In the article, the author examines the theory of knowledge of Bruno Latour from the perspective of analytic epistemology. Representatives of this approach-as well as Bruno Latour himself- are trying to answer the question: "What is knowledge?". The author explicates the difference between Latour's theory and the basic premises of the analytic epistemologists. In order to do this, the author highlights the theoretical foundations of Latour's theory of knowledge and demonstrates the conventions in the analysis of knowledge which this approach (...) violates. Using the distinctions of analytic epistemology, the author classifies Latour's theory as a purist antisceptic invariantistic externalism. Such a theoretical position is one of the most common views on knowledge in this field. This classification of Latour's views makes it possible to identify the problems specific to this position. The author demonstrates that Latour's theory avoids some of these problems, that some of the problems have a solution specific to this theory, and that some of the problems are not specifically addressed within it. The advantage of Latour's theory is that it copes well with the two main challenges of analytic theories of knowledge: the Gettier problem and the prob- 117 lem of skepticism. In the conclusion, the author offers a critique specific to Latour's theory and presents possible objections to it. (shrink)

Tocqueville’s imperialism has recently attracted much attention in Tocqueville studies. The challenge is to reconcile his imperialism to his liberalism. Is Tocqueville merely a classical liberal thinker who based his liberal theory on human rights and universal humanism? If so, then his support for imperialism would inevitably seem irrational and awkward. The present contribution questions this approach and argues that Tocqueville is more influenced by a republican tradition of freedom, on account of which he grants a positive value to both (...) the state as a political community and to its power as a necessary instrument in the protection of freedom. On these grounds we may explain his sense of empire from the perspective of his liberal theory, while simultaneously adjusting our understanding of his liberalism. (shrink)

Politics and religion have always been very closely intertwined in all the writings of Dostoevsky, but in his “Legend of Grand inquisitor” this connection is explored in a more fundamental manner for the first time. Apart from the idea of a direct causal relationship between religious and political concepts, quite prominent in the writings of Dostoevsky, The Legend of Grand inquisitor contains a more complex inquiry concerning the nature of political power in general. The researchers of Dostoevsky who have spotted (...) this line of inquiry could not formulate it explicitly, and the political theologists who gave it an explicit formulation did not fully explain or develop it further. As such, a detailed and explicit politico-theological interpretation of Dostoevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor have not yet been formulated. The Grand inquisitor urges the people to submit to him voluntarily; thus, the three temptations — which form the foundation of his power — can be interpreted not only as certain instruments of enslavement, but also as elements of a social contract that would allow the sovereign-inquisitor to take responsibility for the salvation of people who relinquished their freedom to him. This interpretation also implies that the temptation of the Grand inquisitor is prominent in any earthly authority. Dostoevsky’s own proclamation of personal freedom would consequently also lead him to claim that any earthly power — any institution that exchanges earthly goods for human freedom — is wrong and unnecessary. Nicolai Berdyaev further develops these politico-theological intuitions of Dostoevsky as a critique of the Soviet government, which he claims to be the closest representation of the Grand Inquisitor in human history. Berdyaev points to the central role of the inquisitor’s three temptations in the formation of a “religion of socialism” and also draws an association between the tragedy of the Grand inquisitor — whose utopian intentions only lead to the further enslavement of people — with the failure of the Soviet enlightenment project. (shrink)

The author conducts a comparative analysis of the Russian Revolution developed by two prominent social-political thinkers of Germany and Russia in the early twentieth century—Max Weber and Peter Struve. The article focuses on their respective interpretations of the causes, course, and consequences of the Revolution as determined by their political ideals, i.e. a specific combination of nationalism and liberalism. The author pays special attention to Weber’s and Struve’s perception of the Russian Revolution, which, albeit for different reasons, was rejected by (...) both thinkers. (shrink)

In 19th century Germany, the number of publications in the history of philosophy increased dramatically. According to Ulrich Schneider’s calculations, from 1810 through 1899, 148 original textbooks by 114 authors were published in German. The aim of this article is to analyse how the documented in these publications canonic vision of 19th century German philosophy evolved. An analysis of 66 treatises published from 1802 through 1918 allows dividing 19th century philosophers into groups based on the frequency of their names across (...) the tables of contents, describing the changes in the leading group composition and in the share of attention received by a given philosopher over time. The paper presents thus a formal analysis of how historical reputations of philosophers were made, how they stabilised, or faded. The authors claim that the current understanding of the history of 19th century philosophy differs significantly from the one recorded in the German textbooks of the era. (shrink)

