Explanation

This chapter discusses the explanation of historical philosophical views. Strictly speaking, the explanation of the philosophical view is the task of the philosopher. What the historian is concerned with is the historical fact that a certain view was held by a certain person in a certain context, the historical fact that this view came to be held by a whole group of philosophers, the historical fact that it became part of the state of the art to think of it as an acceptable or even a true view. Thus, historians do not explain the philosophical view in terms of what they take to be reasons for it but in terms of the reasons for which it was actually held because they were thought to constitute adequate grounds for holding it. The question then arises why a philosopher would hold this to be adequate grounds for the view. And in the simplest case, the answers will be in terms of another historical fact; namely that, by the standards of the time, this would have seemed to be adequate grounds to philosophers then, which raises the further question of why philosophers then would have taken this to be adequate grounds. At this point, one could go on to explain this by referring to further historical facts; namely, the fact that philosophers of the time would have explained this in such and such a way.

Historicism

This chapter studies historicism. It is often said that philosophical views and, indeed, philosophy itself are historical phenomena. The historian, in considering the fact that somebody took a certain philosophical view as a historical fact, just treats this fact under one aspect; namely, that of how it fits into and can be explained out of history. But there is another aspect to the fact that he systematically disregards; namely, whether the view is true and whether it is warranted by the argument in its favour. This just reflects the fact that the historian does not himself take a stand on the philosophical issues. But it is a real aspect of the fact that somebody holds a certain view that the view is true or false, that one manages or fails to solve a problem, to answer a question, by advancing it. Ultimately, however, it is important to make sure that in one’s rejection of any kind of historicism one does not lose sight of the original insight which the historicist just pushed to an untenable extreme; namely, the insight that philosophical views, or philosophical judgements, are historical phenomena.

Biopolítica sob a ótica de Foucault e Agamben: o campo como nómos do moderno | Biopolitics from the perspective of Foucault and Agamben: the field as modern nómos

O presente artigo tem por objetivo apresentar a relação entre biopolítica e nazismo à luz da obra de Michel Foucault e Giorgio Agamben. Para Foucault, o nazismo utilizou-se do racismo de Estado para proteger uma raça e legitimar a morte daqueles que representavam uma espécie de perigo biológico. Seguindo a mesma via, Agamben nos convida a refletir sobre os campos de concentração não como um fato histórico superado, mas como uma estrutura de poder que vem sendo cada vez mais utilizada nas democracias contemporâneas, marcada pela vigência do estado de exceção e produção da vida nua.Palavras-chave: Foucault.Agamben.Biopolítica. Campo. AbstractThis article aims to present the relationship between biopolitics and Nazism in the light of the work of Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben. According to Foucault, Nazism used state racism to protect a race and legitimize the death of those who represented a kind of biological danger. Following the same path, Agamben invites us to reflect on the concentration camps not as an outdated historical fact, but as a power structure which has been increasingly used in contemporary democracies, marked by the validity of the state of exception and production of bare life.Keywords: Foucault. Agamben. Biopolitics. Field. ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1386-955X

Ketika Pangeran Minta Jabatan: Kajian Filologis terhadap Sepucuk Surat untuk Raffles (1811)

In this article, I discuss a letter from three high-ranking officials of the Cirebon Sultanate to Thomas Stamford Raffles. The letter written on 25 Syaban 1226 AH (September 11, 1811 AD) is a collection of the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia and is coded ID-ANRI K66a, File 3584, Folio 683. Through the letter, they the letter, in essence, they asked for a position to Raffles. As the “old people” in the Cirebon Sultanate, they felt worthy and could occupy certain positions which they submitted themselves to Raffles. In this article, the letter firstly was studied by using the philology theory that contains the method of manuscript study (codicology) and the method of text study (textology). Furthermore, the manuscript content was dialogued to the historical fact in the Cirebon Sultanate, especially in the context of the British plan to occupy Java, so that we obtained a complete understanding of the context of writing the letter. The result shows that when the letter was written, the British had not fully controlled Java. The three high-ranking officials of the Cirebon Sultanate only took advantage of the situation because they knew that power in Java would soon transfer to the British hands. However, until the end of the British interregnum period in 1816, there is no evidence that the request was granted by Raffles.

Incerta glòria and the Dialectics of Time

From 1956 to 1981, Joan Sales published various editions of Incerta glòria. As Núria Folch notes in the preface to the novel, ‘the narrative begins with 315 pages in the first edition and with 843 in the last’, evincing the complex process of rewriting, rethinking and reinterpreting which preceded its definitive publication. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the dialogue which the last parts of the novel establish with the first ones. Since the narrative constantly revisits its own point of view and develops in the light of historical fact, this paper explores the philosophical conception of the individual, the conflict, and particularly how a dialectic of time is woven among the different parts of the novel.

The Inoperative Domestic Violence in Iraq and Its Role in Community Equity

The phenomenon of domestic violence is one of the phenomena that human society has known since ancient times. It is not a product of the present time; Indeed، violence has existed since God Almighty began to create humanity. It is a historical fact that its emergence was linked to the existence of man and developed during his human journey and civilized growth. Family violence is a global phenomenon، as it is one of the problems that are widespread worldwide. As violence is not related to a specific community، there is hardly a community of societies devoid of manifestations of violence، whether apparent or latent within the simple family framework، and family violence takes different forms that differ in form، gravity، meaning and purpose، and the seriousness of the phenomenon of domestic violence is that it is a common and dangerous phenomenon and that Its effects are not limited to the physical effects only، but also to the psychological effects that result from the victim affecting his adaptation and thus his compatibility، and this in turn reflects negatively on the family، which is the first building block of the human being and society. Whereas the widespread manifestations of domestic violence directed against women and the family are causing negative effects on society، the family، the public order، and on the development and development of society، in order to reduce these manifestations; The treatment of this scourge is a matter that imposes it. It was of great importance to clarify how the Iraqi legislator deals with domestic violence and to work to disrupt it and preserve the family entity from it، by reviewing what is already in the Iraqi penal code، personal status، and other Iraqi juvenile legislation as is the case in Iraqi Domestic Violence Protection Law related to the research topic.

