Introduction: Plato’s Nightmare

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Marmysz
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Objective Reality

This introductory chapter examines the “problem” of nihilism, beginning with its philosophical origins in the ideas of Plato, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. It is argued that film is an inherently nihilistic medium involving the evocation of illusory worlds cut loose from objective reality. This nihilism of film is distinguished from nihilism in film; the nihilistic content also present in some (but not all) movies. Criticisms of media nihilism by authors such as Thomas Hibbs and Darren Ambrose are examined. It is then argued, contrary to such critics, that cinematic nihilism is not necessarily degrading or destructive. Because the nihilism of film encourages audiences to linger in the presence of nihilism in film, cinematic nihilism potentially trains audiences to learn the positive lessons of nihilism while remaining safely detached from the sorts of dangers depicted on screen.

scholarly journals Permasalahan Iman : Kritik Atas Iman Dalam Filsafat Barat dan Tawaran Jawaban

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Setyo Wibowo
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Infinite Horizon ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
Auguste Comte ◽  
Human Desire ◽  
New Situation ◽  
Fallacious Reasoning

<div><p><strong>Abstract :</strong> Faith becomes problematic in our modern world. In the age of secularization and emancipation man masters the Nature with his growing reason and ever developing technology. This new situation brings with itself a discredit toward faith and religion. Without refusing the existence of God, Immanuel Kant declares that theology is a paralogism (a fallacious reasoning). Auguste Comte corners the religion in the realm of infantile age to be overcomed by the progress of science. Meanwhile Friedrich Nietzsche, from his own view, analyses that the phenomenon of fanatism in religion hides the uncontrallble “need to believe” typically found among the weaks.The central critique of Martin Heidegger toward ontotheological metaphysics shows that theology defined as science does not think. Man of faith has already all the answer before a question is posed, therefore he cannot truly pariticipate in the question of Being. This article tries to consider these objections against faith. As an answer, this article offers to acknowledge “the act of believe” as an universal disposition in man. Much wider than his need to possess knowledge, man is driven by a desire for the infinite. Faith resumes this human desire for infinite.</p><p><em>Keywords : Emancipation, theology, metaphysics, faith, knowledge, way of belief, act of belief, passivity, infinite horizon, anthropological disposision.</em></p><p><em><br /></em></p><p><strong>Abstrak :</strong> Iman menjadi problem di dunia modern. Gerak sekularisasi dan emansipasi manusia berkat perkembangan rasionya, yang tampak dalam penguasaan manusia atas alam lewat teknologi, membuat keyakinan pada Tuhan dianggap ketinggalan roh jaman. Meskipun tidak menolak Tuhan, Immanuel Kant menganggap bahwa teologi adalah sebuah paralogisme. Auguste Comte tegas-tegas mengatakan bahwa jaman teologi dan agama adalah era kekanak-kanakan yang harus dilampaui demi kemajuan jaman. Friedrich Nietzsche memperingatkan bahwa fanatisme dalam agama adalah tanda besarnya kebutuhan manusia untuk percaya, yang tidak lain adalah kelemahan diri manusia. Kritikan besar Martin Heidegger kepada metafisika onto-teologis semakin menunjukkan inferioritas iman di depan pemikiran. Beriman artinya tidak bisa berpikir secara sungguh-sungguh. Artikel ini hendak menimbang keberatan-keberatan atas iman di atas dan sekaligus menawarkan bahwa “tindak percaya” adalah sesuatu yang secara antropologis menjadi disposisi setiap manusia. Lebih luas daripada obsesi pada “pengetahuan”, manusia memiliki hasrat akan ketakterbatasan yang menemukan ekspresinya dalam apa yang kita sebut sebagai iman.</p><p><em>Kata kunci : Emansipasi, teologi, metafisika, iman, pengetahuan, cara beriman, tindak percaya, pasitivitas, horison ketakterbatasan, disposisi antropologis.</em></p></div>

scholarly journals John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp.

