Cultura.

International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

DOI: 10.248,10193-011-0018-8
51

!"#$%&#'())&*+$,-,.$,/#'(".$)0/$,("#(1#$%&#!$%&)2#3()#+"#
4"+*5$,/+*#4"$,678&/$+/0*+)#9"$&)/0*$0)+*,.:;#<,/(*+,#
=+)$:+"">#?5@)A5#B0CD/.#+"E#?05#F&G()E
H
#
#
Giuseppe D`ANNA
laculty o Lducation, Uniersita degli Studi di loggia
Via Arpi 155, 1100 loggia
giuseppe.dannaunina.it

Abstract. In this paper I would like to demonstrate that the society o spectacle`
notably inluences our idea o the other and our intercultural thought and practice.
In this way the imagination is not a ree creatie capability o a human being, but a
political and social instrument o power o the society o spectacle.
Keywords: imagination, correlatiism, identity, image, interculturalism

Beore getting into the heart o my subject it is necessary to state a his-
torical hermeneutic explanation o the conceptual deices that will be
used in the course o my relection. lor correlatiism` I assume here
the deinition that Nicolai lartmann explicates in the text Zvr
Crvvategvvg aer Ovtotogie o 1935, where he writes:

So erschiedene Kope wie Natorp, Cassirer, Rickert, lusserl, leidegger sind in
dieser linsicht demselben Irrtum erlegen. Mit dem Psychologismus aber, den sie
bekmten, ist den logischen 1heorien die Verkennung des 1ranszendenzerhltnis-
ses im Lrkenntnisphnomen gemeinsam. |.| linter dieser Problemerkennnung
steckt aber noch eine Uberlegung, die iel lter ist und die als lehlerquelle weitge-
hender Konsequenzen auch die Kritik der reinen Vernunt beherrscht. Man kann sie
das korrelatiistiche Argument` nennen. Ls gibt kein Lrkenntnisobjekt ohne Lrk-
enntnissubjekt, sagt dieses Argument, man kann den Gegenstand nicht om Be-
wu|tsein trennen, er ist berhaupt nur Gegenstand, r das Bewusstsein. ,lart-
mann, 1935: 14,
2


Using more extensiely the concept o correlatiism ormulated by
lartmann, we can deine correlatiistic` all those positions, doctrines
and theories in all ields o knowledge which reduce the transcendence,
the excess o the outside world, its concrete hardness and strength, its
being radically` other to the categorizing, ordering shapes and donating
a sense o subjectiity.
Certainly, lartmann deelops his anti-correlatiistic position in a di-
rection that is not o our interest now, howeer, Lukacs was to grasp the
social and ethical-political signiicance o the conceptual deice o lart-
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Giuseppe D`ANNA , On the Correlatiistic Construction o the Other

52

mann. 1he lungarian philosopher, in act, in the irst part o the Ovtotog,
of tbe .ociat beivg dedicates two whole chapters to lartmann, and not by
chance.
Lukacs` starting point is o course Marxism, which in its genetic-
materialist constitution is used as the doctrine o resistance` to the new
scientiic` philosophies ,neo-Kantianism, empirio-criticism and neo-
positiism,, which are characterized only by an epistemological-
ormalizing perspectie, and delegitimize - in their abstract constructions
- the relection on external reality, on reality itsel. It is Rickert in Crevev
aer vatvrri..ev.cbaftticbev egriff.bitavvg who, by identiying natural science
and generalizing obseration, although managing to assign a precise loca-
tion to sociology in its methodological dualism, elides the undamental
problem o the ontological speciicity o social being` when the concep-
tual diiculties o the dierent cultural areas are resoled on a purely`
epistemological or methodological-epistemological` leel. 1he neo-
Kantianism o Rickert, Mach and Adenarius` empirio-criticism and
neopositiism are linked by a logical and epistemological reductionism o
reality that has its roots in bourgeois thought ,Lukacs, 196: 4,.
Simplistically, Lukacs theory is as ollows: the tendency to the hyper-
epistemology, logicism and the annihilation o a reality in itsel, on the
one hand, cuts the root o all theories conceied as a relection o reality,
namely as the possibility o the existence o a reality and an otherness ir-
reducible to the uniorming mesh o subjectiity, on the other hand, he
is programmatically careul not to include the contradiction in his con-
structions, which howeer, or Marxism, represents the engine o the
dialectic o the reality.
1his way, the abstractness o the philosophies o science prepares the
ground to the correlatiistic and eternalized approal o capitalist ideol-
ogy. 1he closure o knowledge in an auto-reerential and sel-
correlatiistic circuit, where the incessant moement o the .vfbebvvg
loses all rights o citizenship and in which the truth as the stress to the
correspondence between reality and knowledge ails, oers ree space
or the manipulation o learning and knowledge itsel which has immedi-
ate eects on the orms o eeryday practice. 1he lungarian philoso-
pher writes:

