Kelly Louise Rexzy Agra

This paper takes off from a growing preoccupation in Western political-social philosophy on the thinkability of the materiality of change, that became most pronounced in Alain Badiou's philosophy of the event. It traces the development of the discourse of radical change tied to a materialist theory of subjectivity beginning from Badiou, down to the strong criticism posed against it by Slavoj Žižek. This is then followed by the discussion of Bruno Bosteels' potent defense of Badiou's philosophy. Finally, the last part takes off from this debate and highlights how this tension in Badiou's philosophy was possible in the first place. Using Adrian Johnston's key insight on pre-evental and post-evental time, this paper argues that Žižek and Bosteels respectively employ pre-evental and post-evental lenses in reading the relation of event to being. Furthermore, these two lenses are themselves the effect of the split readability of the event at the moment of its rupture: the parallax-effect that divides the event into two. This paper asserts that neither of the two is sufficient. Both are fundamental in outlining what sort of sustained disciplines are necessary before and after events take place.

The title of this paper namely ‘Ontology or Ethics: The Case of Martin Heidegger and Watsuji Tetsurô,’ in principle, if not in fact, aims at shedding light on the relation between ethics and ontology. As a thesis, this paper claims that their relation boils down to the question of the being of the human being, which consequently and necessarily serves as the departure point towards answering the problems of ontology and ethics. In trying to divulge the presuppositions underlying this claim, I will use Martin Heidegger’s phenomenological hermeneutics beginning from his analytic of Dasein and Watsuji Tetsurô’s ethics as the study of ningen.

In the age-old divide between philosophy and the arts, one can situate most compellingly Paul Ricoeur’s take on the narrative which best highlights the creative or even cathartic dimension of art, particularly literature, in the configuration of the self. He argues that a work of art is not a simple imitation, rather, it is always and already a creative imitation---a new take, a different rendering, a refiguration of reality that discloses multi-layered truths, referring to a world and projecting other possible worlds. Ricoeur follows Aristotle in this view on mimesis but he goes on to develop it into a triad of mimetic activity wherein one could draw an aesthetic and ethical import, as it treats a work of art as one that speaks of realities that are not immediately given nor could simply be encapsulated and reduced to logical and scientific descriptions. Ricoeur here is not simply making an apology of the arts, instead he is presenting the mediating role of the narrative in understanding human action and its meaning and ultimately, oneself, within the horizon of temporal existence. This paper is a reflection of Ricoeur’s portrayal of the narrative which echoes the reality that it is in the stories told and heard, written and read, lived and narrated wherein anyone can see that after all, the mystery of life and the joyful struggle for living is shared by everyone else. Through narration, imaginative and ethical variations, different worlds and ways of living are opened up. In recounting one’s life, one is able to form and share an understanding of oneself and one’s world, that is not substantial but rather dynamic, ever available to transform and be transformed.

What is Japanese philosophy? This paper will address this question, not by giving a survey of the works of Japanese philosophers or a definition of the subject matter of Japanese philosophy, but by attempting to present how it emerged as a distinct philosophical tradition—by sketching the controversies that gave rise to its formation; the social, intellectual, and historical factors that paved the way to its development; and the revolution of thought which finally gave it the title “Japanese philosophy.” I will argue that Japanese philosophy was born not because Japanese thinkers desperately wanted a philosophy that they could call their own, but because, first and foremost, they were thinking of ways to articulate the ever changing and paradoxical nature of reality. Formed by their religion and informed by the Chinese and Japanese classics, they used the language learned from the West and tried to answer the most fundamental questions of existence. A unique way of philosophizing thus emerged and became a true locus of dialogue between Eastern and Western thought.An Inquiry into the Historical Development of Philosophy in Japan.

Within this working context, this paper exammes how philosophy is situated within the horizon of circulated knowledge. Using Alain Badiou's discussion about the fate of philosophy after Hegel, this paper highlights three distinct phenomena: the end of philosophy, the linguistic turn, and the suture of philosophy to other disciplines. This paper argues that these three signal a paradigm shift in philosophizing, namely, the shift of orientation from the metaphysical to the finite. After the discussion about contemporary philosophy, this paper argues in the spirit of Badiou that philosophy's current form is incapable of addressing one of the most alarmmg crises in the world today, the crisis of subjectivity.