A dilemma (from the Greek, dis = two, lemma = topic or premise) is a problem whose solution allows for two possibilities, but none of them is completely satisfactory, so that a difficult choice comes out, upon which ethical and moral issues oſten impact. When a dilemma appears it is not possible to choose from a correct or an incorrect issue, but between two options that may be correct at the same time, but contrary to each other in a certain sense; between two equally appreciated values which, however, come into a conflict. In the field of visuality the dilemmas appear frequently, and seem to have multiplied themselves in the contemporary world, where images and their implications have acquired new strength in the infinite web of global connectivity.
It is perhaps in the field of photography –and particularly in press photography, traditionally linked to the greater effects of reality– where the most dilemmatic situations arise today: to make visible –or not– the oſten terrifying image of the present conflictive scenario, with its wars, attacks, famine, forced migrations, that put us “regarding the pain of others”, as Susan Sontag pointed out, and that may elicit undecidable political dilemmas that involve power factors in a worldwide level. In this extreme visibility, which expands the limits of the knowable, where the many forms of art also are displayed, images seem to recover the symbolic power that worried the ancient people, putting them at the risk of new idolatries. Visibility is assumed as a condition of democracy, as an imaginary of transparency, but also as an erasure of the uncertain threshold between public and private domains, another of the dilemmatic zones.
The dilemmatic visual situations are not limited, however, to moral or cultural questions; they appear equally in the more primary context of visual perception. In this sense, visual ambiguities, paradoxes and antinomies have also a place in the theme we are concerned with. The identification of the referents may suffer from the hesitations coming both from the perceptual organism and from the organization of the object. Even images that are generated and used in the context of scientific practices (diagnosis, experimentation, demonstration, explanation, etc.), which are oſten endorsed with a pretension of objectivity and unambiguity, do not escape from these situations.
Thus, visual contemporary dilemmas concern both ethics and aesthetics, politics, human and social sciences in general, as well as natural sciences, perhaps with special emphasis on biology. Since all knowledge relies on signs, the semiotic perspective allows precisely for an interdisciplinary and integrating view. Is in this vast territory that we want to pose the semiotic reflection on the dilemmas of visuality, calling to questioning, thinking and criticism.
http://iassais.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/1170/
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Pub: Jean-Francois Lyotard, DISCOURSE, FIGURE.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois. Discourse, Figure. Trans. Antony Hudek and Mary Lydon.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2011.
Jean-François Lyotard is recognized as one of the most significant French philosophers of the twentieth century. Although nearly all of his major writing has been translated into English, one important work has until now been unavailable. Discourse, Figure is Lyotard’s thesis. Provoked in part by Lacan’s influential seminars in Paris, Discourse, Figure distinguishes between the meaningfulness of linguistic signs and the meaningfulness of plastic arts such as painting and sculpture. Lyotard argues that because rational thought is discursive and works of art are inherently opaque signs, certain aspects of artistic meaning such as symbols and the pictorial richness of painting will always be beyond reason’s grasp.
A wide-ranging and highly unusual work, Discourse, Figure proceeds from an attentive consideration of the phenomenology of experience to an ambitious meditation on the psychoanalytic account of the subject of experience, structured by the confrontation between phenomenology and psychoanalysis as contending frames within which to think the materialism of consciousness. In addition to prefiguring many of Lyotard’s later concerns, Discourse, Figure captures Lyotard’s passionate engagement with topics beyond phenomenology and psychoanalysis to structuralism, semiotics, poetry, art, and the philosophy of language.
http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Figure-Cultural-Critique-Books/dp/0816645655#_
Jean-François Lyotard is recognized as one of the most significant French philosophers of the twentieth century. Although nearly all of his major writing has been translated into English, one important work has until now been unavailable. Discourse, Figure is Lyotard’s thesis. Provoked in part by Lacan’s influential seminars in Paris, Discourse, Figure distinguishes between the meaningfulness of linguistic signs and the meaningfulness of plastic arts such as painting and sculpture. Lyotard argues that because rational thought is discursive and works of art are inherently opaque signs, certain aspects of artistic meaning such as symbols and the pictorial richness of painting will always be beyond reason’s grasp.
A wide-ranging and highly unusual work, Discourse, Figure proceeds from an attentive consideration of the phenomenology of experience to an ambitious meditation on the psychoanalytic account of the subject of experience, structured by the confrontation between phenomenology and psychoanalysis as contending frames within which to think the materialism of consciousness. In addition to prefiguring many of Lyotard’s later concerns, Discourse, Figure captures Lyotard’s passionate engagement with topics beyond phenomenology and psychoanalysis to structuralism, semiotics, poetry, art, and the philosophy of language.
http://www.amazon.com/Discourse-Figure-Cultural-Critique-Books/dp/0816645655#_
"The First Sail: an Interview with Dragan Kujundzic." SIN FRONTERAS (Spring 2011).
