Come due specchi prospicienti

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 69-85
Author(s):  
Gianluca De Fazio ◽  

Beginning with the relation between the question of Nature and the status of philosophy, this essay interprets the theme of the mirror through the chiasm between multiplicity and thought. This relation is not substantial dualism’s relation of the subject with the object, but rather, following the image used by Merleau-Ponty, it is like the relation between two mirrors facing each other, thus suggesting that the “subject” herself is a multiplicity. From thence, drawing inspiration from this quote in Eye and Mind, “the Cartesian does not see himself in the mirror”, I formulate both the problem of the body and the question of intersubjectivity as a field of individuation for all possible forms of subjectivity. Following this theme, the essay retraces the use of the mirror in the Note on Machiavelli. Finally, given that the theme of subjectivity as a multiplicity is related to the theme of corporeality (granting the principle of reversibility characteristic of a Merleau-Pontian ontology), the essay ends with an analysis of the idea of the body-mirror (and not simply the “body in the mirror”) which, from an intersubjective point of view, becomes an expressive relation in which each body is mirror and expression of the whole universe, thus unlocking an existential monadology.

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Roman Belyaletdinov

The transition from an irregular understanding of nature as a given to the regulatory concepts of human development is one of the central philosophical and socio-humanitarian issues in the development of not only biotechnologies, but also society as a whole. In the theory of philosophy of biomedicine, the discussion is structured as the positioning of various problematic approaches, modeled using the principles of bioethics and philosophical ethics, taking into account the actual experience of the application and social perception of biomedical technologies. The status of problematic approaches is determined not only by philosophical ethics, but also by the willingness of society to accept something new as its own future. At the same time, accepting the future is impossible without rooting the future in the past - the beliefs and expectations that legitimize the future. The correlation of such concepts as the authentic autonomy of J. Habermas and the expansion of utilitarianism into the problems of editing the human genome, the conflict associated with challenges requiring collective moral action, and the rigidity of traditional moral mechanisms lead to the search for such a sociobiological language that would be formed from competitively coexisting old, traditional, and new, bioengineering, concepts of human development. The idea of biocultural theory as a form of connection between culture and biological foundation is associated with the work of A. Buchanan and R. Powell, who propose a systemic definition of biocultural theory as a mutual biological and cultural transformation of a person. Biocultural theory is aimed at shaping such a philosophical horizon, where the body, not only carnal, such as organs, but also personal - the awareness of its own bioidentity, becomes open and understandable due to the expansion of the connection between biology and culture, but at the same time acquires problems that becomes the subject of philosophy and ethics, since now a person, comprehended as a body, receives a variability that is no longer associated exclusively with culture. The goal of the article is to show that editing a person is not so much a traditionally understood risk as a transformation of the understanding of the cultural and biological conditions for the formation of his bioidentity.


Author(s):  
David Nowell Smith

The concept of “voice” has long been highly ambiguous, with the physiological-phonetic process of sound production entangled in a far more extensive cultural and metaphysical imaginary of voice. Neither purely sound nor purely signification, voice can name either a sonorous excess over signification or the point at which sounds start to signify. Neither purely of the body nor ever extricated from its body, it can figure multiple kinds of meaningful embodiment, the breakdown of meaning in brute materiality, or even a strangely disembodied emanation. Voice can be both intentional and involuntary, both singular and plural, both presence and absence, both the possession of a subject and something that possesses subjects or is uncontainable by the subject. Voices may signify immediacy and be experienced as immediate, and yet they are continually mediated—by text, by technology, by art. In literature, the status of voice is particularly fraught. Not only do literary works deploy this imaginary of voice, but voice is crucial to literature’s medium. If this is most evident in the case of works composed or transmitted orally, it also holds for written works that, while destined for silent reading, nevertheless construct a virtual soundworld destined for its reader’s inner ear, to be subvocalized rather than read aloud. Literary works have been crucial in the development and deployment of the cultural-metaphysical imaginary of voice, precisely because “voice” poses such a diverse set of questions and problems for literature. These problems change focus and force with the development of technologies of inscription and prosthesis, from printing to sound recording to automated speech.


