View allAll Photos Tagged Gadamer
"Culture is the only asset of humanity which, divided among them all, rather than decrease gets bigger...".
(Hans Georg Gadamer)
("La cultura è l’unico bene dell’umanità che, diviso fra tutti, anziché diminuire diventa più grande...")
✔ Blog | alogico@tim.it
Simple. If it has a table of contents that has parts, chapters, sections and sub-sections, it's Heidegger or Gadamer or one of these other great Germans.
.
Orienting Stud~nts' Politics to the Phenomenology ofRelationship on Campus .
Prologue: The misty envelop is the prison of us all: each pair of eyes that dreamt of the budding and bloomingAmaltas, each heart that throbbed with the knocking radiance of the dawn and intimate shadow, every Being thatsought for a refuge away from the world of routine absurdity, every mind that aimed at a utopia of another worldnod even of those pragmatic souls who resorted to icy-rational calculation. No esc·ape from this allurement, for itis ft1aya that is the creative principle of the Prakriti and Purusha, and it is the absolute destination of episteme tofind an expression in an embodied self. This is in spite of our Adwaitite proclamation of Allam Brahmsmi that weconceive of our salvation through the thick of miseries. We are, however, not mere passive subordinates of the.
circumstances-in the middle of disagreements with Marx we arc inclined to agree on this account. We are madeby our circumstances as much as we make them. Yes, we write our history under the m"aterial (emotional as we'll asintellectual) conditions (re)generated by us. Our imprisonment is our choice as is our liberation. Redemption, thus,lies in our actions. .
Yes, the first and forentosl lesson ~ve all learn as students of Fen1inism is-personal is.
political. We have also learnt, in sync ·with sociological imagination, that each biography is.
in relation \Vith history. Each fragment of our personal experiences has potential bearing.
upon public. We can not exempt even the most innocuous and apparently apolitical.
experience in this schen1c. Neither can \Ve brush aside twofold challenge: relationships are.
complex and (hence) the politicking around/about it has to learn modicum of ethics. We.
can not ignore it unless '\>\'.
.
e want campus public sphere to be reduced into a veritable talk-.
sho·w of any itshy-bitshy ne\vs channel. We can not obviate it unless "ve are comfortable\Vith the unrelenting ·wind mill of gossip-mongers who, like pervert village adults, lun1p I: individuals in tbe categories of Casanova/womanizer/harasser/wanton woman, and so on.Of course, women are subject to more cruel social analysis. A womanizer can still takepride in his masculine pro,vess reflected in the number of women chasing him, \Vhile a'voman being wooed by many suitors is an anathema-the gendered double standard! Be itas it may: this leads to psycho-somatic damage of individuals on campus. .
By the virtue of an egalitarian design and vibrant intellectual culture, our university.
campus helps individuals dream big-for career as well as for chemistry of relationship. A.
Bourdieu would probably like to rethink the concept of cultural capital at the sight of.
collapsing class distinctions of students. A Gadamer would be perhaps ecstatic to ·witness.
instances of fusion of horizons over here. This is the set up ·where Beillgs merge, blending.
instrumentality and affect (Reason and Emotion), actualizing Heidegger. Green " .
.
'ith.
envy, the non-campus critiques often grin and look dolvn upon the campus as a site offree.
sex, and ·we humbly demolish them in debates. Albeit, it is not so very simpler given the.
manifold twists. For, the complexity of it all is an abiding truth. The rosy passage is.
actually -a thorny one; the dark smudges define the \'Vhiter than white. Energy of Love.
debilitates individuality, stultifies intellectual growth, causes slaves' mor~lif¥ \vith.
doormat syndrome, and degenerates into energy of destruction-if innocence of love is.
corrupted by rational choice theory or a crisis of self-confidence. Choice seduces lovers.
and ·wreaks havoc in relationship, while it also promises liberation from the previous.
incompatible one. We have choice and tool of comparison. We love to list good an.d bad .in .
each potential lover/beloved. We swallow the whole of the apple Adam and Eve ate.
.
without feeling any commitment or qualms. But then; we are not profit rnaximizing.
Robinson Crusoe, and \Ve keep falling in the intintate trencbes \Vhich our rational-.
.
.
.
Orienting Students' Politics to the Phenomenology ofRelationship on Campus .
g and blooming.
