Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (44) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (26)
- Report (8)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Review (3)
- Book (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (44) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (44)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (44)
Keywords
- database (2)
- democratic boundary problem (2)
- education (2)
- inclusion (2)
- participation (2)
- poverty (2)
- AfD (1)
- Alexandrian commentaries (1)
- Arabic-Islamic authors (1)
- Arendt, Hannah (1)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (44) (remove)
The purpose of the text is to present an interpretation of Theodor Adorno’s critical reading of authors considered revisionists of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, particularly Karen Horney. We discuss critically Adorno’s favorable positioning to the Freudian conception of the individual psychic nucleus in contrast to the hasty sociologization of psychoanalysis practiced by the revisionism of Karen Horney. In the final part we try to show how the Adornian perspective ends up by making, in his own way, the same mistake of a hasty sociologization of psychoanalysis he imputed to the revisionists and advocates an theoretical emphasis on the sociological realm that seems also problematic.
The truth lies in Chemnitz?
(2018)
"Germany to the Germans! Foreigners out" was the central slogan of the racist riots in the city of Rostock in 1992. For around three days, neo-Nazis controlled the streets in the plattenbau district of Lichtenhagen where the central registration for asylum-seekers (as well as a housing block of Vietnamese contract workers) were situated. ...
The issue of statelessness poses problems for the statist (or nationalist) approach to the philosophy of immigration. Despite the fact that the statist approach claims to constrain the state’s right to exclude with human rights considerations, the arguments statists offer for the right of states to determine their own immigration policies would also justify citizenship rules that would render some children stateless. Insofar as rendering a child stateless is best characterized as a violation of human rights and insofar as some states have direct responsibility for causing such harm, the problem of non-refugee stateless children points to greater constraints than most statists accept on states’ right to determine their own rules for membership. While statists can ultimately account for the right not to be rendered stateless, recognizing these additional human rights constraints ultimately weakens the core of the statist position.
"Post-truth" is a failed concept, both epistemically and politically because its simplification of the relationship between truth and politics cripples our understanding and encourages authoritarianism. This makes the diagnosis of our "post-truth era" as dangerous to democratic politics as relativism with its premature disregard for truth. In order to take the step beyond relativ- ism and "post-truth", we must conceptualise the relationship between truth and politics differently by starting from a "non-sovereign" understanding of truth.
The discussion about the interplay between digital technologies and the process of globalization is often focused around the following question: who has access to global information networks and who benefits from digital communication technologies? These are essential questions and it can hardly be denied that they confront us with a series of political and ethical questions. However, we also need to recognize the ongoing digitalization of the globe, a process where more and more people are put on various kinds of maps...
In the latest contribution to the Democracy Papers, Thomas Zittel explores when and how polarization becomes a cause for democratic anxiety. He argues that polarization over traditional policy issues is not in itself harmful, and can even be beneficial for democracies. However, he warns that polarization in which parties become divided over the acceptable rules of the game is a problem for democracies. Unfortunately, this latter type of division is increasingly common on both sides of the Atlantic today.
This article deals with the analysis of Frankfurtrt's theorists, especially Adorno, Marcuse, Walter Benjamin and Horkheimer, and their relevance in relation to education. Motivation, faced with a world in which extreme-right values and religious fundamentalisms are promoted, such a scenario motivates us to question the role that education plays in combating extremism and intolerance. Scope of relevance. This article is directly related to the philosophy of education. Justification and relevance. This topic is justified because it deals with teleological aspects of the function of education. In the sense of questioning the teleological character of education based on philosophical concepts that seek the autonomy of the subject instead of just the human being to what is settled. As a methodology, it resorts to bibliographical studies and critical reflections on education and its political character in the construction of an emancipated social conscience of values that legitimize oppression. Results and discussion. A study on Critical Theory of Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Habermas and Marcuse was conducted as contributions to the construction of an education that, in addition to seeking inclusion, also seeks to be a political instrument to combat prejudice, which is nowadays alive again with the rise of religious fundamentalisms, xenophobia and the rise of extreme-right political ideas. Conclusion. It is concluded that the school has the political purpose to educate for a world of solidarity and respect for differences.
The main sources for the discussion of the category “relation” were Aristotle’s Categories and Metaphysics. Before their translation into Arabic in the 8th and 9th centuries, Christian theologians and in their footsteps Syriac scholars considered Aristotle’s works to be a useful tool in Christological discussions. This article analyzes the category of relation and its development in Arabic-Islamic philosophy in authors such as Kindī and his student Aḥmad Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib as-Saraḫsī, Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, Ghazālī, Ibn Rušd, the Sufi Ibn ʿArabī and others.