Stefano Marino

In this article I focus on Jerold J. Abrams’ recently edited volume on Richard Shusterman’s somaesthetics and I assume as a starting point the concept itself of soma, widely cited and examined in various contributions collected in Abrams’ book. Then, I specifically concentrate my attention on one of the essays, the one authored by Stefán Snævarr, which connects in an interesting, original and sometimes also challenging way Shusterman’s thinking to some questions that have characterized the current debates in the field of the philosophy of mind. On this basis, in the final part of my short essay I try to offer some provisional remarks on the potential and mutually enriching dialogue between Shusterman’s somaesthetics and embodied, extended and enactive approaches to perception and mind, such as those, for example, of contemporary theorists like Andy Clark, Shaun Gallagher and Alva Noë.

In this paper I start with Adorno’s famous and provocative statement “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”, aimed at asking whether art was still possible in the age of genocides. Then, I take into examination Adorno’s concept of commitment in art – which is closely related to these questions - and the meaning itself of the notion of “Auschwitz” in Adorno’s philosophy. Analyzing what Adorno called “true” art (i.e. art provided with a relevant “truth content”) leads to take into consideration what he understood vice-versa as false or untrue art, in particular mass culture and popular music. Adorno would have probably considered as a sort of blasphemy or heresy the idea itself to write and perform pop-rock songs about such subjects as genocide, but I argue that his views rely on some prejudices that negatively condition his philosophy of art and especially of music. The songs on the Armenian genocide written and performed by the heavy metal band System of a Down serve here as a profitable example that may be of help to foster a critical rethinking of some aspects of Adorno’s aesthetics.

Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer undoubtedly belong among the most important representatives of twentieth-century phenomenological hermeneutics, which represents, in turn, one of the major traditions within so-called continental philosophy. Respectively teacher and pupil, during their long and philosophically intense lives and careers Heidegger and Gadamer greatly contributed to the development of philosophical thought in our age, providing significant and often decisive contributions in various fields of philosophical inquiry. Their main works, Being and Time (1927) and Truth and Method (1960), respectively amount to the great "classics" of contemporary philosophy, both being extraordinarily influential books without which the history of twentieth- and also twenty-first century philosophy as we know it would not be conceivable. This book addresses a number of problems concerning aesthetics, metaphysics, language and philosophical anthropology, by focusing on Heidegger's and Gadamer's specific contributions in these fields, and by establishing fruitful and original comparisons between their views and those of other relevant thinkers of our time, such as Hannah Arendt, Richard Rorty and John McDowell. The book adopts a comparative approach that portrays the complex philosophical problems and concepts at the core of this investigation from various points of view, thus broadening the philosophical horizon, generating a more comprehensive perspective, and underlining the compatibility of different philosophical views.

The first scholarly discussion on the band, Pearl Jam and Philosophy examines both the songs (music and lyrics) and the activities (live performances, political commitments) of one of the most celebrated and charismatic rock bands of the last 30 years. The book investigates the philosophical aspects of their music at various levels: existential, spiritual, ethical, political, and aesthetic. This philosophical interpretation is also dependent on the application of textual and poetic analysis: the interdisciplinary volume puts philosophical aspects of the band's lyrics in close dialogue with 19th- and 20th-century European and American poetry. Through this widespread philosophical examination, the book further looks into the band's immense popularity and commercial success, their deeply loyal fanbase and genuine sense of community surrounding their music, and the pivotal place the band holds within popular music culture.

In this contribution we first sketch an outline of the concept of lifeworld (_Lebenswelt_), to introduce the readers to the guest-edited collection of essays _Varieties of the Lifeworld: Phenomenology and Aesthetic Experience_, special issue of the “Continental Philosophy Review.” We trace back the origin of the concept of lifeworld to Husserl’s late phenomenology, although also explaining (on the basis of the careful historical-conceptual reconstructions offered by some distinguished scholars of Husserl and the phenomenological movement) that the development of Husserl’s phenomenology of the _Lebenswelt_ was gradual and was connected, among other things, to the question of the natural world of experience. Then, quickly referring to Gadamer, Landgrebe, Fink and other authors belonging to the phenomenological tradition, we explain that different interpretations of the topic “Lifeworld” in Husserl’s thinking have been provided: In our view, this contributes to the fact that still nowadays this topic is a fascinating and philosophically stimulating one. Finally, making reference to more recent works by such authors as Figal, Gallagher, Zahavi and Shusterman (a pragmatist philosopher, whose somaesthetics is nonetheless very rich in insights that can be connected to phenomenological views of the body and its place in the world), we emphasize how the question concerning the lifeworld is still capable today to open a great variety of perspectives and plurality of paths for thinking, as testified by the essays collected in this guest-edited special issue of the “Continental Philosophy Review.”

