Friendship, on George Santayana’s account, is a form of human society made possible by consciousness of ideals while simultaneously rooted in the experience of embodied creatures spontaneously drawn to each other. His philosophical and autobiographical writings on friendship (particularly his friendship with Frank Russell) exemplify a practice of cultivating wisdom and suggest how we can come to understand our own actual friendships and the opportunities for self-knowledge and sanity in them.
{"title":"Ideal Friendship, Actual Friends","authors":"M. Coleman","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.002","url":null,"abstract":"Friendship, on George Santayana’s account, is a form of human society made possible by consciousness of ideals while simultaneously rooted in the experience of embodied creatures spontaneously drawn to each other. His philosophical and autobiographical writings on friendship (particularly his friendship with Frank Russell) exemplify a practice of cultivating wisdom and suggest how we can come to understand our own actual friendships and the opportunities for self-knowledge and sanity in them.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43533934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kluczowym celem artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie o proponowaną przez Johna Lachsa filozofię. Według niego, stoicki pragmatyzm łączy pełną akceptacji skromność stoików z poszukiwaniem ulepszeń propagowanym przez pragmatystów. Teoria ta odzwierciedla podejście ludzi, którzy dążą do lepszego życia ale gdy wszystko zawodzi gotowi są przyjąć zastaną rzeczywistość. Zdaniem Lachsa, stoicyzm i pragmatyzm uzupełniają się wzajemnie. Razem w zestawie mogą służyć jako poradnik cenny dla planowania społecznego i indywidualnego życia. W moim tekście skrótowo przedstawiona zostaje struktura książki Stoicki pragmatyzm, argumenty przemawiające za mariażem stoicyzmu z pragmatyzmem oraz zagadnienia z nim związane. Za przyjęciem stoickiego pragmatyzmu przemawiają błędy w podejściu pragmatycznym, niewłaściwe przeciwstawianie aktywnego pragmatyzmu pasywnemu stoicyzmowi oraz fakt, że każda zmiana na lepsze zakłada istnienie pewnych niezmiennych czynników. Wniosek płynący z tych rozważań jest taki, że zarówno stoicyzm, jak i pragmatyzm ujmuje tylko część prawdy o kondycji ludzkiej dlatego, by ująć ją w całości, potrzebują siebie nawzajem. Wolność, odpowiedzialność, miejsce jednostki w społeczeństwie i radość to pozostałe podejmowane przeze mnie problemy. Są to kwestie, które w moim przekonaniu pozwalają lepiej zrozumieć koncepcję stoickiego pragmatyzmu oraz znaczenie, jakie według Lachsa może mieć w życiu człowieka.
{"title":"Refleksja wokół stoickiego pragmatyzmu Johna Lachsa","authors":"Joanna Pierzga","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.007","url":null,"abstract":"Kluczowym celem artykułu jest odpowiedź na pytanie o proponowaną przez Johna Lachsa filozofię. Według niego, stoicki pragmatyzm łączy pełną akceptacji skromność stoików z poszukiwaniem ulepszeń propagowanym przez pragmatystów. Teoria ta odzwierciedla podejście ludzi, którzy dążą do lepszego życia ale gdy wszystko zawodzi gotowi są przyjąć zastaną rzeczywistość. Zdaniem Lachsa, stoicyzm i pragmatyzm uzupełniają się wzajemnie. Razem w zestawie mogą służyć jako poradnik cenny dla planowania społecznego i indywidualnego życia. W moim tekście skrótowo przedstawiona zostaje struktura książki Stoicki pragmatyzm, argumenty przemawiające za mariażem stoicyzmu z pragmatyzmem oraz zagadnienia z nim związane. Za przyjęciem stoickiego pragmatyzmu przemawiają błędy w podejściu pragmatycznym, niewłaściwe przeciwstawianie aktywnego pragmatyzmu pasywnemu stoicyzmowi oraz fakt, że każda zmiana na lepsze zakłada istnienie pewnych niezmiennych czynników. Wniosek płynący z tych rozważań jest taki, że zarówno stoicyzm, jak i pragmatyzm ujmuje tylko część prawdy o kondycji ludzkiej dlatego, by ująć ją w całości, potrzebują siebie nawzajem. Wolność, odpowiedzialność, miejsce jednostki w społeczeństwie i radość to pozostałe podejmowane przeze mnie problemy. Są to kwestie, które w moim przekonaniu pozwalają lepiej zrozumieć koncepcję stoickiego pragmatyzmu oraz znaczenie, jakie według Lachsa może mieć w życiu człowieka.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47302728","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The mission of this essay is to outline the conditions for a metaphysics of responsibility—an ontology which encourages the morally and politically active form of life. The ecstatic naturalism of Robert Corrington, a contemporary development in American philosophy, is employed as a means of highlighting these conditions. As the work of Corrington integrates numerous influences from classical American thought, along with several Continental and Asian philosophies, a broad variety of figures and traditions are introduced throughout. The essay concludes with a comparison between ecstatic naturalism and process theology over a topic which surfaces repeatedly throughout the discussion: the question of evil.
