Online research in philosophy

Herbert Marcuse's late 1970s essay "Ecology and the Critique of Modern Society," written shortly before his death in 1979 and published here for the first time, articulates his vision of liberation and sense of the importance of ecology for the radical project. The essay argues that genuine ecology requires a transformation of human nature, as well as the preservation and protection of external nature from capitalist and state communist pollution and destruction. Rooting his vision of human liberation in the Frankfurt School notion of the embeddedness of human beings in nature, Marcuse believed that until aggression and violence within human beings was diminished, there would necessarily be continued destruction of nature, as well as violence against other human beings. Consequently, Marcuse stressed the importance of radical psychology and transforming inner nature, both to preserve external nature and to diminish violence in society.

"Let's go inside nature," says my host, ecophilosopher Nils Faarlund, as we walk out of his small wooden cabin and into the Norwegian countryside. Faarlund is fond of such novel turns of phrase. As we enjoy local strawberries, Faarlund muses on how our everyday language both shapes and reflects our perceptions of the world. Recognizing the power of words, he is extremely careful about the language he uses. For instance, he avoids the term "environmental philosopher" because the word "environment" already puts the speaker on the fringes, looking out at her surroundings rather than seeing them as her home, as the eco- in ecophilosopher suggests. By talking about nature in both careful and novel ways, Faarlund ..

Science generates an image of nature as devoid of meaning or value. and this image makes moral limits on the human manipulation of nature appear irrational. In part. this results from the particular kind of abstraction that constitutes scientific activity. For both epistemological and practical reasons. this abstract ion should not be taken as the only reality of nature. Such mis-taking becomes increasingly Iikely-and dangerous-as science and technology are used in the construction of the world within which we experience nature and ourselves. Three alternative images of nature are discussed to indicate other possibilities. Imaging nature as an interconnected network. a view rooted in both ecology and Buddhism. is a more comprehensive and adcquate foundation for conceptualizing the practical and ethical dimensions of humanity’s relation with nature.

Marcus J. is a mathematician extraordinaire. Because it is no longer politically correct to use ivory, the tower in which he is hermetically sealed is made of recycled plastics. In his tower, walled off from the rest of the world, he pursues mathematics. Having started out modestly with theorizing that flipping two coins will yield two heads with a probability of 25%, he has lately gone on to more ambitious projects. Most recently he has published a paper, earning wide acclaim, in which he has theorized that, since there are exactly four possible pairings (female-female; male-male; female-male; and male-female) of adult human beings, there is, then, a 25% probability that a household is headed by two women; a 25% probability that a household is headed by two men; and a 50% probability that a household is headed by one man and one woman.

While neither Hegel nor Marx can be called “ecologists” in any strict sense of the term, they both present views of the human-nature relationship which offer important insights for contemporary debates in philosophical ecology. Further, while Marx and Engels began a tradition of sharply distinguishing their own views of nature from those of Hegel, careful examination reveals a substantial commonality of sentiment. The essay compares Hegel and Marx (and Engels) in terms of their basic conceptions of nature, their critiques of Romanitic nature-worship, their notions of how a meaningful unity with nature requires the act of socially transforming nature, their respective calls for a new science of nature, and their attitudes towards technology. I argue that we can uncover a largely shared humanistic orientation toward nature, and I situate this view within contemporary debates about the anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric foundation of ecological thinking.

As Aristotle recognized in THE POLITICS, the household is an indispensable building block of social, economic, and political life. A liberal society grants its citizens far wider berth to arrange their households than to choose their familial and marital relationships. Legal commentators, however, have devoted far more attention to the family and to marriage than to the household as such. To unpack the household, this Article applies transaction cost economics and sociological theory to interactions among household participants. It explores questions such as the structure of ownership of dwelling units, the scope of household production, and the governance of activities around the hearth. Drawing on a wide variety of historical and statistical sources, the Article contrasts conventional family-based households with arrangements in, among others, medieval English castles, Benedictine monasteries, and Israeli kibbutzim. Most households involve several participants and as many as three distinct relationships - that among occupants, that among owners, and that between these two groups (the landlord-tenant relationship). Individuals, when structuring these home relationships, typically pursue a strategy of consorting with intimates. This facilitates informal coordination and greatly reduces the transaction costs of domestic interactions. Utopian critics, however, have sought to enlarge the scale of households, and some legal advocates have urged household members to write formal contracts and take disputes into court. These commentators fail to appreciate the great advantages, in the home setting, of informally associating with a few trustworthy intimates.

Among ancient writers Aristotle offers the most profound analysis of the ancient Greek household and its relationship to the state. The household was not the family in the modern sense of the term, but a much more powerful entity with significant economic, political, social, and educational resources. The success of the polis in all its forms lay in the reliability of households to provide it with the kinds of citizens it needed to ensure its functioning. In turn, the state offered the members of its households a unique opportunity for humans to flourish. This book explains how Aristotle thought household and state interacted within the polis.