An interview with Dragan Kujundzic concerning his upcoming film The First Sail devoted to J. Hillis Miller, the prominent deconstructionist.
http://ufsinfronteradotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dragan-kujundzic-first-sail-interview.pdf
http://ufsinfronteradotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/dragan-kujundzic-first-sail-interview.pdf
"Bellwether: an Interview with J. Hillis Miller by Jeffery J. Williams." MINNESOTA REVIEW 73-74 (2009)
Hillis Miller has been a bellwether of academic literary criticism for the past
fifty years. Trained at Harvard when it was a bastion of the old historicism, he
staked out the newer criticism, drawing especially on Kenneth Burke. In his
first job at Johns Hopkins University, he came to embrace the phenomenological
criticism inspired by Georges Poulet, writing several books that try to capture
the consciousness of a writer and his or her work. Already conversant in
Continental thought, he shifted allegiances to deconstructive criticism by the
early 1970s, inspired by colleagues Paul de Man and Jacques Derrida. Over the
past two decades, he has widened his concerns to ethics, the fate of humanistic
education, and the new, digital technologies, especially drawing on the later
Derrida.
http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns7172/interview_miller.shtml
http://www.theminnesotareview.org/journal/ns7172/interview_miller.shtml
Phenomenology, Aesthetics and the Arts, Joint Conference of the Irish Phenomenological Circle and the British Society for Phenomenology, University College Cork, March 30-April 1, 2012.
Confirmed speakers: Prof Paul Crowther, National University of Ireland,
Galway, Prof Joanna Hodge, Manchester Metropolitan University, Prof Gary
Schapiro, University of Richmond.
Phenomenology has always been closely associated with aesthetics and the arts. Even Husserl, who conceives it as a 'rigorous science', remarks on the close relation between phenomenological reflection and 'disinterested' aesthetic judgment. The later Heidegger, although dismissive of aesthetics, describes poetic art as the 'happening of truth' and the 'opening of the world'. Merleau-Ponty hopes to find in artistic practice clues for a practice of phenomenology as an embodied alternative to scientistic and intellectualist models of inquiry. We should remember also the contributions made to phenomenology, aesthetics, and reflections on the arts by Sartre, Levinas, Ricoeur, Ingarden, Dufrenne, De Beauvoir, and Hartmann among others. More generally, hermeneutic and later post-structuralist strands of phenomenology, with their emphasis on interpretation and textuality over and against purely logical or causal explanation, often pitch their critiques in artistic, or literary, modes of engagement.
Artists, in turn, find in phenomenology a type of philosophical reflection that offers ways of thinking about the complex embodied and social experiences of their practice. In particular, phenomenological approaches have been exploited as alternatives to the earlier conceptual turn in art making. Now it is time to rethink the relations between phenomenology, aesthetics and the arts in contemporary contexts of new political, wider social and scientific developments.
The British Society for Phenomenology and the newly established Irish Phenomenological Circle have joined together for this conference in order to unite international voices from both philosophical and artistic fields for an open discussion of the potential contributions phenomenology can make to philosophical and artistic practices and debates.
If you are interested in reading a paper at the conference, please send an abstract of approx. 1000 words by 15 January, 2012 to bsp.ipc.2012@gmail.com.
Phenomenology has always been closely associated with aesthetics and the arts. Even Husserl, who conceives it as a 'rigorous science', remarks on the close relation between phenomenological reflection and 'disinterested' aesthetic judgment. The later Heidegger, although dismissive of aesthetics, describes poetic art as the 'happening of truth' and the 'opening of the world'. Merleau-Ponty hopes to find in artistic practice clues for a practice of phenomenology as an embodied alternative to scientistic and intellectualist models of inquiry. We should remember also the contributions made to phenomenology, aesthetics, and reflections on the arts by Sartre, Levinas, Ricoeur, Ingarden, Dufrenne, De Beauvoir, and Hartmann among others. More generally, hermeneutic and later post-structuralist strands of phenomenology, with their emphasis on interpretation and textuality over and against purely logical or causal explanation, often pitch their critiques in artistic, or literary, modes of engagement.
Artists, in turn, find in phenomenology a type of philosophical reflection that offers ways of thinking about the complex embodied and social experiences of their practice. In particular, phenomenological approaches have been exploited as alternatives to the earlier conceptual turn in art making. Now it is time to rethink the relations between phenomenology, aesthetics and the arts in contemporary contexts of new political, wider social and scientific developments.
