Kyle Peters

ABSTRACTThis article investigates Rancière’s understanding of the Heideggerean conception of art. It argues that Rancière is mistaken in categorizing Heidegger’s philosophy of art within the ethical regime of images, and further that his work corresponds with the central tenets of, and thus should be categorized within, the aesthetic regime of art. This is because art is understood as art, for Heidegger, when it instigates strife between world—the network of associations which constitute the horizons of a given population’s perceptual, conceptual and motor possibilities—and earth—the necessarily resistant to explicit conscious acts and signification. Insofar as it is constituted by this dual relation, art puts forth a dialogically open space in which it paradoxically reinforces the boundaries of seeing, thinking and doing, yet remains heterogeneous to these modes, thereby preventing art from being reducible to the everyday. This paradoxical role, this articulation and reconfiguration that establishes a unified-character of the arts for Heidegger, performs a function that is best framed within the aesthetic redistribution-based transformative conception of art. This is because in both Heidegger and the aesthetic regime, the dialogically open space granted to art allows for cultural revolutions and paradigm shifts to take place in an indeterminable manner.

This paper situates Watsuji Tetsurō’s philosophical conception of “climate” within the context of both its historical development and its critical reception by Watsuji’s Kyoto School peers. Part one moves across lecture notes, articles, and book editions to historicize and contextualize climate within its four aspects of development: cultural history, hermeneutic phenomenology, “relational in-betweenness,” and socio-historical development. Part two develops critical responses to each of these four aspects by Watsuji’s Kyoto School peers: Nishida Kitarō, Miki Kiyoshi, Hayashi Tatsuo, Tosaka Jun, and Nakai Masakazu. It ends by briefly considering how these historical and critical considerations might serve as guideposts for contemporary philosophical reconstructions of climate.

This article situates Watsuji Tetsurō's philosophical conception of "climate" within the context of both its historical development and its critical reception by Watsuji's Kyoto School peers. Part one moves across lecture notes, articles, and book editions to historicize and contextualize climate within its four aspects of development: cultural history, hermeneutic phenomenology, "relational in-betweenness," and socio-historical development. Part two develops critical responses to each of these four aspects by Watsuji's Kyoto School peers: Nishida Kitarō, Miki Kiyoshi, Hayashi Tatsuo, Tosaka Jun, and Nakai Masakazu. It ends by briefly considering how these historical and critical considerations might serve as guideposts for contemporary philosophical reconstructions of climate.

In Nishida Kitarō's Philosophy of Life, Tatsuya Higaki offers a highly novel and compelling reading of Nishida's philosophy by placing it in dialogue with the life philosophy of Henri Bergson and Gilles Deleuze. The philosophical core of the book consists of six chapters, chronologically proceeding from Nishida's early work on "pure experience" in 1911, through middle and late-middle period concepts like "self-awareness," "place," "absolute nothingness," and "acting intuition," and finally to his late-period work on "absolute contradictory selfidentity" before his death in 1945. Despite this terminological diversity, Higaki reads such "slogans" together in terms of Nishida's more fundamental orientation towards...

Nishida Kitarō's account of authorship and artistic production constitutes the focus of this essay.1 Its general thesis is that Nishida's keen attention to the subjective qua objective, active qua intuitive intersection can be used to articulate a new, bidirectional account of artistic production. This essay uses this bidirectional account to engage critically with those unidirectional interpretive procedures grounded in the life or death of the Author.2 It takes up the former as it privileges the subjective conditions of production, reducing text and historical moment to a derivative of the "Author" and its life, and the latter as it privileges the objective conditions of production, subsuming text and author into...