scholarly journals A new Reading of “The Phenomenology of Spirit”:Brandom on Hegel

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-112
Author(s):  
Igor D. Dzhokhadze ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Phenomenology Of Spirit ◽  
Negative Side ◽  
Robert Brandom ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Struggle For Recognition ◽  
Linguistic Philosophy

Robert Brandom in his recently published commentaries to “The Phenomenology of Spirit” tries to re-actualize Hegel’s legacy, linking his speculative dialectics to the twenti­eth-century linguistic philosophy and pragmatism, with the ideas of G. Frege, L. Wittgen­stein, and W. Sellars. His principal focus is on the issue of “the struggle for recognition”. In terms of “mutual” and “symmetric” recognition as a terminus ad quem of social com­munication, Brandom interprets the reciprocal confirmation of the normative statuses of individual subjects acting as equal participants in a collective “game of giving and asking for reasons”. This state of mutual recognition, Brandom maintains, can be achieved through overcoming the subjectivist alienation and egotism characteristic of the moder­nity. The author argues that in his discussion of this issue the American philosopher con­fuses two key concepts used by Hegel in “The Phenomenology of Spirit”: Entfremdung (“alienation”) and Entäußerung (“externalization”). The author claims that by emphasiz­ing the negative side of Entfremdung, Brandom overlooks the meaning of Entäußerung (objectification), which, according to E. Ilyenkov, “is essential to the very definition of ‘Spirit’”.

Minority Presidents in a Coalitional World

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Chaisty ◽  
Nic Cheeseman ◽  
Timothy J. Power
Keyword(s):  
Coalition Formation ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
System Level ◽  
Current State ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter summarizes the main parameters of coalitional presidentialism and the key concepts, definitions, explanatory frameworks, indicators, and propositions. It summarizes our understanding of coalitional presidentialism; the distinction between coalition formation and maintenance; the definition of coalitions; the multidimensional understanding of coalition management (the ‘presidential toolbox’); and an analytical framework that emphasizes the motivation of presidents to achieve cost minimization under constraints determined by system-level, coalition-level, and conjunctural factors. It also summarizes our main empirical findings: (1) the characteristics of presidential tools, (2) the substantive patterns of their deployment, (3) the factors that shape the costs of using these tools, (4) the actual (observed) costs of using them, and (5) the potential for imperfect substitutability of these tools. Finally, it concludes with some reflections on the current state of the research on comparative presidentialism.

Two Refutations of the Vorhanden Reading of Heidegger’s Philosophy of Science in Being and Time

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 174-187
Author(s):  
Paul Goldberg ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Being And Time ◽  
Robert Brandom ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Hubert Dreyfus

The dominant interpretation of Heidegger’s philosophy of science in Being and Time is that he defines science, or natural science, in terms of presence-at-hand (Vorhandenheit). I argue that this interpretation is false. I call this dominant view about Heidegger’s definition of science the vorhanden claim; interpreters who argue in favor of this claim I call vorhanden readers. In the essay, I reconstruct and then refute two major arguments for the vorhanden claim: respectively, I call them equipmental breakdown (Section 1) and theoretical assertion (Section 2). The equipmental breakdown argument, stemming mainly from Hubert Dreyfus, advances a vorhanden reading on the basis of three other interpretive claims: I call them, respectively, the primacy of practice claim, the decontextualization claim, and the breakdown claim. While I remain agnostic on the first claim, the argument fails because of decisive textual counterevidence to the latter two claims. Meanwhile, the theoretical assertion argument, which I reconstruct mainly from Robert Brandom, premises its vorhanden claim on the basis of some remarks in Being and Time indicating that theoretical assertions, as such, refer to present-at-hand things. Since science is taken to be a paradigmatic case of an activity that makes theoretical assertions, the vorhanden claim is supposed to follow. I refute this argument on the grounds that it equivocates on Heidegger’s concept of “theoretical assertion” and cannot account for his insistence that science does not principally consist in the production of such assertions. I conclude that, with the failure of these two arguments, the case for the vorhanden claim is severely weakened.

scholarly journals Towards the determination of capabilities relevant for expert thinking