The theme of this issue of Ethical Perspectives is the French tradition in liberal thought, and the unique contribution that this tradition can make to debates in contemporary liberalism. It is inspired by a colloquium held at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in December of 2008 entitled “In Search of a Lost Liberalism: Constant, Tocqueville, and the singularity of French Liberalism.” This colloquium was held in conjunction with the retirement of Leuven professor and former Dean of the Institute of Philosophy, André (...) Van de Putte, who found much inspiration in this tradition. A revised version of his valedictory lecture from the conference serves as the final contribution to this issue. Much contemporary liberal political philosophy is currently done in conversation with a line of liberal thinkers starting with John Locke, running through Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, and culminating in the work of John Rawls and his followers. The reasons for the enormous appeal of this philosophical tradition are, among other things, the combination of the central role of the intuitively appealing value of individual liberty with a strong rationalistic, universalistic, and normative character. The thread running through most of these liberal theories is a commitment to what the French liberal Benjamin Constant referred to as “the liberty of the moderns,” that is, liberty in a negative sense, as a lack of interference in one’s activity from others and from government. This focus has expanded over time to include a richer body of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, for instance, in the work of liberal thinkers who have tried to integrate the insights of communitarian thought and discourse ethics in their work. However, the emphasis on individual liberty in the negative sense continues to be the normative and theoretical touchstone and default position for many contemporary liberal theories. The limitation of the canon of liberal thought to the aforementioned authors and themes deprives the contemporary debate of a rich source of ideas: the French liberal tradition. Montesquieu, considered to be the father of this tradition, provides a good example of how it can enrich current debates in liberal theory. Montesquieu’s work evinces a keen eye for the dynamics of power relations and the limitations of the power of the better rational argument. His insight that power can sometimes only be checked by an equal and opposing power, so that a system of separation and balance of powers is necessary in order to preserve liberty, is reflected in the foundations of most modern democracies. Montesquieu also argues that contingent environmental, historical, social and economic conditions play a dramatic role in determining what kind of government is appropriate for a particular society. On his view, ignoring these facts when framing a government can inadvertently end in despotism. Montesquieu’s observations challenge us to reexamine some of contemporary liberalism’s universalist and rationalist claims. Benjamin Constant is most famous for his distinction between two kinds of liberty: the liberty of the ancients and the liberty of the moderns. The ancient form of liberty manifested itself in the active political participation of citizens in the ancient republic. While this form of government and decision-making was suitable for small, homogeneous city-states, Constant argues that it is impracticable for large modern nation-states. Hence, the concept of modern liberty shifts to an emphasis on the rule of law and the non-interference of the state in private matters. This form of liberty is familiar to us from contemporary liberalism – and Constant cherishes this form of freedom as much as any liberal does today. However, his position is complex: he also argues that the liberty of the ancients should not be neglected. Active political participation is needed to ensure that the government is executing its duty of preserving the modern form of liberty by publicly pointing out violations. The contemporary relevance of Constant’s work is clear when we consider the alleged “democratic deficit” that plagues the EU and international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. Not only does this democratic deficit threaten the modern form of liberty by placing decision-making processes out of sight of the people, it also threatens citizens’ sense of self-respect derived from self-governance. Constant’s argument for the necessity of combining the liberty of the ancients with that of the moderns provides a fruitful resource for confronting these contemporary issues. Tocqueville’s work on liberalism benefits from his opportunity to observe a society founded on liberal democratic principles – the United States of America – in action. In his Democracy in America, he examines the social consequences, both intended and unintended, of building a society on ‘the equality of conditions’, as he defines ‘democracy’. Tocqueville sees a tension between the democratic value of equality and the aristocratic value of the rule of the best. He observes that democratic societies do not necessarily choose the best leaders and instead promote mediocrity instead of virtue, talent, and excellence. Democracy also confronts citizens with the threat of ‘soft despotism’, where a government that preserves the outer signs of the liberty of the moderns nevertheless controls the behavior of its citizens in minute detail through a system of detailed rules ostensibly aimed at their welfare. This paternalism is an even more insidious threat to liberal values than the hard variety of despotism, since it is so difficult to detect and done in the name of liberal values themselves. Taking Tocqueville’s observations seriously would add complexity to attempts to theorize about the modern social-democratic welfare state. The contributions to this issue supplement and critique mainstream liberal thought and its relation to contemporary issues through a serious engagement with the French liberal tradition. Annelien De Dijn’s contribution discusses Bertrand de Jouvenel, a lesser-known 20th Century representative of the French political tradition she terms ‘aristocratic liberalism’. This tradition has its roots in the work of Montesquieu, and emphasizes the importance of intermediary bodies, most importantly the aristocracy, in providing a check to the top-down power of despotic state authorities and the bottom-up power of revolutionary leveling tendencies, both of which threaten liberty. De Dijn situates Jouvenel in this tradition, but then indicates an important difference between his thought and that of his predecessors: his most significant work, On Power, is not only on French history, but on European history. Pointing to the enthusiastic reception of this work in the Anglophone world, she suggests that the rise of totalitarianism in Europe gave the anti-totalitarian features of aristocratic liberalism a broader appeal. Valentino Lumowa’s paper concerns Constant’s classic text, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns. Lumowa argues that in order to understand Constant’s piece, we must be aware that its two parts were written under different historical circumstances and decipher the argumentative thrust inherent in the text. Following Stephen Holmes, he argues that to understand the shift Constant made in the second part of the text, we should read it within the context of the increasing influence of the ultra-Royalists in the legislature during the Bourbon Restoration. However, in contrast to Holmes, he contends that the spirit of both civic and individual freedom, which enlivens representative system, is the backbone of the text in its unity. Demin Duan’s essay investigates an apparent ambivalence between liberal and imperialist tendencies in the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, which has already drawn some attention from Tocquevillian scholars. These interpretations of Tocqueville and his writings on empire generally agree that Tocqueville stands in a recognized tradition of liberalism, which is characterized by respect for human rights, individual freedom and a sense of universal humanism. On this standard view, Tocqueville’s support of imperialism represents nothing but an unfortunate breach of his own otherwise consistent liberal thinking. Duan’s article questions this standard position. By questioning the assumption of Tocqueville’s liberalism in the first place, he tries to gauge the influence of both the old republican tradition and the new liberal perspective on his thinking. In conclusion, he argues that Tocqueville’s overall thought, especially his notion of freedom, is very much informed by an old republican tradition. His support of French imperialism could be better understood from this perspective rather than be rendered simply as a deviation from liberal norms. Pawel Marczewski’s contribution is an attempt to show that Tocqueville’s conception of liberty transcends the divisions between negative and positive aspects of freedom. He begins by juxtaposing this conception with the opposition drawn by Constant between liberty of the ancients and liberty of the moderns. While Tocqueville and Constant shared a concern for the preservation of individual rights, Tocqueville was much more reluctant to accept the modern loss of the communal dimension of liberty. He did not accept the view that jouissances privées, private pleasures, are the main compensation that the modern world has to offer for the lost ancient treasure of political participation. The essay then looks into the relevance of Tocqueville’s standpoint for current debates between liberal defenders of negative freedom and republican advocates of freedom as non-domination. Participants on both sides of the debate seem to be so devoted to showing that their particular approach provides the best guarantees against actual and possible threats to liberty that they overlook the fact that their definitions of freedom remain significantly similar. By arguing that ‘to be free is to be guided by one’s own will’, contemporary republicans, as well as their liberal counterparts, move along the lines drawn by Constant towards private pleasures. By questioning the inevitability of this turn, Tocqueville provides us with a valuable contribution to these discussions in contemporary political philosophy. Finally, André Van de Putte’s contribution, an adaptation of his emeritus speech that closed the conference on French Liberalism, appeals to Tocqueville in order to draw attention to the importance of intermediary, dialogical bodies in mitigating the implicit despotic tendencies of the democratic drive to equality. In Tocqueville’s view, the transition from the feudal corporate inequality to democratic individual equality was not a clean break. Rather, this transition is a continual process of democratization that is driven by a desire for equality, or egalité des conditions. This dissolution of distinctions of estate, class and status has the unintended consequence of concentrating the diffuse power of these entities into a centralized state, which is responsible for ensuring the equality of all under the law. This process leaves increasingly isolated and atomized individuals to face the power of a monolithic state in defense of their freedom, and moves toward a soft, paternalistic despotism. Constant’s freedom of the moderns is not sufficient to protect individuals from this centralized power. Democracy also requires the political freedom of the ancients. Van de Putte argues for a system in which atomized individuals organize themselves into intermediary bodies that, in a Montesquieuian balance of powers, can enter into dialogue with each other and the state on more equitable terms. Van de Putte’s contribution closes with a plea for a conception of democracy as a regime of dialogue. (shrink)

