Adnan Akan

This article examines intentionality's unstable role in Descola's comparative ontology, where it shifts between an antepredicative condition of world-disclosure and a capacity attributed to some beings. It asks whether the interiority–physicality matrix of Par-delà nature et culture can claim relative universality without reinstating the dualism it provincializes. Methodologically, it synchronically reconstructs six functions of intentionality in Par-delà, using Descola's later works and interviews as selective retrospective controls, then tests this architecture through Merleau-Ponty's operative intentionality across the four ontological regimes: naturalism, animism, totemism, and analogism. The article argues that phenomenological grounding is unnecessary for the typology's heuristic usefulness but necessary for its antepredicative justification. Because embodied world-openness precedes reflective mental attribution, interiority and physicality dissolve as independent constitutive variables while remaining second-order comparative terms. This non-ranking reformulation proposes no fifth ontology; instead, ethnographic forms of distributed agency provincialize phenomenology's bounded subject, establishing a reciprocal transformation between anthropology and phenomenology.

Este artículo reinterpreta la metáfora de las luciérnagas desaparecidas de Pier Paolo Pasolini a través del tiempo mesiánico de Giorgio Agamben y la ética de la mirada de Georges Didi-Huberman. Se argumenta que dicha metáfora no fundamenta una elegía por la pérdida, sino una política de la imagen. El brillo tenue e intermitente de la luciérnaga se convierte en modelo para una práctica visual resistente que opera dentro de la oscuridad de la modernidad, transformando la catástrofe en un umbral para nuevas formas de testimonio y acción política.

This paper examines Giambattista Vico’s Scienza Nuova as an epistemological alternative to the algorithmic rationality underlying artificial intelligence. Grounded in Vico’s verum-factum principle that humans can only truly know what they have created, it argues that data-driven models distort knowledge by detaching it from its historical and creative origins. Through a comparative analysis of Baconian empiricism and Cartesian rationalism, the study demonstrates how Vico synthesises these traditions into a hermeneutic methodology centred on the mondo civile: the human-made world of meanings, laws and institutions. By uniting philologia (the domain of historical particulars) with philosophia (the pursuit of universal truths) within a dynamic interpretive circle, Vico establishes the autonomy of the human sciences against technological reductionism. His concepts of sensus communis (communal understanding) and ingenium (contextual judgment) reveal why algorithms can simulate but not comprehend meaning. The article concludes that Vico’s human-centred framework offers an indispensable foundation for preserving interpretive understanding in the digital age.

This article examines the relationship between Rousseau’s thought and the anarchist tradition, focusing on the points of convergence and divergence between his conceptions of the state, freedom, and social order. While Rousseau aligns with the anarchist critique of private property as a source of inequality, he remains firmly committed to a collective sovereignty rooted in republican principles. Through a comparative and critical analysis, the study seeks to elucidate the similarities and differences between Rousseau’s ideas and those of key figures in anarchist theory, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Henri Roorda, Murray Bookchin, and John Zerzan. The central thesis posits that, although Rousseau cannot be fully assimilated into the anarchist tradition due to his affirmative conception of political power, his critiques of inequality, civilization, and modern social structures — coupled with his radical orientation — establish him as a significant precursor and a major source of inspiration for anarchist thought.

This article explores Zygmunt Bauman’s view on moral responsibility, in a fluid world, focusing on the postmodern perspective on morality which is not based on ethical codes. The aim is to demonstrate how modern morality, influenced by power structures, is shaped by adiaphoric regulations that distort the individual’s relationship with the Other. This is achieved by first examining Bauman’s concept of adiaphorization, and then briefly reading it alongside Agamben’s homo sacer while analysing Jonathan Glazer’s film, The Zone of Interest, as a concrete example of moral indifference to illustrate how adiaphorization operates within ethical frameworks. The study argues that mechanisms such as the Holocaust were facilitated not only through the ‘suspension of law’ but also through adiaphorization, ‘suspension of morality’ – not a Baumanian term but our coinage – via what is here termed the destabilization of responsibility: the structural dispersal and fragmentation of moral accountability.

