• Home
  • IDEAS
  • GROUPS
    • Classical German Philosophy and Phenomenology
    • The quarrel between the ancients and moderns
    • The quarrel between philosophy and poetry
    • Theories of Emotions
    • Philosophies of Image and Imagination
    • Utopia, the Political Myth, and Rebellion
    • The Philosophy of Nature
  • EVENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • ADMISSION
  • CONTACTS
  • CONFERENCES
    • 2016
      • Il tragico nella letteratura tedesca
      • Dialectic and the Ends of Reason
        • Schedule
    • 2015
      • CONVEGNO MELANCOLIA
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • CONFERENCE ON THE ANCIENTS
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • Immaginazione e Giudizio In Kant
        • Schedule
    • 2014
      • Hegel and the phenomenological movement
  • ODRADEK Journal

Tag Archives: Nietzsche

CFP: ODRADEK, vol. I, no. 2: The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

13 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by Danilo Manca in CFA-CFP

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aristotle, Borges, Dante, dichtende Vernunft, imagination, intellectual poetry, Leo Strauss, Leopardi, logos, Metaphernbildung, myth, Nietzsche, Omero, philosophy of literature, philosophy of poetry, Plato, politics, prose, Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy, Rancière, rhetoric, Schiller, Schlegel, sentimental poetry, Shakespeare, style of philosophy, thought, transcendental poetry, Valéry

Siamo lieti di annunciare l’uscita della call for paper per il secondo numero di Odradek, che sarà dedicato al tema “The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy” e curato da Danilo Manca e Alessandra Aloisi.

Submission open: 13th September 2015

Submission deadline: 15th December 2015

Call for papers

 The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

Editors: Danilo Manca and Alessandra Aloisi

 

When in Book Ten of The Republic Plato proscribes poetry from the city and refers to a long-standing quarrel between poetry and philosophy, he raises an issue that has since made its mark in the history of Western thought. The aim of this call for papers is to delve deeper into the original meaning of this quarrel, to evaluate the implications it has had for the Western way of thinking and writing, and to explore the different forms the quarrel has assumed, between poetry and philosophy, between literature and philosophy.

Plato’s treatment of poetry looks as resolute as ambiguous. Plato claims that the mimetic art is essentially an imitation of imitation. Accordingly, the work of art is a mere copy of the ideal model that nature already reproduces. Art is therefore seen as twofold far from the truth, whereas philosophy is the love for truth. Nevertheless, this does not hinder Plato from expressing his philosophical arguments by means of dialogues and myths. Could this ambiguity be solved? Is poetry, in Plato’s view, just an extrinsic aspect that the philosopher has at disposal to have a talk with the ordinary people, namely with the men who are still in the cave? Or, rather, is poetry a fundamental dimension belonging to philosophy itself?

Throughout history of Western thought many thinkers took a position on the Quarrel. For instance, Hegel claimed that Plato’s mode of representation belongs to an earlier stage of the concept’s development. By contrast, by employing the notions of “dichtende Vernunft” and “dichtende Denken” respectively, Nietzsche and Heidegger endorsed the idea that philosophy is essentially connected with the poetic production, that is with Metaphernbildung. Another way of understanding the Quarrel is to consider philosophy one of the tools the poet and the writer employ in order to reflect upon their artistic activity. Philosophy plays an important role in the compositional activity of the poet: such role would consist in making possible a meta-literature, that is, a poetry whose point at issue is its own nature. Examples of this are Schiller’s “sentimental poetry”, Schlegel’s “transcendental poetry”, and Borges’s “intellectual poetry”.

Thus, what is at stake in the quarrel between poetry and philosophy is the distinction between myths and logos, thinking in images and thinking in concepts, between the picturing and the inferential arguing, between the imitation of and the reflection upon reality.

To what extent could the poet’s activity be distinguished from the philosopher’s one? To put it in Aristotle’s terms, what does it mean to say that poetry is more philosophical than history because it deals with the universals? And, consequently, what is the relationship between the universals used by philosophy and the ones used by poetry?

In Phaedo, Socrates admits to have often been suggested in dreams to cultivate the art of the Muses. Even though he had always taken it to be an exhortation to do philosophy, only at the end of his life he understands that he was required «to compose myths, not simply to elaborate arguments». On a similar note is Giacomo Leopardi who claims that the greatest poets are also philosophers (e.g. Omero, Dante and Shakespeare) and that the greatest philosophers are poets (e.g. Plato), since imagination is an essential component of poetry as well as of philosophy.

