Pub Date : 2002-02-01DOI: 10.1080/10903770120116804
David K. Glidden
There are all too many victims of violence. A woman walking peacefully in New York City is felled by a psychopath wielding a brick. A baby in LA is slain by a stray bullet from yet another drive-by. On a crowded bus in Sri Lanka a bomb explodes, blowing passengers to bits. Palestinian and Israeli children continue to be maimed in a war instigated by great-grandfathers. Christians are slaughtered in Indonesia, enslaved in the Sudan. In Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics assassinate one another, despite a peace accord. Muslims are pursued by Hindu mobs in India, killed by tanks in Chechnya, while Iraq and Iran slaughtered tens of thousands in brutal border wars. Villagers in West Africa lose limbs to the machetes of adolescent renegades and diamond smugglers. Hutus butcher Tutsis in Rwanda, while Tutsis murder Hutus in Burundi. Serbs, Albanians, Bosnians, Croatians rape, torture, and slaughter one another’s innocents. Ethnic hatred, racism, religious intolerance, and the fetid fervor of righteous fury feed the violence. Where are the peacemakers? Who will heed them? Civil wars and drug wars, religious wars and wars of ideology chie y victimize civilian populations, easy prey too ignorant or frail to resist. From Central to South America, across the continent of Africa, throughout the shifting sands of the Middle East, pervading the emerging nations of far eastern Europe and central Asia, and extending to the most remote islands of the Indian Ocean or the South Paci c, hatred relentlessly seeks its victims. Terror on the streets, terror across the globe—brutalizing, maiming, debilitating terror—cripples generations and whole nations awash with bloodied memories. The expanding waves of violence reach ever more distant shores. Middle-Eastern terrorists blaspheming the name of Allah have hijacked passenger planes in the United States. Using civil aircraft as cruise missiles, they murdered and disabled thousands of victims from vastly different nationalities, destroying American cathedrals of commerce and assaulting its Pentagon of military might. Incinerated bodies falling from the sky made cityscapes into crematoria, reminiscent of the ashes from the rosy plague centuries
{"title":"Borderline disorders","authors":"David K. Glidden","doi":"10.1080/10903770120116804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116804","url":null,"abstract":"There are all too many victims of violence. A woman walking peacefully in New York City is felled by a psychopath wielding a brick. A baby in LA is slain by a stray bullet from yet another drive-by. On a crowded bus in Sri Lanka a bomb explodes, blowing passengers to bits. Palestinian and Israeli children continue to be maimed in a war instigated by great-grandfathers. Christians are slaughtered in Indonesia, enslaved in the Sudan. In Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics assassinate one another, despite a peace accord. Muslims are pursued by Hindu mobs in India, killed by tanks in Chechnya, while Iraq and Iran slaughtered tens of thousands in brutal border wars. Villagers in West Africa lose limbs to the machetes of adolescent renegades and diamond smugglers. Hutus butcher Tutsis in Rwanda, while Tutsis murder Hutus in Burundi. Serbs, Albanians, Bosnians, Croatians rape, torture, and slaughter one another’s innocents. Ethnic hatred, racism, religious intolerance, and the fetid fervor of righteous fury feed the violence. Where are the peacemakers? Who will heed them? Civil wars and drug wars, religious wars and wars of ideology chie y victimize civilian populations, easy prey too ignorant or frail to resist. From Central to South America, across the continent of Africa, throughout the shifting sands of the Middle East, pervading the emerging nations of far eastern Europe and central Asia, and extending to the most remote islands of the Indian Ocean or the South Paci c, hatred relentlessly seeks its victims. Terror on the streets, terror across the globe—brutalizing, maiming, debilitating terror—cripples generations and whole nations awash with bloodied memories. The expanding waves of violence reach ever more distant shores. Middle-Eastern terrorists blaspheming the name of Allah have hijacked passenger planes in the United States. Using civil aircraft as cruise missiles, they murdered and disabled thousands of victims from vastly different nationalities, destroying American cathedrals of commerce and assaulting its Pentagon of military might. Incinerated bodies falling from the sky made cityscapes into crematoria, reminiscent of the ashes from the rosy plague centuries","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131397399","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}
