This study is concerned with the controversy between thinkers of the eleventh century which is traditionally called the dispute between dialectics and anti-dialectics. The group of dialectics, among whom one might mention Berengar of Tours (c. 1010–1088), Anselm of Besate (dubbed Peripateticus, born c. 1020), and perhaps also Roscelin of Compiègne (c. 1050–1123), attempted to reappraise the interpretation of several Christian dogmas, even flaunting their general indifference to doctrinal themes, and directing their attention to, for example, the reading of Aristotelian and peripatetic (and other) logical writings, the conclusions of which they further developed. This approach did not always meet with understanding and a whole range of scholars stood opposed to it, often directing verbal attacks against the use of dialectic and logical methods in theological studies. The present study aims to analyse the key theses of this debate and to reveal its roots and its real character. The basic question then posed is: Is it really proper to speak simply of two polarities (where then should Anselm of Canterbury, for example, or Lanfranc of Pavia, be placed?) with Aristotle’s, or Aristotelian, logic standing on one side and God’s omnipotence hand-in-hand with Holy Scripture standing on the other? Attention is centred on the so-called anti-dialectics and on their theses denying dialectics. Among the figures included is, above all, Peter Damian (c. 1007– 1072), as well as Otloh of St Jimram (c. 1010–after 1070) and Manegold of Lautenbach (c. 1040–after 1103). By approaching the dispure from their standpoint one may better understand what actually the dialectics were aiming at and what really provoked their opponents. An attempt is also made to pinpoint the possible reasons for the opposition of the anti-dialectics’ to the so-called dialectics, especially when their own intellectual activity often failed to match their anti-dialectical theses.
The study focuses on the characteristically Pascalian attempt at synthesizing of contradictory and intensely remote extremes of existence. Assuming the form of existential dialectics, the paradox of Pascalian vision refers in particular to the human, demonstrating the non-reducible tension between the intuitive (irrational) and the rational (panlogical); between the heart and the mind, between faith and knowledge. The conviction of human misery or the worldly vanity is fused here with the simultaneous sense of human greatness (the power of thought). The tension which therefore spans those dichotomous ontological-ontic dimensions is the determining factor of the constitution of individual existence.
The Assayer of Galileo Galilei is a classical text of the Italian literature. It was written in the context of discussions on comets and is a response, word by word, to the Libra astronomica ac philosophica signed by Lotario Sarsi but in fact written by Orazio Grassi. From the formal (i.e. rhetorical) point of view the Assayer is an example of the judicial, defensive speech. However, in the book one can also see the presence of the epideictic speech. The epideictic speech praises the methodological values of the Copernican vision of the universe, and blames those involved in the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic approaches. In the Assayer there is a very famous rhetorical period - the ending with the proverbial aut Caesar aut nihil - in which the internal connection between both types of speeches can be analysed. The rhetorical exercise developed in the present essay tries to disentangle the complex node of these speeches in this fragment.
The text presents Hegelian concept of tragedy as an integral part of philosophical system of German philosopher. Only in the context of history of Spirit one can understand the role and the meaning of tragedy which represents certain phase in dialectical history of consciousness.
The paper deals with the phenomenon of changing quantity into quality as it is developed in Hegel’s Science of Logic and its chapter on measure. First, the relation of measure to the concept of number is analyzed, particularly with respect to the concept of real numbers and their birth from the practices of counting and measuring. After that, the measure is treated as a category of speech devoted to the application of theoretical or quantitative differences within the qualitatively given experience. As such, Hegel’s talk about the transformation of quantity into quality, as well as his talk about double negation and bad infinity, are contrasted with their interpretation in Marx’s and Engels’s political economy.
DE
Der Artikel befasst sich mit dem Phänomen des Wandels von Quantität zu Qualität, der in Hegels Wissenschaft der Logik und dort im Kapitel zur Kategorie des Maßes erörtert wird. Zunächst wird das Verhältnis des Maßes und des Zahlbegriffs analysiert, insbesondere in Bezug zum Begriff der reellen Zahl und deren Entstehung in der Praxis des Rechnens und Messens. Anschließend wird das Maß als Kategorie der Sprache erfasst, die die Anwendung theoretischer oder auch quantitativer Unterscheidung auf eine qualitativ gegebene Erfahrung betrifft. In diesem Sinne werden Hegels Ausführungen zum Wandel der Quantität in Qualität, ebenso wie seine Verwendung der doppelten Negation und der schlechten Unendlichkeit in Kontrast zur entsprechenden Interpretation in der politischen Ökonomie von Marx und Engels gesetzt.
