Search

The approach I propose here to Books VI and VII of Plato’s Republic is to offer some reflections on the organicist and perspectivist readings. Perspectivism seems in some respects to be a variant of organicism. Indeed, both approaches allow for a reassessment not only of the various parts that make up a dialogue, but also, more generally, of the importance of the literary or dramatic form, which is marginalised by the evolutionist reading. The aim of this essay is therefore to try to understand some of the images present in the central books of the Republic, without burdening them with theoretical structures and questionable chronologies, but rather by noting their importance in the overall design of the individual text and their consistence within a broader organism, the entire and unitary Platonic corpus of dialogues. To this end, I will try to highlight the subtle differences between organicism and perspectivism. I will focus on the relationship between literary constructions and theoretical speculations that make the Republic an organically unified text in itself and perfectly consistent with the entire corpus of dialogues. Three images in particular will help me to show how literature and philosophy meet: the sun analogy, the divided line and the allegory of the cave. My aim is not to say what exactly the epistemology of the central books of the Republic consists in, but rather to try to identify the pitfalls in the text when philosophical questions about epistemological issues are separated from literary ones.

This article addresses some reasons and requirements for intercultural theologising as boundary-crossing interaction to be decolonised and hold decolonising potential itself. Decolonialism being concerned with both those in ‘marginalised’ and in ‘privileged’ positions, this article focusses on some of the latter’s challenges, responsibilities and opportunities. Grounding the argument in writings of scholars from disciplines like linguistics, cultural anthropology, decolonial studies and various strands of theology both from the Global South and the Global West, epistemological motivators for a decolonising theology will be sketched in the first step. The second step involves a consideration of an appropriate methodology called ‘chosen vulnerability’. Central to it would be the learning and using of vernacular languages in order to move towards cross-cultural understanding from emic perspectives. In step three, an attempt at implementing such will be portrayed that was a core component of a recently completed interdisciplinary PhD project. Based on contextual learning of isiXhosa, several church-related concepts in English and isiXhosa were investigated and compared in a subsidiary study. The findings are used to illustrate how chosen vulnerability can enable humble contributions to decolonising theologies. This is achieved through emic approaches and perspectivism. Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article raises awareness for sometimes hidden epistemic inequalities and suggests ways in which those in relative cultural-linguistic power can reduce the imbalance. This is of relevance primarily to intercultural theology. In turn, such insights from intercultural theology can benefit academic research in cross-cultural contexts in general.

This article provides a survey of approaches and conceptual means elaborated in recent decades in the studies of pluralistic tendencies in Indian culture. The concepts of inclusivism, perspectivism, antologizing and polyphony are discussed in a close relation with the specific context in which they were introduced, as well as with the implicit presuppositions of the scholars who elaborated them. In particular, the interpretations of inclusivism introduced by Paul Hacker and Gerhard Oberhammer were inextricably intertwined with the views on Indian religions these scholars developed. The concept of perspectivism was introduced in a philosophical context, mainly with respect to Bhartṛhari’s and Jaina philosophy. Antologizing and polyphony can be characterized as a more cautious way to conceptualize pluralistic tendencies in Indian traditional discourse, because they focus on narrative strategies that enable expressing alternative views in the frames of a single text. From a historical point of view pluralistic tendencies might be stipulated by the diverse social reality in Ancient India where heterogeneous cultural phenomena coexisted in a process of mutual reinterpretation and adaptation. Another possible presupposition of perspectivism could be the cyclic concept of time that was predominant in Indian traditional discourse. In Indian intellectual systems pluralistic practices were usually legitimized with the view that there are different levels of truth. Though instances of inclusivism can be discovered in the cultures of different regions, it was in India that inclusivism became a dominant trend in the cultural history.

The special theory of relativity holds significant interest for scientific perspectivists. In this paper, I distinguish between two related meanings of “perspectival,” and argue that reference frames are perspectives, provided that perspectival means “being conditional” rather than “being partial.” Frame-dependent properties such as length, time duration, and simultaneity, are not partially measured in a reference frame, but their measurements are conditional on the choice of frame. I also discuss whether the constancy of the speed of light depends on perspectival factors such as the idealized definition of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum and the Einstein synchronization convention. Furthermore, I argue for the view that the constancy of its speed is a robust property of light according to the conditions of currently acceptable experimental setups pertaining to special relativity, and conclude that this view supports perspectivism.