Pub Date : 2002-02-01DOI: 10.1080/10903770120116831
C. Levine
This essay interprets the controversy over Richard Serra's monumental sculpture, Tilted Arc , which was designed for a public plaza in downtown Manhattan in 1979 and then torn down five years later after intense public outcry. Levine reads this controversy as characteristic of contemporary debates over the arts, which continue the tradition of the nineteenth century avant-garde, pitting art against a wider public, and insisting that art must deliberately resist mainstream tastes and values in favor of marginality and innovation. This definition of art has posed a lasting dilemma for democratic societies: how, after all, should a democracy deal with art that represents an intentional rejection of the majority? The problem becomes even more intractable when it comes to avant-garde art commissioned for public spaces, where the art object can challenge public tastes and movements in a way that is inescapable for those who must live and work in the space. Disturbed by the imposition of a massive and incomprehensible art object in a public plaza, Serra's opponents argued that Tilted Arc frustrated a whole range of socially beneficial activities, labor and leisure alike. And they claimed that Serra's supporters were dangerously anti-democratic. But despite the avant-garde's challenge to majority tastes, this essay makes the case that it remains a democratic value to continue to sponsor avant-garde art in public spaces.
{"title":"The paradox of public art: Democratic space, the avant-garde, and Richard Serra's \"Tilted Arc\"","authors":"C. Levine","doi":"10.1080/10903770120116831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116831","url":null,"abstract":"This essay interprets the controversy over Richard Serra's monumental sculpture, Tilted Arc , which was designed for a public plaza in downtown Manhattan in 1979 and then torn down five years later after intense public outcry. Levine reads this controversy as characteristic of contemporary debates over the arts, which continue the tradition of the nineteenth century avant-garde, pitting art against a wider public, and insisting that art must deliberately resist mainstream tastes and values in favor of marginality and innovation. This definition of art has posed a lasting dilemma for democratic societies: how, after all, should a democracy deal with art that represents an intentional rejection of the majority? The problem becomes even more intractable when it comes to avant-garde art commissioned for public spaces, where the art object can challenge public tastes and movements in a way that is inescapable for those who must live and work in the space. Disturbed by the imposition of a massive and incomprehensible art object in a public plaza, Serra's opponents argued that Tilted Arc frustrated a whole range of socially beneficial activities, labor and leisure alike. And they claimed that Serra's supporters were dangerously anti-democratic. But despite the avant-garde's challenge to majority tastes, this essay makes the case that it remains a democratic value to continue to sponsor avant-garde art in public spaces.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"88 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128817171","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}
Pub Date : 2002-02-01DOI: 10.1080/10903770120116787
N. Smith
Living within walking distance of "ground zero," Neil Smith directly confronted not only the enormity of the destruction, but also the inability to comprehend on the part of many for whom the violence of the 20th century had remained distant, even when the American state was directly implicated. Answers to the question "why us" require a "multi-scalar" perspective—one capable of recognizing the multiple and complex connections traversing local, national and global spaces.
