This book offers an original philosophical perspective on exemplarity. Inspired by Wittgenstein’s later work and Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, it argues that examples are not static entities but rather oscillate between singular and universal moments. There is a broad consensus that exemplary cases mediate between singular instances and universal concepts or norms. In the first part of the book, Mácha contends that there is a kind of différance between singular examples and general exemplars or paradigms. Every example is, in part, (...) also an exemplar, and vice versa. Furthermore, he develops a paracomplete approach to the logic of exemplarity, which allows us to say of an exemplar of X neither that it is an X nor that it is not an X. This paradox is structurally isomorphic to Russell’s paradox and can be addressed in similar ways. In the second part of the book, Mácha presents four historical studies that exemplify the ideas developed in the first part. This part begins with Plato’s Forms, understood as standards/paradigms, before considering Kant’s theory of reflective judgment as a general epistemological account of exemplarity. This is then followed by analyses of Hegel’s conceptual moment of particularity and Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. The book concludes by discussing the speculative hypothesis that all our knowledge is based on paradigms, which, following the logic of exemplarity, are neither true nor false. (shrink)

Hans Blumenberg’s work is characterized by a seemingly insatiable predilection for anecdotes — about Thales and Pyrrhus, Goethe and Fontane, Husserl and Wittgenstein, Polgar and Jünger. This essay explores the theoretical status of anecdotes by juxtaposing Carl Linnaeus’s Nemesis Divina with Blumenberg’s Care Crosses the River, both read alongside Aristotle’s notion of exemplarity and Joel Fineman’s delineation of the anecdote as the literary-historical form for expressing contingency. As a mode of thought at the nexus of literature and experience, anecdotes immediately (...) pose the question of evidence. Even if true, an anecdote opens the issue of whether it is the exception or the norm, whether it only speaks for itself or assumes exemplary force, and what such exemplarity might mean. By juxtaposing two theorists qua anecdotists — Carl Linnaeus and Hans Blumenberg — this essay aims to show the inextricable relation between anecdote and example, and thus between anecdote and rhetoric, a counterpart and supplement to the poetics of metaphor within what one can call with Blumenberg a theory of nonconceptuality. (shrink)

“Can you feel the warmth of the Hive?”Tom in Leave No Trace (2018).In a haunting scene in the motion picture Leave No Trace1 (Granik 2018), Tom, an adolescent girl living on the edges of normality,...

El paradigma del Juicio constituye un modelo de racionalidad que pretende elevarse como alternativa positiva ante los retos coyunturales introducidos por el giro lingüístico de la filosofía en el pensamiento contemporáneo. Frente a la difícil tarea de defender principios universalistas en la cultura actual, este modelo aspira a pronunciarse positivamente sobre cuestiones tales como la de la validez normativa que pueda afectar las relaciones entre acción humana y deliberación. Para alcanzar su objetivo, el paradigma del Juicio patrocina una forma de (...) la normatividad sin principios (validez ejemplar), enraizada en el juicio reflexionante kantiano y en el sensus communis (sentido común) de la tradición retórico-humanista. El objetivo de este artículo es la presentación de dicho modelo de racionalidad dentro de la filosofía kantiana y, por medio de la exploración de sus antecedentes histórico-filosóficos (Gadamer), y gracias a un rodeo por la tradición retórico-humanista (Aristóteles y Vico), se busca soslayar el énfasis estético que la fundamentación de Kant acentuó. Finalmente, se pondera el alcance y pertinencia que posee dicho paradigma en la reapropiación de dos de sus intérpretes en la filosofía contemporánea: Alessandro Ferrara y Hannah Arendt. (shrink)