In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Modernity as a Rhetorical Problem: Phronēsis, Forms, and Forums in Norms of Rhetorical CultureJames Arnt AuneThe true paradises are the paradises that we’ve lost.—Marcel Proust, The Past RegainedThomas B. Farrell’s Norms of Rhetorical Culture (1993, 6) remains both a masterly synthesis of previous constructive work in rhetorical theory and the essential starting point for anyone committed to reconciling the practical impulses of Aristotelian rhetoric, ethics, and politics with the (...) critical imperatives of modernity. In what follows, I try to make a very simple point about Farrell’s recuperation of Aristotelianism: he neglects matters of social causation and institutional design that were essential to Aristotle’s understanding of rhetoric. In turn, by displacing the social in favor of the cultural—a displacement characteristic of much recent work in the human sciences (Schudson 1997)—Farrell lacks a coherent account of the gap between the normative aspirations of classical rhetoric and the empirical characteristics of public life in modern liberal democracies.The problem appears most clearly in chapter 7 of Norms : “Criticism, Disturbance, and Rhetorical Community.” Farrell defines culture as “the common definition of places for the invention and perpetuation of meaning. A culture offers to those who live in it symbols and families of practices that [End Page 402] permit ongoing performances of meaning and value” (1993, 277). Summarizing his previous arguments, Farrell contends that Aristotle’s Rhetoric informs modern “cultural occasions” in three ways: “the impetus for rhetorical meaning, which we find in Aristotle’s seminal understanding of phronēsis, typified by deliberative prudence; a concept of rhetorical form, which we have found in the prototype for public inference and judgment—the enthymeme; and a modern rhetorical forum, a space of engagement wherein the modern constraints of rhetorical culture might assert themselves” (1993, 277). Although these three concepts are inherently useful, both for analyzing past rhetorical episodes and for projecting emancipatory rhetorical possibilities in the present, they are insufficiently grounded in a historical account of the differences between ancient and modern prudential deliberation, rhetorical forms, and rhetorical forums. An adequate history of these differences would require attention to modern social systems as a whole, which include the economy, the polity, and social institutions such as the family, schools, religious and ethnic organizations, and, most crucially for contemporary social systems, the entire apparatus of the culture industry, including the news and entertainment “media.”The cultural aspect of the modern social system, loosely following Talcott Parsons (1951), includes norms, which make for communal solidarity, and values, which undergird the whole system. Although a thoroughgoing account of the place of rhetoric in the entire contemporary social system of a modern liberal democracy such as the United States or Canada would have required a book three times as long as Norms, there are three ways in which modernity complicates the appropriation of Aristotle’s concepts. First, rhetorical meaning is very different in a social system in which individual autonomy takes precedence over communal solidarity as a fundamental value (Pippin 1999). Second, rhetorical forms function differently in a social system in which those forms can be commodified (Aune 1994, 2001). Third, rhetorical forums are also far more complex, especially in an extended republic like Canada or the United States, requiring greater attention to the way in which constitutions literally create persons who speak (such as the president or prime minister) and spaces for speaking (Congress, the state or provincial houses [White 1984]). The need to raise massive sums of money to obtain media access for common rhetorical deliberation, as is especially the case in the United States, complicates the notion of a rhetorical forum immensely. Even without adopting a broadly Marxian framework, it is clear that the rise and development of capitalism have permanently altered rhetorical deliberation and its forms and forums. [End Page 403] In what follows, I expand on these three criticisms first, by developing a historical account of the social changes that necessitate a rethinking of classical rhetorical theory; second, by comparing and contrasting Farrell’s work with two other contemporary Aristotelianisms, one antimodernist and the other solidly modernist; and third, by developing a framework for normative and empirical investigation of rhetoric that is, I hope... (shrink)

