Hegel

"Teritoryal mantık uyarınca ülkenin ve bölgenin geçmişteki ruhunu yeniden canlandıran AKP, alt-emperyal arzuları siyasal düzey üzerinden kitlelere kendi çıkarlarına göre sunmaktadır. İlaveten, göstermelik diplomatik kavgalarla bu durumu güncelleyerek devam ettirmektedir. Kapitalist çıkarlar açısından öne çıkan iki ekonomik siyasa vardır: Birincisi, AKP, uluslararası tekeller için iç pazardaki doğrudan yabancı yatırım sınırlarını genişletmektedir. İkincisi, sermayenin mekânlaşmasını (AVM, otel, sağlık kampusu,vb.) ve mekânların metalaşmasını (HES) hiçbir hükümet döneminde olmadığı kadar hızlandırmaktadır. "
Sayı Editörleri: Bora ERDAĞI & Utku ÖZMAKAS

"...Werner Bonefeld’in “The Politics of Globalisation: Ideology and Critique” ( ) makalesinde “Tarih tam da öldüğü ilan edildiğinde sürprizlerle ortaya çıkar: Bu tarihin mi yoksa tarih yaratmanın mı ironisidir?”cümlesi herkesin dikkatini çekecektir. Ancak bu cümle siyasal düzeyde okura veya kitlelere motivasyon kazandırmak için propaganda amaçlı yazıldığı varsayılırsa kabul edilebilirdir. Çünkü küreselleşmenin uzamsal siyasetini “teorik” düzeyde inceleyen metindeki bu ibare, Marx’ın, 18 Brumaire ve Komünist Manifesto’daki iddialarının, Althusser’in bu metinleri tartıştığı John Lewis’e Cevap’taki argümanlarının yeniden gündeme gelmesine neden olur. “Tarihi yapan insandır, ancak verili koşullar altında” iddiası, siyaset felsefesinde belirli düşünürler tarafından çeşitli kavramlar etrafında sıklıkla tartışıldığı gibi dünyayı ve toplumu anlamaya çalışan, onu değiştirmeye çalışan Marksizm içinde de nice teorik kavgaların fitilini ateşlemiştir. Bir dilemma olarak tarif edilebilecek yapı ile özne arasındaki ilişkinin niteliği sorunsalı Sınıf, İnsan, Kurum kavramları etrafında tartışılır. Nitekim bu sorunsal tek tek her Marksisti iki kez düşünmeye sevk eder."
Sayı Editörleri: Onur Kartal & Savaş Ergül
http://kampfplatz.blogspot.com.tr/2012/10/1.html

AKP’nin buradaki kuruculuk algısı önemlidir. Kendilerini —çok sık tercih ettiği terimle— “Sessiz Devrimci” olarak gören ve Türkiye’nin milli menfaatleriyle özdeşleştiren AKP, mütemadiyen Kemalizm ile mukayese halindedir. AKP, Kemalist kurucu iktidarı Osmanlı’dan sonra yaşanan yabancılaşma evresinin katılaşması olarak görmektedir.  Kemalizm yerine AKP, Kemalizm öncesi siyasal-ideolojik kompozisyonunu önermekte ve bunu olumlamaktadır.  Çünkü Kemalizm, Osmanlı’nın tarihsel kazanımlarını boşa harcamış, bu kıymetli aşamaya yabancılaşmıştır. AKP’yi bu şekilde düşünmeye iten teorik ve tarihsel arkaplanı sağlayan faktör, Hegelci realist uluslararası ilişkiler teorisidir. Hegel’in devletlerarası anlayışında Weltgeist’a yani “dünya aklı”na giden yolda Volksgeist’a yani “ulusların aklı”na çeşitli misyonlar yüklenmiştir.