Prologue: The misty envelop is the prison of us all: each pair of eyes that dreamt of the buddin,Amaltas, each heart that throbbed with the knocking radiance of the dawn and intimate shadow, every Being that sought for a refuge away from the world of routine absurdity, every mind that aimed at a utopia of another world and even of those pragmatic souls who resorted to icy-rational calculation. No escape from this allurement, for it is Maya that is the creative principle of the Prakriti and Purusha, and it is the absolute destination of episte.ome to .
find an expression in an embodied self. This is in spite of our A dwaitite proclamation of Allam Brahmsm.i that we conceive of our salvation through the thick of miseries. We are, however, not mere passive subordinates of the .
circumstances-in the middle of disagreements with Marx we are inclined to agree on this account. We are made by our circumstances as much as we make them. Yes, we write our history under the material (emotional as well as intellectual) conditions (re)generated by us. Our imprisonment is our choice as is our liberation. Redemption, thus, lies in our actions. .
Yes, the first and foremost lesson V't' C all learn as students of Feminism is-personal is .
political. We have also learnt, in sync with sociological imagination, that each biography is .
in relation \Yith history. ,Each fragment of our persollal experiences has potential bearing .
upon public. We can not exempt even the most innocuous and apparently apolitical .
experience in this scheme. Neither can 've brush aside twofold challenge: relationships are .
complex and (hence) the politicking around/about it has to learn modicum of ethics. We .
can not ignore it unless we want campus public sphere to be reduced into a veritable talk-.
sho·w of any itshy-bitshy ne·ws channel. We can not obviate it unles·s we are comfortable ·with the unrelenting \Vind mill of gossip-mongers who, like pervert village adults, lump individuals in the categories of Casanova/womanizer/harasser/wanton '¥oman, and so on. Of course, women are subject to more cruel social analysis. A womanizer can still take .
pride in his masculine pro,vess reflected in the number of women chasing him, '''hile a .
'voman being wooed by many suitors is an anathema-the gendered double standard! Be it .
as it may: this leads to psycho-somatic damage of individuals on campus. .
.
By the virtue of an egalitarian design and vibrant intellectual culture, our university .
catnpus helps individuals dream big-for career as well as for chemistry of relationship. A .
Bourdieu would probably like to rethink the concept of cultural capital at the sight of .
.
collapsing class distinctions of students. A Gadamer would be perhaps ecstatic to ,,·itness .
instances of fusion of horizons over here. T his is the set up 'vhere Beings merge, blending .
Green \Vith.
.
instrumentality and affect (Reason and Emotion), actualizing Heidegger. .
envy, the non-campus critiques often grin and look down upon the campus as a site offree sex, and we humbly demolish them in debates. Albeit, it is not so very simpler given tbe .
manifold twists. For, the complexity of it all is an abiding truth. The rosypassage is .
actually -a thorny one; the dark smudges define the ·whiter than white. Energy of Love .
debilitates individuality, stultifies intellectual growth, causes slaves' 1nor~lity with .
.
doormat syndrome, and degenerates into energy of destruction-if innocence of love 0 is .
corrupted by rational choice theory or a crisis of self-confidence. Choice seduces lovers .
and ·wreaks havoc in relationship, while it also promises liberation from the previous .
incompatible one. We have choice and tool of comparison. We love to list good and bad in .
each potential lover/beloved. We s·wallow the whole of the apple Adam and Eve ate .
without feeling any commitment or qualnts. But then, we are not profit maximizing .
.
0 .
rational-.
Robinson Crusoe, and we keep falling in the intimate trenches ·which our .
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
-.
-.
The ontological and epistemological perspectives that have informed these debates on the varying aims, approaches,' concepts and methods ·ofsocial sciences will be taken up for 1 analysis and evaluation. 1· : .
-· .
-· .
c.
Topics for detailed study : .
1. Studying Social Phenomena: An introduction to ontological and epistemological .
. . .
tSsues . .
2. .
Problematic ofthe distinction between the reahns ofthe social and the natural .
.
3. .
Positivist conception ofscience and its criticisms .
.
4. .
Human Cognitive Interests and Conceptions ofSocial Inquiry: .
.
(i) Manipulation, Control and Prediction -Causal Analysis, Confirmation and Explanation · (ri) Making Sense, Understanding Meaning -Hermeneutic Interpretation .
(iii) Emancipation, TranSformation-Critical Theory and Praxis .
.
5. .
Individualism and Collectivism .
.
6. .
Values and objectivity ofSocial Inquiry .
