CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW最新文献

In this paper I focus on Cassirer’s functionalist theory of truth in order to argue that the Positivistic theory of knowledge fails to explain how it is that physics provides us with truth-evaluable and reliably objective descriptions of the world. This argument is based on Cassirer’s idea that what the Positivistic theory of knowledge normally considers as the “factual” of physics is, in fact, unachievable and falsely conceived. I show that Cassirer’s focus on how measurement is made possible, as well as how technological instruments are put to use in physical research, enables him to offer an alternative account of truth, i.e., a functionalist theory of truth, which is philosophically attractive and rationally plausible.

As much as it is rooted in empirical facts, the concept of truth in natural sciences and technology has core dimensions marked by the sphere of the possible. As can be inferred from Cassirer’s symbol theory, this is, in both cultural forms, a structuring mode of their symbolic constitution and differentiation. But when the coupling of the two increases (as currently happens with the new pictorial forms of scientific prediction), it is necessary to know the major repercussions imposed on the way of conceiving phenomena—among these, mainly those that concern the formation of our idea of nature. In addition to this theoretical imperative, it will be the purpose of this paper to show how Cassirer’s thought helps us to recognize and reconstruct the relationships between experimental scientific knowledge and technological mediation. Keeping this in mind, a narrow articulation of truth’s functional profile with the idea of the future that permeates both science (especially natural sciences) and technology will be conceived to see how the two symbolic forms reveal the prospective complexion of human thought and human action.

In this paper, I explore how Cassirer’s early and mature epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of culture make up a coherent and comprehensive view of the mathematical sciences that is fruitful for understanding contemporary science. In Cassirer’s first systematic work, Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff, the mathematical sciences are understood through the concept of function. This implies that scientific investigation aims at increased unity in a system of functional concepts, rather than at answering the substance-rooted question of what is. In his mature work, Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Cassirer expands his inquiry to diverse notions of objects and principles of symbolic forming, recognizing the mathematical sciences as one of many ways of structuring experience, alongside other symbolic forms such as myth and ordinary language. Together, Cassirer’s early and mature works detail the preconditions and idiosyncrasies of the unfolding of scientific objects and situate the mathematical sciences within the totality of human experience. Applying these insights to contemporary interpretations of science suggests connecting common misconceptions of science to challenges in translating objects between symbolic forms. I propose the concepts of domestication and mythification of science as instructive for clearing up such misunderstandings.

The aim of this paper is to raise the question of aging as an ontological question. In critical dialogue with Heidegger’s exploration of the question of being, the first half of the paper argues that fundamental ontology, due to the way it relies on a methodological operationalization of the ontological difference, will remain blind to the ontological generativity of the differences that aging makes. I introduce the term gerontological difference as a name for this kind of difference. The second half of the paper explores the quasi-transcendental play of gerontological difference. Drawing on Foucault, Guenther and Agamben, I suggest that this play might be described in archaeological terms by tracing the historical a priori in which age distinctions are operationalized biopolitically. Drawing on Derrida and Nancy, I argue that this archaeological view of the quasi-transcendental play of gerontological difference must be supplemented with a view of aging as material différance. According to this understanding of the quasi-transcendental play of gerontological difference, aging is an ontologically generative event that organizes intercorporeal tangles of coexistence and opens emergent fields of possible experience.

We face a crisis of elder care, and the language of care is part of the problem. Despite a sophisticated philosophical tradition of care thinking, we remain entangled in expectations of care as loving care, and these expectations hamper the worker/employer relations that are at the center of contemporary care. Turning to the language of solidarity helps us better understand care as work, helps build solidarity not only among workers but also between carers and the those they care for, between carers and families, and between young and old. Populating the social imaginary with stories and images of solidary care is central to the work of building broad generational solidarity.

