Sehir University Philosophy Talks 27 The Aesthetics of Sublime/Patrick Roney (the talk is postponed to 23 December)
“Whatever happened to the Aesthetics of the Sublime?”
ABSTRACT: There was a time when the question of art and its future was answered in a decisive way by the return to Kant’s aesthetics of the sublime. The name most associated with this trend was Jean-François Lyotard, and his concern with the sublime formed one of the most essential characteristics of what has been called, appropriately or not, the Postmodern. Since then however, Lyotard’s conception has been strongly criticized in a number of ways that have also been directed at the entire discourse of a postmodern aesthetics. Foremost among these critics have been Jacques Rancière, whose idea of an “aesthetic regime” of art reaffirms by contrast the continuing predominance of the beautiful as an inexhaustible horizon of possibility for our time. My presentation will address this reversal of trend away from the Postmodern and the aesthetics of the sublime by focusing on the two main protagonists in disagreement, Lyotard and Rancière. In doing so I will attempt to consider what is actually at stake in the aesthetics of the sublime, particularly in relation to the future of art.
Talking about the unknown God
The Corpus Dionysiacum presents a hierarchical account of the universe, and a description of deifying union with the “God beyond being” as “unknowing” (agnôsia). Pseudo-Dionysius’ entire mystical theology narrates the self’s efforts to unite with the “God beyond being” as a perpetual process of affirming (kataphasis) and negating (apophasis) the divine names. His conviction is that only by contemplating and then “clearing away” (aphairesis) all of our concepts and categories we can clear a space for the divine to descend free of idolatrous accretions. The result of such agnôsia, however, is no mere “agnosticism” but rather the indwelling of the unknown God (agnōstos theos) as Christ, so the aspirant simultaneously “unknows” God and the self. The climax of the Dionysian method is not simply a negation of some concept about God, but the negation of the concept of negation itself. God is beyond all human words and concepts, including the utterance of denials and the idea of negation. Even the most sophisticated theological negations do not capture God. Beyond the last word is only silence.
Sehir University Philosophy Talks 25 Is Medical Ethics a Branch of Philosophy? Rainer Brömer 08 Nov. 2016 Tuesday
Sehir University International Workshop Time, Eternity, Cosmology in Islam and Byzantium: Aristotelian Receptions—and Beyond
Tuesday 24 May, 15.00-17.30
Europe and Philosophy. Hegelian Perspectives
13 May 2016, 15:00
The presentation begins by formulating and articulating the thesis that the appeal to philosophical foundation and argumentation strategies in the ethical-political realm constitutes a distinctive trait of the European identity. The choice of philosophical strategies over what I call “positive” strategies (religious, nationalistic, mythological, etc.) is intimately intertwined with the idea that the freedom of the subject is the ultimate source of all normative claims (I). I then proceed to argue more in particular that the critical reconstruction, foundation and legitimation of the actuality of freedom in the ethical-political forms of modern Europe is one of the deepest motives of Hegel’s philosophy (II). Finally, I discuss five attractive features (III) and three problematic traits (IV) of the Hegelian philosophy with regard to the Europe-philosophy connection.
The efficiency in court’s proceedings has procedural, moral (social) and economic dimensions. Several competing “right” solutions can fight in a court game within a framework set up by rules of procedure. It is impermissible to go beyond its rules, they are enacted in texts of law (procedural aspect of efficiency). The moral aspect comes down to sharing the benefits of legal justice as specific rights and obligations. Very important is the economic aspect of the case connected to an individual and the social benefits and losses. It can be successfully analyzed by means of the decision-theoric methodology of Law and Economics School. Their approach must be complemented by a social explanatory theory of legal method of solving conflicts.