Joanne Waugh

Analytic and feminist philosophers already uncomfortable with the practice of devoting special sessions at meetings and special issues of journals to "feminist aesthetics" may find that this piece adds to their uneasiness. If "feminist aesthetics" is treated as a special topic within aesthetics, then should we infer that the rest of the time we do masculine aesthetics? some feminists would argue for an affirmative answer to this question; the title acknowledges them in insinuating that if analytic aesthetics is not feminist aesthetics, then it might be (or must be) masculine aesthetics. This essay will consider whether "feminist aesthetics" and analytic aesthetics are congenial, or at least compatible, activities, and in so doing, explore what constitutes "feminist aesthetics."

The eight essays contained in Philosophical Feminism and Popular Culture explore the portrayal of women and various philosophical responses to that portrayal in contemporary post-civil rights society. The essays examine visual, print, and performance media — stand-up comedy, movies, television, and a blockbuster trilogy of novel. These philosophical feminist analyses of popular culture consider the possibilities, both positive and negative, that popular culture presents for articulating the structure of the social and cultural practices in which gender matters, and for changing these practices if and when they follow from, lead to, or perpetuate discrimination on the basis of gender. The essays bring feminist voices to the conversation about gender where is it taking place and attest to the importance of feminist critique in what is sometimes claimed to be a post-feminist era.

As the initial book in the Feminist Constructions series, Feminists Doing Ethics broaches the ideas of critiquing social practice and developing an ethics of universal justness. The essays collected within explore the intricacies and impact of reasoned moral action, the virtues of character, and the empowering responsibility that comes with morality. These and other essays were taken from Feminist Ethics Revisited: An International Conference on Feminist Ethics held in October of 1999. Waugh and DesAutels bring to light in these pages work discussed at this conference that extends our understanding of morality and ourselves. Visit our website for sample chapters!

Book Reviews Andrea Wilson Nightingale, Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Pp. xiv + ~a~. Cloth, $49.95. This is an important and timely book. Nightingale argues that notwithstanding Socra- tes' remarks about dialectic as the philosophical mode of discourse, Plato uses tradi- tional genres in constructing philosophy. Key to her argument are two notions. The first is that prior to Plato, 'philosophy' referred to intellectual cultivation in the broad sense and consequendy, poets, sophists, playwrights, and orators had claim to the title "philosopher." The second is that "genres of discourse" be understood as referring not only to artistic forms or styles, but also to "forms of thought" that represent and conceptualize some aspects of experience better than others; therefore, "an encounter between two genres within a single text is itself a kind of dialogue" . Nightingale..