Con este artículo queremos mostrar que si bien los modelos democráticos liberal y republicano pretenden defender la libertad, y la igualdad de los hombres, sus prácticas generan gran marginalidad. Aunque desde el siglo XX se ha intentado corregir la marginalidad que generan, tal como se observa en los esfuerzos por mostrar que tanto liberalismo como republicanismo no son modelos tajantemente opuesto, reflexión desde la cual se ha propuesto un tercer modelo; Democracia Deliberativa, ese esfuerzo aún no logra su cometido. De (...) hecho en las críticas a este tercer modelo se observa que mientras se siga exigiendo condiciones de universalidad, especialmente de la razón como parámetro universal de argumentación, seguirá existiendo marginalidad, y en consecuencia necesidad de emancipación. (shrink)

La investigación ecológica a largo plazo (Long Term Ecological Research, LTER) maneja problemas que abarcan décadas o plazos más largos. El programa y su nombre formal comenzaron en Estados Unidos en 1980. Si bien los estudios y observaciones a largo plazo comenzaron tempranamente en 1400 y 1800 en Asia y Europa, respectivamente, el enfoque a largo plazo no se formalizó sino hasta el establecimiento de los programas de investigación ecológica de largo plazo en Estados Unidos. Estos programas han permitido experimentos (...) a nivel de ecosistemas y comparaciones entre sitios que condujeron a una mejor comprensión de la estructura y funcionamiento de la biosfera. El enfoque ecosistémico holístico de esta iniciativa permite también la incorporación de la dimensión humana en la ecología, y recientemente ha dado lugar al nuevo concepto de investigación socio-ecológica de largo plazo (LTSER). Hoy los programas de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo existen en por lo menos 32 países (esto es, los miembros de la Red Internacional de Investigación Ecológica a Largo Plazo o ILTER (International Long Term Ecological Research). Sin embargo, la consolidación de la red internacional dentro del paradigma de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo todavía requiere: (1) inclusión de algunas regiones remotas del mundo que aún están poco representadas, como el suroeste de América del Sur; (2) modificaciones en el tipo de investigación realizado, tales como la integración de las ciencias sociales y naturales con las humanidades y la ética, y (3) la incorporación de las conclusiones y resultados dentro de los procesos sociales y políticos. En este contexto, la naciente red de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo en Chile, que se extiende en el rango latitudinal más largo de bosque templado en el Hemisferio Sur, agrega una nueva región remota a las investigaciones ecológicas de largo plazo que había sido pasada por alto anteriormente. Además, la colaboración con la Universidad de North Texas y otros asociados internacionales ayuda a desarrollar un enfoque interdisciplinario para integrar las ciencias ecológicas y la filosofía ambiental, junto con los conocimientos ecológicos tradicionales, la educación informal y formal, la política, las humanidades, los procesos socio-políticos y la conservación biocultural. (shrink)

La investigación ecológica a largo plazo (Long Term Ecological Research, LTER) maneja problemas que abarcan décadas o plazos más largos. El programa y su nombre formal comenzaron en Estados Unidos en 1980. Si bien los estudios y observaciones a largo plazo comenzaron tempranamente en 1400 y 1800 en Asia y Europa, respectivamente, el enfoque a largo plazo no se formalizó sino hasta el establecimiento de los programas de investigación ecológica de largo plazo en Estados Unidos. Estos programas han permitido experimentos (...) a nivel de ecosistemas y comparaciones entre sitios que condujeron a una mejor comprensión de la estructura y funcionamiento de la biosfera. El enfoque ecosistémico holístico de esta iniciativa permite también la incorporación de la dimensión humana en la ecología, y recientemente ha dado lugar al nuevo concepto de investigación socio-ecológica de largo plazo (LTSER). Hoy los programas de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo existen en por lo menos 32 países (esto es, los miembros de la Red Internacional de Investigación Ecológica a Largo Plazo o ILTER (International Long Term Ecological Research). Sin embargo, la consolidación de la red internacional dentro del paradigma de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo todavía requiere: (1) inclusión de algunas regiones remotas del mundo que aún están poco representadas, como el suroeste de América del Sur; (2) modificaciones en el tipo de investigación realizado, tales como la integración de las ciencias sociales y naturales con las humanidades y la ética, y (3) la incorporación de las conclusiones y resultados dentro de los procesos sociales y políticos. En este contexto, la naciente red de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo en Chile, que se extiende en el rango latitudinal más largo de bosque templado en el Hemisferio Sur, agrega una nueva región remota a las investigaciones ecológicas de largo plazo que había sido pasada por alto anteriormente. Además, la colaboración con la Universidad de North Texas y otros asociados internacionales ayuda a desarrollar un enfoque interdisciplinario para integrar las ciencias ecológicas y la filosofía ambiental, junto con los conocimientos ecológicos tradicionales, la educación informal y formal, la política, las humanidades, los procesos socio-políticos y la conservación biocultural. (shrink)

