University of Arts in Belgrade
Digital Repository of the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of BelgradeNot a member yet
4571 research outputs found
Sort by
La socialdemocrazia serba di fronte alla guerra: le figure di Dimitrije Tucović e Dragiša Lapčević
No full textPoglavlje govori o srpskoj socijaldemokratiji pre i tokom Prvog svetskog rata, s fokusom na Dimitrija Tucovića i Dragišu Lapčević
Being a Muslim in Belgrade Ivan Ejub Kostić in Conversation with Armina Galijaš
No full textArmina Galijaš interviewed Ivan Ejub Kostić on several occasions in Belgrade during 2019. The topic of the interviews was the contemporary sociopolitical position, the history, and the daily life of Muslims in Serbia and in Belgrade, a subject on which Ivan Ejub Kostić is an expert. He was born in Belgrade in 1979 and has lived there ever since. Islam is an integral part of his life, not only as a religion that he embraced over 15 years ago but also as a field of scholarly and sociopolitical interest. His elaborate answer to the question, ‘What is it like to be a Muslim in Belgrade?’ offers insights into both Ivan’s personal path and Muslim lives in Belgrade and in Serbia today
Deliberative Epistemic Instrumentalism, or Something Near Enough / Deliberativni epistemički instrumentalizam, ili nešto što je blizu tome
No full textIn her book Democracy and Truth: The Conflict between Political and Epistemic Virtues, Snježana Prijić Samaržija advocates a stance that not only political, but also epistemic values are necessary for justification of democracy. Specifically, she mounts defense for one particular type of public deliberation on epistemic grounds. In this paper, I will discuss the following issue: What connects this type of public deliberation to the wider context of (epistemic) justification of democracy? I will attempt to explain why Prijić Samaržija’s stance can be understood as a version of deliberative epistemic instrumentalism and to discuss the role played by the public deliberation within this framework
Erotsko/estetsko u perspektivi levinasove etičke an-arheologije
No full textThis paper emphasizes the place and the role of the aesthetic quality and the role of the erotic in Levinas’s project that deals with ethical an-archaeology. Despite Levinas’s categorical statements that there are irreconcilable differences between ethics and aesthetics, i.e. between ethics and the erotic, above all, it is emphasized here that these differences do not represent a stark or sharp contrast, but quite contrary, they often constitute a subversive ontological element. On the other hand, somewhat unexpectedly, with its ethical anti-aestheticism Levinas’s “noncontemporary” thought appears to be, at the same time, both significant and critical, elementary, emancipatory and contemporary in relation to present-day reactionary reactualization and revitalization of the aesthetic quality which mechanically proceeds to develop on the margins of Levinas’s emancipatory past.U ovom članku naznačuje se mesto i uloga onog estetskog u Levinasovom projektu etičke an-arheologije, kao i status koji erotika ima u tom projektu. Naglašava se u prvom redu da uprkos autorovim izričitim postavkama o nepomirljivosti etike i estetike, odnosno etike i erotike, ta opozicija ne funkcioniše kao oštar i rezak kontrast, nego se, upravo obrnuto, neretko pokazuje kao subverzivna ontološka sprega. S druge strane, u odnosu na današnju reakcionarnu reaktualizaciju i revitalizaciju estetskog, koja se tek mehanički odvija na rubovima njegove emancipatorske prošlosti, Levinasova „nesavremena“ misao se svojim etičkim antiesteticizmom, donekle neočekivano, ipak ujedno ukazuje kao jedno još uvek bitno kritičko i elementarno emancipatorsko savremeno mišljenje
Hermeneutika prevođenja i razumevanje nasilja
No full textThe philosophical definition of violence today is “incomplete” and leaves a “gap” between the phenomenon and the concept. This is due to the fact that the concept of “violence” was/is strangely included in the general philosophical categorial line. In domestic and Western discourse, the problem field of violence contains, above all, political and ethical meanings. The problem is intuitively resolved in its appeal to the concept of “power”, which turns out to be philosophically lost in modern philosophy. Only exceptionally do we find “traces” of this concept in philosophical works. Among them are the works of Aristotle, which need to be freed from modern, distorting interpretations. Thus, in the translations of Aristotle, the Greek δύναμις, used for the traditional transferring the category of possibility, lost its meaning of force (movement, ability, function); in its turn, “force” lost relation to “violence” (βια) and “necessity”. Violence is understood as a kind of necessity, which is associated with the suppression of one’s “own decision”, freedom, something that “prevents desire” and contrary to “common thinking,” as well as the absence of “good”. Violence is presented not only in an ontological sense, but also existentially, as the opposite of “good” and of one’s own “desire”. Force remains in the shadow of “necessity” as “possibility”, “potential energy” and “movement”, and violence loses the opposition that has arisen in an ontological