Search

BEINER, Ronald. Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. 167 pp. Cloth, $24.95--'Many of us are reeling today,' declares Ronald [...]

This paper describes and evaluates two different ways of doing philosophy: a 'reflexive' approach that sees metaphilosophical inquiry as fundamental, and a 'non-reflexive' approach that sees metaphilosophy as dispensable. It examines arguments that have been advanced for these approaches by Gilbert Ryle, Jerry Fodor, and Richard Rorty, and claims that none of these arguments are convincing. Finally, the paper draws on Alasdair MacIntyre's work to propose a different way of choosing between the approaches, one that asks which approach is more successful at making its appeal intelligible to the other. From this perspective, the reflexive approach appears to have an important advantage over its rival.

Ricoeur is a post-Hegelian Kantian is presented considering about how and what he reasons philosophically. It is argued that Ricoeur philosophizes on three Kantian ideas God, self and world while taking into account Hegel's critical evaluation on it.

This article asks what Gadamerian hermeneutics can contribute to recent debates about how philosophy is related to its history. First, I explain how Gadamer understands this relation, paying particular attention to his debts to Heidegger and to the role of tradition in the human sciences. Next, I argue that Gadamer's view raises serious difficulties--difficulties connected with what he calls historical consciousness. Finally, I try to respond to these difficulties by distinguishing two different ways of understanding what historians of philosophy do. While my response is in some tension with what Gadamer explicitly says about the history of philosophy, it is, I argue, consistent with the spirit of his work.

It is often argued that a study of the history of philosophy is not itself philosophical. Philosophy, it is claimed, is an active, productive enterprise, whereas history is taken to be imitative and therefore passive. My aim in this paper is to argue against this view of the history of philosophy. First, I describe a famous criticism of historians of philosophy--Kant's critique of the 'spirit of imitation.' I claim that the source of this criticism is the received view of mimesis. Since the received view has been widely discredited, I propose a different one--one that sees imitation not as passive but as active. Finally, I suggest that adopting this new view of mimesis demands that we rethink what it means for a history of philosophy to be true. And I propose that the philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer might help us to do so.

The distinction between morality and ethics is valid, but they should be regarded as complementary rather than competing approaches. Views of Bernard Williams and Jurgen Habermas are examined.

One of the core principles of Paul Ricoeur's hermeneutics is that interpretation culminates in application, or appropriation. But what exactly is an appropriation, and what makes some appropriations better than others? I try to shed light on these difficult matters by examining Ricoeur's own appropriation of Alasdair MacIntyre's notion of the narrative unity of a life, and by contrasting it with Richard Rorty's appropriation of the same notion. I argue that Ricoeur's appropriation is more successful than Rorty's, and that the best explanation of its success is that it respects a distinctive norm that governs the activity of appropriation. I conclude by describing this norm, which I call the principle of ultimate compatibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FISCHER, John Martin. Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. viii + 184 pp. Cloth, $65.00--John Martin Fischer is well-known for his work [...]

FISCHER, John Martin. Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. viii + 184 pp. Cloth, $65.00--John Martin Fischer is well known for his [...]

Paul Ricoeur's use of Greek tragedy is discussed by looking at several of his readings of tragedy to show how he uses it as a particularly valuable way of articulating and defending philosophical claims. Ricoeur's engagement with tragedy amounts to a powerful assessment of the relationship between philosophy and literature.

WEISSMAN, David. Lost Souls: The Philosophical Origins of a Cultural Dilemma. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003. xiii + 210 pp. Paper, $18.95--Lost Souls is a genealogy of [...]