La investigación ecológica a largo plazo (Long Term Ecological Research, LTER) maneja problemas que abarcan décadas o plazos más largos. El programa y su nombre formal comenzaron en Estados Unidos en 1980. Si bien los estudios y observaciones a largo plazo comenzaron tempranamente en 1400 y 1800 en Asia y Europa, respectivamente, el enfoque a largo plazo no se formalizó sino hasta el establecimiento de los programas de investigación ecológica de largo plazo en Estados Unidos. Estos programas han permitido experimentos (...) a nivel de ecosistemas y comparaciones entre sitios que condujeron a una mejor comprensión de la estructura y funcionamiento de la biosfera. El enfoque ecosistémico holístico de esta iniciativa permite también la incorporación de la dimensión humana en la ecología, y recientemente ha dado lugar al nuevo concepto de investigación socio-ecológica de largo plazo (LTSER). Hoy los programas de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo existen en por lo menos 32 países (esto es, los miembros de la Red Internacional de Investigación Ecológica a Largo Plazo o ILTER (International Long Term Ecological Research). Sin embargo, la consolidación de la red internacional dentro del paradigma de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo todavía requiere: (1) inclusión de algunas regiones remotas del mundo que aún están poco representadas, como el suroeste de América del Sur; (2) modificaciones en el tipo de investigación realizado, tales como la integración de las ciencias sociales y naturales con las humanidades y la ética, y (3) la incorporación de las conclusiones y resultados dentro de los procesos sociales y políticos. En este contexto, la naciente red de investigación socio-ecológica a largo plazo en Chile, que se extiende en el rango latitudinal más largo de bosque templado en el Hemisferio Sur, agrega una nueva región remota a las investigaciones ecológicas de largo plazo que había sido pasada por alto anteriormente. Además, la colaboración con la Universidad de North Texas y otros asociados internacionales ayuda a desarrollar un enfoque interdisciplinario para integrar las ciencias ecológicas y la filosofía ambiental, junto con los conocimientos ecológicos tradicionales, la educación informal y formal, la política, las humanidades, los procesos socio-políticos y la conservación biocultural. (shrink)

El estudio de la obra de Arturo A. Roig pone en evidencia su carácter de "clásico" de la filosofía "nuestroamericana". En efecto, el filósofo ha instituido categorías nuevas, redefinido otras más tradicionales, explorado vías para enriquecer el acervo filosófico con saberes provenientes de otras formas discursivas, escritas o populares trasmitidas por el lenguaje oral, y formado un discipulado prestigioso. Esta producción en su integridad, aun los estudios sobre la Historia de las Ideas Latinoamericanas, fue concebida por su autor como ancilla (...) emancipationis, una "filosofía del concernimiento" en términos de la Filosofía Intercultural. Como homenaje al Maestro Arturo A. Roig se comunica aquí un breve desarrollo teórico que incorpora las categorías de "a priori antropológico" y "moralidades emergentes", así como las redefiniciones de "ciudadanía" y "dignidad humana", a una investigación filosófica intercultural en curso sobre las "ciudadanías interculturales emergentes", resultante de las migraciones que constituyen el "fenómeno biopolítico mayor de nuestro tiempo". The study of Arturo A. Roig's work highlights his character as a "classic" of Our American philosophy. Indeed, the philosopher has instituted new categories, redefined more traditional ones, he has also explored new ways to enrich the philosophical wealth with the knowledge coming from other discursive forms, whether written or popular traditions transmitted orally, and he has built a prestigious discipleship. The totality of his production, even his studies on the History of Latin American Ideas, has been conceived as an ancilla emancipationis, "a philosophy of concern", as Intercultural Philosophy formulates it. Thus, as a homage to the Master Arturo A. Roig this contribution exposes a brief theoretical development incorporating as well the categories "anthropological a priori" and "emerging moralities", as the redefinitions of "citizenship" and "human dignity", to an actual philosophical enquiry on the "emerging intercultural citizenship" which results from the international migrations. (shrink)

