4 found
Sort by:
  1. Vida Pavesich (2014). Vulnerability, Power, and Gender: An Anthropological Mediation Between Critical Theory and Poststructuralism. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 22 (1):3-34.
    This article addresses what philosophical anthropology may contribute to the debate between critical theory and poststructuralism. It examines one prong of Amy Allen’s critique of Judith Butler’s collapse of normal dependency into subjection. Allen is correct that Butler’s assessment of agency necessary for political action in inadequate theoretically. However, I believe that some accounting of the nature of the being for whom suffering and flourishing matter is necessary. To this end, I provide an ontogenesis of intentionality as a response to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Vida Pavesich (2011). The Anthropology of Hope and the Philosophy of History: Rethinking Kant's Third and Fourth Questions with Blumenberg and McCarthy. Thesis Eleven 104 (1):20-39.
    In order to address the question of hope in the present, it behooves us to revisit Kant’s third and fourth questions: ‘What may we hope?’ and ‘What is the human being?’ I reexamine these questions through an analysis of Thomas McCarthy’s recent book Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development and several works by Hans Blumenberg. I agree with McCarthy that Kant’s anthropology is incomplete and that the postmodern rejection of macronarratives was premature, but I claim that he requires (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Vida Pavesich (2008). Hans Blumenberg's Philosophical Anthropology: After Heidegger and Cassirer. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (3):pp. 421-448.
    In this paper, I situate Hans Blumenberg historically and conceptually in relation to a subtheme in the famous debate between Martin Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer at Davos, Switzerland in 1929. The subtheme concerns Heidegger’s and Cassirer’s divergent attitudes toward philosophical anthropology as it relates to the starting points and goals of philosophy. I then reconstruct Blumenberg’s anthropology, which involves reconceptualizing Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms in relation to Heidegger’s objections to the philosophical anthropology of his day (e.g., Max Scheler, Helmuth (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Vida Pavesich (2000). Gender and Hans Blumenberg's Theory of Myth. International Studies in Philosophy 32 (4):83-105.