Straipsnis tyrinėja Zygmunto Baumano požiūrį į moralinę atsakomybę takiame pasaulyje, akcentuojant postmodernistinį žvilgsnį į moralumą, kuris neparemtas etiniais kodeksais. Straipsnio tikslas yra parodyti, kaip, paveiktas galios struktūrų, šiuolaikinis moralumas yra formuojamas adiaforinio reglamentavimo, iškraipančio individo santykį su Kitu. Tai pasiekiama visų pirma nagrinėjant Baumano adiaforizacijos koncepciją, o tuomet trumpai sugretinant ją su Agambeno homo sacer samprata, analizuojant Jonathano Glazerio filmą Interesų zona (angl. The Zone of Interest), kaip konkretų moralinio abejingumo pavyzdį. Taip atskleidžiama, kaip adiaforizacija veikia etinėse schemose. Šiame tyrime teigiama, kad tokie mechanizmai kaip Holokaustas lengviau funkcionavo ne tik todėl, kad „įstatymas buvo suspenduotas“, bet taip pat ir dėl adiaforizacijos, „moralės suspendavimo“. „Moralės suspendavimas“ yra ne Baumano terminas, o šiame straipsnyje nukaldinta sąvoka, kuria norima įvardyti atsakomybės destabilizaciją – moralinės atsakomybės struktūrinį išsklaidymą ir fragmentaciją.

Timaios diyalogu, genellikle Platon’un kozmolojik ve teolojik bir metni olarak ele alınır. Metin ilk bakışta evrenin ve insanın kökeni sorununu Tanrı’nın mahiyeti çerçevesinde ele alan bir diyalog olmasına karşın temelde etik-politik değerlerin kozmik bir anlatıya ve Tanrı’nın varlık ve niteliğine dayanılarak savunulmasını içerir. Bununla birlikte Platon’un metafizik sisteminde insan-polis-kozmos birbirinden kopmaz bir şekilde bağlantılı bir duruma sahiptir. Bundan ötürüdür ki Timaios diyalogu etik-politikanın kozmoloji ve teolojiyle iç içe geçtiği bir metindir. Bizim göstermek istediğimiz evrenin kuruluş sürecinin nasılından ziyade bu anlatının ‘niçin’i ve kozmostaki düzenliliğin ereği ile Platoncu etik-politik kavrayışın kopmaz ilişkisidir.

Çağdaş dönemin dikkat çekici Fransız filozoflarından olan Alain Badiou, felsefeyi ve onun temeli olan hakikat fikrini her türlü son iddiasına karşı muhafaza etmeye çalışır. Bu muhafaza, ne tutucu bir tavır ne de felsefe tarihine yönelik bir nostalji değildir. Felsefenin dört temel koşulu ve içinde bulunulan çağ dikkate alınarak gerçekleştirilen bir muhafazadır. Badiou, çağın sosyo-kültürel, ekonomi-politik sorunlarının yanı sıra felsefenin içinde bulunduğu krizle hesaplaşabilecek bir felsefi tavır sunmaya çalışır. Dolayısıyla felsefenin ne olması gerektiğinin belirlenmesi çağın çeşitli felsefi eğilimleriyle veya felsefeye dair yaklaşımlarıyla hesaplaşılmasını gerektirmiştir. Bu gereklilik Badiou’yu felsefenin tanımını, gayesini, arzusunu ve koşullarını açıklamaya taşır. Nihayetinde Badiou’da felsefe, Nietzsche, Heidegger ve Wittgenstein’ın etkisi altındaki çağdaş sofizme karşı çağdaş Platonculuk’tur.Alain Badiou who one of the remarkable French philosopher of contemporary period is tries to maintain philosophy and its basis is the idea of truth against the every claim of last. This preservation is nor a conservative attitude or not a nostalgia for the history of philosophy. It is realized by take into consideration the four basic condition of philosophy and in the current era. Badiou is trying to submit a philosophical attitude that it will be able to deal with the crisis of philosophy as well as socio-cultural, economic and political problems of era. Consequently determination of what philosophy should be is required to struggle with the philosophy trends of era and approaches to philosophy. This requirement is lead Badiou to explain to definition, purpose, conditions of philosophy and desire for philosophy. As a result the philosopy of Badiou is contemporary Platonism opposite to contemporary sofism which under the influence of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein.