scholarly journals The History of Philosophy and the Practical Philosophy in Martha Nussbaum’s New Book. Nussbaum, M. (2019). The Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble But Flawed Ideal. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Sententiae ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 129-133
Author(s):  
Vsevolod Khoma ◽  

Review of Nussbaum, M. (2019). The Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble But Flawed Ideal. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Author(s):  
Christiana Olfert

Aristotle’s theories of truth, practical reasoning, and action are some of the most influential theories in the history of philosophy. It is surprising, then, that so little attention has been given to his notion of practical truth. In Aristotle on Practical Truth, C. M. M. Olfert gives the first book-length treatment of this notion and the role of truth in our practical lives overall. She offers a novel account of practical truth: it is the truth, in the technical Aristotelian sense of “truth,” about what is good simpliciter (haplôs) for a particular person in her particular situation. Olfert argues that, understood in this way, Aristotle’s notion of practical truth is an attractive idea that illuminates the core of his practical philosophy. But it is also an idea that challenges a common view that in practical reasoning, we aim at action or acting well as our primary goals, not at truth and knowledge. Contrary to this common view, Olfert shows that in dialogues such as Charmides, Protagoras, and Republic, Plato describes practical reasoning as being concerned equally with grasping the truth and with acting well. She argues that Aristotle develops this Platonic picture with the notion of practical truth and with a technical notion of rational action as fitting ourselves to the world. Using key texts from the Nicomachean and Eudemian Ethics, as well as De Anima, Metaphysics, De Interpretatione, and Categories, Olfert demonstrates that practical truth deserves to be treated as a central and plausible Aristotelian idea.


2016 ◽  
pp. 91-103
Author(s):  
Eduard Parhomenko

Der Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit der Transformation der philosophischen Ansichten von Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche (1762--1842), welcher an der Universität Tartu als Professor für theoretische und praktische Philosophie (1802--1838) wirkte. In der Geschichte der Philosophie wurde er vor allem als der Herausgeber von Immanuel Kants Logik-Vorlesungen (1800) bekannt. Jäsches Auseinandersetzungen mit Spinozismus und Pantheismus sind aber ebenso beachtenswert (Der Pantheismus nach seinen verschiedenen Hauptformen I--III, 1826--1832). Im allgemeinen wird Jäsche als ein strenger, eben orthodoxer Anhänger Kants charakterisiert. Dabei wird allerdings der Einfluss der Philosophie Friedrich Heinrich Jacobis auf seinen Kantianismus angesprochen. Der Aufsatz untersucht hauptsächlich den Einfluss der Glaubensphilosophie Jacobis, darunter seiner Kritik des Spinozismus und Pantheismus, auf die Verwandlung der Philosophie Jäsches zum Ende des ersten Jahrzehnts des 19. Jahrhunderts. Die Analyse konzentriert sich auf das Manuskript Liebe und Glaube. Es handelt sich hierbei um ein eigenartiges Denktagebuch, veranlasst durch den frühzeitigen Tod von Jäsches Frau Sally im Februar 1808. Jäsche versucht dort den Tod seiner Frau und die dadurch hervorgerufene seelische und philosophische Krise zu überwinden. Entscheidend ist hierbei, dass Jäsche, beim Versuch den Tod seiner Frau anhand der Philosophie Kants zu durchdenken, scheiterte, da die Philosophie Kants die übernatürliche Erfahrung, der Jäsche unmittelbar nach dem Tod seiner Frau teilhaftig wurde, nicht erklären konnte. Den Ausweg findet Jäsche durch die Glaubensphilosophie Jacobis. Im allgemeinen lässt sich sagen, dass Jäsches philosophische Ansichten im Rahmen der Philosophie Kants blieben, obwohl es im konkreten Falle nicht allein um eine Verschiebung von Akzenten geht, sondern um eine beträchtliche Umdeutung der zentralen Konzepte der Philosophie Kants.   This paper focuses on the transformation of the philosophical views of Gottlob Benjamin Jäsche (1762--1842), professor of theoretical and practical philosophy at Tartu University (1802--1838). In the history of philosophy, Jäsche is known as a compiler and publisher of Immanuel Kant's handbook of lectures on logic (1800). His critique of Spinozism and pantheism is also noteworthy (Der Pantheismus nach seinen verschiedenen Hauptformen I-III, 1826--1832). Jäsche was characterised as a rather strict, even orthodox disciple of Kant's philosophy. However, it was noticed that his Kantianism was influenced by the philosophy of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi. This paper mainly examines the meaning of Jacobi's philosophical doctrine of belief or faith (Glaube), including the meaning of the criticism of Spinozism and pantheism during the turn in Jäsche's philosophy at the end of the first decade of the 19th century. The analysis focuses on one of Jäsche's manuscript works, entitled Liebe und Glaube (Love and Faith). This is a peculiar spiritual diary, the writing of which was induced by the death of Jäsche's wife, Sally in February 1808. In his diary Jäsche tries to explicate the tragedy and through it to overcome the spiritual as well as philosophical crisis that assailed him as a consequence of his wife's untimely death. The fact that Kant's philosophy did not help Jäsche cope with his wife's death became decisive, because through Kantianism he was unable to find a philosophical explication of the supernatural experience that he had lived through. Jäsche emerges from the bind thanks to Jacobi's philosophy of belief. Although, broadly speaking, Jäsche remained within in the framework of Kant's philosophy, this was not merely a matter of making small adjustments and shifting emphases, but rather entailed a thorough reconsideration of central notions of Kant's philosophy.


Author(s):  
Alexander A. Lvov ◽  

In interdisciplinary contemporary science, knowledge is obtained from a close collaboration of specialists with various competences. Philosophy appears to be effective in clarifying the meaning of concepts, discerning the normative and the empirical, determining whether the differences in the positions of the participants depend on how they use words or the essence of the argument. Philosophers actively help to develop various fields of the humanities and social sciences and they are in demand in the sciences. They admit themselves that the history of philosophy is the unifying factor for all the areas, although the areas of their research are diverse. The article considers the question of whether it is possible to talk about a specific influence exerted by professional historians of philosophy on other disciplines. Restricted to the humanities, it traces the streams that exist in the dialogue between the humanities and historical-philosophical studies, and also considers what contribution the historians of philosophy make in the field of historical sciences, in various areas of political research, in gender studies, anthropology, theology and religious philosophy, as well as the articulation of practical philosophy as a way of life. Despite the fact that the history of philosophy is thought of as an auxiliary discipline, the contribution of the historians of philosophy to the development of related and indirectly related fields of scholarship is significant: they reconstruct the genealogy of meaning and as a result, the concepts or ideas are clarified within their native cultural environment.


Author(s):  
Pavlos Kontos

It is not an overstatement to say that no other figure in the history of philosophy has exercised a stronger influence on phenomenology than Aristotle. It suffices to recall Franz Brentano’s decisive role in the genesis of phenomenology or to enumerate the Aristotelian concepts and patterns of thought that phenomenological research—from Husserl to its contemporary practitioners—has appropriated or assimilated. But the most critical element of that influence is the fact that Aristotle has served as the privileged pivot for phenomenology’s own development. The present chapter presents a brief overview of phenomenological approaches to Aristotle and focuses on two episodes in that long story, namely, on Heidegger’s and Gadamer’s interpretations of Aristotle’s practical philosophy and how they contributed to the elaboration of their conceptions of phenomenology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document