Cosmopolitan concern for the whole world is often treated as oppositional to particular collectivities, to corresponding sensibilities and to the obligations that follow from them. Tensions revolve around demands made upon the self (depending on the emphasis on the local or the global) and infuse educational discourse accordingly. Culturalism approaches the self as a culturally or multiculturally shaped identity, monopolises the terrain of cosmopolitan debate and narrows the scope of cosmopolitan education only to encouraging hybridity of selfhood and to cultivating (...) respect and tolerance of global diversity. In this article, I discuss Jeremy Waldron’s conception of cosmopolitan selfhood by drawing on the exemplary status attributed to specific manifestations of hybrid identity. What will gradually emerge from my discussion is, hopefully, a broadening of cosmopolitan demands upon the self and an emphasis on the transforming and reforming rather than the forming or informing significance of cosmopolitan education. This trans/re-forming significance is attached to a critical positioning of the subject regarding the ethico-political responsibilities of one’s home (-land, culture, commitments) that often go unnoticed. Doing one’s homework is shown to be a precondition for a cosmopolitanism understood within the order of treatment of, rather than agreement with, the Other. (shrink)

Enega izmed največjih izzivov sodobnega utopianizma predstavlja protislovje med pozitivno usmerjenostjo v prihodnost in njenimi negativnimi reprezentacijami. V nasprotju s prevladujočimi pristopi, ki so usmerjeni k širokim in vseobsegajočim opisom utopije na podlagi nekega koncepta, avtor pričujočega prispevka zagovarja prepričanje, da obstaja ustreznejši način dojemanja utopije in utopianizma, ki napreduje prek vrste dihotomij, nasprotij ali celo paradoksov. Od zgodnjih utopičnih strategij, katerim lahko sledimo več tisočletij v preteklost, do primerov iz dvajsetega in enaindvajsetega stoletja, je utopija vedno izražala nasprotujoče si (...) težnje, ki zahtevajo temeljitejšo obravnavo. Lahko si je namreč zamisliti, da v tej kontradiktorni naravi utopije leži ne samo ključ do razumevanja preteklosti in sedanjosti, temveč tudi prihodnosti. V tem kontekstu se kot najpomembnejša kaže razlika med »resnično« utopijo in »lažno« utopijo. Kljub temu, da se je v dvajsetem stoletju utopično upanje sprevrnilo v distopični strah, pot k drugačni in po možnosti boljši prihodnosti ponuja le »resnična«, ikonoklastična utopija, ki ohranja pri življenju bržkone najpomembnejši vidik človeške eksistence: upanje. (shrink)

Resumen Este trabajo parte del fenómeno de constitución del diálogo socrático como formato discursivo para avanzar en la caracterización del modo en que varios representantes de este movimiento comprenden los límites del lenguaje, su poeticidad y su capacidad para representar lo real. La critica homérica en Antístenes y de los desarrollos sobre erótica en Esquines ofrecen un contexto interesante para sopesar los desarrollos platónicos y estudiar, en el contexto de conformación de la filosofía como género autónomo, la importancia y alcances (...) de las teorizaciones acerca de la poeticidad y la potencia epistémica del lenguaje.This paper studies the formation of the Socratic dialogues discourse in order to characterize the way in which several representatives of this movement understand the limits of language, its poetic character and its capability to represent reality. Homeric criticism in Antisthenes and Erotics studies in Aeschines offer an interesting context to measure Platonic works and to study the importance and scope of the theories about the poetic character and epistemic power of language in the context in which Philosophy was formed as an autonomous genre. (shrink)

This article argues that there is a sharp opposition in Stoicism between two lines of polit cal thought: the opposition has its source in the abstract and utopian Zeno´s _Politeia_. This work would contain incentives for different and opposing developments that probably, materialize?, probably, in Persaois of Kition and Sphaerus of Borysthenes first, secondly, then in Diogenes of Babylon and Antipater of Tarsus, and, finally, in Panaetius of Rhodes and Blossius of Cumae.