Page 1

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS Filozofski pogledi

ISSN 2466-3614 online Thompson Reuters RID Q-2899-2016

   

UNESCO WORLD PHILOSOPHY DAY 2016 WOMEN ECONOMIC FORUM 2017 The 7th annual Dialectical Symposium Athens, UN and Canada Famous philosophers – Professor Simon Glendinning – The London School of Economics and Political Science


Philosophical Views 2013 All rights reserved. Copyright Olivera Z. Mijuskovic © 2013

Impressum Email:


Olivera Z. Mijušković CEO, Founding Director and Editor-in Chief

Vesna Maričić Editor-in-Chief

Editorial Board/National Delegates National Delegates of Europe

Martin Ovens (PhD) - The United Kingdom (Oxford) Simon Glendinning (PhD) - The United Kingdom (London) Rhyddhi Chakraborty (PhD) - The United Kingdom (London) Luca Scotto di Tella de' Douglas, (PhD) - Italy (Rome, Lazio Area) Paolo Cuviello, (PhD) - Italy (Turin Area) Tomas Domingo Moratalla, (PhD) - Spain Stergios Tzortzios, (PhD) - Greece, the area of Thessaly Ioannis Mpoitsis, (PhD Candidate) - Greece, the area of Macedonia

Andreas Andreopoulos, (PhM) - Greece, the area of Attica Fatima Moukaideche, (PhM) - France Elena Seghedin, (PhD) - Romania Edgar Dahl, (PhD) - Germany Ana Torrão, (PhM) - Portugal Kasper Johansen, (PhM) - Denmark Inocent - Mária Vladimír Szaniszló (PhD) - Slovakia Sylvia Borissova, (PhD)-Bulgaria Hollósvölgyi Iván (journalist) - Hungary Gamze Nesipoglu, (MSc, Phil.) - Turkey Vlado Franjevic (Professional Fine Artist) - Lichtenstein Anto Cartolovni (PhD Candidate) - Croatia

National Delegates of the United States Ben Lazar Mijuskovic (PhD), California Nick C. Sagos (PhD), New Jersey Edward M. Macierowski, (PhD), Kansas William Bauser, (PhD), Wrentham, Massachusetts Gregory Sadler (PhD), Milwaukee Holly L. Baumgartner (PhD), Toledo, Ohio Area Tyson Dutton (MA), Oregon

National Delegate of Canada Kristina Barisaite, (MA), Washington D.C. Metro Area

National Delegates of Latin America Andrés Espíritu (PhD Candidate), Peru Sandra Vivas Toro, (MD), Venezuela Viviana Yaccuzzi Polisena, (PhM), Argentina Adriana A. Bocchino, (PhD), Argentina

National Delegate of Russia and Ukraine Sergey Kamenskiy (MA), Odessa

National Delegates of Australia Ádám Lovász (PhM), Clayton Narelle Arcidiacono (PhM), Queensland

National Delegates of Asia Zhuofei Wang (Dr. Phil.), China Andri Aziz, (MPhil), Indonesia Abraham Joseph (PhD) - India Aainaa Ridtz A. Rashid (PhD) - Malesia

National Delegate of Africa Valentine Oyedipe, (PhD Candidate), Nigeria

Advisory Board

Prof. dr Martin Ovens (PhD) - an English philosopher and a Philosophy Tutor at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, England

Prof. dr Inocent - Mária Vladimír Szaniszló (PhD) - Vicerector for Science and International relationships of Danubius University, Slovakia

Prof.dr Simon Glendinning (PhD) - Professor of European Philosophy in the European Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Director of the Forum for European Philosophy, England

Docent Paolo Cuviello (PhD) - Lecturer, Università Cattolica Del Sacro Cuore, Turin Area, Italy

Prof. dr Stergios Tzortzios, (PhD) - em. Professor on Biometry of the Faculty of Agriculture-Crop Production and Rural Environment, and f. Director of the Laboratory of Biometry and President of the Faculty ACPRE at the University of Thessaly, Greece Prof. dr Nick C. Sagos (PhD) - Lecturer in the School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey Prof. dr Ben Lazar Mijuskovic (PhD) - an American philosopher and Psychotherapist, Associate Professor of Philosophy at "California State University, Dominguez Hills", USA Prof. dr Giuseppe Gagliano (PhD) - an Italian philosopher and Founding Director of "Il Centro Studi Strategici Carlo de Cristoforis", and Editorin-Chief of "Polemos" from Como, Italy Prof. dr Holly L. Baumgartner, (PhD) - Dean of College of Arts and Sciences at Lourdes University, USA Prof. dr Edward M. Macierowski, (PhD) Lecturer at the Departments of Philosophy and Modern Foreign & Classical Languages Benedictine College Atchison, Kansas, USA

Prof. dr Harbeen Arora (PhD) - Co-founder & Chancellor of Rai University, Gujarat, India, the Founder & Global Chairperson of ALL Ladies League (ALL), an international women’s chamber and Women Economic Forum, an entrepreneur, philanthropist,author, Assistant Professor Zhuofei Wang, (Dr. Phil.) Art and Design School & Institute for Philosophy of Kassel University, Germany Prof. dr Marina P. Bonser (PhD) - a pioneer theorist and research scientist of Global Education and Sustainable Development, Founding Director "Global Thinking World" and a member of UNESCO Open Educational Resources & US Partnership of Education for Sustainable Development Gregory Sadler, (PhD) President and CoFounder, ReasonIO | Executive Coach and Ethics Educator, Priority Thinking Editor, Stoicism Today | Producer, The Half Hour Hegel Project | APPA-certified Philosophical Counselor Prof.dr Edgar Dahl (PhD) - a German philosopher and bioethicist, Institute for Medical Ethics, University of Muenster, Germany

Dr. Rhyddhi Chakraborty (M. Phil., MBGPH, Ph.D.) - Senior Associate Member, The Royal Society of Medicine, London, UK, Assistant Practice Administrator, Dunninc Road Surgery, England, UK, (PhD)

Prof. dr Federico Sollazzo (PhD) - philosopher of civilization, essayist and freelance journalist. Lecturer in Contemporary Continental Philosophy (specialization in Moral and Political Philosophy), University of Szeged, Hungary

Prof. dr Timothy Tambassi (PhD) - Research Fellow in Archival, Bibliographical and Library Sciences at the University of Eastern Piedmont (Italy).

Prof. dr Eray Yaganak (PhD) - Assist. Professor of Philosophy at Mersin University, Turkey and Editor-in-Chief of "Cilicia Journal of Philosophy"

Prof.dr Kirรกly V. Istvรกn (PhD) - Associate Professor Universitatea BabeลŸ-Bolyai ClujNapoca (Romania) Prof.dr Adriana A. Bocchino, (PhD) - Researcher and Lecturer, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina

Prof. dr Liviu Drugus (PhD) - ex Chancellor of George Bacovia University Bacau (Romania), Professor of Health Care Management, an author of the books edited by Routledge

Views from GREECE

UNESCO was declared 2016 as a Year of Aristotle

World Congress 2016 – Philosophy of Aristotle Author: Olivera Z. Mijuskovic, PhM, M.Sc., philosopher, CEO, Founding Director and Editor-inChief "Philosophical Views", President "World Philosophy Network", Project Leader of Hellenic Center (HEC) Project "Philosophers of the Ancient Greek World", member "International Association of Greek Philosophy - University of Athens”

Under the auspices of H.E. President of the Hellenic Republic Mr. Prokopios Pavlopoulos and of H.E. the President of the Republic of Cyprus Mr. Nicos Anastasiades, the World Philosophical congress on Aristotle, on the ocation of the 2.400 years from his birth was held from 9 to 15 July, at the Philosophical faculty of Athens. Congress organizers were The International Association of Greek Philosophy, the Greek Philosophical Society, the Philosophical Society of Cyprus and other Scientific Societies, Associations and Educational Institutions. At the Organizing Committee were: The President of the Hellenic Parliament Mr. Nikolaos Voutsis, The Minister of Education, Research and Religious Affairs Mr. Nikos Filis, The Head of the Region of Attica Ms. Rena Dourou, The Rector of the University of Athens Professor A.M. Dimopoulos, The Rector of the National Technical University of Athens Professor Ioannis Golias, The Mayor of the Municipality of Aristotle Mr. Georgios Zoubas. It was expected the participation of the most famous philosophers of the world, of which some had their lectures the next few congress days. They discussed the theme of the entire oeuvre of Aristotle's philosophy. According to Mrs Mpabaliouta Eleni-Vasiliki, press manager of "International Association of Greek Philosophy" the number of participants overcame the 550 scolars and researchers on philosophy of Aristotle. What was very characteristic for the present Congress was the large participation from China, Russia and Iran, along the participation of Western scholars, mostly from Europe and USA. In addition to the philosophical expected special sessions and culture events such as the Official Openinig Ceremony which took place at the Odeum of Herodes Atticus at the first day of the congress. One interesting thing was that, on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 19:00 took place a particularly symbolic session at AULA, the theater of philosophy of Athens, the theatrical performance for the life of the philosopher Aristotle. Author and performer: Theodosis Pelegrinis, Deputy Minister of Education and former Rector of the University of Athens. As part of the celebrations throughout the world for the «Aristotle Anniversary Year» and the World Congress “The Philosophy of Aristotle”, which took place in Athens, Theodossis Pelegrinis’s play «Aristotle» was performed, under the direction of Nikos Paroikos. The play was staged with the support of the Cultural Organization of the

Municipality of Athens (PODAN/ΠΟΔΑΝ). The play was performed on July 13 in the School of Philosophy of the University of Athens (AULA Amphitheater), for all Congress participants, as well as the public. The play will also be performed during a walk on July 22 and 23 in Athens; on both days, the walk will start at 7.30 p.m. at the entrance of the pedestrian way at Loumbardiaris Church (Philopappos Hill). Finally, the play will be performed during the closing ceremony of the celebrations for the «Aristotle Anniversary Year» at UNESCO premisses in Paris on November 18, 2016. The play concerns the philosophy of Aristotle. A troupe is rehearsing a play. During the rehearsal and at a moment of tension, a discussion starts between the director and his actors, on the role of the author and his play; this discussion is quickly extended to a very interesting and intense discussion on the basic issues of the Aristotelian philosophy. In this way, through the questions posed by the actors (a man and a woman), who ignore this philosophy or have wrong views about Aristotle, concepts such as catharsis, virtue, eudaimonia, morality, and many more, are touched upon and presented in a clear and comprehensible way and with the use of examples. The director teaches and guides the dialogical discussion with such a distinctive skill and power of persuasion that, at the end, the two actors realize their errors and get so troubled that they do not wish the rehearsal for the play they are preparing to be continued. Then the director proposes to them to go on a walk and to continue their discussion on Aristotle; the actors accept this proposal enthusiastically and this is how the play «Aristotle» comes to its completion.

CAST: The play’s cast is: Theodossis Pelegrinis (director), Spyros Xenos (1st actor), Ilektra Paroikou (2nd actor).

This was the part of the rich cultural program:

Sunday 10/7, 20:00

Visit of the Congress participants at the Megaron Plus Art Exhibitions

Address: Vass.Sophias & Kokkali, Athens 115 21 1. “In Defense to Aristotle” 2. “Ancient Suppliant – Contemporary Refugee Musical - Theatrical perfomance “Angel of Wisdom”

Monday 11/7 19:00-21:00 Special Session The Pnyx Speaker George Katrougalos (Greece), Minister of Labour and Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Athens Aristotle and Europe today Constantine Sandis (UK) Aristotelian Virtue Theory and Particularism in the Global Era

Wednesday 13/7, 19: 00-21: 00 Theatrical Performance, Aula of the philosophical Faculty Play entitled “Aristotle” Author and performer: Theodosis Pelegrinis, Deputy Minister of Education and former Rector of the University of Athens

Thursday 14/7, 18: 00-20: 00 Special Session Aristotle’s Lyceum Adresses by the presidents of the Organizing Societies Gerhard Seel (Switzerland) Why Democracy? Aristotle’s answer in contrast to modern

Friday 15/7, 18:00 Official Closing Ceremony of The World Congress in Philosophy The Philosophy of Aristotle The official Closing Ceremony took place in the main Aula and the main yard of the School of Philosophy, Univerisity of Athens, on 15th of July, 2016. Dance companies “Kleigenis of the Cultural Centre of Ierissos” and “Mikto Chalkidikis – Folklore Centre of Polygyros”, under the direction of Ms. Ephi Keliaphanou will organize a partycelebration of Stagira and Chalkidiki. The companies performed, for the Congress participants, Invited speakers, Congress Guests, Congress Attendees, a representative sample of dance and music tradition of their area. The music orchestra “Ιχνηλάτες της παράδοσης” (The Trackers of Tradition) followed with their music performance. The reception organized and hosted by the Mayor of the Municipality of Aristotle Mr. George Zoubas for all Congress participants, Invited speakers, Congress Guests, Congress Attendees, will offer buffet meals from the Mount Athos, cooked by the famous monk Iosaf. The Mayor addressed the participants, providing them in his speech a unique picture of Chalkidiki as Aristotle’s homeland and land of Mount Athos. This year was declared as the year of Aristotle by UNESCO. The main initiative was submitted by a number of professors from universities in Greece, and also this initiative is supported by the president of the European Parliament Martin Schultz and by the state institutions of the Hellenic Republic. The first in a series of marking the anniversary of the birth of the famous philosopher took place in Thessaloniki under the name "World Congress Aristotle 2400 Years" at the initiative of the "Interdisciplinary Centre for Aristotle Studies" of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, as well as in his native place Ancient Staegira (Στάγειρα) in Halkidiki. The Congress was held from 23 to 28 May. Invited speakers were the most important researchers in the field of Aristotle's philosophy in the world, and one of them is supposed to be recently deceased Hilary Whitehall Putnam. Congress was full of great presentations and lectures on the theme of almost all aspects of Aristotle's philosophy beginning of political philosophy until bioethical learning of him. The cultural part of the Congress was marked with exclusive news about the discovery of Aristotle's grave on the Halkidiki peninsula. Aristotle was born in Stagira in 384 BC and died in Chalcis, Evia, at 322 BC.

Greetings at the opening of the Congress was given by officials of the European and Hellenic Republic institutions.

Photos: International Association of Greek Philosophy – University of Athens Special thanks to Mrs Mpabaliouta Eleni-Vasiliki, press manager of "International Association of Greek Philosophy" Author of the text was press accredited journalist on both world events.

Dialectical symposium "From diversity of beliefs to human unity based on transuniversality educated in civic university" Greece - Athens Main annual conference - October 3 - 8, 2016

The first historical Earth summit meeting of SUPREME COUNCIL of Humanity- October 5 6, 2016 Dialectical symposium "From diversity of beliefs to human unity based on transuniversality educated in civic university" organized by the “World Philosophical Forum” held in the period from 3rd to 8th October in Athens, Greece. The special part of this symposium was project "Global Citizenship” which is supported by UNESCO. This

project is institucational initiative for practical implementation of the ”World Philosophical Forum". The program of symposium was made up of expert discussions of worldwide scientists, accompanied by a rich cultural and artistic program. The main topics were:   

The current situation on global society and the most serious global problems; Social Education in the world - how to promote the process worldwide; Constitution of the “World Philosophical Forum”.

On the 3rd day of the symposium among the president of the “World Philosophical Igor Kondrashin and the chairman of the Committee of the Symposium Dr Paris participants were symbolically planted an olive area of Acropolis.