Tekst, każdy tekst, także filozoficzny, zajmuje miejsce; przychodzi po tekście i zamyka się przed tym, jaki po nim nastąpi. Jeśli wyobrazić sobie ogół wszystkiego, co kiedykolwiek zostało zapisane, niezmierzoną przestrzeń odciśniętych śladów, jaką Edmond Jabès nazywał Księgą, wówczas miejsce wyznaczone pojedynczemu tekstowi zdaje się zatrważająco skromne. Tak skromne, że tylko dzięki ochronnemu złudzeniu, pozwalającemu na chwilę nie widzieć bagażu przeszłości, w ogóle daje się zauważyć. W tej skąpej przestrzeni lokuje się piszący, którego zapomnienie osłania przed wszystkim, co już napisane; zapomnienie otwiera przed tekstem chwilę swobody, kierowanej nadzieją znalezienia jego własnego, wyjątkowego rozwiązania. Być może więc filozoficzne rozwiązanie przychodzi tylko dzięki niepamięci, która wykrawa dlań przestrzeń i odcina od rozwiązań już istniejących. Walter Benjamin sugerował niegdyś, że każde dzieło kultury okupione jest wyzyskiem i upokorzeniem pokonanych, którzy nie mają własnej, ciągłej i jasnej historii powszechnej, których historia tonie w mroku, stanowiąc drugą stronę tego, co z przeszłości się dla nas przechowało. Czy analogicznej pracy nie wykonuje wobec filozoficznego rozwiązania zapomnienie? Analogicznie do Heglowskiego Pana, staje ono między nieograniczoną przestrzenią nagromadzonych przeszłych sensów, z którą filozofia nie może bezpośrednio obcować, jak nie może wprost obcować ze śmiercią – a polem, jakie zostaje otwarte dla żmudnej pracy rozumienia. Filozoficzne rozwiązanie, jakkolwiek nie byłoby trudne, nie da się porównać z niemym, nieprzynoszącym bezpośrednich wyników, a jednak umożliwiającym je aktem zapomnienia. Praca rozumienia jest zatem możliwa dzięki zapomnieniu: możemy rozumieć tylko dlatego, że wpierw zapomnieliśmy. Ten wniosek lokuje się daleko od idei Platońskiej anamnezy, dla której wszelka wiedza stanowi „odpomnienie” wiedzy, która istniała wcześniej, lecz została zapomniana. Rozumienie nie jest odtworzeniem tego, co zapomniane. Filozoficzne rozumienie to unikalne rozwiązanie całości pewnego sensu, powstającego dzięki jednorazowemu wydzieleniu jego obszaru przez zapomnienie. I to ten obszar otwiera się przed nowym filozoficznym tekstem – zdefiniowany miejscem, jakie tekst ma zająć.

The paper proposes a theoretical division within the broadly defined postmodern thought, separating the discourse of postmodernism from postmodern thinking. The former is characterised by its inherent repetitiveness, participation in incessant debates concerning the issues of relativism, the “other” and pluralism, and is presented as a form of compromise between the challenges of post-Kantian philosophy and the desire to remain within the borders of a finite discourse. On the other hand, postmodern thinking seems to continue the vital currents of the philosophical avant-garde, in particular Nietzsche’s heritage. Attempting to maintain a sense of continuity with modern philosophy, it enters the realm of the impossible. Whereas postmodernism renounces in advance all claims to total understanding, producing a negative totality on its own, postmodern thinking seeks ultimate understanding only to experience its inevitable failure. In this indirect way it truly articulates the impossibility which postmodernism only declares, contradicting itself on the performative level. The paper argues that all arguments used by postmodernism are possible owing to the formation of its discourse, allowing it to voice directly what cannot be expressed but performatively.

The first chapter of Marx’s Capital reads as if it were impenetrable. Marx does not manifestly disclose the logic at work in this first chapter, but leaves it implicit, hiding in the background. The solution to the problem of reading chapter one of Capital is understanding the Hegelian dialectic. Firstly, through discerning the evolution of dialectics in Hegelian Marxism, and secondly, through understanding the basics of Hegelianism, chapter one in Capital becomes much more penetrable. Through the Hegelian Marxism of Mehmet Tabak, the idea is developed
that Marx posits man as the absolute for his social ontology in much the same manner that Hegel postulates God (or, the Idea) as the Absolute of all ontology. Chapter One is a negation of the concept of man. This is precisely the activity of labor, the essence of man. Value, use-value, exchange-value, the commodity, money, fetishism, etc. are demonstrated to be further determinations of the absolute category, labor. Man is the absolute subject that is selfdetermining, which unfolds into the concrete totality of the social world as an expansion of his
own being through activity. The social is nothing but the continuing development of man through himself, through his own labor.

In Spinoza and Hegel desire is defined as the very essence of everything and their philosophies provide us a perspective through which we can understand that the movements of our thoughts and bodies are taken actually movements of our desire. Besides, for both philosophers, freedom of desire can only be attained in an empowering social and political context. At this point, Spinoza and Hegel provide two different accounts of how desire becomes free in a socio-political structure. In Hegel, liberation is a process that starts with self-interested people’s struggle for recognition and reaches its climax in a society where different subjective wills, needs and abilities of people are integrated with each other through time and finally constitute a socially stratified Ethical Life in which every individual knows, wills and acts accordingly to the universal will. When it comes to Spinoza, we see that desire can become freer insofar autonomous individuals increase their joy by focusing on the commons. In this manner, Spinoza’s system suggests a political strategy, which eliminates unequal social conditions that make people torn by affects while Hegel takes differences as the basis and thus, freedom requires the integration of social classes that emerge from natural differences among people. Hence, it can be said that unlike Hegel’s recognition model that takes actual identity of individuals as given, Spinozian recognition focuses rather on what one can become. This suggests that Spinozian recognition model serves better for constitutive politics in practice because its socio-political ontology of desire always reminds us our being structures with a capacity to rebuild ourselves in a more liberatory way and avoid the risk of assuming asymmetrical subjection as freedom.