Implementation of article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution in the context of scientific historical and legal experience

The subject of the research is the constitutional and legal norms of Article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution. These legal norms are legal means of realizing the subjective right to possess objectively verified knowledge about the past of the state and society and providing guarantees in obtaining such knowledge.The purpose of article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that some historical facts have the potential of legalization and may be involved in the process of legal impact on public relations.The methodology. A systematic approach was used in combination with historical and logical methods of cognition. It made it possible to study the theoretical, factual and legal grounds for the implementation of Article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution. The formal legal method was also used. It determined the vector of analysis of the legal source and the internal structure of the legal norms of Article 67.1, as well as the legal and technical features of their implementation and enforcement.The main results, scope of application. The article stipulates a set of theoretical, factual and legal grounds for the implementation of Article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution. It is shown that the synthesis of scientific knowledge and historical memory, the object of which is the past of a person, society and the state, lies at the basis of legal practice. Such synthesis conttains the potential for the effective implementation of the subjective right to possess objectively verified knowledge of the past and create guarantees in obtaining such knowledge. Scientific historical and legal experience is defined as a necessary condition in achieving the goal of forming an individual and a citizen, resistant to ignorance and misunderstanding of his national identity, reveals its possibilities in substantiating and verifying a historical fact, as well as within the permissible limits of their legalization.Conclusions. Legal matter is systematic and is strictly organized, therefore it can neither be interpreted arbitrarily, nor applied unreasonably. Article 67.1 of Russian Constitution includes four parts, each of which determines the subsequent one. These parts are also in semantic connection with other constitutional principles and declarations, which together determine the mechanism of legal regulation of a special kind of social relations - relations to the past. The state as a subject of these relations, on the one hand, is the creator of conditions for a representative scientific search and the establishment of reliable historical facts, for the subsequent popularization of the scientific result. On the other hand, state legally fixes scientifically grounded facts of state and social development, indicating unity and continuity. Article 67.1 of the Russian Constitution represents an attempt to consolidate legally the well-established historical facts. A historical fact becomes a constant of historical heritage for society when it receives public recognition. The loss of such constant is an irreversible loss (possibly even the destruction of a part or a whole society). In this case historical fact can be defined as a historical truth and may become a subject to legalization, subsequently acquiring the status of a legal norm: principle, definitive, declarative, prescriptive or logical rule of law. The legal concept of historical truth should be perceived not as the opposite of historical untruth (lie), not in the sense of “this is good, but this is bad” and “who benefits from”, because emotionality goes beyond the legal framework. The legal concept of historical truth should be perceived as the opposite of an unscientific, hypothetically assumed, yet unproven historical fact.

An Afterlife of a Scholarly Epic: Frazer's Golden Bough and Lewis's Argument from Myth

C.S. Lewis believed that Jesus Christ embodied, in historical fact, a mythic pattern of dying and rising exemplified by deities such as Balder and Osiris. Taken from James Frazer's Golden Bough, an enormously influential work of early anthropological scholarship, the idea of a generalized ‘dying and rising’ motif is now substantially outmoded. Resting specifically on the resemblance between that motif and the story of Christ, and not (unlike Tolkien's argument from myth) on the gospel's general qualities as a story, Lewis's argument from myth thus presupposes an incorrect vision of actual ancient pagan religion. That shortcoming is not fatal, however. In contrast to Chesterton in The Everlasting Man (another formative influence), Lewis used an aesthetic or ideal, rather than a historical, conception of myth, which he carefully distinguished from the word's ordinary senses. Although Lewis did believe that ancient myth-makers worshipped ‘dying and rising’ gods, the core of his case is ‘our’ apprehension of a mythic quality in such stories and the Gospels, independent of the beliefs of ancient writers or hearers of myths. That conclusion should discourage overly sanguine appropriations of Lewis's arguments, which never developed into a general theory of mythology and, once the historicity of the ‘dying and rising’ motif is set aside, can be developed into a case much like Tolkien's.

Cultural Identity as the Basis of Modern Cultural Typologies

The purpose of this article is to show the significance of markers of cultural identity for modern ethnometric typologies. In the modern period of modernization various cultural typologies are becoming popular. They are compiled based on multicomponent factors. The authors briefly describe these classifications as traditional markers of identity, such as religion, and new factors of psychology and mentality. The modern concept that explains the hybridization of modern cultural forms is transculturation. The transcultural manifestations include a certain decline of the role of the native language and the transformation of the traditional production niche of ethnic groups in Siberia. The traditional perception of identity consists mainly of cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics. At the same time, the typologу of L. Harrison shows the positive correlation between the cultural and industrial-economic components. This historical fact was noted by the famous anthropologist Frederik Barth, who focused on the production component of the ethnic border as opposed to the cultural one. The existing significant differences in the professional structure among Russians and Buryats in the twentieth century prove the fact that ethnic borders, despite the globalization / modernization processes, can still be associated with a certain production niche. The authors come to the conclusion that cultural markers still retain their significance, but can be implemented in hybrid forms of transculturation. These processes are reflected in these cultural typologies in the forms of multicomponent factors