mode.Filozofska definicija nasilja danas je „nepotpuna“ i ostavlja „jaz“ između fenomena i pojma. To je slučaj usled činjenice da je pojam „nasilja“ (bio) uključen u opštu filozofsku kategorijalnu liniju na čudan način. U domaćem i Zapadnom diskursu problemsko polje nasilja sadrži pre svega politička i etička značenja. Problem se intuitivno rešava apelovanjem na pojam „moći“ za koji se ispostavlja da je filozofski izubljen u modernoj filozofiji. Samo u izuzetnim slučajevima pronalazimo „tragove“ tog filozofskog pojma. Među njima su Aristotelova dela koja se moraju osloboditi modernih izobličavajućih tumačenja. Dakle, u prevodima Aristotela, grčko δύναμις, koje se tradicionalno koristilo za prenošenje kategorije mogućnosti, izgubilo je svoje značenje sile (kretanje, mogućnost, sposobnost, funkcija); zauzvrat, „sila“ je izgubila svoju vezu za „nasiljem“ (βια) i „nužnošću“. Nasilje se tako shvata kao oblik nužnosti koji je povezan sa potiskivanjem „sopstvene odluke“, slobode, nečim što „sprečava želju“, i u suprotnosti sa „uobičajenim mišljenjem“ i kao odsustvo „dobra“. Nasilje je predstavljeno ne samo u ontološkom smislu, već i egzistencijalno, kao suprotnost „dobru“ i nečijoj vlastitoj „želji“. Sila ostaje u senci „nužnosti“ kao „mogućnosti“, „potencijalne energije“ i „kretanja“, i nasilje gubi opoziciju koja nastaje u ontološkom modalitetu
Lucien Calvié, La question yougoslave et l’Europe, Édition de Cygne, Paris, 2018.
No full textLucien Calvié, La question yougoslave et l’Europe, Édition de Cygne, Paris, 2018
Ljudska prava: moralni zahtevi i kriza gostoprimstva
No full textThis paper focuses on the current international refugee crisis and the ways in which it is leading to sharp symbolic and physical violence through the process of “othering.” Based on Hannah Arendt’s discussion of statelessness and the question of the right to have rights, and Giorgio Agamben’s discussion of Homo Sacer, as well as drawing on other key authors such as Judith Butler, we argue that conditions of extreme human vulnerability and dangers of totalitarianism are being radically worsened by the ethnicized and racialized denial of the other, that is, of human rights. Rather than advocating an abstract cosmopolitanism, however, without strong purchase in contemporary social life, the paper concludes by noting the need to place oneself in a position of discomfort, in order to confront the tension between particularistic attachments and universalist aspirations, between the multiplicity of laws and the ideal of a rational order common to all polities, between belief in the unity of humankind and the healthy antagonisms and tensions generated by human diversity.Ovaj članak se fokusira na aktuelnu migrantsku međunarodnu krizu i na načine kako ona vodi simboličkom i fizičkom nasilju kroz proces konstruisanja ‘drugosti’. Oslanjajući se na argu-mentaciju Hane Arent o apatridima, i, pre svega, na pitanje o pravu na imanje prava, kao i na zaključke Đorđa Agambena iz diskusije o Homo Saceru, ali i inspirušući se drugim ključnim autorima poput Džudit Batler, u radu insistiramo na ideji da se opasnosti od totalitarizma povećavaju, a uslovi za ekstremnu ljudsku ranjivost radikalno pogoršavaju etnicističkim i ra-sijalističkim negacijama drugoga, odnosno samih ljudskih prava. Međutim, umesto da zago-varamo apstraktni kosmopolitizam, koji ne bi bio utemeljen u savremenim društvenim od-nosima, u članku branimo tezu o neophodnosti zauzimanja pozicije ‘neugodnosti’, kako bismo se suočili sa tenzijama između partikularističkih privrženosti i univerzalističkih težnji, između mnoštva zakona i ideala o zajedničkom racionalnom poretku svih politika, između verovanja u jedinstvo čovečanstva i antagonizmima koji se generišu u samoj ljudskoj različitosti
Pripremne beleške za planiranu disertaciju: „Teleologija posle Kanta“
No full textNaslov originala: Die Teleologie seit Kant. Tekst na nemačkom jeziku preuzet sa saj-ta http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/works-unpub/youth/1868-coskg.htm. U pre-vodu korišćen i prevod teksta na engleski jezik Paul Swift, „On Teleology“ or „Teleology since Kant“, Nietzscheana No.8, 2000
"Intra-family Engagement? A Study of Female Academic Staff at the University of Belgrade"
No full textAccording to the results of various studies, women remain responsible for most household duties. This distribution is also reflected in the position of women in academia, since the family-dominant model tends to be reproduced within the academic community as well. This imbalance is reflected in the distribution of “lower rank” jobs in academia, and the shifting of most responsibilities for such jobs to women, leaving men with more time to pursue academic work. This situation, originating in the issue of family responsibilities, actually raises academic questions. The analysis in the paper is based on empirical insights from a 2017 survey conducted among academic staff at the University of Belgrade, and focuses on the following question: what factors lead to engagements within the family which seek to change patriarchal patterns as expressed in the unequal distribution of domestic and family care work, and which indirectly affect the distribution of responsibilities between men and women in the academic sphere