In this article I outline a conception of translation as a human practice that is dia- lectical, reasonable and not entirely governed by rules. In my contribution I use a concept of dialectics that is general and broad, not connected in a strict way to a single thinker or a single paradigm of dialectical thinking, and that is aimed to emphasize that a translation work is always characterized by dualities, by the simulta- neous presence of different or even opposite dimensions that a good translator must take into account and be aware of. Following a stimulating insight offered by the Italian historian of philosophy and translator Franco Volpi, I attempt to investigate the particular form of reasonableness that a good translator must have and that can be understood in terms of sensitivity, tactfulness, know-how and respect for the otherness of the translated text. On this basis, following the suggestions offered by such different thinkers as Quine, Davidson, Benjamin and Gadamer about the partial indeterminacy and incompleteness of every translation and about the role played by interpretive components, I finally propose to understand translation as a human practice that, while necessarily relying on the possession of certain norms, methods or techniques, at the same time cannot be simply reduced to a mechanical application of rules. This leads me, in the final section of my article, to take into account Wittgenstein’s so-called rule-following paradox and to see if, how and to what extent it also applies to the specific case of translation.

The relation between critical theory of society and philosophical anthropology is a very interesting and exciting but also problematic one. On the one hand, since Hork- heimer’s seminal essay Remarks on Philosophical Anthropology critical theorists have always expressed a clear distaste for anthropological speculation. On the other hand, notwithstanding Adorno’s aim in Negative Dialectics to “vetoe any anthropol- ogy” and criticize “the question of man [as] ideological”, he frequently mentioned the project of a “negative anthropology” or “dialectical anthropology” as an important one. In this context, it is especially noteworthy that Adorno developed a significant philosophical and also human relation during the 1960s with Arnold Gehlen, one of the founders of 20th-century philosophical anthropology. In my contribution I will fo- cus on some aspects of the Adorno/Gehlen relation, mostly approaching this topic at a historical-philosophical level rather than at a strictly theoretical level, and offering some remarks on certain affinities between their aesthetic theories and also on cer- tain philosophical elements that emerge in a powerful and significant way from the public debates between Adorno and Gehlen that took place in the 1960s on radio and TV.

The concept of nature plays a decisive role in Adorno’s philosophy, and must be understood as part of a conceptual constellation that also includes the notions of myth, enlightenment, dialectics, fate, reason, conceptuality, knowledge, freedom, society, and history. In the first section we provide a general analysis of the role played by the concept of nature in Adorno’s philosophy. In doing so, we mostly concentrate on his works The Idea of Natural History, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Minima Moralia, Negative Dialectics, and also his 1964-65 lectures on History and Freedom. In the second section, then, we turn to Adorno’s aesthetics, which must not be merely understood as a philosophy of art but rather as a general theory of the aesthetic that also includes nature among its objects. On this basis, and by referring not only to Adorno’s posthumously published Aesthetic Theory but also to his 1958-59 lecture course on Aesthetics, we explain why, in our view, the question concerning natural beauty holds a special place in the whole of his aesthetics, and why this question is essential indeed in order to properly understand the general meaning, philosophical range and ultimate goals of his philosophical project.

This article deals with the question of the reception and “history of effects” of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. More precisely, in the present contribution I take into examination some original and influential “appropriations” of Kant’s third Critique in the context of 20 th -century and contemporary hermeneutics, providing both a reconstruction and a critical interpretation of the readings of Kant’s work provided by Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer and nowadays Günter Figal. In the first section I basically offer an overview of Kant’s conception of the power of judgment as an introduction to the topics investigated into detail in the following sections of this article. Then, I focus on the different interpretations of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment offered by the abovementioned hermeneutical philosophers, showing that, in a quite surprising and theoretically stimulating way, in the development of a phenomenological-hermeneutical aesthetics and/or philosophy of art from Heidegger to Gadamer up to Figal, we can observe a progressive shift from a sort of “disinterest” in Kant’s conception of aesthetics in favour of Hegel’s philosophy of art, to an explicit critique of the supposed subjectivization of aesthetics by Kant and its problematic consequences, up to a full-blown rehabilitation and retrieval of the significance of Kant’s treatment of beauty in the third Critique as still essential for any serious philosophical aesthetics.

