Sofia Philosophical Review Alexander L. Gungov, Sofia University, Editor Peter S. Borkowski, Sofia University and the American University in Cairo, Associate Editor Karim Mamdani, Sofia University, Book Review Editor Kristina Stöckl, University of Innsbruck, International Editor Vol. II, No. 2 2008 Academic Community in Civil Society This issue is printed with the kind support of the Austrian Science and Re- search Liaison Office, Sofia, and the Master’s Program in Philosophy Taught in English at Sofia University. Sofia Philosophical Review accepts papers in the fields of Social, Political, and Moral Philosophy as well as Continental Philosophy in general. Please send a hard copy of the manuscripts accompanied by an electronic version of the same to: Editor Faculty of Philosophy Sofia University 15 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd. Sofia 1504 BULGARIA The deadline for paper submissions to Vol.III, No. 1 is April 30, 2009. All prospective contributions should follow the Chicago Manual of Style. Review materials should be sent to the Book Review Editor at the above address. ISSN 1313-275X © Aglika Gungova, artist TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SOME REFLECTIONS ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY FREEDOM AFTER KANT........................................................................5 Tom Rockmore, Duquesne University THE SECOND PERSON: FICHTE’S CONTRIBUTION.........................25 Günter Zöller, University of Munich VICO’S DEVIATION FROM DECSARTES’ LOGICAL PRINCIPLES....48 Alexander L. Gungov, University of Sofia II. PHILOSOPHERS FROM A DISTANCE LOVE AND VIOLENCE: NOTES ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN HANNAH ARENDT AND MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1925-1975)...........................................................................................57 Dimitar Denkov, University of Sofia SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, BEHAVIOR, AND SPEECH.......................67 Sergi Avilés i Travila, Superior Center for Philosophical Research, Spain III. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIFE IN A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE TRANSVERSALITY AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION..................................................................................73 Hwa Yol Jung, Moravian College EVERYDAY LIFE AND PHILOSOPHY................................................101 Aneta Karageorgieva (Assoc. Prof. Sofia University), Dimitar Ivanov (PhD candidate, Sofia University) COMMUNITY AFTER THE SUBJECT: THE ORTHODOX INTELLECTUAL TRADITION AND THE PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE OF POLITICAL MODERNITY........................................117 Kristina Stoeckl, University of Innsbruck IV. ELEMENTS OF HUMANNESS EDUCATION FOR KNOWLEDGE SOCIETIES...................................139 Elena Tsenkova, University of Sofia 4 SOFIA PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW THE IDEA OF MAN.............................................................................154 Mark Kalinin, Fort Kent, Maine V. BOOK REVIEW TOM ROCKMORE’S MARX AFTER MARXISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF KARL MARX........................................................................................165 Maria Dimitrova, University of Sofia VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS IDENTITY, BETWEEN THE UNSPEAKABLE AND THE DREADFUL (AN INTERNATIONAL INTERDISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE HELD ON OCTOBER 1-16 AT UNIVERSITÉ DE PICARDIE-JULES-VERNE, FRANCE).............................................................................................169 AN ONGOING SEMINAR ON PRODUCTION AND CAUSALITY, PRODUCTIVITY AND REPRODUCTION: CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND THEIR REPERCUSSIONS IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD (INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCES, THE BULGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES)..............172 MASTER'S AND DOCTORAL STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY TAUGHT IN ENGLISH AT SOFIA UNIVERSITY.................................................178 INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND EDITORS.......................184 I. SOME REFLECTIONS ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY Freedom after Kant Tom Rockmore (Duquesne University) This is a paper about the problem of freedom after Kant. In Kant, this problem occurs for the most part in two distinct ways. In his theory of mo- rality, with respect to the freedom of the subject to choose and to act autonomously, hence selflessly, according to the principles of reason; sec- ond, in life in the city through a theory of the political context that will lead to freedom. Several hundred years after Kant, the idea of moral freedom, as he understands it, has lost its edge. Yet the idea of political freedom is, I be- lieve, still as central now as in Kant’s time. This paper will examine Kant’s idea of political freedom, mainly through