During the nineteenth century, German philosophy developed from a type of general knowledge to an academic discipline at the university. Changes across disciplines to the philosophy of science and psychological surveys created new challenges for the place and purpose of philosophy in the educational system. The content of logic courses for secondary schools (Gymnasiums) was centred on the dissociation of nature and the scale of logic. In this paper, I will examine a number of projects for teaching philosophy at the (...) secondary school level from new humanism to reduce philosophical to philological concerns about different projects offered by Niethammer, Hegel and Herbart. Then, I will focus on the most successful – Adolf Trendelenburg’s Elements of Aristotle’s Logic (1st edition of 1836). This work is a compilation of the logical texts of Aristotle, and for as long as sixty years, it was an official textbook in Prussian secondary schools. The aim of the paper is to show how the rethinking of Aristotle’s heritage affected the theoretical and ideological expectations of propaedeutic courses and transformed the image of logic as a philosophical discipline. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the criticism of the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx by the great political thinker of the 20 th century, Eric Voegelin (1901-1985). The article shows that Voegelin’s criticism of the Marxist doctrine consists of several successive stages. In his works of the late 1930s, he develops the idea of Marxism and communism, which grew up on its ideological basis, as one of the main “political religions” of the XX century. In the 1940s, when Voegelin was (...) living in exile in the United States, he continued to criticize the Marxism of Marx, but on a new theoretical basis, at the center of which was the concept of “gnosticism” as the essence of Western modernity. Since the 1950 s, Voegelin’s interest in the Marxism of Marx gradually faded away, and the Marxist doctrine itself is mostly mentioned as an example of one of the variants of “gnosticism” of the 20th-century politics. As a theoretical horizon of Voegelin’s criticism of the Marxian revolutionary idea, a brief reconstruction of the main propositions of his political theory as an experimental and critical science of the correct order of the soul and society is presented. Voegelin’s thesis that the rise of “gnosticism” is the essence of Western modernity is also analyzed in detail, since it serves as the central point of his interpretation of modern intellectual history. The article shows that the spiritual basis on which the development of the Marxian revolutionary idea took place was the revolt of the young Marx against God and his desire to eliminate the higher, transcendent and creative divine principle from the picture of the world of modern man. Voegelin's final conclusion, proposed by him in the framework of criticism of the Marxian revolutionary idea, is that the political success of Marxism in the XX century is one of the most significant symptoms of the spiritual decline of Western civilization. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the problem of studying the activities of revolutionary and ideological virtuosi of the XX century by means of the historical sociology of modernity. It attempts both to identify the main trends in the participation of intellectually active strata of modern societies in the radical transformation of social reality, and to clarify the reasons that pushed them to do so. It is noted that the ideological background of such forms of socio-political radicalism were the symbolic means (...) of challenging the old forms of social reality and constructing new forms through secular ideologies of various types (socialism, communism, anarcho-syndicalism, fascism, national socialism, etc.). The role of conductors of the ideological message of these secular religions of salvation to the masses was usually performed by radical-minded intellectuals and students, for whom the worship of new idols and symbols of faith became the true meaning of life and struggle. In the XX century, it was the intellectuals who acted as the main creators and operators of collective salvation religions, and the social communities created on their basis. Moreover, they not only tried to save themselves with their help, but at the same time laid claim to the legitimate monopoly of determining who would be saved, and who would not. Thus, radical intellectuals acted as both the creators of the new norm and as agents of the policy of rationalization. The article pays special attention to the characteristics of the creators and social carriers of radical ideological views — and the worldviews based on them — as well as the refraction of these utopian visions in the socio-political practice of the last century. In conclusion, it is suggested that Max Weber’s historical sociology and Emile Durkheim’s symbolic theory of the “sacred”, supplemented by modern developments in the field of political sociology and socio-historical anthropology, can serve as a relevant system of theoretical coordinates for the study of ideological and revolutionary virtuosi of the XX century. (shrink)

