Search

This paper seeks to demonstrate how the recognition and study of women's exile narratives could bring new analytical and reflexive registers to the field of philosophical work on political punishment. In order to do this, first of all, a review of its classical, Greek and Roman origins is made, pointing out that, although the exile has varied over the centuries, there are certain constituent elements that are maintained in its contemporary applications. This leads us to observe the way that these constitutive elements of exile are present in a particular way in women's exile narrative writing - especially those of the last civil-military dictatorships of the Latin American Southern Cone. To recognise and include these women's experiential narratives in a highly masculinised textual and analytical corpus allows for new approaches and reflexive projections to the field of philosophical studies on exile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to examine the philosophies of the late Heidegger and the young Marx side by side to show how, while differing radically in some important aspects, both philosophies are motivated by similar concerns and are not so different as to preclude a productive dialogue between them. In so far as both thinkers can be said to have thought, taking the word in a Heideggerian sense, the "same", the way both philosophies diverge from each other can be especially illuminating when it comes to offering a clear interpretation of them (a task which is especially important to gain an understanding of Heidegger's philosophy which is often obscure). We'll see how Heidegger's notion of finitude implies a series of criticisms of Marx's philosophy. Finally, I'll pose a question regarding the limits of Heidegger's criticism of Marx, considering that this criticism goes as far as to criticize the idea that all human beings are equal and so implies a rejection of the idea of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I analyze some classical arguments used by rhetorical tradition to oppose philosophical discourse. To do this, I give a brief account of the characteristics defining the philosophical discourse of Platonic-Cartesian affiliation that are relevant for the dispute with Rhetoric. Then, on the one hand, I dwell upon the rehabilitation of doxa (common sense) as a vital element of practical discourse in order to countering the downgrading of doxa by the universalistic approach of philosophy. On the other hand, based on the notion of common sense, I analyze the idea of “audience”, essential for Rhetoric, as well as the resulting plurality of spheres of validity. This horizontal plurality contrasts with the vertical monism of philosophical discourse. Finally, in the conclusion I point out one of the most urgent problems of this pluralistic movement that rhetoric has proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]