{"title":"Ashes and aftermath","authors":"N. Smith","doi":"10.1080/10903770120116787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116787","url":null,"abstract":"Living within walking distance of \"ground zero,\" Neil Smith directly confronted not only the enormity of the destruction, but also the inability to comprehend on the part of many for whom the violence of the 20th century had remained distant, even when the American state was directly implicated. Answers to the question \"why us\" require a \"multi-scalar\" perspective—one capable of recognizing the multiple and complex connections traversing local, national and global spaces.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"408 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122733315","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}
Pub Date : 2002-02-01DOI: 10.1080/10903770120116778
A. Light
{"title":"Introduction: Geographies of the 11th","authors":"A. Light","doi":"10.1080/10903770120116778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770120116778","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124417321","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}
It is a matter of tacit consensus that rationalist adeptness in urban planning traces its foundations to the philosophy of the Renaissance thinker and mathematician René Descartes. This study suggests, in turn, that the planned urban environment of the Renaissance may have also led Descartes, and his intellectual peers, to tenets that became the foundations of modern philosophy and science. The geometric street pattern of the late middle ages and the Renaissance, the planned townscapes, street views and the formal garden design, appeared as parables for the perfection of the universe and the supremacy of critical reason. It is within this urban metaphor that Descartes's philosophical narrative betrays perceptual and conceptual impact from the contrast between convoluted medieval townscapes and the emerging harmonious street patterns where defined vistas and predictable clarity of street views were paramount. The geometrically delineated street views of the Renaissance new town became the spark that lit the philosopher's sagacity in reflecting upon the concept of "clear and distinct ideas." Past suggestions that Descartes was led to his philosophical breakthroughs through his discovery of co-ordinate geometry reinforce further the stance that Renaissance planning predisposed rationalist thought.
{"title":"Urban planning in the founding of Cartesian thought","authors":"A. Akkerman","doi":"10.1080/10903770124810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770124810","url":null,"abstract":"It is a matter of tacit consensus that rationalist adeptness in urban planning traces its foundations to the philosophy of the Renaissance thinker and mathematician René Descartes. This study suggests, in turn, that the planned urban environment of the Renaissance may have also led Descartes, and his intellectual peers, to tenets that became the foundations of modern philosophy and science. The geometric street pattern of the late middle ages and the Renaissance, the planned townscapes, street views and the formal garden design, appeared as parables for the perfection of the universe and the supremacy of critical reason. It is within this urban metaphor that Descartes's philosophical narrative betrays perceptual and conceptual impact from the contrast between convoluted medieval townscapes and the emerging harmonious street patterns where defined vistas and predictable clarity of street views were paramount. The geometrically delineated street views of the Renaissance new town became the spark that lit the philosopher's sagacity in reflecting upon the concept of \"clear and distinct ideas.\" Past suggestions that Descartes was led to his philosophical breakthroughs through his discovery of co-ordinate geometry reinforce further the stance that Renaissance planning predisposed rationalist thought.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123336422","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}