The article discusses the heuristic and methodological potential of historical sociology as one of the most dynamically developing disciplines of modern social and scientific knowledge. It is argued that this area of research is functionally capable of taking on the role of today's analytical philosophy of history in the form of integrity and, at the same time, the operational reflection of the historical experience of our country. The article points out the deficient nature of previous conceptualizations of the domestic past (...) from the point of view of historical sociology. First, the development of this discipline in the West is briefly analyzed, starting with the classics of world sociology. The qualitative and quantitative growth of historical and sociological research in the second half of the 20th century—which led to a significant expansion of the explanatory repertoire of macrosociology—is highlighted. Next, the ambivalent position of historical sociology in Russia is discussed, where—despite the existing interest in its methodological categories and substantive results—a full-fledged institutionalization of this sociological discipline has not yet occurred. Thus, a conclusion is made about the existence of a serious local tradition of interest in historical-sociological synthesis, starting with the classics of historiography and pioneers of Russian sociology at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, substantial progress is highlighted on the part of the domestic social-scientific community in the reception of the achievements of world-historical sociology at the beginning of the 21st century. The next section shows the particular relevance of modern historical-sociological approaches to the problematization of the past in the context of the domestic epistemological situation. A number of the most promising thematic complexes in modern Russian academia are highlighted. In conclusion, we highlight issues concerning framework research and scientific organization faced by historical sociology in Russia. (shrink)

