Tomaz Grusovnik

We live in a time of unprecedented socio-economic inequality, exacerbated by climate change, unequal access to rapidly evolving technologies, declining democracy, and the growing power of totalitarian societies. In such a world, marginalised groups are at risk of becoming even more marginalised, often lacking the cultural capital necessary for social mobility. Schools, as Ivan Illich pointed out, play an ambivalent role here. Although often seen as a ladder that helps the poor climb out of their misery, education can also reinforce cultural differences through a hidden curriculum that favours affluent students with stimulating learning environments at home. Therefore, the educational system, if it is to be true to its goal of ensuring social justice, must strive to make the voices of the marginalised heard. That is why Prof. Arie Kizel's book Enabling Students’ Voices and Identities deserves the full attention not only of teachers of philosophy and Philosophy for/with Children (hereafter P4wC), but also of all educators committed to the democratic and social function of education.

Often the obstacle to the advancement of knowledge is our reluctance to accept new ideas. Active ignorance thus also plays an important role in unethical behavior. Yet, despite being widely recognized as a major factor in moral misconduct across the ethical spectrum, knowledge avoidance is plagued by a lack of clarity about the precise nature and characteristics of the epistemic phenomena it encompasses. First, these phenomena appear to be contradictory, since avoidance usually requires knowledge of what is to be avoided, and thus avoidance of knowledge seems impossible. Second, knowledge avoidance seems to be an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of different doxastic states. And third, the reasons and motivations for knowledge avoidance seem to encompass biological factors as well as ontological and psychological aspects. Drawing on both traditional and contemporary philosophical literature, the present paper aims to shed light on all these faces of knowledge avoidance by exploring problems related to its consistency, taxonomy, and etiology. The essay concludes with an examination of the moral dimensions of these phenomena. It explores the problem of responsibility and culpability, and even the potential benefits of knowledge avoidance.

Artificial intelligence and robotics have revolutionized slaughterhouse operations, allowing collaborative robots to reduce the physical and moral stress on butchers. However, animals remain an “absent referent” in the process, and the development of artificial intelligence in this field continues the trend of moral distancing present in killing. This dystopian scenario, in which machines endlessly breed and kill animals, and in which the avoidance of moral responsibility is aided by artificial intelligence so that effectively no one has to bear the burden of blame for their deaths, is a manifestation of the triumph of necropower.

Borders / Debordering: Topologies, Praxes, Hospitableness engages from interdisciplinary and transnational perspectives some of the most important issues of the present, which lay at the intersection of physical, epistemological, spiritual, and existential borders. The book addresses a variety of topics connected with the role of the body at the threshold between subjective identities and intersubjective spaces that are drawn in ontology, epistemology and ethics, as well as with borders inscribed in intersubjective, social, and political spaces (such as gender/sexuality/race, human/animal/nature/technology divisions). The book is divided in three sections, covering various phenomena of borders and their possible debordering. The first section offers insights into bordering topologies, from reflections on the U.S. border to the development of the concept of the “border” in ancient China. The second section is dedicated to practices as well as intellectual ontologies with practical implications bound up with borders in different cultural and social spheres – from Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka and Myanmar to contemporary photography with its implications for political systems and reflections on human/animal border. The third section covers reflections on hospitality that relate to migration issues, emerging material ethics, and aerial hospitableness.

Pogosto se domneva, da Wittgenstein o etiki, posledično pa tudi o religiji in estetiki, govori samo z ozirom na njihovo neizrekljivost. Ta članek skuša nasprotno pokazati, da Wittgenstein etično-religioznega diskurza nikakor ne izganja iz smiselne govorice, temveč mu, predvsem v svojih poznih letih, izkazuje globoko spoštovanje. Prvi del članka se osredotoči na razmislek o smiselnosti etično-religioznih stavkov, medtem ko se skuša drugi del v Wittgensteinovo etično-religiozno problematiko poglobiti vsebinsko; seveda z zavestjo, da sta oba dela povezana. V drugem delu, pri obravnavi Wittgensteinovih etično-religioznih prepričanj in concreto, ne moremo mimo njegove osebnosti, ki predstavlja način etičnega življenja. S tem pa se morda hkrati tudi oriše horizont, ki spaja različne načine mišljenja.It is commonly thought, that Wittgenstein speaks about ethics only with regard to their inability to be put to words. This article tries to show au contraire that Wittgenstein not only does not expel ethical and religious discourse out of meaningful language, but in fact shows a great deal of respect for it, especially in his later years. The first part of the article lays emphasis on thoughts about the sense of the ethical and religious propositions while the second part tries to enlighten Wittgenstein’s ethical and religious problematic from the point of view of its content, although keeping in mind that both parts are essentially interwoven. In this second part we cannot but mention Wittgenstein’s personality which represents a way of moral life. With this then we might have sketched a horizon which binds together diverse modes of thinking.