Whereas caring is commonly perceived as a moral virtue or a socially beneficial ethical practice, resentment appears to represent its opposite. Advocates of care ethics have vehemently criticized the abstract and aloof nature of traditional ethical theories and argue that care ethics offers a perspective from which we may appreciate interpersonal sensitivity and responsiveness to individuals, per se. Following in the philosophical tradition of Nietzsche and Scheler, resentment—taken as the emotional state of lingering animosity towards individuals, combined with the inclination to withhold assistance and abstain from caring—is often identified as an unjustified and unethical disposition. The paper aims to challenge this perspective and support the moral and historical validity of resentment in specific situations. It thereby recalls a social historical dimension to the often merely physiologically and individually dominated discourse about aging. Drawing on Jean Améry’s seminal account, I suggest viewing resentment as an attitude that asserts the authority to reevaluate the historical situation and to challenge the primacy of immediate needs (the here-and-now of a person in need of care). From this perspective, resentment too displays sensitivity to individuals and their life stories, yet it invokes a sense of justice that exceeds the temporal framework of caring if restrained to bodily and physiological needs. To illustrate this argument, this paper recounts an incident in a nursing home in postwar Germany, in 1986.

The status of continuity in Deleuze’s metaphysics is a subject of debate. Deleuze calls the virtual, in Difference and Repetition, an Ideal continuum, and the differential relations that constitute the Ideal imply the continuity of this field. But, Deleuze does not hesitate to formulate the same field by the affirmation of divergence (incompossibility) that can be regarded as a form of discontinuity. It is, hence, unclear how these two ostensibly contradictory accounts might reconcile. This article attempts to reconstitute a Deleuzian theory of continuity through Leibniz, whose philosophy is equally subject to a tension between the law of continuity, prevalent in his mathematics and metaphysics, and the discontinuity or absolute individuality of monads. By reorienting The Fold around the motif of continuity a new conceptual space is opened for continuity qua heterogeneity-and-inseparability. Then, enfolding the conceptual personae of The Fold onto Difference and Repetition reveals the tacit though decisive presence of different types of continuity operational in Deleuze’s metaphysics that will be called divergent, intensive, torsional, and tenorsional continuities.

In Heidegger and his Anglo-American Reception, John Rogove and Pietro D’Oriano have compiled nineteen essays discussing or displaying Heidegger’s influence on anglophone philosophy. The collection includes papers taking a pragmatist approach to the interpretation of Heidegger, as well as papers taking a continentalist approach. In this way, the editors hope to begin to overcome the mutual isolation in which these two prevailing anglophone approaches to Heidegger scholarship have been carried out. Topics treated in these essays are wide-ranging, including examples of English-language Heidegger interpretation, historical and philosophical accounts of the introduction of Heideggerian thought to anglophone academia, and critical analyses of the ways in which Heidegger’s thought has been adopted by Anglo-American commentators.

Current research on second-person relations has often overlooked that this is not a new topic. Addressed mostly under the heading of the “I–thou relation,” second-person relations were discussed by central figures of the phenomenological tradition, including Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, but also quite extensively by much lesser-known authors, such as Karl Löwith, Ludwig Binswanger, and Semyon L. Frank, whose work has been undeservedly neglected in current research. This paper starts off by arguing that, in spite of the rightly acknowledged differences between the Husserlian and the Heideggerian approaches to the investigation of the social world, both approaches converge in the claim that the I–thou relation is founded on more basic forms of sociality. In a second step, against the background of Frank’s and Binswanger’s challenges to that claim, I argue that Löwith’s proposal that the I–thou relation is a primordial form of sociality can be vindicated by conceptualizing I–thou relations as close personal relationships (paradigmatically exemplified by companion friendships and romantic partnerships). After assessing how Löwith’s approach to the I–thou relation stands vis-à-vis Heidegger’s and Husserl’s views, I conclude by suggesting how Löwith’s approach can contribute to current research on second-person relations.

Philosophy of aesthetics and beauty has traditionally prioritized the sense of vision while deprioritizing the more basic-bodily and thus less “noble” sense of touch. This paper examines bodily aspects of how beauty appears in the experience of visual art and motivates the view that touch is fundamental to such experiences. We appeal to Merleau-Ponty to show the relevance given to touch in his phenomenology of aesthetics, to unfold the meaning of touch as “reversible,” and to understand how vision can be conceptualized as a form of touch. Further, we present four cases of feeling touched by beauty in experiences of visual art collected through interviews with art museum visitors. The descriptions of these experiences show that when people open themselves to an artwork they also open themselves to themselves. Based on the qualitative descriptions, we discuss how Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of touch is revelatory of the meaning of feeling “touched” in experiences of beauty.