his view of what he calls perpetual peace. I will argue that the problem has lost none of its urgency but that his proposed solution no longer seems interesting. I will further suggest that in an age of economic globalization even the problem itself has basically changed in a way that calls not for a better form of the Kantian approach but for another, different way to analyze this theme. I will begin with a few comments on Kant’s moral theory and then turn to his view of perpetual peace as his central view of political freedom. I will be suggesting that his theory is basically unclear. It is not clear if he favors a feder- alist or a non-federalist approach, each of which has its difficulties, or some combination of both. I will further point to several difficulties in Kant’s ap- proach. First, there is the very idea of a transcendental analysis. A second, re- lated theme is Kant’s assumption that there is a single solution good for all times and places. Lastly, there is the change in society in our increasingly globalized world, which implies that a solution that fails to consider the economic dimen- sion of the modern world would itself be part of the problem. 6 SOFIA PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW On the Kantian approach to morality Kant is an outstanding example of a philosopher committed to treating all philosophical themes on the a priori plane; that is, prior to and independent of experience, hence without regard either to the prevailing situation or to later changes. Kant’s influence has remained strong over the centuries but its appeal differs according to the domain. His approach arguably still remains up to date in epistemology, which is still largely focused on Kantian themes discussed in terms of Kantian distinctions and often in Kantian vocabulary. This is less clear in the practical realms as concerns questions of morality and related themes. Kant believes he has forever resolved questions of what one ought to do. However, one is struck by the lack of interest in Kant’s wake in an a pri- ori strategy for morality or even by a moral strategy at all. In Kant’s wake, the discussion about what one ought to do has fragmented into an increasing number of disparate approaches that often reflect different conceptions of what the realm of morality encompasses and different conceptions of its re- lation to the world in which we live. On the moral plane, the evolution of society takes us ever further from the Kantian model. Kant, who believes he has definitively resolved the moral problem, denies he is thinking only in the perspective of his own time. Yet the Kantian model, including its moral dimension, naturally re- flects the mores, the inclinations, the problems and the concerns of his his- torical moment. The social changes occurring since Kant have not rein- forced but on the contrary only weakened his absolutist conception of mo- rality. There is still interest in legitimizing the principles utilized to justify the most varied kinds of action. Yet probably no one, except for a few Kant scholars, dreams of formulating a transcendental deduction. What remains of Kantian morality is a philosophical approach, a strategy for morality lead- ing to a result that, except for a few exceptions, no longer appears very in- teresting, and which is neither acceptable nor accepted according to current standards and norms. For since we no longer favor a deontological ap- proach, we tend to emphasize results more than inflexible principles. Kantian morality derives from his application of his epistemological theory to the practical domain. Kant’s epistemological theory depends on treating the subject as a mere epistemological principle underlying an ab- I. SOME REFLECTIONS ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY 7 stract analysis of the possibility of knowledge. This conception of the sub- ject, which is formulated to avoid what later comes to be called psycholo- gism, is wholly different from a finite human being. The development of the debate after Kant immediately substitutes a richer conception of the subject increasingly approaching finite human be- ing, which is already central in British empiricism, for instance in Hume. Fichte plays a key role in this process. The Fichtean subject seems to me on the contrary more acceptable. Fichte emphasizes that the subject has an in- nate tendency that leads to the progressive realization of rationality through human activity in a social context. Fichte sees freedom as arising through the striving of one or more in- dividuals to go beyond the limits represented by their surroundings in realiz- ing themselves in a social context. In this way he partially responds to Kant, who has a more complex, arguably less satisfactory understanding of human freedom. Kant regards freedom as a precondition for morality since the moral subject must be free to choose the principle governing the particular action. He further regards freedom not as a precondition but as a result at- tained in a political context. He describes his theory of political freedom in his account of perpetual peace.