.
.
Re.adings: .
Books: .
L John Searle: The Constructiori of Social Reality, Ne\.V York, Free .
Press:>l995.* . .
.
2. Peter Vl:nch: The Idea ofASocialScience, London, Routledge, 1996. * .
3. .
Ficr,.ard S. Rudner: Philosophy ofSocial Science, New Jersey, Prenti--:e Hall, .
1994. .
.
.
4. .
H. G. Gadamer: Truth and Method, (tr. & ed.) Gan·ett Barden and John .
Cumming, New. York,<~ea bury Press, 1975. ·· .
.
.
.
5. Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (tr.) Jeremy J. Shapiro, .
Landor~ Heineni.arm, 1971 *. , .
.
6. Paul Ricoeur: Henneneutics and the Social Sciences (ed. 8: tr.) J. B. Thompson, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981. * .
7. .
Maurice Mandelbaum: Purpose and Necessity in Social Theory, Baltimore, .
Jolm Hopkins University Press, 1987. _ .
.
.
8. .
Harold Kincaid: Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences, .
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press~ 1996. .
.
.
9. .
Richard J. Bernstein: Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Oxfor~ Basil .
Blackwell, 1983* .
.
.
10. .
Roger Trigg: Understanding Soc~alScience -APhilosophical Introduction .
to the Social Sciences, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1985. .
.
.
.
11 . Nigel Pleasents: Wittgenstein and The Idea ofA Critical Social Theory, .
Routledge, 1999. . :-:'., .
.
12. Gwpreet Mahajan: Explanation and Understanding in the Human Sciences, .
Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1992. . :~ .
.
13. Rajeev Bhargava: Individualism in Socia{S~ience, Oxfor~ClarendonPress, .
1992 .
.
14. David Thomas: Naturalism and Social Science -A Post-Empiricist .
Philosophy of Social Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979. .
2, .
.. .
.
-.
.
.
.
Orienting Students' Politics to the Phenomenology ofRelationship on Campus .
.
Prologue: The misty envelop is the prison of us all: each pair of eyes that dreamt of the budding and blooming Amaltas, each heart that throbbed with the knocking radiance of the dawn and intimate shadow, every Bei11g that sought for a refuge away from the world of routine absurdity, every mind that aimed at a utopia of another world and even of those pragmatic souls who resorted to icy-rational calculation. No escape from this allurement, for it is Maya that is the creative principle of the Prakriti and Puruslza, and it is the absolute destination of episteme to .
find an expression in an embodied self. This is in spite of our Adwaitite proclamation of Aham Bralunsmi that we .
conceive of our salvation through the thick of miseries. We are, however, not mere passive subordinates of the .
circumstances-in the middle of disagreements with Marx we are inclined to agree on this account. We are made by our circumstances as much as we make them. Yes, we write our history under the material (emotional as well as intellectual) conditions (re)generated by us. Our imprisonment is our choice as is our liberation. Redemption, thus, lies in our actions. .
Yes, the first and foremost lesson we all learn as students of Feminism is-personal is political. We have also learnt, in sync with sociological imagination, that each biography is in relation with history. Each fragment of our personal experiences has potential bearing upon public. We can not exempt even the most innocuous and apparently apolitical experience in this scheme. Neither can we brush aside twofold challenge: relationships are .
complex and (hence) the politicking around/about it has to learn modicum of ethics. We .
can not ignore it unless ·we want campus public sphere to be reduced into a veritable talk-show of any itshy-bitshy news channel. We can not obviate it unfess we are comfortable .
with the unrelenting wind mill of gossip-mongers who, like pervert village adults, lump individuals in the categories of Casanova/womanizer/harasser/wanton woman, and so on. .
Of course, women are subject to more cruel social analysis. A womanizer can still take .
pride in his masculine prowess reflected in the number of women chasing him, while a .
woman being wooed by many suitors is an anathema-the gendered double standard! Be it .
as it may: this leads to psycho-somatic damage of individuals on campus. .
