DOCSLIB.ORG

From Kant to Contemporary Ethics of Sport

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Kant to Contemporary Ethics of Sport Preliminary communication UDC 17:796(045) doi: 10.21464/sp34202 Received: 14 November 2018 Lev Kreft University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, SI–1000 Ljubljana [email protected] From Kant to Contemporary Ethics of Sport Abstract The paper aims to establish a link between Kant’s ethics and the ethics of sport by connect- ing the concept of Anthropocene as the contemporary epoch during which natural history is becoming cultural history and the ethics of hope as presented in Kant’s The Critique of Judgement. The crucial moment in Kant’s argument is that choosing culture is the proper way of human progress towards civil society and cosmopolitan unity. Is sport this kind of culture? Can sport become an important moment in the contemporary ethics of hope? The answer is conditionally positive because there are obstacles present. Firstly, one of the reasons is that the modern Olympic sport was inaugurated to keep social conflicts in bal- ance. That this purpose can be achieved suggests that the hierarchical order of excellence involved with sport competition should strengthen social hierarchies. Secondly, sport is one of the most popular and most profitable global entertainments, but it is governed by aristocratic elites with the enormous potential for the abuse of power. Thirdly, global sports organisations have a lot of political power hidden behind the Olympic mantra of the exclu- sion of politics from the sport. Keywords ethics of hope, The Critique of Judgement, cosmopolitan character of sport, ethics of sport, Anthropocene, Immanuel Kant 1. Why Kant? Because We Live in Anthropocene From where did the Anthropos of Anthropocene come? It used to be Homo sapiens, and it emerged as anatomically finalised species of Homo sapiens sapiens. Simply put, this species was just another animal with special natural abilities. However, it is the only natural being to exist in culture as a native habitat autonomously created. By expanding its culture over the entirety of this planet’s nature and beyond, this species turned natural history into the environment of their history, and the whole Earth’s nature into their culture.1 1 Anthropocene was introduced in contempo- Anthropocene does not mean the centrality of rary scientific discourse as a geological pe- the ‘Anthropos’. It is not an anthropocentrism riod which started some 200 years ago with (...). What marks the turning, the break into industrialisation and accelerated moderni- another kind of time, is that the Earth is not sation. In contemporaneity, it results in the marked by human intention but by unintended conclusion that “mankind will remain a major effects of collective human labor.” – McKen- geological force for many millennia, maybe zie Wark, General Intellects, Verso, London millions of years to come”. – Paul J. Crutzen, – New York 2017, chapter 9; quoted from Ta- Eugene F. Stoermer, “The ‘Anthropocene’”, dej Troha, “The Age of H: Towards the An- Global Change Newsletter 41 (2000), pp. thropocene Imperative”, Filozofski vestnik 39 17–18, p. 18. McKenzie Wark explains: “The (2018) 1, pp. 121–134, p. 126. SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA L. Kreft, From Kant to Contemporary Ethics 68 (2/2019) pp. (253–265) 254 of Sport Such a state is what the concept of Anthropocene denotes. This change cre- ated a mass of problems in nature, in culture, and in the relationship between human nature and culture as one of the most shaken and dangerous contempo- rary relationships on Earth. Bioethics is dealing with these mass of problems, and integrative (bio)ethics’ effort is to integrate all the ethical aspects of these troubled relationships into the redefinition of Anthropos and Anthropocene environment, to put an end to the destruction of both nature and culture. Sci- ences can deal with these problems in layers, but only an integrated approach can deal with the core of the problem. To approach the core, we have to ques- tion the origin of this Anthropos of Anthropocene. Anthropos is not the result of natural selection (as Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens are); it is the result of cultural selection, an extremely brutal process of cultivation and civilising, a process which created Anthropos as a concept. Before this process, at least in Western Christianity, humans saw themselves as imago Dei, and the whole Creation as a field cultivated by humans in the name of God and within the rules of the ethics of care, which promoted humans into shepherds of creation, not into its masters. After they promoted themselves into Anthropos, humans (the Western white Christian male heterosexual taking themselves to be the universal representatives of all human race) saw nature as their playground which they have to re-shape and re-organise after their image and treat nature as the creation of their judge- ment.2 Kant’s Critique of Judgement is an exemplification of the concept of Anthro- pos and its final cause (causa finalis), which includes the cultivation of nature into a playground for