Forum” Dr Organizing Kastivelos, tree in the

The last days of the symposium were planned for an excursion to the ancient oracle of Delphi and the awarding of diplomas to participants of the symposium. The symposium was supported by official institutions of the Hellenic Republic, as well as by the cultural institutions in Athens and UNESCO. The Special Session as an extension of the Symposium was held after Athens and at the United Nations, New York in November this year. Photos: Dr Paris Kastivelos Official, Philosophical Views

The Lecture of world famous philosopher Professor Nancy Fraser The lecture “Crises of care: The contradictions of social reproduction in the era of financial capitalism” was a part of the 10th Annual Nicos Poulantzas Memorial Lecture in organization of the “Nicos Poulantzas Institute” of Athens, Greece.

This lecture was held at the Athens` Goethe Institute on 7 December 2016 and was addressed by a welcoming speech of Professor Maria Karamessini from The Panteion University. Professor Karamessini informed the audience about the work of Professor Fraser which is one of the most relevant thinkers of today. The lecture was dedicated to a viable Left vision for the 21th century, the EU project, solidarity, and the crisis of neoliberalism in the world. Professor Nancy Fraser is a Professor of Philosophy and Politics at the New School for Social Research. She was a part of most significant world scientific projects as well as Berlins` Einstein Fellow and Paris` “Global Justice Chair” of Collège d’études mondiales. Professor Fraser was also well-known as a feminist and political philosopher and her the most important works are: “Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange”, “Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World (2008)”, “Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis (2013)” and “Contradictions of capital and care (New Left Review, 2016)”. Currently she working on a book “Abnormal Justice”. She cooperates with most famous international media such as “The Guardian”, “openDemocracy”, “Eurozine” and many others.

Thanks to Greek News Agenda. All rights reserved. General Secretariat for Media & Communication of Hellenic Republic Photo:, Philosophical Views

Views from ITALY Promotions Troppe




book -






narrativa distopica per una discussione sulla libertà" in the famous Italian bookshop "ODRADEK" (Rome & Milan) Author: Olivera Z. Mijuskovic, PhM, M.Sc., philosopher, CEO, Founding Director and Editor-in-Chief "Philosophical Views", President "World Philosophy Network", Executive Director for Philosophy (in the area of Bioethics) in Institute of CESTUDEC, Como ; National Delgate of Serbia and Honorary Life Member of the “J.S. Bach Academy of Music, Arts, Letters and Scinces”, Rome; National Delegate of Serbia and Honorary Life Member of the “Center for Bioethics and Human Rights”, Rome; National Delegate of Serbia and Honorary Life Member of the “Centro di Bioetica della Nobile Accademia di Santa Teodora Imperatrice", Rome; an author at the portal for political philosophy “Polemos”, Como.

Two years ago (in November 2014) I got a call from my dear colleague Piero from Italy to participate in a truly beautiful cultural and scientific idea. It`s about his new book. Piero asked me to write a preface as a philosopher and scholar about the philosophical concept of freedom. Enthusiastically I accepted. My enthusiasm was even greater when I read the manuscript. What`s it with this remarkable and instructive book? Let`s start from a begining. We live in the era of reality show programs, entertainment and media. We live in big cities and work in big companies. We act as a free people who are having fun. And do we really free? For his part, in "The New World", Aldous Huxley says: "Give me television and steak and I don`t bother with the responsibility of freedom." On the other side philosophers throughout the history of philosophy too wonder about freedom. In these two quotes contains the original core of

what this book aspired to be - the relationship between the exercise of individual freedom and the limits imposed by the needs of the community as well as the responsibilities that the exercise of freedom implies. In this book Piero studied philosophers, movies and writers - from "1984" by George Orwell, up to classic films and modern times. The book has a title on Italian - "Non Farre trope domande - I calssici della narrativa distopica per una discussione sulla liberta". It doesn`t provide answers, but exposes issues and seeks to define a dialectical method to look for answers: operation that everyone has to do it himself. Author of this book is the famous Italian epidemiologist and writer dr Piero Borzini I wrote at the forefront. He has had a hospital career and research in the areas of hematology, immunogenetics, tissue regeneration. He also dealt and with the biological and cultural evolution, anthropology, history and philosophy of science. He published many papers and books. Here's the three of us even took a part: an epilogue by Vincenzo De Florio - scholar from University of Antwerp, a methodological afterword by Felice Accame - President of the "Societa di Cultura Metodologico-Operativa" and myself. Promotion of the book "Non Fare Troppe Domande" in the famous Italian bookshop "ODRADEK" (Rome & Milan) Our common project into a book of Professor Piero Borzini (Milano, Italy) called "Non fare troppe domande - I classici della narrativa distopica per una discussione sulla libertĂ " had the great promotins in the famous bookshops "Odradek" in Rome and Milan last month. On the promotions speakers were professors Felice Accame (famous italian communicologist and president of "SocietĂ  di Cultura Metodologico-Operativa", Giorgio Galli (famous political scientist, University of Milan) and Davide Bigalli (famous italian philosopher, University of Florence). If you understand Italian if you're curious, warmly recommend this book!

The text is originaly published at "Carnegie Council for Ethics", "Research Gate", "The Guardian" and "Odradek". Photo: Snapshoot of the book Publisher: Ledizioni, Milano, Italy

DARIO FO AS A PAINTER AND ART THEORIST “L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle.� - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy

The year that`s ending has been marked by end of life of many people who have left a significant mark on the 20th and 21st century. Music scene left the multitalented David Bowie, Prince, as well as the legendary Leonard Cohen whose music is the inspiration of many generations around the globe not only for love life but for the most important social and political events. Recently the world has left and the legendary controversial leader of Cuba Fidel Castro, which is not only important because of policy, which some consider as harmful, while others see him as a symbol of resistance of ordinary people. Fidel Castro or Che Guevara are also the romantic heroes and the greatest moments from their personal or professional life are iconic in all countries of the world and in all classes. Thanks to this even mythological phenomena Havana will always be a mysterious place that will attract people for a long, long time. These giants are joined and by Italian Dario Fo.

"The Nobel Prize for Literature in 1997" Dario Fo was the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1997, playwright, painter and novelist. His cereer in theatre is well-known around the globe, but he was and excellent painter and art theorist. He was undoubtedly a very talented man, because even those who didn`t support his leftist beliefs had no negative reviews of his professional career.

The year of 1984 as a turning point in his painting career "Teatro nell' occhio" The entire public is more paid attention to Fo`s canvas in 2010. In that period he has great exhibition in Pontedera in Tuscany. On that occasion, Fo told the story of how as a boy he wanted to be a painter more than actor. During his childhood he painted most in his hometown Valtravaglia in the Lombardy. His motives in the pictures were his classmates and teachers, neighbors, daughters of the mayors, and even the girls of mafia bosses. As a young painter he won numerous awards and has never ceased to paint until his death. However, his first noteworthy exhibition was in 1984 in Riccione in Rimini, entitled "Teatro nell' occhio" or "Theatre in the eye". The exhibition which dates from this year is actually the official start of Fo`s painting career and important exhibitions throughout Italy and Europe.

Period in the post-liberation Milan "Meeting with Caravaggio`s work" During the 40s in artistic circles in Italy it was very popular academic discussion about realism and neo-realism. Fo has actively participated these circles. Cubism was very popular as an artistic way of expression. The artists of this period were gathered around the journal "Realismo". "Realismo" was an expression of ordinary art lovers and have tried to avoid elitism. Fo was impressed with the Spanish and Italian Renaissance, and he especially analyzed the works of Flemish and French Grand Masters. He first encountered the work of Caravaggio in Milan in 1948.

Theatre as inspiration "Paintings always in motion" Critics allege that Fo`s paintings from the mid-60s began an unbreakable bond between his theatrical work and his paintings. His expression in the arts is extremely authentic, but it`s certainly enriched with theatrical inspiration. In this sense the motifs of his paintings are "always in motion". They are in the permanent game of characters, there`re many minotaurs, horses, the towers of some distant rulers, muses of giants and rulers, ships on the seas, colonnades, sports heroes and many other motives that are actually inspired him and on the scene.

Period of dealing with the theory of fine arts "The liberation of Caravaggio or Giotto" "Fo as a learned populist." At the end of the 90s, Fo was intensively engaged in art criticism. His health was disrupted, but he has been extensively dealt with the history of art of famous painters. His criticism was also criticism of the political establishment through the art of the old masters. That shows an unbreakable bond with his popular theater. If you look at the "Mistero Buffo", the basis of his artistic expression is a tradition but a construction is a populism. In his art criticism he distanced himself from the rigid language of scientists and experts. Italian public perception tends to characterized him as a learned populist who publishes his articles in various media. His texts are dedicated to Caravaggio, Giotto, Michelangelo, Leonardo and many others. When he was studying Leonardo he spoke about Leonardo's "Last Supper" at the cathedral in Modena. He tried to make a link between the history and architecture of the town itself. On one occasion he made a performance of "reading architecture" with two video beams that were posted outdoors. He urged the visitors to read architecture as they would read a book on an old language like

the one in Dante's "Divine Comedy". In this performance Fo certainly had witty banter inspired by politicians of today. Fo was decidedly against the renowned art historian. He could not accept elitism and "mystification of the art". Therefore, his own writings about art he often called as "the liberation of Caravaggio or Giotto". His only novel, "The Pope's Daughter" is dedicated to his lifetime wife and musa Franca and it`s actually a continuation of his struggle for the liberation of historical mystification and mystification of artists and political figures.

The text is originaly published by Olivera Z. Mijuskovic at “Perfomance Philosophy-University of Bremen�

Views from Spain Inspirado por los colores de España Antonio Camaró Sala El autor: Olivera Z. Mijuskovic O: Dime quién es en realidad Antonio Camaró? A: Antonio Camaró no es solo es Antonio Camaró sino es el fruto de muchísima gente que me apoyado ,ayudado y sobre todo enriquecido en este camino con su presencia y su compartir, tengo que decir que de no haber tenido esta vocación artística me hubiera encantado ser un sueñocultor: un sembrador de esperanzas y de sueños creando eutopías donde no sólo existieran girasoles sino también giralunas, porque para mí es lo más difícil de ser,porque los giralunas se tienen que formar ,educar y llenarse de argumentos y criterios para transformar este mundo a mejor, en cambio lo fácil son los conformistas o los girasoles porque los girasoles se mueven y se giran al sol que más calienta y de esos ya tenemos bastantes y estamos hartos , en cambio los no conformistas se tienen que llenar de argumentos serenos y tranquilos para transformar la sociedad, pero hoy en día ni la gente quiere darlos ni mucho menos escucharlos ,con lo cual actualmente no existe para mí algo que es muy importante el diálogo porque no sólo el diálogo nos enriquece como seres humanos sino aparte yo creo sinceramente que es la forma mejor de acabar con todo tipo de dogmatismo ,fundamentalismo y sociedades corruptas y tiránicas y por eso con el arte quiero crear esos diálogos para poder transformar el mundo a un mundo como he dicho a mejor , pinto y utilizo el lenguaje plastico porque elijo y quiero ser un giralunas, porque respeto y amo muchísimo al ser humano en todas sus dimensiones en toda su pluralidad y diversidad ,podría decirse que soy un amante de toda la belleza creada que para mí es hermosa delicada ,sencilla y elegante ese es Antonio Camaró un amante de la vida. O: Cuando se reunió por primera vez con la pintura y el lienzo? A: Se podría decir que desde el vientre de mi madre pues vengo de familia artística, mi abuelo era un gran dibujante y vivía del arte ,tuve una relación muy estrecha siempre con él y en plan anecdótico tengo que decir que

mi madre continuamente comentaba que al igual que Zarathustra nació sonriendo cuando vino a este mundo en vez de lo habitual que es llorando pues parafraseaba mi madre que a mí me paso exactamente lo mismo que a Zarathustra y el motivo por el cual se dio este hecho comenta mi madre que es porque mi abuelo me esperaba en ese preciso instante de mi nacimiento con pinceles entre sus manos y con su olor característico que era el aroma de los pigmentos entre sus ropas y cuerpo .Debo reconocer que debe ser cierto pues sigo actualmente llenándome de esa alegría y de esa energía sutil que para es muy especial y muy grata que hace que me ilumina todo mi rostro y que se desprenda una sonrisa amplia simplemente solo ya imaginando colores ,pinceles y las fragancias de los distintos pigmentos también debo decir que siendo niño , era un niño sensible y tímido y con facilidad me abstraía a otros espacios más allá de los reales donde me refugiaba y disfrutaba muchísimo detrás de los pinceles, ,lápices ,colores, dibujos y cuartillas no como una huida sino como un alegato a la imaginación y a la vida. O: Una vez que os decía que sus lienzos reflejar el espíritu de Picasso y Gauguin, y todavía tiene un notable autenticidad. ¿Cuáles son sus modelos a seguir? A: Mi pintura es un aprendizaje y un des aprendizaje ,que quiere decir esto que he tenido una formación académica fuerte para ir poco a poco encontrando mi estilo personal y camino quitándome de todo encorsetamiento que me atrapaba y me anulaba , lógicamente por esa formación y conocimientos bebo de todas las fuentes como de las vanguardias del siglo XX hasta llegar un punto que uno se libera y crea su propia agua que viene de lo más profundo ,de lo no dual ,del interior sin barreras ni obstáculos ,dejándose llevar por el ser que es ,la verdad en mayúsculas y cuando uno lo que hace desde esa verdad y entrega llega y rompe lo engañoso y lo bajo siendo uno mismo y dando lo mejor a los demás. O: ¿Cuántos ambientes tales como España forma el artista? A: Soy un viajero incansable, me gusta hacer de mi vida una aventura, incluso solo yendo diariamente al kiosco a por el periódicos ya la hago, soy inquieto y pasional me gusta el oriente y el occidente ,las dos culturas me embriagan de vitalidad y fuerza : el aroma de la India, los colores de las islas griegas , el encanto de Marruecos de Goytisolo ,las distintas Españas ,el cosmopolitismo de New York ,etc ,etc..... pero sobre todo lo que más me gusta es mi viaje interior que es mi mayor aventura desde donde mana toda mi fruto y creación O: ¿Tiene su propia inspiración específica? ¿Cómo se ve el proceso creativo? A: Mi inspiración surge de mi propia vida ,de las pasiones ,de los bellos encuentros , del silencio que dice todo , de la acaricia sincera ,del darse, de la cúpula ardiente , del deseo del bien , en definitiva en una palabra del amor y sobretodo en especial del. amor ágape hacia todos los seres humanos tan bellos ,frágiles y a la vez tan fuertes y llenos

de hermosura Mi inspiró de lo no dual para hacer alquimias que cuando vean una obra realizada por mí el interior de las personas cambien de la tristeza ,alegría ,del negro al color ,de la penumbra a la luz ,de lo dual a lo que realmente somos uno y perfectos .Soy un enamorado de la vida

O: ¿Cuáles son los planes para el futuro? A: Ahora actualmente estoy trabajando para varios proyectos uno junto a la universidad de Argentina sobre los Aymaras un tríptico de grandes dimensiones que creo que va impactar mucho y es muy importante a nivel antropologíco ,otro junto a a la catedrática de filosofia del derecho Emilia Bea sobre una figura muy comprometida y que me hace mucha ilusión Simone Weil y también acabo de hacer unos dibujos para un poeta y profesor de historia del arte Vicente Ponce y también pronto se que van editar un libro a raíz de un cuadro mío pensadores de prestigio y comprometidos como Federico mayor Zaragoza etc etc. ... Y se que van hablar del hombre actual el título del cuadro es le homme postmoderne y ahora en este instante estoy pintando un cuadro titulado el librero descalzo y fue a raíz de un paseo que estaba dando y vi a un joven descalzo delante de la fachada de la universidad vendiendo libros de autores muy interesantes estos son los proyectos que estoy llevando entre manos actualmente. (Con miembros de la Unesco como Alejandro Noguera y Rafa que fue nombrado para premio Nobel esoero.)

