Unlike the first generation of critical theorists, contemporary critical theory has largely ignored technology. This is to the detriment of a critical theory of society – technology is now a central feature of our daily lives and integral to the contemporary form of capitalism. Rather than seek to rescue the first generation’s substantive theory of technology, which has been partly outmoded by historical developments, the approach adopted in this article is to engage with today’s technology through the conceptual apparatus offered (...) by the early Frankfurt School. This rationale is guided by the conviction that the core ideas of critical theory still offer a sound basis for assessing the nature of technology today. Through a reconstruction and engagement with some of the core concepts of first-generation critical theory, as well as the work of Bernard Stiegler and Andrew Feenberg, we can arrive at a more robust theory of technology, capable of critically interrogating the role of technology in contemporary society. (shrink)

TRANSLATED WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY KARSTEN HARRIES THE following is a translation of Martin Heidegger, Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität. Rede, gehalten bei der feierlichen Übernahme des Rektorats der Universität Freiburg i. Br. am 27. 5. 1933 and Das Rektorat 1933/34. Tatsachen und Gedanken. The former was first published by Korn Verlag, Breslau, in 1933. It was republished in 1983, together with Heidegger's later remarks on his rectorate, by Vittorio Klostermann in Frankfurt am Main.

For generations, critical social theorists have turned to the framing of ‘pathology’ to provide a theoretical infrastructure for their critique. Such an approach famously undergirds much of the Frankfurt School’s canonical work. Axel Honneth, current chair of the Institute of Social Research, continues this tradition. While Frankfurt School approaches have largely tied pathology diagnosis to a critique of historically mediated reason, a plurality of alternate conceptions exist. With the ascendancy of an intersubjective approach to critical social theory, the pathologies of (...) the social have increasingly been comprehended as ‘pathologies of recognition’. Advocates of such a framing point to the ease of establishing an immanent basis to their critique, and of the empirical evidence supporting the need for recognition. Yet, today’s academy is increasingly spilt between those who embrace a ‘pathologies of recognition’ framework, and those who consider the development a ‘domestication’ of the Critical Theoretical tradition. This special issue brings together contributors from both sides of this divide. While the optimal framing of social pathology remains contested, the contributors to this collection are committed to furthering forms of social critique which transcend the limited liberal framings of injustice and illegitimacy. (shrink)

Frankfurt, Harry. The Reasons of Love. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004.

Frankfurt, Harry. The Reasons of Love. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2004.

In this paper, I want to give an interpretation of Harry Frankfurt’s complex theory of the will with respect to the issue of “autonomy and necessity”. My central claim is that Frankfurt’s employment of the concept of the will is equivocal. He actually uses three distinct conceptions of the will without ever distinguishing them from one another. I shall introduce and justify such a clarifying tripartite distinction. Although my discussion will be limited to Frankfurt’s view of the will, this (...) distinction and the points made about its components can easily be generalized. In my opinion, then, such a tripartite distinction must form an essential part of any rich theory of the will.Both the first and the second conception of the will can readily be understood within the scope of the debate between compatibilism and incompatibilism. The third conception, however, transcends the framework of this classical opposition because the autonomy of this third kind of will positively requires necessity. Autonomy is not only compatible with necessity : according to the third conception, the former also intrinsically involves the latter. Although this conception of the will is somewhat unfamiliar and non-standard in the debate, I shall try to show that it captures an important fact about our volitional nature — a deep fact which is often overlooked or neglected. (shrink)

An conversation with Harry Frankfurt about his views on love, free will, and responsibility, as well as his general approach to philosophy. (Note: a revised version appears in Alex Voorhoeve, Conversations on Ethics, OUP 2009).

Harry Frankfurt's conception of care and love has largely been considered a seductive theory of personality, but an untenable and irresponsible theory of moral normativity. Contrary to that interpretation, this article aims at showing that it is possible to remain faithful to Frankfurt's metaphysical premises while not falling into some moral relativism. First, by comparing Frankfurt's and Heidegger's conceptions of care, I show that Frankfurt's subordination of ethics to carology apparently commits him to a neutral foundationalism. In the next (...) step, I argue that his calling into question of the relation between rationality and morality does indeed subject moral normativity to some subjective and contingent limits. And finally, I show that the objections raised against such a conclusion can be answered by shifting Frankfurt's frontier between contingency and necessity and by exploiting his concept of wholeheartedness. (shrink)

A retrospective essay, written for the 125th anniversary of Ethics.

