"A fascinating and timely treatment of the objectivism versus relativism debates occurring in philosophy of science, literary theory, the social sciences, ...
"The ancient and modern question of what is the nature of man and his activity and what ought to be the directions pursued in this activity is once again being ...
At present, there is an enormous gulf between the visibility of evil and the paucity of our intellectual resources for coming to grips with it. We have been flooded with images of death camps, terrorist attacks and horrendous human suffering. Yet when we ask what we mean by radical evil and how we are to account for it, we seem to be at a loss for proper responses. Bernstein seeks to discover what we can learn about the meaning of evil (...) and human responsibility. He turns to philosophers such as Kant, who coined the expression 'radical evil', as well as to Hegel and Schelling. He also examines more recent explorations of evil, namely the thinking of Freud and Nietzsche on the moral psychology of evil. Finally, he looks at the way in which three post-Holocaust thinkers - Emmanuel Levinas, Hans Jonas, and Hannah Arendt - have sought to come to grips with evil "after Auschwitz." Bernstein's primary concern throughout this challenging book is to enrich and deepen our understanding of evil in the contemporary world, and to emphasize the vigilance and personal responsibility required for combating it. Radical Evil will be essential reading for students and scholars of philosophy, social and political theory, and religious studies. (shrink)
Since 9/11 politicians, preachers, conservatives and the media are all speaking about evil. In the past the dicourse about evil in our religious, philosophic and literary traditions has provoked thinking, questioning and inquiry. But today the appeal to evil is being used as a political tool to obscure compex issues, block serious thinking and stifle public discussion and debate. We are now confronting a clash of mentalities, not a clash of civilisations. One mentality is drawn to absolutes, moral certainties, and (...) simplistic dichotomies of good and evil. The other seriously questions an appeal to absolutes in politics and criticizes the simplistic division of the world into the forces of evil and the forces of good. In The Abuse of Evil Bernstein challenges the claim that without an appeal to absolutes, we lack the grounds for acting decisively in fighting our enemies. The post 9/11 abuse of evil corrupts both democratic politics and religion. The stakes are high in this clash of mentalities in shaping how we think and act in the world today - and in the future. (shrink)
"Bernstein argues that many themes that emerged in the course of Arendt's attempts tounderstand specifically Jewish issues shaped her thinking about politics in general and the life ofthe mind.
This paper focuses on two key issues in Nicholas Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs . It argues that Wolterstorff's theistic grounding of inherent rights is not successful. It also argues that Wolterstorff does not provide adequate criteria for determining what exactly these natural inherent rights are or criteria that can help us to evaluate competing and contradictory claims about these rights. However, most of Wolterstorff's book is not concerned with the theistic grounding of inherent rights. Instead, it is devoted to (...) a detailed and rigorous articulation of the meaning and defense of a theory of justice as consisting of inherent rights and with showing why this theory of justice is superior to the alternative right order theories that Wolterstorff criticizes. The paper concludes that these accomplishments are not diminished even if Wolterstorff has failed to provide us with a satisfactory theistic grounding of his theory. (shrink)
The first comprehensive collection of the work of Richard Rorty, The Rorty Reader brings together the influential American philosopher’s essential essays from over four decades of writings. Offers a comprehensive introduction to Richard Rorty's life and body of work Brings key essays published across many volumes and journals into one collection, including selections from his final volume of philosophical papers, Philosophy as Cultural Politics ) Contains the previously unpublished essay, “Redemption from Egotism” Includes in-depth interviews, and several revealing autobiographical pieces (...) Represents the fullest portrait available today on Rorty’s relationship with American pragmatism and the trajectory of his thought. (shrink)
RICHARD RORTY has written one of the most important and challenging books to be published by an American philosopher in the past few decades. Some will find it a deeply disturbing book while others will find it liberating and exhilarating—both, as we shall see, may be right and wrong. Not since James and Dewey have we had such a devastating critique of professional philosophy. But unlike James and Dewey, who thought that once the sterility and artificiality of professional—and indeed much (...) of modern philosophy since Descartes—had been exposed, there was an important job for philosophers to do; Rorty leaves us in a much more ambiguous and unsettled state. I will examine Rorty’s book from a variety of perspectives, beginning with a general overview and then moving to more finely meshed descriptions. My aim is not only to illuminate the power and subtlety of Rorty’s analysis and to show its inner unity, but to locate basic issues that are left unresolved. (shrink)
