaism with the help of the progressive line of thought running from * Bar-Ilan University, Department of Jewish Thought. 1 Hermann Cohen, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums, first edition, Leipzig: Fock, 1919. I refer to the second edition, Frankfurt: Kaufmann, 1929. English translation by Simon Kaplan, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism (New York: Ungar, 1972). Henceforth this book will be referred to as RR, with reference to the English translation by Kaplan given after the German in square brackets. -
APA Newsletters
APA Newsletters Volume 06, Number 2 Spring 2007 NEWSLETTER ON PHILOSOPHY AND LAW FROM THE EDITOR, STEVEN SCALET ARTICLES BRIAN H. BIX “Joseph Raz and Conceptual Analysis” JULES L. COLEMAN “Law and Political Morality” TIMOTHY ENDICOTT “Interpretation, Jurisdiction, and the Authority of Law” KENNETH EINAR HIMMA “Revisiting Raz: Inclusive Positivism and the Concept of Authority” LIAM MURPHY “Razian Concepts” STEPHEN PERRY “Two Problems of Political Authority” © 2007 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN: 1067-9464 APA NEWSLETTER ON Philosophy and Law Steven Scalet, Editor Spring 2007 Volume 06, Number 2 relating to such theories. In particular, I will look at the role of conceptual analysis in legal theory, focusing on some recent FROM THE EDITOR work by Joseph Raz.1 I. Overview Edition in Tribute to Joseph Raz It was a commonplace in the history of jurisprudence to focus on the inquiry, what is law? It is worth taking a few moments Joseph Raz is professor at Columbia University Law School to consider the question more closely. and research faculty at Oxford University. His writings influence generations of scholars and his many students are now among First and foremost, there is a potential confusion (heightened 2 the leading scholars in philosophy of law. in English more than in other major languages ), as “law,” even if focused on matters jurisprudential (and not speaking of physical For this edition of the Newsletter we invited leading political laws, the laws of games, social conventions, etc.), can refer to and legal philosophers to analyze some aspect of Professor a number of different, if related, matters: most prominently, Raz’s ideas. -
A Musing with Alain Badiou À La 'Dialogue Between a Chinese
Volume Four, Number One A Musing with Alain Badiou à la ‘Dialogue Between a Chinese Philosopher and a French Philosopher’,1 or, An Exercise in Self-Reference Kyoo Lee John Jay College, CUNY, NYC Free Badiou! The Same, Sex Problem in Alain Badiou on Love, and One Possible, Queer Solution from the Master Himself […] or Herself? 1 The event: ‘Alain Badiou: Dialogue between a Chinese Philosopher and French Philosopher’, 13 December 2014, The Educational Alliance, NYC. Badiou Studies 2 And “What is Love?” Alain Badiou asks and answers: Page | 124 […] The question of sex is the primary obscurity, a difference thinkable only at the cost of a laborious determination of identity that it puts to work. Let us add that contemporary philosophy addresses itself at all times to women. It might even be suspected that it is, as discourse, partly a strategy of seduction. Cogito Interruptus:3 Or subtraction, you mean? Besides, it is from the bias of love that philosophy touches upon the sexes, to the extent that it is to Plato that Lacan must look for what hold thought has over the love of transference. Such or any, as one might already know, truth is essentially an empty category for Badiou – it is produced, in Badiou’s own words, as a hole in knowledge, an unnameable element. It is essentially something which is indiscernible to either language or mathematical counting. Hence, Badiou’s recourse to a philosophy of foundations grounded on mathematical logic 2 Alain Badiou, “What is Love?,” UMBR (a), 1996, p.37. 3 Kyoo Lee, ‘Cogito Interruptus: The Epistolary Body in the Elisabeth-Descartes Correspondence, June 22, 1645-November 3, 1645’, philoSOPHIA 1.2 (2011), 173-94. -
A Letter to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
A Letter to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Karl Marx 946 Communist Way London , United Kingdom W11 2BQ Dear Comrade Karl and Comrade Friedrich: I write to you in appreciation and admiration. I have just read your Manifesto of the Communist Party and I have found it to be an outstanding analysis of industrial society. However, times have changed. And while I found your manifesto to be an incredibly well-written, scathing critique of capitalism, a primer on communism, a new way of looking at history and an incisive sociological study, the manifesto needs to be updated and given a facelift for modern times. Nevertheless, your work today is just as pertinent as it was in 1848. The collapse of the United States’ real estate market and the ensuing global recession of 2008 have engendered renewed interests in your ideas. Communism has a seat at the table of ideas in the modern world if it can to be adapted to the modern problems of capitalism by becoming more democratic, respecting the individual, adapting to a market based economy and readdressing the problems of wealth inequality and quality of life. I have found the most startling aspect of your manifesto to be its complete disregard for democracy. Your manifesto is a vitriolic attack on the iniquities of capitalism and offers communism as the sole alternative. Yet, the modern era, with its emphasis on human rights, has obviated the totalitarian nature that your essay suggests. The horrors of starvation and genocide in the Soviet Union, Cambodia , Red China and North Korea have made people wary of anything that reeks of communism. -