Kant’s Critique of Judgment represents one of the most important texts in modern philosophy. However, while its importance for 19th-century philosophy has been widely acknowledged, scholars have often overlooked its far-reaching influence on 20th-century thought. This book aims to account for the various interpretations of Kant’s notion of aesthetic judgment formulated in the last century. The book approaches the subject matter from both a historical and a theoretical point of view and in relation to different cultural contexts, also exploring in an unprecedented way its influence on some very up-to-date philosophical developments and trends. It represents the first choral and comprehensive study on this missing piece in the history of modern and contemporary philosophy, capable of cutting in a unique way across different traditions, movements and geographical areas. All main themes of Kant’s aesthetics are investigated in this book, while at the same time showing how they have been interpreted in very different ways in the 20th century. With contributions by Alessandro Bertinetto, Patrice Canivez, Dario Cecchi, Diarmuid Costello, Nicola Emery, Serena Feloj, Günter Figal, Tom Huhn, Hans-Peter Krüger, Thomas W. Leddy, Stefano Marino, Claudio Paolucci, Anne Sauvagnargues, Dennis J. Schmidt, Arno Schubbach, Scott R. Stroud, Thomas Teufel, and Pietro Terzi.

In this article I take into examination Hannah Arendt’s original and influential “appropriation” of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment, providing both a reconstruction and a critical interpretation of it. In the first section I basically contextualize Arendt’s interest in this topic by showing that it is connected to her more general concern with the wider and more comprehensive question of the crisis of Western civilization. Then, in the second and third sections of my article, I offer an overview of Arendt’s conception of the crisis in culture and politics in the present age, and explain how this gradually led her to develop an original interpretation of Kant’s concept of Aesthetic Judgment in terms of a new and somehow unprecedented form of Political Judgment. The fourth section is dedicated to a brief excursus on Kant’s own treatment of the concept of Urteilskraft in some of his main works and some of his letters, in order to show that this concept for Kant has a broader and more complex meaning than one is sometimes used to think. Finally, in the fifth section I first focus on a few problematic aspects of Arendt’s “creative”, i.e. sometimes philologically inadequate, use of Kant’s concept of Aesthetic Judgment understood as a kind of Political Judgment, but then add that from a strictly philosophical point of view this interpretation has proved to be a very stimulating and enriching one, as testified by the fact that in the last decades it has produced a veritable Wirkungsgeschichte and has helped to develop the so-called “Paradigm of Judgment” in ethics and political philosophy.

The concept of second nature has a long and complex history, having been widely employed by several philosophers and even scientists. In recent times, the most famous thinker who has employed the concept of second nature, and has actually grounded his philosophical program precisely on this notion, is probably John McDowell. However, it is also possible to find some occurrences of the concept of second nature, “zweite Natur”, in Nietzsche’s writings, both published and unpublished. In this contribution I will develop a discussion of this important topic, the nature of the human being, in Nietzsche and McDowell, and attempt to establish a comparison between them on the basis of this concept. It is the guiding idea of this article that McDowell’s “Naturalism of Second Nature”, though representing one of the most original and indeed ambitious philosophical programs today, actually suffers from some problems in defining the peculiar nature of the human being, and that referring to some of Nietzsche’s ideas on this topic may be of help in order to broaden and strengthen McDowell’s own philosophical perspective. There is almost no reference to Nietzsche in McDowell’s several philosophical works, notwithstanding his great interest in, and his careful attention to, other authors belonging to the tradition of modern German philosophy, and nobody has inquired yet into the potential Nietzsche/McDowell relationship. The paper will trace the development of certain philosophical-anthropological insights from 19th- and 20th-century German thought up to the present age, and provide an original and relevant contribution both to the specific field of Nietzsche studies and to the more general domain of inquiries into contemporary philosophical problems. Comparing the ideas of Nietzsche/ McDowell on the question concerning the nature of the human being relationship is intriguing from a philosophical point of view and may lead to a better understanding of this subject and disclose new perspectives in this field. There is a lot of philosophical insight to be gained in comparing these two figures.