human freedom. Kant’s understanding of relation and difference between theology and philosophy demanded the development of philosophical argument without any reference to God’s will, solely from the human being and its abilities. Consequently, here is where the search for the evolution of Anthropos should start. Looking for the answer to the most important question of enlightenment, about a priori foundation of humanity’s hope for the better, Kant transformed it into an examination of nature’s purposefulness – the final cause. He could not say outright that nature has a purpose because that would have a flavour of pantheism and an unhopeful character of determinism. Otherwise, he did not want merely to ascertain that God’s providence makes such expectations plausible because that would trump human potential, and it would be just another determinism. Kant wanted to build his argument on the safe founda- tions of free will to provide the possibility of human freedom as a reason for the existence of Enlightenment. Instead of arguing for nature’s purposeful- ness or God’s providence, and relying on Linné’s System of Nature and its taxonomy,3 Kant argued that human being is the final cause of nature because humans are the only natural beings to escape pure causality. Humans are de- termined not just by natural causality but also by their freedom of choice, and their freedom of choice does not function (only) as a consequence of previ- ously existing causes but represents their ability to choose while taking into account the not-yet-existing final cause of their doing and being. This makes their free choice purposeful: human beings can be the cause of consequences which are sur-natural. Anthropos is a being with final cause. Following this line of argument, Kant arrived at a crucial point: are humans able to choose their better future freely? Again, Kant’s criticism does not aim at the promise of a certain future. Kant’s final cause, if you pardon the pun, is to establish SYNTHESIS PHILOSOPHICA L. Kreft, From Kant to Contemporary Ethics 68 (2/2019) pp. (253–265) 255 of Sport just an a priori possibility of human choice to make the world better. Para- graph 83 of Critique of Judgement argues for this possibility. Here is how it begins: “In the preceding we have shown that we have sufficient cause to judge the human being not merely, like any organized being, as a natural end, but also as the ultimate end of nature here on earth, in relation to which all other natural things constitute a system of ends in accordance with fundamental principles of reason, not, to be sure, for the determining power of judgement, yet for the reflecting power of judgement.”4 Humans are the final cause of nature (ultimate purpose – letzte Zweck), but that cannot remain the final statement of reflective judgement. The critique has to find out what kind of human choice of human’s final cause is possible. There are two possible ways, that of happiness and that of culture. According to Kant, happiness is not a good choice. It is just a pure idea which cannot be realised under empirical terms. It is unstable, always changing and longing for something else. And it belongs to nature. In contrast, as the final cause of nature, Anthropos should choose something beyond nature – sur-natural or supra-natural – to be its purpose. Thus, culture5 remains the only acceptable choice. Kant offers a definition: “The production of the aptitude of a rational being for any ends in general (thus those of his freedom) is culture.”6 It has to be pure culture, defined in a negative way as the freedom from the despotism of desires. In itself, culture is not a freedom for something because a choice of purposes belongs to the free will: the purposefulness of choice may be for good or for the worse of humanity. Kant is interested in the pos- sibility of the right choice, not in its necessity. And, as the previous events of human development exemplify, the way of progress is much more troubled than the way of happiness. The path of culture as the development of skills for arbitrary purposes demands inequality – the numerically tiny elite enjoys the results of progress, and all the others are limited to a kind of animal life. One cannot expect that troubles of humanity will diminish as cultural progress continues: “But with the progress of this culture (…), calamities grow equally great on both sides, on the one side because of violence imposed from without, on the other because of dissatisfaction from 2 3 A critical view of the modernist divinisation Karl Linné, Systema Naturae, Salvius, Stock- of (hu)man belongs to postmodern philoso- holm 1758.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Order to Continue My Education With