The Assayer of Galileo Galilei is a classical text of the Italian literature. It was written in the context of discussions on comets and is a response, word by word, to the Libra astronomica ac philosophica signed by Lotario Sarsi but in fact written by Orazio Grassi. From the formal (i.e. rhetorical) point of view the Assayer is an example of the judicial, defensive speech. However, in the book one can also see the presence of the epideictic speech. The epideictic speech praises the methodological values of the Copernican vision of the universe, and blames those involved in the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic approaches. In the sixth section of the Assayer there is a famous group of four rhetorical periods in which one can notice the presence of the new interpretation of the antique metaphor of the book. The rhetorical exercise developed in this essay tries to disentangle the complex node of this metaphor and gives its new interpretation. It seems that for Galileo the metaphor is not a trope but passes to the topica. At the end some considerations on dialectics of Galileo are also proposed.
The text presents the Hegelian idea of the end of art as well as her meaning for theoretical comprehension and the practical understanding of artistic facts. Author subjects hermeneutical analysis system and empirical premises Hegelian thesis, confronting it with current state of art as well as artistic consciousness and her interpretation in the philosophical aesthetics.
The article seeks to explore factors behind the diversification and contradictory nature of existing approaches to translation. We also attempt to establish a research perspective which would be instrumental in unravelling some universal mechanisms underlying the development of theories of translation and would help to look through the multifaceted spectrum of translation theories in order to find traits that they all seem to share. As an interpretive instrument we used the dialectics, with her typical “duality of orientation: towards unity and towards division”. Such a point of reference for our explorations is a result of fact, that the answers of the fundamental questions that theories of translation (or particular tendencies therein) ask are contradictory. From our point of view this situation is connected with the dialectic nature of translation itself and with the oppositions between elements of translation chain and between such factors as langue and culture. We discussed several dialectical moments and oppositions.
This article deals with the concept of “great questions” in Hans Blumenberg’s phi-losophy. The “great questions” are fundamental elements of the German philosophy due to their role in explaining the core of the modern paradigm. Great questions are posed as resorts, and create references to them. They can be seen as atoms on the bot-tom of the modernity foundation, while some phenomena that could make them func-tional emerge as related to them. The law that enforces the atoms bond and the possibil-ity of combinations resides in the so-called reoccupation theory that gains a good sight of what happens in immanent history. The way this work intends to clarify the great questions issue is by observing three assets of Blumenberg’s philosophy: a) the dialecti-cal orientation of history (in particular, the modernity); b) the rule of historical change; c) Blumenberg’s holistic tendencies. This article aims to demonstrate that Blumenberg’s vision not only allows freedom to be explicit in modernity, but freedom is the main asset of this epoch.
The paper proposes a new kind of universalism, i.e., a philosophy of “mankind-for-itself.” This conception which deals with the human world is based on some essential features of the western cultural world, indicated by the author, as well as on Karl Marx’s and Georg W. F. Hegel’s ideas and conceptions.
Pragmatics and dialectics are two disciplines which have been amongst the first and most important partners for argument studies in the exploration of the complex realm of communication. Treating argumentation as a construct consisting of premises and conclusion allows for investigating some interesting properties of the phenomenon of reasoning, but does not capture a variety of aspects related to the usage of natural language and dialogical context in which real-life argumentation is typically embedded. This special issue explores some of the fascinating research questions which emerge when we move beyond logic into the territory of the pragmatics and dialectics of argument.