{"title":"Individual, the Social, and the Not Yet Being: Ecstatic Naturalism and a Metaphysics of Responsibility","authors":"Jonathan Weidenbaum","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.006","url":null,"abstract":"The mission of this essay is to outline the conditions for a metaphysics of responsibility—an ontology which encourages the morally and politically active form of life. The ecstatic naturalism of Robert Corrington, a contemporary development in American philosophy, is employed as a means of highlighting these conditions. As the work of Corrington integrates numerous influences from classical American thought, along with several Continental and Asian philosophies, a broad variety of figures and traditions are introduced throughout. The essay concludes with a comparison between ecstatic naturalism and process theology over a topic which surfaces repeatedly throughout the discussion: the question of evil. ","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48302733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An interesting trend of recent scholarship on Santayana’s thought is focused on his criticism of modernity and brings him together with the major figures of postmodern philosophy, especially with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Rorty. In my opinion, while the criticism of modernity certainly offers a relevant key to understand Santayana’s philosophy, it should be rooted first and foremost in some cultural and philosophical linkages that Santayana himself makes explicit throughout his writings, namely, a classical Latin author such as Lucretius, and a modern author such as Giacomo Leopardi. Answering the question in my title, it seems to me that, ultimately, Santayana is a timely/untimely philosopher, if his concepts of rationality and spirituality can be viewed and understood within the framework labeled by Michel Foucault as epimeleia heautou or cura sui.
{"title":"Is Santayana an Untimely Philosopher?","authors":"L. Vaiana","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000An interesting trend of recent scholarship on Santayana’s thought is focused on his criticism of modernity and brings him together with the major figures of postmodern philosophy, especially with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Rorty. In my opinion, while the criticism of modernity certainly offers a relevant key to understand Santayana’s philosophy, it should be rooted first and foremost in some cultural and philosophical linkages that Santayana himself makes explicit throughout his writings, namely, a classical Latin author such as Lucretius, and a modern author such as Giacomo Leopardi. Answering the question in my title, it seems to me that, ultimately, Santayana is a timely/untimely philosopher, if his concepts of rationality and spirituality can be viewed and understood within the framework labeled by Michel Foucault as epimeleia heautou or cura sui. \u0000","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48438455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite apparently holding diametrically opposed attitudes toward dialectical logic, both George Santayana and the early Frankfurt School critical theorists posit a close link between the concepts of reason and domination. It is argued that a broadly-speaking Hegelian philosophical project can survive Santayana’s critiques, albeit by benefitting from the latter’s, as well as from the Frankfurt School’s, re-centering of nature in the history of domination. In the alternative, Santayanaists who would reject Hegel must reckon with the proximity and affinity, notwithstanding Santayana’s suggestions to the contrary, of their perspectives on the ultimately tragic structure of history.
