_Ideology and Utopia_ argues that ideologies are mental fictions whose function is to veil the true nature of a given society. They originate unconsciously in the minds of those who seek to stabilise a social order. Utopias are wish dreams that inspire the collective action of opposition groups which aim at the entire transformation of society. Mannheim shows these two opposing elements to dominate not only our social thought but even unexpectedly to penetrate into the most scientific theories in philosophy, (...) history and the social sciences. This new edition contains a new preface by Bryan S. Turner which describes Mannheim's work and critically assesses its relevance to modern sociology. The book is published with a comprehensive bibliography of Mannheim's major works. (shrink)
This is a classic volume in the "library of Living Philosophers" and includes a collection of essays on Dewey's work by his contemporaries at the time of the volume's publication. It also includes a biographical essay on Dewey and his replies to the assembled essays.
Russell's autobiography.--Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of Bertrand Russell.--The philosopher replies.--Bibliography of the writings of Bertrand Russell to 1951, compiled by L. E. Denonn (p. -804).
--Moore's autobiography.--Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of G. E. Moore.--The philosopher replies.--Bibliography of the writings of G. E. Moore (to July, 1952) compiled by Emerson Buchanan and G. E. Moore (p. -699).
Autobiographical fragments, by M. Buber.--Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of Martin Buber.--The philosopher replies, by M. Buber.--Bibliography of the writings of Martin Buber, compiled by M. Friedman (p. -786).
Biography of John Dewey, edited by Jane M. Dewey.--Descriptive and critical essays on the philosophy of John Dewey.--The philosopher replies.--Bibliography of the writings of John Dewey, to October 1939.
Philosophy, I know, is philosophia perennis . A “dated” philosophy, therefore, would appear almost to amount to a contradiction in terms. In this sense the “challenge” implied by the title of this paper seems out of place. A challenge to philosophers—well, perhaps. But a challenge to philosophers in the atomic age —no! In general such an objection is well taken. But we are, of course, never confronted with a situation “in general,” but always with a very specific—and to-day, moreover, with (...) a unique —situation. It is a situation which has changed radically even since the close of official hostilities at the so-called end of World War II. True enough, the history of the two world-wars had already brought home to us the fact that, with the accelerating development of applied science and technology, wars were rapidly approaching a tremendous scale of destructive power. Thus it became difficult to imagine any possibilities of still more powerful implements of devastation. (shrink)