This essay asks whether a pragmatist philosophy of history can make sense of the notion of historical facts. It is tempting to think it cannot, since pragmatists insist, as James puts it, that the trail of the human serpent is over everything. Facts, by contrast, are typically thought of as something untouched by the human serpent, something impervious to what we think and do. I argue, however, that there is a way of understanding facts that is perfectly at home in pragmatist philosophy of history. Drawing on work by Robert Brandom, I propose that facts be interpreted inferentially. On this view, to call something a fact, or to say that the facts make my beliefs true, is simply a shorthand way of saying that a particular sort of relationship exists among certain sentences. I further show that this inferential understanding of facts is fully compatible with the distinctive features of historical inquiry. In particular, it is compatible with history's irreducibly narrative character, and with the way different narratives can reveal radically different facts. Finally, I use this account of historical facts to respond to a classic criticism of pragmatism: the charge that pragmatism is narcissistic. I argue that pragmatism is narcissistic in only the minimal sense that it cannot countenance theory-neutral givens. But pragmatists can happily grant that there is more to truth than consensus, and that our claims are answerable to facts that everyone can get wrong. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Martin Heidegger and Alasdair MacIntyre both claim that universities perform important philosophical functions. This essay reconstructs Heidegger’s and MacIntyre’s views of the university and argues that they have a common source, which I callhermeneutics without historicism. Heidegger and MacIntyre are hermeneutical philosophers: philosophers who are sensitive to the ways in which thought is mediated by interpretation and conditioned by history and culture. But both of them reject the relativistic historicism sometimes associated with a hermeneutical approach to philosophy. This desire to have it both ways leads Heidegger and MacIntyre to attach tremendous importance to activities that take place in universities but nowhere else. The essay also asks whether MacIntyre’s defenders should be troubled by the similarities between his account of the function of the university and Heidegger’s. I argue that they should not, because, while Heidegger’s account of the university has obvious moral and political failings, these failings result not from non-historicist hermeneutics as such, but from specific features of Heidegger’s version of it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented which focuses on the works of philosophers Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Soren Kierkegaard which both seek philosophical instruction in the example of learning to swim. The author compares the works and philosophies of Hegel and Kierkegaard. He shows how the same example used by Hegel and Kierkegaard reached diametrically opposed conclusions. He asserts the role of examples in philosophy.

Paul Ricoeur sharply distinguishes his hermeneutics from Heidegger's 'ontological' hermeneutics. An ontological hermeneutics, Ricoeur claims, is bound to be insufficiently critical. Yet this cannot be the whole story, since Ricoeur himself engages in ontological hermeneutics. What really distinguishes Heidegger's hermeneutics from Ricoeur's? I seek an answer to this question in the two thinkers' appropriations of Kant. More specifically, I examine their appropriations of Kant's view of the productive imagination, as conveyed in the Transcendental Schematism. Heidegger sees the productive imagination as a 'third basic faculty' prior to sensibility and understanding. Conceived in this way, the imagination is so primordial that it must be characterized in a highly abstract way. Ricoeur sees this move as dangerous, and tries to avoid it by reinterpreting the imagination as a faculty that requires the mediation of concrete symbols. In doing so, he hopes to preserve Kant's insights while leaving room for critique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reading for enjoyment is a mysterious activity. This article surveys several paradoxes displayed by this activity, paying particular attention to a handful of paradoxes connected with subjectivity. It argues that responding to these paradoxes is a distinctively philosophical task, one that cannot be farmed out to other disciplines. Some suggestions are made about how philosophers can begin tackling these problems, with a special focus on the phenomenology of Wolfgang Iser. While not offering a developed theory of reading, the paper draws attention to the problem of reading with the goal of understanding the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is now widely accepted that philosophers should be historically self-conscious. But what does this mean in practice? How does historical consciousness change the way we philosophize? To answer this question, I examine two philosophers who put historical consciousness at the heart of their projects: Richard Rorty and Paul Ricoeur. Rorty and Ricoeur both argue that historical consciousness leads us to see philosophy as fragmented. It leads us to view our thinking from multiple perspectives at once, perspectives that are often in considerable tension. But Rorty and Ricoeur reach radically different conclusions about how we should respond to this fragmentation. Their disagreement, I argue, is closely connected to their views of identity. Rorty and Ricoeur have different understandings of what it means for something to be unified, and thus different ideas about what it would take for our perspectives on ourselves to be brought together. My argument for this claim has four parts. First, I try to identify the problems that historical consciousness raises for philosophy, and explain why the most common response to them is unsatisfactory. Second, I discuss Rorty's claim that historical consciousness ought to make us ironists about our philosophical views, and to abandon truth as a goal of inquiry. Third, I contrast Rorty's position with Ricoeur's. Ricoeur argues that we can be historically self-aware and still see philosophy as a rational enterprise that aims at truth. I argue that Ricoeur's optimism on this point is rooted in his view of identity, and specifically in his distinction between idem- and ipse-identity. Finally, I ask what all of this shows about the options available to historically minded philosophers today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]