Delegation and the Continuity Thesis

Author(s):  
Andrew S. Gold
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
pp. 85-101
Author(s):  
Jonathan Gilmore

This chapter characterizes a set of parallel assumptions. One, shared by many otherwise different contemporary philosophical treatments of the emotions, is that our affective responses are susceptible to assessments of rationality, fittingness, or some other notion of aptness. The other is that analogous norms of fittingness apply to those emotions directed at what is only fictional, or what is only imagined to be the case. This chapter identifies the relevant concept of emotional aptness that is at play in both kinds of assumptions, and which is at the core of the disagreement between the theses of normative continuity and normative discontinuity. The chapter then develops and assesses arguments in favor of the continuity thesis: the claim that the criteria determining such aptness of responses to contents of artistic representations apply invariantly to responses to analogous states of affairs in real life.


Synthese ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 195 (6) ◽  
pp. 2519-2540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Kirchhoff

2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372097473
Author(s):  
Anna-Bettina Kaiser

This comment focuses on part III of the book, ‘Carl Schmitt’s 21st Century’, by William Scheuerman. It raises two points. The first point concerns the author’s continuity thesis. According to Scheuerman, Schmitt’s ideas ‘exhibit more continuity than widely asserted’. This has consequences both for how we should read Schmitt and for how we should approach authors who use his concepts (such as in the US counterterrorism debate Scheuerman discusses in chapter 10). This comment wants to question this view and instead wants to propose what might be called a chameleon thesis. Schmitt’s thinking contains repeated shifts that are not accidental (1). This may also have implications for how we view attempts to use Schmitt in contemporary thought (2).


Biosemiotics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-378
Author(s):  
Yoshimi Kawade

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 183-208
Author(s):  
Ivana Perica

Considering common compartmentalizations of Lukacs’ work into the early, mature, and late phase, the article explores elements that speak to what critics regard as a ›continuity thesis‹. Against possible assumptions on the prevalence of form in his early work and the dominance of the aesthetics of content in the later phases, the article explores the dialectical relationship of form and content, which comes to represent a leitmotif in Lukacs’ work as a whole. Here, the early specificity of form does not consist of its domination over content but in the inability of the aesthetic to tackle the social problems of a modernity in which art and life part ways.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (02) ◽  
pp. 242-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Paola Ferretti

Abstract:In this essay I take issue with the problem of institutional corruption. A number of scholars have recently established a discontinuity thesis, according to which an institution may be corrupt even if its members are not. Against this view, I defend a continuity thesis and argue that institutional corruption can always be traced back to the blameworthy corrupt behavior of individual agents. Certain instances of corrupt behavior spread their effects and tip in a way that subvert (and not simply violate) the public rules that govern an institution. This occurs, I argue, following either summative, morphological, or systemic modalities. I show that such a taxonomy of institutional corruption is useful for the purpose of disentangling and understanding the variety of mechanisms that generate the phenomenon. Most importantly, the taxonomy allows for a more nuanced way of attributing responsibility for political corruption, including collective responsibility. I conclude that a continuity approach offers the tools for diagnosing institutional corruption, but also facilitates the task of formulating answers to political corruption, both from a backward-looking and from a forward-looking perspective.


Author(s):  
Monika Albrecht

The new framework of critical post-colonial studies adds the innovative feature of a broader geopolitical view to an existing branch of critique that challenges the postcolonial regime of knowledge as a whole, simultaneously taking into account the impact of the “traveling concepts” of postcolonial theories on contemporary thought. A radical scrutiny of its core tenets questions postcolonial studies’ perception and representation of colonialism that are selectively confined to the areas of the West and the formerly colonized non-West. The new research field of critical post-colonial studies, by contrast, deploys a multidirectional framework that strives to unthink the quasi-Manichean reverse division of the world into a devalued West and an upgraded non-West characteristic of the postcolonial mainstream. Critical post-colonial studies is thus not intended to be yet another subdivision of the wide academic field of postcolonial studies but one that departs from a broadening of the geopolitical space and shows how this inevitably inflects conventional understanding of the postcolonial. Important steps for a critical dismantling of mainstream postcolonial studies are a conceptual disengagement of the mechanisms of “othering” and a disentanglement of the components of the specific postcolonial continuity thesis. Discarding these and other restrictions makes room for the urgently needed paradigm shift in postcolonial scholarship and for the fashioning of a new academic language of critical post-colonial studies that, on the one hand, meets the needs of the multidirectional conditions of imperialism and colonialism and their various semantics and is, on the other hand, able to grasp universal patterns in different geopolitical and historical conditions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107-118
Author(s):  
Robert Alexy

In the twentieth century, two legal philosophers in the German-speaking countries excelled over all the others and their philosophies remain topics of lively debate in the global discussion today: Hans Kelsen and Gustav Radbruch. Kelsen was a positivist. The classification of Radbruch is contested. According to the discontinuity thesis, Radbruch was a positivist before 1933 and became a non-positivist after 1945. According to the continuity thesis, Radbruch always was a non-positivist. I defend the continuity thesis in this chapter. The basis of the argument presented here is the distinction between super-inclusive and inclusive non-positivism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document