Thus, if poetry and philosophy are activities that stand on the same footing, one may argue that Plato’s thesis against art and poetry, far from dealing with the problem of truth and its representation, has nothing but a political meaning.

By banishing poetry from the polis that is ruled according to philosophical principles, Plato was trying to prevent a free circulation of words and discourses that may divert bodies from their social and intellectual destination. As Jacques Rancière would put it, the reason why Plato himself told stories and invented myths was to justify a hierarchical order and to provide a foundation for a distribution of knowledge and positions which has no foundation itself. From this point of view, the “ancient quarrel” between poetry and philosophy, between falsehood and truth, appears to be nothing but the expression of the never-ending quarrel between equality and inequality, between democracy and hierarchical order. Not differently from philosophy, poetry is a way of using language and of “making” the truth; in other words, a way of thinking and of organizing reality that can rival the one that philosophy promotes.

Consider otherwise the political issue in Strauss’s terms: the genuine quarrel between philosophy and poetry is not concerned with “the worth of poetry” as such, but with the order in which philosophy and poetry should be ranked. According to Socrates, poetry is legitimate only as ministerial to the user par excellence, namely to the king who is a philosopher, and not as an autonomous enterprise. In this sense, the greatest example of ministerial poetry would be the Platonic dialogue because of its capacity to present the non-philosophical life as ministerial to the philosophical one.

The topic of the proposals might include, but need not to be restricted to:

  1. Any philosophical and/or poetic experience which has nourished and/or questioned the distinction between imagination and thought, myths and logos, and so on.
  2. The problem of the style of philosophy and the role of rhetoric in philosophy
  3. Limits and potentialities of a philosophy of poetry
  4. Features of a literature aiming to be philosophical
  5. Any political aspects entailed in the Quarrel.
  6. The distinction between verse and prose as decisive or not to distinguish poetry from philosophy.

Languages: English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish.

The paper can be submitted online via OJS – Open Journal System:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/index

Authors can find submission guidelines at the following link:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions

All papers will be reviewed according to our peer review process policy:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess

 

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
Like Loading...

CFA for International Conference

05 Saturday Sep 2015

Posted by Danilo Manca in CFA-CFP

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

adorno, Aristotle, criticism of dialectic, Desire, dialectics, dialettica, dialettica aristotelica, dialettica speculativa, ends of reason, Eros, filosofia storico-materialistica, fini della ragione, Freud, Intellect, intelletto, io razionale, just life, Kant, Materialism, metapsicologia, Metapsychology, Nietzsche, Nous, organismo, Plato, pulsione, reason, Speculativ Dialectic, teleologia, Teleology, theory of reason, Thinking

 

International Conference organized by Zetesis Research Group

DIALECTIC AND THE ENDS OF REASON

Pisa, June 2016

 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

 

Dialectic seems to have disappeared from the contemporary philosophical debate. Indeed, the various aspects of its past fortune – the theory of becoming, the central role of negativity in thought and reality, the critique of abstract negation and of rigid dualisms in every field of knowledge and praxis, a dynamic and developmental view of reason – have all been replaced or transfigured by alternative epistemologies, from time to time: philosophy of difference, hermeneutical movement, positivism, pragmatism, theories of complexity, phenomenology, biopolitics.

At the same time, an instrumental view of reason seems to have emerged and to have imposed itself: reason is generally conceived as a tool on behalf of independent ends and judgments. Other faculties and needs – be they individual or social – impose their own legislation upon it. According to such an instrumental paradigm, reason is the mere spectator of an activity taking place in other dimensions: sensation, passion, revelation, tradition, political authority, as well as life, history or language. By being useful only to the purpose of a confirmation of the formal coherence of propositions and interpretations, reason lacks all autonomous vocation or grip on the world.

In light of such a scenario, the conference brings forward the hypothesis that the possibility of a different conception of reason is historically and theoretically bound to the possibility of dialectics. From a dialectical point of view, reason has indeed its own interests, needs and manifestation powers, revealing itself through its cognitive and self-structuring attitude. According to this view, reason is not just a calculating tool led by external forces but moves itself by its internal ways of being and realization: dialectical reason is active by itself, and its goals are expressions of its own living interests.

The conference aims at rethinking and bringing back to the agenda the bond between reason and dialectic, between a thought able to measure up to contradiction and reason as an autonomous and free reality.