Treatise with auto-commentary on Dvaita philosophy.

Recent Anglophone scholarship has successfully shown that Nietzsche's thought makes important contributions to a wide range of contemporary philosophical debates. In so doing, however, scholarship has lost sight of another important feature of Nietzsche's project, namely his desire to challenge the very conception of philosophy that has been used to assess his merits as a philosopher. In other words, contemporary scholarship has overlooked Nietzsche's contributions to metaphilosophy, i.e. debates around the nature, methods, and aims of philosophy. This important new collection (...) of essays brings together an international group of distinguished scholars to explore and discuss these contributions and debates. It will appeal to anyone interested in metaphilosophy, Nietzsche studies, German studies, or intellectual history. (shrink)

R. S. Bluck’s engaging volume provides an accessible introduction to the thought of Plato. In the first part of the book the author provides an account of the life of the philosopher, from Plato’s early years, through to the Academy, the first visit to Dionysius and the third visit to Syracuse, and finishing with an account of his final years. In the second part contains a discussion of the main purpose and points of interest of each of Plato’s works. There (...) is a chapter on Plato’s central doctrine, the Theory of Ideas, and a translation of Plato’s Seventh Letter , which not only provides valuable additional material for the study of Plato’s thought but also contains a vivid account of many incidents in Plato’s life. (shrink)

This book examines Augustine's description of the actually existing world, especially that aspect most important for the human pursuit of happiness: the human being and God. It begins with an overview of the characteristics of the human individual and the context in which they must live out their lives, a context dominated by two seemingly contradictory realities: the existence of God and the existence of evil.

Work on Mimamsa philosophy; includes Āśutoṣiṇī commentary and Hindi translation.

The IHME Covid-19 prediction model has been one of the most influential Covid models in the United States. Early on, it received heavy criticism for understating the extent of the epidemic. I argue that this criticism was based on a misunderstanding of the model. The model was best interpreted not as attempting to forecast the actual course of the epidemic. Rather, it was attempting to make a conditional projection: telling us how the epidemic would unfold, given certain assumptions. This misunderstanding (...) of the IHME’s model prevented the public from seeing how dire the model’s projections actually were. (shrink)

Papers delivered at the joint meeting of the Hegel Society of America and the Hegel Society of Great Britain held at Merton College, Oxford, Sept. 1-4, 1981, to mark the 150th anniversary of Hegel's death. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Comprehensive analysis of fundaentals of Sankhya philosophy with reference to Vedic literature and Śaṅkarācārya.

Работа предназначена для ученых и специалистов, преподавателей, аспирантов, слушателей, студентов, а также всех интересующихся рассматриваемой темой.

Explanation of terms in Mīmāṃsā, an orthodox school in Hindu philosophy.