By the virtue of an egalitarian design and vibrant intellectual culture, our university campus helps individuals dream big-for career as well as for chemistry of relationship. A Bourdieu would probably like to rethink the concept of cultural capital at the sight of collapsing class distinctions of students. A Gadamer would be perhaps ecstatic to witness instances of fusion of horizons over here. This is the set up where Beings merge, blending instrumentality and affect (Reason and Emotion), actualizing Heidegger. Green with envy, the non-campus critiques often grin and look down upon the campus as a site ofjree sex, and we humbly demolish them in debates. Albeit, it is not so very simpler given the manifold twists. For, the complexity of it all is an abiding truth. The rosy passage is actually a thorny one; the dark smudges define the whiter than white. Energy ofLove debilitates individuality, stultifies intellectual g(owJh, causes slaves' morality with doormat syndrome, and degenerates into energy of destruction-if innocence of love is corrupted by rational choice theory or a crisis of self-confidence. Choice seduces lovers .
and wreaks havoc in relationship, while it also promises liberation from the previous .
incompatible one. We have choice and tool of comparison. We love to list good and bad in each potential lover/beloved. We swallow the whole of the apple Adam and Eve ate .
without feeling any commitment or qualms. But then, we are not profit maximizing Robinson Crusoe, and we keep falling in the intimate trenches which our rational-.
.
"Kérdezni annyi, mint feltárni, és nyitottá tenni. Aki képes a kérdezés művészetére, az képes védekezni az uralkodó vélemény kérdezés-elnyomó hatalmával szemben." /Gadamer/
Ó, ez milyen egy intellektuel idézet... Még magam sem elemeztem ki ezt a képet, majd ügyködöm rajta. Bizonyára az lesz a vége, hogy a fejem ilyenekkel van tele: !!!??????????!!!??!!! ???!!!!!!!!!!!????????!!
.
-··--. ·--,_ -~ j ~· u " ··--' ___ ;o_;.,_._,..__. ---"-1..................
.
l ~ .
~.
.
,, .
.. .
.
.
~ .
·.. Ludwig \Vittgentein, 1953, Philosophical Investigation, Oxford: Blackwell.E. HusserL 1952, Ideas, trans. _\V.R. Boyce Gibson, London: Maomillan Co. ·Martin I-Ieidegger, 1978, Being and Time, trans. J. Maoquanie and E. Robinson, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. .
B.K. !vfatilal, 1982, Logic,·Language andReality, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. .
J.L. 1·fohanty, l992,Reason and,Tradition in Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. · .
Supplementa1y Texts: .
F. Nietzsche, 1886 (1966), Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Kaufinan, New York: Vikking. .
.
Immanuel Kant, 1948, Groundwork ofthe Metaphysics ofMorals, trans. and ed. H.J. Paton, London. .
S.N. Dasgupta, 1922,A Nistoty ofIndian Philosophy, Voll, Cambridge: Catllbridge University Press. .
O.E. Moore, 1952, Some Main Problems ofPhilosophy, London. Iieidegger, 1958, What isPhilosophy? New York: Twayne Publications. .
B. RusselL 1959,Problems ofFhilosophy, Oxford: OUP. .
J.P. Sartre; L960, Problem ofMethod, trans. H.E. Barnes, London: Methuen. \V.V.O. Quine: 1960; Word and Object, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press. .
P.F. Strawson, 1966, The Bounds ofSense: An Essay on Kant's Critique ofPure Reason .
.
London: Methuen·. Jonathan Bennett, 1966, Kant'sAnalytic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .
M. Clay and Keith Lehrer, Knowledge and Skepticism, .
Peter Unger, 1971, 'A Defence ofSkepticsm,, PhilosophicalReview, 80. .
.
H.0. Gadamer, 'Practical Philosophy as a Model of Hwnan Sciences,'.
.
William James, 1975,Pragmatism:A New Name for Some Old Ways ofThin/....ing, Cambridge Mass: :Harvard University Press. .
J. Denida, 1976, OfGrammatology, trans. G.E. Speibak, Baltimore: John Hoplins University Press. .
B.K. Mati1al, 1977, Inaugural Lecture at All Souls College. Oxford: Clarendon Press. .
George Steiner, 1978, Heidegger, Glasgo: Fontana/Collins .
Richard Rorty, 'Philosophy Without Mirror,, Philosophy and the Mirr-or ofNature, .
.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kurt Mueller-Vollmer, 1985, The Hermeneutic Reader, Oxford: Basil Blackwell ' Torn Nagel, 1986,A View From Nowhere, Oxford: Oxford University Press. .
K.R. \Vestphal, 1983, Hegel's Episte1nologicalRealism:A Study ofthe Aim andlvfethod of .
\ Hegel's Phenomenology ofSpirit, Dordrecht Kluwer. .
.