2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Owen Clark

In an essay entirely devoted to the subject of dance in Alain Badiou's Handbook of Inaesthetics [Petit manuel d'inesthétique (Badiou 2005b)], we find the following contentious statement: “Dance is not an art, because it is the sign of the possibility of art as inscribed in the body” (69). At first glance, this statement seems strangely familiar to the reader versed in writing about dance, particularly philosophical writing. “Dance is not an art”: Badiou critiques Mallarmé as not realizing this as the true import of his ideas. It is familiar because it attests to a certain problem in aesthetic thinking, one that relates to the placement and position of dance and the works that comprise its history into what can be seen as certain evaluative hierarchies, particularly vis à vis the relation of dance to other art forms, and in particular, those involving speech and writing. Dance seems to suffer from a certain marginalization, subtraction, or exclusion, and its practice seems to occupy a place of the perennial exception, problem, or special case. The strangeness of the statement, on the other hand, relates to the widespread view outside of academic writing that the status of dance “as art” is actually completely unproblematic. What follows therefore is a critical commentary on this assertion of Badiou, placed both in the context of Badiou's writing, and in the wider one pertaining to the problem of exclusion just outlined.


1975 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-221
Author(s):  
Dieter B. Kapp

AbstractThe present article is concerned with “the chapter of the description of the [four] categories of women”, the strībhedavarana-khaa, which comprises the stanzas 463–467 of the great romantic poem Padumāvatī. It was composed ca. 1540 A.D. by the Muslim poet Malik Muammad Jāyasī, the most significant representative of the ūfī poets of Oudh, in Old Avadhi, the language of his native country.This study opens with a general introduction about the author and his chef-d'œuvre, which also gives the contents of the epic. The subject dealt with here is introduced by a short synopsis on the tradition of the description of the four categories of women, i.e. padminī, citriī, śakhinī, and hastinī, in Sanskrit erotic literature. Text and translation of the strībhedavarana-khaa, together with exhaustive notes, form the greater part of this article. The notes which appear after the translation of each verse, aim mainly at comparing Jāyasī's conception of the four categories of women with those held by authors of Sanskrit texts on this subject. For purpose of comparison, more than ten Sanskrit texts, beginning with Kokkoka's Ratirahasya, which was composed before 1200 A.D., have been cited. Besides, various quotations both from Sanskrit literature and from Arabic narrative literature have been given as illustrative examples, particularly in those cases, where no parallels for specific details in Jāyasī's description could be found in the Sanskrit texts referred to.The comparison of Jāyasī's conception of the four categories of women with those held by Kokkoka and his epigones, points to the conclusion that probably Jāyasī has not used any definite literary source for writing this particular chapter, but rather has relied upon possibly wide-spread popular traditions of this system of classification of women.Two conspicuous peculiarities in Jāyasī's very detailed description which are worthy of special note, have been discussed at the conclusion of the introductory remarks. The first is the “confusion” of the termini sakhinī and sighinī, that has been imputed to the poet by several editors of his œuvre; from my point of view, however, this “confusion” was fully intended by the author. The second peculiarity is Jāyasī's apparently individual interpretation of the so-called “sixteen śgāras”, i.e. “methods of decoration of the body”, which combined with the “twelve ābharaas”, i.e. “ornaments”, are generally known as the complete ornamentation of woman. According to Jāyasī, the “sixteen śgāras” are the “sixteen physical refinements”, divided into four groups: (1) four parts of the body (in the widest sense of the word) having “longness”, i.e. hair, fingers, eyes, neck, (2) four having “shortness”, i.e. teeth, breasts, forehead, navel, (3) four having “broadness”, i.e. cheeks, buttocks, arms, calves, and (4) four having “slenderness”, i.e. nose, waist, belly, lips.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-68
Author(s):  
Vladimir Valentinovich Kozhevnikov