The topics of the papers might include, but need not be restricted to:

  1. The Relationship between Eros and Intellect in Plato
  2. The Scientific Status of Dialectic in Aristotle
  3. Kant’s Teleological Conception of Reason and its Dialectical Tendency
  4. Hegel’s Speculative Dialectic
  5. The Realization of Reason in Historical-Materialistic Philosophy
  6. The Dialectic of Drive and Rational Ego in Nietzsche and in Freudian Metapsychology
  7. Thinking, Desire and Just Life in Adorno
  8. 19th and 20th centuries’ criticisms to dialectic from the perspective of the theory of reason

The organizers strongly encourage the proposals of comparison between different authors of the dialectical tradition, as well as the attempts – aware of past criticisms and contemporary resistance – at a global redefinition and defense of the bond between dialectic and reason; thematic contributions on single concepts and authors will nevertheless be taken into consideration.

The official Advisory Committee of the Conference will be communicated in a later rejoinder of the call, as will be the dates. Submissions should be suitable for blind refereeing and consist of:

  1. An extended abstract of 600-800 words to be sent in pdf format to zetesis@unipi.it by March 1, 2016.
  2. A separate cover sheet including name, title of paper, affiliation, email address and contact details.

Notification of acceptance will be sent by the end of March. Contributions should be suitable for 30 minutes talk and can be submitted in English, Italian, German, French; however, all the non-English speaking contributors will have to supply a long abstract of their paper in English (no less than 1300 words).

 

For further information please write to zetesis@unipi.it

 

Conferenza internazionale organizzata da Zetesis Research Group

LA DIALETTICA E I FINI DELLA RAGIONE

Pisa, giugno 2016

 

 

Descrizione del programma

La dialettica sembra scomparsa dal dibattito filosofico contemporaneo. Teoria del divenire, ruolo centrale della negatività, fecondità della contraddizione, critica della negazione astratta e delle opposizioni rigide in tutti i campi del sapere e della pratica, visione dinamica ed evolutiva della ragione e dei contenuti concettuali: tutte le questioni che ne hanno sancito la fortuna sono state eclissate oppure trasfigurate da strategie epistemiche alternative, dalle filosofie della differenza all’ermeneutica, dal positivismo al pragmatismo e alle teorie della complessità, dalla fenomenologia alla biopolitica.

Parallelamente, sembra essersi saldamente affermata un’immagine strumentale della ragione: al servizio di scopi, valutazioni o modi di espressione imposti da altre facoltà o disposizioni della vita individuale e associata. Le sensazioni, le passioni, la rivelazione, la tradizione, l’autorità politica, e così la vita, la storia e il linguaggio: di fronte al primato motivazionale e conoscitivo di dimensioni esterne, la ragione si riduce a spettatrice disinteressata. In tal modo, utile solo per vagliare la coerenza formale degli assunti, dei propositi, delle autodescrizioni o delle interpretazioni, essa appare priva di autonoma vocazione e presa sul mondo.

L’ipotesi-guida del convegno è che, di fronte a un tale scenario, la possibilità di una concezione differente della ragione sia legata da un nesso centrale, storico e teorico, alla possibilità della dialettica.

Nella prospettiva della dialettica, la ragione non è infatti soltanto un dispositivo di calcolo, ma ha interessi propri, bisogni e poteri specifici di manifestazione, un’autonoma intenzionalità, una propensione conoscitiva e strutturante. Conseguentemente, il suo movimento non le è imposto da altro, ma è interno alla sua maniera di essere e di estrinsecarsi nel reale: la ragione dialettica è attiva da sé stessa, e i suoi scopi sono espressioni degli interessi che la animano

Il convegno si propone di ripensare e di riportare all’ordine del giorno questo nodo tra la negatività dialettica, tra un pensiero capace di misurarsi con la contraddizione, e la ragione in quanto realtà libera e autonoma, spinta da propri bisogni, interessi e fini.

La seguente lista fornisce alcuni possibili direzioni tematiche:

  1. Il rapporto platonico tra eros e intelletto
  2. lo statuto scientifico della dialettica aristotelica
  3. la concezione kantiana della ragione come organismo e della sua tendenza dialettica
  4. la dialettica speculativa hegeliana
  5. il problema della realizzazione della ragione nella filosofia storico-materialistica
  6. la dialettica dell’io razionale e delle sue origini pulsionali in Nietzsche e nella metapsicologia freudiana
  7. la connessione adorniana tra pensiero, desiderio e vita giusta
  8. le critiche otto e novecentesche alla dialettica dal punto di vista della teoria della ragione

Il convegno sollecita interventi su questi e altri temi analoghi, nonché contributi analitici su singoli concetti e problemi della tradizione dialettica, senza preliminari chiusure specialistiche. Sono infatti particolarmente benaccetti i confronti tra autori diversi e le proposte, anche coraggiose, di interpretazione complessiva e di riproposizione originale – consapevole delle critiche passate e delle contemporanee resistenze – del rapporto tra dialettica e ragione.