M.K. Bhadra, 1990,A Critical Survey ofPhenomenology and Existentialism.. Ne-vv DeL'U: ICPR. .
Karl Potter and S. Bhattaoharyya, 1993, Indian PhilosophicalAnalysis, in Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, vol.6,. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass. .
B.K. Matilal, 1986,Perception, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Daya Krishna, Indian Philosophy: The CounterPerspective, Ne·w Delhi: Oxford University Press. .
Charles Taylor, 1995 (l997),Philosophica1Argunzents, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. .
.
Mrinal ,Miri, 2003, Id~ntity and Moral Life, New Delhi and New York: Oxford University Press. .
.
~7--.
~ .
I .
4 I I .
.
.
.
.
La cultura è l’unico bene dell’umanità che, diviso fra tutti, anziché diminuire diventa più grande.
(Hans Georg Gadamer)
.
A\-Ahran1 Wcckly IOpinion IPreface to Orientalisrn Page 4 of6 .
philologist \vhose ideas anticipate those of Gern1an thinkers such as Herder and Wolf,.
later to be follo\vcd by Goethe, Hutnboldt, Dilthey, Nietzsche, Gadamer, and finally thegreat 20th Century Ron1ance philologists Erich Auerbach, Leo Spitzer, and Ernst RobertCurtius. .
To young people of the current generation the very "idea ofphilology suggests somethingin1possibly antiquarian and n1usty though philology, in fact, is the most basic andcreative of the interpretive arts. It is exemplified for me most admirably in Goethe'sinterest in Islan1 generally, and Hafiz in patiicular, a consutning passion which led to thecornposition of the West-...stlicher Diwan, and it in fleeted Goethe's later ideas aboutvVcltliteratur, the study of all the literatures of the world as a symphonic whole that.
could be apprehended theoretically as having preserved the individuality of each work.
without losing sight ofthe \vhole. .
There is a considerable irony to the realisation then that as today's globalised world.
draws together in some of the ways I have been talking about here, we may beapproaching the kind of standardisation and hon1ogeneity that Goethe's ideas werespecifically fon11ulated to prevent. In an essay he published in 1951 entitled Philologieder Weltliteratur Erich Auerbach made exactly that point at the outset of the postwar.
period, which was also the beginning of the Cold War. His great book Min1esis,.
published in Berne in 1946 but written while Auerbach was a wartin1e exile teaching.
Ron1ance languages in Istanbul, was meant to be a testament to the diversity and.
.
concreteness of the reality represented in Western literature from Homer to Virginia.
.
Woolf; but reading the 1951 essay one senses that for Auerbach the great book he \vrote.
\Vas an elegy for a period when people could interpret texts philologically, concretely,.
sensitively, and intuitiv.ely, using erudition and an excellent command of several.
.
languages to support the kind of understanding that Goethe advocated for his.
understanding ofIslamic literature. .
Positive knowledge of languages and history was necessary, but it \Vas neYer enough,any more than the mechanical gathering of facts would constitute an adequate 1nethodfor grasping what an author like Dante, for exan1ple, was all about. The n1ainrequirement for the kind of philological understanding Auerbach and his predecessorswere talking about and tried to practise was one that sympathetically and subjectivelyentered into the life of a written text as seen from the perspective of its time and itsauthor (einfuhlung). Rather than alienation and hostility to another time and a differentculture, philology as applied to Weltliteratur involved a profound humanistic spiritdeployed with generosity and, if I n1ay use the word, hospitality. Thus the interpreter'smind actively rnakes a place in it for a foreign Other. And this creative n1aking of aplace for works that are otherwise alien and distant is the tn.ost in1portant facet of theinterpreter's mission. .
All this was obviously undermined and destroyed in Germany by National Socialisn1.After the war, Auerbach notes mournfully, the standardisation of ideas, and greater andgreater specialisation of knowledge gradually narrowed the opportunities for the kind ofinvestigative and everlastingly enquiring kind of philological \York that he hadrepresented, and, alas, it's an even n1ore depressing fact that si nee Auerbach's death in1957 both the idea and practice of hurnanistic research have shrunk in scope as well asin centrality. Instead of reading in the real sense of the \vord, our students today areoften djstracted by the fragmented knowledge available on the Internet and in the n1assmedia. .
Worse yet, education is threatened by nationalist and religious orthodoxies, often .
wcekly.ahrmn.org.eglprint/2003/650/op ll.htn1 .
10/ l/03 .
.