In his article, “Equality as a Moral Ideal”, Harry Frankfurt argues against economic egalitarianism and presents what he calls the “doctrine of sufficiency.” According to the doctrine of sufficiency, what is morally important is not relative economic equality, but rather, whether somebody has enough, where “having enough” is a non-comparative standard of reasonable contentment that may differ from person to person given his/her aims and circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to show that Frankfurt’s original arguments in support (...) for his doctrine of sufficiency have critical problems that Frankfurt himself does not properly recognize. In the end, I will argue that in order to solve these problems the doctrine of sufficiency cannot help but to incorporate certain prioritarian commitments – commitments which many would view as implying economic egalitarianism. This is embarrassing for a doctrine whose raison d’être was mainly to defeat economic egalitarianism. (shrink)

이 글은 의지의 양가성 개념을 분석한다. 특히 영미철학계에서 이 개념을 최초로 정립한 프랭크퍼트가 그것을 어떤 식으로 자리매김하는지를 모색한다. 프랭크퍼트는 욕구의 중층 구조를 이론화한 것으로 잘 알려져 있다. 욕구의 구조에 대한 일반적인 설명을 시도하기도 하지만 프랭크퍼트는 그것의 매우 특수한 경우도 다룬다. ‘쥐 인간’(rat man)으로 알려진 프로이트의 사례 연구를 모형으로 프랭크퍼트는 양극의 욕구를 가진 자아 분열 상황을 다룬다. 이 글은 두 가지 논의로 구성된다. 논의의 전반부는 프랭크퍼트의 양가가치 개념을 설명한다. 이를 통해 양가가치의 부정성이 그 이론내에서 명확히 제시되지 못한 한계를 드러낸다. 후반부에서 나는 (...) 그것의 부정성을 세 가지 방식으로 해명한다. 이 중 처음의 두 시도는 어떤 측면에서는 세 번째 시도를 위한 준비 작업에 해당한다. 나는 양가가치의 부정성에 대해 인격통합성 개념과 관련해서만 그 의미 파악이 가능함을 주장할 것이다. 이 주장을 통해 프랭크퍼트 이론의 내적 정합성을 공격하기보다는 그의 이론에서 미해결로 남아 있는 부분을 해결하고자 한다. (shrink)

Peut-on être blâmé pour ses croyances? Bien qu’il s’agisse d’une pratique courante et en apparence légitime, le blâme doxastique entre en conflit avec deux thèses intuitivement plausibles. D’un côté, il semble que nous puissions seulement être blâmés pour ce qui est sous notre contrôle volontaire. Mais de l’autre, il est largement admis que la croyance est un état fondamentalement passif et involontaire. Il s’ensuit que nous ne pouvons jamais être blâmés pour nos croyances. Le présent article examine la réponse que (...) propose Christoph Jäger à cet argument. Sa stratégie consiste à invoquer le rejet, par Harry Frankfurt, du principe des possibilités alternatives contre la thèse voulant que nous puissions seulement être blâmés pour nos croyances si elles sont sous notre contrôle volontaire. J’aimerais montrer que l’argument de Jäger n’est pas concluant et, plus généralement, que la stratégie qu’il adopte aboutit inévitablement à un dilemme. (shrink)

Harry Frankfurt has a comprehensive and, at times, compelling, account of love, which are outlined in several of his works. However, he does not think that romantic love fits the ideal of love as it ‘includes a number of vividly distracting elements, which do not belong to the essential nature of love as a mode of disinterested concern’. In this paper, I argue that we can, nonetheless, learn some important things about romantic love from his account. Furthermore, I will (...) suggest, conversely, that there is distinct value in romantic love, which derives from the nature of the relationship on which it is based. Frankfurt tries to take agape and reformulate it so that it can also account for love of particular people. Whilst he succeeds, to some extent, in describing parental love, he fails to accurately describe romantic love and friendship, and, moreover, overlooks what is distinctly valuable about them. Although it was not his intention to describe romantic love, by failing to include features such as reciprocity in his account of love, Frankfurt leaves no room for a kind of love that is important and valuable to many people. (shrink)

This is a book review. Summary: I'm not a fan.

Resumen El presente ensayo explora el alcance que poseen para la pregunta fundamental por la vida buena las reflexiones que Harry Frankfurt ha elaborado acerca de la importancia que atribuimos a ciertas cosas en general, y acerca del amor como una forma señalada en que alguien o algo puede sernos importante. Comienzo examinando las razones por las que, según el autor, resulta imposible ofrecer una respuesta no circular a dicha pregunta, razones que vuelven necesario un modo indirecto de abordarla. (...) A partir de la noción frankfurtiana de importancia propongo a continuación una crítica a la llamada teoría del deseo, el enfoque más influyente en las discusiones actuales en torno al bienestar o la vida buena. Finalmente, y luego de referirme a la necesidad, apuntada por Susan Wolf, de tomar en cuenta el valor objetivo de aquello que nos importa, presento dos consideraciones mediante las cuales intento, con y contra Frankfurt, destacar lo que me parece más valioso de sus ideas acerca del amor.This essay explores the impact of Harry Frankfurt’s reflections on the importance we attach to certain things in general, as well as on love as a marked way in which something or someone can be important to us, to the fundamental question of the good life. I begin by examining the reasons why, according to the author, it is impossible to offer a non-circular answer to this question, reasons that make necessary an indirect way of approaching it. Starting from the Frankfurtian notion of importance, I then propose a critique of the so-called theory of desire, the most influential approach in current discussions about well-being or the good life. Finally, and after referring to the need, pointed out by Susan Wolf, to take into account the objective value of what matters to us, I present two considerations through which I try, with and against Frankfurt, to highlight what seems most valuable to me of his ideas about love. (shrink)

This enviable piece of philosophy has been as successful as any other in the past three decades of the determinism and freedom debate. It has given rise to a continuing controversy. At its centre is what seems to be a refutation of what seems to be the cast-iron principle that in order for someone to be morally responsible for an action, it must be possible that he or she could have done otherwise. The principle has been assumed by philosophers persuaded (...) that determinism is incompatible with freedom and also by philosophers persuaded that determinism is compatible with freedom. However, Frankfurt's article has mainly been read as lending support to the Compatibilist idea. (shrink)

The original essays in this book address Harry Frankfurt's influential writing on personal identity, love, value, moral responsibility, and the freedom and ...