The British Society for Phenomenology and the newly established Irish Phenomenological Circle have joined together for this conference in order to unite international voices from both philosophical and artistic fields for an open discussion of the potential contributions phenomenology can make to philosophical and artistic practices and debates.
If you are interested in reading a paper at the conference, please send an abstract of approx. 1000 words by 15 January, 2012 to bsp.ipc.2012@gmail.com.
Tacit Knowledge in Science: Discussions with Harry Collins, Universite de Nancy 2, December 12-13, 2012.
The
aim of this conference is to discuss the argument of Harry Collins’ book
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (2010), and related issues.
The detailed programme and the abstracts are available at:
http://poincare.univ-nancy2.fr/digitalAssets/146580_plaquette-TKdec11.pdf
The detailed programme and the abstracts are available at:
http://poincare.univ-nancy2.fr/digitalAssets/146580_plaquette-TKdec11.pdf
The London Conference in Critical Thought, Birkbeck College, University of London, June 29-30, 2012.
In collaboration with the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, the
London Conference in Critical Thought (LCCT) is designed to create a space
for an interdisciplinary exchange of ideas for scholars who work with
“critical” traditions and concerns. We welcome work from the humanities and
social sciences, including but not limited to papers drawing upon
continental philosophy, critical legal theory, critical geography and the
Frankfurt School. The LCCT aims to provide an opportunity for those who
frequently find themselves at the margins of their department or discipline
to engage with other scholars who share theoretical approaches and
interests. Interdisciplinary and inter-institutional, the conference hopes to
foster emergent critical thought and provide new avenues for critically
orientated scholarship and collaboration.
Scholars working in philosophy, literature, geography, law, art, and politics departments have already proposed panels and/or streams for the conference. These address issues as diverse as animality, sovereignty, human rights, cosmopolitanism, the city, and the relationship between text and space. Through these streams participants are encouraged to engage with a variety of thinkers including Kant, Deleuze, Marx, Lacan, Foucault, Spinoza and Derrida, to name a few.
http://londonconferenceincriticalthought.wordpress.com/
Scholars working in philosophy, literature, geography, law, art, and politics departments have already proposed panels and/or streams for the conference. These address issues as diverse as animality, sovereignty, human rights, cosmopolitanism, the city, and the relationship between text and space. Through these streams participants are encouraged to engage with a variety of thinkers including Kant, Deleuze, Marx, Lacan, Foucault, Spinoza and Derrida, to name a few.
http://londonconferenceincriticalthought.wordpress.com/
Pub: Pierre Macherey, HEGEL OR SPINOZA.
Hegel himself than about his object of analysis. Against
Hegel’s characterization of Spinoza’s work as immobile, Macherey offers a lively
alternative that upsets the accepted historical progression of philosophical
knowledge. He finds in Spinoza an immanent philosophy that is not subordinated
to the guarantee of an a priori truth.
Not simply authorizing a particular reading—a “good” Spinoza against a “bad” Hegel—Hegel or Spinoza initiates an encounter that produces a new understanding, a common truth that emerges in the interval that separates the two.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816677409/ref=pe_143810_21777940_snp_dp
Not simply authorizing a particular reading—a “good” Spinoza against a “bad” Hegel—Hegel or Spinoza initiates an encounter that produces a new understanding, a common truth that emerges in the interval that separates the two.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816677409/ref=pe_143810_21777940_snp_dp
Macavoy, Leslie. Review of Francis Mootz, et al., eds. GADAMER AND RICOEUR. NDPR (November 2011).
Mootz III, Francis J., and George H. Taylor,
eds.
Gadamer and Ricoeur: Critical Horizons for Contemporary
Hermeneutics.
London: Continuum, 2011.
This volume is a collection of essays on the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. Taylor and Mootz state in their introduction that the motivation for the project was to encourage further interest in both philosophers’ work. The collection aims to "demonstrate the continuing fruitfulness of Gadamer's and Ricoeur's work and to assess continuing points of similarity and difference in order to refine and extend their legacies" (1). All in all, the book accomplishes this goal. The essays are engaging and work to bring philosophical attention back to issues in hermeneutics that remain of pressing importance but which have been less prominent in the continental philosophical literature of late. They also suggest new directions for the application of insights drawn from hermeneutic philosophy.