La commissione esaminatrice del Convegno sarà resa nota successivamente, così come le date esatte. Le proposte dovranno essere adeguate per la revisione cieca e saranno inviate nella seguente forma:

  1. Un abstract esteso di 600-800 parole, da inviarsi in formato pdf a zetesis@unipi.it entro il 1 Marzo 2016.
  1. Un file separato contenente il nome, il titolo del paper, l’affiliazione, l’indirizzo email e i contatti del contributore.

La notifica di accettazione sarà data non più tardi della fine di Marzo. I contributi potranno essere in Inglese, Italiano, Tedesco, Francese; coloro che non intendono parlare in Inglese, tuttavia, dovranno inviare un lungo abstract in Inglese del proprio intervento (almeno 1300 parole).

Per ulteriori informazioni, scrivere all’indirizzo zetesis@unipi.it

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
Like Loading...

25 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by Danilo Manca in convegni

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ancient conception of Nature, Anna Romani, Athens, Carlo Altini, Eduardo Zazo, gershom scholem, Jerusalem, Karl Löwith, Law, Nietzsche, Progress as problem, Religion, theologico-political problem, zetetic philosophy

E’ in corso la quarta sessione del convegno “The Wisdom of the Ancients”.

Gershom-ScholemIl primo a intervenire è il Prof. Carlo Altini, Direttore scientifico della Fondazione San Carlo di Modena, curatore delle traduzioni di molte opere di Strauss, e del carteggio fra Strauss e Löwith, nonché autore di un’introduzione a Strauss (Laterza 2009) e di diversi studi di filosofia politica, come “La fondazione della cultura moderna nella filosofia di Hobbes” (ETS 2012) o “Democrazia” (Il Mulino 2011).
In questa occasione il suo intervento è dedicato a “Gershon Scholem and Leo Strauss: Kabbalah versus Philosophy”.

E’ poi la volta di una degli organizzatori del convegno, Anna Romani, dottoranda in Filosofia al programma dottorale delle Università di Pisakarllowith4 e Firenze, con un progetto di ricerca su Rousseau. Oggi parla di “Progress as problem. Strauss and Löwith in Dialogue between Antiquity and Modernity”.

A concludere Eduardo Zazo, dottorando presso l’Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, con un intervento su “Löwith’s Nietzschean Return to the Ancient Conception of Nature”.

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
Like Loading...

Conference: The Wisdom of the Ancients

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by Danilo Manca in convegni

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alessandra Fussi, Alfredo Ferrarin, Ancient Philosophy, Andrew Benjamin, Anna Romani, Antiquity, Antropology, Aristofane, Aristophanes, Aristotele, Aristotle, Bruno Centrone, Carlo Altini, Conception of Nature, Danilo Manca, David Janssens, Eduardo Zazo, Eidos und Eidolon, Elad Lapidot, Emidio Spinelli, Ernst Cassirer, esotericism, esoterismo, Fabio Fossa, Ferdinand Deanini, Gnosis, hannah arendt, Hans Jonas, Hermeneutics, historicism, Iacopo Chiaravalli, Jacob Klein, Jakob Klein, Jewish Studies, Jews, Kabbalah, Kuzari, Löwith, Leo Strauss, Luca Timponelli, Marco Menon, modern science, Modernity, Nietzsche, paideia, Phenomenology, Philipp von Wussow, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Plato, Plato's Republic, platone, Political Philosophy, Progress, questione teologico-politica, Raimondo Cubeddu, Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo, Roots, Scholem, Seinsgeschichte, skepticism, socrate, Socrates, The Quarrel between Athens and Jerusalem, Theological-Political Issue, Theory of the History of Philosophy, zetetic philosophy

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS.

