Political Views, Misc

This article argues that secularism is not neutral. Secularization is a process, the secular state is a structure, whereas secularism is a political philosophy. Secularism takes two main forms: first, a “benevolent” secularism that endeavours to treat all religious and nonreligious belief systems even-handedly, and, second, a “hostile” kind that privileges unbelief and excludes religion from the public sphere. I analyze the European Court of Human Rights decision in Lautsi v Italy, which illustrates these types. The article concludes that secularism (...) as a political philosophy cannot be neutral, and the secular state is not neutral in its effects, standpoint, governing assumptions or treatment of religious truth claims. (shrink)

Karl Popper and Leo Strauss were two German speaking philosophers of Jewish descent, both having lived under Hitler’s rule, deeply disturbed by the events of the Holocaust; both leaving their homelands to settle in English speaking countries and adopting the teaching profession. In spite of so many similarities, no two persons could have such opposing personalities as these two men. It is strange how similar experiences could lead to the development of completely opposite philosophies. On the one hand we have (...) the peaceful and quiet politics of Popper, simple and straight forward, understandable and like a scientific theory open to criticism and verification. On the other hand however, are the political views of Strauss, a mystery wrapped in an enigma, leaving one to wonder where Strauss talks esoterically and where he is what he is, leaving behind a string of questions never to be answered with surety. This article is a comparison of the political views of Popper and Strauss. (shrink)

There was a period in the latter nineteenth century when a distinctively American kind of radicalism flourished, a time when key thinkers could be called, and called themselves, individualists, libertarians, anarchists, and socialists all at once. McElroy gives us a window on the people and times involved. But her work is of more than antiquarian interest: their debates and the issues they faced often sound strikingly modern.

Review of essays by Bernstein, in translation. This book review could also be entitled “John Dewey: Old and New”, recalling a distant resemblance to one of the most well known books of Dewey, Individualism Old and New (1930). But in this case the subject pursued under this title would be the development in the reception of John Dewey’s work in the past century. This is a genuine hermeneutical reflection on the significance of one of the most important American intellectuals in (...) the present day. (shrink)

What is kitsch? The varieties of phenomena which can fall under the name are bewildering. Here, I focus on what has been called “traditional kitsch,” and argue that it often turns on the emotional effect specifically captured by Edmund Burke’s concept of “beauty” from his 1757 'A Philosophical Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful.' Burkean beauty also serves to distinguish “traditional kitsch” from other phenomena also often called “kitsch”—namely, entertainment. Although I argue that Burkean beauty in domestic decoration allows for (...) us to see “traditional kitsch” as resting on natural and even healthy impulses, I also argue that an all-too-common political function of traditional kitsch directs it to dangerous ends. (shrink)

This is an afterword to the book by Shivdeep Grewal - in this afterword I offer some thoughts about a 'philosophy of the European Union' and whether the EU is to be understood as a political means or an end. This distinction turns on whether one considers the EU as a network (patterns of connection) or as a system (structured relations of parts to the whole).

In tracing historically the development of Filipino philosophy as traditionally conceived, the author discovered that the early Filipino philosophers were Enlightenment thinkers. This was the direct consequence of the Filipino colonial experience and the explanation why the trajectory of Filipino philosophy is basically Western in orientation.

Discourse since September 11, 2001 has constrained and shaped public discussion and debate surrounding terrorism worldwide. Social actors in the Americas, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere employ the language of the "war on terror" to explain, react to, justify and understand a broad range of political, economic, and social phenomena. Discourse, War and Terrorism explores the discursive production of identities, the shaping of ideologies, and the formation of collective understandings in response to 9/11 in the United States and (...) around the world. At issue are how enemies are defined and identified, how political leaders and citizens react, and how members of societies understand their position in the world in relation to terrorism. Contributors to this volume represent diverse sub-fields involved in the critical study of language, including perspectives from sociocultural linguistics, communication, media, cultural and political studies. (shrink)

For some contemporary liberal philosophers, a huge concern is liberal neutrality, which is the idea that the state should be neutral among competing conceptions of the moral good pursued by the people. In The Morality of Freedom, Joseph Raz argues that we can neither achieve nor even approximate such neutrality. He shows that neutrality and fairness are different ideas. His notion of neutrality is stricter than John Rawls's and Ronald Dworkin's. Raz shows that both helping and not helping can be (...) neutral or non-neutral, thus neutrality is chimerical. Wojciech Sadurski's appeal to rational expectations does not necessarily tell us which action is neutral. Distinguishing between comprehensive and narrow neutrality, Raz also claims that only the former is a proper response to conflicts. Sadurski criticizes it, claiming that conflicts are comprehensive in a sense which does not deny the adequacy of the narrow neutrality. In reality, however, it is almost impossible to achieve even the narrow neutrality. A theory is presented to explain why political neutrality is almost impossible to achieve. Philosophically, there is no neutral ground for neutral politics. (shrink)