This article analyzes the problem of recommendatory norms in Russian literature, both Soviet and modern, which is solved ambiguously. As for Soviet theoretical scientists, recommendation norms were the subject of study by such authors as Nikolai Grigorievich Alexandrov, Alexander Filippovich Shebanov, Peter Yemelyanovich Nedbailo, Vladimir Srgeevich Petrov, Valery Evaldovich Krasnyansky. Viktor Mikhailovich Gorshenev, Cecilia Abramovna Yampolskaya, Vladimir Matveevich Solyanik, Viktor Lavrenievich Kulapov, whose scientific works are given below. Regarding modern legal literature, unfortunately, we have to state that, basically, with rare exceptions (scientific articles by Vladimir Valentinovich Kozhevnikov, Alexander Evgenievich Kondratyev, Sadri Salikhovich Kuzakbirdiev), this problem is considered only in educational literature. When preparing a scientific article, the following methods were used: general philosophical (dialectical-materialistic), which is used in all social sciences; general scientific (analysis and synthesis, logical and historical, comparisons, abstractions, etc.), which are used not only by the theory of state and law, but also by other social sciences; special methods (philological, cybernetic, psychological, etc.), developed by special sciences and widely used for the knowledge of state and legal phenomena; private scientific (formal legal, interpretation of law, etc.), which are developed by the theory of state and law. Soviet scientists - legal theorists: supporters and opponents of the recognition of recommendatory norms of law.  From the point of view of scientists, a "recommendatory" -containing recommendation, i.e. advice, wish [1], instruction [2].


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 621
Author(s):  
Monika Żuchowska-Grzywacz

<p>The article attempts to present an analysis of the status of the concept of chemisation in selected legal acts at the international, EU and national level, and to outline the legal problems related to chemisation in agriculture. The concept of agricultural chemisation belongs to a conceptual framework of other than law branches of empirical sciences, primarily chemistry, natural sciences and agrotechnics. There is no legal definition and it is dispersed in various legal acts, significantly affecting such areas as environmental protection, food safety, food security, protection of the interests of consumers and agricultural entrepreneurs. Due to the specifics of the study, a dogmatic method was used, which analyzed the research material consisting of selected, key provisions of international and EU law and acts of national law. In order to extend the issues and emphasize the issues that are the subject of the study, the method of content analysis and analysis of documents was used, thanks to which the topicality of the discussed issue and its significant importance from the social point of view were shown. The conducted analysis was aimed at showing and emphasizing the multifaceted and complex nature of the issue.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (04) ◽  
pp. 39-55
Author(s):  
Rosa Lagos Torres

Este artículo muestra los efectos de la época y la cultura actual sobre la relación con el cuerpo, considerado como una unidad de valor en el mercado. Desde el psicoanálisis, en un recorrido por la noción de cuerpo tanto en Freud como en Lacan, se presenta una noción de cuerpo distinta a la de la medicina, diferenciando cuerpo y organismo, estableciendo que no hay El cuerpo, sino tantos cuerpos como sujetos, siendo el cuerpo concebido como una construcción a partir de la palabra y de la imagen, dando lugar al síntoma (Freud) como metáfora alojada en el cuerpo y como sinthome (Lacan) en tanto acontecimiento del cuerpo que empalma al sujeto con su modalidad de gozar, al hablante ser en su singular modalidad de satisfacción pulsional. This paper shows the effects of the times and the current culture on the relationship with the body, considered as a unit of value in the market. From the psychoanalysis point of view, on a tour of the notion of the body, with Freud, and Lacan both, the notion of body is different from the body presented by the medicine, distinguishing between body and organism. Stating that there is not A body, but many bodies as subjects, being the body, conceived as a construction from the word and the image, resulting in the symptom (Freud) and housed in the body as a metaphor and as a sinthome (Lacan) in all events of the body, that matches the subject with its way jouissance to the parletre in its singular modality of pulsional satisfaction.