    Contemporary Metaethics Part 1 My Personal Notes © James Gray 2009-2011 Originally published at http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/ 1 Table of Contents 1. What is “Morality?”................................................................................................................5 What does “morality” mean?..................................................................................................6 Moral and nonmoral standards...............................................................................................9 2. The Debate Over Moral Realism..........................................................................................11 What is Moral realism?........................................................................................................11 Is moral realism true?...........................................................................................................14 3. Meta-Ethical Theories...........................................................................................................16 Moral naturalism..................................................................................................................16 Moral intuitionism................................................................................................................17 Emotivism.............................................................................................................................17 Moral relativism...................................................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Ethics
    Social Psychology and Virtue Ethics Christian Miller Wake Forest University [email protected] The Journal of Ethics 7 (2003): 365-392 Several philosophers claim to have discovered a new and rather significant problem with virtue ethics.1 According to them, virtue ethics generates certain expectations about the behavior of human beings which are subject to empirical testing. But when the relevant experimental work is done in social psychology, the results fall remarkably short of meeting those expectations. So, these philosophers think, despite its recent success virtue ethics has far less to offer to contemporary ethical theory than might have been initially thought. In this paper, I hope to suggest some plausible ways in which virtue ethicists can resist arguments based on empirical work in social psychology.2 My plan is to proceed as follows. In the first three sections, an attempt will be made to reconstruct the line of reasoning being used against virtue ethics by 1 See for example Gilbert Harman, “Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1999), pp. 315-332 and “The Nonexistence of Character Traits,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (2000), pp. 223-226, John Doris, “Persons, Situations, and Virtue Ethics,” Noûs 32 (1998), pp. 504-530 and Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), and John Campbell, “Can Philosophical Accounts of Altruism Accommodate Experimental Data on Helping Behavior?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (1999), pp. 26-45. Other philosophers who seem to show some sympathy towards this objection include Simon Blackburn, Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of Law, Virtue and Justice – an Introduction
    1 Of Law, Virtue and Justice – An Introduction AMALIA AMAYA AND HO HOCK LAI I. THE REVIVAL OF VIRTUE N THE LAST decades, there has been a blossoming of virtue-based approaches to a number of philosophical problems. Virtue theory has a I prominent place in both contemporary ethics and epistemology. A. Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics has its origins in Classical Greece and it was the dominant approach in western moral philosophy until the Enlightenment. During the nineteenth cen- tury and the first half of the twentieth century, virtue theory faded from the land- scape of moral philosophy, and the discussion on ethics centered around two traditions, namely, deontology and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics re-emerged in the late 1950s, with Elizabeth Anscombe’s important article ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’, and has established itself as a major approach in normative ethics.1 The revival of virtue ethics was motivated by an increasing dissatisfaction with deontology and utilitarianism. Proponents of virtue theories objected that these theories sidestepped or ignored a number of topics that any adequate moral phi- losophy should address, such as motives, moral character, moral education, the moral significance of friendship, family relations, and community bonds, ques- tions about what sort of person one should be, the role of emotions in our moral life, and a concern with happiness and flourishing.2 There is a wide variety of views that fall under the heading of virtue ethics, as critics have objected to differ- ent aspects of modern ethical theory and have developed a virtue-based approach 1 Anscombe (1958), reprinted in Crisp and Slote (1997).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Unit 5 Ethics in Contemporary Philosophy
