The concept of “going native in reverse” reflects the fact that nowadays more and more people involved in new religious movements and esoteric groups participate in academic activities related to the study of religion in general and particularly in the study of their movements. On the one hand, these people bring insider’s perspective in the academia. On the other hand, they bring academic knowledge and critical mind in esoteric community and change it. This situation seems to be a positive tendency (...) in the development of modern spirituality both for insiders and for the society in general, because contemporary knowledge and critical mind can make religious and esoteric currents more subtle and adequate for the modern world. But what is the future of this tendency in regard to an insider/outsider problem? Maybe they can change the academia by bringing new unexpected perspectives in the study of religion and esotericism. However, conservative academic elites can finally reject researchers who try to bring the insider perspective in the academia and even expel them from academic circles. In this case they will turn into a marginal group inside the academia, and for their skeptical colleagues they will remain to be those eccentrics who want “to wear the esoteric and the scholarly hat simultaneously”, as W. J. Hanegraaff put it. On the other hand, such researchers may try to form a new discipline, so to speak an “esoteric divinity” that will fight for the place both in the academia and in the esoteric community in the next decades. However, the esoteric community itself may reject this tendency, because many of its participants today seem to have an inimical attitude toward to rationalism and the academia. (shrink)

Because the current crisis of scriptural authority is not simply a crisis of Scriptures but also a crisis of modernity, any understanding of that crisis must look to our present intellectual environment as much as it does to the way Scriptures are viewed.

This paper focuses on Leibniz’s engagement with Thomas Hobbes’s political anthropology in the Mainz-period writings, and demonstrates that Leibniz tried to construct an alternative to the English philosopher by conceiving of a physically- and ontologically-grounded psychology of actions. I provide textual evidence of this attempt, and account for Leibniz’s rejection of Hobbes’s political theory and anthropological assumptions. In doing so, I refer to diverse aspects of Leibniz’s work, thereby highlighting his aspiration to congruity and consistency between different areas of investigation. (...) Furthermore, Leibniz’s political writings and letters will reveal another—sometimes neglected—aspect of the issue: his concern to defend and legitimize the existence of pluralist and collective constitutional political systems like the Holy Roman Empire by providing the theoretical ground of their ability to last. (shrink)

t. 1. Lubi︠a︡nka-Ėkibastuz ; Sozidateli i razrushiteli -- t. 2. Teorii︠a︡ gustot : opyt khristianskoĭ filosofii kont︠s︡a XX veka ; Mekhanika na kvantovom urovne -- t. 3. K teorii gustot ; Postulaty marksizma i zakony prirody ; Pustota bezbozhii︠a︡ ; Politėkonomii︠a︡ na ėnergeticheskoĭ osnove ; Derzhava sozidateleĭ ; K edinenii︠u︡ khristian -- t. 4. Mysli o raznom ; Solzhenit︠s︡yn i deĭstvitelʹnostʹ ; Statʹi v zapadnoĭ presse.

t. 1. Lubi︠a︡nka-Ėkibastuz ; Sozidateli i razrushiteli -- t. 2. Teorii︠a︡ gustot : opyt khristianskoĭ filosofii kont︠s︡a XX veka ; Mekhanika na kvantovom urovne -- t. 3. K teorii gustot ; Postulaty marksizma i zakony prirody ; Pustota bezbozhii︠a︡ ; Politėkonomii︠a︡ na ėnergeticheskoĭ osnove ; Derzhava sozidateleĭ ; K edinenii︠u︡ khristian -- t. 4. Mysli o raznom ; Solzhenit︠s︡yn i deĭstvitelʹnostʹ ; Statʹi v zapadnoĭ presse.