The collection consists of twelve essays and is organized into three sections. The first and shortest section is entitled 'History' and aims to provide some historical context to the development of hermeneutic philosophy. This section contains only one essay, which seems somewhat out of balance in relation to the number of essays in the other sections, and those interested in the historical development of hermeneutics leading up to Gadamer and Ricoeur might find themselves wanting something more than is offered here. The second, largest part of the book is entitled 'Engagements' and features seven essays that elaborate upon prominent themes in the work of Gadamer and Ricoeur and put their positions into critical engagement with one another. The first four essays in this section critically examine the work of Gadamer and Ricoeur with respect to issues that emerged as significant in the Gadamer-Habermas debate, specifically the emphasis in Gadamer on universality and on belonging to a tradition and its implications for the possibility of a critical hermeneutics. Those interested in this debate and Ricoeur's position in relation to Gadamer on these issues will especially appreciate this part of the book. The third and final section of the book contains four essays and is called 'Extensions.' As the heading suggests, the organizing theme here is to develop and extend the thought of Gadamer and Ricoeur in directions that they do not explicitly pursue. The topics engaged here are quite divergent, ranging from feminism and the body to political action to the philosophy of technology to Chinese philosophy. In what follows, I will offer a few remarks on each of the essays. . . .
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27486-gadamer-and-ricoeur-critical-horizons-for-contemporary-hermeneutics/
This volume is a collection of essays on the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. Taylor and Mootz state in their introduction that the motivation for the project was to encourage further interest in both philosophers’ work. The collection aims to "demonstrate the continuing fruitfulness of Gadamer's and Ricoeur's work and to assess continuing points of similarity and difference in order to refine and extend their legacies" (1). All in all, the book accomplishes this goal. The essays are engaging and work to bring philosophical attention back to issues in hermeneutics that remain of pressing importance but which have been less prominent in the continental philosophical literature of late. They also suggest new directions for the application of insights drawn from hermeneutic philosophy.
The collection consists of twelve essays and is organized into three sections. The first and shortest section is entitled 'History' and aims to provide some historical context to the development of hermeneutic philosophy. This section contains only one essay, which seems somewhat out of balance in relation to the number of essays in the other sections, and those interested in the historical development of hermeneutics leading up to Gadamer and Ricoeur might find themselves wanting something more than is offered here. The second, largest part of the book is entitled 'Engagements' and features seven essays that elaborate upon prominent themes in the work of Gadamer and Ricoeur and put their positions into critical engagement with one another. The first four essays in this section critically examine the work of Gadamer and Ricoeur with respect to issues that emerged as significant in the Gadamer-Habermas debate, specifically the emphasis in Gadamer on universality and on belonging to a tradition and its implications for the possibility of a critical hermeneutics. Those interested in this debate and Ricoeur's position in relation to Gadamer on these issues will especially appreciate this part of the book. The third and final section of the book contains four essays and is called 'Extensions.' As the heading suggests, the organizing theme here is to develop and extend the thought of Gadamer and Ricoeur in directions that they do not explicitly pursue. The topics engaged here are quite divergent, ranging from feminism and the body to political action to the philosophy of technology to Chinese philosophy. In what follows, I will offer a few remarks on each of the essays. . . .
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27486-gadamer-and-ricoeur-critical-horizons-for-contemporary-hermeneutics/
CONSTRUCTIVIST FOUNDATIONS 7.1 (2011).
TARGET ARTICLE
Siegfried J. Schmidt, From Objects to Processes: A Proposal to Rewrite Radical
Constructivism
WITH 15 OPEN PEER COMMENTARIES
Christine Angela Knoop, Toward a Theory of Observers in Action
Winfried Nöth, Some Neglected Semiotic Premises of Some Radically Constructivist
Conclusions
Richard Buttny & John W. Lannamann, Investigating Process as Language and Social Interaction
Stefano Franchi, Radical Constructivism's Tathandlung, Structure, and Geist
Hugh Gash, Moving Forward from Radical or Social Constructivism to a Higher Level
Synthesis
John Stewart, Life as a Process of Bringing Forth a World
Mariaelena Bartesaghi, On Making Process Practically Visible, or Moving Constructivism Beyond
Philosophical Argumentation
John Shotter, Perceiving "Things" and "Objects" from Within Processes: Resolutions
Situated in Practices
Ekkehard Kappler, ...And so on and so on and so ...
André Donk, All Quiet on the Constructivism Front -- Or is there a Substantial
Contribution of Non-Dualistic Approaches for Communication Science?
Armin Scholl, How a Process-oriented Approach in Radical Constructivism Affects Empirical
ResearchEdmond Wright, Faith as Ethically Basic to the Task of Constructing
David Krieger, Making a Difference
Stefan Weber, Does Schmidt's Process-Orientated Philosophy Contain a Vicious Infinite Regress Argument?