Harry Frankfurt is one of the leading contemporary analytical philosophers. His research interests are mainly free will and moral responsibility, as well as moral psychology and ethics in general. He is the author of Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen: The Defense of Reason in Descartes’s Meditations — published in 1970 with a French translation in 1989 — and numerous scholarly articles on Descartes’s philosophy. He is the editor of Leibniz: A Collection of Critical Essays which appeared in 1972 . His (...) most important book until now is The Importance of What We Care About published in 1988 and a new work, provisionally entitled Necessity, Volition, and Love is forthcoming later in 1998. (shrink)

Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting It Right is written in a manner that is accessible to all. Frankfurt’s arguments are, as usual, clear and persuasive. Korsgaard’s, Bratman’s, and Dan-Cohen’s comments are thought provoking. There are, however, two main areas in which Frankfurt’s arguments need clarification (the notion of wholehearted identification, and the concept of ambivalence), and there are misunderstandings of Frankfurt at work in Korsgaard’s (relationship between the self and the will, and concept of the will for Frankfurt) and Bratman’s (...) (meaning of "necessity" for Frankfurt) comments. (shrink)

Harry G. Frankfurt: Sobre la verdad, Barcelona: Paidós, 2007, 125 pp. Traducción de: Harry G. Frankfurt, On Truth, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Resumen: ¿Qué es la identidad de la persona? El pensamiento de Harry Frankfurt y sus enmiendas, al hilo de objeciones de Velleman, Penelhum, Watson y Korsgaard, resulta instructivo porque manifiesta los alcances y las limitaciones de una radicalización paulatina de la determinación puramente individual de la propia identidad volitiva. En este trabajo se expone esa trayectoria intelectual, que va desde los actos más controlables hasta los menos sujetos al control voluntario inmediato, pero también autoimpuestos. Al final, Frankfurt admite cierto (...) amor innato.: What is personal identity? Frankfurt’s thought and the modifications it undergoes following objections by Velleman, Penelhum, Watson and Korsgaard are instructive because they highlight the scope and limitations of a gradual radicalization of a strictly individual self-constitution of one’s own volitional identity. This article traces that intellectual trajectory, which goes from those acts most amenable to immediate voluntary control to those that are least amenable to it, but nonetheless self-imposed. In the end, Frankfurt admits there is a certain innate love. (shrink)

Harry Frankfurt has published On Inequality, but this is not the first time he has written about this subject. Frankfurt already criticized a rationalistic notion of equality on other occasions (Frankfurt, 1987 & 1997). In these works he says a rationalistic notion of equality cannot fit in with our belief that agents possess their own volitional necessities, which shape volitional structures of the human will. However, Frankfurt's explanatory connection between volitions, love and identification make it difficult to talk about (...) personal freedom. (shrink)

In 1969 Prof. Frankfurt has introduced a famous class of counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The principle that states that a person x is only responsible for an action y, if she could have done otherwise than y. In these examples a so called ‘counterfactual intervener’ figures that pre-empts all alternate possibilities counterfactually, that is, without actually intervening. Because this counterfactual intervener only looms passively in the background, x’s moral responsibility for y is not affected, whereas at the (...) same time — by stipulation — x couldn’t have done otherwise than y. Hence, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities must be false. (shrink)

In his moral psychology, Prof. Frankfurt pays special attention to two strongly related issues which should be given pride of place in every genuine account of human action and behaviour: these issues are the problem of personal autonomy and what I would like to call the problem of self-constitution. The first concerns the question what it means to be a fully human, rational agent, i.e., someone who is accountable for and in one way or another conscious of what he does (...) and desires; the second concerns the question how human beings become selves or persons with a particular identity, i.e., somebody who is not only accountable for and conscious of his or her own deeds, desires and preferences at a given time, but also able to identify with his or her personal life-history, as a through time related structure of deeds, beliefs, volitions, preferences and desires.In the following, I shall first of all formulate a rather free interpretation of the important and penetrating reflections of Prof. Frankfurt on the concept of care, which, as I understand it, accounts for the interdependence of autonomy and self-constitution. I shall then formulate a critical reflection and some related questions, more or less inspired by Charles Taylor’s investigations of the constitution of the self and the problem of rational autonomy. As is well known, Taylor has been partly influenced by Frankfurt’s writings on these issues, but of course — and that’s what my questions will be about — I leave it to Prof. Frankfurt to determine how well Taylor’s suggestive account of the constitution of the authentic self fits the Frankfurtian descriptive metaphysics of human mind and action. (shrink)