    UNIT 5 ETHICS IN CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY Contents 5.0. Objectives 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Definition 5.3. Normative Ethics: A New Look 5.4. Meta-ethics or Second Order Ethics 5.5. Virtue Ethics: The Aristotelian Revival 5.6. Practical Ethics: Forgotten Past Unearthed 5.7. Let Us Sum Up 5.8. Key Words 5.9. Further Readings and References 5.10. Answers to Check Your Progress 5.0. OBJECTIVES An overview of history of western ethics (which is a branch of philosophy), called “Moral Philosophy” as well, gives us an idea that there are at least five important epochs in the philosophical enterprise regarding moral matters. “Contemporary Western Ethics” is the fifth epoch; the objective of this paper is: • to bring out the characteristic features of contemporary ethics 5.1. INTRODUCTION First, there is early and rich Greek Ethics marked by Pre- Socratic, Socratic, Platonic, Aristotelian and Sophistic original thinking and writings. Furthered by some equally influential writings of some Hellenistic and Roman ethicists, the Cynic and the Cyrenaics and the Stoics in the main. And then after Epicurus’ Cyrenaicism, Plotinus was responsible for what we now call, “Neo-Platonism.” Contemporary ethics owes much to these early and rich ethical reflections, about which we shall come to know later on in the discussion. Nothings less do we owe to the Medical Moral philosophy, especially to the ethical thinking and writings of some remarkably eloquent Christian ethicists like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. This paved way to what we may call, the third epoch, the Early Modern ethical epoch, growing particularly during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries influenced by religious Reformation, and the scientific revolution of Copernicus and Galileo, Francis Bacon, Erasmus, Luther and Calvin, However the real modern turn came with the radical writings of Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and the Cambridge Platonists like, Cudworth, Cumberland, Malebranche.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Cultural Relativism: an Ecological Model for Rhetorical Ethics
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 314 807 CS 507 036 AUTHOR Mackin, Jim TITLE Beyond Cultural Relativism: An Ecological Model for Rhetorical Ethics. PUB DATE Nov 89 NOTE 8p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (75th, San Francisco, CA, November 18-21, 1989). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150)-- Viewpoints (120) -- Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Communication Research; Cultural Context; Ecclogy; *Ethics; *Models; Moral Values; Research Nee0s; *Rhetoric IDENTIFIERS Aristotle; Communication Theory; *Cultural Relativism ABSTRACT A model intended to overcome the cultural relativism of determining what is an ethical act draws an analogy to environmental studies. Beginning with the concepts of "telos" (final purpose) and "archai" (priority), the notion ofan ecosystem of ethics avoids limitation to a particular historical definitionof good. Since the telos of human life is the quest for the good,a communicative ecosystem's virtues are those which enable its members to seek the good. An ideal communicative system supports all parts equally, and the parts in turn support the system. The telosof the individual and of the system are interrelated; both must be taken into account in making ethical decisions. The practice of living ethically will include system building and transforming. How to help the present system become more like the ideal without making the system less viable is the central question. Combining the notionsof public and private into a systems relationship should increase understanding of the problem of morality, but also will raisenew inquiries. (Twenty-five notes are included.) (SG) ****************************.****************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Ethical Theories and Jurisprudence George Nakhnikian
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Natural Law Forum 1-1-1957 Contemporary Ethical Theories and Jurisprudence George Nakhnikian Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nakhnikian, George, "Contemporary Ethical Theories and Jurisprudence" (1957). Natural Law Forum. Paper 17. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Law Forum by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL THEORIES AND JURISPRUDENCE George Nakhnikian FOUR TYPES of ethical theory have been the ones most heatedly debated among analytic philosophers since the appearance in 1903 of G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica. Each type has certain consequences for jurisprudence. This essay describes the essential features of the theories and points out some of the readily discernible consequences. For the sake of clarity, I shall explain how I am using the terms 'juris- prudence' and 'ethical theory' and make some remarks concerning the relevance of ethics for jurisprudence. I have adopted Julius Stone's definition of 'jurisprudence' and his three- fold division of jurisprudence into analytical, ethical, and sociological. "Juris- prudence," writes Stone, "is the examination of law in the light of other disciplines than the law." ' The following three main questions may be asked concerning the
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Content