Praising wishful thinking is a serious risk that I am willing to run not only in this article commenting of Natalie Stoljar’s work but also elsewhere in my own scholarship. Although I will analyze her claims and will agree mostly with them, I will criticize her for stopping one step short adopting the desirability or weaker claim, when in it is not merely possible but necessary to go one step beyond arguing for the necessity or stronger claim. Accordingly, I intend (...) to present further grounds for endorsing “conceptual (legal) analysis pluralism” by distinguishing the three different inquiry or projects that are and must be integrated and stating the normative priority of one of them, i.e. the prescriptive, interpretive, and moral.Resumen:Alabar el “pensamiento ilusorio y bien intencionado” es un riesgo que estoy dispuesto a correr no solamente en este artículo para comentar el trabajo de Natalie Stoljar sino además en el resto de mi producción académica. Aun cuando voy a analizar su argumento y voy a estar de acuerdo en la mayor parte con ella, también la voy a criticar por detenerse un paso antes al adoptar la tesis de la deseabilidad o tesis débil, cuando no es meramente posible sino necesario ir un paso más allá al adoptar la tesis de la necesidad o tesis fuerte. Para tal efecto, intento presentar algunas razones adicionales para apoyar el “pluralismo del análisis (jurídico) conceptual” al distinguir las tres investigaciones o proyectos diferentes que están y deben estar integrados y establecer la prioridad normativa de uno de ellos, i.e. prescriptivo, interpretivo y moral. (shrink)

Aune acknowledges in his preface that his greatest intellectual debt is to Wilfrid Sellars to whom the book is dedicated. And the influence of Sellars is manifest throughout the book. Many of Sellars' characteristic themes and approaches as well as his general synoptic vision of man in the world are echoed in these pages. But Aune develops these in fresh and novel ways. A detailed critique of the "foundation" picture of empirical knowledge is the leitmotif of this study, (...) and many of the philosophic ramifications of a rejection of "myth of the given" in its many varieties are sketched for us. Knowledge neither has nor requires such a foundation. Aune explores the consequences of this "new" orientation for such traditional problems as the nature of "privacy," "mind-body," the nature of thought and sensations, and the relation of scientific theory to common sense. Throughout there is an attempt to give just due to the claims of ordinary language and those of theoretical science. Although this study is not really "an introduction to Theory of Knowledge and the Philosophy of Mind," it is a good introduction to a comprehensive theory that has been emerging on the American philosophic scene during the past few decades.--R. J. B. (shrink)

La reprise des travaux aux « Magasins Dessenne » au cours des années 2012 et 2013 avait permis de réévaluer l’histoire de l’édifice à l’aune de nouvelles observations architecturales. Certaines des hypothèses émises par le fouilleur A. Dessenne et par différents chercheurs concernant le phasage de l’édifice avaient été revues. Nous proposions en effet de voir dans la ruine non pas deux édifices distincts de part et d’autre d’un corridor central, mais plutôt un noyau initial auquel se seraient...

