Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2014
|
vol. 69
|
issue 2
143 – 153
EN
The aim of the first part of the paper is to make the reader acquainted with the selected parts of Váross’s large study of fanaticism (Le Fanatisme. Une analyse psychologique et axiologuiqe; Paris: Sorbonne 1947, 541 pp.). The second part deals with two contemporary most expanded kinds of fanaticism: political and ideological ones as two distinctive kinds of rationality. Attention is paid also to several parallels between political fanaticism and ideological fanaticism, as they are defined by M. Váross, and as conceived by H. Arendt.
EN
Political ecology is a recent development in contemporary scholarship. Contrary to popular belief, the French philosopher Bruno Latour was not its originator. Some scholars began to recognise that nature and politics were closely connected back to the time of Montesquieu. Nonetheless, Latour’s political ecology is original in that it features new or revamped concepts that lend it new content and meaning. It includes concepts such as ‘mode of existence,’ ‘actor/network,’ ‘humans’ and ‘non-humans,’ ‘terrestrial’ or ‘Earthbound,’ and offers a new interpretation of the concepts of nature and politics. These concepts are the focus of the first and second parts of the article. The final part looks at their practical application, particularly in connection with Latour’s idea of creating a common world fit for life, or at least survival.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2013
|
vol. 68
|
issue 8
652 – 664
EN
Following the distinguished contemporary French philosopher Alain Badiou is asked the question by the author: What does it mean to change the world? Similarly, he proceeds from more abstract ontological presuppositions of the change (world, being, existence, identity) to the philosophy of political change focusing on the reach and character of the change in question. Consequently, attention is paid to factors preventing a more radical change as well as those enhancing it.
EN
Foucault labelled modern society also “disciplinary” or “panopticon” society. Do these characteristics apply to contemporary society as well? If they do, what are the visible signs of that? Further, seen from this perspective, what are the differences (if any) between contemporary society and that described by Foucault? What techniques of power and control do contemporary society apply and what norms? These general questions are intended to be examined in more details in the frame of the body discourse. More precisely, it will be shown, how the issue of body is approached in the obesity discourse. The related concept of the dispositive of power will be examined as well.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.