Karl H. Müller, The Missing Links in S. J. Schmidt's Rewriting Operations. An Austrian Contribution
________________________
REGULAR ARTICLES
Hugo Urrestarazu, Autopoietic Systems: A Generalized Explanatory Approach -- Part 2
Vincent Kenny,Continuous Dialogues II: Human Experience. Ernst von Glasersfeld's Answers
to a Wide Variety of Questioners on the Oikos Web Site 1997-2010________________________
REVIEWS
Bart Van Kerkhove, Dialectics in Action, World at Stake. Review of Bridges to the World. A
Dialogue on the Construction of Knowledge, Education, and Truth by David Kenneth
Johnson & Matthew R. Silliman
David A. Reid, Enaction: An Incomplete Paradigm for Consciousness Science. Review of
Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science edited by John Stewart,
Olivier Gapenne and Ezequiel A. Di PaoloJakub Ryszard Matyja, (Just Like) Starting Over? Review of Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain by Antonio Damasio
Tom Ziemke, Realism Redux: Gibson's Affordances Get a Well-Deserved Update. Review of Radical Embodied Cognitive Science by Anthony Chemero
http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/7/1
International Conference on Rhetoric, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia, April 19-22, 2012.
This conference (April 19th – 22nd 2012) in honour of Ivo Škarić is an international conference aiming at presentation of new scientific research and knowledge within the interdisciplinary field of rhetoric and argumentation theory. Professor Emeritus Ivo Škarić was interested in various areas of phonetics, defined as the science of speech. Exploring the phenomenon of speech communications, he revealed a natural connection between phonetics and rhetoric both in education and evaluation of public speakers (politicians, teachers, speakers in the electronic media, etc.). One of the results of his scholarly work is The School of Rhetoric for gifted high school students, which now bears his name. His students and colleagues wanted to name the new event after him – this time as a synonym for the scientific conference devoted to subjects in which he was the indisputable authority in Croatia. The organizers hope that this meeting will become a permanent meeting point for rhetorician from around the world in order to contribute to the development of rhetoric.
Keynote Speakers:
LEO GROARKE began his academic career as a student at the University of Calgary, Simon Fraser University, the University of Helsinki, and the University of Western Ontario. He received his Ph.D. in 1982. Before coming to the University of Windsor, he was Professor of Philosophy at Wilfrid Laurier University. He was appointed Provost/Vice-President Academic at the University of Windsor in 2010. Prof. Groarke’s areas of research and scholarly interest include ancient philosophy, the history of ideas, social and political philosophy, informal logic and argumentation theory. He has published many articles and books.
IGOR Ž. ŽAGAR studied philosophy, sociology, and linguistics in Ljubljana, Paris, and Antwerp. He received his doctoral degree in Sociology of Culture from the University of Ljubljana. He is Professor of Rhetoric and Argumentation (University of Maribor) and Senior Research Fellow (Head of the Centre for Discourse Studies) at the Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia. He has lectured in Belgium, United States, Italy, China, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Romania, Poland, and France. Žagar’s interests lie in pragmatics (speech act theory, (critical) discourse analysis), philosophy of language, argumentation, and rhetoric.
Conference topics include, but are not limited to:
Keynote Speakers:
LEO GROARKE began his academic career as a student at the University of Calgary, Simon Fraser University, the University of Helsinki, and the University of Western Ontario. He received his Ph.D. in 1982. Before coming to the University of Windsor, he was Professor of Philosophy at Wilfrid Laurier University. He was appointed Provost/Vice-President Academic at the University of Windsor in 2010. Prof. Groarke’s areas of research and scholarly interest include ancient philosophy, the history of ideas, social and political philosophy, informal logic and argumentation theory. He has published many articles and books.
IGOR Ž. ŽAGAR studied philosophy, sociology, and linguistics in Ljubljana, Paris, and Antwerp. He received his doctoral degree in Sociology of Culture from the University of Ljubljana. He is Professor of Rhetoric and Argumentation (University of Maribor) and Senior Research Fellow (Head of the Centre for Discourse Studies) at the Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia. He has lectured in Belgium, United States, Italy, China, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Spain, Russia, Romania, Poland, and France. Žagar’s interests lie in pragmatics (speech act theory, (critical) discourse analysis), philosophy of language, argumentation, and rhetoric.
Conference topics include, but are not limited to:
- Argumentation and Law
- History of Rhetoric
- Rhetoric and Philosophy
- Media Rhetoric
- Rhetoric of Political Discourse
- Rhetoric of Religious Discourse
- Rhetoric of Scientific Discourse
- Rhetoric in Education
- Argumentation Theory
Interview with Mark L. Johnson. FIGURE / GROUND COMMUNICATION (2011).
