Pragmatist Kant: Pragmatism, Kant, and Kantianism in the Twenty-first Century, co-edited by Chris Skowronski and Sami Pihlstrom, has been published by Nordic Pragmatism Network (Helsinki) as the 4th volume of the Nordic Studies in Pragmatism series. The volume can be read from here
See the review HERE
For very many women, as for many males, pleasures constitute the framework of the meaningful life. And I don’t mean sweets, kisses, nice words, promises, and hugging though they give important satisfaction too. There are more basic pleasures that we all should take care of. For example, the very feeling that you have a meaningful life or a good life can give a profound sense of pleasure. More profound that temporary successes and momentary achievements. A bad feeling that you have a meaningless life and that no one needs you and your efforts must be painful and frustrating. Even more, it most often generates more frustration, stress, and discomfort. There must be a connection between the meaningful life and the pleasant life (or the meaningless life and pain).
El libro Evocando a Gombrowicz, de Miguel Grinberg (Buenos Aires 2004; traducción polaca 2005), proporciona iluminación respecto a la relación entre Gombrowicz y la cultura argentina. Su autor era argentino y fue amigo personal del escritor polaco durante los años sesenta. Era hijo de inmigrantes polacos, preséntanos una sensibilidad muy semejante a la que conocemos de Diario y otros libros de Gombrowicz. Por ejemplo, de acuerdo con Gombrowicz, Grinberg interpretó ambas culturas desde el punto de vista de la relación con los centros culturales del mundo occidental. Esta relación es la de la inferioridad y la complejidad.
It’s clear that people living in terrible conditions aren’t happy and need help. But, isn’t it awkward that those whose standard of living is very high aren’t so often much happier? Those earning thousands of dollars not always feel much better than those earning much less. And, do you think their lives are always more creative and much fuller of sense and meaning? Well, not always. Instead, many of them feel frustrated and disorganized. What’s wrong here? Doesn’t ‘having access to the material goods’ mean also ‘access to the models of the good life’ and ‘instructions to make life better’? Very many people living in the West have enough material conditions to enjoy happy and meaningful lives. They are much richer than people from undeveloped countries. Also, shouldn’t they be much grateful for what they have? They have much wider access to education. I understand education in a broader way. A life time project, not just a professional skill. Education is one of the most important sources of knowledge about how to live a good life. Do the wealthy use these sources to the full extent? Well, I’m not sure. All this is what makes me think of happiness and the good life for some time.
Why so few philosophers communicate with general audiences? As if they had nothing important to say in the public arena. In most cases, they do their job within the academic environment, as they did it decades ago. The university and college people are the only target audience, as it was a century ago. They teach in a classroom, give speeches at low attended conferences and publish their texts in highly specialized journals. Their complicated language of communication is a serious barrier to non-philosophers. The problems they try to solve aren’t ones that the members of the public would recognize as problems. It’s not often that they give public speeches and TV interviews, unless they enter the political world. Very few attract a public attention. I am thinking about it because the Internet has become such a public sphere. Is it a sort of obligation for philosophers to use it?
Recent Comments