Recently my University, along with various other local sponsors, brought “The Moving Wall” to our campus. Much ado was made over this traveling fold-up replica of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. Speakers were invited, visitors ocked to “The Wall,” and there was much weeping, remembering, and patriotic ag-waving. Strangely, however, there was something wrong, something unsettling, or as I might say, something “out of place,” about all of this. My friend and colleague (Professor R. Taylor Scott), sensing this before I did, was more than a little upset over the theatrics of this wall-replica. He in fact thought this propped-up hollow movie set mock-up of the real monument in Washington was nothing less than a desecration. To his sensibility, something was deeply troubling about the assumption that lay behind this event. That assumption is that we can uproot at will a truly sacred place, a place that is truly moving, and without desecrating it, simply set a replica of it down wherever some group (who is willing to pay) wants it. (I do not mean to suggest that “The Moving Wall” is simply a money making scheme. But then again, I do not know that it is not. In a country in which everything is for sale, perhaps our sacred monuments have their price too. I add that there are at least seven of these traveling shows touring the country at a cost of several thousands dollars per engagement.) As my colleague thought of it, something important, something vital, was lost when that grooved-out, grave-like place in the Mall in our nation’s capital was turned into a traveling circus. To express his reservations about these matters, Professor Scott wrote a guest column in the local newspaper, one of the sponsors that brought “The Wall” to town. Reluctantly, and with biting editorial comment, the paper published his essay and invited the public to respond. And respond they did, with a vengeance. My friend actually began to fear for his life. The public was outraged that a local Professor (of Religion no less, and an Episcopal cleric to boot) would deign to criticize such a symbol of American heroism. One might as well call apple pie and the ag into question. Disappointingly, to me and to him, was the fact that the ood of local letters of response to the Editor, almost all of which supported “The Wall,” did not see any point in my colleague’s objection to it. Being against the wall, so to speak, and feeling a bit alone, Taylor sought me out
最近，我的大学和其他一些当地的赞助商一起，把“移动的墙”带到我们的校园。华盛顿特区越南纪念碑的折叠式旅行复制品引起了很多关注。演讲者被邀请了，参观者被锁在“墙”上，有很多人哭泣，回忆，爱国的手挥舞。然而，奇怪的是，这一切都有些不对劲，令人不安，或者我可以说，有些“不合时宜”。我的朋友兼同事(r·泰勒·斯科特(R. Taylor Scott)教授)在我之前就意识到了这一点，他对这幅壁画复制品的戏剧性表现感到非常不安。事实上，他认为这个以华盛顿真实纪念碑为原型的空心电影模型完全是一种亵渎。在他看来，这一事件背后的假设令人深感不安。这个假设是，我们可以随意铲除一个真正神圣的地方，一个真正移动的地方，在不亵渎它的情况下，简单地在某个群体(愿意付钱的人)想要的地方建立一个复制品。(我并不是说“移动的墙”只是一个赚钱的计划。但话又说回来，我不知道它不是。在一个一切都可以出售的国家，也许我们神圣的纪念碑也有它们的价格。我补充说，至少有七场这样的巡回演出在全国巡回演出，每场演出花费数千美元。)正如我的同事所认为的那样，当我们国家首都的大草坪上那个破破烂烂、像坟墓一样的地方变成了一个流动的马戏团时，一些重要的、至关重要的东西失去了。为了表达他对这些问题的保留意见，斯科特教授在当地报纸上写了一篇客座专栏，这家报纸是把“墙”带到镇上的赞助商之一。该报不情愿地发表了他的文章，并发表了尖刻的社论评论，并邀请公众对此作出回应。他们确实做出了回应，而且是报复。我的朋友开始担心他的生命安全。公众对当地一位教授(不仅是宗教教授，还是圣公会牧师)竟然屈尊批评这样一个美国英雄主义的象征感到愤怒。人们可能会质疑苹果派和农业。令我和他失望的是，当地给《编辑》的大部分回信，几乎都是支持《墙》的，却看不出我的同事反对《墙》有什么意义。可以说，泰勒靠着墙，感到有点孤单，就来找我
{"title":"Moving places: A comment on the traveling Vietnam Memorial","authors":"R. Hall","doi":"10.1080/10903770125038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770125038","url":null,"abstract":"Recently my University, along with various other local sponsors, brought “The Moving Wall” to our campus. Much ado was made over this traveling fold-up replica of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, DC. Speakers were invited, visitors ocked to “The Wall,” and there was much weeping, remembering, and patriotic ag-waving. Strangely, however, there was something wrong, something unsettling, or as I might say, something “out of place,” about all of this. My friend and colleague (Professor R. Taylor Scott), sensing this before I did, was more than a little upset over the theatrics of this wall-replica. He in fact thought this propped-up hollow movie set mock-up of the real monument in Washington was nothing less than a desecration. To his sensibility, something was deeply troubling about the assumption that lay behind this event. That assumption is that we can uproot at will a truly sacred place, a place that is truly moving, and without desecrating it, simply set a replica of it down wherever some group (who is willing to pay) wants it. (I do not mean to suggest that “The Moving Wall” is simply a money making scheme. But then again, I do not know that it is not. In a country in which everything is for sale, perhaps our sacred monuments have their price too. I add that there are at least seven of these traveling shows touring the country at a cost of several thousands dollars per engagement.) As my colleague thought of it, something important, something vital, was lost when that grooved-out, grave-like place in the Mall in our nation’s capital was turned into a traveling circus. To express his reservations about these matters, Professor Scott wrote a guest column in the local newspaper, one of the sponsors that brought “The Wall” to