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.4 (2003) 553-554 [Access article in PDF] Ruby Blondell. The Play of Character in Plato's Dialogues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pp. xi + 452. Cloth, $75.00. Plato's dialogues were written before audiences distinguished philosophy from literature. Recently scholars have argued that the dialogues should be read as philosophy that is literature, and no one makes the case better than Blondell does in this splendid work. Her argument compels by focusing on character in the relevant senses: as the dramatis personae of the dialogues, as that which individuates them and prompts them to act in ways that affect their very souls, and as "the effects of literary characterization on the moral character of the audience" (2). Character connects the dialogues as "literature," "philosophy," and paideia.In Plato's careful delineation of the characters of his dramatis personae, Blondell finds a tension between the existence of human particularity and the search for generic types. Socrates is a prime example of the dialectical movement between particularity and its attempted transcendence. Plato's choice to write dialogues is also "an assertion of human plurality" (49) that exhibits the pathos of trying to transcend human experience. "Dramatic form... becomes a medium for exploring the limits of transcendence, and the multiple tensions—between ideal and particular, mind and body, original and image, one and many, being and becoming, divine and human, deduction and persuasion, reason and emotion—which pervade the works of Plato" (50). Blondell's discussions of how dramatic form serves epistemological and pedagogical aims in Hippias Minor, Republic, Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman are so rich in insight and nuance that one hesitates to suggest they could be improved upon. Still, greater emphasis on the historical and cultural contexts shared by characters, author, and audience might add to our understanding of Plato's preoccupation with these specific philosophical tensions as well as his choice to address them through dramatic form.Blondell's discussion of Theaetetus is especially good in showing how "abstract epistemological issues... play themselves out in the world of specific, particularized human beings.... [I]t is this personal dimension of epistemology—the fact that we are particular, embodied individuals—that generates most of the problems in this dialogue (especially the reliability and subjectivity of sense perception)" (252). That philosophy, epistemology, and pedagogy come to be identified with Socrates also generates problems. Can there be philosophy without Socrates? To become a philosopher, must one resemble Socrates? If philosophy cannot go on without Socrates, how can it realize its aim of transcending human particularity? If philosophy can go on without him, will its practice and pedagogy nonetheless require dialectical discussion among embodied inquirers?No character in the dialogues appears a more likely successor to Socrates than Theaetetus. He resembles Socrates in appearance and character, and Blondell notes that repeated references to the younger man's gentleness and courage, and to his training in geometry, recall nothing so much as the guardians of the Republic. Theaetetus is the right kind of interlocutor, and one that allows Plato to portray—and defend—the elenchic Socrates, who merges with the "productive" Socrates in this dialogue. Before meeting Socrates, Theaetetus's attempts at philosophy were unsuccessful because he needed someone like himself to help him realize his philosophical potential. Socrates offers himself as [End Page 553] an intellectual midwife, yet Blondell observes that, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, he sometimes assumes the position and privileges of a father, and at other times is identified with philosophy as the object of desire. As an intellectual parent, Socrates demonstrates his superiority to Theodorus as the orphan's guardian. That Theodorus was Protagoras's pupil suggests one line of descent for Theaetetus: Protagoras—Theodorus—Theaetetus. Socrates' invocation of Parmenides suggests another: Parmenides—Socrates—Theaetetus. Different lines of descent bring different kinds of pedagogy: passive transference from Sophist to pupil versus active learning through dialectical discussion.But there is more to being a philosopher than what is found in Socrates or Theaetetus, for the ideal philosopher as Socrates describes him lacks...

In this international and interdisciplinary collection of critical essays, distinguished contributors examine a crucial premise of traditional readings of Plato's dialogues: that Plato's own doctrines and arguments can be read off the statements made in the dialogues by Socrates and other leading characters. The authors argue in general and with reference to specific dialogues, that no character should be taken to be Plato's mouthpiece. This is essential reading for students and scholars of Plato

Nietzsche exempts Heraclitus from the charge levelled at other philosophes that in denigrating the senses and the body, and in dehistoricizing concepts, they kill them and stuff them, turning them into mummies. Nietzsche’s admiration of Heraclitus is not surprising in light of the resemblances between the two writers, not the least of which is that they inspire so many divergent, and contradictory, readings. As it becomes increasingly clear—thanks to Nietzsche and to those whom he inspired—that much more is contingent than we had thought, one hesitates to make too much of stylistic coincidence. Still it is worth exploring whether there is a connection between the style, structure, and content of what they wrote, and the extraordinary range of readings ascribed to the writings.

In Historied Thought, Constructed World, Joseph Margolis identifies the philosophical themes that will dominate philosophical discussions in the twenty-first century, given the recognition of the historicity of philosophical thought in the twentieth century. In what follows I examine these themes, especially cognitive intransparency, and the arguments presented in favor of them, noting the extent to which they rest on a view of language that takes a written text, and not speech, as the paradigm of language. I suggest if one takes speech as a mutual embodied action in a shared space as a model for language, the theme of cognitive intransparency—and the problems it brings in its wake—does not loom so large for those of us working in the history of philosophy. I conclude by showing that if we adopt this suggestion in relation to early Greek philosophy, that is, the period in the history of historied thought in which philosophy itself emerges as a linguistic and intellectual activity, we can better understand how and why philosophy emerged as it did—in the form of dialogues by Plato.

Nietzsche exempts Heraclitus from the charge levelled at other philosophes that in denigrating the senses and the body, and in dehistoricizing concepts, they kill them and stuff them, turning them into mummies. Nietzsche’s admiration of Heraclitus is not surprising in light of the resemblances between the two writers, not the least of which is that they inspire so many divergent, and contradictory, readings. As it becomes increasingly clear—thanks to Nietzsche and to those whom he inspired—that much more is contingent than we had thought, one hesitates to make too much of stylistic coincidence. Still it is worth exploring whether there is a connection between the style, structure, and content of what they wrote, and the extraordinary range of readings ascribed to the writings.