Kevin S. Decker

John Dewey (1859-1952) was hailed in his lifetime as “America’s philosopher of democracy”. His work on educational theory and social psychology at the Universities of Michigan – Ann Arbor and Chicago was one of the foundations of early 20th century progressive social work. He worked alongside such eminent figures as Jane Addams of Hull House and Ella Flagg Young, the educational reformer. A tireless critic of economic injustice and oligarchy, Dewey was sympathetic to American socialism but nonetheless helped form the non-socialist League for Independent Political Action to support left-wing third parties; additionally, he was a founding member of the pro-academic freedom American Association of University Professors in 1915, the New School for Social Research in 1919, and the American Civil Liberties Union in 1920.

This paper explores one aspect of the political in the early Hegel, that of criminal action and its relationship to the concept of recognition in the System of Ethical Life. While it is clear that in this work Hegel thinks that criminal action plays an important role in the transformation of simple ethical communities, it is not clear that, for Hegel, the formal character of crime in the struggle for recognition is anything but negative. I attempt to show how this role for crime leads Hegel to a legalistic conception of Right that has no solid connection with recognition as a social force.

Philosophy and space travel are characterized by the same fundamental purpose: exploration. An essential guide for both philosophers and Trekkers, Star Trek and Philosophy combines a philosophical spirit of inquiry with the beloved television and film series to consider questions not only about the scientific prospects of interstellar travel but also the inward journey to examine the human condition. The expansive topics range from the possibilities for communication among different cultural backgrounds to questions about the stoic temperament exhibited by Vulcans to Ferengi business practices. Specifically chosen to break new ground in exploring the philosophical dimensions of Star Trek, these articles boldly go where no philosopher has gone before.

George Herbert Mead's early lectures at the University of Chicago are more important to understanding the genesis of his views in social psychology than some commentators, such as Hans Joas, have emphasized. Mead's lecture series "The Evolution of the Psychical Element," preserved through the notes of student H. Heath Bawden, demonstrate his devotion to Hegelianism as a method of thinking and how this influenced his non-reductionistic approach to functional psychology. In addition, Mead's breadth of historical knowledge as well as his commitments in the natural and social sciences are on display here, culminating in the Darwinian observation that human animals only achieve the degree of control they have over their environment by the achievement of social organization.

To what extent can the structure of dialogue be used to ground a theory of human understanding? In this paper, I examine Plato’s Phaedo, Republic, and Philebus with an eye toward challenging Gadamer’s thesis that Socratic dialogue grounds a theory of hermeneutics that characterizes understanding as a factor within experience as “radical openness.” I contend that there is a basic problem in Gadamer’s historical appropriation of the dialectic. This is that the elenchtic ideal of most of the early dialogues of Plato, which underlies Gadamer’s notion of privileging process over result in conversation, is fundamentally in tension with reaching an understanding of concepts, and ultimately reaching toward the Good.Dans quelle mesure la structure du dialogue peut-elle être utilisee pour fonder une théorie de la compréhension humaine? Dans cet article, je considère le Phédon, la République et le Philèbe en vue de mettre en question la thése gadamérienne selon laquelle le dialogue socratique fonde une théorie herméneutique qui définit la compréhension comme un facteur a l’intérieur de l’expérience entendue comme «ouverture radicale». Je soutiens qu’il y a un problème fondamental dans le projet gadamérien de l’appropriation historique de la dialectique. Ceci tient à ce que l’ideal élenchtique de la plupart des premiers dialogues platoniciens, lequel idéal sous-tend la notion gadamérienne qui privilégie le processus au profit du résultat de la conversation, se trouve dans une tension fondamentale avec le but qui consiste à accéder à une compréhension des concepts et, en définitive, à accéder au Bien.

‘Recognition’ is a normative concept denoting the ascription of positive status to a group or an individual by (an) other(s). In its larger meaning, it carries the implication that when a group or an individual can justifiably expect such a positive status-ascription, its denial (misrecognition) is unjustified and unethical. I discuss the role that the concept of recognition can play at the intersection of two philosophies, pragmatism and contemporary critical theory. My perspective is one that embraces the ‘pragmatic turn’ in critical theory and sees the possibility of reciprocal benefit for pragmatism in how critical theory handles issues of material culture, alienation and networks of power. I argue that a critical social theory incorporating pragmatist presuppositions ought to bring the concept of recognition to bear in how it isolates and treats the ‘real interests’ of groups and individuals who have suffered and continue to suffer from broad social ascriptions of negative status, or who, through lack of voice and access to the public sphere, remain paralysed to participation in a thriving liberal democracy. In doing so, I do not construe recognition primarily as ‘positive tolerance’ or understanding of cultural, ethnic, or gender identity, but as a minimally substantive tool for understanding, and potentially correcting, how misrecognition impacts the collective and individual agency of the historically oppressed.

Teaching Kantian ethics is difficult, for “getting Kant right” extends to a wide field of concerns. This paper is aimed at instructors who wish to give interdisciplinary criticism of Kantian deontology by discussing exceptions naturalist critics take to Kant’s concept of “autonomy.” This concept can and should be supplanted by the notion of “emergent intelligence.” Surprising support for this project comes from the fictional exploits of Star Trek’s Captain Jean-Luc Picard. I conclude by indicating how the residual lessons from this criticism of Kant should lead us back to an understanding of emergence within Kant’s own third Critique.

The essays in this volume tackle the philosophical questions from these blockbuster films including: Was Anakin predestined to fall to the Dark Side? Are the Jedi truly role models of moral virtue? Why would the citizens and protectors of a democratic Republic allow it to descend into a tyrannical empire? Is Yoda a peaceful Zen master or a great warrior, or both? Why is there both a light and a dark side of the Force? Star Wars and Philosophy ponders the depths of these subjects and asks what it truly means to be mindful of the "living force."