Despite readily available facts and figures regarding human-caused natural degradation, a large portion of the public still refuses to believe that the environment is suffering because of our actions. This refusal to believe, paired with a lack of environmental motivation, has become so evident that it recently attracted the attention of scientists and psychologists attempting to account for it from various perspectives. The disbelief in, for instance, climate change, is hard to explain without referring to a mechanism best described as “environmental denial”. Analysis shows that people may be prone to deny anthropogenic environmental damage because their personal identity, as well as the quest for meaning in their lives, depends upon a consumerist modus vivendi. Consciously or unconsciously faced with the dilemma of either accepting that this lifestyle endangers the life of the planet , and thus accepting its consequences and the responsibility for change, or refusing to believe that the environmental degradation is occurring in the first place, they choose the latter option. This choice is also motivated by the lack of sound alternatives around which new, “greener” identities could be built. Thus any attempt at changing public opinion regarding anthropogenic environmental degradation, as well as any strategy that advocates putting an abrupt end to our environmentally damaging practices, is not likely to be successful if it neglects to provide new footing for identity building.Allen bereitwillig verfügbaren Tatsachen und Zahlen hinsichtlich der menschenbedingten Naturgefährdung zum Trotz verschließt sich weiterhin ein Großteil der Öffentlichkeit der Gewissheit, dass die Umwelt unter unserem Vorgehen zu leiden bekommt. Diese Einsichtsablehnung, gepaart mit dem umweltlichen Motivationsmangel, wurde derart offenkundig, dass sie das Augenmerk der Wissenschaftler und Psychologen auf sich gerichtet hat, die bemüht waren, sie aus diversen Blickwinkeln auszudeuten. Beispielshalber lässt sich der Unglaube an dem Klimawandel nur mühsam darlegen ohne Berufung auf den Mechanismus, der aufs Beste als „ökologische Leugnung“ bezeichnet wurde. Die Analyse deutet darauf hin, die Menschen seien geneigt, anthropogene Umweltschäden zu bestreiten, weil deren persönliche Identitäten samt ihrer Suche nach dem Sinn des Lebens auf den konsumorientierten Modus Vivendi angewiesen sind. Bewusst oder unbewusst dem Dilemma gegenübergestellt – entweder einzuräumen, ein derartiger Lebensstil setze das Dasein auf dem Planeten aufs Spiel und daher dessen Konsequenzen bzw. die Verantwortlichkeit für den Umbruch zu akzeptieren, oder dagegen den Ablauf des Umweltniedergangs generell zu verneinen – entscheiden sie sich für die letztere Option. Eine solche Wahl ist desgleichen angeregt durch Knappheit an soliden Alternativen, um die frische, „grünere“ Identitäten aufgebaut werden können. Jedwedes Vorhaben, die öffentliche Meinung in puncto anthropogener Umweltbelastung zu beeinflussen, als auch jegliche Strategie, ein abruptes Ende der umweltschädlichen Verfahrensweisen zu befürworten, dürfte infolgedessen einen Misserfolg erleben, wenn sie es verfehlen sollte, neuen Boden für die Identitätserschaffung vorzubereiten

Razmatrajući pitanje globalizacije u kontekstu filozofije, tekst kreće u pomalo neočekivanom pravcu: ne promišlja o značenju i posljedicama procesa kojeg nazivamo ‘globalnim’ nego umjesto toga nastoji istražiti kakav je utjecaj globalizacije na filozofiju te teorijsku i literarnu produkciju. Umjesto pokušaja da odmah »misli globalizaciju«, tekst nastoji pokazati »što je globalizacija učinila mišljenju«. Za ilustraciju toga nastojanja uzet će se u obzir tri glavna područja koja treba istražiti: Afrika, Latinska Amerika i Indija. Ta su područja izabrana jer predstavljaju reprezentativne regije tzv. »Trećeg svijeta« ili »Globalnog Juga«. Osnovna ideja, preuzeta od P. Hountondijija, jest da filozofska i teorijska produkcija oponašaju onu ekonomsku, a fortiori, zapravo predstavljaju isti proces, što je prikazano na mnoštvu primjera. Nadalje, tekst nastoji pokazati da se usprkos velikim razlikama u hermeneutičkim gledištima, geografskoj udaljenosti i sukcesivnoj tradiciji, cijela filozofska/literarna produkcija »Trećeg svijeta« suočava sa sličnom sudbinom, što može biti posljedicom njena strukturalnog pozicioniranja u suvremenom »sustavu svijeta«. Autori koji dolaze iz »perifernih« područja teorijske produkcije ne suočavaju se samo sa sličnim problemima, nego, kako je u tekstu pokazano, također dijele slične ideje o tome što se može učiniti kako bi se minimalizirala i izjednačila neravnoteža i asimetrična pozicija njihovih kultura

This paper has a twofold aim: first, it explores possible causes, or reasons, for emergence and existence of philosophical traditions, and second, based on the results of this first examination, it tries to deduce what are the consequences, or prospects, of branching off of philosophical thought for philosophical activity itself. In looking for causes for the upspring of various thought-traditions, the paper focuses on an ‘external view’ approach, borrowing the label from W. James. In ‘Upshot’ it presents prospective orientation of James’ philosophy and his reconciling idea of ‘deep agreement’ between diverse philosophical currents.