1he capitalist economy has undergone major changes during this period, partly due
to a qualitatiely signiicant growth in the domination o nature and, in close corre-
lation to an unimaginable increase in labour productiity, in part because o new or-
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Cultura. International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

53

ganizational orms not only to improe production, but also to regulate the capitalist
consumer. It should not be orgotten that the complete submission to capitalist in-
dustry o consumer goods ,and serices o so-called, is a result o the last three
quarters o a century. 1he result has been the economic necessity o an increasingly
sophisticated market manipulation. 1his manipulation was unknown both at time o
ree trade and at time o the beginning o the monopolistic capitalism. At the same
time ... appear new methods o political and social handling, which penetrate deeply
into the lies o indiiduals. ,Lukacs, 196: 25-26,

Lukacs, then, plunges the lartmannian anti-correlatiistic instance
into his reading o Marx, and elects it as an essential piot o his critique
o monopolistic capitalism. 1he two last lines o the aboe-quoted
Lukacs passage allow us to transer the correlatiistic position on a new
leel in which we will discuss the issue o cultural dierence, a dierence
objectiied and designed by a new deice or social control o the con-
sumer type: that o spectacularization.
1he quote by Lukacs closes by saying that new methods o handling
political and social, which penetrate deeply into the lies o indiiduals
appear`, it is not diicult to suppose that these new methods and tech-
niques are to be identiied with the tools that constitute or Guy Debord
the voav. oeravai and er.ereravai o capitalism in building the society o
the spectacle. On the other hand, it is Debord himsel who chooses as an
epigraph to the second chapter o 1he ociet, of tbe ectacte a step taken
rom Lukacs` i.tor, ava Cta.. Cov.ciov.ve.., where we read:

lor it is only as the uniersal category o total social being that the commodity can
be understood in its authentic essence. It is only in this context that reiication
which arises rom the commodity relation acquires a decisie meaning, as much or
the objectie eolution o society as or the attitude o men towards it, or the sub-
mission o their consciousness to the orms in which this reiication is expressed ...
1his submission also grows because o the act that the more the rationalization and
mechanization o the work process increases, the more the actiity o the worker
loses its character as actiity and becomes a contemplatie attitude. ,Debord, 190:
34,

As ar as conceptually expressed, I can now enunciate my working hy-
pothesis on the correlatiistic spectacularity o cultural dierence. All
terms and conceptual dyads that deine ields o study related to multi-
culturalism emerge in a well-argued way: identity-dierence, recognition,
dialogue, training, common sense, crossbreeding, hybridization, listening,
tolerance, integration, relation, etc., what, howeer, does not emerge is
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Giuseppe D`ANNA , On the Correlatiistic Construction o the Other

54

the assumption that the dissemination, understanding, ethical alorisa-
tion, the role that these concepts play in social and daily practices and
that deine behaiours and thoughts about cultural dierence and iden-
tity constitute the deices designed in the orge o an entirely correlatiis-
tic spectacular world, a world o images able to deine itsel and to deine
the meanings and the horizons o sense on which the many social and
political !ettav.cbavvvgev are constituted.
In short, the idea - certainly not a new one - is as ollows: many re-
lections on intercultural philosophy take a stand in aour o an en-
hancement o the imagination ,think o the dispute in political philoso-
phy between supporters o Kantianism s Neo-Aristotelian,.
3
\hile the
abstract thought in its argumentatie way would negate the dierence
and cultural speciicity, the imagination would help in creating a political
space o a social relationship in which the dierences would be pre-
sered and the cultural and symbolic horizon o dierent cultures would
be open to building common lie shared practices. But is it possible in
the era o globalization, the era o mass media and irtuality, to work
with a conceptual deice` that remains anchored to an ancient and
modern, as well as conceptually isolated, understanding o subjectiity
Lspecially in the context o political philosophy, but not limited to it, the
imagination seems to become the keystone o cultural antireductionism,
a keystone to seize the symbolic, multidimensional and plural horizons
that deine the cultural intermarriage in our time. \hether it`s Martha
Nussbaum in Cvttirativg vvavit, ,199, or rovtier. of ]v.tice ,2006,, or, as
Alessandro lerrara does in a fora aett`e.evio, it`s about adding alue,
through Arendt`s interpretation, to the productie imagination o Kant`s
third critique, or when it`s about reisiting interculturality through her-
meneutics, like Mall ,1995, does or, inally, when it`s about meeting in a
historicistic critical-problematic perspectie ,Cacciatore, 2010, the ques-
tion o the relationship between uniersalism and relatiism, imagination
seems to play a determining role in the approach to intercultural issues.
And this is precisely the point that I question: the imagination, that is,
no longer expresses the creatie and combinatorial power o subjectiity,
it is no longer facvtta. in Vico`s sense o the term, or ivbitavvg./raft in
the Kantian sense. It is rather a spectacular image to deine the unction-
ality o the imagination and the application o the latter with respect to a
horizon o iguratie complex and dynamic appearances, already imbued
with sense and alue-orientation.
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Cultura. International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

