Alexei Procyshyn

A longstanding interpretative problem for readers of Fear and Trembling concerns faith’s apparent paradoxicality. Interestingly, interpreters have yet to reach a consensus about where to locate the paradox. Proceeding from recent efforts to dissolve the apparent paradoxicality of Kierkegaard’s ‘faith’ by showing that it does not entail inconsistent epistemic commitments, I argue that faith exhibits a linear, developmental path, despite arguments to the contrary. This developmental path, I show, is a function of silence. By foregrounding the role silence plays in the development of Kierkegaard’s ‘faith,’ I demonstrate that its paradoxicality is not engendered by the consistency of one’s epistemic outlook or a linear development from ‘The Aesthetic’ through ‘The Ethical’ to ‘Faith’. Rather, the paradox concerns a substantive sense of freedom. This freedom, which becomes thematic for us in experiences of silence and despair, clarifies the paradoxicality of faith, its linear development, and suggests a substantive difference between wisdom and faith that some interpreters overlook.

ABSTRACT I argue that Haslanger’s account of ideology in ‘Cognition as a Social Skill’ does not seem to possess the normative resources it needs to diagnose non-distributive forms of social injustice without begging the question. This outcome is due to two interconnected problems: first, Haslanger misidentifies the core of human sociality as social coordination rather than social cooperation; second, her account succumbs to the kind of normative confusion Nancy Fraser diagnoses in Foucault’s work. These problems, I contend, stem from her model of behaviour, wherein social actors represent and intervene in their world for the sake of their prudential interests. Drawing on Habermas, I indicate why models of strategic action like Haslanger’s are insufficient for identifying ideology or engaging in social criticism.

This essay offers a comparative analysis of the notion of trust in Hegel and Confucius. It shows that Hegel’s two senses of trust depend upon his theory of recognition and recognitive struggle. The competitive thrust of Hegel’s account of trust, it argues, introduces a series of problems that cannot be adequately resolved within his theory, since it presupposes the kinds of trusting relations—self-, intersubjective- and world-trust—that it purports to explain. This essay then turns to the Confucian notions of xin 心 and li 理 to address the problems in the Hegelian account. It concludes by outlining the Confucian account’s salience for critical social theory.

Although he is usually understood to be an immanent critic who belongs to the first generation of the Frankfurt School, Walter Benjamin’s thought is much more heterodox than typically acknowledged. In this paper, I draw attention to one of Benjamin’s most heterodox tendencies. I show that Benjamin problematizes on the animating idea of immanent critique, i.e., that one can move from an object given in experience to the implicit concept of that object in order to assess the fit between concept and object. Benjamin develops his objection to this idea in his 1916 response paper “Eidos und Begriff.” In it he criticizes P. F. Linke’s account of givenness by showing that what is given in experience and what is essential to it are not identical. What is essential to first order experience, moreover, is quite distinct to what is essential for discursively structured reflection. And hence one cannot unproblematically move from what is given in experience to the concepts underwriting it. This leads Benjamin to develop a pragmatic and expressive alternative to semantic ascent, and hence to immanent critique.

ABSTRACT This article contributes to methodological debates in contemporary critical theory regarding the scope and features of immanent critique. I spell out the philosophical commitments presupposed by this approach to criticism and identify its basic features by comparing it with more recognizable argumentative or interpretative strategies. This comparison yields three immanent-critical requirements – for inherence, contradiction, and access – which bring into relief the heuristic and ampliative character of immanent criticism. Yet, these requirements also imply that “immanent critique” is not a method in any strict sense, since they are multiply interpretable and hence generative of distinctive critical comportments.

Two trends have emerged in recent work from the Frankfurt School: the first involves a reconsideration of immanent critique’s basic commitments and viability for critical social theory, while the second involves an effort to introduce temporal considerations for social interaction into critical theorizing to help make sense of the phenomenon of social acceleration. This article contributes to these ongoing discussions by investigating whether social systems theory, in which temporal relations play a primary role, can be integrated with immanent critique. If such a synthesis were successful, it would promise to unify two distinct forms of social theorizing that have often been taken to be orthogonal or incommensurate since the debate between Luhmann and Habermas in the 1970s. The investigation proceeds in three parts: first, the article delineates immanent critique’s conditions of success; second, using these conditions, it identifies potential points of contact between social systems theorizing and immanent critical forms of analysis, while exemplifying these commonalities via a case study; finally, the article argues that, although immanent critique is not a strict method of analysis or investigation, its success conditions preclude social systems theory on the grounds that the latter approach cannot anchor itself within the context of analysis in the way ‘immanent critique’ requires.

Focusing on Walter Benjamin's earliest pieces dedicated to school reform and the student movement, this article traces the basic critical approaches informing his mature thought back to his struggle to critically implement and transform the theory of concept formation and value presentation developed by his Freiburg teacher, Heinrich Rickert. It begins with an account of Rickert's work, specifically of the concept of Darstellung (presentation) and its central role in Rickert's postmetaphysical theory of historical research (which he characterizes as exclusively concerned with the Kantian quid juris). It shows that Rickert develops a speculative but practical theory of value recognition, which nevertheless leaves the status of value itself undetermined. Contra Rickert, Benjamin returns to the ignored quid facti, or origin of value, and shows that a metacritical, postmetaphysical approach such as Rickert's ultimately limits possible experience rather than grounding it. This basic insight, it is argued, is the cornerstone of Benjamin's concept of critique

In this article, I reconstruct Walter Benjamin's philosophy of language and refine the non-predicational view of meaning often attributed to him. By situating his 1916 essay ‘On Language as Such and on the Language of Man’ within the context of his struggle with Russell's paradox and its implications for phenomenology, I show how Benjamin arrives at his conception of non-conceptual content as an environmentally embedded affordance that is directly apprehended by appropriately situated and capable agents. This affordance-like character of meaning explains Benjamin's account of communication, Adamic naming, and his famous distinction between linguistic and spiritual essences (sprachliche- and geistige Wesen). I conclude by showing why translation is central to his views on expression and communication and how it reinforces his account of language-use