Views from the USA

Carnegie Council NY Announced Global Ethics Day, October 19, 2016 "Philosophical Views" as a part of the official celebration

Authors: Olivera Z. Mijuskovic & Special thanks to Mr. Alex Woodson

Carnegie Council announced its third annual Global Ethics Day (#globalethicsday2016) on October 19, 2016. Inspired by Earth Day, Global Ethics Day provided an opportunity for organizations around the world to held events exploring the meaning of ethics in international affairs. We encourage academic institutions everywhere to use this day every year to hold programs focusing on ethics, such as lectures, film screenings, debates, or panel discussions.

Our magazine and the "World Philosophy Network" are the part of the official celebration.

Participating Institutions and Organizations included: Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program Boise State University Center for Business Ethics & Compliance, International University in Moscow (Russia) Center for Innovative Ideas Execution and TrainingCIIET (India) The Center for International Ethics at CMU Central Michigan University Central Michigan University | Department of Art and Design College of Southern Idaho Concordia University of Edmonton (Canada) Deree - The American College of Greece Fordham University (Switzerland)

Indiana University Indus Foundation for Human Development (Pakistan) International Day of Action Against Contract Cheating Managing Values (Australia) Mercer University Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania) Pace University Pax Natura Foundation Philosophical Views magazine (Serbia) Rutgers Division of Global Affairs Saint Peter's University School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University Seton Hall University, Department of Relgion, Department of History

Swansea Univesity (UK)

University of Oklahoma


University of Utah, Salt Lake City

UK Values Alliance

Westminster College, Salt Lake City

United Nations Assocation of New York

Women Economic Forum 2017 - All Ladies League

United States Military Academy

World Philosophy Network

University of Buraimi (Oman)


Shame on me. A study of the notion of ‘shame’ in Greek epic within theframe of an ethic of alterity. Author: Bárbara Álvarez Rodríguez, PhD. in Philosophy, ‘Clarin- COFUND’ postdoctoral researcher in the Classics Department at Stanford University, specializing in Homeric poetry and alterity studies. Abstract: In this work, I make use of the ethic of alterity developed by the Lithuanian Philosopher E. Levinas, and followed by the Spanish Philosopher G. Bello. According to Levinas, the relationships with the Other should be based on the responsibility of the ‘I’ with the ‘Other’ and not in the domination (the ‘I’ over the ‘Other’). Within the frame of an ethic or philosophy of alterity and with Levinas and Bello as a starting point, I study different scenes of both the Iliad and the Odyssey in which shame, responsibility and acknowledgment appear governing the relationships with the ‘contemporaneous others,’ those with whom the heroes share time and community –understanding it in a narrow sense as small-scale local group or in a broader sense as the

whole group of Achaeans. I will integrate such new insights into Homeric poetry with the work of E. R. Dodds, who was the first to show that the society depicted in Homeric poems could be understood as a ‘shame-culture,’ as opposed to a later ‘guilt-culture.’ That the feeling of shame explicitly involves the Other will be analyzed in this paper through several prime examples (i.e. Il. 5.529-532, Il. 5.887, Il. 15.657-658, Il. 15.661-662, Od. 20.169-171, Od. 20.343- 344, Od. 21.323). In addition to the observations by Dodds, I utilize the work of E. Benveniste, who has noted that every moral term in Homeric epic has, in fact, a social role; and also that of W. Jaeger (1986), regarding the position of Homeric man and his awareness of value only

through recognition of the society to which he belongs. Through an interdisciplinary framework, I study Greek antiquity in order to combine contemporary alterity studies with literary analysis. I argue that Western society has been structured in a ethnocentric, androcentric and hierarchical way since its beginning.

Thus, my objective is to suggest, through the lens of the philosophy of alterity, how we might reach a more ethical consideration of the Other in the study of classic literature. Key words: Ethic of Alterity, Shame, Responsibility, Homeric epic, Ancient Greece. This work has been done thanks to the funding of ‘Clarin-COFUND’ postdoctoral fellowships, Principally of Asturias (Spain)

Full text you can find here.

The Ramistic Method and the Failure of the Method of Personalism, Populism, and Common Sense Author: William Bauser, Professor of Philosophy - Dean College Franklin USA (1990-2006), Member of the Board of Directors - Stop Organ Trafficking NOw Lovettsville, USA

Keywords: Ramus, Method, Persoanlism, Populism, Common Sense, Anti-Realism The current age of social political discourse has become the rhetoric of the civics ratio to argue qui me horros perfundit their factional populism, personalism and common sense beliefs. The passion of their political rhetoric has exercised the Ramistic tradition of argument with the intent of winning at all costs as the emotional intelligence of what the particular political faction maintains as a mission statement of a similar identity of the imperceptible Full text you can find here.

truth argument that becomes the verbiage of cultural experiences as conflict of personal beliefs rather than as an inquiry into the truth of humanities enrichment and enhancement. These cultural conflicts are not a sciences of the polity but are a willful desire to either attain national or individual advantage over the freedom of the intellect to pursue the betterment of mankind. This current social political discourse is a typical example of the anti-intellectualism that has continually rewarded the anti reasoning of mankind’s inhumanity to mankind.

REASONING ON AN ECLECTIC APPROACH IN MEDICAL ETHICS: SYNTHESIS OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES WITH ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS Author: Gamze Nesipoglu, Researcher and PhD Candidate at Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Department of History of Medicine and Ethics, Phil, MSc of History of Medicine and Ethics

Abstract In this article, it will be reasoned on synthesis and possibility of principlism and medical virtue ethics since the existence of ethical issues faced at the clinics draws attention to the limitations, inadequacy, inapplicability and inconsistency of the four basic principles of (bio)medical ethics, thus it will be sought answers the questions why the

principles aren’t sufficient, why the physicians encounter with ethical issues at the clinics, how they have internal and integral morality, professional integrity and moral insight. Although the questions bring to virtue ethics to mind in advance, virtue ethics comes short for medical normativity and metaphysical justification, and people need absolute rules/principles to find their moral way to be against immorality. The situation also seems in the medical world of the 21st century, therefore it will be suggested the combination of phronesis, epistêmê and technê to be compatible with the nature of medicine in all aspects, and to evaluate the patient as a biopsychosocial being, at first. Secondly, since virtue ethics doesn’t exclude the principles and Pellegrino emphasizes the “normative effect of virtue ethics” to be applicable in medicine, it will be suggested the synthesis of the principles and virtue ethics in medicine -like Saunders’ proposal that to reveal a combination of deontology and virtue ethics in general sense- as an eclectic approach. This article was also written to commemorate Aristotle in the 2400th anniversary from his birth with respect.

Keywords: Aristotle, medical ethics, Pellegrino, phronesis, principlism, principles of biomedical ethics, virtue ethics

Full text you can find here.

Truth in Democracies: A Case Study on Population Policy Author: Professor Edward M. Macierowski (PhD), Departments of Philosophy and Modern Foreign & Classical Languages Benedictine College Atchison, Kansas. AREAS OF SPECIALTY: Metaphysics, History of Philosophy. AREAS OF COMPETENCE: Aristotelian Logic, Philosophy of Nature, Philosophical Psychology, Ethics, Political Philosophy, History of Philosophy (Ancient, Islamic, Medieval, Modern), Greek, Latin, Arabic. Abstract: The first part extracts the political philosophy implicit in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; the second does the same for an American governmental policy statement "National Security Study Memorandum 200" which advocates population control measures. This paper provides merely a contrast between the two political philosophies as instances of global ethics problems. A third section, offering an approach diverging from that of NSSM 200 has been omitted for reasons of brevity. Key Words: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Pope Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate, National

Security Memorandum 200, Human Rights, Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, Liberalism, Population Policy, Social Darwinism, Pope John Paul II Centesimus Annus, World Bank, Michel Schooyans, Stephen D. Mumford, Geopolitics, Foreign Relations of the U.S., Buck v. Bell, Eugenics, Leo Strauss, John D. Rockefeller, Sr., Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, David Rockefeller, U. S. Constitution, Dr. Seuss, Horton Hears a Who, Political Equality, President Richard M. Nixon, President Gerald Ford, Henry Kissenger, President Barack Obama.

Full text you can find here.

Ética de Colaboración nacida de los fundamentos cuánticos El autor: PhM Viviana Yaccuzzi Polisena, Instituto de Epistemología, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina, a member of the Secretariat of the "World Philosophy Network". Abstracto La crisis es también una oportunidad para reunirnos en un evento a debatir acerca de una Ética Global y retomar cuestiones griegas para contemplarlas desde una mirada contemporánea. El día mundial de la Ética son todos los días. La crisis como oportunidad incita a filósofos, científicos, instituciones y organizaciones de todo el mundo a explorar la importancia de la Ética en los asuntos privados, nacionales e internacionales. La incorporación del debate Ético en todas las cuestiones es ineludible. Propongo transformar la crisis en una revolución molecular-ontológica para recuperar el olvido del Ser, para ello es imprescindible tener en cuenta las nociones de la Teoría Cuántica. Las nociones cuánticas nos dan la oportunidad de reconstruir el tejido social volviéndolo más sensible. Necesitamos nuevas ideas para avanzar hacia una sociedad que desarrolle responsabilidad, inteligencia y espiritualidad compartidas. Necesitamos una humanidad que avance hacia un estado de no-egoísmo para

elaborar una Ética Colaborativa basada en el compromiso hacia la Vida presente y futura en libertad. La Ética nacida de la consideración de los fundamentos cuánticos nos modifica a nivel genético para que podamos pensar libremente de modo colectivo.

Palabras Claves:

Colaboración, Cuántica, Pensamiento colectivo, Responsabilidad compartida.

Full text you can find here.

On behalf of the third annual Global Ethics Day announced by Carnegie Council (#globalethicsday2016) on October 19, 2016. Author: KAMENSKIY Sergey Ivanovich, M.Sc., a member of the Editorial Board of the "Philosophical Views"

Abstract Without establishing the basic international norms of Global Ethics/ Morals the Humanity is doomed. If it manages – by methodical combined efforts – to do it, the Life on the Earth will survive and develop in the future.

Keywords: Global Ethics/ Morals, Humanity, The Earth, biological genus Homo Sapiens, Applied Philosophy.

Full text you can find here.

Views from France

UNESCO WORLD PHILOSOPHY DAY Author: Olivera Z. Mijuskovic, a member of the UNESCO World Heritage Center and an associate author and a member of The Guardian World Philosophy Network and e-magazine "Philosophical Views" support the initiative of the UNESCO by celebrating World Philosophy Day on the third Thursday of November. We took a part in this great event with the essay contest on the topic: "Politics and Philosophy" inspired with the text from “The Guardian” – “Why policy needs philosophers as much as it needs science?” by philosophers Adam Briggle and Robert Frodeman.


A new philosophy of man & humanism Author: Hans Dassen, Anthroopos Foundation Amsterdam, Dutch Philosopher

Old and new philosophy (Rorty (1)) In the 21st century we need a new philosophy as opposed to the old philosophy: a philosophy of man or philosophical anthropology. The importance of a new philosophy of man is that it addresses people all over the world, thus helping us to overcome our differences. And if we look a bit further into the world of the 21st century, we see that the most pressing project will be the search for meaning in the lives of human beings in a globalised world. Richard Rorty (1) in an interview by Ger Groot in 2007 about philosophy: “Philosophy is a manner of defining ourselves anew, not the gradual discovery of established truths.” “In this statement, he showed himself to be a full-blooded American thinker, in the tradition of pragmatists James and Dewey, one who rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way – in the Anglo-Saxon world because he did not believe that truth could be found through a careful analysis of language and logics, and on the European continent because he refused to speculate on the deep 'mind' that finds truth in its own deepest

reflections….. Rorty on the traditional epistemology, the heart of modern philosophy: Questions such as ‘what is truth?’, ‘what is the foundation of our knowledge?’ and ‘how do our words refer to reality?’ have kept Western philosophy on the wrong track for centuries…. Language [he found] is not a reflection of reality, but something that belongs to reality itself. Words work: they achieve certain effects and do not merely obediently process reality into the abstract images in our head that we call ‘truth’…. As furious as orthodox philosophers often reacted to Rorty, so intrigued were those who, on both sides of the ocean, had already started to doubt that philosophy should be based on the ‘unshakable’ foundations which Descartes and many others had sought. In the 1980s and 1990s Rorty thus grew into an original and influential bridge-builder between the more ‘metaphysical’ European and the ‘analytical’ Anglo-Saxon way of thought, paradoxically enough by blowing up the mainstays under both traditions.”

Full text you can find here.

CHRISTIAN HARBULOT AND THE CREATION OF “ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE” IN FRANCE Author: Giuseppe Gagliano, PhD, Il Presidente della "Centro Studi Strategici Carlo de Cristoforis", Como, Italia Abstract: This article deals with the cultural development and general perception of the concept of "intelligence" and "economic intelligence" in France. After the Cold War, finance and markets assumed a greater importance in determining the relations between countries; however, it took a long time for the French elite to be convinced of the existence of “economic warfare” and to define a culture of its own in the field of intelligence. Still, when all the international analyses were strongly related to the Cold War ideology and talking about economic warfare seemed like an abuse of language, C. Harbulot and P. Baumard urged the need to reconsider intelligence activities and to apply them in the national economy, overcoming the negative connotation that "renseignement" had. Researching, processing and spreading any piece of information that can be considered strategic is the only formula we can rely on in order to face the last challenges posed by globalization. Between 1992 and 1994, the expression “economic intelligence” officially entered the French public debate on national competiveness, together with the request for public intervention in

the national economy. Harbulot and Baumard kept recommending the systematic search and interpretation of the information available to everyone, showing a new way to interpret the markets. The new approach is different from traditional intelligence by the nature of its field of application (open information); the nature of its actors (inserted in a collective information culture context), and its cultural specificities (each nation’s economy generates its own specific model of economic intelligence).

Keywords : economic intelligence; economic warfare; intelligence culture; information; globalization.

Full text you can find here.

(Socialist) Politics and (Kantian) Philosophy Author: Professor Simon Glendinning (PhD), a Professor of European Philosophy in the European Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His writings cover central themes and thinkers in the phenomenological movement, and more recently in the philosophy of Europe. He has recently completed a major two-volume study of the contribution of philosophy to the understanding of Europe, entitled Europe’s Promise (Oxford University Press, forthcoming)

I In this essay I offer a philosophical account of a political puzzle. The puzzle is why revolutionary socialist parties in the Marxist revolutionary tradition seem to be especially vulnerable to forming rancorous factions that lead to new-party-forging splits. Splitting is obviously not confined to such parties, so one might think it is something that just happens to happen more often with them. Against that intuitive assumption I will argue that certain features internal to revolutionary socialist politics in a multi-party democratic state gives it a unique position in this context above and beyond the ordinary fractiousness of intra-party political differences.