{"title":"Dialectics After Santayana","authors":"Eric Craig Sapp","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.005","url":null,"abstract":"Despite apparently holding diametrically opposed attitudes toward dialectical logic, both George Santayana and the early Frankfurt School critical theorists posit a close link between the concepts of reason and domination. It is argued that a broadly-speaking Hegelian philosophical project can survive Santayana’s critiques, albeit by benefitting from the latter’s, as well as from the Frankfurt School’s, re-centering of nature in the history of domination. In the alternative, Santayanaists who would reject Hegel must reckon with the proximity and affinity, notwithstanding Santayana’s suggestions to the contrary, of their perspectives on the ultimately tragic structure of history.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42640266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Artykuł analizuje estetyczną formę polityki Hannah Arendt w interpretacji Jima Josefsona. Zdaniem autora „Hannah Arendt’s Aesthetic Politics: Freedom and the Beautiful” - filozofka poszukiwała swego własnego „transcendentnego momentu” (der Augenblick) i w celu zidentyfikowania go analizowała prace takich myślicieli jak: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Kafka, Benjamin. Przemyślana krytyka każdego z powyższych nurtów pozwoliła jej sformułować własną koncepcję określoną przez Josefsona mianem „momentu estetycznego”. Wyodrębniając „wolność piękna”, jako trzecią twarz wolności na równi ze znanymi czytelnikom Arendt wolnością działania i umysłu, amerykański filozof w swej książce skupia się na wykazaniu, jak ta wolność, zakorzeniona w fenomenologii Jaspersa i niemetafizycznym odczytaniu Kanta, ma posłużyć za antidotum na wyobcowanie ze świata, które jego zdaniem, jest tematem spajającym wszystkie prace Arendt.
{"title":"Piękno, świat i moment. Estetyczne tło polityki Hannah Arendt w interpretacji Jima Josefsona.","authors":"Anna Trzcinska","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.008","url":null,"abstract":"Artykuł analizuje estetyczną formę polityki Hannah Arendt w interpretacji Jima Josefsona. Zdaniem autora „Hannah Arendt’s Aesthetic Politics: Freedom and the Beautiful” - filozofka poszukiwała swego własnego „transcendentnego momentu” (der Augenblick) i w celu zidentyfikowania go analizowała prace takich myślicieli jak: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, Kafka, Benjamin. Przemyślana krytyka każdego z powyższych nurtów pozwoliła jej sformułować własną koncepcję określoną przez Josefsona mianem „momentu estetycznego”. Wyodrębniając „wolność piękna”, jako trzecią twarz wolności na równi ze znanymi czytelnikom Arendt wolnością działania i umysłu, amerykański filozof w swej książce skupia się na wykazaniu, jak ta wolność, zakorzeniona w fenomenologii Jaspersa i niemetafizycznym odczytaniu Kanta, ma posłużyć za antidotum na wyobcowanie ze świata, które jego zdaniem, jest tematem spajającym wszystkie prace Arendt.\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44828044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article evaluates the significance of the personal liberation that Santayana offers in relation to previous proposals in Western modern philosophy. These include the ideas of liberation present in the philosophies of Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. I argue that Santayana endorses Spinoza’s project, as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche did, of a philosophic redemption as an alternative to an established religion. Yet, he also follows Schopenhauer in rectifying Spinoza’s attempt of recapturing the philosophic truth of Christianity, a project undertaken in Medieval times for Judaism and Islam, but not for Christianity. The result is an explicit philosophic reconstruction of the esoteric truth of Christianity. This, I argue, is the content of the lay religion and the deliverance it provides that Santayana sees as genuine philosophy and that is exemplified by the work of his hero and master, Spinoza.
{"title":"Individual Liberation in Modern Philosophy: Reflections on Santayana’s Affiliation to the Tradition Inaugurated by Spinoza and Followed by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche","authors":"Lydia Amir","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.003","url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates the significance of the personal liberation that Santayana offers in relation to previous proposals in Western modern philosophy. These include the ideas of liberation present in the philosophies of Spinoza, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. I argue that Santayana endorses Spinoza’s project, as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche did, of a philosophic redemption as an alternative to an established religion. Yet, he also follows Schopenhauer in rectifying Spinoza’s attempt of recapturing the philosophic truth of Christianity, a project undertaken in Medieval times for Judaism and Islam, but not for Christianity. The result is an explicit philosophic reconstruction of the esoteric truth of Christianity. This, I argue, is the content of the lay religion and the deliverance it provides that Santayana sees as genuine philosophy and that is exemplified by the work of his hero and master, Spinoza.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41855164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the following article, I introduce three forms of spirituality elucidated by Santayana in his Reason in Religion, viz. the Fanatical, the Rational, and the Mystical. First, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered fanatical or devoted to escaping worldliness via establishing a single, essentially arbitrary, interest. Second, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered mystical or devoted to escaping worldliness via abstention and surrender. Third, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered rational or devoted to escaping worldliness via seeking “a rational advance over it”. Finally, I use these forms to demonstrate the unity between Santayana’s earlier works with his later works, to clarify Santayana’s notion of a Union with The Good, and to explore similarities and differences between the Life of Reason and Realms of Being.