Philosophy long sought to set knowledge on a firm foundation, through derivation of indubitable truths by infallible rules. For want of such truths and rules, the enterprise foundered. Nevertheless, foundationalism's heirs continue their forbears' quest, seeking security against epistemic misfortune, while their detractors typically espouse unbridled coherentism or facile relativism. Maintaining that neither stance is tenable, Catherine Elgin devises a via media between the absolute and the arbitrary, reconceiving the nature, goals, and methods of epistemology. In Considered Judgment, she argues (...) for a reconception that takes reflective equilibrium as the standard of rational acceptability. A system of thought is in reflective equilibrium when its components are reasonable in light of one another, and the account they comprise is reasonable in light of our antecedent convictions about the subject it concerns.Many epistemologists now concede that certainty is a chimerical goal. But they continue to accept the traditional conception of epistemology's problematic. Elgin suggests that in abandoning the quest for certainty we gain opportunities for a broader epistemological purview--one that comprehends the arts and does justice to the sciences. She contends that metaphor, fiction, emotion, and exemplification often advance understanding in science as well as in art. The range of epistemology is broader and more variegated than is usually recognized. Tenable systems of thought are neither absolute nor arbitrary. Although they afford no guarantees, they are good in the way of belief. (shrink)

Written for the general reader and the student of moral philosophy, this book provides a clear and unified treatment of Kant's theory of morals. Bruce Aune takes into account all of Kant's principal writings on morality and presents them in a contemporary idiom. Originally published in 1980. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important (...) books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

How do feminists in the United Kingdom view spirituality and religion? What are their religious and spiritual attitudes, beliefs, and practices? What role do spirituality and religion play in feminists’ lives? This article presents findings from an interview-based study of 30 feminists in England, Scotland, and Wales. It identifies three characteristics of feminists’ approaches to religion and spirituality: They are de-churched, are relational, and emphasize practice. These features warrant a new approach to feminists’ relationships with religion and spirituality. Rather than, (...) as others have done, equating feminism with secularism, secularization, or alternative spiritualities, the article reveals the complex ways feminists forge religio-spiritual lives. The interview data demonstrate that it is unwise to see “spirituality” and “religion” as analytically distinct. Instead, drawing on the growing field of scholarship on “lived religion,” the article proposes conceptualizing feminist spirituality as lived religion. (shrink)

Many philosophers believe that the traditional problem of our knowledge of the external world was dissolved by Wittgestein and others. They argue that it was not really a problem - just a linguistic `confusion' that did not actually require a solution. Bruce Aune argues that they are wrong. He casts doubt on the generally accepted reasons for putting the problem aside and proposes an entirely new approach. By considering the history of the problem from Descartes to Kant, Aune (...) shows that analogous arguments create difficulties for the contemporary philosophical consensus. He makes it clear that the problem remains acute, particualarly for our understanding of scientific evidence. The solution he proposes draws upon contemporary philosophy of science and probability theory. (shrink)

Philosophers writing on the subject of human action have found it tempting to introduce their subject by raising Wittgenstein's question, 'What is left over if you subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?' The presumption is that something of particular interest is involved in an action of raising an arm that is not present in a mere bodily movement, and the philosopher's task is to specify just what this is. Unfortunately, such (...) an approach does not take us very far, since a person could properly be said to raise his (or her) arm while asleep or hypnotized even though he (or she) would not be performing an action in the sense of 'action' with which philosophers are particularly concerned. To avoid this kind of difficulty I shall approach the subject of human action is a more academic way: I shall expound some important rival theories of human action, and introduce the relevant issues by commenting critically on those theories. One of the issues I eventually introduce is a metaphysical one. A theory of action makes sense, I contend, only on the assumption that there are such 'things' as actions (or events). After considering some key arguments bearing on the issue I conclude that, as matters currently stand in philosophy, a metaphysically noncommittal attitude toward actions and events seems justified. (shrink)

A comprehensive introductory study of the key concepts and problems in traditional and contemporary metaphysics. Aune presents and defends a point of view that is naturalistic, nominalistic and pragmatic-an approach that has the overall advantage of providing a coherent, structured view of the topics he discusses.