The author analyzes the politics of responsive interculturalism in Bernhard Waldenfels? thought, starting from the assumption that after Husserl?s phenomenology only two fundamental concepts - body and the Other - should be considered. In contemporary German?post-phenomenology? the first concept was systematically articulated by Hermann Schmitz, while the latter theme has been advanced in Waldenfels? works as the phenomenology of the alien, up until the end of Western metaphysics. In the two parts of the discussion, the author draws on his fundamental (...) hypothesis about aporias and paradoxes of interculturalism, since responsiveness and xenology cannot reach the positive definition of the concept of culture in the era of global entropy. The analysis, therefore, deals with the questions: what is the responsiveness of man in relation to the Other, including the different ways of his presence in the world; and whether the Other as alien and uncanny calls into question the basic assumption of phenomenology as such - the intentionality of consciousness? nema. (shrink)

This article aims to provide a semiotic analysis of environmental law and youth protests. More precisely, drawing on speech act theory this article regards both as types of communication and teases out the inherent voice and message, specifically with regard to the interests of future generations. The argument unfolds in three steps. First, the article looks into speaker and speech of environmental law and argues that it speaks, as legislation does, in the first-person plural voice of a ‘we’. Second, the (...) article examines a speech of Greta Thunberg through the lens of Stanley Cavell’s theory of passionate utterances. This interpretation will unlock the political stakes of Thunberg’s speech as she claims standing with those responsible for enacting environmental law. Finally, the consequences of this reading will be analysed by relating message and voice of environmental law. As youth protests question ordinary forms of political representation, new ways of safeguarding the interests of future generations are called upon. (shrink)

In the Social Contract Rousseau gives what could be called a philosophical rule of recognition for law in Modernity: a law is law if and only if 'the whole people rules over the whole people'. Thus, he defines self-legislation as, at bottom, collective intentional action. I will first map out the speech act structure [LEX] underlying self-legislation on this account. In particular, I argue for a first person plural counterpart of the reflexive structure inherent to intentions generally: the notion of (...) a collective self. Then I take issue with Bratman's analysis of shared intentional activity in terms of mutuality, submitting that it misses out on the specifically political presupposition involved in 'doing something together'. I will show why 'mutuality' requires representation of the unity of a polity, and how this representation can take form without either external authority or mutual responsiveness. (shrink)

Waldenfelsovo fenomenološko razumijevanje moderne zasnovano je na razumijevanju stranog kao bitnog određenja moderne. Strano je ovdje odrednica mišljenja koja se eksplicira u kulturnim i društvenim odnosima te ga stoga treba interpretirati upravo u njegovom fenomenalnom realitetu. Kultura i politika u tom značenju više su od pukog imena za skupni naziv značenja i opravdanja djelovanja. One postaju izraz smisaonog konteksta u kojem se iščitava odnos spram stranog kao referentnog mjesta za razumijevanje samog značenja moderne, njene unutarnje diferenciranosti, tokova koji je određuju (...) i karakteristika koje se uspostavljaju u individualnim odrednicama što obilježavaju njenu povijest. Strano se, u cjelini svojega određenja, zasniva iz tjelesnosti kao realiteta njegovog postojanja. U cjelini uzevši, moderna se, smatra Waldenfels, razumijeva u njenoj postranjenosti , u njenom odnošenju spram stranog koje na koncu rezultira i postranjenjem moderne u cijelosti. Ona kao takva nije zastranila, nego po-stranila, i sama se priklonila stranosti kao vlastitom identitetu, u kojem je čvrsto uspostavljen i filozofijski diskurs na kojem se taj identitet brani. Odnos spram tjelesnosti, koji se postulira u modernoj teoriji, u tom smislu je konzekvenca odnosa spram stranog. Zato se problem transformacije filozofije ne nalazi u novom razumijevanju umstvenosti, nego u diskursu nove racionalnosti, fenomenološkom mišljenju partikulariteta okrenutom kritici obuhvatnosti metafizike subjektiviteta i bilo kojeg oblika umstvenih pretpostavki realiteta. Waldenfelsova interpretacija moderne proistječe iz cjelovitog uvida u kontinuitet mišljenja koje je određuje i iskazuje se kroz njegovo sažimanje u ključnim problemima koji određuju njene tokove. U tom smislu fenomenološki diskurs njegove filozofije dobiva svojevrsno značenje ishodišta filozofijskog mišljenja na prijelazu stoljeća.Waldenfels’ phenomenological understanding of modernity is based on the understanding of “the foreign” as an essential definition of modernity. “The foreign” here is the characteristic of thinking explicated in cultural and social relationships, which should therefore be interpreted precisely in its phenomenal reality. Culture and politics in this context are more then a mere names for a collection of meanings and justifications of action. They become the expression of a meaningful context from which one can read-off the relation to “the foreign” as the reference point forunderstanding the very meaning of modernity, its inner differentiation, the streams that determine it and the characteristics that are established in the individual determinants that denote its history. “The foreign” as a whole is grounded in corporality as the reality of its existence. Waldenfels maintains that modernity, taken as a whole, is understood in its orientation towards the foreign, in its relationship with the foreign that, eventually, results in the entire modernity being oriented towards the foreign. Modernity as such did not go astray, but it became oriented towards the foreign, it decided itself to accept some sort of “the foreign” as its identity, in which the philosophical discourse is established for its defence. The relationship towards corporality, postulated in this sense in modern theory, is a consequence of the relationship towards “the foreign”. That is why the problem of transformation of philosophy is not found in the new understanding of the mind, but in the discourse of new rationality, of phenomenological thinking of the particularity oriented towards the critique of the encompassing metaphysics of subjectivity and towards all sorts of rational assumptions bout the reality. Waldenfels’ interpretation of the modernity follows from the integrative insight into continuity of the thinking that determines it, and it is expressed by his summarisation of the crucial problems that determine its paths. It is in this sense that the phenomenological discourse is established, signifying the starting point of philosophical thinking at the turn of the century. (shrink)