{"title":"Fanatical, Rational, Mystical","authors":"Hector Galván","doi":"10.12775/rf.2023.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2023.004","url":null,"abstract":"In the following article, I introduce three forms of spirituality elucidated by Santayana in his Reason in Religion, viz. the Fanatical, the Rational, and the Mystical. First, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered fanatical or devoted to escaping worldliness via establishing a single, essentially arbitrary, interest. Second, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered mystical or devoted to escaping worldliness via abstention and surrender. Third, I explore what kinds of spiritual practices and ideologies are considered rational or devoted to escaping worldliness via seeking “a rational advance over it”. Finally, I use these forms to demonstrate the unity between Santayana’s earlier works with his later works, to clarify Santayana’s notion of a Union with The Good, and to explore similarities and differences between the Life of Reason and Realms of Being.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46886395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper presents the profiles of three American thinkers associated with the tradition of individualist anarchism. These will be: Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) and Murray Newton Rothbard (1926–1995). These thinkers were involved not only in writing, but were also active participants in the political life of the time. In their opinion, the state, whose genesis is based on violence and conquest, and the individual are the greatest enemies. The state was perceived as the greatest threat to the freedom of the individual, as it violated the principles of natural law, which in turn was to constitute the moral foundation of society. The state was, therefore, in the opinion of these thinkers, something inherently unjust, because by force and against the will of its citizens it forced them to obey. They did not perceive history in terms of class struggle, but as a struggle between individuals and society against the state. Spooner compared the state to a gang of robbers and murderers (valuing them higher than the state, however) and argued that the constitution did not bind citizens in any way, as it had not been signed by them personally, and the government had no power over the one handed over to it by free units. Nock pointed to the gradual appropriation by the state (“professional criminals”) of competences belonging to society, and the opposing goals of both. He distinguished between a government that aims to protect individuals and justice, and a state that aims to plunder, based on a law it has created. Rothbard advocated the abolition of the state as a tax consumer and its replacement with an anarcho-capitalist order in which private property would be its foundation. Theories of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their roots was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. Criticism of the state is always a consequence of the human vision and should be considered from this perspective. The concepts of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their root was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. In the article, in addition to presenting the positions of American individualist anarchists, we will pay attention to the positive aspects of the criticism of the state and show that already in the nineteenth and twentieth century anarchists recognized certain mechanisms of power, whic
本文介绍了三位与个人主义无政府主义传统相关的美国思想家的概况。他们将是：Lysander Spooner（1808–1887）、Albert Jay Nock（1870–1945）和Murray Newton Rothbard（1926–1995）。这些思想家不仅参与写作，而且是当时政治生活的积极参与者。在他们看来，起源于暴力和征服的国家和个人是最大的敌人。国家被视为对个人自由的最大威胁，因为它违反了自然法原则，而自然法原则反过来又构成了社会的道德基础。因此，在这些思想家看来，国家本质上是不公正的，因为它通过武力，违背公民的意愿，迫使他们服从。他们没有从阶级斗争的角度来看待历史，而是将其视为个人和社会之间对抗国家的斗争。斯普纳将国家比作一帮强盗和杀人犯（然而，他们的价值高于国家），并辩称宪法对公民没有任何约束，因为宪法不是由他们亲自签署的，政府对自由单位移交给它的宪法没有权力。诺克指出，国家（“职业罪犯”）逐渐侵占属于社会的权限，以及两者的对立目标。他根据自己制定的法律，区分了一个旨在保护个人和正义的政府和一个旨在掠夺的国家。罗斯巴德主张废除国家作为税收消费者的地位，取而代之的是以私人财产为基础的无政府资本主义秩序。斯普纳、诺克和罗斯巴德的理论虽然是针对国家的，但不仅是负面的。他们的根是个人的利益。对斯普纳来说，他们主要是工人，对诺克来说，他们是公民，对罗斯巴德来说，他们则是企业家和所有者。这一事实值得强调，因为对无政府主义的批评往往归结为对激进主义和乌托邦主义的指控，而没有考虑到其保护主义性质。对国家的批评总是人类视野的结果，应该从这个角度来考虑。斯普纳、诺克和罗斯巴德的概念虽然是针对国家的，但不仅是负面的。其根源是个人的利益。对斯普纳来说，他们主要是工人，对诺克来说，他们是公民，对罗斯巴德来说，他们则是企业家和所有者。这一事实值得强调，因为对无政府主义的批评往往归结为对激进主义和乌托邦主义的指控，而没有考虑到其保护主义性质。在这篇文章中，除了介绍美国个人主义无政府主义者的立场外，我们还将关注对国家批评的积极方面，并表明无政府主义在十九世纪和二十世纪就已经承认了某些权力机制，而这些机制在今天也特别强烈。