town. Reluctantly, and with biting editorial comment, the paper published his essay and invited the public to respond. And respond they did, with a vengeance. My friend actually began to fear for his life. The public was outraged that a local Professor (of Religion no less, and an Episcopal cleric to boot) would deign to criticize such a symbol of American heroism. One might as well call apple pie and the ag into question. Disappointingly, to me and to him, was the fact that the ood of local letters of response to the Editor, almost all of which supported “The Wall,” did not see any point in my colleague’s objection to it. Being against the wall, so to speak, and feeling a bit alone, Taylor sought me out","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"16 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131069577","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}
Benton MacKaye's name is rarely evoked in the fields of environmental history and philosophy. The author of the Appalachian Trail in the early 1920s and a co-founder of the Wilderness Society with Aldo Leopold and Bob Marshall in the 1930s, MacKaye's unique contribution to American environmental thought is seldom recognized. This neglect is particularly egregious in the current debate over the intellectual foundations of the American wilderness idea, a discussion to which I believe MacKaye has much to contribute. Specifically, I believe that his pragmatic vision for wilderness conservation, a project supported through an appeal to the values of a reconstructed "indigenous" communal environment, owes much to the social philosophy of Josiah Royce, MacKaye's former teacher at Harvard. While the Appalachian Trail never delivered on MacKaye's goals of progressive reform and failed to unite the regional planning and conservation communities of the time, his vision remains highly relevant to our present-day deliberations about the relationship between wild nature and society at the dawn of the 21st century .
{"title":"Wilderness and the wise province: Benton MacKaye's pragmatic vision","authors":"B. Minteer","doi":"10.1080/10903770125687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770125687","url":null,"abstract":"Benton MacKaye's name is rarely evoked in the fields of environmental history and philosophy. The author of the Appalachian Trail in the early 1920s and a co-founder of the Wilderness Society with Aldo Leopold and Bob Marshall in the 1930s, MacKaye's unique contribution to American environmental thought is seldom recognized. This neglect is particularly egregious in the current debate over the intellectual foundations of the American wilderness idea, a discussion to which I believe MacKaye has much to contribute. Specifically, I believe that his pragmatic vision for wilderness conservation, a project supported through an appeal to the values of a reconstructed \"indigenous\" communal environment, owes much to the social philosophy of Josiah Royce, MacKaye's former teacher at Harvard. While the Appalachian Trail never delivered on MacKaye's goals of progressive reform and failed to unite the regional planning and conservation communities of the time, his vision remains highly relevant to our present-day deliberations about the relationship between wild nature and society at the dawn of the 21st century .","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133163648","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 the fact that they are in most respects environmentally benign, electricity-generating wind turbines frequently encounter a great deal of resistance. Much of this resistance is aesthetic in character; wind turbines somehow do not "fit" in the landscape. On one (classical) view, landscapes are beautiful to the extent that they are "scenic," well-balanced compositions. But wind turbines introduce a discordant note, they are out of "scale." On another (ecological) view, landscapes are beautiful if their various elements form a stable and integrated organic whole. But wind turbines are difficult to integrate into the biotic community; at least in certain respects, they are like "weeds." Moreover, there is a reason why the 100-meter, three bladed wind turbines now favored by the industry cannot very well be accommodated to any landscape view. They are, as Albert Borgmann would put it, characteristic of contemporary technology, distanced "devices" for the production of a commodity rather than "things" with which one can engage. It follows that the only way in which the aesthetic resistance to wind turbines can be overcome is to make them more "thing-like." One such "thing-like" turbine is discussed.