Plato Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 213-223
Author(s):  
Romeo Domdii Cliff
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Jacques Derrida ◽  
Contemporary Society ◽  
Single Character ◽  
Complete Rejection ◽  
New Research

The collected volume Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics presents some of the new interesting research being conducted on the Statesman. The volume is edited by John Sallis who is well known for his work in phenomenology, including writings on such authors as Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant, and he has a continental approach to reading Plato. The new research on the Statesman will proceed by ways of the following three points in the collected volume. We will look at the new trend among scholars to read into the Statesman the complete rejection of the existence of an ideal statesman in our contemporary society. Further, we will discuss the unexplored terrains in the dialogue scholars are gravitating to. And finally, we will comment on the fact that all contributors in the volume show a certain degree of sensitivity to the dramatic context of the dialogue and refrain from attributing Plato’s voice to a single character. A brief remark on an aspect of these points will be furnished at the end.

Being Guilty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Elgat
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Arthur Schopenhauer ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
German Philosophy ◽  
Main Claim ◽  
Human Agent ◽  
History Of

What can guilt, the painful sting of the bad conscience, tell us about who we are as human beings? This book seeks to answer this question through an examination of the views of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling, Arthur Schopenhauer, Paul Rée, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger on guilt, freedom, responsibility, and conscience. The concept of guilt has not received sufficient attention from scholars of the history of German philosophy. The book addresses this lacuna and shows how the philosophers’ arguments can be more deeply grasped once read in their historical context. A main claim of the book is that this history could be read as proceeding dialectically. Thus, in Kant, Schelling, and Schopenhauer, there are variations on the idea that guilt is justified because the human agent is a free cause of his or her own being—a causa sui—and thus responsible for his or her “ontological guilt.” In contrast, in Rée and Nietzsche, these ideas are rejected, and the conclusion is reached that guilt is not justified but is explainable psychologically. Finally, in Heidegger, we find a synthesis of sorts, where the idea of causa sui is rejected, but ontological guilt is retained and guilt is seen as possible, because for Heidegger, a condition of possibility of guilt is that we are ontologically guilty yet not causa sui. In the process of unfolding this trajectory, the various philosophers’ views on these and many other issues are examined in detail.

scholarly journals Interpretación de Ortega y Gasset de la filosofía de Kant: del idealismo marburgués a la ontología crítica

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Dorota Maria Leszczyna
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Nicolai Hartmann

El objetivo del presente artículo consiste en presentar la evolución de los estudios orteguianos relativos a la filosofía de Immanuel Kant. El filósofo madrileño recorrió en ellos un camino desde el idealismo lógico, específico de la escuela de Marburgo, hasta el enfoque metafísico y ontológico presentado por los alumnos de los maestros neokantianos, tales como Nicolai Hartmann, Heinz Heimsoeth, Karl Jaspers y Martín Heidegger. Estos filósofos hicieron de la filosofía de Kant su punto de partida, puesto que en ella radicaban las cuestiones metafísicas y ontológicas olvidadas y omitidas por los representandes de las escuelas neokantianas. TITLE: Interpretation of Kant’s philosophy by Ort ega y Gasset: from marburguian idealism to the critical ontologyABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to present the evolution of Orteguian studies on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The spanish philosopher went from the logical idealism of the Marburg School to the metaphysical and ontological interpretations presented by the students of neo-Kantian masters such as Nicolai Hartmann, Heinz Heimsoeth, Karl Jaspers y Martín Heidegger. Those philosophers made the starting point of their reflection the philosophy of Kant because they found there metaphysical and ontological problems which were forgotten and omitted by the representatives of Neo-Kantian schools. 

scholarly journals Affective Aporetics: Complementary Contradictions in the Interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche

PhaenEx ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
NANDITA BISWAS MELLAMPHY
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
The Self ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Will To Power ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Place Holder ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