A concept of Pagan Theology has been producing a number of discussions throughout the last decade and particularly in the last few years both inside and outside Pagan community. In this paper, the author analyzes three aspects of the phenomenon of Pagan Theology and discussions emerged around it. The first aspect is the genesis of the idea of Pagan Theology. It includes an examination of academic and religious roots of this research programme. The second aspect is a view on Pagan (...) Theology from the perspective of the academia. While for some scholars Pagan Theology appears to be a legitimate field of study and/or research programme in Pagan Studies, others describe it is an attempt of Pagan intervention in the academia. Finally, the third aspect is a discussion on Pagan Theology emerged among Pagans, whose reflections of this topic are very ambiguous too. In spite of this fact, the author concludes that the idea of Pagan Theology was a necessary stage of development, both in the conceptualization of contemporary Paganism itself and in Pagan Studies at the same time. (shrink)

In this article, the author analyzes dominating contemporary approaches to the study of esotericism including those of W. Hanegraaff that is popular today among European scholars and its alternatives developing in the USA and the United Kingdom. The author argues that these methodologies should be understood as competitive „research programmes‟ inside the complex field of the academic study of esotericism and can‟t be described in terms of „old‟ and „new‟ paradigms like Hanegraaff tends to do it.

Critical feminist studies in religion seek to articulate a theoretical analytics not in terms of gender and feminine identity but in socio-political terms. They understand wo/men as socio-political subject-citizens who are producing cultural knowledges and religious discourses in situations of domination and alienation.

Popper a passé sa licence sous la direction de Bühler en 1928. Affirmer que Popper a été profondément influencé, non seulement par la théorie du langage de Bühler, mais aussi par sa psychologie, ne correspond pas à l’opinion courante. Le deuxième chapitre de Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntis montre clairement que Karl Bühler a représenté l’un des points de départ les plus importants de la théorie de l’esprit de Popper. Selon Popper, dans l’épistémologie de Carnap, il y a un « (...) préjudice inductif » : afin de rétablir une opinion neutre et adopter une épistémologie qui soit indépendante de la psychologie, il est nécessaire de démontrer que, dans la psychologie aussi, le déductivisme est possible et concevable. Popper donne des exemples très clairs de psychologie déductive et cite la théorie de Kant, Johannes Mueller, l’École Wuerzburg et Ernst Mach. Le choix de tels exemples est significatif afin de comprendre la nature de la formation de Popper. En particulier, il est important de souligner l’absence de la « psychologie de la Gestalt » ou de ses penseurs, tels que Wertheimer, Koehler, Koffka, etc. En effet, Bühler s’opposait fortement à la psychologie de la Gestalt de l’École Wertheimer et, entre l’Institut Bühler de Vienne et les psychologues de la Gestalt à Berlin, il y avait une véritable rivalité. Popper — qui est normalement considéré, de façon simpliste, comme étant « un psychologue gestaltiste » — a tout à fait adopté l’idée de Bühler.Popper graduated under Bühler's direction in 1928. It's not part of the common view to say that Popper was strongly influenced, not only by Bühler's theory of language, but also by his psychology. The second chapter of Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnis shows clearly that one of the fundamental starting points for Popper's theory of mind was Karl Bühler. According to Popper, an “inductive prejudice” is contained in Carnap's epistemology : to restore a neutral point of view and to adopt an epistemology independent of psychology, it is necessary to show that, within the psychology, the deductivism is also possible, or thinkable. Popper provides some clear examples of deductive psychology and cites Kant's outlook, Johannes Mueller, the Wuerzburg's school and Ernst Mach. The choice of such examples is very important for the understanding of the nature of Popper's training. It is significant, in particular, the absence of the Gestaltpsychology or of its exponents, such as Wertheimer, Koehler, Koffka etc. In fact, Bühler was in sharp contrast with the Gestaltpsychology of Wertheimer's school and between the Bühler's Vienna Institute and the Berlin Gestalt -psychologists there was a real rivalry. Popper — who by the standard view is simplistically considered “a gestaltist psychologist” — adopted completely the Bühler's point of view. (shrink)

