Emmanuel Levinas is one of the most original philosophers in the twentieth century. In this book, continuing his thought on obligation, he investigates the possibility that the word God can be understood now, at the end of the twentieth century, in a meaningful way. The thirteen essays collected in this volume offer an introduction to the wide range of Levinas's thought, addresses philosophical questions concerning politics, language and religion and the philosophies of, amongst others, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Marx and Derrida. The (...) essays also touch on the Marxist concept of ideology, death, hermeneutics, the concept of evil, the philosophy of dialogue, the relation of language to the Other, and the acts of communication and mutual understanding. Nine of the essays appear in English for the first time. (shrink)

Eine verletzende Bemerkung, ein beleidigendes Wort - viele Situationen lassen uns Sprache als gewaltförmig erfahren. In der Metapher des ›kränkenden Wortes‹ ist diese Wirkung greifbar; systematisch erforscht wird sie indessen erst in jüngster Zeit. Die Beiträge dieses Bandes zeigen, welche Perspektiven diese Forschungen in der Linguistik, der Philosophie und der Literaturwissenschaft eröffnen. Die Fragen gelten unterschiedlichen Problemen: Wie ist verbale Gewalt von anderen Gewaltformen zu unterscheiden? Sind sprachliche Aggressionen typisierbar? Welche soziale Funktion kommt verletzender Sprache in Brennpunkten der Vormoderne zu? (...) Was an uns ist es überhaupt, das durch Beleidigungen verletzt wird? Ist bereits dem Gespräch als Interaktion eine subtile Gewaltsamkeit eigen? Wie werden Grenzbereiche sprachlicher Aggression, sei es beißender Humor oder die Satire, in der Alltagskommunikation und in der literarischen Fiktion ausgespielt? (shrink)

Die Beiträge dieses Buches unternehmen den Versuch, Praktische Philosophie in Begriffen einer negativistischen Sozialphilosophie zu rekonstruieren, die ein breites Spektrum von Phänomenen negativer Sozialität in ihrem eigenen Recht beschreibt und dabei davon ausgehen muss, dass sich diese Phänomene nicht in einer voll integrierten Gemeinschaft oder Gesellschaft aufheben lassen. Eine solche Sozialphilosophie geht den Gründen für die Irreduziblität des Negativen einerseits auf einer begrifflichen Ebene, andererseits aber auch in konkreten historisch-sozialphilosophischen, lexikalisch angeordneten Analysen nach. Getragen sind die Analysen von der Überzeugung, (...) dass ohne „Reibung“ an diesen Phänomenen auch ein Leben im Zeichen des Guten oder Gerechten jeglichen Halt an einem leibhaftigen In-der-Welt-Sein verlieren muss. Wir sind nicht nur unaufhebbarer Negativität ausgesetzt, sondern müssen auch verstehen, wie das der Fall ist, und welche Spielräume des Verhaltens sich uns darin eröffnen. (shrink)

Athens, 403 B.C.E. The bloody oligarchic dictatorship of the Thirty is over, and thedemocrats have returned to the city victorious. Renouncing vengeance, in an act of willful amnesia,citizens call for -- -if not invent -- -amnesty. They agree to forget the unforgettable, the "pastmisfortunes," of civil strife or stasis. More precisely, what they agree to deny is that stasis ---simultaneously partisanship, faction, and sedition -- -is at the heart of their politics.Continuinga criticism of Athenian ideology begun in her pathbreaking study (...) The Invention of Athens, NicoleLoraux argues that this crucial moment of Athenian political history must be interpreted asconstitutive of politics and political life and not as a threat to it. Divided from within, the cityis formed by that which it refuses. Conflict, the calamity of civil war, is the other, dark side ofthe beautiful unitary city of Athens. In a brilliant analysis of the Greek word for voting,diaphora, Loraux underscores the conflictual and dynamic motion of democratic life. Voting appearsas the process of dividing up, of disagreement -- -in short, of agreeing to divide and choose. Notonly does Loraux reconceptualize the definition of ancient Greek democracy, she also allows thecontemporary reader to rethink the functioning of modern democracy in its critical moments ofinternal stasis. (shrink)