In 1971, Wolfgang Müller-Lauter introduced his study of Nietzsche as an investigation into the history of modern nihilism in which “contradiction” forms the central thread of the argument. For Müller-Lauter, the interpretive task is not to demonstrate the overall coherence or incoherence of Nietzsche’s philosophy, but to examine Nietzsche’s “philosophy of contradiction.” Against those such as Karl Jaspers, Karl Löwith and Martin Heidegger, Müller-Lauter argued that contradiction is the foundation of Nietzsche’s thought, and not a problem to be corrected or cast aside for exegetical or political purposes. For Müller-Lauter, contradiction qua incompatibility (not just mere opposition) holds a key to Nietzsche’s affective vision of philosophy. Beginning with the relationship between will to power and eternal recurrence, in this paper I examine aspects of Müller-Lauter’s account of Nietzsche’s philosophy of contradiction specifically in relation to the counter-interpretations offered by two other German commentators of Nietzsche, Leo Strauss and Karl Löwith, in order to confirm Müller-Lauter’s suggestion that contradiction is indeed an operative engine of Nietzsche’s thought. Indeed contradiction is a key Nietzschean theme and an important dynamic of becoming which enables the subject to be revealed as a “multiplicity” (BGE §12) and as a “fiction” (KSA 12:9[91]). Following Müller-Lauter’s assertion that for Nietzsche the problem of nihilism is fundamentally synonymous with the struggle of contradiction experienced by will to power, this paper interprets Nietzsche’s philosophy of contradiction in terms of subjective, bodily life (rather than in terms of logical incoherences or ontological inconsistencies). Against the backdrop of nihilism, the “self” (and its related place holder the “subject”), I will argue, becomes the psycho-physiological battlespace for the struggle and articulation of “contradiction” in Nietzsche’s thought.  

Narratives of Decadence in Post-Kantian Philosophy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Huddleston
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Max Horkheimer ◽  
Theodor Adorno ◽  
European Philosophy ◽  
Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries ◽  
Kantian Philosophy ◽  
Point Of Reference

Decadence is a perennial theme in philosophy. But tracing the arc of decline becomes an especially prominent focus of attention in European philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This article explains and contrasts several “narratives of decadence” in the post-Kantian tradition. The article first lays out briefly the basics of G. W. F. Hegel’s optimistic view of progress and history as a foil and point of reference, then turns to expounding several narratives of decadence from other canonical philosophical figures in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—specifically, from Friedrich Nietzsche, from Martin Heidegger, and from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. All of these thinkers see modern humanity as being, in some (often quite nuanced) sense, in a decadent state, but all have a rather different diagnosis of what that fallen state consists of, and of how (or whether) we might be able to extricate ourselves from it.

Klossowski, Pierre (1905–2001)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalja Chestopalova
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Ludwig Wittgenstein ◽  
Walter Benjamin ◽  
Franz Kafka ◽  
Georges Bataille ◽  
Rainer Maria Rilke ◽  
Andre Gide ◽  
Pierre Klossowski ◽  
André Gide

French philosopher, writer, artist and translator Pierre Klossowski was born in Paris and raised in Switzerland, Germany and France. His education was influenced by Rainer Maria Rilke (1875–1926) and André Gide (1869–1951). A friend of Georges Bataille (1897–1962), Walter Benjamin (1892–1940) and Pierre-Jean Jouve (1887–1976), Klossowski produced French translations of works by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Franz Kafka (1883–1924), Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) from German, and of the works of Suetonius, Virgil, Augustine and Tertullian from Latin.

(Posts-) Modernism and Structuralism: Affinities and Theoretical Innovations

1999 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Peters
Keyword(s):  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Social Scientific

This paper argues that “poststructuralism” can be distinguished from “structuralism” in terms of an important set of theoretical and historical differences that can be most easily understood by recognizing the difference between their theoretical objects of study: poststructuralism takes as it theoretical object “structuralism”, whereas postmodernism takes as its theoretical object “modernism”. Each movement is an attempt to supersede in various ways that which went before. The two movements can be distinguished by a peculiar set of theoretical concerns most clearly seen in their respective historical genealogies. Poststructuralism ought to be seen as a specific philosophical response - strongly motivated by the work of Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger - against the social scientific pretensions of structuralism.

scholarly journals Solipsisme dan Fenomenalisme : Dua Kutub Ekstrim Kantian yang Mengoyak Spiritualitas