II In the domain of politics there are no neutral positions, and philosophy cannot attain to any metapolitical neutrality either. My philosophical cue for thinking about political differences comes from a single suggestion in the political writings of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, and the way this suggestion bears on the set-up of multi-party politics in a democratic state. I will then consider the special case of revolutionary socialist political parties in this set-up. When Kant discusses political opinion he stresses one very simple fact above all: namely, that it is very difficult not to think that if only one’s own ideas were the ruling ideas then things would be so much better (Kant 1991, p. 44). Kant’s view is that this simple fact is the beginning of all politics because antagonism inevitably arises when each person finds that other people do not agree with them (Kant 1991, p. 44). That’s all there is to it. That’s why there is politics; that’s why we do

not live in a community of happy sheep (Kant 1991, p. 45). If you think Kant is wrong, he’s right, and if you think he’s right, someone will disagree with you, so he’s right. Because political antagonism is socially divisive one can think it ought to be overcome. However, if Kant is right, and antagonism is unavoidable, a different philosophical ambition for politics comes into view: the first task of politics is not to get everyone – even the vast majority – to agree with certain ideas (mine, for example), but to construct a political set-up which minimises the risk that disagreement will lead to violence and death. One should immediately see a meta-wrinkle here: each participant who recognises the virtue of such an ambition will also think that they are the ones who best understand what such a set-up should look like. Political antagonism is abyssal. But there is a solution. For a Kantian the only genuinely respectful way of making room for the views of others in a political set-up is to put them first: to accept that the point of “political rights for all” is not that it allows me to have my say and the chance for my ideas to rule, but that it allows others to have their say and for their ideas to rule. Suppose now that the question of whose ideas will rule will be settled by allowing all to have their say, and that whoever can secure an electoral majority in a free vote of all gets to rule. In such a set-up each will have to put up with the possibility that their ideas will not rule. The winners must accept the same possibility, and hence they must allow for a regular electoral calendar, and future elections in which electoral verdicts might go against them. I will call this Kantian solution a minimally democratic set-up, and I define those socialists who accept it democratic socialists. They accept that their opponents will, in this minimally democratic set-up, have the right to their say without being bullied, harassed, intimidated, etc., and they accept that they have a right for their own ideas to rule only if they can secure an electoral majority. For every political partisan this set-up is a sort of concession: their preference would be for circumstances in which their ideas rule. However, for a democrat this preference has to be subordinated to an acceptance that their ideas may be rejected by an electoral majority; otherwise the minimally democratic commitment is fraudulent. The situation for those I will define as revolutionary socialists is different, however. For revolutionary socialist the minimally democratic set-up is merely formally democratic, and at best transitional to a set-up which is actually so: transitional to a set-up in which the vast majority have actually attained political power. As I will explain, this makes losing (or at least not winning) a distinctive and I think unique problem for revolutionary socialists. When parties lose there will inevitably be a period of self-examination: why did they fail to convince enough people that their ideas should be the ruling ideas? It is tempting to think that a defeated socialist will find it especially difficult to sustain their democratic commitment in this situation: for a socialist will be convinced that their ideas are only opposed antagonistically to others because their opponents’ seek, in their own interest, to prevent the ruling ideas from being

ideas that genuinely represent the common interest of the vast majority. But while the idea of socialist politics having a special relationship to the interests of the vast majority is central to its self-understanding, there is no reason to think that anyone would think differently about their own view. Indeed, the Kantian suggestion is precisely that everyone faces a structural incredulity in finding that others oppose their ideas. In this respect, then, defeated socialists are in the same position as every other defeated partisan, and they are obliged too to reflect on how they might prevail in the future. At this point socialists will also face a new disagreement problem that all partisans must face in the face of defeat: namely, when they find that other socialists don’t agree with them either. Disagreement here takes the form of differences over socialist strategy: a matter of seeing correctly what the right thing to do is, at any given point in political history, to maximise the chances, now or in the future, for socialists to win political power. But why should differences and disagreements over these matters among socialists provoke disputes which are so often literally divisive rather than merely, say, heated? Why does it seem so often to lead to splits and new party formations? In short, why wherever there are any socialist parties are there typically many? At some level it is of course acknowledged by every socialist that every other socialist is also opposed to the system that they are opposed to, and there will be frequent calls for “left unity”. But such efforts always seem short-lived. It is an interesting puzzle.

III Here is a philosophical hypothesis about socialist politics in general. Socialist parties – revolutionary or democratic – are liable to split to the extent that their strategic thinking involves an ongoing commitment to a Marxist messianic promise in conditions of its non-arrival. I will explain this. The first point to note here is the authority of Marx’s text itself. The socialist tradition has lines of inheritance that go back before Marx, and to non-Marxist thinkers after him. But the figure of Marx, and the authority of his thought is, I want to suggest, fundamental to the puzzle I am exploring. Now, Marx’s text can be endlessly pored over, and its correct interpretation can indeed give rise to disagreement problems. But that is not what interests me. As I have indicated already the crucial question concerns socialist strategy in the face of defeat. And, for many socialists, strategy, I want to say, relates to what Marx famously called “the point” of all political thinking and acting: not to interpret the world but to change it (Marx 1970, p. 123). Winning an election is not the point, but one possible (in fact possibly misguided) way of trying to bring it about. And the point here is quite specific, and beyond normal interpretive disagreement problems. The Marxist

promise – sometimes interpreted teleologically and sometimes eschatologically – is captured with the idea that liberation from the bourgeois state and its minimally democratic set-up will take place “once” socialist politics becomes the weapon of proletarian class struggle (Marx 1972, p. 137). In the Communist Manifesto one finds the image of an increasingly organised working class movement which culminates in the formation of a political party in an existing bourgeois state; a party which can seize control of the state because its socialist ideas have won the support of the class whose own interest is, in fact, consistently and continuously defended by those ideas (Marx 1992, pp. 1112). Socialists who form a political party can only understand its raison d’être in terms of that messianism, and with the intention of advancing its arrival. There is no point otherwise. And there’s the rub. On this logic, the failure to attract an electoral majority or – when that concession to the minimally democratic set-up is discarded as an utterly hopeless socialist strategy – the failure to organise or mobilise the proletariat into the revolutionary force anticipated in the Marxist promise, can have only one of two outcomes: once they fail to attract support of any significant set-up-changing kind they can only account for this as either (if it is not regarded as the party’s failure) some objective downturn in the struggle (the party has the right weapon but the proletariat is not ready to seize it) – in which case the only option is to sit it out and do what one can to keep the flame alive – or (if it is regarded as the party’s failure) some objective shortcoming in the socialist strategy – in which case the party simply is not up to being the party it claims to be (it is not the right weapon). Since it is an iron law that where some regard their ideas as the right ones others will disagree, it is equally an iron law that where some socialists judge the problem to lie with the objective situation others will disagree, and will want to reignite the messianic promise of socialist politics through the formation of a new party which can succeed where the old one failed. And this will continue ad infinitum as long as the messianic promise of Marxism remains unfulfilled. Marxist failure is a machine for making parties. Failure – losing – is always a difficult moment for any political party. For parties committed to the minimally democratic set-up, reflection at that point might take two turns, each formally akin to the ones that face the socialist: the policies were right but the electorate was not persuaded, or the policies were wrong and a policy review should be conducted. This may appear to be a similar process as the one concerning socialist strategy but it has one crucial difference. For parties committed to the minimally democratic set-up, including most democratic socialist parties, the setup itself will be regarded as a transitionary only in an entirely non-messianic and non-teleological sense: the future of the minimal set-up itself, the set-up of representative government and electoral democracy, is something as open for deliberation, decision and disagreement among partisans as any other political question, as open to a sense of perceived inadequacy as any other political topic, but, with the commitment to the Kantian set-up, there can be no claim to have the last word on what that transition should, ideally, transition to.

Every socialist is as much part of this conversation on the future of democracy as any other political citizen. But then we see a distinction: the democratic socialist – on pain of fraudulence – accepts this; the revolutionary socialist, however, has to see the transformation of the set-up to a different set-up as a definite goal. Political failure places the status of a socialist party in question.

IV The problem for the revolutionary socialist (in contrast to the democratic socialist) is that until the event arrives – until it comes to pass that the thought and the people are united into one revolutionary force – political failure always provokes an existential question for a party. For most parties defeat raises the question whether the party has policy proposals that promise to attract an electoral majority. For revolutionary socialists, however, it will always raise the question whether this party can be the weapon it should be: whether it can be a party that can replace the minimally democratic set-up with a new party-state relationship that is, by their lights, actually democratic. Defeat for such a party raises questions of socialist strategy, and these in turn raise the question of whether the party is the party it has to be. If the political disagreement condition Kant identifies is effectively without end, then at some point, disagreement is bound to emerge within a defeated socialist party: another internal war will break out, a new battle – not to defeat parties committed to the minimally democratic set-up but to defeat those in the party who do not agree with them. Once more this becomes the crucial battle in the history of revolutionary socialist politics. That history looks towards a different goal, but its own formation makes its tendency to internecine division not merely actual hitherto – but overwhelmingly likely everto.

Bibliography Kant, Immanuel (1991) Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marx, Karl (1970) “Theses on Feuerbach”, in The German Ideology, ed. C.J. Arthur, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Marx, Karl (1972) Critique of Hegel’s “Philosophy of Right”, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich (1992) The Communist Manifesto, Oxford: Oxford University

Full text you can find here.

Apolitical Theory: The Incompetence of Political Philosophy

Author: Adam Lovasz (PhM), Co-Founder of Absentology, Associate Editor of "Philosophical Views"

Abstract The challenge of writing a political philosophy is the challenge that faces all philosophy. What Georges Bataille writes of humankind could, arguably, be written of political philosophy and political theory in the early twenty first century: „maybe humankind’s a pinnacle, but only a disastrous one.”[1] We would argue that political philosophy, in this day and age, can only constitute an exercize of self-discipline, an agonistic confrontation with its own limitations. In other words, political philosophy must become apolitical. This „pinnacle”, the sunset of the political, may only be achieved in the ecstasy of laughter, produced by a simplicity that cancels theory. Laughter, argues Joachim Ritter, is an „incongruity” that is fundamentally opposed to all forms of order, political or otherwise.[2] A philosophy that does not fail to laugh at itself would be the ultimate transgression, a voiding of discursive seriousness. One of the fundamental problems of contemporary discussions relating to political affairs is the overwhelming lack of humor involved in such debates. As if – in the long run – philosophy were anything other than irredeemably incompetent. In the end, it is not human intentionality that has the final say in the world’s affairs. Social agency is far more complex, and comes in so many shapes and sizes that it is, to all intents and purposes, irreducible to human intentionality.[3] Bearing this in mind, political philosophy must realize that its object perpetually eludes its grasp. No single conception of the political community can integrate all actants into its fold. Alas, without borders, without clear delineations, how could one hope to construe a clear cut political community? The very absurdity of such a project belies its impossibility. The sole object of any politics must be the impossible itself, as it manifests itself through laughter. Like the „dying person” described by Bataille, political philosophy, in the instant of its grotesque enlargement, must cease: „in that instant tears start to laugh, laughter weeps.”[4] But should we shed any tears for political philosophy?

Full text you can find here.

Acerca del azar, destino y felicidad en relación con la Ética en el pensamiento Aristóteles El Autor: Marcos Fabián Polisena, Alumno de Licenciatura en Filosofía. Alumno de Licenciatura en Letras Clásicas. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. UNC. Argentina

Abstracto: A pesar de los dos mil cuatrocientos años que nos privan de ser testigos de las promenades philosophiques que acostumbraba dar Aristóteles por los jardines del Liceo acompañado de los peripatéticos, su pensamiento se encuentra a plena disposición para nuevas reflexiones y reinterpretaciones de valor inconmensurable. El albur con el que corre este trabajo es el de hacer una breve consideración sobre las nociones de «μοῖρα», «τύχη» y «εὐδαιμονία» en la filosofía aristotélica. Arguyo que estos términos se encuentran vinculados con las ideas que expone el estagirita en sus obras: Ética Nicomaquea, Física y Metafísica porque, la visión eudaimonista de la realización del hombre que presenta es oportuna para explicar el desarrollo de las «ἀρεταί» del hombre virtuoso, según el establecimiento de la «ἕξις».

Palabras Claves: μοῖρα» /moira/: Destino. ἕξις» /héxis/. Hábito. ἀρεταί» /aretai/. Virtudes. εὐδαιμονία /eudaimonía/: Felicidad. τύχη /týkhe/: Azar.

Full text you can find here.

Politics-Philosophy Relationship

Author: Matthew Lampert (PhD)- assistant professor of philosophy at Wheeling Jesuit University. His recent and forthcoming publications include essays on ideology theory, business ethics, and the work of Louis Althusser and Jacques Rancière.

Abstract Plato’s Republic begins with a scene down by Piraeus (the port where the Thirty Tyrants and their supporters were defeated in 403 bce): Socrates and his friends (including Glaucon, the older brother of Plato) have gone down to see a festival, and are now trying to return to the city. However, they are overtaken by a group of men, led by Polemarchus.

Full text you can find here.

Philosophical deliberation – A political issue- an Essay on the topic “politics and philosophy” Author: Clemens Deparade, philosopher independent German language teacher



„Homines enim sunt hac lege generati, qui tuerentur illum globum, quem in hoc templo medium vides, quae terra dicitur, [...]“ („All men are born bound by this law: They should be the guardians of that globe which you see in the middle of this temple and which is called Earth.) Cicero, „De re publica“, VI, 15

If „World Philosophy Network“ and the e-magazine „Philosophical Views“ are announcing one essay contest on the topic „Politics and Philosophy“ in support of the initiative of the UNESCO to celebrate the World Philosophy Day while defining the English language I don't practise to philosophize therein as the default one, I herewith will take the opportunity to be evocative of one traditional Anglo- Saxon term commonly used to distinguish our subject matter of human reflection from the empirical natural sciences, which is called 'the humanities'.

Full text you can find here.