2006 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-59
Author(s):  
Zora Krnjaic
Keyword(s):  
Complex Nature ◽  
Crystallized Intelligence ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Abstract Thought ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Systematic Education ◽  
Special Relevance ◽  
Complex Manner

The paper starts from the assumption that expert thinking is a complex manner of thinking of higher order, comprising higher mental functions and complex capabilities based on deep structures and knowledge patterns. It is a domain-determined and specialized thinking developed through systematic education. Particular aspects of ability, selected for this study, primarily concern the relation between abilities and knowledge and the relation between general and specific abilities. Particular emphasis was laid on the key concepts of the theories presented, relevant for the study of the complex nature of expert thinking. Special attention was paid to mediated intelligence and the process of systemogenesis of knowledge, Katel?s definition of crystallized intelligence, Gardener?s work on multiple intelligences in the context of knowledge and experience as well as Sternberg?s two-facet subtheory. The capability for abstract thought and the ability to select what is important as well as the domain of relevant specific capability are assumed to be of special relevance for understanding expert thinking and, as such, they were articulated and examined. Expert thinking-abstract, specialized and domain-specific, seems to be based on general and specific capabilities and their interaction.

scholarly journals Towards a Clearer Definition and Understanding of "Indigenous Community" for the Purposes of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill, 2010: En Exploration of the Concepts "Indigenous" and "Traditional"

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 126
Author(s):  
Sunelle Geyer
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
United Nations ◽  
South African ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Indigenous Community ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

Although "indigenous" and "traditional" are key concepts in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill of 2010, they are not defined therein. The Bill does, however, provide a definition of "indigenous community" that is very clear as to where one should look for indigenous communities for the purposes of this Bill, and that there is likely to be a plurality of such communities, but is very vague as to which groups exactly will qualify as being indigenous.  It is uncertain whether or not the current vague wording of the definition would be strong enough to widen the much narrower understanding of indigenousness prevailing in other South African legislation, the legislation of selected other jurisdictions, and the United Nations. Recommendations are made as to how the definition of an "indigenous community" may be rephrased to address these uncertainties more clearly.

scholarly journals The dynamics of Pecking Order and Agency theories on crowdfunding concept as alternate finance for start-up businesses

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Francis Kwaku Kuma ◽  
Mohd Effandi Yosuff
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Aspect ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Pecking Order ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

The study explores the relevance of theoretical aspect of crowd financing by reviewing the defining literature on Pecking Order and Agency theories in details and evaluates applications of these theories based on crowdfunding. In particular, the study critically considers the key concepts of these theories and how they could be applied in practical terms. The study decides to adopt Pecking Order and the Agency theories because they provide valuable insights into the trend of crowdfunding streams available to firms. The paper primarily adds to existing literature on the broader definition of crowdfunding as a concept and then examine the relationship between this concept and its practical applications to the chosen theories. The study combines these theoretical perspectives with the practical aspects of startup companies raising finance using the crowd because a broad reading of the literature tends to point to in this direction. The key concepts of these theories are critically considered and the study is conducted in the form of review of literature and expression of opinion. Citation: author1, author2, author3. The dynamics of Pecking Order and Agency theories on crowdfunding concept as alternate finance for start-up businesses. 2020; 4(1): 1－13.Received: (February 2, 2020) Accepted: (March 31, 2020)

MODERN THEORIES OF WRONGFULNESS: THE SWISS APPROACH

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-253
Author(s):  
S.K. STEPANOV
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of

This paper provides an overview of key concepts of wrongfulness in Tort law. The Swiss approach to the definition of wrongfulness has been analyzed. In addition, the article discusses the subjective and objective theories of wrongfulness. The author addresses the modern concepts of wrongfulness, allowing to achieve maximum flexibility in establishing tort liability.

scholarly journals Toleranse og anerkjenning eller: Kva vil det seia å verdsetja mangfald?