    Ethics Content I Introduction to Ethics Unit-1 Nature and Scope of Ethics Unit-2 Importance and Challenges of Ethics Unit-3 Ethics in the History of Indian Philosophy Unit-4 Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy II Ethical Foundations Unit-1 Human Values Unit-2 Human Virtues Unit-3 Human Rights Unit-4 Human Duties III Applied Ethics Unit-1 International Ethics Unit-2 Bioethics Unit-3 Environmental Ethics Unit-4 Media Ethics IV Current Ethical Debates Unit-1 Natural Moral Law Unit-2 Deontology and Moral Responsibility Unit-3 Discourse Ethics Unit-4 Social Institutions UNIT 1 NATURE AND SCOPE OF ETHICS Nature and Scope of Ethics Contents 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Moral Intuitionism 1.3 Human Person in Search of Himself/Herself 1.4 Love and the Moral Precepts 1.5 The Dynamics of Morality 1.6 The Constant and the Variable in Morality 1.7 Let Us Sum Up 1.8 Key Words 1.9 Further Readings and References 1.0 OBJECTIVES This unit aims at introducing the students to the philosophical need for Ethics starting from a brief discussion of Moral law and how the human person in his or her process of growth intuits the ethical principles. Discussions pertaining to the dynamics of morality is undertaken to show how on the one hand new situations call for new responses from moral point of view and on the other hand certain fundamentals of ethics remain the same in so far as there is something of a common human nature adequately understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Rawls and the Kantian Ethos*
    Polity . Volume 39, Number 1 . January 2007 r 2007 Northeastern Political Science Association 0032-3497/07 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/polity Rawls and the Kantian Ethos* Nicholas Tampio Hamilton College John Rawls had a life-long interest in Kant. To provide a new perspective on Rawls’s political thinking, to illuminate Kant’s legacy for political theory, and to contribute to current debates about the Enlightenment, I track how Rawls interprets and transforms Kant’s legacy. In this essay, I show how Rawls reconceptualizes four key Kantian activities: the identification of the problem, the engagement with common sense, the construction of principles, and the authentication of principles. I defend Rawls from the charge—made by Allan Bloom, Michael Sandel, and Allen Wood, among others—that Rawls fundamentally misunderstands or misuses Kant. The basis of my defense is that Rawls considers a critical intellectual sensibility (or ethos), rather than a specific doctrine (e.g., the categorical imperative), as the most valuable component of Kant’s legacy. Polity (2007) 39, 79–102. doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300044 Keywords Rawls; Kant; Enlightenment; ethos Nicholas Tampio teaches political theory at Hamilton College. He researches the legacy of the Enlightenment in contemporary political theory. He can be reached at [email protected]. Introduction John Rawls, it is well known, was a life-long student of Kant.1 One of the most famous and controversial sections of A Theory of Justice (1971) is entitled, ‘‘The *This essay grew out of seminars on Kant and Rawls at Johns Hopkins University with William E.
    [Show full text]
  • 57 G. E. Moore and Theory of Moral/Right Action in Ethics of Social
    Ethics & Bioethics (in Central Europe), 2017, 7 (1–2), 57–65 DOI:10.1515/ebce-2017-0002 G. E. Moore and theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences Vasil Gluchman Abstract G. E. Moore’s critical analysis of right action in utilitarian ethics and his consequentialist concept of right action is a starting point for a theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences. The terms right and wrong have different meanings in these theories. The author explores different aspects of right and wrong actions in ethics of social consequences and compares them with Moore’s ideas. He positively evaluates Moore’s contributions to the development his theory of moral/right action. Keywords: G. E. Moore, right, wrong, ethics of social consequences Introduction When formulating the theory of moral/right action in ethics of social consequences,1 I took inspiration from G. E. Moore’s critical analysis of right action in utilitarian ethics and his consequentialist concept of right action (Moore, 2000; 2005), which I adopted as the starting point of my reasoning (Gluchman, 2000, pp. 9–23; 2001, pp. 633–634). I follow the view of action similar to that of Moore, which means he evaluates the actions of a moral agent on the basis of their consequences. However, unlike Moore, I form in ethics of social consequences a broader scope of evaluative judgements,2 and what is also broader is the value structure of ethics of social consequences, as among the fundamental values there are humanity, human dignity, the moral right of man to life, its development and cultivation, as well as the values of justice, responsibility, tolerance and obligation (Gluchman, 2003; 2009, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Course:Cca/Ai 322 Course Title:Problems and Issues In