Freedom, Anarchy, and Conservative Thought Author: Nathaniel Reynolds, Philosophy Writing Tutor, Franklin & Marshall College, Philosophy Department Conservatism, as theorized by Michael Oakeshott and Russell Kirk, values the preservation of society and a rigid unchanging structure of governance. Anarchism, as conceived by Emma Goldman and explained by Kathy Ferguson, calls for the breakdown of such rigid structures in order to create more freedom for the individual. Despite their diametrically opposed positions, they share similar core values such as the importance of the individual's freedom and the enjoyment of simple pleasures. The stringent position each school of thought maintains prevents either of them from effectively reaching their goals. Conservatism is too rigid, not allowing for change to occur when it is required. Anarchism advocates for the destruction of structures that can protect rights and allow for a frame of discourse to bring people into the fold. While conservatism and anarchism argue for radically different, antithetical approaches to society, they each have similar values of freedom and individualism. Neither of these theories can adequately achieve their common goal on their own. A synthesis of the two ways of thinking to allow for more unstructured, anarchical spaces within the rigid, conservative framework allows for a larger frame of discourse that provides a better platform for individuals to voice their concerns. Conservatives value individualism and simple pleasures, similar to the anarchists, but they take a radically different approach that focuses on rigidity and the world as it is now. As Oakeshott argues, conservatism values activities for the sake of the activity, such as fishing, which is enjoyable for its own sake rather than for the profit of the catch (Oakeshott 5). For conservatives, life is about enjoying these activities and being thankful for what you have rather than wishing you could have more. From a love for the way life is develops a way of thinking that values customs and structures that incorporate people over

generations into a single society (Kirk 4). Because of their adherence to convention, conservatives can be criticized for not being open to change when it is necessary. The anarchists would specifically argue that conservatives uphold a system that allows for systematic oppression preventing people from enjoying simple pleasures of life. The conservative defense to these claims highlights what is valuable about the conservative disposition. As Kirk asserts, people uphold a voluntary community that protects their freedom and property (Kirk 5-6). Society, as it is, provides benefits of protection for those things that people commonly enjoy. Bringing about radical change can uproot these benefits, and as Kirk asserts, conservatives “prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know” (Kirk 4). A conservative disposition preserves people’s ability to consistently enjoy their freedoms and pleasures. Adverse to the conservative approach, anarchists seek to bring about similar values of individualism and freedom through a destruction of the same rigid system that the conservatives uphold. Emma Goldman describes the individual as the “heart of society,” “pure and strong”, and the “essence of social life” (Goldman 3). Anarchists, similar to conservatives, believe that everything should be done to preserve or grow the value and freedom of individuals. Anarchists take this a step further to say that no resources should be diverted construct institutions or governments. The only things of any worth are “things of utility and beauty” that help to create strong beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in” (Goldman 4). Despite their shared values, anarchists and conservatives seek to accomplish their goals through radically different means. While conservatives want to preserve government structures, anarchists believe that they steal from the people and prevent individuals from engaging in activities for their own enjoyment. A society without a state would allow people to engage in activities that they enjoy and obey the natural law that allows men live harmoniously (Goldman 4-5). Without a government, men will naturally fill the roles that are required of them, and no excess energy will be wasted on governments or other oppressive and violent forces. Based on the idea that men require a government or some state otherwise they will kill each other, anarchism is often criticized for being impractical. Goldman’s response is that governments already kill plenty of people and no one knows how the world without

government would be, but it must certainly be better than the world now (Goldman 6-7). Additionally, anarchist thought pushes the bounds of the often conservatively limited frame of discourse to recognize the concerns of marginalized groups (Ferguson 22-23). By challenging the frame of discourse, anarchists have already shown their ability to enhance the freedom of individuals. Conservatism and anarchism both have critical weaknesses that prevent them from achieving their shared goal. Conservatives attempt to preserve the liberty of men, which assumes that all men already have liberty. Kirk even asserts that progress does not empirically exist in the world (Kirk 7). If a conservative were to ever recognize that some progress should be occurring, they would be slow to bring it about. As Oakeshott recognizes, “change is tiring” and “human beings are apt to be lazy” (Oakeshott 3). Conservatives welcome this characterization with the belief that change will inevitably bring the loss of some benefit. Conservativism’s rigidity allows for a frame of discourse that is exclusive and narrow. Kathy Ferguson defines a frame of discourse as the precondition of knowledge in a populous that makes statements intelligible. For example, the current frame of discourse in America allows people to readily understand the idea that segregation was wrong. But now, there is not a settled frame of discourse that allows people to understand and agree on the value of the phrase “all lives matter” and “black lives matter.” Conservatives refuse to actively change the discursive frame because of their adherence to customs and traditions (Kirk 4). While there is value in current structures and discourses, those at the margins of society who face oppression and have been stripped of their voice are the ones who ultimately pay for the conservatives’ fear of change. Anarchists, on the other hand, have a theory for how to bring freedom to everyone, but it lacks stability. Once governments are eradicated, anarchists argue that people will work freely to produce goods for trade with one another, and enforcement from the government will be unnecessary (Goldman 4). The anarchists present a noble idea that is ultimately short sighted. Governments were originally created to collectively protect people, and without that government structure, there can be no protection from outside forces or from those in the community with bad intentions. There is no force to stop one group of

people from oppressing another group. Without a government, no frame of discourse exists at all to give people recourse if they are being oppressed. Conservatives protect a frame of discourse that is too rigid, while the anarchists present an alternative that may do away with a frame of discourse entirely. Anarchists would argue that no discursive frame is necessary, given that people set free from governance will live in harmony with the natural law (Goldman 5). Without a government, there is no way to establish a stable frame of discourse that allows for marginalized groups to be recognized and have their concerns heard. A proper frame of discourse must be found between the extreme inflexibility of the conservatives and the complete lack of structure from the anarchists. The frame of discourse should not be some amorphous concept that can be changed and bent too easily. Rather, the best frame of discourse to allow for freedom and the flourishing of the individual is one that combines elements from both conservatism and anarchism. The rigidity of conservatism must outline the discursive frame while specific anarchist spaces are carved out to allow for free, unstructured thought. A rigid structure will allow for the benefits of the conservative “principle of prescription” which Kirk describes as the recognition that many great ideas and concepts have come from the past and have stuck around due to their viability (Kirk 4-5). A more rigid structure and frame of discourse will allow for these great ideas to be remembered and implemented as people think of them. A space for anarchist, structure-less thinking must be carved out of this rigid structure in order to allow for creative thinking that is unfettered by the dominant ideas and discourse that are deemed to be true. Ferguson notes that no space has ever existed for Anarchism, so it was relegated to the streets and other unconventional spaces of political thinking (Ferguson 6). Out of these unstructured places came great ideas for the advancement of free speech, women’s rights, and the freedom of the individual (Ferguson 38). A more permanent space will allow for the development of more of these ideas, and marginalized groups will have a consistent place to go and be recognized without the influence of the larger society. Conservatives recognize the great variety that exists among people but doesn’t provide a space for all of these people to be heard (Kirk 5). An anarchist space will create a place

for all people to be heard, and the conservative structure will protect the groups after their issues are heard and solutions are developed outside the rigid structure. A combination of the strictness of conservatism and the unstructured, free thought of anarchists creates a system in which marginalized voices have a place to be heard and then steadily protected. The freedom of individuals gets the protection of conservative thought and the expansion of anarchist thinking. Pitting two great, opposite forces of political thought against each other creates a hybrid that can draw on the benefits of both and equalize their weaknesses. With the goal of creating the best free world for the individual, anarchism and conservatism propose two radically different approaches. Anarchism advocates for the destruction of governmental structures while conservatives work for its preservation. In order to achieve their goals, anarchists and conservatives must both give up some aspects of their theory in order to create the most effective frame of discourse. Anarchism would have little to no discursive frame because these frames require some power to keep them together. Conservatives attempt to maintain a strict frame of discourse that ultimately excludes people from the wondrous, free world that conservatism claims to preserve. A combination of the two schools of thought creates a structure that produces freedom in anarchist spaces and preserves it in the larger society through conservative principles. The weaknesses of each side fade away, and a stronger system emerges that hears the voices of marginalized people and protects the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Works Cited Ferguson, Kathy. Emma Goldman: Political Thinking in the Streets. Lanham: Rowman & Little field Publishers, Inc., 2001. Print. Goldman, Emma. “Anarchism: What it Really Stands For” Anarchism and Other Essays. Ed. Will Jonson. New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1917. Print. Kirk, Russell “The Ten Conservative Principles of Russell Kirk”, First Principles Series. Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1986. Print. Oakeshott, Michael. One Being Conservative.

What If Iqbal Ever Read the Pancasila? Author: Andri Azis Putra, M. Phil, Lecturer and Secretary of Office of International Affairs at Universitas Proklamasi 45 Yogyakarta – Indonesia. Not many people seem to be familiar with the five main principles— belief in the one and only God, just and civilized humanity, the unity of Indonesia, Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives, Social justice for all of the people of Indonesia—of Indonesian people, called Pancasila. Without a doubt, the Pancasila as an ideology is a reference to all Indonesian citizens in matters of national life. The conviction that the Indonesian people are united by Pancasila, is this really true? This essay tries to examine how the condition of Pancasila as an ideology, the main source of law, and in many sides regarded as the unifier of Indonesia. In the context of democracy, the existence of Pancasila can not be separated from the Tri prakara. These elements are processed, discussed, and carefully formulated by Indonesian founding fathers in BPUPKI meetings and the Committee of Nine (Panitia Sembilan). After the independence, the formulation of Pancasila as the Indonesian state philosophy and basic-principle of the state, authorized by PPKI. So, Pancasila became a cultural foundation, the foundation of religiosity, and the foundation of state (Kaelan, 2002: 194). The formulation of Pancasila was inspired by a lot of thoughts and ideas. Supomo regards Indonesia as an independent country with a model integralistic state as well as conceived by Spinoza, Adam Muller, and Hegel. Through the spirit of brotherhood that is already held by the Indonesian people, the president could not be elected by the people. This argument was rejected later emphatically by Sukarno. According to him, a state must necessarily reflect the spirit of mutual cooperation. Hatta, then proposed that the

constitution should guarantee the collective rights, assemble rights, and the right of association (As'ad Said Ali, 2009: 101-102). So, why choose Iqbal as a comparison study of Pancasila? As one of founders of Pakistan, Iqbal thoughts about the state and the law is very adequate. Pakistan through his political initiatives chooses a secession from India on the grounds of ideology. The condition of religious people in India on a range of 1930 is very similar to Indonesia. A country that is heterogeneous in terms of social and beliefs with one major religion, Hinduism. Basically, India has gone through the phases of government with the varying ideologies. As well as to gain independence, the people of India do the same struggle as the Indonesian people. The democracy in Indonesia has great stories. Sometimes, which is grounded to Pancasila dislodges of what was planned. Indonesian democracy is dynamically changed in accordance with the demands of the times and the regime's leadership. The explanations above illustrates that of Pancasila does not have a special view on the form of Democracy. This elasticity should be recognized as a power of Pancasila. Ever since, Indonesian political system has not been able to interpret the exact desire of Pancasila. Then it is reasonable to say that the democracy desired by Pancasila is Democracy of Pancasila itself. Iqbal and the Dynamic Democracy Iqbal thoughts on politics and the statehood do not appear in his works clearly. Even so, we have seen how Iqbal enormous influence in initiating the establishment of the state of Pakistan. As President of the Muslim League in 1930, Iqbal felt that assurance of unity does not come from a relative relationship, but from a spiritual relationship. Humans have immortality and ability to bear themselves back to life in a variety of forms. This belief requires eternal principles to arranged life. Immortality is able to provide a safe place for us in a world with capricious the content continuously (Iqbal, 2002: 234-240). The liberty, therefore, is an important principle in the philosophical thinking of Iqbal. Equality in the second point, and the principles of brotherhood in third, these three are the ideals of the spirit. As a result,

Iqbal never agreed with the idea of nationalism. For him, nationalism (based similarity of the homeland) not more important than the dimensions of the spirit. Nationalism led to war, so can not be used as a reference of nation. Iqbal doubt, nationalism could unite the Muslims and Hindus in India. To Iqbal, a state or government will be much more effective if it is formed by people with similar spiritual views. Then how about Iqbal’s dynamic democracy? Iqbal felt that the spirit brought by Islam and Western-style democracy is not so different. Western democracy is all about the idea, while Islam likes institutionalization of the principles of freedom and equality. Philosophically, democracy is the concept of power based upon the will of the people, resulting in the discussions amongst political science, political philosophy and social ethics. Meanwhile, in particular, democracy is a concept of power, which was disputed by the three existential principles, namely the principles of freedom, the principle of equality and its derivatives, and the principle of the will of the majority of people (Nurtjahyo, 2006: 87-89). Iqbal and the West refer to the principles; freedom, equality and the will of the people. Dynamic democracy, as well as Iqbal's aspiration, intended to ensure the independence of the human ego. Humans should not be lethargic and have to live with the dynamic ego, to earn a dynamic state. Thankfully, there is no particular theory of democracy. So, to describe all the will of the people that varied, the way to change the society is left to their inner consciousness (Iqbal, 2002: 263). Iqbal and Pancasila Broadly speaking, the political thought of India is very similar to the political climate in Indonesia. The hatred against colonialism, as a historical impact becomes a confirmation of that similarity. Talking about liberty, Iqbal always referred to the existence of God. There are at least six major principles are believed by Iqbal, 1) Monotheism, 2) treatise. 3) ground water, 4) of the law, 5) implementation of ethics, 6) has the ideal central place (Azzam, 1985: 92-98). The ideas of Iqbal's reflective when viewed from his philosophical ideas, as if they have a legal framework that is well defined. Lili Rasjidi (1990: 8) expressed about the scope of the discussion of legal

philosophy. Philosophy of law has come to a fundamental problem in the community (Rasjidi, 1990: 9). What was delivered by Iqbal and Lili Rasjidi are common forms of a society's rules. The Pancasila should also have such things. Human issues, ethics, politics and law is a package of philosophical problems that can not be separated. There is a cord-condition called universality that exixtence could be maintained. Iqbal’s idea laid on the divinity the idea, revelation, human, cultural and spiritual unification of nature, Pancasila is so close to what was envisioned by him. Although, the difference between these two was also quite large. Especially on the issue of nationalism which is very strong in Pancasila. Iqbal’s Ego and the Authenticity of the Fourth Principle of Pancasila Iqbal's thought is a mixture of eastern and western traditions. William O. Douglas called Iqbal as the voice of the East who found the same denominator with the West. The devotion he has done to the University of London made him quite appropriately referred to as contemporary western philosophers. Yet, Iqbal was never separated from his easternity. Ishrat Enver Hasan (2004: 46), stated that the self (ego) is an actual reality. The existence of the ego exists only in his own nature, so it requires the intuition to find it. People will discover that ego as the mandatory in nature, free and eternal. Iqbal believes "ego" does not exist on and unfit for any practical thinking. As Descartes goes with "Cogito Ergo Sum", so Iqbal believes in, "Volo Ergo Sum (I willed therefore I am)� (Hasan, 2004: 52). The nature of the self is directive so that life is basically very dependent on the actions, expectations, and desires. Thus, life is synonymous with passion, desire, and yearning. Thus, human existence depends on their desires and measures-measures. Without that, the desire will only make life becomes empty (Iqbal, 1920: 16). Ego according to Iqbal is exist in everything, so the universe has a oneness. This oneness was formed as a self (person) who is fully aware of their authenticity. Five principles (sila) need to be abstracted through the scheme like this. Kaelan stated (2002) that as a system of philosophy, Pancasila has a composition of organic unity. The first principle covers four other principles. The second principle

is inspired by the first principle and contains three other principles. The third principle is based on and inspired by the first and second principle, and underlies and animates the fourth and fifth principles. The fourth principle based on and inspired by the first principle, the second, third and underlying the fifth principle. While the five precepts based on and inspired by the four previous principles (Kaelan, 2002: 159-163). Notonagoro (1975) said that Pancasila is based on the following values: God, man, one, people, and fair (Kaelan, 2002: 156). The concept of Khudi (Ego) also illustrates a similar scheme. Ego only exists in itself and not found in another self. For Pancasila, there is only one principle that may bring a lot of egos, which is the fourth principle; "Democracy guided by the inner wisdom in the unanimity arising out of deliberations amongst representatives," If we peeled it, then what part will become the substance? Democracy ideas indeed weren't the original problem belongs to Indonesia, but not the consensus agreement (musyawarah-mufakat). Based on this view, Pancasila should be translated by the fourth, and Iqbal with his khudi also leads there. I wonder, “What if Iqbal had time to read and study in depth Pancasila?� So, the State of Pakistan may not exist today?! What was discovered by the people of Indonesia in Pancasila, may not be found by Iqbal. The Indonesian people through Pancasila discover the divinity, humanity, unity, and justice in the form of an agreement. Indonesian people agree on how they believe in God. Even Buddhists and Hindus finally found their concept of "monotheism" because of the insistence of the principle. Indonesian people collectively decide how people see the God as together, likewise the unity, and especially the problem of justice. After all this, the state of Pancasila is the state with the people at its center. The purpose of these words leads us to the points of deliberation and representation through the wisdom. Including the equality of rights and the representation. Culturally, the Indonesian people already find the entire contents of Pancasila since a long time. This is evidenced from the peaceful life for many years under the collective

