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
Social Critique and Engagement between Universalism, Anti-Authoritarianism and Diagnosis of Domination
No full textThe paper discusses a particular ‘isomorphy’ between two forms of social criticism: the ‘holistic’ theoretical social critique represented by such authors as Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth and ‘collective social engagement’ represented by such civic movements as the ‘We Won’t Let Belgrade D(r)own’ initiative in contemporary Serbia, which the paper tries to distinguish from more conventional forms of popular protest. This ‘isomorphy’, the paper argues, consists in a tension between three distinct imperatives of the justification of critique – those of normative universalism, epistemological anti-authoritarianism, and diagnosis of social domination – produced by the attempts of both the ‘holistic’ social critics and the collectively engaged actors to simultaneously respond to all threeimperatives. After presenting the three types of theoretical critique that crystallize around each imperative, the paper discusses the internal tension that arises in the
works of ‘holistic’ theoretical critics and then identifies the same kind of tension in the ‘We Won’t Let Belgrade D(r)own’ initiative. The tension in the movement’s critique is outlined through a brief analysis of the activists’ discourse as articulated in the bulletin We Won’t Let Belgrade D(r)own issued in March 2015. Since the examples also suggest that collective engagement is better than theoretical critique at keeping this tension ‘productive’, the paper finally offers some tentative
thoughts on the possible reasons for this difference
From public reason to deliberative democracy
No full textIn this paper I shall investigate the relationship between public reason and deliberative democracy, mainly as it is presented in Rawls’s later political theory. Against the critics who claim that Rawls has no deliberative democratic theory, I shall argue that he presented a complex view of public deliberation that contains a set of formal and substantive requirements derived from the idea of public reason. My main aim in this paper is to defend and further elaborate the thesis that Rawls’s later political theory is crucially important for deliberative democracy. Furthermore, in light of the recent literature on deliberative democracy, I examine the relevance of Rawls’s view for addressing some current problems, but also look at some limits of the public reason perspective
Može li se nešto dogoditi?
No full textFirst, starting from a text Deleuze and Guattari wrote in 1984 on the
aftermath of May 1968 in France (“May 68 Did Not Take Place”), this article tries
to analyze in what way this diagnosis – made in the middle of the 1980s, when
what is now commonly called neo-liberalism was unfolding both in America and
in Europe – can apply to our current political situation. Secondly, this analysis
shows that maybe the very conditions of social critique and social engagement
are endangered today more than yesterday, because of the new patterns of
social restraint embodied by the evolution of communication (especially television).
Thirdly, the author asks the question: therefore, under which conditions social
critique and engagement are now possible?Naj pre po la zim od tek sta ko ji su De lez i Ga ta ri na pi sa li 1984. go di ne o po sle di ca ma
maj skih do ga đa ja 1968. u Fran cu skoj (“Maj ‘68 se ni je do go dio”), da bih u svom
pri lo gu po ku šao da ana li zi ram na ko ji na čin se nji ho va di jag no za – iz ve de na sre dinom
osam de se tih u vre me raz vo ja sa da uobi ča je nog neo li be ra li zma u Ame ri ci i
Evro pi – mo že pri me ni ti na na šu tre nut nu po li tič ku si tu a ci ju. Dru go, ta ana li za
uka zu je da su mo žda upra vo da nas vi še ne go ikad ugro že ni uslo vi dru štve ne kriti
ke i dru štve nog an ga žma na s raz vo jem no vih obra za ca dru štve ne pri nu de sa drža
ne u evo lu ci ji ko mu ni ka ci ja (po seb no te le vi zi je). Tre će, sto ga se pi tam, pod
ko jim uslo vi ma su dru štve na kri ti ka i an ga žman da nas uop šte mo gu ći
… Više od Folie à deux…
No full textIn this text I attempt to recognize and identify two conditions that
make engagement possible. One certainly refers to the word, while the other is
inscribed onto the body – every or any body – and it regards affect. I illustrate
the first condition by a brief reading of a poem by Samuel Beckett, whose English
translation the author dedicated to his friend and long-term collaborator, Joseph
Chaikin. The second condition I place into Spinoza’s, that is, Deleuze’s understanding
of affect
Kratka istorija novog realizma
No full textIn this paper I try to sketch a brief history of new realism. Starting from
nineteenth century idealism, I then move on to discuss twentieth century postmodernism,
which, I argue, is the heir of idealism and the theoretical enemy of
new realism. Finally, I offer a reconstruction of how and why contemporary new
realism came into being and propose a few remarks on its future perspectives.U ovom tek stu po ku šao sam da ski ci ram krat ku isto ri ju no vog re a li zma. Čla nak
sam za po čeo raz ma tra njem ide a li zma u de vet na e stom ve ku, da bi se pre ba cio
na ras pra vlja nje o post mo der ni zmu u dva de se tom ve ku ko ji je, ka ko tvr dim, nasled
nik ide a li zma i te o rij ski ne pri ja telj no vog re a li zma. Na kra ju sam po ku šao da
re kon stru i šem pro blem ka ko i za što je na stao sa vre me ni no vi re a li zam i dao neko
li ko na po me na o nje go voj bu du ćoj per spek ti vi
Inđić and Velázquez
No full textThe aim of this paper is to call into question the logic of interpretation of the texts of Ortega y Gasset about Velázquez made by Trivo Inđić. The sociologist from Belgrade in his text „Ortega i Velaskes“ [„Ortega and Velázquez“] overlooked an important question which the philosopher from Madrid proposed with regard to his interpretation of Velázquez - what is actually the condition of possibility to comprehend the work of (this) painter? Painting is a mute form of expression. Ortega y Gasset asks - how to speak about the persons who do not speak? Because Trivo Inđić did not stress the importance of this question and did not discover this transcendental motif, his text will be problematized in that direction.Svr ha ra da je do vo đe nje u pi ta nje lo gi ke či ta nja tek sto va Or te ge i
Ga se ta o Ve la ske zu ko je je spro veo Tri vo In đić. Be o grad ski so ci o log je u tek stu
„Or te ga i Ve la skes“ pre vi deo bit no pi ta nje ko je po sta vlja ma drid ski fi lo zof u okviru
nje go ve in ter pre ta ci je Ve la ske za, a to je – ko ji je za pra vo uslov mo guć no sti
po i ma nja de la (ovog) sli ka ra? Sli kar stvo je ne ma for ma iz ra za. Or te ga i Ga set se
pi ta – ka ko go vo ri ti o lju di ma ko ji ne go vo re? Po što Tri vo In đić ni je is ta kao bit nost
ovog pi ta nja i ot krio taj tran scen den tal ni mo tiv, sam nje gov nje gov tekst o Vela
ske zu bi će pro ble ma ti zo van u tom prav cu