Resumen En este trabajo abordamos del papel de la ideología y distintas formas de interpelación en las elecciones presidenciales de Argentina en 2015.Partimos de dos imputaciones cruzadas: la que surge del kirchnerismo, enfatizando el rol de los medios de comunicación masivos sobre los sectores medios y populares, y la respuesta progresista que insiste en una serie de motivos materiales de insatisfacción de estos sectores, a los que el kirchnerismo, afectado por una " miopía política " , no atendió durante su (...) gobierno y a los que desconoció en su discurso de campaña electoral, dejándolos librados a la interpelación por una forma de " individualismo miope ". Insistimos en que estas atribuciones cruzadas de ideologismo constituyen un campo ideológico por sí mismo, cuyo presupuesto común es el individualismo. A partir de allí intentamos comprender las condiciones histórico-políticas en la Argentina del siglo XX que hacen del individualismo una evidencia ideológica fundante en la Argentina del siglo XXI. Abstract In this paper we consider the role of ideology and different forms of interpellation in the presidential electionsof 2015 in Argentina. We start analyzing two crossed imputations: one, sustained by Kirchnerism, stresses the influence of mass media over popular sectors, which would have conducted them to vote against their own interests. The leftist answer to that imputation insists on a series of material reasons of thesesectors to be unsatisfied with Kirchnerism. Kirchnerism, affected by a " political myopia " , would have misrecognized the real situation of popular sectors during his government as well as during the electoral campaign, leaving them consequently exposed to an interpellation that we call " myopic individualism ". We argue that these mutual imputations of individualism constitute an ideological field by itself whose common ideological presupposition is individualism. We try to understand the historical political conditions in the Argentinean history of the XXth century of these foundationalideologicalevidences of the Argentine of the XXIth century. Keywords: discourse, juridical ideology, individualism, interpellation, Kirchnerism. (shrink)

Contemporary political philosophy in the West is the philosophy of democracy, is democratic theory. Philosophy under democracy has become complacent. Even the recent reaffirmation of communism by influential philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek failed to inspire a significant following. There has been no radical philosophical reaction to the near-collapse of the capitalist economic system, mainly because any criticism of capitalism would imply a criticism of democracy ("the best possible political shell for capitalism", as Lenin said). Techno-philosophical alternatives (...) to democracy, such as anarcho-capitalist "seasteading", and calls for the suspension of democracy to cure climate change are originating outside academic departments of philosophy. Is there still philosophy if everyone agrees? Is philosophy still philosophy if discontent with the-one-and-only-truth can only be voiced from outside the academy? Or does political philosophy more and more resemble Plato's cave? This paper will venture outside the cave, outside the comfort zone of western academic philosophy as always-already-democratic. Only in this way can it seek to engage in a meaningful dialogue with non-western worldviews. Only by stepping into the light will we illuminate why still, in the twenty-first century, scholars may be justified in studying not democracy, but anti-democracy. Where are the niches of anti-democratic thought that may yet save us from the destruction wrought upon the world by the failing capitalist-democratic complex? What are the political trends against democracy we miss at our peril and what are their philosophical implications, worldwide? What are the new alternatives to democracy that emerge in our day? Free of self-imposed prejudice, this paper rejects the boycott of thought that does not comply with western inhibitions, and refuses to shy away from the encounter of philosophical positions emanating from non-democratic political practices. Philosophy is not blind, it does not condone any ideologies uncritically, and philosophy does not equal democracy. (shrink)