The purpose of the essay is to critically analyze the influence of J. Derrida’s deconstruction on David J. Gunkel’s book Deconstruction (MIT Press 2021). Gunkel’s handbook is aimed at making deconstruction a tool of critical thinking accessible to non-professionals. It turns out that accomplishing this task comes at the expense of precisely the critical potential of deconstruction itself. Gunkel is well aware that his arguments are sometimes superficial and overlook deeper problems that should be addressed. Such a failure takes the form of a fetishistic denial, which in psychoanalysis is summarized by the formula “I know well, but all the same.” In turn, deconstruction itself, insofar as it is separated from Kant’s transcendental philosophy and Hegel’s dialectics, becomes an academic ideology. Restoring its proper subversive potential can only be done by returning to a philosophy of reflection, in which the thinker himself must ultimately consider his own position as an author and bring it under criticism. This is the path that Gunkel avoids, because he could then no longer be the author of a handbook on deconstruction, rather than someone who practices deconstruction.
In this paper, i analyse the components that make up the concept of so-called elements of anti-Semitism as presented by Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer. According to their multi-factorial analysis of the sources behind the development of anti-Semitism in the 20th century, we can distinguish four basic dimensions thereof: socio-economic, religious, ideological and ethical-moral. After a brief characterisation of each of the elements of anti-Semitism, i then juxtapose them with the phenomenon of contemporary Islamophobia in order to attempt to prove that the concept of the authors of the Frankfurt School has a broader and non-uniform dimension; it can be treated as a philosophical-critical foundation for theoretical research in the field of contemporary xenophobias and its sources.
The scientific methodology of management science (MSc) is consistent in terms of direction with the overall methodology of sciences. Still, it continues to pose significant challenges. One such challenge is the problem of system characteristics of MSc methodology at the highest level of scientific practice, i.e. praxeology and systems theory. There are also the problems of MSc synthesis, i.e. the definition of its universal scope, in the light of its increasing diversity and specialisation of domains. This paper aims to elaborate on the achievements to date in management science on the grounds of the systemic-praxeological approach, scientific synthesis of methodology, with a particular focus on the role of reasoning and inference. My assertion is that methodology is a subsystem of the core of primary scientific activity of MSc, comprising the com- ponents of scientific practice focused around the scientific method (methods). Its objective domain extends beyond the cognitive function, also encompassing value assignment, determination of post-diagnosis scientific action, decisions about scientific models and implementation of scientific models –CARNI system. The scientific methodology of MSc is specifically a product of scientific problems as well as the goals, principles and methods used to solve them, forming an exceedingly complex system.
This text exposes and analyses the references to the Eleatics starting from the hints to Gorgias and Zeno in the Phaedrus 261c–d and from the eristic arguments of Euthydemus which are evidently influenced by the way of arguing of the Eleatics. Naturally, the greatest attention is reserved for the dialectical dialogues: with a real coup de théâtre, the Eleatics pass from being (almost) unknown figures to becoming masters. First Parmenides and then the Stranger of Elea give Socrates important suggestions about method and content. This sequence is even more exceptional because it is the only case in which we find some internal references in Plato’s corpus, where the author usually never mentions his own writings. These analysis highlights, among other issues, the importance of dialectics, the treatment of not being as different, the denial of the so-called parricide by the Stranger of Elea.
This essay aims at discussing the problem of Felix Mendelssohn’s atti¬tude towards different religions shown in his choral piece Responsorium et Hymnus Op. 121 for male choir with cello and double bass. Considering the arguments concerning composer’s self-identity provided by Jeffrey Sposato, we could interpret the Lutheran chorale appearing at the end of this Catholic liturgical work as means by which Mendelssohn tried to manifest his Lutheran faith and therefore to criticize Catholicism. However, if we examine more carefully the very end of this composi¬tion, we would find that the musical material, characteristic for each faith, form a dialectical and dynamic relation. It seems that – instead of criticizing Catholicism – Felix showed the possibility and the necessity of different faiths to coexist, which, according to the idea of religious pluralism and tolerance proposed by composer’s grandfather, Moses Mendelssohn, is the only way to discover religious truth. At the end of this paper, I would like to propose that the reception history of Felix Mendelssohn’s work and life from the post-Wagnerian and anti-semitic criticism to so-called Mendelssohn Renaissance in the second half of 20th century also went through a dialectic course. We cannot fully understand and interpret them without taking a multi-aspect view.
