Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-206
Author(s):  
Kristen Ghodsee ◽  
Mitchell A. Orenstein

The conclusion of this book reflects on the enduring importance of transition as a major factor in contemporary society and politics and examines how transition could have been accomplished more successfully. The conclusion points to the growth of nationalist movements as a reaction to the traumas of transition. It re-evaluates the dismissal of the “third way” as an alternative to pure market capitalism or state socialism and suggests that different reforms could have mitigated negative impacts of transition. It emphasizes the importance of future economic reforms that balance individualism and collectivism and bring more post-socialist citizens along in a widely shared prosperity. The chapter draws lessons about the importance of universal rather than targeted benefits and rejects strict adherence to liberal ideology as a sustainable model for economic transition.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Togliani ◽  
I Breoni ◽  
V Davì ◽  
N Mantovani ◽  
A Savioli ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
pp. 126-134
Author(s):  
L. Evstigneeva ◽  
R. Evstigneev

“The Third Way” concept is still widespread all over the world. Growing socio-economic uncertainty makes the authors revise the concept. In the course of discussion with other authors they introduce a synergetic vision of the problem. That means in the first place changing a linear approach to the economic research for a non-linear one.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-125

Three phases in Foucault’s examination of authorship and free speech were essential to him throughout his life. They can be linked to such texts as the three lectures “What is an Author?” (first phase), “What is Critique?,” and “What is Revolution?” (second phase), and the two lecture courses, “Fearless Speech,” and “The Courage of Truth” (third phase). Initially, Foucault merely describes the founders of discursivity (hence, “superauthors”), among whom he reckoned only Marx and Freud, as the sole alternative to his own conceptualization of the author function, which is exhibited en masse in contemporary society. He then modifies his views on superauthorship by making Kant the paradigm and by linking his own concept of free speech to a Kan-tian critical attitude. However, Foucault claims only the half of Kant’s philosophical legacy that is related to the study of the ontology of the self.The article advances the hypothesis that the sovereign power of speech, which can be found in Marx and Heidegger and in generally in the concept of “superauthorship,” becomes unacceptable for Foucault. During the third phase, the danger of a tyrannical use of free speech compels Foucault to make a number of fruitful but questionable choices in his work. He focuses on a single aspect of free speech in which a speaker is in a weaker position and therefore has to overcome his fear in order to tell the truth. Foucault associates this kind of free speech with the ancient Greek notion of parrhesia, which according to his interpretation means “fearless speech”; however, this reading is not always supported by the ancient Greek sources. Foucault’s deliberations bring him to the radical conclusion that free speech transforms into performative “aesthetics of existence.” Foucault’s main motivation for pursuing this line of thought all through his life was to investigate his own abilities and powers as an author


Author(s):  
David Charles

This paper concerns Aristotle’s discussion of practical truth in Nicomachean Ethics VI.2.1139a17–b5. The essay falls into five sections. In the first three, I outline two styles of interpretation of Aristotle’s remarks and suggest that one of them (which I call ‘the third way’) gives a better reading than that offered by its major competitor (which I call ‘the two-component’ view). In the fourth I consider some texts in the remainder of NE VI which provide additional support for the third way of reading. In a brief concluding section, I seek to locate Aristotle’s view of practical truth, so understood, in a broader philosophical context.


Author(s):  
Adrastos Omissi

This chapter begins by considering what made the late Roman state distinctive from the early Empire, exploring the political developments of the later third century, in particular the military, administrative, and economic reforms undertaken by the tetrarchs. It then explores the presentation of the war between the tetrarchy and the British Empire of Carausius and Allectus (286‒96), taking as its core sources Pan. Lat. X, XI, and VIII. These speeches are unique in the panegyrical corpus, in that two of them (X and XI) were delivered while the usurpation they describe was still under way, the third (VIII) after it was defeated. In this chapter, we see how the British Empire was ‘othered’ as piratical and barbarian, and how conflict with it helped to create the distinctive ideology of the tetrarchy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document