The Figure/Ground Communication scholarly interview series continues with an in-depth conversation with Mark L. Johnson - Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oregon. Professor Johnson is well-known for contributions to embodied philosophy, cognitive science and cognitive linguistics, some of which he has co-authored with George Lakoff such as Metaphors We Live By and Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought (Basic Books, 1999). His latest book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding (Chicago, 2007), further investigates aspects of embodied meaning and cognition that have traditionally been ignored or under-valued in mainstream philosophy.
http://figureground.ca/interviews/mark-l-johnson/
http://figureground.ca/interviews/mark-l-johnson/
Seventh Annual Meeting, Comparative and Continental Philosophy Circle, San Diego University, March 8-10, 2012.
Keynote Speakers:
Douglas Kellner (UCLA)
Brian Schroeder (Rochester Institute of Technology)
For more information, visit http://www.comcontphilosophy.org/.
Douglas Kellner (UCLA)
Brian Schroeder (Rochester Institute of Technology)
For more information, visit http://www.comcontphilosophy.org/.
Rush, Fred. Review of Michael N. Forster, AFTER HERDER. NDPR (November 2011).
Forster, Michael N. After Herder: Philosophy of Language in
the German Tradition. Oxford: OUP, 2010.
After Herder and German Philosophy of Language are books to be reckoned with and will amply repay the most serious attention from historians of philosophy, philosophers of language, and social theorists. While there is significant overlap between chapters due to the origins of some of them as separate essays published previously, and while some of the pieces are synoptic, taken as a whole these essays comprise a cohesive alternative vision for both the philosophy of language and the history of the period. Along with a philosophical reconsideration of Goethe, reevaluating Herder is of the utmost importance to a balanced view of the German philosophical tradition and of its philosophical resources.
To return to the initial question: is the slogan 'back to Herder' apt? Probably not. The object of a slogan must present itself, or be presented, as a stable point of reference. For some, Kant is such a figure. I think this is an error. Kant is much more a transitional figure, simultaneously inhabiting two very different philosophical worlds at their interstices: one rooted in theologically-based teleology and the other in naturalism. But there can be no mistake about Herder in this regard. He is patently many-sided and, for that, a fitting figure for consideration in genealogies of many concepts that have come to play significant roles in various philosophical disciplines. But being of genealogical importance is precisely not to be an appropriate object for 'back to . . .' sloganeering. . . .
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27469-after-herder-philosophy-of-language-in-the-german-tradition-and-german-philosophy-of-language/
After Herder and German Philosophy of Language are books to be reckoned with and will amply repay the most serious attention from historians of philosophy, philosophers of language, and social theorists. While there is significant overlap between chapters due to the origins of some of them as separate essays published previously, and while some of the pieces are synoptic, taken as a whole these essays comprise a cohesive alternative vision for both the philosophy of language and the history of the period. Along with a philosophical reconsideration of Goethe, reevaluating Herder is of the utmost importance to a balanced view of the German philosophical tradition and of its philosophical resources.
To return to the initial question: is the slogan 'back to Herder' apt? Probably not. The object of a slogan must present itself, or be presented, as a stable point of reference. For some, Kant is such a figure. I think this is an error. Kant is much more a transitional figure, simultaneously inhabiting two very different philosophical worlds at their interstices: one rooted in theologically-based teleology and the other in naturalism. But there can be no mistake about Herder in this regard. He is patently many-sided and, for that, a fitting figure for consideration in genealogies of many concepts that have come to play significant roles in various philosophical disciplines. But being of genealogical importance is precisely not to be an appropriate object for 'back to . . .' sloganeering. . . .
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/27469-after-herder-philosophy-of-language-in-the-german-tradition-and-german-philosophy-of-language/
Global Semiotics: Bridging Semiotic Traditions, 11th World Congress, International Association for Semiotic Studies, Nanjing, October 5–9, 2012.
Modern semiotic theories can be traced back to four theoretical sources
originating in the beginning of the 20th century: Saussurean
structural linguistics, Peircean pragmatism, Husserlian phenomenology and
analytical philosophy. Since then a variety of semiotic theories in various
fields of European and American human and social sciences have developed in
addition to philosophical ways of reasoning. Semiotic theorization is typically
interdisciplinary in nature, indicating a pluralization of scientific thinking
about mankind. This pluralized theoretical tendency has been further
strengthened by the unprecedented progress of current semiotic sciences since
the end of the Second World War. Current semiotics has become a major impetus
for structural reform efforts in the human sciences.
After its hundred years of modernization contemporary semiotics has arrived at another turning point at the beginning of the 21st century: the globalization of semiotics, or cross-cultural semiotic expansion. Cross-cultural semiotics is the natural development and extension of the interdisciplinary humanities of the West in our times. Unlike the natural and social sciences, human sciences, including their semiotic epistemology and methodology, deal with both horizontal and diachronic phenomena in human history. That means semiotics, as a constitutive part of human sciences, is fated to be confronted with the most difficult as well as the most significant challenges arising from human conditions.