agreement. Therefore, the Pancasila always need a new interpretation so that it can continue to be clear and increasingly its resistant. Iqbal, in this paper greatly assists us in understanding the important parts which we should see for the first and last time. If democracy is the most important part, then deliberation and representation as an element of discretion become true eternally. Referensi Ali, As'ad Said. 2009. Negara Pancasila: Jalan Kemaslahatan Berbangsa. LP3ES: Jakarta. Azzam, Abdul Wahhab. 1985. Filsafat dan Puisi Iqbal. Pustaka: Bandung Hasan Enver, Ishrat. 2004. Metafisika Iqbal. Pustaka Pelajar: Yogyakarta. Iqbal, Muhammad. 2002. Reskonstruksi Pemikiran Agama Dalam Islam: Dilengkapi Dengan Puisi-puisi Asrar-I Khudi. Jalasutra: Yogyakarta _______________ . 1920 The Secret of The Self (Asrar-I Khudi) translated by Reynold A. Nicholson. Macmillan and Co., limited: London. Kaelan. 2002. Pendidikan Pancasila. Paradigma: Yogyakarta. Khudori Soleh, A. 2012. Wacana Baru Filsafat Islam. Pustaka Pelajar: Yogyakarta. Nurtjahyo, Hendra. 2006. Filsafat Demokrasi. Bumi Aksara: Jakarta. Rasjidi, Lili. 1990. Dasar-dasar Filsafat Hukum. Citra Aditya Bakti: Bandung. SA, Saifullah, Muhammad Ilham. 2008. Teori Politik Islam. Hayfa Press: Jakarta Shafe’I, Hasan. 2012. Al-Madkhal Ila Al-Falsafah Al-‘Ammah (Wa Al-Falsafah Al-Islamiyah). Dar alBasair: Kairo. Sutrisno, Slamet. 2006. Filsafat dan Ideologi Pancasila. Andi: Yogyakarta.

VIEWS INTO THE POLITICS Lyotard Against the Dictatorship of Capital. New Philosophical, Political and Educational Lines. Author: Stefano Ulliana (PhD), Italian philosopher and writer, member of the Secretariat of the World Philosophy Network

Abstract Lyotard’s post-modernism criticizes the abstraction of the universal narrations thought up by the ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism, for the reason why they lead to subvert their own intentions of progress and liberation for the whole mankind, overthrowing them to a violent constriction implemented by the powers of the States. His intention is to regain that central, profound and autonomous point of expression and production, that permits the free selforganization of natural and human purposes. Having beheaded the Absolute, in its intention to separate and make itself an abstract (but real) entity, Lyotard also demolishes the concept and praxis of Opposition and Synthesis, feared by the perversion of a liberation’s project justified by them. So throwing away the real ideal of equality, Lyotard leaves the field open to manipulation of free and creative self-determination of human nature by the most reactionary forces of Capital.

Full text you can find here.

Posthumanismo, Cine y Educación* Author:








Educación y estudiante del Doctorado en Educación de la Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Colombia.

La manera como se presentan las cosas, no es la manera como son; Si las cosas fueran como se presentan… la ciencia entera sobraría... Marx

Había un modo de expresión que Sartre colocaba prácticamente tan alto como la literatura: EL CINE. Mirando pasar imágenes sobre una pantalla, tuvo la revelación de la necesidad del arte y descubrió. Por contraste, la deplorable contingencia de lo inmóvil, de aquello que se da por sentado. Simone De Beauvoir


El presente ensayo, tiene como objetivo reflexionar por escrito el tema del Posthumanismo a través del cine y su relación con la educación. Esta es una mirada alternativa, que aporta a la discusión de la formación de las nuevas subjetividades en la denominada era cibercultural. Y dado que el Posthumanismo, hoy se convierte en una cuestión que empieza a abandonar la ficción para adentrarse en la realidad cotidiana, debido a los adelantos biotecnológicos aplicados al interior del cuerpo están determinando literalmente, la aparición de un nuevo ser humano, y es en este punto, donde el cine nos puede dar algunas señales premonitorias en este sentido.

Full text you can find here.


Pattern Resonance Theory Author: Marina P. Bonser, PhD, Founding Director "Global Thinking World", a member of UNESCO Open Educational Resources & US Partnership of Education for Sustainable Development

This theory explains why and how we recognize and enjoy the beauty of this world Copyright © 2012 Marina P. Bonser, Ph.D.

This theory is an example of a united worldview which integrates oriental and occidental, traditional and modern views, and also combines scientific, spiritual, and artistic approaches of understanding the world. Our world of substance and energy is considered as a “symphony” of different varieties of vibrations. Our interaction with the world’s vibrations is a sequence of resonances with similar patterns in vibrations of our emotions and/or thoughts. Process of exploration of the world, and our life experience in general is sequences of our “clicks” and “clashes” with the objects and the subjects of our interactions. Regular unhealthy vibrations of the man-made world can affect our bio-vibrations and cause health problems. Environmental sustainability practitioners should take his issue into account. *** According to ancient wisdom in oriental religions (Maya, Buddhism, Tao, etc.) the entire world is just a complex “symphony” of vibrations, and every being in our world is a vibration. There are different guided imagery techniques in different cultures in order to help people to get their own vibrations in tune with the vibrations of the God (or universal source). Contemporary Science confirms that a substance, a fabric of the world, is just very dense energy. Einstein’s relation between mass and energy, the Wave-Corpuscle Duality theory gave us an approach of understanding the world as a “spider web of energy knots”, where “knots” are

material objects which are interacting and networking with each other via different types of “energy waves” (vibrations). Material objects, comparatively self-sufficient systems of “energy knots” with developed patterns of interactions also interact and network with other similar systems. Those networks can be considered as larger more complex systems with their interactions with other larger complex systems, and so on in infinitely large universe. Each “energy knot” can be also considered as a system with interactions between smaller objects, and those objects in their turn can be considered as smaller systems, and so on towards infinitely small universe. Every system, every “knot of energy” can be considered as a tool for broadcasting and/or receiving energy waves (vibrations) which carry the information about a broadcaster. A sun and other stars are broadcasting light and heat which is received by beings and get converted into other kinds of energy in their inner systems. Photosynthesis is one of the most amazing miracles of converting energy of light into mass. When a musical instrument broadcasts sound waves we are able to receive them via our “ear tool” and resonate with them because they touch our “soul strings”. Light and sound are just more obvious examples of energy waves which are basically tools for the information exchange between objects. All beings pass on to each other peace, love, anger, and other types and combinations of “emotional waves”. So whoever is able to receive those vibrations would know information of characteristics and feelings of their broadcaster. Human beings also have the privilege of using sound waves and words for more complex communication. Human civilization built up varieties of ways of interpersonal and mass media communication upon this wonderful ability. People keep inventing different tools for recording and preserving for a longer time some of the vibrations which represent parts of our life; first come pictures and books, then cameras, TV, videos, computers, etc. However, in the way man-made world develops we don't need that much our natural ability to exchange the information via bio-vibrations with other living beings, and that’s why lost a great deal of it. There are lots of facts of existence of other types of energetic waves for interactions which are not explored by science yet. For instance, deeply emotionally close people somehow know of serious trouble of each other without any known opportunities of communication. Things and places can reflect bio-vibrations of beings around them just like moon reflects solar light. Other beings who are able to receive those reflected bio-vibrations would get the information about broadcasters which is carried by waves of their bio-vibrations. So things and places can be in a communication chain between beings. How does it work? One system should be designed for broadcasting, like a guitar with strings, and the other system, a human, should have a similarly designed pattern of “soul strings” to resonate with those sound waves, just like a key can open a certain lock. Basically a guitar like any other musical instrument is a tool for getting in tune with the “soul strings” of a musician to “soul strings” of listeners. The guitar as a system has a pattern in its design which “clicks”, or resonates with a similar pattern in the design of “human tool kits” for broadcasting and receiving emotional vibrations of composers,

performers, and listeners. That’s how people can pass on beauty they received getting in tune with patterns of natural beauty in the universe. Patterns "click" works in the similar way as a particular key opens a particular lock. The lock and the key must be "opposite" carriers of the same pattern. It is interesting that oriental theories recognize 7 chakras, or energy centers in the human body, so a body can be considered as a “flute” for resonance, for tune up with 7 rainbow colors of light and 7 notes of sound in music. I wonder if our other ways of perception, taste, smell, and touch also can be broken down into 7 units on different levels, octaves, or they have different natural patterns? The human mind can hold 7+-2 units in its attention at the same time. We use our spectrum of perception and cognition abilities for resonating with different types of waves in the world. We place them in our mind filling up our four dimensional space-time model of the world. Why is it so breath-taking looking at a snowflake, a flower, or a great nature scene? A pattern of natural beauty in the world resonates with some pattern of design of our bio-system as a human being. The universe is touching our “soul strings”. Any kind of art is a human reflected beauty in the universe, or expression of missing connection with that beauty. When you look at the picture, artist work leads your attention from one thing to another, making a sequence of resonances with different patterns in your soul, just like you are listening to a symphony. If we consider a life as a flow of a sequence of vibrations, looking at art or listening to music is a sequence of resonances with patterns in tune with the recipient’s life flow. Such a “symphony” can be a combination of different types of world reflection, cognition and interaction, for instance a movie, a theater performance, or a book with great thoughts or feelings. Sometimes, a person needs to team up with other people and/or objects and be a part of a system in order to be able to “click” into a certain pattern of a beauty in the universe, for example a concert, a theater play, or a sport game. People like to watch or just be around a candle light, a campfire, a waterfall or fountain because constantly moving flow of light or water vibes resonates with the flow of their own bio-vibes, harmonize and energize them. So we are and the entire world is a complex multilevel vibration. While we are alive we are constantly broadcasting complex “symphonies” of vibrations. Others can get in tune and receive them if they have similar patterns in their systems’ designs. Plants, rocks, animals, insects, people, and all other beings all the time are generating and broadcasting their own “waves” during their lives. Ecosystems in natural environments, human made cities, and then continents, the whole planet, stars and galaxies are constantly broadcasting “symphonies” of different types of energy waves carrying information for those who are ready to get in tune with them, which means they have similar patterns in their systems. In my Nature Connection Workshops, guided imagery gets people’s minds, emotions, and then body energy vibrations in tune with nature vibrations, energetically connects entire person with a particular natural

environment, and then to the entire universe. It brings incredible joy, peace and healing energy from the infinite universal source of life. People who love to go to the wilderness know the difference between what they feel in the wild forest compared to their feelings from the same kind grove of trees in some city park. The sciences help us to understand of how different fields of energy waves like electromagnetic, gravity, etc. interact with objects and the world. Understanding is basically a resonance with a pattern of thinking which is already developed in our minds, or creating a new pattern for resonance if there is a potential. The quality of this communication also depends upon our inner and outer potential to resonate with those waves. This is another way to resonate with the beauty of the world from a different approach of world perception than arts. Thinking is a secondary level of reflection of the world which uses first perception abilities like vision, hearing, etc. The understanding of a new experience that is similar to a previous experience is a “clicks” with a certain pattern in thinking structure which allow for understanding of something new in addition to that previous experience. Than a person activates additions to existing patterns in thinking structure, and “clicks” with the object/subject of interaction via new created pattern. It works exactly like assembling a puzzle. Already built patterns are providing you with the ideas of their possible extensions.That’s how a person develops thinking abilities, no matter if she/he learns something which is already known by others, or has an insight of something that no one knew before. From this point of view systems thinking structure is a system itself, and Global Systems Thinking structure tends to integrate all types of thinking into a most inclusive possible system for a particular person at a particular period of life in order to build the best of person’s abilities working worldview for solving global problems. My Global Thinking Development Course is designed especially for that. There are two types of interaction, positive and negative. Positive ones “click”, or “resonate” with our similar patterns and open us up for a feeling of a harmony, peace and balance with the universe. Negative ones “clash” us on differences in patterns, and open us to discomfort which motivates us to search for harmony opportunities. “Clashes” can be harmful for our patterns of design in forcing them to “stretch out” or “shrink” in order to be similar to them and “click”. So there are choices for reaching a new harmony. The first choice would be modifying old pattern in order to “click” with the object of interaction. The second choice is finding a new understanding on the base of old one; this will build a new addition to one’s old pattern in order to “click” with this object. The third and the fourth choice is changing the object of interaction in one of those two ways. A combination of those options in a sequence of steps can be a good way for reaching harmonic balance also. Which way would be the best for reaching harmony depends on characteristics of both objects of interaction and on the conditions of interaction. First way is reasonable if it is only a little adjustment of recipient system is needed which is not harmful for that system. The second one is reasonable when disharmony bothers a recipient more. The third way is encouraging the object to change what is harmful for a

recipient in interaction. The fourth way is forcing the object to change if this interaction really destroys a recipient, and there is no way to avoid it. These are options, for instance, on how to deal with traffic noise near your home, or how to deal with your next door neighbor who loves to broadcast music loud enough to bother you. “Clashes” can be bad for healthy harmonic systems, and can be good for unhealthy unbalanced systems which need to be shaken, repaired, or destroyed in order to make room for starting over a new healthier balance or a new system. For example, people on loud motorcycles can destroy natural peace and silence and get their neighbors upset, but in their point of view they find joy, power, harmony and balance in shaking up their world which they are not satisfied with. “Clicks”, besides dwelling on positive harmony and peace, can be harmful for a system in the long run, if they make it get stuck and degenerate because that system is not open to new information which it needs in order to stay up-to-date and resonate with changes in the outer world. Growth or development is a process of transition from “clicks” to “clashes”, and from “clashes” to “clicks”. “Eureka” is a “click”, a resonance with a new pattern, and since a new pattern is discovered, it will be used over and over again in different combinations with old patterns for other similar “clicks” in organizing a new picture of the world. However, at some point the number of “clashes” in attempts to understand new things in the world will grow to a disharmony and motivate a person to look for a new pattern, a new balance, a new “click”. The development of civilization brought to humanity many positive things. At some point people discovered that resources and waste opportunities are limited, and realize the necessity of sustainable living. In the modern world people do care about keeping our environment healthy but no one has paid serious attention yet to the disharmonious vibrations in our environments created by our civilization. Every day in our life we cannot avoid interaction with vibrations which are much stronger than our biological waves (which our body, mind, and spirit produces and broadcasts). Every day we have to put ourselves in the environment which breaks and eventually destroys our natural patterns of our biological systems. Constant traffic noise on the highways or busy roads, chain sawing on construction sites, lawn mowing or snow blowing in residential neighborhoods and business districts, motor boats on recreation sites, shooting in a wilderness nearby nature trails, heater or air conditioner noise in your home can force your patterns to get into resonance with those noises. This regular interaction with your naturally harmonic bio-vibes can make your systems function in a wrong way which make you feel tired often and eventually can develop different health disorders. Loud sounds are only an example. It has not been enough time yet to explore how “symphonies” of man-made vibrations from cell phone towers and Wi-Fi sources affect human health by interacting with our bio-vibes.

