Vincent Colapietro

This paper offers an overview of Joseph Margolis’s philosophy of culture, highlighting how Margolis’s radical historicism is not inconsistent with our realistic intuitions regrading facts and objectivity. While Margolis identifies interpretation as the work of culture, the paper suggests that a much more basic sense of human labor needs to be thematized more fully than Margolis does in any defensible account of culture. Margolis of course appreciates work in this sense, but he does not consistently make it integral to his conception of culture. Even so, what he so forcefully defends is, as one commentator has put it, “beautiful. It’s also erudite, elegant, and insightful (and frightfully, dialectically intricate).”

[W]e might despair of despair itself, rather than of life, and cast that off, and begin, and so reverse our direction.This is a finely conceived, elegantly written, and exquisitely executed work. At its center, there is Naoko Saito ’s creative appropriation of one of Cavell’s most fecund suggestions—philosophy is first and foremost an activity and, as such, it is either akin to or, more strongly, identifiable with practices of translation.1 Everything I have to say concerns translation, if only implicitly. Moreover, I offer everything as a friendly amendment. That is, I take my reflections on her book to be in accord with both the spirit and, in most instances, even the letter of her texts. Whether or not she...

ABSTRACT This article elaborates a deceptively simple suggestion made by Hegel. It relates Hegel's suggestion above all to Dewey's stress on looking back, looking around, and looking ahead. In this endeavor the article touches upon two seemingly contradictory facets of philosophical thought—the autonomy and heteronomy of such thought. To a greater extent, however, the article focuses on the dramatic character of philosophical efforts to think things over, once again. The drive to think things over is frequently rooted in historical crises, in experiential conflicts. The actuality of philosophy cannot be adequately understood apart from such dramas and conflicts, ones taking place far outside the studies and classrooms of thinkers.

While the work of such expositors as Max H. Fisch, James J. Liszka, Lucia Santaella, Anne Friedman, and Mats Bergman has helped bring into sharp focus why Peirce took the third branch of semiotic (speculative rhetoric) to be "the highest and most living branch of logic," more needs to be done to show the extent to which the least developed branch of his theory of signs is, at once, its potentially most fruitful and important. The author of this paper thus begins to trace out even more fully than these scholars have done the unfinished trajectory of Peirce's eventual realization of the importance of speculative rhetoric. In doing so, he is arguing for a shift from the formalist and taxonomic emphasis of so many commentators to a more thoroughly pragmaticist and "rhetorical" approach to interpreting Peirce's theory of signs.

No âmago deste artigo há uma comparação entre a investigação sobre o entendimento de Peirce o relato de interpretação de Royce. Estrutura-se por uma consideração do desentendimento de si e, ligada a esta discussão do desentendimento de si, uma consideração sobre o próprio entendimento. Para Peirce, em razão de sua abordagem da investigação e Royce em sua meta-interpretação alguma forma de entendimento está em jogo. Por exemplo, a tarefa do investigador científico é inacabada se ela para na descoberta de fatos nus. Enquanto para ambos os pensadores, as ciências não um corpo de conhecimento seguro, mas uma forma de investigação contínua, ela visa principalmente o entendimento. Tanto Peirce quanto Royce estão animados por um compromisso com a inteligibilidade do cosmos em sua varredura plena e nos mínimos detalhes. A abordagem de Peirce sobre a investigação e a concepção de interpretação de Royce são esforços para detalhar como os atores humanos tornam cada vez mais profunda e amplamente inteligível o mundo de sua experiência. Muito pode ser aprendido comparando-os a este respeito.

Questo articolo si sofferma su una curiosa lacuna nella tradizione pragmatista. Negli scritti dei pragmatisti americani classici (Peirce, James, Dewey, Mead e Lewis) pochissima attenzione è dedicata all'articolazione di una concezione delle pratiche e, più in generale, dei _pragmata_. L'autore offre uno schizzo di quella che egli ritiene essere una descrizione pragmatista delle pratiche umane. Sottolinea come per i pragmatisti stessi la teoria sia una pratica o, più precisamente, una famiglia allargata di pratiche in evoluzione, che intrattengono relazioni complesse con altre pratiche. Inoltre, ritiene che una tale prospettiva sulle pratiche sia fondamentalmente in opposizione ai vari tentativi di fornire una giustificazione trascendentale per qualsiasi pratica umana. L'autore prende spunto da una breve ma suggestiva discussione sul linguaggio, la legge e la verità contenuta nel _Pragmatismo_ di William James e sviluppa le implicazioni della trattazione jamesiana di questi temi. Nel corso di questo lavoro, l'autore propone di comprendere un'opera _classica_ (come un testo filosofico o una composizione musicale) in una prospettiva strettamente storicista. L'articolo si conclude con una riflessione su quanto l'intelligenza creativa sia stata 'coscritta' dall'agenda bellicosa dei regimi nazionali o imperialistici, pur nutrendo la speranza che l'intelligenza creativa possa liberarsi in qualche misura dalla macchina bellica degli stati nazionali.

This essay examines in detail the triangulated conversation Naoko Saito constructs, in The Gleam of Light, among the voices of R. W. Emerson, John Dewey and Stanley Cavell. The pivot around which everything turns is the Emersonian ideal of moral perfectionism and, in particular, the implications of this ideal for the philosophy of education. As explicated by Cavell, this ideal concerns ‘the dimension of moral thought directed less to restraining the bad than to releasing the good’. For the conscientious person, it is, at once, unavoidable and unattainable. In constructing a conversation among these and other authors, Saito establishes herself as an arresting voice by her thoughtful contributions to many contemporary controversies bearing upon our educational practices, not least of all ones about curricular reform as well as personal transformation.