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Husain Heriyanto
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Spiritual Intelligence ◽  
Muslim Community ◽  
Objective Reality ◽  
Human Reason ◽  
Epistemological Perspective ◽  
Transcendent Reality ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Ethics And Psychology

<div><p><strong>Abstract :</strong> Solipsism, which is set up by a very influential modern philosopher Immanuel Kant, constitutes one main characteristic of modern philosophy and thought. In the realm on metaphysics, it has brought down the meaning of reality. In epistemological perspective, it has caused modern man to live and think in an isolated mental world that is alienated from objective reality. In the levels of ethics and psychology, it paves the way for flourishing any kind of self-centered standpoint and attitude such as individualism, egoism, racism, and anthropocentrism in the context of human and universe relation. We however find another kind of solipsism in the context of theology and religion (focused on Muslim community). Neo-Salafi  Wahhabi puritanism that appears to claim its doctrine as a purified version of Islamic teachings and tradition is essentially an elimination and alienation of Islamic Ummah from transcendent reality, universe, history, humanity, and civilization. Similar to Kantian ontological assumption, Wahhabi insists to believe in transcendent reality with denial of the gates and ways of understanding the reality as well as with removal the keys of revealing reality. Both Kant and Wahhabi reject the capability of human reason to grasp and understand the transcendent reality.</p><p><em>Keywords : Agnosticism, noumenalism, phenomenalism, solipsism, Kant, Wahhabi, onto-epistemological solipsism, onto-theological solipsism, intellectuality, spiritual intelligence.</em></p><p> </p><p><strong>Abstrak :</strong> Solipsisme, yang dirumuskan oleh tokoh filsuf modern Immanuel Kant, merupakan salah satu karakter utama filsafat dan pemikiran modern. Pada level metafisis, ia telah memiskinkan wawasan manusia modern terhadap realitas. Sementara pada level epistemologis, ia telah memenjarakan manusia modern dalam dunia subyektif mental belaka yang terisolasi dari realitas obyektif dan bahkan terasing dari realitas kemanusiaannya sendiri. Dalam wilayah praktis, yaitu psikologis dan etis, solipsisme melahirkan dan menyuburkan berbagai bentuk self-centered view seperti individualisme, egoisme, rasisme, dan juga antroposentrisme dalam konteks hubungan manusia dengan kosmos. Pandangan yang amat mirip dengan solipsisme modern tersebut juga ditemukan di sebagian umat beragama (Islam) yang mengusung gerakan pemurnian oleh kaum neo-Salafi Wahabi. Setelah mengisolasi dan memutuskan hubungan onto-epistemologis manusia dengan realitas transenden, keduanya – Kant dan Wahabi – menolak kapabilitas rasional manusia untuk mencerap dan memahami realitas transenden.</p><p><em>Kata kunci : Agnostisisme, noumenalisme, fenomenalisme, solipsisme, Kant, Wahabi, solipsistik onto-epistemologis, solipsistik onto-teologis, kecerdasan simbolik dan spiritual.</em></p></div>

scholarly journals O sujeito do autor: o que aparece quando eu escrevo e desapareço?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Mauricio Winck Esteves ◽  
Luis Artur Costa
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Friedrich Nietzsche ◽  
Sigmund Freud ◽  
Rene Descartes ◽  
René Descartes

O artigo parte da problematização da noção de sujeito no exercício da escrita para fazer uma crítica ao sujeito da modernidade. Reflete sobre a emergência desse sujeito moderno nas filosofias de René Descartes, Immanuel Kant e na psicanálise de Sigmund Freud, em suas articulações com os mecanismos disciplinares e biopolíticos, demonstrando a emergência de um triplo enlace entre autoria, culpa e propriedade. Ressalta a articulação na modernidade de duas tecnologias de produção do sujeito: a culpa e o alterocídio, duas faces do ressentimento as quais são apresentadas por Friedrich Nietzsche e Achille Mbembe. Por fim, desde a perspectiva dos modos de subjetivação, busca-se traçar algumas linhas de uma autoria no avesso do ressentimento moderno-colonial: uma autoinvenção coletiva.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document