55

But what is meant by perormance Debord, in 1be ociet, of tbe ecta
cte is clear in this regard: 1he spectacle is not a collection o images, but
a social relation among people mediated by images` ,Debord, 190: 4,
and again: 1he spectacle cannot be understood as the abuse o a world
o ision, as the product o the techniques o mass dissemination o im-
ages. It is, rather, a \eltanschauung which has become actual, materially
translated. It is a ision o the world which has become objectiied`
,Debord, 190: 4,.
1he spectacle, that is, or Debord is the historical orm o our time, it
deines the horizon o incorporation in which the contemporary subject,
the iewer, constructs his own existence and identity, it is the connectie
tissue that orients more and more the interpersonal relationships, social
practices and relationships between the dierences. 1his means that the
spectacle` or the spectacularization` are not circumented through a
ree choice o subjectiity but they are, and Debord states it openly, a
!ettav.cbavvvg which has become !ir/ticb/eit, i.e. actuality, in them is
translated the ontic reality within which the indiidual operates, and this
translation is the product o the preailing economy` and technique as a
way o producing this economy. 1he spectacle, in short, Debord says,

It is not a supplement to the real world, it is added decoration. It is the heart o the
unrealism o the real society. In all its speciic orms, as inormation or propaganda,
adertisement or direct consumption o entertainments, the spectacle is the present
voaet o socially dominant lie. It is the omnipresent airmation o the choice atreaa,
vaae in production and its corollary consumption. ,Debord, 190: 4,

I the spectacle is the possibility in which the existence objectiies it-
sel in all its orms, then it is ery diicult, i a thinking intends to prac-
tice critically, regardless o its dynamic in dealing with those categories -
irst o all identity - who hae become linchpins o intercultural thinking
,recognition, dialogue, relation, integration, intermarriage, etc.,.
O course Debord does not ace the intercultural issue, but the text o
196, the ociet, of tbe ectacte is so modern that it can be problematized
een in that direction. Let us thereore continue with the theme o the
correlation and image in relation to the spectacle and, ollowing the
lrench thinker, let`s combine it with the concept o cultural identity.
1he irst transormation o the society o the spectacle concerns the
subject, it, as mentioned just beore, becomes a spectator.` 1he transla-
tion o subjectiity in the iewer, on the other hand, implies a broken
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Giuseppe D`ANNA , On the Correlatiistic Construction o the Other

56

correlation, that between subject and object, and the auto-reconstruction
o a representation o reality independent rom the iewer itsel. Not co-
incidentally Debord called his irst book o the ociet, of tbe ectacte the
culmination o separation.` 1his separation is the distance between the
iewer and the image ,the representation,, the latter, untied rom the re-
straints o subjectiity, becomes autonomous in its objectiications. It`s
like thinking about Kant`s transcendental subject downgraded o all its
pure orms a priori, o all its aculties and o transcendental apperception
and it is like imagining all the elements that deine its transcendentality,
the aculties and the synthetic actiity o the cogito become separate and
operate autonomously in the ormation o the image. 1he correlatiistic
process becomes real in the spectacular representation which dynami-
cally becomes the productie orge o models o lie, models o identity,
cultural patterns, behaiour patterns and horizons o meaning, the
iewer, at the same time, is stripped o all agility o thought, he has no
more power against the image. Debord states:

\hen the real world changes into simple images, simple images become real beings
and eectie motiations o a hypnotic behaior. 1he spectacle as a tendency to
va/e ove .ee the world by means o arious specialized mediations ,it can no longer
be grasped directly,, naturally inds ision to be the priileged human sense which
the sense o touch was or other epochs, the most abstract, the most mystiiable
sense corresponds to the generalized abstraction o present-day society. But the
spectacle is not longer identiiable with the mere look, een combined with hearing.
It is that which escapes the actiity o men, that which escapes reconsideration and
correction by their work. It is the opposite o dialogue. \hereer there is independ-
ent rere.evtatiov the spectacle reconstitutes itsel. ,Debord, 190: 13,

