Философия
Различные книги в жанре ФилософияEssays in the Philosophy of History
Published posthumously in 1965, this book contains various essays by R. G. Collingwood concerning history, philosophy, and their relationship. The essays mostly concern the idea of a 'philosophy of history', exploring its aims, limitations, and relevance. Highly recommended for students of philosophy and collectors of vintage literature of this ilk. Contents include: “Croce's Philosophy of History”, “Are History and Science Different Kinds of Knowledge?”, “The Nature and Aims of a Philosophy of History”, “Oswald Spengler and the Theory of Historical Cycles”, “The Limits of Historical Knowledge”, “A Philosophy of History”, “A Philosophy of Progress”, etc. Robin George Collingwood, FBA (1889 – 1943) was an English historian, philosopher, and archaeologist most famous for his philosophical works including “The Principles of Art” (1938) and the posthumously-published “The Idea of History” (1946). This fascinating volume will appeal to those with an interest in Collingwood's seminal work, and is not to be missed by students of philosophy and art. Many vintage books such as this are increasingly scarce and expensive. It is with this in mind that we are republishing this volume today in an affordable, modern edition complete with a specially-commissioned new biography of the author.
The Twilight Zone and Philosophy
A third revival of the Twilight Zone series is being produced by Jordan Peele for CBS All Access.
Iron Man vs. Captain America and Philosophy
Iron Man or Captain America? Which one is superior—as a hero, as a role model, or as a personification of American virtue? Philosophers who take different sides come together in <i>Iron Man versus Captain America</i> to debate these issues and arrive at a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of these iconic characters. The discussion ranges over politics, religion, ethics, psychology, and metaphysics.<br><br> John Altmann argues that Captain America’s thoughtful patriotism, is superior to Iron Man’s individualist-cosmopolitanism. Matthew William Brake also votes for Cap, maintaining that it’s his ability to believe in the impossible that makes him a hero, and in the end, he is vindicated.<br><br> Cole Bowman investigates the nature of friendship within the Avengers team, focusing predominantly on the political and social implications of each side of the Civil War as the Avengers are forced to choose between Stark and Rogers. According to Derrida’s <i>Politics of Friendship</i>, Cap is the better friend, but that doesn’t make him the winner!<br><br> Aron Ericson’s chapter tracks our heroes’ journeys in the movies, culminating with <i>Civil War</i>, where the original attitudes of Tony (trusts only himself) and Steve (trusts “the system”) are inverted.<br><br> Corey Horn’s chapter focuses on one of the many tensions between the sides of Iron Man and Captain America—the side of Security (Iron Man) versus Liberty (Cap). But Maxwell Henderson contends that if we dig deeper into the true heart of the Marvel Civil War, it isn’t really about security or privacy but more about utilitarianism—what’s best for everybody. Henderson explains why Iron Man was wrong about what was best for everybody and discloses what the philosopher Derek Parfit has to say about evaluating society from this perspective. Daniel Malloy explains that while both Captain America and Iron Man have faced setbacks, only Iron Man has failed at being a hero—and that makes him the better hero! In his other chapter, Malloy shows that where Iron Man trusts technology and systems, Captain America trusts people. Jacob Thomas May explores loss from the two heroes’ points of view and explains why the more tragic losses suffered by Stark clearly make him the better hero and the better person.<br><br> Louis Melancon unpacks how Captain America and Iron Man each embodies key facets of America attempts to wage wars: through attrition and the prophylactic of technology; neither satisfactorily resolves conflict and the cycle of violence continues. Clara Nisley tests Captain America and Iron Man’s moral obligations to the Avengers and their shared relationship, establishing Captain America’s associative obligations that do not extend to the arbitration and protection of humans that Iron Man advocates.<br><br> Fernando Pagnoni Berns considers that while Iron Man is too much attached to his time (and the thinking that comes with it), Captain America embraces-historical values, and thinks that there are such things as intrinsic human dignity and rights—an ethical imperative. Christophe Porot claims that the true difference between Captain America and Iron Man stems from the different ways they extend their minds. Cap extends his mind socially while Stark extends his through technology. Heidi Samuelson argues that the true American spirit isn't standing up to bullies, but comes out of the self-interested traditions of liberal capitalism, which is why billionaire, former-arms-industry-giant Tony Stark is ultimately a more appropriate American symbol than Steve Rogers. By contrast, Jeffrey Ewing shows that the core of <i>Captain America: Civil War</i> centers on the challenge superpowers impose on state sovereignty (and the monopoly of coercion it implies).<br><br> Nicol Smith finds that Cap and Shell-Head’s clash during the <i>Civil War</i> does not necessarily boil down to the issue of freedom vs. regulation but rather stems from the likelihood that both these iconic heroes are political and ideological wannabe supreme rules or “Leviathans.” Craig Van Pelt reconstructs a debate between Captain America and Iron Man about whether robots can ever have objective moral values, because human bias may influence the design and programming.<br><br> James Holt looks into the nature of God within Captain America’s world and how much this draws on the “previous life” of Captain Steve Rogers. Holt’s inquiry focuses on the God of Moses in the burning bush, as contrasted with David Hume’s understanding of religion. Gerald Browning examines our two heroes in a comparison with the Greek gods Hephaestus and Hercules. Christopher Ketcham supposes that, with the yellow bustard wreaking havoc on Earth, God asks Thomas Aquinas to use his logical process from <i>Summa Theologica</i> to figure which one of the two superheroes would be better at fixing an economic meltdown, and which one would be better at preventing a war.<br><br> Rob Luzecky and Charlene Elsby argue that gods cannot be heroes, and therefore that the god-like members of the Avengers (Iron Man, with a god’s intelligence; Thor, with a god’s strength, and the Hulk, with a god’s wrath) are not true heroes in the same sense as Captain America. Cap is like Albert Camus’s Sisyphus, heroic in the way that he rallies against abstract entities like the gods and the government.
