The fundamental problem of Epicurean philosophy is understood as the problem of being human in a mechanical universe, which brings out the philosophical importance of Epicurus and guards against treating him as a museum piece. This interpretation of Epicurean ethics is developed against the background of a critical discussion of earlier interpretations. Although the whole range of the tetrapharmakos is covered in the book, as well as the Epicurean social philosophy of justice and friendship, the argument focuses on Epicurus' understanding (...) of the nature of pleasure, and pain and on the distinction between kinetic and katastematic pleasure. (shrink)

Konrad Schüttauf’s critical discussion of Hegel’s aesthetics is imaginative, intelligent, and well-informed. He does not write like a reverent antiquarian describing a philosophical museum piece to a respectful troop of visitors looking for polite conversation. Rather, he writes like one who thinks that there is some life left in Hegel’s remains, something precious, worth saving and cultivating.

Konrad Schüttauf’s critical discussion of Hegel’s aesthetics is imaginative, intelligent, and well-informed. He does not write like a reverent antiquarian describing a philosophical museum piece to a respectful troop of visitors looking for polite conversation. Rather, he writes like one who thinks that there is some life left in Hegel’s remains, something precious, worth saving and cultivating.

Alastair Hannay wrote that there is a campaign against the mental image and a look at the philosophical literature on that topic bears him out. But there is also a campaign against dreams. Given the first campaign this is not surprising. What is surprising is that they are separate campaigns. Intuitively mental images and dreams seem to be as alike as kittens and cats, the one being merely the developed form of the other, made possible by the fading of consciousness (...) of the real world. One would think that an attack on the one is also an attack on the other, at least in the sense that an analysis of the one will, with modest modifications, also be an analysis of the other.But this seems not to be so. To say that a man who pictured his nursery was not a spectator of a resemblance of his nursery, but rather resembled a. spectator of his nursery, may have some initial plausibility because some people behave in curious ways at such times. But to say this of a person who dreamt of his nursery is simply nonsense. (shrink)