A partir de la reivindicación de Adorno del poder crítico del arte, este trabajo confronta la posición de este pensador con las de Kant y Hegel a propósito de la cuestión de la autonomía del ámbito estético. Explica por qué Adorno considera que ni Kant, quien afirma esa autonomía, ni Hegel, quien, por el contrario, asume su heteronomía, logran reconocer (el poder de) la obra de arte y de la experiencia estética. Muestra luego que Adorno tomó conciencia de que ello (...) proviene del compromiso de ambos autores con la pretensión de plena autonomía del sujeto moderno, y explica finalmente que Adorno sí reconoce la función crítica del arte y del pensamiento que le corresponde gracias a que rechaza tal pretenciosa subjetividad. Taking Adorno's vindication of the critical power of art as a starting point and focussing on the question of the autonomy of the aesthetic field, this paper confronts Adorno's position with those of Kant and Hegel. I explain why Adorno considers that neither Kant-affirming its autonomy- nor Hegel -assuming its heteronomy- succeeded in recognising (the power of) the work of art and the aesthetic experience. I show that Adorno saw that this was due to their common commitment to the modern subject's claim to full autonomy, and finally argue that Adorno, on the contrary, can do that because he abandons such a pretentious subjectivity. (shrink)

I M M Gregory; The Right to Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 7, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 85–102, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.197.

I M M Gregory, R G Woods; Indoctrination, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 4, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 77–105, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.

THE object of this note is to draw attention to a suggestion made by the late Professor F. M. Cornford, in the course of a paper read to the Oxford Philological Society some years ago.

... all probability, Plato's own statement; made indeed to be read by friends in Syracuse in explanation of the role he had played ...

Ian Crombie’s impressive volumes provide a comprehensive interpretation of Plato’s doctrines. Volume 2 deals with more technical philosophical topics, including the theory of knowledge, philosophy of nature, and the methodology of science and philosophy. Each volume is self-contained.

Purpose. The study seeks to clarify the preconditions for moral and legal decision-making based on the identification of axiological foundations that correlate with the moral perceptions of good and evil and psychological phenomena such as emotions. Theoretical basis of the study is to apply comparative, axiological, systemic methods. This methodological approach allows us to analyze and disclose the essence of the process of moral and legal decision-making on the basis of certain axiological prerequisites and enables to substantiate the connection between (...) the axiological and psychological aspects of taking moral and legal decisions. Originality of the work is to broaden the perceptions of the processes and mechanisms for making moral and legal decisions, which are based on the axiological dimension, in particular on the system of reference individual and social values. The study shows that every necessary moral and legal decision taken by a person is futurologically balanced in the emotional sense, rationally reasoned and morally perceptible in the context of man’s beliefs about good and evil, and realized with necessity in the personal system of reference values that determines the style and manner of individual and social behaviour in the context of material and spiritual values and is an axiological foundation for making all types of moral and legal decisions. Conclusions. Moral and legal decision-making is a social process that is connected with such a social essence of a person as rationality, which gives an opportunity to act axiologically. A person makes moral and legal decisions in a complex way, based on the unity of the moral, axiological and psychological aspects of his worldview, which are grounded on the system of reference values. (shrink)

In his discussion of the tragic act in Poet. 14. 1453b15 ff. Aristotle separates the pity which we feel at mere suffering from pity roused by the way in which this suffering is or will be brought about. The revenge of an enemy is not in itself pitiable. We pity, if victim and agent are closely related to one another as members of the same family, but only if the action is of a certain kind. Four possible ways of presenting (...) the tragic act are therefore distinguished: attempted but not performed, with knowledge of the relevant facts ; performed with knowledge ; performed but in ignorance, recognition following later ; attempted in ignorance but not performed, since recognition occurs in time to prevent it. Of these four variations the first is censured on the ground that it is morally shocking without being tragic, since it lacks πάθος. The second is mentioned in b27 as the favourite of the older poets, but is here passed over without comment. The third is explicitly approved on the ground that it avoids moral shock and has the emotional κπληξις of the recognition. But for some reason which he does not state, Aristotle prefers the last, where recognition is in time to prevent the tragic suffering from actually taking place. (shrink)