Six Political Philosophies in Search of a Virus: Critical Perspectives on the Coronavirus Pandemic
LSE ‘Europe in Question’ Discussion Paper Series Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic Gerard Delanty LEQS Paper No. 156/2020 May 2020 Editorial Board Dr Bob Hancké Dr Vassilis Monastiriotis Dr Sonja Avlijas Dr Cristóbal Garibay-Petersen Dr Pieter Tuytens Mr Toon Van Overbeke All views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the LSE. © Gerard Delanty Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic Gerard Delanty * Abstract The Coronavirus (Covid-19) poses interesting questions for social and political thought. These include the nature and limits of the ethical responsibility of the state, personal liberty and collective interests, human dignity, and state surveillance. As many countries throughout the world declared states of emergency, some of the major questions in political philosophy become suddenly highly relevant. Foucault’s Writings on biopolitical securitization and Agamben’s notion of the state of exception take on a new reality, as do the classical arguments of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In this paper, I discuss six main philosophical responses to the pandemic, including provocative interventions made by Agamben, Badieu, and Zizek, Latour on the governance of life and death as Well as the Kantian perspective of Habermas on human dignity. Keywords: Agamben, Badieu, Utilitarianism, Habermas, libertarianism, Latour, nudge theory, Zizek, * School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex Email: [email protected] Acknowledgments This is an expanded version of a short essay that appeared in the Hong Kong Review of Books in May 2020. -
Salomon Maimon and the Metaphorical Nature of Language
zlom2 12.11.2009 16:02 Stránka 167 Pol Capdevila SALOMON MAIMON AND THE METAPHORICAL NATURE OF LANGUAGE LUCIE PARGAČOVÁ This article is concerned with the metaphorical nature of language in the conception of Salomon Maimon (1753–1800), one of the most distinctive figures of post-Kantian philosophy. He was continuously challenging the theories that attributed a metaphorical character to language, which were widespread in eighteenth-century British, French, and German philosophy. Particularly notable was his attack on Johann Georg Sulzer (1720–1779). The core of the dispute concerned different views on the relationship between the sphere of the senses and the sphere of the intellect. Whereas Sulzer understood them simply as analogical, Maimon dissolved the disparity, convinced that each stems, albeit separately, from the transcendental activity of consciousness. He applied this method of argumentation also in essays on literal meaning and figurative meaning. Salomon Maimon und der metaphorische Charakter der Sprache Der Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit dem metaphorischen Charakter der Sprache im Denken von Salomon Maimon (1753–1800). Dieser herausragende Vertreter post-kantianischer Philosophie polemisierte wiederholt mit in der britischen, französischen und deutschen Philosophie des 18. Jahrhunderts verbreiteten Theorien, die der Sprache metaphorischen Charakter zuschrieben. Maimons Angriff richtete sich vor allem gegen Johann Georg Sulzer (1720–1779). Der Konflikt drehte sich um verschiedene Auffassungen der Beziehung zwischen dem Bereich des Sinnlichen und dem des Intelligiblen: Während Sulzer diese Bereiche unproblematisch als einander analog verstand, löste Maimon ihre Unterschied- lichkeit auf, da er überzeugt war, dass beide der transzendentalen Tätigkeit des Bewusst- seins entspringen. Diese Argumentationlinie verfolgte er auch in seinen Überlegungen zur eigentlichen und uneigentlichen Bedeutung. -
Why Was Maimonides Controversial?
12 Nov 2014, 19 Cheshvan 5775 B”H Congregation Adat Reyim Dr Maurice M. Mizrahi Adult Education Why was Maimonides controversial? Introduction Always glad to talk about Maimonides: He was Sephardic (of Spanish origin), and so am I He lived and worked in Egypt, and that's where I was born and grew up His Hebrew name was Moshe (Moses), and so is mine He was a rationalist, and so am I He was a scientist of sorts, and so am I He had very strong opinions, and so do I And, oh yes: He was Jewish, and so am I. -Unfortunately, he probably wasn’t my ancestor. -Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, aka Maimonides, aka The Rambam: b. 1135 (Córdoba, Muslim Spain) – d. 1204 (Fostat, Egypt): Torah scholar, philosopher, physician: Maimonides was the most illustrious figure in Judaism in the post-talmudic era, and one of the greatest of all time… His influence on the future development of Judaism is incalculable. No spiritual leader of the Jewish people in the post- talmudic period has exercised such an influence both in his own and subsequent generations. [Encyclopedia Judaica] -Best-known for Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed: -Mishneh Torah (Sefer Yad ha-Chazaka) codifies Jewish law. Gathers all laws from Talmud and adds rulings of later Sages. Clear, concise, and logical. No personal opinions. -The Guide for the Perplexed (Dalalat al-Ha'erin; Moreh Nevukhim) is a non-legal philosophical work, for general public, that bridges Jewish and Greek thought. -Controversial in his lifetime and for many centuries afterwards. Controversies concerning Maimonides 1-No need to study Talmud -He appears to downplay study of Talmud.