2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Ridley

Making some minor changes to the syllabus of a peripheral GCE subject – Advanced Level (A-level) Dance – would hardly seem to be of much importance to anyone except dance students and their teachers. But the loss of dance notation is not as unimportant as it might appear: there are implications for the status of dance in the curriculum, for its ability to attract a range of students and for the development of the subject itself. Whilst being a popular social activity, in UK schools dance is constructed as a physical subject with an aesthetic gloss, languishing at the bottom of the academic hierarchy. Dance as a discipline is marginalised in academic discourse as an ephemeral, performance-focused subject, its power articulated through the body. Yet dance is more than just performance: to dismiss it as purely bodies in action is to ignore not only the language of its own structural conventions but also the language in which it might be recorded. Using the notion of docile bodies, the author considers the centrality of the body as instrument in defining the power of dance and how Foucault's mechanisms of power and knowledge are exemplified in current conceptions of dance in education.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 371-377
Author(s):  
Judith Wambacq ◽  

Avec son livre La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen réalise, de façon magistrale, deux objectifs. D’abord, il met en lien la pensée de deux philosophes qui sont à première vue très éloignés l’un de l’autre. Il s’agit de Félix Guattari et de Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Traditionnellement, Merleau-Ponty est considéré comme le philosophe du corps, tandis que Guattari est connu comme le philosophe du corps sans organes. Merleau-Ponty est un phénoménologue, tandis que Guattari prétend abandonner le point de vue du sujet. Kristensen démontre avec succès quel est le terrain commun des deux auteurs : la critique de la conception psychanalytique du sujet.Le deuxième objectif du livre découle directement du premier : présenter au lecteur une alternative à la conception intimiste de la subjectivité, soit comprendre la subjectivité comme fondamentalement parcourue par une altérité. Merleau-Ponty a été l’un des premiers, à l’instar de Paul Schilder, à mettre l’accent sur le caractère collectif et intersubjectif de cette altérité. Guattari a compris que cette altérité possède des sédiments politiques et historiques.With his book La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen accomplishes two goals in a masterly way. First, he links the works of two philosophers who are very different at first sight: Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Félix Guattari. Traditionally, Merleau-Ponty is considered the philosopher of the body, whereas Guattari is known as the philosopher of the body without organs. Merleau-Ponty is a phenomenologist, whereas Guattari pretends to abandon the point of view of the subject. Kristensen identifies the common ground of the two authors: the criticism of the psychoanalytical conception of the subject.The second goal of the book derives directly from the first: present the reader with an alternative for the intimate conception of subjectivity, that is, present him or her with the idea that subjectivity is always characterized by an alterity. Merleau-Ponty, following the example of Paul Schilder, has been one of the first to stress the collective and intersubjective nature of this alterity. Guattari has understood that this alterity has political and historical sediments.Con il suo libro La machine sensible, Stefan Kristensen realizza magistralmente due obiettivi. Innanzitutto, egli mette in relazione il pensiero di due filosofi a prima vista molto distanti tra loro: Félix Guattari e Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Se tradizionalmente Merleau-Ponty è considerato il filosofo del corpo, Guattari è invece noto come il filosofo del corpo senza organi. Merleau-Ponty è un fenomenologo, mentre il pensiero di Guattari intende abbandonare il punto di vista del soggetto. Kristensen propone allora di leggere la critica della concezione psicoanalitica del soggetto come terreno comune tra i due autori. Il secondo obiettivo del libro discende direttamente dal primo: presentare al lettore un’alternativa alla concezione intimista della soggettività, ovvero concepire la soggettività come fondamentalmente percorsa da un’alterità. Merleau-Ponty è tra i primi, sulla scorta di Paul Schilder, a porre l’accento sul carattere collettivo e intersoggettivo di questa alterità. Dal canto suo, Guattari ha compreso che questa alterità possiede dei sedimenti politici e storici.


Gesture ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier Le Guen

This paper aims at providing a systematic framework for investigating differences in how people point to existing spaces. Pointing is considered according to two conditions: (1) A non-transposed condition where the body of the speaker always constitutes the origo and where the various types of pointing are differentiated by the status of the target and (2) a transposed condition where both the distant figure and the distant ground are identified and their relation specified according to two frames of reference (FoRs): the egocentric FoR (where spatial relationships are coded with respect to the speaker’s point of view) and the geocentric FoR (where spatial relationships are coded in relation to external cues in the environment). The preference for one or the other frame of reference not only has consequences for pointing to real spaces but has some resonance in other domains, constraining the production of gesture in these related domains.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document