In a historical and cross-cultural perspective the fact cannot be denied that most democracies failed. Many formerly democratic countries do not have a democratic government now. Many countries have never known democracy. Only western democracies for a short while - maybe to be dated from the fall of Soviet communism to the rise of radical Islam - believed themselves invincible. It seems therefore expedient to think about political alternatives once more and to study threats to democracy from within and without (...) as well as common modes of failure of democracy and democratization across times and cultures. Will people's disillusion with democratic practices (such as the impact money has on campaigning), mass politics, and the equal inconsequence of everyone's vote ultimately terminate democracy? Oswald Spengler, in "The Decline of the West", said: "As then sceptre and crown, so now people's rights are paraded for the multitude, and all the more punctiliously the less they really signify." Still, all known political alternatives may have discredited themselves. The competing political systems of the twentieth century lost their struggle for world domination. Anti-democratic thought may be directed against a particular form of democracy only or against every form of democracy imaginable. Wherever a form of democracy arose or was proposed, it also found its critics and opponents. Historically, anti-democratic thought directed against abstract democratic principles and ideals most often originated from supporters of competing political systems such as guardianship, absolute monarchy, aristocratic government, collectivist anarchism, socialism, communism, fascism, or theocracy. Parliamentarism has thus been criticized by thinkers as diverse as Carl Schmitt ("Political Theology"), Vladimir Lenin ("The State and Revolution") and H.G. Wells ("After Democracy"). Many anti-democratic individualists on the other hand have felt coerced by majority decisions regardless of democracy's claim to be the political system least obstructive to individual liberty - as evidenced for example by the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner in "The Ego and Its Own". Criticisms of democracy purporting to propose ways of improving democratic processes and performance and/or the political participation of the people over against liberal democracy have arisen chiefly within the context of particular countries and their singular experience with democracy. Recently proposed measures to address democratic disenchantment and what has been called the post-democratic condition include selection of office bearers by lot (sortition), re-localization of decision-making to the community level, as well as emergent forms of electronic direct democracy. All alternative (that is, non-liberal) forms of democracy that have been proposed - while professing to capture the true essence of democracy - seem virtually indistinguishable from both anti-democratic thought and non-democratic forms of government. (shrink)

After the independence drive in Catalonia, we are forced back to reflect on the post-national vision for a unified Europe. Post-nationalism, at least as Habermas understands it, requires ethnic identities be replaced by rational-ideological bonds as the cornerstone of state-formation. Whether that political theory is valid remains up to debate. Yet, we must admit that post-nationalism is not the reality. The idea that we now live in a world beyond national and ethnic divides is nothing more than a preposterous pretension; (...) radical pushes toward European integration, without regard for national awareness, will surely prove to be unwise. (shrink)

THE EXISTENTIAL CONDITION OF THE IJAWS IN THE EMERGING SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL MILIEU OF NIGERIA. By Ebo Socrates, PhD. -/- Nigeria is a hybrid nation of over two hundred and fifty ethnic nationalities. The Ijaws as a people among the multitude of peoples that have come to constitute the geographic expression and sovereign entity known as Nigeria, find themselves enmeshed in the fluctuating socio-economic milieu of Nigeria. They as well as other ethnic nationalities that constitute Nigeria, found themselves bound to (...) the contingencies and exigencies of the nation-state called Nigeria not by act of will or treaty but by the Lugardian fiat which in itself was a full expression of the British imperialist will to power. By fiat and history, a country was made; the country is Nigeria, its people simply are; a fact of history. Their mode of being however, is a confluence of contraction and progress. So many models of nationhood explicates Nigeria. But Nigeria, is undeniably a “torn” nation. In the words of Samuel Huntington, a nation of conflicting civilizations: the Islamic civilization and the Judeo-Christian civilization. The Ijaws, an oil rich minority tribe found themselves entwined and involved in the destiny of this phenomenal nation called Nigeria. Has such an entwinement been a curse or blessing? Have the Ijaws significant power in the organogram of the Nigerian nationhood? Are they tossed about by the tide and flow of events or are they active movers in the making of the Nigerian history? This paper critically looks at these existential realities and elucidates the existential condition of the Ijaws in the contemporary Nigeria . (shrink)

Resumen: Tanto Perry Anderson como Alex Callinicos y Terry Eagleton han desarrollado un trabajo cultural y filosófico sobresaliente. Sin embargo, los tres han malinterpretado la obra de Ludwig Wittgenstein. La concepción de la filosofía de Wittgenstein no está en tensión con la filosofía marxista en el modo en el que ellos lo sugirieron y Wittgenstein no cometió los errores que le atribuyeron Anderson, Callinicos e Eagleton. Los marxistas se beneficiarían si consideraran más seriamente la obra de Wittgenstein porque ello los (...) ayudaría a comprender más claramente la naturaleza de los problemas epistemológicos y metafísicos como así también los ayudaría a fortalecer y complementar sus propias concepciones de las confusiones filosóficas. En este trabajo examinaré los errores de sus interpretaciones de Wittgenstein y espero también poder proporcionar alguna indicación de las razones por las cuales Wittgenstein es considerado por muchos como el filósofo más importante del siglo XX. (shrink)

Scottish and French Enlightenment J. Mackintosh and the revolution controversy in Great Britain -/- Author / Authors : Dr. Eleni Xilakis Page no. 79-88 Discipline : Political Science/Polity/ Democratic studies Script/language : Roman/English Category : Research paper Keywords: Scottish and French Enlightenment, J. Mackintosh, the revolution controversy in Great Britain.