{"title":"The Individual vs. the State","authors":"D. Juruś","doi":"10.12775/rf.2022.032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2022.032","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents the profiles of three American thinkers associated with the tradition of individualist anarchism. These will be: Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) and Murray Newton Rothbard (1926–1995). These thinkers were involved not only in writing, but were also active participants in the political life of the time. In their opinion, the state, whose genesis is based on violence and conquest, and the individual are the greatest enemies. The state was perceived as the greatest threat to the freedom of the individual, as it violated the principles of natural law, which in turn was to constitute the moral foundation of society. The state was, therefore, in the opinion of these thinkers, something inherently unjust, because by force and against the will of its citizens it forced them to obey. They did not perceive history in terms of class struggle, but as a struggle between individuals and society against the state. Spooner compared the state to a gang of robbers and murderers (valuing them higher than the state, however) and argued that the constitution did not bind citizens in any way, as it had not been signed by them personally, and the government had no power over the one handed over to it by free units. Nock pointed to the gradual appropriation by the state (“professional criminals”) of competences belonging to society, and the opposing goals of both. He distinguished between a government that aims to protect individuals and justice, and a state that aims to plunder, based on a law it has created. Rothbard advocated the abolition of the state as a tax consumer and its replacement with an anarcho-capitalist order in which private property would be its foundation.\u0000Theories of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their roots was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. Criticism of the state is always a consequence of the human vision and should be considered from this perspective.\u0000 The concepts of Spooner, Nock and Rothbard, although directed against the state, were not only negative. At their root was the good of individuals. For Spooner, they were primarily workers, for Nock, citizens, and for Rothbard, entrepreneurs and owners. This fact is worth emphasizing, as the criticism of anarchism often boils down to allegations of radicalism and utopianism, without taking into account its protectionist nature. In the article, in addition to presenting the positions of American individualist anarchists, we will pay attention to the positive aspects of the criticism of the state and show that already in the nineteenth and twentieth century anarchists recognized certain mechanisms of power, whic","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49396306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores what John Dewey’s political philosophy can offer in regard to the current crisis in digital democracy. It focuses on two digital mechanisms, the “filter bubble” and the “echo chamber”. While there is a prominent, Dewey-inspired debate on “digital publics” in the literature, a reconstruction of the Deweyan concepts of the public and of shared experience shows that it does not adequately reflect the aspect of situated and embodied experience. Based on this, it is shown that digital media offerings must also be rooted in local contexts of experience in order to answer the challenge of those two problematic mechanisms.
{"title":"Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers and Shared Experience","authors":"Sebastian Weydner-Volkmann","doi":"10.12775/rf.2022.029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12775/rf.2022.029","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores what John Dewey’s political philosophy can offer in regard to the current crisis in digital democracy. It focuses on two digital mechanisms, the “filter bubble” and the “echo chamber”. While there is a prominent, Dewey-inspired debate on “digital publics” in the literature, a reconstruction of the Deweyan concepts of the public and of shared experience shows that it does not adequately reflect the aspect of situated and embodied experience. Based on this, it is shown that digital media offerings must also be rooted in local contexts of experience in order to answer the challenge of those two problematic mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":36471,"journal":{"name":"Ruch Filozoficzny","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46093985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：