I am not encouraging anyone to stop using man-made tools that make loud noise in order to prevent our potential health problems. Humanity cannot go backwards in civilization’s development. However if we are aware of this problem we can begin develop proper strategies of how to deal with this problem and gradually figure out ways of healthy sustainable life. Environmental sustainability practitioners should take his issue into account.

The Meaning of Life – And the Possibility of Human Illness - Prolegomena – Author: Professor István KIRÁLY V. (PhD), Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj, Department of Philosophy, a member of the Advisory Board of the "Philosophical Views" and a Council Member of the "World Philosophy Network". Keywords: human being, possibility, illness, finiteness, philosophy of medicine, medical anthropology, Aristotle Abstract: The study investigates philosophically the issue of human illness and its organic pertinence to the meaning of human life starting from the recognition that the dangerous encounter with the experience of illness is an unavoidable – and as such crucial – experience of the life of any living being. As for us humans, there is probably no mortal man who has never suffered of some – any! – kind of disease from his birth to the end of his life… Illness is therefore an experience or outright a danger of existence and its possibility, as well as a way of being that nobody has ever been and will ever be ontologically or existentially exempted from. So, it may well be “arbitrary” or “accidental” which disease affects which being or person, when and to what degree, in what way, etc., but it is factually unavoidable that in the course of one’s entire life – from its very beginning to its very end – one would never fall ill in some respect. The paper discusses this issue by the ontological investigation of possibility.

Full text you can find here.

SUSTAV U FENOMENOLOGIJI EDMUNDA HUSSERLA Autor: Spomenka Martić, filozof, stalni član redakcije "Filozofskih pogleda"

SAŽETAK: Utvrdjivanje osnovnih veza izmedju fenomenologije i potencijalnog sustava koji ona možda nudi nije namjerno iznudjivanje, uglavnom zbog transparentne Husserlove borbe protiv bilo kojeg dovršenog sustava istine, ali nije nemoguće, ako se ima u vidu uzornost njegove misli prema znanstvenosti i njezinoj biti. Filozofska osnova znanosti ne čini ih oslobodjenima od iste, već ih obavezuje da filozofiju uvaže u ulozi čuvara vrijednosti čovječnosti kakvom ih nalazi od prapočetaka. Ta opća subjektivnost (Allsubjektivitat), kao predmet filozofskih sukoba, glavni je stup fenomenološkog odnosa, te će se u ovom radu pokušati govoriti o prirodi njezine strukture kakvom ju je vidio E. Husserl. Posljedice kojeće njegovo razmišljanje imati na povijest pojma duha filozofije bit će prikazane snaglaskom na transcendentalnu logiku i njezine aktualne mogućnosti.

KLJUČNE RIJEČI: E.Husserl, fenomenologija, transcendentalnost, kriteriji, stvari, logika, filozofija, znanost, povijest.

Full text you can find here.

ПИСАНО ЋИРИЛИЦОМ Наратолошке паралеле између новеле Павиљон број 6 Антона Павловича Чехова и филма Павиљон VI Лућијана Пинтилијеа Аутор: Немања Глинтић, докторанд, стални члан редакције "Филозофских погледа" Harbin Normal University, China, Serbian Language Lecturer

(Кључне речи: егзил, репресија, адаптација, интермедијски пренос, сижејна редукција, инверзија, структура, трансгресија)


У мартовском издању публикације Румунског културног института у Њујорку, из 2012. године, у потпуности посвећеном Лућијану Пинтилијеу, а поводом прве америчке свеобухватне ретроспективе овог румунског редитеља, у интервјуу под називом „Lucian Pintilie: I close my eyes and see“ који је исте године с њим водио Михаи Ћирилов, Пинтилије, између осталог, говори о динамици редефинисања уметничког израза као нужнoj последици двадесетогодишњег стваралачког егзила на који га је осудила репресивна влада Николаја Чаушеског и субверзивном деловању као могућој употребној вредности адаптације литерарног дела. С тим у вези, Пинтилије најављује филмску адаптацију Чеховљевог „Галеба“, чија га је радикална позоришна адаптација претходно прославила у Француској и Америци, и са пуно самопоуздања предлаже наслов „Чехов и Сахалин“, најављујући још радикалнију адаптацију, чији наратив ће у великој мери бити обликован наводним мотивима Чеховљевог добровољног егзила на острво Сахалин и његовим наводним сахалинским искуством.[1] На основу овога закључујемо не само да је Пинтилије био свестан значаја и актуелности сахалинске фазе Антона Павловича Чехова или важности аутономног уметничког израза у процесу адаптације, већ и у коликој мери је Пинтилијеова фасцинираност Чеховим остала жива и истрајна. Чеховљево дело је најприсутнији класични литерарни предложак у Пинтилијеовом стваралаштву, који редитељ, у зависности од медија који користи у процесу адаптације (позориште, опера, филм), прекодира у нов систем знакова и нову реалност, али у име старе, универзалне истине. Иако румунски редитељ о Чехову превасходно размишља из позиције уметника азиланта, руски писац егзистира и на спољашњим и на унутрашњим рубовима Пинтилијеовог стваралачког егзила. Осим „Галеба“ и „Три сестре“, вредно је поменути и позоришну адаптацију драме „Вишњик“ у румунској продукцији и

најављену филмску адаптацију „Галеба“. Међутим, постоји једно Пинтилијеово дело у целости базирано на Чехову, а чији статус je неразјашњен, а судбина заборављен – случај.

[1] „I will shoot a film based on The Seagull by Chekhov, to explain how I understand adaptation. […] Do you also want a title for it? Chekhov and Sakhalin. Do you want to know the story? To escape the ennui emanating from the women in love with him, Chekhov escapes to the island of Sakhalin, and there he tells the story of an execution he never witnessed.“ у: Mihai Chirilov „Lician Pintilie: I close my eyes and see“, Romanian Cultural Institute New York: Lucian Pintilie, March 1-12, 2012, стр. 10; веб извор:

Цео текст можете прочитати овде.

Pogled iz regiona Autor: Vesna Maricic (PhM), filozof i teoretičar filmske i pozorišne umetnosti, član uredništva "Filozofskih pogleda".

Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo i Odsek za filozofiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Splitu bili su organizatori međunarodnog i interdisciplinarnog simpozijuma X. Mediteranski korijeni od 7-og. do 9-og. aprila. Jubilarni X Mediteranski korijeni filozofije održani su baš u godini u kojoj se slave dva velika jubileja usko vezana uz sam duh Mediterana: 2400 godina od rođenja Aristotela (384. pre n. e. – 322. pre n. e.) i 2400 godina od osnivanja Farosa, antičkog polisa na Hvaru. U uvodnom delu prikaza simpozijuma bilo bi dobro osvrnuti se na izlaganje predsednika Organizacijskog odbora Simpozijuma, Mislava Kukoča, koji je svojim uvodnim izlaganjem učesnike simpozijuma podsetio šta su bili i šta jesu mediteranski koreni filozofije. Dakle, Kukoč je tom prilikom rekao da se Mediteran smatra kolevkom zapadnoevropske filozofije i nauke, te je tako zajedno sa hebrejsko-hrišćanskom religijskom tradicijom postavio temelje zapadnoevropske kulture i civilizacije. Zapadna filozofska misao, kao i nauka, započele su svoj istorijski razvoj početkom VI. veka pre n. e. na istočnoj obali Mediterana, u maloazijskim grčkim kolonijama Miletu i Efesu, kao i na obližnjim ostrvima, da bi se potom širile sve do Eleje i Sicilije, a svoj vrhunac dostigle u Atini, središtu antičkog Mediterana. Razvoj antičke filozofije je od helenizma do srednjovekovne misli sudbinski bio vezan za Mediteran kao mesto stvaranja, sukobljavanja i međusobnog prožimanja mediteranskih kultura i specifičnog mediteranskog multikulturalizma. Jedan od mogućih aspekata o promišljanju razvoja mediteranske filozofije jeste promatranje razvoja grčke i rimske antike, helenističko-rimskog nasleđa, Vizantije, orijentalne arapske tradicije, nove islamske religije, koje se sve stapaju u islamsko-arapsku srednjovekovnu filozofiju, kulturu i civilizaciju. Vizantici su grčku filozofiju preneli Arapima, a oni su, posredstvom krstaških ratova, a preko svojih vodećih filozofa Avicene, Averoesa i Ibn Halduna, vratili Evropi Aristotelove sačuvane spise. Drugi mogući aspekt propitivanja koji ulazi u tematski okvir simpozijuma jeste propitivanje hrvatske filozofije čiji su koreni i to od njenih početaka pa do njenih blistavih trenutaka, utemeljeni u mediteranskom delu višeregionalnog kulturnog identiteta. Treći aspekt razmatranja bio je situiran oko filozofskog i interdisciplinarnog promišljanja specifičnosti mediteranskog multikulturnog prostora, koji je iznedrio aktuelne međucivilizacijske napetosti koje prete globalnim sukobom civilizacija, ali i otvaraju mogućnosti dijaloga te pomirenja. U sklopu trećeg opsega tema simpozijuma otvaraju se sledeća pitanja:

- Utiču li mediteranski koreni filozofije na nastanak i razvoj savremene filozofije Mediterana? - Filozofsko promišljanje mediteranskog multikulturalizma;

-Podsticaj mediteranske filozofije međucivilizacijskog dijaloga;







-Filozofija Mediterana kao globalizacijska paradigma.

U okviru simpozijuma govorilo je 36 učesnika među kojima su bili: Zdravko Radman, Mislav Ježić, Mislav Kukoč, Pavo Barišić, Lino Veljak, Vladimir Jelikić, Davor Balić, Sulejman Bosto, Daniel Bučan i mnogi drugi eminentni profesori i stručnjaci kako iz Hrvatske tako i iz regiona, kao i istaknuti profesori iz Nemačke. Simpozijum je bio koncipiran kao propitivanje mogućnosti saradnje u okviru mediteranskog multikulturnog prostora koji se smatra uzrokom aktuelnih međucivilizacijskih napetosti. Krećući se Mediteranom, u istorijskom, društvenom i sociološkom smislu, početne reference bile su formulisane kao ponovno razmišljanje o Platonovoj i Aristotelovoj misli na temu polisa i kosmopolisa, da bi se tokom dva dana izlaganja, počevši od Platonovih i Aristotelovih postavki, preko Hobsovih i Rusoovih poimanja društvene zajednice, pa sve do savremenih mislioca filozofije i interdisciplinarnih sfera, postavilo pitanje da li je filozofija Mediterana kosmopolitska paradigma ili je pak Mediteran podložan utopijskoj formi? Jedno od najvažnijih pitanja koje se postavilo jeste pitanje da li su individualizam i egoizam, te sledstveno tome i strah od drugog, naša prirodna stanja i svojevrsne biološke datosti, ili je društvo kategorija koja na dominantan način određuje čoveka? Počevši od tog pitanja, činilo se da su skoro svi izlagači bili skocentrisani na pronalaženje odgovora o pitanju šta bi danas za nas trebalo da predstavlja Mediteran: kosmopolitsku paradigmu ili utopiju? Promatrajući kretanja između multikulturalizma i fundamentalizma, kulturnog solipsizma i izazova globalizacije, preoblikovavanju pojma demokratije shodno različitim oblicima vladavine od Platona do danas, preko najrazličitijih domena estetskih i etičkih tretiranja pojedinca i društva u zadatim okvirima sveta nagriženog neprekidnim antagonizmima, izlagači su pokušavali da nađu način kako da se antagonizmi, ako se ne razreše, ipak smanje. U prilog takvoj težnji ide i jedna od mogućih pretpostavki koju je izneo Zdravko Radman, u kojoj se kaže da postoje dokazi za verovanje da se ljudi rađaju sa inherentnom željom za saradnjom i međusobnim pomaganjem, naročito u slučajevima u kojima im se poklapaju interesi i ciljevi. Ako pretpostavimo da je kultura dinamika među odnosima koji su konfliktni i iz kojih treba da izrastaju nove vrednosti, onda je bitno promisliti o načinima kojima se odnosimo prema tim konfliktima. Cilj simpozijuma je opominjanje na postojanje jednog metoda, koji svoje postojanje baštini u preko dvehiljade godina staroj filozofskoj i kulturnoj tradiciji Mediterana. Taj metod jeste dijalog posredstvom kojeg je moguće ostati u sferi razumevanja i tolerancije. Dijalog treba da bude jedini način borbe za uvažavanje razlika, zbog toga što je samo pomoću uvažavanja različitosti moguće pronaći rešenja aktuelnih međucivilizacijskih napetosti. Ostaje otvoreno pitanje da li će

čovek ikada doći u situaciju da čovečnost u svojoj ličnosti, kao i u ličnosti svakog drugog čoveka, kako bi to Kant rekao, tretira kao cilj, a ne kao sredstvo? Autor teksta je bio učesnik Simpozijuma i akreditovani izveštač. Foto: Arhiv EPH

POGLED IZ EMIRATA Autor: Vlado Franjević (rođen u Hrvatskoj 1963., živi u K.Lihtenštajn od 1993.) za PILOZOFSKE POGLEDE, 25.6.2016.

