Explore the vast range of titles available.

While there are overt philosophies of the person in both dualistic and non-dualistic Śaivism that developed their doctrines explicitly in relation to each other and to non-Śaiva traditions, especially Buddhism, many Śaiva texts exemplify what might be called a pre-philosophical discourse. Such works contain philosophical ideas but do not present systematic arguments (that is the job of later commentators) and are often regarded as divine revelation (namely the tantras but other genres of literature might also be included such as paddhatis). It is this layer of the articulation of concepts linked to practices that the paper exposes, which the arguments of the later philosophers reflect upon and from which they develop. The claim here is that through an analysis of pre-philosophical literature, texts such as the Netra-tantra, we can build a picture of the conceptual universe of the early medieval period that forms the basis for the development of thinking by the later philosophers. One way of doing this is through the micro-study of particular textual passages and from that to build a larger picture of pre-philosophical discourse.

In book X of the Republic, Plato famously reports “a quarrel between poetry and philosophy.” The present essay examines this quarrel in book X, along with other relevant parts of the Republic, by understanding “philosophy” and “poetry” as rival ways of life and rival ways of discourse. The essay first explains why, in Plato’s view, poetic discourse weakens one’s power to reason and is at odds with philosophic discourse. Then it shows how poetic discourse is bound up with a way of life that champions the value of freedom. Such a life forms a contrast with the philosophic life, which is marked more by stability and unity than by freedom. The quarrel, however, is not a simple antagonism. The essay hence concludes by discussing why, despite the opposition between the two, philosophy cannot do without poetry.

The modern way of life and reflected in modern political philosophy is directed by capitalist activity of both commodities and persons. Entities that do not have commodity value are worthless to the capitalist enterprise, regardless of any intrinsic value in themselves. Modernity is capitalist modernity. Modernity has given preference for objects/commodities over persons. This paper will argue for opening-up the landscape for alternative experiences to capitalism, as an attempt to move away from the capitalist enterprise. That is, be able to provide open space for people to use other than the buying and selling of commodities---where the commodification process breaks down and opens-up spaces for alternative experiences besides the capitalist experience. In other words, this work will attempt to serve as critique of Enlightenment philosophical discourse---that is, serve as a critique of the Age of Enlightenment serving as the foundational head of modernism---a plea for the rebellion against the quantification and mathematization of reality under modernist and industrial societies. It will use the modern landscape as the first effort to break free from the capitalist enterprise.

In book X of the Republic, Plato famously reports \"a quarrel between poetry and philosophy.\" The present essay examines this quarrel in book X, along with other relevant parts of the Republic, by understanding \"philosophy\" and \"poetry\" as rival ways of life and rival ways of discourse. The essay first explains why, in Plato's view, poetic discourse weakens one's power to reason and is at odds with philosophic discourse. Then it shows how poetic discourse is bound up with a way of life that champions the value of freedom. Such a life forms a contrast with the philosophic life, which is marked more by stability and unity than by freedom. The quarrel, however, is not a simple antagonism. The essay hence concludes by discussing why, despite the opposition between the two, philosophy cannot do without poetry.

This paper explores The New Rhetoric ’s concept of universal audience in the contexts of philosophical and traditional rhetorical discourse. It argues that, since Perelman’s final English-language article, published in 1984 to clarify misunderstandings among rhetorical scholars about his theory, rhetorical scholars have persisted in three primary misconceptions of the concept of universal audience: (1) appeals to the real are made only to universal audiences, (2) only universal audiences are qualified to establish the reasonableness of arguments, and (3) only universal audiences prevent The New Rhetoric ’s rhetorical theory from degenerating into relativism. It explains why each of these misconceptions is inaccurate and provides a corrected view of universal audience that places it exclusively in the province of philosophical discourse. Finally, it questions whether constructed audiences in general add explanatory power to rhetorical analyses or are merely unnecessary constructs that should be dispensed with for the sake of theoretical parsimony.

This article begins by asking whether boundaries can be assigned to discourse analysis. It suggests making a distinction between 'discourse linguistics' and 'discourse analysis', which has a specific viewpoint on discourse. It propounds next to open to research the field of 'self-constituting discourses', thus bringing together those discourses that legitimate the whole discursive production, such as philosophical, scientific or religious discourses. Lastly the article emphasizes some characteristics of such discourses and presents concepts that are useful in analysing them – particularly 'scenography', 'linguistic code', and 'ethos', and offers illustrative examples.

This chapter contains sections titled: The Age of the American Novel The Grammar of the Human: Ellipses and Adjectives Le Style Américain and the New Cosmopolitanism References and Further Reading

A new edition of the highly acclaimed book Multiculturalism and \"The Politics of Recognition,\" this paperback brings together an even wider range of leading philosophers and social scientists to probe the political controversy surrounding multiculturalism. Charles Taylor's initial inquiry, which considers whether the institutions of liberal democratic government make room--or should make room--for recognizing the worth of distinctive cultural traditions, remains the centerpiece of this discussion. It is now joined by Jürgen Habermas's extensive essay on the issues of recognition and the democratic constitutional state and by K. Anthony Appiah's commentary on the tensions between personal and collective identities, such as those shaped by religion, gender, ethnicity, race, and sexuality, and on the dangerous tendency of multicultural politics to gloss over such tensions. These contributions are joined by those of other well-known thinkers, who further relate the demand for recognition to issues of multicultural education, feminism, and cultural separatism. Praise for the previous edition:

This chapter contains sections titled: On Discovering Race: A Personal Story The Consolation of Philosophy Theology and Racial Reconciliation Christian Worship as a “Wild Space” On Being Greeted in the Name of the Trinity Beyond Modern Anthropology The Performance of a Christian Anthropology A Christian Ethics Beyond Docetism: On “Touching Color” Conclusion References