William McBride

The article is devoted to the North American Sartre Society, which was founded in 1985. The author as its co-founder develops his point of view presenting during panel discussion of Sartre’s relations with the United States on the 2015 meeting. He devoted a lot of papers and books to Sartre’s philosophy. Some of them are presented in the references. The author reflects at a somewhat deeper level on Sartre’s attitudes towards USA in the context of its history and international relations, saying about philosopher’s contradictions, the strategy and tactics of his self-disinvitation. The author traces Sartre’s transition from one myth of America to another in later life. Sartre’s initial experiential encounter with the American reality was by no means entirely positive, but he did like New York City, feeling a sense of freedom in the midst of its crowds that he retained as an important part of his picture of America when back in France. Freedom, an open future, almost unlimited possibilities, and a lack of a sense of history of the sort by which Europe is shackled. Several events of the postwar world history such as Korean war, then Vietnam war paved the way for Sartre’s most salient later attitudes towards America. Meanwhile, Sartre had accepted an invitation to present lectures at Cornell University in 1965. But after American massive bombing of North Vietnam in 1965 Sartre responded by disinviting himself from Cornell by way of protest. Recounting these events, the author of the paper recalls so-called “Cornell Lectures”, which were saved in unfinished manuscript form and have been given the title “Morale et Histoire”. A serious interest in American political life is shown on Sartre’s and Beauvoir’s visit to Cuba as guests of Fidel Castro and Sartre’s participation in Lord Bertrand Russell’s independent War Crimes Tribunal.

This collection of essays and reviews represents the most significant and comprehensive writing on Shakespeare's A Comedy of Errors. Miola's edited work also features a comprehensive critical history, coupled with a full bibliography and photographs of major productions of the play from around the world. In the collection, there are five previously unpublished essays. The topics covered in these new essays are women in the play, the play's debt to contemporary theater, its critical and performance histories in Germany and Japan, the metrical variety of the play, and the distinctly modern perspective on the play as containing dark and disturbing elements. To compliment these new essays, the collection features significant scholarship and commentary on The Comedy of Errors that is published in obscure and difficulty accessible journals, newspapers, and other sources. This collection brings together these essays for the first time.

The paper begins by raising some doubts concerning the appropriateness of the phrase, ”after Marxism,” despite current sociological realities which point to its accuracy. It then discusses a certain “pathology” that may be intrinsic to the combined theory and practice of political philosophy; some examples are offered. Next, it is suggested that the discourse of contemporary European political philosophy suffers from the absence of certain Marxian notions, especially that of ideology. Some current trends---postmodernism, nationalism, critical theory, and religious thought---are then briefly explored. It is contended that none of them by itself is adequate for developing the kind of global worldview which, malgré tout, seems needed to counteract the increasing hegemony of the “Coca-Cola cuIture” of the present day. The paper concludes by raising questions about the possible role, at best an awkward one, of American philosophers in this enterprise.

The unfinished, posthumously published second volume of Jean-Paul Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason consists for the most part of a study of the evolution of the Soviet Union under the reign of Stalin. Essentially, Sartre sees this history as amounting to a lengthy deviation from the goal of socialism, a deviation that he regards as thoroughly intelligible in light of social and historical circumstances. Some ten years after abandoning his work on this book, on the occasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Sartre concluded that this ‘deviation’ was permanent. At the same time, Sartre believed, as he had stated already in Volume I of the Critique, that the post-Stalinist era must be characterized as ‘One World’, a historical turning away from the plurality that had prevailed in all of past human history. The present essay attempts to capture Sartre's approach to history as ongoing ‘totalization’ – conflict-filled, subject to contingency and chance and the frequent occurrence of ‘holes’, and nevertheless intelligible. Although Stalin died many decades ago, and the Soviet Union itself no longer exists as such, it is argued here that Sartre's approach in this book is very useful as a key to the present time. Future history is indeed unpredictable, but Sartre's techniques of historical analysis remain valid. It is also contended, more controversially, that today the ideal of democracy may be in the process of following the path of socialism in the direction of permanent deviation

Članak je kritičko preispitivanje krize u vladavini zakona u kontekstu suvremene politike u SAD. Tekst navodi neke primjere američke nacionalne i vanjske politike u svezi s tzv. ‘kultom demokracije’. Članak je podijeljen na dva dijela. Prvi se dio bavi izvješćem, koje se bavi, redom, službenim odnosima SAD prema međunarodnom zakonodavstvu; zatim prema moći institucije predsjedništva; te glede uloge Vrhovnoga Suda. Drugi dio ispituje neke filozofijske implikacije američke politike, a u svezi s pitanjima demokracije i vladavine zakona

L’article constitue un examen critique de la crise du règne de la loi dans le contexte politique actuel aux Etats-Unis. Le texte cite quelques exemples de la politique nationale et internationale américaine en rapport avec le « culte de la démocratie ». L’article se divise en deux parties. La première se penche sur, dans l’ordre : l’attitude officielle des Etats-Unis vis-à-vis de la législation internationale, ensuite vis-à-vis du pouvoir de l’institution de la présidence et enfin vis-à-vis du rôle de la Cour suprême. La seconde partie examine quelques conséquences philosophiques de la politique américaine, liées aux questions de la démocratie et du règne de la loi

Der Artikel hinterfragt kritisch die Krise in der Gesetzesherrschaft im Kontext der zeitgenössischen US-Politik. Es werden einige Beispiele der US-amerikanischen Innen- und Außenpolitik angeführt, die mit dem sog. ,Demokratiekult’ in Zusammenhang stehen. Der Text beschäftigt sich in seinem ersten Teil mit dem offiziellen Verhältnis der USA zur internationalen Gesetzgebung, des Weiteren mit der Institution des Präsidentenamtes und seiner Macht sowie mit der Rolle des Obersten Gerichtshofes der USA. Im zweiten Teil der Arbeit werden bestimmte philosophische Implikationen der amerikanischen Politik in Bezug auf Fragen der Demokratie und der Gesetzesherrschaft hinterfragt

The article is a critical examination of the crisis in the rule of law in the context of contemporary politics in the USA. It sorts out some examples of American national and foreign policy regarding the so called ‘cult of democracy’. The article is divided in two parts. The first part consists of the report, which concerns, respectively, official US government relationships to international law; the power of the Presidency; and the role of the Supreme Court. The second part examines some philosophical implications of American policy, concerning the questions of democracy and the rule of law

The article is a critical examination of the crisis in the rule of law in the context of contemporary politics in the USA. It sorts out some examples of American national and foreign policy regarding the so called ‘cult of democracy’. The article is divided in two parts. The first part consists of the report, which concerns, respectively, official US government relationships to international law; the power of the Presidency; and the role of the Supreme Court. The second part examines some philosophical implications of American policy, concerning the questions of democracy and the rule of law

The issue that I wish to address is, why protest and criticize the increasing hegemony of what has been called the “culture of consumerism”? This “why not?” objection encompasses three distinct sets of questions. First, is not resistance to it akin to playing the role of King Canute by the sea? Second, is not acceptance of it dictated by the current liberal philosophical consensus that acknowledges and endorses an inevitable diversity in different individuals’ conceptions of what is good, and must not this consensus itself be taken as a given by all who are opposed to political and religious totalitarianisms? Third, does not cosmopolitanism, regarded as a value-orientation favorable to the dissolution or at least minimization of national boundaries and the practices of exclusivity associated therewith, make common cause in the present historical conjuncture with this same trend? I will argue for a “No” answer to all of these questions.