Contingency, Irony and Morality: A Critical Review of Rorty's. Notion of the Liberal Utopia

This paper introduces Richard Rorty’s notion of the liberal ironist and his vision of a liberal utopia and explores the implications of these for philosophical questions concerning morality, as well as morality in general. Rorty’s assertions of the contingency of language, society and self are explored. Under the contingency of language, the figure of the ironist is defined, and Rorty’s conception of vocabularies is discussed. Under the contingency of society, Rorty’s definition of liberalism, his opposition of literary culture to materialist and metaphysical culture, and his notions concerning utopian politics are discussed. Under the contingency of self, Rorty’s critique of Kantian and his appropriations of Deweyan and Freudian conceptions of morality are presented. Other key factors discussed are Rorty’s theory of the separation of the private and public spheres of life and his ideas concerning cruelty and human solidarity. In this way, a critical analysis of Rorty’s proposed balance between private, ironic doubt and public, liberal social hope is presented and assessed in terms of its merit as a system of thought suited to the needs of post-metaphysical, liberal societies

Symphonia : aristotle versus Plato Critiqued

The notion of harmony between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle is one of the most this modernity, e in Western philosophical exegesis. In nduringly controversial topicscontroversy has been blunted by twin assumptions; the widespread acceptance of a fundamental opposition between Plato and Aristotle, premised on the widespread dismissal of the thesis of harmony (as proposed by the Neoplatonic commentators). This dissertation aims to re-assess the hegemony of reading Aristotle as anti-Platonic, by investigating the ancient, modern and contemporary discussions surrounding the topic. In each case, three major aspects of the debate are investigated; Aristotelian versus Platonic metaphysics; conceptions of form/Form; and psychological doctrine. The Neoplatonic commentators turn out to be ingenious in their efforts at harmony, and far less philosophically misguided than modern commentators often contend. Furthermore, the key strategy of constructing an anti-Platonic Aristotelianism in modernity (i.e. developmentalism), is shown to be based largely on spurious or circular assertions. Finally, key issues of contention in the contemporary milieu are investigated, illustrating the enduring questions surrounding the topic. A proper grasp of the harmony debate and its significance for philosophy at large is shown to be of paramount relevance not only to advanced scholars, but also to those new to the discipline. The investigation of Plato versus Aristotle has for too long been beleaguered under the weight of unquestioned assumptions of fundamental opposition. This dissertation aims to work towards remedying this unfortunate state of affairs, and revivifying one of the most significant debates in the history of Western philosophy.Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2016.tm2016PhilosophyMAUnrestricte

Aristotle’s harmony with Plato on separable and immortal soul

The possibility of a harmony between the psychological doctrine of Aristotle and that of Plato marks a significant issue within the context of the debate surrounding Aristotle’s putative opposition to or harmony with Plato’s philosophy. The standard interpretation of Aristotle’s conception of the soul being purely hylomorphic leaves no room for harmonisation with Plato, nor does a functionalist interpretation that reduces Aristotle’s psychological doctrine to physicalist terms. However, these interpretations have serious drawbacks, both in terms of ad-hoc explanations formulated in the developmentalist mode, and the misconstruing of some of the fundamental features of Aristotle’s psychological doctrine. A dualist interpretation that accepts Aristotle’s doctrine of some part of the soul being properly incorporeal, separable and immortal overcomes these drawbacks and, significantly, opens the door for Platonic harmonisation. Furthermore, it can be shown that the kind of immortality in question is also in line with the Platonic stance, due to a deep similarity between the conceptions of metaphysical and moral personhood held by Plato and his student. However, this Aristotelian dualism is not Platonic dualism simpliciter. Rather, it is best understood in terms of the division of labour between Aristotle and Plato suggested by the Neoplatonic commentators generally, and Simplicius in particular. I argue that though questions surrounding these issues and particularly the issue of reincarnation remain, an account of Aristotle’s psychological doctrine as dualist and in harmony with Plato’s view of the soul can be shown to be stronger than both standard hylomorphic and functionalist accounts, both exegetically and philosophically.http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsph202019-05-26hj2018Philosoph