Filozofija i društvo / Philosophy and Society <p>&nbsp;<em>Filozofija i društvo </em>/ <em>Philosophy and Society</em> is a peer reviewed, open access academic journal established in 1987 and published&nbsp;quarterly by the <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory</a>, University of Belgrade. The journal was founded by members of the Belgrade ‘Praxis School’. The journal strives to cover and present key tendencies of contemporary theory and, at the same time, to encourage research in studies of philosophy and the humanities. It promotes innovative and critical thinking, open and constructive debate, creating in this way a clear space for an ongoing dialogue about questions of intellectual and social reality within the international academic community.&nbsp;<em>Contributions of high quality</em> – regardless of their tradition, school of thought or disciplinary background – are welcome. The journal covers a wide breadth of philosophical and social questions that are theoretically orientated. In accordance with this, the editorial board equally values disciplinary and interdisciplinary oriented studies.</p> <p>The highest quality of editorial standard is ensured by the international membership and disciplinary expertise of the editorial board.</p> Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade, Serbia en-US Filozofija i društvo / Philosophy and Society 0353-5738 <p>Articles published in the&nbsp;<em>Philosophy and Society</em>&nbsp;will be Open-Access articles distributed under a&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License</a>.</p> Plurality Is a conditio per quam of All Political Life <p>The book <em>Phenomenology of Plurality: Hannah Arendt on Political Intersubjectivity </em>is a contribution not only to the phenomenological tradition of thought and Hannah Arendt studies, but also political science and, most importantly, political philosophy. Sophie Loidolt advances an intervention that stands in contrast to contemporary phenomenological research which in certain times have had the tendency to perform depoliticized examination of the self and sociality, actually revealing the intention of <em>Phenomenology of Plurality </em>to articulate the numerous elements that comprise the methodological novelty with which Arendt changes the theory of the political.</p> Sanja Bojanić ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-30 2020-06-30 31 2 141 145 10.2298/FID2002141B Social Ontology: Butler via Arendt via Loidolt <p>This short contribution is written on the occasion of the book discussion of Sophie Loidolt’s <em>Phenomenology of Plurality: Hannah Arendt on Political Intersubjectivity </em>(2018) at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory. It presents an attempt to read the two key notions Loidolt elaborates in her book – spaces of meaning and spaces of the public and private – from a critical perspective offered by Judith Butler’s taking up of Arendt’s work. Offering Butler’s conception of social ontology through several major points of contestation with Arendt, I argue against an all too simple reduction of her understanding of the political and normativity to poststructuralist ones.</p> Adriana Zaharijević ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-30 2020-06-30 31 2 146 154 10.2298/FID2002146Z Plurality, Normativity, and the Body: Response to Sanja Bojanić and Adriana Zaharijević <p>The first part of the text is a précis of the monograph <em>Phenomenology of Plurality: Hannah Arendt on Political Intersubjectivity</em>, a phenomenological analysis of Arendt’s core notion of plurality that unites the fields of phenomenology, political theory, social ontology, and Arendt studies. In the second, larger part, the author responds to the comments given by Sanja Bojanić and Adriana Zaharijević, in order to clarify some key concepts and positions presented in the book.</p> Sophie Loidolt ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-30 2020-06-30 31 2 155 161 10.2298/FID2002155L Hermeneutics of Translation and Understanding of Violence <p>The philosophical definition of violence today is “incomplete” and leaves a “gap” between the phenomenon and the concept. This is due to the fact that the concept of “violence” was/is strangely included in the general philosophical categorial line. In domestic and Western discourse, the problem field of violence contains, above all, political and ethical meanings. The problem is intuitively resolved in its appeal to the concept of “power”, which turns out to be philosophically lost in modern philosophy. Only exceptionally do we find “traces” of this concept in philosophical works. Among them are the works of Aristotle, which need to be freed from modern, distorting interpretations. Thus, in the translations of Aristotle, the Greek <em>δύναμις</em>, used for the traditional transferring the category of possibility, lost its meaning of force (movement, ability, function); in its turn, “force” lost relation to “violence” (<em>βια</em>) and “necessity”. Violence is understood as a kind of necessity, which is associated with the suppression of one’s “own decision”, freedom, something that “prevents desire” and contrary to “common thinking,” as well as the absence of “good”. Violence is presented not only in an ontological sense, but also existentially, as the opposite of “good” and of one’s own “desire”. Force remains in the shadow of “necessity” as “possibility”, “potential energy” and “movement”, and violence loses the opposition that has arisen in an ontological mode.