THE GERMAN-JEWISH REVALUATION OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

download programme

June 24, 2015  

Aula Savi Orto Botanico (via Porta Buozzi, 3)

9:30: Welcome Address

10-13 1st Session:

Chair: Prof. Raimondo Cubeddu

 Strauss and the Problem of Retrieving Classical Thought

Prof. Philipp von Wussow (Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main), Leo Strauss’s Methodology of Returning to the Ancients

Ferdinand Deanini (LMU München), The Law and the Philosopher. On Leo Strauss’s Essay “The Law of Reason in the Kuzari” 

Marco Menon (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia), A Lesson in Politics. Some Remarks on Strauss’s Socrates and Aristophanes

14:30-18:30 2nd Session:

Chair: Prof. Bruno Centrone

 Jonas and the Ancients

Elad Lapidot (Freie Universität Berlin), Counter-histories: Gnosis, Seinsgeschichte – and the Jews

Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo (Università di Torino), The Ancient Roots and Relevance of Hans Jonas’ Idea of Responsibility

Fabio Fossa (Università di Pisa e Firenze – Zetesis), Ancient Wisdom and the Modern Temper. On the Role of Greek and Jewish Tradition in Hans Jonas’s Anthropology

Prof. Emidio Spinelli (Università La Sapienza di Roma), Hans Jonas and the ‘Multi-disciplinary’ Platonic Model of Paideia

June 25, 2015

9.30 – 13.00 3rd Session:

Aula Savi Orto Botanico (via Porta Buozzi, 3)

Chair: Prof. Emidio Spinelli

Cassirer, Strauss and Arendt on Plato

Prof. Andrew Benjamin (Monash University, Melbourne), Another Plato? Cassirer’s “Eidos und Eidolon”

Prof. Alessandra Fussi (Università di Pisa – Zetesis), Philosophy as a Form of Skepticism. Leo Strauss on Plato’s Republic

Luca Timponelli (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa), Plato, Arendt and the Condition of Politics

15.00 – 18.30 4th Session:

Aula Magna Palazzo Boileau (via S. Maria, 85)

Chair: Prof. Maurizio Alfonso Iacono

Strauss, Scholem and Löwith

Prof. Carlo Altini (Fondazione San Carlo, Modena), Strauss and Scholem: Kabbalah versus Philosophy.

Anna Romani (Università di Pisa e Firenze – Zetesis), Progress as Problem: Strauss and Löwith in Dialogue between Antiquity and Modernity

Eduardo Zazo (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid), Löwith’s Nietzschean Return to the Ancient Conception of Nature

June 26, 2015

Aula Savi Orto Botanico (via Porta Buozzi, 3)

9.30-13.30 5th Session:

Chair: Prof. Alfredo Ferrarin

Strauss and Klein

Iacopo Chiaravalli (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa), The Repetition of Antiquity at the Peak of Modernity as a Phenomenological Problem

Prof. David Janssens (Tilburg University), Back to the Roots. The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein. 

Danilo Manca (Università di Pisa – Zetesis), Philosophy and its History. Klein and Strauss on the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns

 Conclusion

 

Share this:

  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
Like Loading...
Newer posts →

Archivio notizie

Menu

  • ADMISSION
  • Una testimonianza per il futuro dopo la tragedia del coronavirus
  • GROUPS
    • Classical German Philosophy and Phenomenology
    • Philosophies of Image and Imagination
    • The Philosophy of Nature
    • The quarrel between philosophy and poetry
    • The quarrel between the ancients and moderns
    • Theories of Emotions
    • Utopia, the Political Myth, and Rebellion
  • CONFERENCES
    • 2019
      • Gli spazi e i tempi della forma: storia naturale delle rovine
    • 2018
      • Sellars e la filosofia post-kantiana
    • 2017
      • Dialettica della ragione, teleologia e idea di mondo in Kant.
      • La filosofia e il tragico
      • La leggibilità della natura
    • 2016
      • Dialectic and the Ends of Reason
        • Schedule
      • Il tragico nella letteratura tedesca
    • 2015
      • Immaginazione e Giudizio In Kant
        • Schedule
      • MELANCOLIA. Metamorfosi dell’umor nero
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS. The German-Jewish Revaluation of Ancient Philosophy
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
    • 2014
      • Hegel and the phenomenological movement
  • CONTACTS
  • EVENTS
  • IDEAS
  • ODRADEK Journal
  • PEOPLE
  • PRESS REVIEW
  • RICORDANDO BARALE

Zetesis FanPage

Zetesis FanPage

I nostri eventi

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • zetesisproject.com
    • Join 27 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • zetesisproject.com
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d