Semiotics is popularly called the logic or general semantics of culture. So it implicitly includes cultural-academic globalization and cross-civilization communication. In light of comparative scholarship, this new-century semiotics signifies a comprehensive interaction between European-American and non-European-American intellectual sources, characterized by its strength in doing general-semantic analysis in respect to linguistic-expressive, behavior-communicative and institutional-compositional levels. In this sense, semiotic work, necessarily interdisciplinary, must be converged with the modern theoretical practice of all human sciences still partly suffering from its traditional semantically ambiguous composition. The typology of the scientific and the rational practices would thus be more relevantly adjusted to accommodate different historical realities. Semiotics, functioning as a universal semantic denominator, will promote intellectual communication among different civilizations, cultures and disciplines.
http://www.semio2012.com/
After its hundred years of modernization contemporary semiotics has arrived at another turning point at the beginning of the 21st century: the globalization of semiotics, or cross-cultural semiotic expansion. Cross-cultural semiotics is the natural development and extension of the interdisciplinary humanities of the West in our times. Unlike the natural and social sciences, human sciences, including their semiotic epistemology and methodology, deal with both horizontal and diachronic phenomena in human history. That means semiotics, as a constitutive part of human sciences, is fated to be confronted with the most difficult as well as the most significant challenges arising from human conditions.
Semiotics is popularly called the logic or general semantics of culture. So it implicitly includes cultural-academic globalization and cross-civilization communication. In light of comparative scholarship, this new-century semiotics signifies a comprehensive interaction between European-American and non-European-American intellectual sources, characterized by its strength in doing general-semantic analysis in respect to linguistic-expressive, behavior-communicative and institutional-compositional levels. In this sense, semiotic work, necessarily interdisciplinary, must be converged with the modern theoretical practice of all human sciences still partly suffering from its traditional semantically ambiguous composition. The typology of the scientific and the rational practices would thus be more relevantly adjusted to accommodate different historical realities. Semiotics, functioning as a universal semantic denominator, will promote intellectual communication among different civilizations, cultures and disciplines.
http://www.semio2012.com/
Monday, November 14, 2011
"Rhetoric in the 21st Century," Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Oxford, July 3-7, 2012.
Keynote speakers include: Brian Vickers and James J. Murphy.
For further information, visit:
http://www.cmrs.org.uk/research/rhetoric-in-the-twenty-first-century-summer-2012
or
http://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/asset_manager/get_file/39555/rhetoric_in_the_21st_century_oxford_symposium.pdf
For further information, visit:
http://www.cmrs.org.uk/research/rhetoric-in-the-twenty-first-century-summer-2012
or
http://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/asset_manager/get_file/39555/rhetoric_in_the_21st_century_oxford_symposium.pdf
"Re/Framing Identifications," 15th Biennial Conference, Rhetoric Society of America, Philadelphia, May 25-28, 2012.
Given our Philadelphia conference site, the theme “Re/framing Identifications” obviously invites a consideration of the framers and the framing of the U.S. Constitution in the late 18th century—that is, a consideration of the convergence of people and events that reframed colonies’ identifications with each other, with European, African and Asian nations as well as with North, Central and South American nations, including Native nations. But the theme “Re/framing Identifications” also invites a broader consideration of myriad historical and current instances when people, communities, and systems have elected and/or been forced to reframe their identifications. Kenneth Burke famously asserted the importance of identification to persuasion, but this conference pushes on Burke’s claim to ask: What may we learn about rhetoric if we focus on identification not just as a means to persuasion but as a place of perpetual reframing that affects who, how, and what can be thought, spoken, written, and imagined?
The theme “Re/framing Identifications” invites papers that ask: What exigencies trigger reframed identifications and disidentifications? What rhetorical tactics are employed in such reframings? How are such reframings experienced differently, even violently, depending on power differentials of parties involved? In these reframings, what is named and unnamed? What is possible and impossible? What is ethical and unethical? What is effective and ineffective? What are benefits and what are costs? What is gained and what is lost? What can and what cannot transfer to the rhetorics of our world today?
This theme offers conference attendees—who identify as scholars, teachers, students, and citizens across a wide range of ideologies—an opportunity not only to extend our scholarly knowledge of rhetorical histories, theories, tactics, technologies, geographies, and practices but also to extend our roles as public intellectuals by discussing how to name, analyze, evaluate, teach, and take action rhetorically on challenges facing our world, challenges that include but are not limited to debates about national/ transnational politics, global economies, immigration, the environment, energy, digital/social media and other technologies, disabilities, international women’s rights, sexual identity, ethnic divisions, racism, religion, academic freedom, and war.
http://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences
The theme “Re/framing Identifications” invites papers that ask: What exigencies trigger reframed identifications and disidentifications? What rhetorical tactics are employed in such reframings? How are such reframings experienced differently, even violently, depending on power differentials of parties involved? In these reframings, what is named and unnamed? What is possible and impossible? What is ethical and unethical? What is effective and ineffective? What are benefits and what are costs? What is gained and what is lost? What can and what cannot transfer to the rhetorics of our world today?