It is frequently forgotten just how important Hegel was on the American scene during the post-Civil War period when American philosophy was in its formative stages. Stimulated initially by the immigration of German intellectuals, there were informal "Hegel Clubs" and groups such as the St. Louis and Ohio Hegelians. The first professional philosophic journal in the United States, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, was founded by the Hegelian W. T. Harris, who later became U. S. Commissioner of Education. Although the (...) journal published articles by Dewey, Peirce, and James, one of its primary purposes was to encourage the exploration of Hegelian themes. (shrink)
Richard J. Bernstein is a leading exponent of American pragmatism and one of the foremost philosophers of the twentieth century. In this collection he takes a pragmatic approach to specific problems and issues to demonstrate the ongoing importance of this philosophical tradition. Topics under discussion include multiculturalism, political public life, evil and religion. Individual philosophers studied are Kant, Arendt, Rorty, Habermas, Dewey and Trotsky. Each of the sixteen essays, many of which are published here for the first time, offers a (...) way of bridging contemporary philosophical differences. This book will be of interest to scholars of philosophy and those researching social and political theory. (shrink)
How has philosophy contributed to bringing about a secular age? What role has philosophy played in bringing about a secular age in which belief and unbelief are both viable options? This paper does not address philosophy in general but rather focuses on a single thinker, Immanuel Kant, to argue that the consequences—both intended and unintended—of Kant's critical philosophy has had the greatest philosophical influence on making unbelief a legitimate alternative to faith in a transcendent God. Initially, the thesis may seem (...) paradoxical because Kant was a firm believer, a Christian who came from a strong pietistic background. He believed that Christianity was the true, universal, and rational religion. Yet the text posits that Kant not only provided a rationale for religious faith but did more than any other modern philosopher to support and legitimize those who seriously question faith in a transcendent God. (shrink)
Has moral relativism run its course? The threat of 9/11, terrorism, reproductive technology, and globalization has forced us to ask anew whether there are universal moral truths upon which to base ethical and political judgments. In this timely edited collection, distinguished scholars present and test the best answers to this question. These insightful responses temper the strong antithesis between universalism and relativism and retain sensitivity to how language and history shape the context of our moral decisions. This important and relevant (...) work of contemporary political and social thought is ideal for use in the classroom across many disciplines, including political science, philosophy, ethics, law, and theology. (shrink)
Understanding Sellars presents a variety of difficulties. His range of interests is extremely broad. He has a subtle understanding of most of the major figures in the history of philosophy and many of the minor ones too. He is constantly attempting to extract the "truth" ingredient in opposing positions and to disentangle this from what he takes to be false, misleading, and confusing. Like Hegel, Sellars sometimes writes as if no major philosophic position has been completely mistaken. At the same (...) time Sellars is forging a new idiom. It is difficult to read any of his papers without a thorough acquaintance with twentieth century, anglo-saxon philosophy. His papers are packed and overflowing, connecting up with and frequently presupposing topics discussed in other places. Such a philosophic style places enormous demands upon reader. He is required to read back and forth in Sellars' already prolific writings, to master a new idiom, and to keep numerous dialectical threads in mind in following the devious paths of Sellars' arguments. (shrink)
I WANT TO SPEAK about three concepts that are not normally associated with each other, but which--as I hope to show--are intimately related and interwoven: metaphysics, critique, and utopia. I will be focusing on only selected aspects of these polysemic concepts, but I want to risk reclaiming an essential impulse, an animus that runs through them. Let me begin with "utopia." Leszek Kolakowski notes.
Against the background of disputes about modernity and post-modernity in philosophy, this paper probes the differences among Gadamer, Habermas, and Rorty. Focusing on the themes of praxis, phronesis, and practical discourse, it is argued that what initially appear to be hard and fast cleavages and irreconcilable differences turn out to be differences of emphasis. The common ground that emerges is adumbrated as "non-foundational pragmatic humanism". Although there are important differences among these three thinkers each of their voices contributes to a (...) coherent conversation in developing "moral-political vision". (shrink)