Ne. Ovdje se ne radi o putovanju unutar okvira Ujedinjenih kajkavskih Emirata, fejs-grupa koju je ako se ne varam, osmislila poznata hrvatska autorica Božica Jelušić. Ovdje se radi uistinu o iskustvima koje sam (pre)živio na relaciji putovanja K.Lihtenštajn - Ujedinjeni Arapski Emirati, i unutar samih Emirata a kojih ukupno ima sedam. Nisam bio u svima. Za to bi trebalo imati ipak nešto više vremena. Svrha putovanja je bila sudjelovanje na 1. bijenalu umjetnosti UAE-a od 10.-17. travnja 2016. Cilj putovanja: grad Al-Ain (via Dubai) smješten skoro pa na samoj granici s Omanom. Na istu sam tu

likovnu manifestaciju bio pozvan osobno od kustosa bijenala, Egipćanina, Moustafe Adela. S njim se znam od rujna 2014. kad smo supruga mi Rajka Poljak i ja sudjelovali na prvom umjetničkom festivalu u egipatskoj Aleksandriji. Karakter bijenala u Al-Ainu: malo veči „kalibar“! Taj je pak bio takav zbog ovih činjenica: pokrovitelj bijenala je bio osobno Ministar za kulturu UAE-a Šeik Nahyan Abu Mubarak Nahyan, na bijenalu je sudjelovalo oko 40 umjetnika iz oko 30 zemalja, prisustvo i nastupi Simfonijskog orkestra mladih sastavljenog iz različitih zemalja, smještaj svih sudionika u hotelu s jako puno zvjezdica u kojem je glavni kuhar onaj isti koji je nema dugo bio izabran kao najbolji glavni kuhar sveukupnih hotela u Emiratima. Rekao mi je da je kao nagradu dobio jednotjedni boravak na Oktoberfestu u Münchenu. To me nasmijalo… Sve je teklo po planu i u najboljoj organizacijskoj maniri! Nisam imao priliku čuti da je netko od učesnika bio bilo čime razočaran ili nezadovoljan. Naravno, u toj velikoj grupi egoista, jer svaki od nas to uistinu je, iskoči poneki lik kojeg nećeš zabilježiti i nositi u mislima samo i isključivo u najboljem svjetlu… Ipak smo samo (još uvijek) „skrojeni i zašiveni“ od krvi, mesa i najrazličitijih frekvencija. U zračnoj luci u Dubaju me sačekao Abdulah, jako simpatičan mladi čovjek u tradicionalnoj bijeloj odori. Lijepo mu je lice bilo ukrašeno ne predugačkim dlakama. Al Ain je od Dubaja udaljen oko 150 km. Kad smo stali na jednoj benzinskoj pumpi častio me kroasonom i kavom. U razgovoru ljubaznom saznao sam da stanovništvo UAE-a sadrži samo 20% domaćeg stanovništva a onih ostalih 80% su stranci. Saznao sam i da tamo nema poreza. (Joj, nije valjda da će me sad opet besramno etiketirati, jer sam se usudio - kao muškarac - napisati da je jedan drugi muškarac, lijep.) Za razliku od Dubaia i Abu Dhabija Al-Ain je zadržao tradicijsi način gradnje i arhitekture. Nema visokih zgrada, kroz cijeli grad su asfaltirane i uređene ceste s tri traka. Grad u pustinji, a pun zelenila. I na ovom sam bijenalu, kao i na (recimo) prvom grafičkom simpoziju u Ammanu, Jordan 2006., međunarodnoj skupnoj izložbi „Angels of Migrations“ Bishkek, Kirgistan 2007., umjetničkom bijenalu u Pekingu, Kina 2008., United Designs izložbi u Los Angelesu, SAD 2009., međunarodnoj konferenciji za semiotiku u grafičkom dizajnu u Limassolu, Cipar 2011., United Designs izložbi i (kao jedan od glavnik govornika) simpoziju u sklopu iste izložbe u Šangaju, Kina 2014. bio jedini predstavnik ove male srednjoevropske države - K.Lihtenštajn. Iako sam se sa svima podjednako volio družiti u UAE-a (i iako se u tako kratkom vremenu nije moguće dati svima istom mjerom) s odmakom vremena i zajedničkog prostora djelovanja ostaje nekoliko lica koja, kad se ovog časa sjetim tog putovanja i radnog boravka, odmah „iskoče na površinu“… Andrew i Izzy iz Engleske, Costin iz Rumunjske, Clemens iz J.Koreje (a iz Beča), prpošna Mirjana iz Srbije, još prpošnija Mikica iz Makedonije, Henda iz Tunisa, Kamal iz Jordana, Larissa iz Francuske, Vicky iz Grčke, Jana iz Češke, Katarina iz Slovačke, Claudia iz Njemačke pa onda drage kolegice i kolege koji su sa mnom slikali na istom platnu a koje je bilo jedan od

najvažnijih detalja izložbe u sklopu realizacije mojeg interdisciplinarnog work in progress projekta Spiralni Kanal (realiziran krajem svibnja 2016. u njemačkom Kölnu): Randa iz Sirije, Poonam iz Indije, Idris iz Omana, Ahlam iz Saudiarbije, Mohsen Ghareeb iz Bahraina, Stacey iz SAD-a, Gevorg iz Armenije, Abdul Rahim iz Emirata, itd. Jednodnevni izlet u Abu Dhabi uključujući svečani ručak u palači spomenute Ekselencije Šeika i Ministra kulture, te posjet svjetski poznatom sakralno-kulturno-umjetničkom objektu Džamija Šeika Zayeda će naravno ostati zauvijek zabilježena u memoriji sive mi centralne, smislene, sad već više plastične nego elastične, mase. Prije polijetanja zrakoplova natrag iz Dubaja za Zürich imao sam nekoliko sati „lufta“. Dogovorio se sa „starim“ dobrim frendom prof.dr. Arafat Al-Naimom, Jordancem kojeg sam upoznao daleke 2003. u Sofiji, Bugarska, gdje je dugo živio i završio studije, da se sastanemo i barem nakratko družimo. Arafat je već neko vrijeme direktor koledža za umjetnost i dizajn Američkog Univerziteta u Dubaju. Kao i obično tako i taj puta nije izdržao a da me nespremnog ne „baci u hladnu vodu“. Pokazujući mi koledž, upoznavajući me s kolegama, kolegicama i studentima, uveo me konačno u jedan razred gdje je već sve bilo pripremljeno… internet, video-beamer, prezentacija, profesori i studenti. Zamolio me pred svima, meni skroz neočekivano, da se predstavim a onda i moj umjetnički i kulturno-povezivajući rad… Samo na jako kratki trenutak sam ostao zatečen a jer mi je materija koju sam trebao predstaviti bila i te kako poznata, „odradio sam stvar“ u dobroj, i ako je suditi po reakcijama prisutne publike, zanimljivoj maniri u kojoj nisam zaboravio predstaviti i Zemaljski muzej Lihtenštajna. U njem radim od daleke 2003. od iste godine dakle u kojoj sam uživao godišnju stipendiju Savjetodavnog tijela za kulturu Vlade K.Lihtenštajn. Let sa zrakoplovnom kompanijom Emirates je bio vrlo ugodan… Ipak, Rajka je i opet morala „titrati“ u nadi da se prizemljimo živi i zdravi. I bi tako! Jer, ljubav je „čudo“… Do idučeg „uzlijetanja“ i uzlijetanja, do idučeg javljanja, članovima uredništva časopisa FILOZOFSKI POGLEDI i svim čitatelji(ca)ma istog želim samo i iskreno dobro. Ah da, skoro zaboravih… dobro je znati da se promidžba putovanja u Emirate i tamošnji mi nastup, kao i promidžba manje više svih sudionika na bijenalu, ovdje ne zaustavlja. Spirala dobrih vijesti se nastavlja… 15. rujna 2016. godine s početkom u 18.00 sati počet ću u K.Lihtenštajn interaktivno predavanje na ovu temu a u okviru vlastite mi izložbe u prostoru Stein-Egerta. Ista će biti otvorena 21. kolovoza u 17.00 sati. O mojim će radovima tad govoriti dr. Wieslaw Piechocki a otvaranje izložbe će muzički uokviriti Vanessa Klöpping na klarinetu. (U istom smo prostoru 20. kolovoza prošle godine otvorili likovnu izložbu supruge mi Rajke Poljak i prezentirali katalog njezinih likovnih radova…) Najsrdačnije pozdravljam iz jedne od najmanjih zemalja svijeta - K.Lihtenštajn.

ONGOING COLUMN FROM ATHENS DISRUPTIVE PHILONAUSICAA BY ANDREAS ANDREOPOULOS, Climate communication & Ecological Civilization expert, Athens, Greece, Participant at 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

I Modern elements for philosophy to elaborate on in a metamodern era

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy[i]” - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio This era has actually no name; an element characterized by a preposition rings immediately the bell of compound, complex, even multiplex one, e.g. antifragility[1], another recent philosophical term. However, in this compound, complex, even multiplex transitional era we live in, there are many new elements for philosophy to elaborate on. Is our old, traditional Mother-of-all-sciences Philosophy able enough to deal with that? I am afraid not. This is why I am a male groupie of disruptive Philonausicaa… but this is another story. Let’s stick to the original term since it is going to be used mostly in a negative connotation.

The whole world is in a constant turmoil; it’s about ‘business-as-usual’ politicians VS science (climate crisis becoming a real litmus on the issue); it’s ‘free’ market VS pure research; it’s ‘three powers / democracy “stepping stones” defenders pretending no media and web influence exists VS active citizens’ referendums; it’s globally famous academic institutions providing high level ignorant accountants VS situational awareness; it’s the fake ‘non-profit’ VS profit with a social cause; it’s about greed capitalism VS entrepreneurship & social innovation; it’s about oil economy with no principles - but profit VS Sustainable Development; it’s about a robust VS an antifragile world; it’s a stubborn past VS a fresh future with all its brand new ingredients blossoming; it’s irrationality in all potential levels VS reasoning - during an era usually called a period when Age of Enlightenment results come to implementation; last but not least, it’s about old world VS new world - not the “New Brave World”. Philosophy used to come in support of human soul, usually a little late but generally with good intentions. Only exception: philosophy first born in Greece; it caught up with zeitgeist then, in time and space, and opened its store waiting for clients during those unprecedented, particular, and, probably unrepeatable few forty years of calm and prosperity for the Athenian “Democracy” (in brackets according to modern standards); “All’s well that ends well” (too much Shakespeare ado nothing) at that time. But in this modern time Philosophy has been very late. Philosophers still try hard to “interpret the world, in various ways; no question whatsoever to try to “change it” (O tempora o mores, Dear uncle - not divine, Karl - sorry!); they have been mostly occupied with conferences, congresses, symposiums, formal philosophy workshops, etc. However the world is moving forward, with or without us. ‘The planets travel impressively along their Neutonian orbits’, as Carl Sagan said, ‘winds twist into typhoons, chickens alternate with eggs, and we just exchange opinions’. The future world, which BTW is already here, is like any food recipe. It has enlisted certain ingredients waiting to get, more or less, ingeniously integrated in one dish. Water considered sine qua non goes without saying; salt seems too unimportant by itself; the same happens with oregano; even meat alone has no big chances; but just you wait until chef enters the stage. Hold your breath, philosophers of the world, without any need to unite, just put on your thinking cap; sleep on them from a Philonausicaa point of view, a holistic and a little bit militant one. Here is the panorama: Google; the web; business with a social cause; CSR; LinkedIn; local communities; Earth as Gaia; Apple (not the iPhone mobile business but the entity integrating cognitive science in technological gadgets); institutes for the Future; social networking; Open source S/W; Generation Y; Entrepreneurship; Generation Z; Wikipedia; Sustainable Development; Cognitive science; The Media Lab Center for Future Storytelling; TED Ideas worth spreading; Chaos theory; BRICS; Change Theory; Ecological Civilization; China; Collective Intelligence; Secular Humanism; Seth Godin; Umberto Eco; Tao Te Ching; Antifragility, and some more one could explore on the way.

In case we consider above elements too cheap to shape such a magnificent entity like Future, recollect salt, water, oregano. This is our Future puzzle; for us to solve or keep it unsolved - but better resolve it, and offer it to people. They are waiting for it; they are waiting for it from us. We better make it fast; there is no time ‘left’. There is much time ‘right’ though... This time philosophy has to follow Philonausicaa rhythm and main features. The Storyteller of the Future Society, close friend of Disruptive Philonausicaa

[1] Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder is a book by Nassim Nicholas Taleb published on November 27, 2012, by Random House in the United States and Penguinin the United Kingdom. This book builds upon ideas from his previous works including Fooled by Randomness (2001), The Black Swan (2007–2010), and The Bed of Procrustes (2010-2016) and is the fourth book in the four-volume philosophical essay on uncertainty titled the Incerto

[i] your philosophy ] i.e., philosophy (or learning) in general. The emphasis here should be on "dreamt of", as Hamlet is pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain. One can imagine happier times when Hamlet and Horatio, studying together at Wittenberg, engaged in heated philosophical debates. Shakespeare does not expand on the specific nature of Horatio's philosophy, and in the First Folio (1623), the text actually reads "our philosophy." Some editors, such as Dyce, White and Rowe, choose to use "our" instead of "your" (as found in Q2), believing Hamlet is speaking in general terms about the limitations of human thought. For much more on this passage, please see the full explanatory notes for Hamlet. Photo:


Aristotle`s Apology 2016, Aristotle Anniversary Year:

This Philosophical Views (magazine devoted to culture, philosophy, literature, art, film, theater and all other related fields) issue offers its readers global exclusivity! «I owe Humanity a heartfelt apology»![1] – Aristotle’s ipse dixit Just because some intellectuals, 2400 years after Aristotle’s birth, started to collect supportive signatures on his behalf, it would be intriguing to recollect a rather unknown excerpt

of his work. Obviously, mentioned excerpt contains an ensemble of especial tenets - even more, it makes a personal statement; at the same time this latter could turn to breaking news. “My work has been nothing but collection and classification of preexisting knowledge and close observation or, if you prefer, my era’s cognitive infrastructure systematic approach - you know, the empirical kind. However, along the years, something deviant has occurred - this is exactly the reason I owe Humanity a heartfelt apology. Educational establishment, more specifically religious-clerical status quo, has taken advantage of my assuming authority; for more than one thousand years, monasteries shifted in universities, offered, for men only, in a dead language - Latin, a curriculum and an alleged integrated knowledge system based on my ‘scientific’ material - if one could call it so; to begin with, I have to express my original goal: I intended to gradually verify my findings during my humble finite life; rest of the material would remain for the next to come fellow researchers, or curious investigators, if you wish, to elaborate on. Another way to put it for you all to better realize it: I will describe it in terms of that distant-inthe-future era dominated by ‘intermedia’, or just media, because Fluxus artist Dick Higgins has creatively changed the former term. I would characterize myself as a plain collector with a rather unusual disposition toward critical thinking though. My filing cabinets’ unauthorized heirs projected me as ’ingenious’ and ‘omniscient’ film director because that image served perfectly their goal (“No one can touch and change Aristotle’s work” implying, in a proportional way, “no one could doubt Church authority”). I have been featured as someone who proposed a dynamic, full and self-evolving system of science. It goes without saying: those guidelines have been followed, fortunately enough only, by planet’s west side science historic catch 22. However, it has been well known I was not the only one subjected to this treatment. Bertolt Brecht’s theater production techniques and scientific methodology on interpreting world’s reality have been considered as an ‘infallible’ and ‘perfect’ way to direct theatrical plays - just after his death; anticipated outcome, theater’s decline…”

(“PSEUDEPIGRAPHA “About my work”, 1443 b 27-34 free interpretation by Andreas Andreopoulos, semiotic analysis inpert)

Comment on the above text: Either declaration’s subjective point of view is valid (that means it could be untrue) or it is interpreted as a generally accepted dogma (“Aristotle’s ipse dixit”); in any case his evergreen supporters, the ones collecting signatures, defend a futile case - even worse for them, they fight against authentic declaration…

[1] “based on ‘Asking for Forgiveness Gracefully’ 4 steps (express remorse; admit responsibility; make amends; promise that it won't happen again - because I was always respecting peers and taking their opinion into consideration” - Aristotle, again.

BOOK RECOMMENDATION By Olivera Z. Mijuskovic

Ethics in the Real World - Professor Peter Singer

Professor Peter Singer published his new book "Ethics in the Real World". This book is a series of the short essays about realworld ethical issues such as climate change, extreme poverty, animals rights, abortion and euthanasia, human genetic selection (eugenics), sports doping, the ethics of high-priced art, as well as the ways of the increasing happiness. This book came out at September 13 and the publisher is "Princeton University Press". According to statistics of the site Amazon it`s at position 1 in the section of “Philosophy of Ethics and Morality”.

This book isn`t just a a collection of ethical theoretical writings but a book that talks about the real problems in everyday life of people. His very distinct style may lead to different interpretations, but it's actually a wealth of style of this author. This book is certainly provocative, but it`ll make you start to think ethically about important topics from everyday life.

Philosophical Views


Philosophical Views 2013 All rights reserved. Copyright Olivera Z. Mijuskovic © 2013

Philosophical Views 4 issue  

• UNESCO WORLD PHILOSOPHY DAY 2016 • WOMEN ECONOMIC FORUM 2017 • The 7th annual Dialectical Symposium Athens, UN and Canada • Famous philoso...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you