This theme offers conference attendees—who identify as scholars, teachers, students, and citizens across a wide range of ideologies—an opportunity not only to extend our scholarly knowledge of rhetorical histories, theories, tactics, technologies, geographies, and practices but also to extend our roles as public intellectuals by discussing how to name, analyze, evaluate, teach, and take action rhetorically on challenges facing our world, challenges that include but are not limited to debates about national/ transnational politics, global economies, immigration, the environment, energy, digital/social media and other technologies, disabilities, international women’s rights, sexual identity, ethnic divisions, racism, religion, academic freedom, and war.
http://associationdatabase.com/aws/RSA/pt/sp/conferences
"Medicine, Health, and Publics," Association for the Rhetoric of Science & Technology (ARST) Preconference, held in conjunction with the Rhetoric Society of America (RSA) Biennial Conference, Philadelphia, May 24-25, 2012.
Health and medicine occupy increasingly prominent places in public discourse with citizen advocates playing significant roles in developing, engaging, and critiquing biomedical texts and practices. But how, exactly, have diverse stakeholders used rhetoric to shape the discourses and practices of health and medicine? This preconference will address the multiple ways that publics and the medical establishment mutually influence one another. Preconference papers should extend theory, criticism, and/or practice related to the rhetoric of medicine and publics by addressing one or more of the following themes: the roles of new media in health advocacy, the place of direct-to-consumer advertisements in public health discourse, the successes and failures of health-related social movements, expert and lay health risk discourses, biomedical stakeholder engagement initiatives, the construction of publics in medical rhetoric, or any another topic that directly speaks to the preconference theme. Papers and presentations reflecting diverse methods spanning conventional and critical-cultural rhetorical analysis, ethnography, interviewing, discourse analysis, and hybrid methods are welcome. The strongest submissions may be invited for revision for publication in a forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Medical Humanities on "Medicine, Health, and Publics," edited by Lisa Keränen.
http://www.arstonline.org/index.html
http://www.arstonline.org/index.html
Miller, Michael H. "Sigmund Says: Analysts Expand Their Horizon By Going Beyond Father Freud." NEW YORK OBSERVER October 25, 2011.
1909, after a six-day journey from Vienna with his associates Carl Jung and Sándor Ferenczi, Sigmund Freud arrived in New York Harbor and spent a week sightseeing in the city. He had traveled to America to give a series of lectures on his “talking cure” at Clark University in Massachusetts. Before heading north, he spent time walking in Central Park and visiting the tenements of the Lower East Side. He saw the amusement rides on Coney Island and marveled at the antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum. Though his physical presence in the city was short-lived, New York has become Freud’s cultural home in the U.S. One hundred years later, the archetype of the neurotic, upper-middle-class Upper West Sider lying on the couch—perpetuated by everyone from Philip Roth to Woody Allen—is still how much of the public thinks of psychoanalysis. (“Tell me about your relationship with your mother…”) Several generations have been raised on the notion of psychoanalysis as New Yorker cartoon. This is something that analytic institutions like the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute must reckon with.
Inside NYPSI’s headquarters on the Upper East Side, the cream-colored walls and dark brown carpet give off a sterile, medical feel, like a photograph of a hospital lobby from decades past. Posters and busts of Freud adorn the space. NYPSI, the oldest analytic institution in the country, celebrated its 100th anniversary this year. The faculty here have a reputation among fellow analysts as the most Freudian of Freudians, but they are nevertheless trying to keep up with changing times. . . .
http://www.observer.com/2011/10/sigmund-says-analysts-expand-their-horizon-by-going-beyond-father-freud/?show=all
Inside NYPSI’s headquarters on the Upper East Side, the cream-colored walls and dark brown carpet give off a sterile, medical feel, like a photograph of a hospital lobby from decades past. Posters and busts of Freud adorn the space. NYPSI, the oldest analytic institution in the country, celebrated its 100th anniversary this year. The faculty here have a reputation among fellow analysts as the most Freudian of Freudians, but they are nevertheless trying to keep up with changing times. . . .
http://www.observer.com/2011/10/sigmund-says-analysts-expand-their-horizon-by-going-beyond-father-freud/?show=all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)