In the last decades the Cyropaedia enjoyed a renewed interest, mostly addressed to the controversial character of Cyrus, exemplary leader or susceptible to a dark reading. However the character of Cyrus as a child and adolescent, who appears in Cyr. 1.3-4, has been usually overlooked, especially with regard to the psychological side of his behavior, which instead deserves to be carefully analyzed. Xenophon indeed created a complex, multifaced character: on the one hand a Cyrus as a child, who already shows (...) the exceptional character traits of the adult Cyrus; on the other hand – and this is the innovative aspect – a Cyrus as a child and adolescent who shows attitudes and behavior that today we are able to acknowledge as typical of children and adolescents. It is not difficult for us to grasp these attitudes and behavior, but that Xenophon succeeded in creating a character endowed with them is a really amazing achievement, because he could only rely on his observation skills, probably a kind of empathy and his gifts as a writer: an even more amazing achievement if we keep in mind that Greek literature and more generally Greek culture showed very little interest in the child itself, regarded nearly exclusively as the adult he was destined to become or anyway in its relationships with adults. Cyr. 1.4.3 is a very important passage, in which Xenophon gives a kind of overview of those features of Cyrus as a child that will quickly disappear already in the first phase of adolescence: immediately afterwards indeed in Cyr. 1.4.4 Xenophon summarizes in few lines some significant changes that mark the transition, often so abrupt, to adolescence and that will be described as the narration goes on. It is really noteworthy that very recent studies on some psychological processes (especially concerning mirror neurons) offer an explanation of the attitudes and behavior of Cyrus as a child and adolescent as they were narrated by Xenophon. (shrink)

Xenophon’s Oeconomicusincludes an interesting treatise on married life, at the hearth of which is the figure of Ischomachus’ wife, such as she is described by Ischomachus’ words to Socrates. It is an almost innovative figure, because she shares the management of the oikosas being responsible for what is carried out within the oikos: her role is different from her husband’s, who runs and manages what is carried out outside of the oikos. Therefore husband’s and wife’s tasks are different, though complementary. (...) The difference in inclinations and, therefore, roles is shown as established by god, nature and custom. So Ischomachus’ wife is a collaborator and companion of her husband, even though she does not have an equal relation with her him: she manages the activities and people within the oikosaccording to her husband’s directives. Also in the sphere of sexual life she has to conform to his desires and convictions; her own status as a wife will be preserved only if she meets his expectations: paradoxically her own autonomy is other-directed. Even if she may be considered a “maîtresse de la maison”, nevertheless, as Foucault outlined with a very incisive expression, she is anyway the “maîtresse obéissante de la maison”. (shrink)

L’Economico di Senofonte contiene un interessante trattato sulla vita matrimoniale: al centro di questo trattato si colloca la figura della moglie di Iscomaco, così come viene delineata da quanto quest’ultimo narra a Socrate. Una figura in parte innovativa, in quanto viene associata alla gestione dell’oikos come responsabile di quanto si svolge all’interno della casa: un ruolo diverso da quello del marito, che si occupa e dirige ciò che si svolge all’esterno: i compiti di moglie e marito risultano quindi diversi ma (...) complementari. Questa differenza di attitudini e quindi di ruoli è presentata come voluta sia dalla divinità, sia dalla natura sia dalla consuetudine. La moglie di Iscomaco viene quindi a configurarsi come una collaboratrice e una compagna per il marito. Tuttavia questa moglie non intrattiene con il marito una relazione paritaria: infatti gestisce attività e persone all’interno della casa secondo le direttive impartite dal marito; anche nella sfera della vita sessuale deve adeguarsi ai desideri e alle convinzioni di Iscomaco; il suo stesso status di moglie sarà mantenuto soltanto se lei risponderà alle sue aspettative: paradossalmente la sua stessa autonomia è in realtà eterodiretta. Se pure può considerarsi una “maîtresse de la maison”, tuttavia, come ha sottolineato con una formula efficacissima Foucault, si tratta comunque di una “maîtresse obéissante de la maison”. (shrink)