This essay aims at discussing the problem of Felix Mendelssohn’s attitude towards different religions shown in his choral piece Responsorium et Hymnus Op. 121 for male choir with cello and double bass. Considering the arguments concerning composer’s self-identity provided by Jeffrey Sposato, we could interpret the Lutheran chorale appearing at the end of this Catholic liturgical work as means by which Mendelssohn tried to manifest his Lutheran faith and therefore to criticize Catholicism. However, if we examine more carefully the very end of this composition, we would find that the musical material, characteristic for each faith, form a dialectical and dynamic relation. It seems that-instead of criticizing Catholicism-Felix showed the possibility and the necessity of different faiths to coexist, which, according to the idea of religious pluralism and tolerance proposed by composer’s grandfather, Moses Mendelssohn, is the only way to discover religious truth. At the end of this paper, I would like to propose that the reception history of Felix Mendelssohn’s work and life from the post-Wagnerian and anti-semitic criticism to so-called Mendelssohn Renaissance in the second half of 20th century also went through a dialectic course. We cannot fully understand and interpret them without taking a multi-aspect view.
This article will offer a close reading of the first movement of Debussy’s Violin Sonata (1917), and will set forth to discuss its formal principles within a dialectical context. References to Hegelian philosophy will be made, and also to precursory dialectical structures. The work will also be studied in relation to sonata form, and by taking Mark DeVoto’s claim that this late work displays a “persuasive sonata form” structure into consideration, this analysis will in fact elucidate Debussy’s ostensible departure from archetypical sonata form. Examining Debussy’s correspondences and sketches will posit the Sonata initially within existing scholarship - both historiographical and analytical - paying particular attention to the composer’s “late” style in general. A discussion on the relationship between dialectic and symbolist aesthetics will then be necessary in order to promote the idea that the work is structured around a dialectical framework. The second section of this article will carry out an in-depth analysis of the movement, adopting and adapting a semiotic approach as developed by Nicolas Ruwet and Jean-Jacques Nattiez’s distributional methodology in order to study the work’s formal attributes and motivic construction. Use of this approach will bring to light the strong bond between the motivic thesis and antithesis in the first section of the Sonata, and also the conflation of material in the final section of the movement, which aims towards a dialectical resolution. Use of paradigmatic diagrams will illuminate the methods in which synthesis is achieved by different compositional strategies, including merging, completion, compression, combination and conjunction. Furthermore, the analysis will draw attention to Golden Section proportions in the middle section of the piece. In conclusion, it will be argued that Debussy’s conscious effort to avoid Teutonic principles has paradoxically brought his work closer to Germanic thinking. Amid a time of personal and social conflict, one could ultimately compare his approach to that of the Hegelian “free spirit” - a free spirit that transcends political boundaries by its occupation of a neutral ground. Whether or not this demonstrated Debussy’s conscious compositional intention to reflect Hegel’s philosophical principles remains unsolved. More certain, however, is the fact that the presentation of a thesis and a subsequent antithetical section clearly leads to a resolution of the dialectique in the first movement of this Sonata.
Zygmunt Bauman is known to be one of the leading social theorists and commentators in contemporary sociology whose theoretical or diagnostical analysis of phenomena such as globalisation, community, identity, genocide, individualisation or modernity warrants his status as one of the most widely read sociologists of our time. However, Bauman throughout his work also develops an often overlooked methodological stance based to a certain extent on metaphorical reasoning. Throughout this piece, the authors focus attention on Bauman’s metaphorical cornucopia and how it is informed by a deep-seated moral commitment. Apart from performing the function of methodological devices unveiling a selective and subjective, yet deeper, understanding of the social world, the metaphors also reveal the inherently moral core of Bauman’s sociological endeavour.
Author focuses on conception of world as simultaneously constituted and lived by humans in the thought of Karel Kosík and Erazim Kohák. He seeks first an overall interpretation of the thought of Karel Kosík which would bridge the apparent gap between his early Marxist thought and his later essayistic critique of modern age. He comes to the conclusion that both phases of Kosík’s thought share substantive traits and even that Kosík’s later criticism of global capitalism is possible only on the foundations laid in his early works. Susequently the author presents phenomenologically oriented thought of Erazim Kohák which in spite of differences in overall philosophical framework manifests numerous parallels with Kosík’s thought. In Kohák’s work the author traces the problem of values and of valuing in general. On that basis he then analyses Kohák’s idea of home and offers it as a possible answer to the question of anchoring and orientating of lived experience in the dynamics of a world constituted by human being and living.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.