{"title":"Wind, energy, landscape: Reconciling nature and technology","authors":"G. Brittan","doi":"10.1080/10903770124626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770124626","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the fact that they are in most respects environmentally benign, electricity-generating wind turbines frequently encounter a great deal of resistance. Much of this resistance is aesthetic in character; wind turbines somehow do not \"fit\" in the landscape. On one (classical) view, landscapes are beautiful to the extent that they are \"scenic,\" well-balanced compositions. But wind turbines introduce a discordant note, they are out of \"scale.\" On another (ecological) view, landscapes are beautiful if their various elements form a stable and integrated organic whole. But wind turbines are difficult to integrate into the biotic community; at least in certain respects, they are like \"weeds.\" Moreover, there is a reason why the 100-meter, three bladed wind turbines now favored by the industry cannot very well be accommodated to any landscape view. They are, as Albert Borgmann would put it, characteristic of contemporary technology, distanced \"devices\" for the production of a commodity rather than \"things\" with which one can engage. It follows that the only way in which the aesthetic resistance to wind turbines can be overcome is to make them more \"thing-like.\" One such \"thing-like\" turbine is discussed.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"498 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129944979","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}
I am delighted to comment on Jeff Malpas’s Place and Experience, clearly the most important recent book on the question of place—likely, the most important book ever on this elusive subject. Malpas himself prefers to call place “opaque” or “obscure”: and if this is so, he is the one who, after so many centuries of neglect and misunderstanding, has cast the most light into its darkest corners. In particular, he has opened a dialogue on place which extends across entire continents and channels of philosophy—and between philosophy and literature and psychology—in deft and decisive ways. For place-o-philes such as myself, he has opened an entire realm of discourse about this dif cult topic.
{"title":"J.E. Malpas's Place and Experience: A Philosophical Topography (Cambridge University Press, 1999) Converging and diverging in/on place","authors":"E. Casey","doi":"10.1080/10903770123141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770123141","url":null,"abstract":"I am delighted to comment on Jeff Malpas’s Place and Experience, clearly the most important recent book on the question of place—likely, the most important book ever on this elusive subject. Malpas himself prefers to call place “opaque” or “obscure”: and if this is so, he is the one who, after so many centuries of neglect and misunderstanding, has cast the most light into its darkest corners. In particular, he has opened a dialogue on place which extends across entire continents and channels of philosophy—and between philosophy and literature and psychology—in deft and decisive ways. For place-o-philes such as myself, he has opened an entire realm of discourse about this dif cult topic.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114082116","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}
by the vulnerability of place, which re ects human contingency and mortality: “the fragility and mortality of human life must be seen as nothing other than the same fragility and mortality that attaches to the places and spaces of human dwelling and just as inevitable” (PE, 191). 6. Malpas’s use of “event” ties it to objective space: see PE, 35, 168. In my own usage, it signi es the coming together of space and time in place—in one occurrence. See The Fate of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 309 ff., 339. 7. For this phrase, see PE, 22, 33, 170. 8. Malpas employs “room” only rarely, e.g., at PE, 64, where it signi es what subjective and objective space share. For the broader reaches of “room,” see The Fate of Place, 87, 122–3, 257–8, 261, 266, 282. 9. The phrase “the character of places as unitary structures” is employed at PE, 185. 10. On places as contained in their own frames, and on their folding-out and folding-in character, see PE, 172.
{"title":"Comparing topographies: Across paths/around place: A reply to Casey","authors":"J. Malpas","doi":"10.1080/10903770123850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770123850","url":null,"abstract":"by the vulnerability of place, which re ects human contingency and mortality: “the fragility and mortality of human life must be seen as nothing other than the same fragility and mortality that attaches to the places and spaces of human dwelling and just as inevitable” (PE, 191). 6. Malpas’s use of “event” ties it to objective space: see PE, 35, 168. In my own usage, it signi es the coming together of space and time in place—in one occurrence. See The Fate of Place (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 309 ff., 339. 7. For this phrase, see PE, 22, 33, 170. 8. Malpas employs “room” only rarely, e.g., at PE, 64, where it signi es what subjective and objective space share. For the broader reaches of “room,” see The Fate of Place, 87, 122–3, 257–8, 261, 266, 282. 9. The phrase “the character of places as unitary structures” is employed at PE, 185. 10. On places as contained in their own frames, and on their folding-out and folding-in character, see PE, 172.","PeriodicalId":431617,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Geography","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122513961","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：