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans Marius Hansteen
Keyword(s):  
Social Space ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The Other ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Cultural Codes ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Human Need ◽  
Basic Features ◽  
Struggle For Recognition ◽  
The Relationship

Even though “toleration” and “recognition” designate opposing attitudes (to tolerate something, implies a negative stance towards it, whereas recognition seems to imply a positive one), the concepts do not constitute mutually exclusive alternatives. However, “toleration” is often associated with liberal universalism, focusing on individual rights, whereas “recognition” often connotes communitarian perspectives, focusing on relations and identity. This paper argues that toleration may be founded on recognition, and that recognition may imply toleration. In outlining a differentiated understanding of the relationship between toleration and recognition, it seems apt to avoid an all-to-general dichotomy between universalism and particularism or, in other words, to reach beyond the debate between liberalism and communitarianism in political philosophy.The paper takes as its starting point the view that the discussion on toleration and diversity in intercultural communication is one of the contexts where it seems important to get beyond the liberal/communitarian dichotomy. Some basic features of Rainer Forst’s theory of toleration and Axel Honneth’s theory of the struggle for recognition are presented, in order to develop a more substantial understanding of the relationship between the concepts of toleration and recognition. One lesson from Forst is that toleration is a normatively dependent concept, i.e., that it is impossible to deduce principles for toleration and its limits from a theory of toleration as such. A central lesson from Honneth is that recognition – understood as a basic human need – is always conflictual and therefore dynamic.Accordingly, a main point in the paper is that the theory of struggles for and about recognition (where struggles for designates struggles within an established order of recognition, and struggles about designates struggles that challenge established orders of recognition) may clarify what is at stake in conflicts concerning toleration and its limits. At the same time, Honneth’s theory of the need for recognition seems to be a source for the kind of argumentative justifications that a just toleration are dependent on, according to Forst.Another important point in the paper is that toleration (pace Forst) is a practice or attitude that implies taking a stance, but in a differentiated way, and that this presuppose a reflective distance towards one’s own positions. To be tolerant means saying “yes” to something (the beliefs and practices that one endorses), saying “no” to something (the intolerable), but also being able to say “no, but…” to something (that which is tolerated). Intolerance means saying “no” without justifiable reasons, whereas misguided tolerance means accepting something without justifiable reasons – both attitudes may be taken to indicate that one lacks proper understanding of the reasons for holding the viewpoints that one actively endorses.In discussing of Honneth’s theory of recognition, I argue that an ability to take a stance in a differentiated way is seminal, if struggles for and about recognition are to unfold productively. In all spheres of mutual recognition (primary, secondary and tertial groups), the potential for conflicts seems to rely on an unavoidable tension between identification with the other and identification of the other as another. This is the reason why recognition – in Honneth’s sense – seems to imply toleration, or at least is reliant on the same kind of self-reflective distance and ability to differentiate that is constitutive of toleration according to Forst.Finally, I argue that the concept of “communal values” that Honneth refers to in the context of “solidarity” cannot be taken to designate a set of substantial values that are constitutive of community, but rather that important forms of recognition take place in a social space and shape cultural codes that are both the results of and the subjects of conflict. Thus while “culture” is conflictual and complex, “value pluralism” – including diversity of beliefs and practices – may be productive. In this context, toleration is not about avoiding or resolving conflict, but about establishing the conditions for productive conflicts, enabling an ongoing creation and reappraisal of values.

Ordination: A Catholic Ecclesiological Approach

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Puglisi
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Ordained Ministry ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
English Speaking World ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Church ◽  
Lex Orandi

Several important works on the history and theology of ordination have been published in the English-speaking world, among the most recent of which is one by Dr. Paul F. Bradshaw.1 The questions touching on ministry are absolutely essential for the resolution of questions regarding the unity of the church. The mutual recognition of ministry among communities is fundamental if they are to recognize one another as authentic apostolic churches. Although ministry is not the only question for the apostolicity of the church, it is a fundamental one, given that ordination rituals articulate an effective structuring, as well as an auto-definition, of a church. This fact begs, therefore, an exploration of the theological meaning of the “process of ordination” as a whole, as well as careful consideration of the content of the ritual and prayers. The attempt to recognize theological equilibria, which are articulated through the relation of the lex orandi, lex credendi, and the Trinitarian dimension of the process of access to the ordained ministry, leads to an understanding of the originality of the ordained ministry in the context of a plurality of ministries in a church that is itself fully ministerial. Finally, the importance of ordination resides in the fact that it is a process that represents, in a demonstrative way, the structuring of each church, because the process is not only an ecclesial act but also a confessional, epicletic, and juridical one.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document