TABLE OF CONTENTS -/- * Inhalt * Verletzende Worte. Eine Einleitung * Sprache als Gewalt oder: Warum verletzen Worte? * Bedingungen für den Erfolg von Degradierungszeremonien * Gesichtsbedrohende Akte * Die Dialektik von Herausforderung und Erwiderung der Herausforderung * Sprechakte und unsprechbare Akte * Diskriminierende Sprechakte. Ein funktionaler Ansatz * Symbolische Verletzbarkeit und sprachliche Gewalt * Über die Körperkraft von Sprache * Die geraubte Stimme * Nach dem angeblichen Ende der ›Sprachvergessenheit‹: Vorläufige Fragen zur Unvermeidlichkeit der * Verletzung Anderer in (...) und mit Worten * Verletzende Anerkennung. Über das Verhältnis von Anerkennung, Subjektkonstitution und ›sozialer Gewalt‹ * Zur Praxis verbaler Gewalt unter Schülerinnen und Schülern * Sprachliche Strategien verbaler Ablehnung in öffentlichen Diskussionsforen im Internet * Zur Sprache der Sprachlosen. Ebenen der Gewalt in der diskursiven Produktion von Behinderung * Words like violence. Konstellationen des Unvernehmens * Die Autorinnen und Autoren * Nachweise. (shrink)

Aus philosophischer Perspektive diskutiert Ulrike Kleemeiers Studie einer Reihe auch aktuelle wieder sehr brisanter Probleme. Analysiert werden der Begriff des Krieges ebenso wie die Ursachen von Kriegen und die Kriegsprävention. Dabei untersucht die Autorin auch den Zusammenhang von Krieg und Gerechtigkeit bzw. Krieg und Recht, das Verhältnis von Krieg und Politik, das Problem des Bürgerkriegs sowie die Bedeutung kriegerisch-militärischer Tugenden und Kompetenzen. Die Auseinandersetzung erfolgt in exemplarischer Form anhand der Theorien von Platon, Hobbes und Clausewitz. Der Arbeit liegt die Annahme (...) zugrunde, dass eine Theorie des Krieges sinnvoll nur in einem interdisziplinären Bezugsrahmen entwickelt werden kann. Deshalb wendet sich dieses Buch an Fachphilosophen genauso wie an alle anderen am Thema Krieg interessierten Forscher, etwas an Historiker, Politologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. (shrink)

I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power relations, a way which is more empirical, more directly related to our present situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice. It consists of taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point. To use another metaphor, t consists of using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power relations, locate their position, (...) and find out their point of application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the antagonism of strategies.[…]Let us come back to the definition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain actions may structure the field of other possible actions. What, therefore, would be proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted "above" society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. In any case, to live in a society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible-- and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without power relations is not to say either that those which are established are necessary or, in any case, that power constitutes a fatality at the heart of societies, such that it cannot be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into question of power relations and the "agonism" between power relations and the instransitivity of freedom is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence.[…]In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally, the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the same links or the same types of intelligibility, although they refer to the same historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact, it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those fundamental phenomena of "domination" which are present in a large number of human societies.Michel Foucault has been teaching at the Collège de France since 1970. His works include Madness and Civilization , The Birth of the Clinic , Discipline and Punish , and History of Sexuality , the first volume of a projected five-volume study. (shrink)

In the de Officiis we have, save for the latter Philippics, the great orator's last contribution to literature. The last, sad, troubled years of his busy life could not be given to his profession; and he turned his never-resting thoughts to the second love of his student days and made Greek philosophy a possibility for Roman readers. The senate had been abolished; the courts had been closed. His occupation was gone; but Cicero could not surrender himself to idleness. In those (...) days of distraction (46-43 b.c.) he produced for publication almost as much as in all his years of active life.The liberators had been able to remove the tyrant, but they could not restore the republic. Cicero's own life was in danger from the fury of mad Antony and he left Rome about the end of March, 44 b.c. He dared not even stop permanently in any one of his various country estates, but, wretched, wandered from one of his villas to another nearly all the summer and autumn through. He would not suffer himself to become a prey to his overwhelming sorrow at the death of the republic and the final crushing of the hopes that had risen with Caesar's downfall, but worked at the highest tension on his philosophical studies. (shrink)

