A newly published book The World in 2025 is quite original publication, which is in fact, a collection of the National Intelligence Council report for fundamental changes in the world of international politics, forthcoming during the next 16 years, and an attempt to outline the possible picture of the world in 2025.
This paper is an analysis of the category of power in Michel Foucault’s philosophy. In the whole work of the philosopher it is definitely abused and often used as a hyperbole or a metaphor only, not as a specific social relation. I argue that especially in Foucault’s writings of 1970s the category of power is used not only as a hypothesis, but also as a justification, which makes much of Foucault’s interesting analysis only a postmodern narrative. In this respect philosophy of Foucault remains Hegelian, trying to enclose the rich experience of European modern culture in one mind, with one superior rule.
This paper is an attempt to outline an influential manner of thinking about the human mind and knowing, a scheme Karl Popper called the “bucket theory of mind”. This scheme is an immanent part not only of almost every scientific theory in epistemology, logic, neurobiology, cognitive science, psychology, and computer science, but also of many cultural stereotypes concerning man and the soul. The paper consists of four major parts: (1) the historical origin, which I locate in the Cartesian idea of mind, popularized by John Locke, (2) a systematization of the bucket theory of mind with an enumeration of the major arguments, (3) a criticism, analysis, and conclusion, and (4) an indication of the general philosophical inspirations the theory: the 17th-century fascination with geometry, the attempt to use Newtonian geometrical language in the human sciences, and indirectly, but more fundamentally, nominalism in perceiving man, the soul, and the mind.
This paper is one of several articles focused on the theory of contract and the foundations of the modern liberal society. It is a continuation of the pervious paper: Why the Anglosaxon do not like Foucault? The text consists of two major parts. First is an analysis of a modern attempt to defend contractarianism by such authors as D. Gauthier, G. Kavka, J. Hampton, K. Hoekstra, M. Oakeschott, S.M. Brown and their argumentation, especially an attempt to interpret Hobbes in game theory categories. It is discredited as full of logical errors. In the second part, two new arguments against the theory of contract are introduced: (I) historical one – reality proved that human act rather conversely than Hobbes wanted them to, and (II) logical – based on the priority of mutuality rule as fundamental in human cognition.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.