The evaluation of subjectivity and the birth of aesthetics represent the presuppositions of the modern idea of civilization, intended as an endless progress ofsociety. In the contemporary world, the degeneration of subjectivity into narcissism and aesthetics into intimism has destroyed the productive relationship between individual sentiments and society, leading to the phenomenon of neo-cynical decivilization.

According to the French philosopher Alain, art must regain its existence as a real and solid object to counteract deceitful imagination. In line with this view is Yves Michaud’s description of the “gaseous” state of contemporary art. Paradoxically, the wide circulation of many ‘artistic’ products, destined to be consumed and invoke emotions, does not indicate that we are in presence of an important affirmation of ethical and aesthetical values. As it were, the proliferation of aesthetic objects has destroyed the symbolic (...) value of art. The Italian philosopher Gianni Carchia has underlined how the disappearance of the axiological dimension has led art towards imposture and under the yoke of imagination, which both assist the strategies of the demonic. At this point a question arises: is it possible to eradicate the power of the demonic and evil from our existential condition? According to Jung it’s impossible. In Castelli’s view, the union between art, evil and the demonic has characterized the artistic panorama of the sixteenth century. In the twentieth-century, we owe to Hermann Broch – who brought the raising power of kitsch under philosophical scrutiny − the idea of a complicity between degraded art and evil. Not all scholars agreed that Kitsch represented evil. Many philosophers argued that the growing popularity of Kitsch among the masses posed a problem concerning the demand for art. For this reason, philosophical speculation had better not take a Manichean attitude and reject Kitsch outright, on the contrary, Kitsch should be studied with the aim of transforming the “hunger for art”, of which it is a manifestation, into a desire for ethical and artistic values. (shrink)

The history of Fuzziness in Italy is varied and scattered among a num- ber of research groups. As a matter of fact, “fuzziness” spread in Italy through a sort of spontaneous diffusion, and, also subsequently, no one felt the need to cre- ate some “national” common structure like an Association or similar things. Since a cohesive retelling would be next to impossible, a few members of the Italian fuzzy community have been asked to recount their experience and express their hopes (...) for the future. (shrink)

This volume suggests a novel treatment of context in the analysis of everyday interaction. On a theoretical level, it advocates a switch of focus from 'context' as a preestablished, monolithic category which constringes co-participants' verbal and nonverbal behaviour, to an active notion of 'contextualization': in order to make oneself understood, participants have to establish and maintain those shared contextual frames which in turn are relevant to the local interpretation of their verbal and nonverbal activities. On an empirical level, the volume (...) contains exemplary analyses that show how participants employ 'contextualization cues' of prosodic (rhythm, intonation, tempo, etc.) or nonverbal (gaze, gesture, etc.) nature in order to 'achieve context'.The volume is also an appraisal of the theory of contextualization developed by John Gumperz. In their contributions, researchers from various schools of research, such as conversation analysis, micro-ethnography, phonetics/phonology and metapragmatics, relate their work to this theory. (shrink)

The real extension of Philagathus Cerameus' classical culture has been variously discussed. The homilies of this 12th century preacher from Southern Italy show a thorough knowledge of Heliodorus' Aethiopics . In hom. 24 Rossi Taibbi, on the other side, Philagathus appears to be drawing on Procopius of Gaza's Monody on Antioch, as is suggested by some fragments preserved in the lexicon περ συντάξεωζ. This confirms that he was especially acquainted with those ancient authors who were proposed as models in the (...) rhetorical schools of the Comnenian age. (shrink)

In modern studies it has been largely denied that the so-called “secret doctrine” (which would be more correct to call “private teaching”) of the Theaetetus can be traced back to Protagoras. However, reasons why this doctrine can not be his own, have never been explained. At the same time, an appropriate justification of the hypothesis that it would be considered a pure Platonic creation has never been offered, nor was explained why it would be attributed to followers of Protagoras, but (...) not to Protagoras himself. This article examines the Platonic text in an analytical way, shows how Plato repeatedly attributes to the sophist of Abdera the content of this doctrine, and, based on fragments of Protagoras and other doctrines related to him by ancient sources, it is evident that nothing in Protagorean concepts comes into conflict with Theaetetus so-called “secret doctrine”, and how actually is completely coherent with it. (shrink)

La ricerca qui proposta si rivolge al programma di radicale naturalizzazione della mente e, in particolare, alla posizione del monismo materialistico che esso produce. L’articolo si propone di individuare gli assunti fondamentali sui quali tale programma poggia. Un primo assunto identificato e discusso criticamente all’interno del lavoro concerne una concezione corrispondentista della verità. Un secondo assunto fa riferimento ad una concezione secondo la quale lo studio della mente si riduce all’individuazione di relazioni causali e leggi che regolano processi meccanici, mentre (...) si possono considerare scientifiche solo quelle forme di indagine fondate sul principio di chiusura del mondo fisico. L’analisi si conclude sottolineando come il presupposto più significativo si riveli essere la negazione della soggettività e della coscienza, la quale viene ridotta/ricondotta a operazioni inconsce e inintelligenti. In problema rincontrato a questo rispetto è identificato nel fatto di non fare valere la fondamentale distinzione teoretica tra condizione empirica e condizione di intelligibilità. (shrink)

Euthydemus is included neither in Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker by Diels–Kranz nor in Sofisti. Testimonianze e frammenti by Untersteiner nor in Early Greek Philosophy by Laks and Most. Likewise, the great twentieth century works on the Sophists do not give space to him, at best mentioning him briefly. Yet Euthydemus is the author of a fragment, which was quoted by Plato in his Cratylus, and on which again there is no modern study. This paper sets out to study this fragment (...) in depth, to review and discuss the various translations, both existing and possible, to study the context of Plato’s quotation, to clarify the exact meaning and the theoretical scope of this important fragment, and lastly to place Euthydemus in the Protagorean tradition, of which he is a notable product. (shrink)