This volume is the first to adress in a comprehensive way one of the main issues raised by Nietzsche’s thought. “The Problem of Subjectivity” has become crucial in recent debates in Nietzschean scholarship and is key to understanding Nietzsche’s relation to the whole of modern philosophy, as well as his tremendous impact on philosophy from the time of his death till today. The collection assembles 25 essays by some of the finest Nietzsche scholars.

Nietzsche’s critique of subjectivity is often presented as a radical break with Modern Philosophy and associated with the so-called “death of the Subject” in 20th Century philosophy. But Nietzsche claimed to be a “psychologist” who merely tried to open up the path for “new versions and sophistications of the soul hypothesis”. The volume discusses these issues in four sections: I. “Tradition and Context” deals with the relation between Nietzsche’s views on subjectivity and the whole of modern philosophy (from Descartes to Hegel and Kierkegaard) and then with the late 19th Century context in which Nietzsche’s thought emerged; II. “The Crisis of the Subject” examines the impact of Nietzsche’s critique of the subject on 20th Century philosophy, from Freud to Heidegger to Luhmann, and is particularly focused on the “death of the Subject”, as discussed by such authors as Deleuze, Derrida, or Foucault; III. “Current Debates — From Embodiment to Agency” shows that the way in which Nietzsche engaged with such themes as the Self, Agency, Consciousness, Embodiment and Self-Knowledge makes his thought highly relevant for philosophy today, especially for Philosophy of Mind and Ethics.
Edited by João Constâncio, Maria João Branco, Bartholomew Ryan

1. Questioni preliminari: Entfremdung ed Entäußerung tra ermeneutica e filologia; 2. Prima forma dell’alienazione filosofica: l’intellezione pura; 3. Seconda forma dell’alienazione filosofica: l’Horror per la contraddizione; 4. Terza forma dell’alienazione filosofica: la disalienazione della filosofia come mero atto filosofico astratto.

INDICE DEL VOLUME:

PARTE PRIMA: APPARATI TEORICI

1- LETTERATURA E GIUDIZIO DI VALORE

1.1. Il giudizio e la legge di giudizio
1.2. Socrate e la bellezza
1.3. La libertà, la legge e l'omologazione
1.4. Dalla legge sociale alla legge di funzionamento. Ricerca, trasformazione e rifiuto
1.5. Rifiuto del canone e relativismo
1.6. La forma e il contenuto

2- DELL'IDEOLOGIA IN GENERALE

2.1. Gli Ideologues
2.2. Marx e l'ideologia come falsa coscienza
2.3. La ragione e il sentimento: ideologia e verità in Vilfredo Pareto
2.4. Antonio Gramsci: ideologia ed egemonia
2.5. Ferruccio Rossi-Landi: ideologia e semiotica
2.6. L'ideologia: una nuova formulazione concettuale
2.7. Carattere ultracapillare ma non assoluto dell'ideologia.
2.8. Gli ideologemi
2.9. Ideologia e scienza
2.10. Ideologia e Verità, un rapporto complesso.
2.11. Ideologie progressive e ideologie regressive: il problema storico-temporale.

3- IDEOLOGIA E LETTERATURA

3.1. I coefficienti artistici fondamentali

3.1.1. La sensibilità extra-ordinaria dell'artista. Farsi medesimezza umana.
3.1.2. L'intelligenza artistica
3.1.3. La Catarsi
3.1.4. L'esperienza
3.1.5. Lo strumento artistico
3.1.6. Il contenuto
3.1.7. Il mondo storico

3.2. Sulla natura del sentimento. Intrusione diretta e intrusione indiretta dell'ideologia.

3.3. La fantasia

3.4. Ideologia e letteratura

3.5. Ideologia e poetica

3.5.1. L'art pour l'art e il parnassianesimo
3.5.2. Il fanciullino
3.5.3. Ideologia del neorealismo

4- LE STRUTTURE LETTERARIE

4.1. La struttura di attitudine e riferimento
4.2. Le strutture di senso
4.3. Le strutture spazio/temporali
4.4. Strutture del conflitto
4.5. Le strutture di destino
4.6. Strutture stilistiche

PARTE SECONDA: PIANI DI ANALISI

1- REALISMO E IDEOLOGIA: LA GRANDEZZA DEI POEMI OMERICI

2- IL CONFLITTO TRA STREBEN ED AUGENBLICK NEL FAUST DI GOETHE

2.1. La vicenda di Margherita e la catastrofe del piccolo mondo
2.2. Il grande mondo
2.3. Mefistofele, l'Augenblick e il Regno animale dello Spirito
2.4. Il dottor Faust e lo Streben
2.5. Il conflitto tra Faust e Mefistofele come conflitto dell'umanità con se stessa.

3- LETTERATURA E IDEOLOGIE CRONOTOPICHE

3.1. Se una notte d'inverno spazio e tempo si sbriciolano. Calvino e i cronotopi postmoderni.
3.2. William Shakespeare, Joseph Conrad e lo spazio-tempo colonialistico.
3.3. Spazio e tempo tra realismo e ideologia. La potenza della letteratura.

BIBLIOGRAFIA