    1 DePaul University School of Continuing and Professional Studies COURSE: CCA/AI 322 COURSE TITLE: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES IN CONTEMPORARY ETHICS WINTER 2021 INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION Name: David Simpson Cellphone: 812-322-4325; email: [email protected] Course Dates: January 4, 2021 – March 21, 2021 Course Location and Delivery Format: Online COURSE DESCRIPTION Syllabus, AI_322_701 2 An introduction to moral philosophy with emphasis on the important differences between realist and relativist theories and comparing consequentialist, deontological, ethics of care, pluralist, contractarian, and virtue approaches. During the course you will be introduced to classic theories and leading figures in the history of ethics, from Aristotle and Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, to Peter Singer and John Rawls. Course content will focus on issues (e.g., wealth and poverty, privacy, healthcare, capital punishment, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, biomedical research, animal rights, etc.) at the center of contemporary ethical debate in the United States and throughout the world. LEARNING OUTCOMES: After completing this course, SCPS students will be able to: Define and apply basic critical concepts and vocabulary terms relating to philosophy and ethical theory. Identify and compare key figures, texts, and ideas in the history of moral philosophy. Identify and describe at least four major ethical theories or moral principles and apply them to contemporary issues. Apply insights and theories from moral philosophy to personal ethical decisions. Apply concepts and theories from moral philosophy to analyze issues and resolve disputes in the contemporary workplace. After completing the course, Liberal Studies students will be able to: Critically think about and analyze philosophical questions and problems.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Philosophy Section of the Catalog
    Philosophy Chair: Michelle Jenkins Patrick R. Frierson Mitchell S. Clearfield Rebecca Hanrahan Thomas A. Davis Julia A. Ireland Wenqing Zhao Philosophy courses provide the opportunity for the development of a critical and unified understanding of experience and nature. This is accomplished through their concern — from both historical and contemporary perspectives — with the ethical, social and political, aesthetic, religious, metaphysical, epistemological, and scientific dimensions of existence. All four-credit courses in philosophy meet the equivalent of three periods per week. Learning Goals: Upon graduation, a student will be able to: develop individual insights, pursue them with depth, and present them clearly in writing. develop individual insights and present these insights clearly and rigorously orally. understand the history of philosophy and be able to reconsider questions and problems as they are raised and transformed by a succession of thinkers. use philosophical tools for close reading, investigation, analysis, and argument. discover and question hidden assumptions in their own work and the work of others. Distribution: Courses completed in philosophy apply to the humanities distribution area, except for Philosophy 200 and 488, which apply to quantitative analysis. Philosophy 260 may be applied to either humanities or cultural pluralism. Total credit requirements for a Philosophy major: 32 The Philosophy major: 32 Credits (36 credits if pursuing honors) Required Courses o Philosophy 201 and 202 o One course from each of the three categories: Analytic, Continental, Ethics (see course list below) o At least two courses from the 300 or 400 level Other notes o No one course can be used to satisfy two categories o Philosophy 201 and 202 should be completed before the end of the students’ seventh semester o No courses may be taken PDF Senior Requirements o Rewriting of a seminar paper from a 300- to 400-level course o Written comprehensive exam o Oral exam .
    [Show full text]
  • Perfectionism and Pragmatism
    European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy II-2 | 2010 Perfectionism and Pragmatism Sandra Laugier and Piergiorgio Donatelli (dir.) Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/886 DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.886 ISSN: 2036-4091 Publisher Associazione Pragma Electronic reference Sandra Laugier and Piergiorgio Donatelli (dir.), European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, II-2 | 2010, « Perfectionism and Pragmatism » [Online], Online since 21 December 2010, connection on 23 September 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/886 ; DOI : https:// doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.886 This text was automatically generated on 23 September 2020. Author retains copyright and grants the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Symposia. “Perfectionism and Pragmatism” Pragmatism, Transcendentalism, and Perfectionism Introduction to the Symposia Piergiorgio Donatelli, Roberto Frega and Sandra Laugier Emerson and Skepticism A Reading of “Friendship” Russell B. Goodman Must We Do What We Say? Truth, Responsibility and the Ordinary in Ancient and Modern Perfectionism Daniele Lorenzini Wittgenstein, the Criticism of Philosophy, and Self-Knowledge Tarek R. Dika Cavell’s “Moral Perfectionism” or Emerson’s “Moral Sentiment”? Joseph Urbas Emersonian Moral Perfectionism An Alternative Ethics – But in What Sense? Heikki A. Kovalainen Internal
    [Show full text]