"Is there any such thing as political philosophy?" So begins this provocative book by one of the foremost figures in Continental thought. Here, Jacques Ranciere brings a new and highly useful set of terms to the vexed debate about political effectiveness in the face of a new world order. What precisely is at stake in the relationship between "philosophy" and the adjective "political"? In Disagreement, Ranciere explores the apparent contradiction between these terms and reveals the uneasy meaning of their union (...) in the phrase "political philosophy" -- a juncture related to age-old attempts in philosophy to answer Plato's devaluing of politics as a "democratic egalitarian" process. According to Ranciere, the phrase also expresses the paradox of politics itself: the absence of a proper foundation. Politics, he argues, begins when the "demos" (the "excessive" or unrepresented part of society) seeks to disrupt the order of domination and distribution of goods "naturalized" by police and legal institutions. In addition, the notion of "equality" operates as a game of contestation that constantly substitutes litigation for political action and community. This game, Ranciere maintains, operates by a primary logic of "misunderstanding". In turn, political philosophy has always tried to substitute the "politics of truth" for the politics of appearances. Disagreement investigates the various transformations of this regime of "truth" and their effects on practical politics. Ranciere then distinguishes what we mean by "democracy" from the practices of a consensual system in order to unravel the ramifications of the fashionable phrase "the end of politics". His conclusions will be of interest toreaders concerned with political questions from the broadest to the most specific and local. (shrink)

An exciting and highly original examination of the practices of truth-telling and speaking out freely (parr?sia) in ancient Greek tragedy and philosophy. Foucault discusses the difficult and changing practices of truth-telling in ancient democracies and tyrannies and offers a new perspective on the specific relationship of philosophy to politics.

Why do major historical events such as the Holocaust occupy the forefront of the collective consciousness, while profound moments such as the Armenian genocide, the McCarthy era, and France's role in North Africa stand distantly behind? Is it possible that history "overly remembers" some events at the expense of others? A landmark work in philosophy, Paul Ricoeur's Memory, History, Forgetting examines this reciprocal relationship between remembering and forgetting, showing how it affects both the perception of historical experience and the production (...) of historical narrative. Memory, History, Forgetting , like its title, is divided into three major sections. Ricoeur first takes a phenomenological approach to memory and mnemonical devices. The underlying question here is how a memory of present can be of something absent, the past. The second section addresses recent work by historians by reopening the question of the nature and truth of historical knowledge. Ricoeur explores whether historians, who can write a history of memory, can truly break with all dependence on memory, including memories that resist representation. The third and final section is a profound meditation on the necessity of forgetting as a condition for the possibility of remembering, and whether there can be something like happy forgetting in parallel to happy memory. Throughout the book there are careful and close readings of the texts of Aristotle and Plato, of Descartes and Kant, and of Halbwachs and Pierre Nora. A momentous achievement in the career of one of the most significant philosophers of our age, Memory, History, Forgetting provides the crucial link between Ricoeur's Time and Narrative and Oneself as Another and his recent reflections on ethics and the problems of responsibility and representation. (shrink)

In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as historical contingencies, rather than as expressions of underlying, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistorical goals. This ironic perspective on the human condition is valuable on a private level, although it cannot advance the social or political goals of liberalism. In fact Rorty believes that it is literature not philosophy that can do this, by promoting a genuine sense (...) of human solidarity. A truly liberal culture, acutely aware of its own historical contingency, would fuse the private, individual freedom of the ironic, philosophical perspective with the public project of human solidarity as it is engendered through the insights and sensibilities of great writers. The book has a characteristically wide range of reference from philosophy through social theory to literary criticism. It confirms Rorty's status as a uniquely subtle theorist, whose writing will prove absorbing to academic and nonacademic readers alike. (shrink)

Only yesterday aesthetics stood accused of concealing cultural games of social distinction. Now it is considered a parasitic discourse from which artistic practices must be freed. But aesthetics is not a discourse. It is an historical regime of the identification of art. This regime is paradoxical, because it founds the autonomy of art only at the price of suppressing the boundaries separating its practices and its objects from those of everyday life and of making free aesthetic play into the promise (...) of a new revolution. Aesthetics is not a politics by accident but in essence. But this politics operates in the unresolved tension between two opposed forms of politics: the first consists in transforming art into forms of collective life, the second in preserving from all forms of militant or commercial compromise the autonomy that makes it a promise of emancipation. This constitutive tension sheds light on the paradoxes and transformations of critical art. It also makes it possible to understand why today's calls to free art from aesthetics are misguided and lead to a smothering of both aesthetics and politics in ethics. (shrink)