This paper aims to interpret Sarah’s laugh in Gen 18:12. Sarah’s behaviour has been outlined over the years as distrustful in front of God, but her fear of the divine strangers allows a different reading. The comparison with the attitude of Lot’s sons-in-law in Gen 18:14 will help rescue Sarah from a negative evaluation, so consciousness and unconsciousness will be pointed out to be the conditions for finding God’s piety.

The discovery at Zincirli of an inscribed stele belonging to Katumuwa, servant of Panamuwa, touches upon several longstanding issues concerning the meaning of the word nbš. Although the inscription was dedicated during the lifetime of Katumuwa, the continued provision of his “nbš that is in this stele” raises questions regarding not only the term’s nuance within a postmortem context, but also the nature of feeding the dead. These issues can be addressed by carefully examining the manner by which the term’s (...) abstract and substantive forms relate to concepts of identity. The analysis of Katumuwa’s stele along with a new interpretation of Hos. 9:4 will show that nbš/נֶפֶשׁ is a ritually centered object that marks identity. In other words, postmortem identity is reified in the nbš /נֶפֶשׁ through ritual actions that include feeding the dead. This interpretation sheds new light on the substantive meaning of nbš/נֶפֶשׁ in inscriptions and in biblical literature, where the term signifies either a stele or a corpse. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Ahead of Print. If critical theory is to challenge capitalism’s corrosive commodification of labor and nature, then it should renew a sense of labor as a real bodily power with an internal telos, along the lines of an Aristotelian normativity of praxis. Recent thought however either rejects normativity altogether, or pits normative praxis against labor uncritically reduced to its commodification. Habermas’s work provides an exemplary case of the latter. While he rightly found the ‘production paradigm’ of (...) normativity problematic, his acceptance of the reified form of labor as total led to a severe divorce of praxis from the emerging contents of the body and nature. Although Aristotle also separated praxis from poiesis, his thought nevertheless harbors views of their dialectical integration without falling into the problematic production paradigm. Here the normativity of praxis emerges from poiesis understood non-reductively as the form of the self-organizing body already transforming nature and itself toward higher interactions. (shrink)

If critical theory is to challenge capitalism’s corrosive commodification of labor and nature, then it should renew a sense of labor as a real bodily power with an internal telos, along the lines of an Aristotelian normativity of praxis. Recent thought however either rejects normativity altogether, or pits normative praxis against labor uncritically reduced to its commodification. Habermas’s work provides an exemplary case of the latter. While he rightly found the ‘production paradigm’ of normativity problematic, his acceptance of the reified (...) form of labor as total led to a severe divorce of praxis from the emerging contents of the body and nature. Although Aristotle also separated praxis from poiesis, his thought nevertheless harbors views of their dialectical integration without falling into the problematic production paradigm. Here the normativity of praxis emerges from poiesis understood non-reductively as the form of the self-organizing body already transforming nature and itself toward higher interactions. (shrink)