The Politics of Conciliation

  • Allan Janik
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 114)


Forecasting the future of anything whatever is heady business — all the more so, if the subject in question is philosophy. If we need reminding of that, we might just consider for a moment how the future of philosophy looked to Hegel in 1806, to Marx and Feuerbach in the early 1840s, to Russell and Moore at the turn of the century or to Ebner and Jaspers just after World War One. Perhaps the best way to approach this difficult subject is to consider the attitudes of some prominent thinkers to the future generally.


Analytic Philosophy Philosophical Position Continental Philosophy Political Element Adversarial Posture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See my “Ebner und Popper als Denker” Akten des internationalen Ferdinand Ebner Symposium, ed. Walter Methlagl (Salzburg, 1985), and “Wittgenstein: An Austrian Enigma”, Austrian Philosophy, ed. J. C. Nyíri (Munich, 1981), pp. 75–89.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For the details of my critique of Rorty’s views about the future of philosophy see above, pp. 80–92. My criticisms are directed at the views he expresses in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, 1979) not those in The Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis, 1982), whose Introduction and Conclusion compliment the views I have developed here, xiii-xlvii; pp. 211–30.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stephen Toulmin, “Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 39–48.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacques Bouvresse, Le philosophe chez les autophages, (Paris, 1984).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    John Passmore has brilliantly developed the spectrum of opinion concerning the relations between philosophy and history in his contribution to Scientific Explanation and Understanding, ed. Nicholas Rescher, (London and Boston, 1983), 83–105;Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    cf. Pass more’s “Why Philosophy of Science”, Science Under Scrutiny, ed. R. W. Home (Dordrecht, 1983), pp. 5–30.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    I have discussed the concept of spiritual practice in “Discussing Technology: Breaking the Ground”, Is the Computer a Tool?, below and “Style and Idea in the Later Heidegger”, above.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Marvin Farber, “Descriptive Philosophy and Human Existence”, Philosophic Thought in France and the United States, ed. Marvin Farber (Buffalo, 1950), p. 430.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    John Dewey, German Politics and Philosophy (New York, 1915);Google Scholar
  10. 8a.
    Max Scheler, Der Genius des Krieges und der deutsche Krieg, Gesammelte Werke IV: Politische-pedagogische Schriften (Bern & Munich, 1982).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    On Haecker see my, “The Philosophy of Inwardness: Haecker, Kierkegaard and the Brenner”, International Kierkegaard Commentary, Vol. I: The Two Ages, ed. Robert Perkins (Mobile: forthcoming).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    John Passmore, 100 Years of Philosophy, (London, 1957), p. 471 et passim. Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    G. K. Chesterton, G. F. Watts (New York, 1902), pp. 10–2.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    For important studies of the relationship between socio-economic problems and intellectual life in Wilhelmine Germany see Arthur Mitzman, The Iron Cage (New York, 1970) andGoogle Scholar
  15. 12a.
    Kenneth Barkin, The Controversy Over German Industrialization (Chicago, 1969).Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    William Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts”, The Importance of Language, ed. Max Black (Engelwood Cliffs, 1962), p. 121- 46.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    William Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Lexington, Mass., 1974), p. 181.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    Jean Cavaillès, Philosophie mathématique (Paris, 1969). I am indebted to Professor Santiago Ramirez for information about Cavaillès; Ramirez is currently preparing a definitive study of Cavaillès. He presented a preliminary report of his research to the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy and History of Science in October 1984 under the title “An Alternative for the Philosophy of Mathematics”, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. 16.
    Barry Smith, Parts and Moments (Munich, 1982). For a partial list of the proceedings of the Austro-German Seminar see Structure and Gestalt, ed. Barry Smith (Amsterdam, 1981), p. iv-vii.Google Scholar
  20. 17.
    On praxeology see Gunnar Skirbekk (ed.) Praxeology (Oslo, 1983).Google Scholar
  21. 18.
    Kjell S. Johannessen, “Language, Art and Aesthetic Practice”, Wittgenstein, Aesthetics and Transcendental Philosophy, eds. Johannessen & Nordenstam (Vienna, 1981).Google Scholar
  22. 19.
    See Gunnar Danbolt’s contribution to Den estetiske praksis (Aesthetic Practices) (Oslo, 1979), pp. 64–96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan Janik
    • 1
  1. 1.Brenner ArchiveInnsbruck UniversityAustria

Personalised recommendations