Mr. Robot and Philosophy
Philosophers shine a light on the dark world of the hacker underground, corporate cybersecurity, and injustice in contemporary capitalist society as portrayed in the popular pessimistic techno-thriller, Mr. Robot.
An Introduction to Husserl's Phenomenology
Patocka's celebrated Introduction, here made available in English for the first time, is not an introduction in the ordinary sense of the term. Patocka ranges over the whole of Husserl's output, from The Philosophy of Arithmetic to The Crisis of the European Sciences , and traces the evolution of all the central issues of Husserlian phenomenology–intentionality, categorial intuition, temporality, the subject-body; the concrete a priori, and transcendental subjectivity. But rather than attempting to give a tour of Husserl's workshop, Patocka is himself hard at work on Husserl's problems.
This Is Ethical Theory
Ethical questions lie at the very heart of all philosophy, and no one is better equipped to untangle the many facets of ethical theory than respected thinker and professor Jan Narveson. Drawing from theoretical notions as well as everyday applications, Narveson simplifies these nuanced ideas for any beginning ethicist. Discussing theoretical elements ranging from intuitionism to naturalism, emotivism to metaethics, Narveson’s approach to this complex topic is one that any reader will find accessible.
The Philosophy of Human Nature
What, exactly, is human nature? What makes humans different from animals (if there is any difference)? In this book, Howard Kainz presents a philosophical analysis of the various concepts of human nature and the many controversies that have surrounded them for centuries. He explores issues such as whether human beings are truly free, whether human instincts differ from animal instincts, and the realities of human maturity.
Szasz Under Fire
Since he published The Myth of Mental Illness in 1961, professor of psychiatry Thomas Szasz has been the scourge of the psychiatric establishment. In dozens of books and articles, he has argued passionately and knowledgeably against compulsory commitment of the mentally ill, against the war on drugs, against the insanity defense in criminal trials, against the «diseasing» of voluntary humanpractices such as addiction and homosexual behavior, against the drugging of schoolchildren with Ritalin, and for the right to suicide. Most controversial of all has been his denial that «mental illness» is a literal disease, treatable by medical practitioners.In Szasz Under Fire, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other leading experts who disagree with Szasz on specific issues explain the reasons, with no holds barred, and Szasz replies cogently and pungently to each of them. Topics debated include the nature of mental illness, the right to suicide, the insanity defense, the use and abuse of drugs, and the responsibilities of psychiatrists and therapists. These exchanges are preceded by Szasz's autobiography and followed by a bibliography of his works.
Empiricism at the Crossroads
Rather than a monolithic movement of naïve empiricists, the Vienna Circle represented a discussion forum for what were sometimes compatible, sometimes conflicting philosophical approaches to empirical evidence. The Circle’s protocol-sentence debate — here reconstructed and analyzed — provides an exceptional vantage point from which to survey the various options and choices of the participants. Author Thomas Uebel mines the diaries, letters, and notes of the group’s leading philosophers to show how their ideas emerged from real-world arguments, personal relationships, and historical settings.
The X-Files and Philosophy
In The X-Files and Philosophy, thirty-six fearless philosophers seek for the truth which is out there, in here, at least somewhere, or (as the postmodernists claim) nowhere. One big issue is whether the weird and unexplained happenings, including the existence of entities unknown to traditional science, might really exist. And if they did, what would be the proper way to behave towards them? Some of these entities seem to flout conventional laws of nature—but perhaps we need to allow for different, as yet undiscovered, laws. If such fabulous entities really exist, what do we owe them? And if they don’t exist, why do we imagine they do? In The X-Files, regular science is represented by Scully and usually turns out to be wrong, while open-minded credulity or pseudoscience is represented by Mulder and usually turns out to be right, or at least somehow on the right track. Scully demands objective, repeatable evidence, and she usually gets it, with Mulder’s help, in astounding and unwelcome ways. What lessons should we take from the finding of The X-Files that respectable science is nearly always wrong and outrageous speculative imagination nearly always right?