</p> Sergey N. Borisov, Viktor P. Rimsky ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-28 2020-06-28 31 2 165 176 10.2298/FID2002165B The Concept of Engagement <p>In this paper, we illuminate the basic features of the concept of engagement, which has only become possible in the secular world, with the emergence of the modern individual deprived of any stable, eternal order or hierarchy of values. Still, engagement is not only individual but also collective, as the lack of certainty about the truth affects not only the community and society but also motivates them to follow the same paradigm as the individual – themselves at stake, without knowing where it could possibly lead, but with the intention to produce some tangible and stable socio-cosmic structures that could alleviate man’s uncertainty and thus insecurity. The necessity of engagement stems from the circumstance that man lives in a context saturated with meanings that call him out in advance and influence him. Therefore, engagement means actually acting back to the being-exposed to meanings and structures that have already affected man and his situation. One section of the text deals with an understanding of engagement in the contemporary, “postmodern” era.</p> Chaslav D. Koprivitsa ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-28 2020-06-28 31 2 177 193 10.2298/FID2002177K The Aristotelian Arche-Decisions and the Challenge of Perishing <p>The paper deals with Aristotle’s concept of corruption. First, it reconstructs Aristotle’s debate with the pre-Socratics and then it focuses on the candidates for entity that can perish: form, matter, and substance. The text argues against the widely accepted thesis according to which substance is a <em>corruptio simpliciter </em>without further ado. The paper intensely relies upon ancient and medieval commentators of Aristotle. Finally, special attention is devoted to the dimension of time and the problem of actuality.</p> Mark Losoncz ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-28 2020-06-28 31 2 194 219 10.2298/FID2002194L Ivory Tower and Barricades: Marcuse and Adorno on the Separation of Theory and Praxis <p>The events of 1968/69 initiated a dispute between Adorno and Marcuse over the (alleged) separation of theory and praxis. While Marcuse “stood at the barricades” Adorno sought recluse in the “ivory tower”. Marcuse and German students perceived Adorno’s move as departure from fundamental postulates of critical theory as laid down in Horkheimer’s 1937 essay. Adorno died amidst the process of clarifying his differences with Marcuse and thus the “unlimited discussions” between the two remain unfinished. This paper sets to examine how both Marcuse and Adorno remained dedicated to the unity of theory and praxis, albeit in different ways. I argue that Adorno did not separate theory and praxis; instead, he perceived the gap between critical theory and concrete historical situation. Adorno rejected simple and unreflective translation of theory into praxis. Hence his attempt to recalibrate critical theory. Marcuse’s and Adorno’s differences lie in their different evaluation of the student movement and this (mis)evaluation was context related. My second argument is that Marcuse/Adorno disagreement is partly caused by the absence of the two from the concrete historical context.</p> Maroje Višić ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-28 2020-06-28 31 2 220 241 10.2298/FID2002220V The Work of Art as fictio personae <p>The article investigates how and why we treat works of art as persons. From rhetoric to jurisprudence, various disciplines have dealt with the practice of attributing human features and abilities to insensate objects. The agency of works of art acting as fictitious persons is not only rec­ognized at the level of aesthetic experience, but also outside it, because there have been cases in which they were subject to legal liability. Per­sonhood is not reducible to individual human beings. However, since works of art lack senses and consciousness, there is ultimately a limit to the personifying metaphor.</p> Miloš Ćipranić ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-28 2020-06-28 31 2 242 259 Lucien Calvié, La question yougoslave et l’Europe, Édition de Cygne, Paris, 2018. <p>Lucien Calvié,<em> La question yougoslave et l’</em><em>E</em><em>urope</em>, Édition de Cygne, Paris, 2018.</p> <p>Ivica Mladenović</p> Ivica Mladenović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-29 2020-06-29 31 2 263 264 Barbara Herman, Morality as Rationality: A Study of Kant’s Ethics, Routledge, Abingdon and New York, 2016. <p>BARBARA HERMAN, MORALITY AS RATIONALITY: A STUDY OF KANT’S<br>ETHICS, ROUTLEDGE, ABINGDON AND NEW YORK, 2016.<br>Milica Smajević</p> Milica Smajević ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-29 2020-06-29 31 2 265 267 Radosław Zenderowski (red.), Mieliśmy swój dom, w którym byliśmy szczęśliwi…, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKSW, Warszawa, 2019. <p>RADOSŁAW ZENDEROWSKI (RED.), <em>MIELIŚMY SWÓJ DOM, W KTÓRYM BYLIŚMY SZCZĘŚLIWI… KONFLIKTY ETNICZNE NA TERYTORIUM BYŁEJ JUGOSŁAWII W NARRACJACH MIGRANTÓW Z PAŃSTW POSTJUGOSŁOWIAŃSKICH MIESZKAJĄCYCH W AUSTRII</em>, WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE UKSW, WARSZAWA, 2019.</p> <p>Juraj Marušiak</p> Juraj Marušiak ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-29 2020-06-29 31 2 268 272 Jovo Bakić, Evropska krajnja desnica 1945-2018, Clio, Beograd, 2019 <p>JOVO BAKIĆ, EVROPSKA KRAJNJA DESNICA 1945-2018, CLIO, BEOGRAD, 2019.<br>Jovica Pavlović</p> Jovica Pavlović ##submission.copyrightStatement## 2020-06-29 2020-06-29 31 2 273 275