In standard theories of knowledge, issues like jokes, humour and laughter are not dealt with for the simple reason that these categories do not inhabit the world of true knowledge, and are hence not worthy of serious attention or study because these issues do not by their nature contribute to further generation of true knowledge. Taking a cue from Sigmund Freud, this article seeks to work on the possibilities of jokes, humour and even laughter, and their relation to the language (...) of the statement of truth. It may be seen that in spite of the superior claims of the so-called language of the statement of truth, and its not so veiled indignation at humour and jokes, one category is in dialogue with another in contexts and perhaps with itself. (shrink)

This article examines Flusser’s ideas on creativity with apparatus as a model for communication in a telematic society. By placing Flusser’s thinking in the post World War II context, it explores relations to Walter Benjamin’s criticism of technical reproduction and Katherine Hayles’ notion of the post-human. By focusing on Flusser’s suggestion of chamber music as a prototype of telematic dialog, it proposes an analysis of chamber music, electroacoustic music and digital audio technology aiming to critically illuminate Flusser’s utopian vision of (...) telematics dialog from the perspective of music. (shrink)

The question of language is as wide open today as it was for the author of the Cratylus. We do not finally possess a linguistic science which knows and can inform us of the truth about language, its nature, what it is, how it works, etc. But the ‘question of language’ today is not whether such a science is so much as possible; the question is whether we really want one, whether we so much as realize the cost of one, (...) or how much of that cost has already been exacted from the societies in which we live and speak. The question of language is first and last an ethical and political question, no matter how much ‘modern linguistics’ and our ‘philosophy of language’ prefer not to see this, preferring instead to obliterate such a perception with ideas of language and meaning tailor-made to efface the often ethically and politically sensitive social and historical differences which nevertheless remain the sine qua non of language. -/- This is by no means irrelevant to how one conceives of philosophy, or of the practice that constitutes its contemporary ‘presence.’ To look into this further requires that I first establish, at least in outline, how I see the interpenetration of history, social practice, and language. The discussion of this in Sections 1-4 frames the context in which I embed a certain statement concerning philosophy. Out of context, the statement runs: Philosophy, insofar as it is not just a history, is the discursive practice which makes the historical discourse of philosophy contemporary. But this can be done in different ways, with different styles, implying different degrees and qualities of reflectiveness about one’s own practice and the social and historical environment which embeds it. It is to these differences that we should look if we wish to understand what is problematic about English-speaking philosophy at the end of the twentieth century. (shrink)

Putnam’s work of the last ten years or so shifts concepts and problems from metaphysics to ethics, reconceiving of objectivity and truth in terms of an intersubjective, dialogic rightness in our relationships with others. The timelessness of metaphysics, however, is a quality these concepts and problems lose in the new setting. Like Putnam I too hope there is a future for the practice of philosophy as a discipline. But he abandons himself to wishful thinking when he says that ‘philosophy, as (...) culture-bound reflection and argument about eternal questions, is both in time and eternity’ (PP.247). He may say that ‘the rightness and wrongness of what we say is not just for a time and a place’ (PP.247). But he has no alchemy to transmute this negative proposition into a proof of something eternal for philosophers to contemplate. (shrink)

این مقاله به بررسی دیدگاه جان هیک - فیلسوف دین تحلیلی معاصر- دربارۀ دلایل وجود تصورات مختلف از خداوند و عدم امکان دست‌یابی به مفهوم خداوند می‌پردازد. ابتدا ضمن اشاره به تفکیک مفهوم و تصور خداوند و ویژگی‌های اساسی تصورات گوناگون از خداوند ‌‌- با تکیه بر مبانی او یعنی تفکیک نومن از فنومن کانت‌‌، «دیدن به عنوان» ویتگنشتاین متأخر و وصف‌ناپذیری خداوند ‌‌- نشان خواهیم داد که با تفکیک کانت تنها می‌توان تفکیک مفهوم خداوند از تصور او را توجیه (...) کرد‌‌ و نمی‌توان از دست‌یابی به مفهوم خداوند دفاع کرد‌‌؛ زیرا طبق آن‌‌، راهی به نومن خداوند نیست. با تکیه بر دیدگاه ویتگنشتاین متأخر نیز هیچ تجربۀ ناب و خالصی نیست که بتوان از مفهوم خداوند سخن گفت‌‌، بلکه همواره تصوراتی از او داریم. وصف‌ناپذیری خداوند نیز مشکل تجربۀ ما را از او دوچندان کرده و باعث تصورات گوناگون از خداوند می‌شود. در پایان نیز به نتایج دیدگاه او مانند توفیق او در تفکیک مفهوم و تصور خداوند و توجیه وجود تصورات مختلف از خداوند‌‌، گشودن راه نقد و بررسی آموزه‌های مسیحی‌‌، دفاع از کثرت‌گرایی دینی و نزدیک شدن او به تصور پنن تئیستی از خداوند اشاره خواهیم کرد. (shrink)

This paper seeks to refute one variant of a view that scientific disciplines are intrinsically more objective than non?scientific ones, and that this greater objectivity explains increasing social agreement about the findings of science, by contrast with increasing disagreement about the findings of, e.g., ethics. Such a view rests on the implicit assumption that all forms of discourse aim equally at the generation of consensus; instead, differing degrees of consensus in different disciplines are often explicable by sociological, not metaphysical, differences (...) in the disciplines concerned. A detailed example is presented of a discipline (Indian folk dietary medicine) in which considerable lack of consensus is observed, for sociologically explicable reasons, in spite of its claims to scientific objectivity. It is concluded that disciplines may differ in the degree of truth of the claims advanced in them, and in the importance of consensus among their social aims. But neither of these is to be explained by differences in respect of some independent property of objectivity. (shrink)

This paper attempts to square libertarian principles with the reality of formal education by asking how far we should and can allow people to do as they wish in educational settings. The major focus is on children in schools, as the concept ‘childhood’ ipso facto implies restrictions on doing as one wishes, and schools as institutions entail inevitable constraints. Children by definition tend to enjoy stronger protection rights but weaker liberty rights than adults. A local preferential calculus is developed as (...) a guide for teachers, suggesting wishes should be granted where feasible and at least welfare neutral. In the case of teachers, employers set the parameters for the feasibility criterion but should also ensure at least welfare neutrality, while students in adult and higher education should be responsible for the feasibility and welfare outcomes of their own choices. (shrink)