Janus is acknowledged as an important representative of pre- and perinatal psychology, but at the same time one-sidedness in his text (2021) is pointed out: He stands entirely in the tradition of the Enlightenment, views history as the history of progress, and, in line with Lloyd de Mause's »Psychohistory«, projects psychoanalytic thought onto past epochs. In doing so, he is committed to a nomothetic ideal of science that can only do limited justice to the phenomenon of psychotherapy. However, Janus' proposals for the reform of psychoanalysis are appreciated, although the author cannot endorse his apodictic evaluations, but speaks of possible perspectives, which are all at once legitimate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nietzsche is among the usual suspects when it comes to attributing philosophical responsibility for the so called 'post-truth' condition. This article sketches three diverging perspectives on his notion of 'perspectivism' that are, at the same time, different ways of answering the question of whether he spearheaded 'post-truth' thinking. Whereas the first perspective interprets 'perspectivism' as a radical relativist doctrine that grounds a 'might makes right' morality, the second defends Nietzsche against such readings arguing that 'perspectivism' criticises metaphysical objectivism yet allows for moderate, naturalist conceptions of objectivity. The third perspective questions whether 'perspectivism' should be thought of as a theory or doctrine that Nietzsche holds at all. Instead, it contends that what could appear as such in the Genealogy is itself only a perspective and that his key clue for 'post-truth' debates could come from this self-referential, performative way of showing epistemological frameworks to be embedded in broader, genealogical backgrounds. This third perspective is also more akin to Michel Foucault's appropriation of Nietzsche's thought.

Marta Soniewicka, Utrata Boga. Filozofia woli Fryderyka Nietzschego, Copernicus Center Press, Kraków 2016, ss. 388

Since its emergence, ethnomethodology has been subject to a succession of disputes, prompted both by external commentaries and by internal divisions. Often, the external commentaries have been rejected as displaying gross misconceptions about the character of ethnomethodology, and these misconceptions have frequently been all too evident. In this article I examine a less well-known case where the external commentary—a "critical review" by Paul ATKINSON—displayed considerable understanding of, and indeed appreciation for, ethnomethodological work; albeit alongside some criticism, and an argument for the fruitfulness of combining elements of ethnography and ethnomethodology. It also connected with some disputes internal to ethnomethodology. The response to this review was, nevertheless, sharp rejection. This was on the grounds that ethnomethodology is fundamentally different from the "constructive analysis" characteristic of conventional ethnography, and qualitative research more generally. The arguments on each side make this a particularly illuminating dispute.

The capacity for perspective taking is thought to be linked to psychological development and to wisdom. This article draws from psychological, contemplative, cross-cultural, and philosophical disciplines to create an inventory of perspectival skills and their possible relationships to wisdom. The nature of perspectives is explored, as are the characteristics of healthy perspectives, and the factors—such as developmental stage, assumptions, and state of mind—that determine the number and kinds of available perspectives. The article then examines rare postconventional perspectival capacities such as the ability to integrate multiple perspectives, to adopt higher order metaperspectives, and to experience transperspectival “pure awareness.” Fifteen kinds of wise perspectives and perspectival skills are suggested. Finally, the article reviews psychological, relational, contemplative, philosophical, and educational methods thought to foster perspectival skills and wisdom.

Copyright of Nietzsche - Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article I revisit earlier stages of the discussion of personal identity, before Neo-Lockean psychological continuity views became prevalent. In particular, I am interested in Bernard Williams’ initial proposal of bodily identity as a necessary, although not sufficient, criterion of personal identity. It was at this point that psychological continuity views came to the fore arguing that bodily identity was not necessary because brain transplants were logically possible, even if physically impossible. Further proposals by Shoemaker of causal relations between mental states in our memory and Parfit’s discussion of branching causal chains created additional complications. My contention in this paper is that psychological continuity views deflected our attention from what should have remained in the spotlight all the time: the intersubjective character (or not) of criteria proposed to decide personal identity in our language game, and ultimately our form of life concerning ourselves as persons. B. Williams’ emphasis on the body was not just common sense. It was also recognition of the importance of giving priority to criteria that could be kept under intersubjective control.

Copyright of Nietzsche - Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nietzsche - Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Nietzsche - Studien is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)