And here is annihilated one o the categories that are most directly
discussed within the intercultural discourse and more immediately com-
bine with the concept o luid, perspectie or multiple identity: that o
dialogue. 1heorists o intercultural thought such as \immer ,2004,,
Kimmerle ,2002,, lornet-Betancourt ,2001, and Mall ,1995,, to name
just a ew, hae made the equality o the dialoguers and dialogism the
strong point o intercultural relation. Now, Debord tells us that the spec-
tacular tissue in which we lie is the uninterrupted conersation which
the present order maintains about itsel, its laudatory monologue. It is
the sel-portrait o power in the epoch o its totalitarian management o
the conditions o existence` and that this power o instantaneous
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Cultura. International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

5

communication, it is because this communication` is essentially vvitat
erat` ,Debord, 190: 14-15,.
1he iewer can only be subjected to the construction o immanent
worlds with the same creatie power o the spectacular image, the images
become or him the moties and reasons o his lie practices. Precisely
because the interaction between the spectator and spectacular image is
impossible, because the spectator`s key is his hypnotic liability, the spec-
tacle deines within itsel the monologue through which it designs and
redesigns the imagined reality, planning consumption, desires, policies
and moral behaiour o indiiduals and ocuses solely on its sel-
preseration. In short, the iewer, powerless towards the image, seems to
ace what 1odoro describes in 1be Covqve.t of .verica happening to the
American Indians beore the Spaniards:

It is this particular way o practicing communication ,neglecting the interhuman di-
mension, priileging contact with the world, which is responsible or the Indians`
distorted image o the Spaniards during the irst encounters, and notably or the
paralyzing belie that the Spaniards are gods. ,1odoro, 1984: 5,

Paralysing` is the imaginatie construction o the spectacle towards the
iewer. \hat is paralyzed,` moreoer, is what, as 1odoro himsel im-
plies, does not enter into a dialogic relation, that does not open to the
possibility o the relation. And the spectacle is paralysing when it be-
comes an essentializing monologue. I the spectacle is the monopoly o
appearance and, i the appearance becomes real lie, then, Debord says:
\ithin a world reatt, ov it. beaa, the true is a moment o the alse`
,Debord, 190: 10,.
And it is, thereore, decreed the spectacle`s project power, such a dis-
ruptie power to deine horizons o discourse and lie globally alid, ho-
rizons that descend rom an illusion become reality. So een the con-
struction o identity and dierence in the society o the spectacle unolds
as a monological productie process o rational and correlatiistic acti-
ity o the spectacular image. Identity and dierence, that is to say, are
constituted as the real shared truth o a moment o alsehood.
\e all remember the last elections in Italy: there wasn`t a day when
the media system didn`t warn us that a Romanian had raped an Italian
woman. 1he same news, then, was repeated all the time and was the sub-
ject o ongoing policy discussions. It was built this way and spread the
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Giuseppe D`ANNA , On the Correlatiistic Construction o the Other

58

idea o the identity o the Romanian people and the Romanian-iolence
duality.
Regardless o the political unction o the media and the spectacular
message, what is important to notice is that the spectacle, the alie` im-
age, now becomes the true place o essentialization o identity. Lery-
thing is coded ery well also by Said in the timeless text Orievtati.v, in
which we read: One aspect o the electronic, postmodern world is that
there has been a reinorcement o the stereotypes by which the Orient is
iewed. 1eleision, the ilms, and all the media`s resources hae orced
inormation into more and more standardized molds` ,Said, 19: 26,.
1he worst enemy o essentialization o identity today is neither the
metaphysical thought nor ontology but rather it is the spectacular image,
which sets out the identitarian nature o indiiduals with regard to the
desires and social needs. Not only that, the spectacle also has the power
to dissole the identitarian dierence in a numerical quantiication and
this is or one simple reason, which Debord explains with great insight in
the context o Marx`s Caitat:

1he loss o quality so eident at all leels o spectacular language, o the objects it
praises to the behaior it regulates, merely translates the undamental traits o the
real production which brushes reality aside: the commodity-orm is through and
through equal to itsel, the category o the quantitatie. It is the quantitatie which
the commodity-orm deelops, and it can only deelop within the quantitatie.
,Debord, 190: 23,

1he cultural dierence, the luid identity requires a deinition dialectics
o a qualitatie type, it requires the story, the narratie, the plural illing
o space and time, and the radical and perspectie dierence o this ill-
ing. 1he spectacle, on the contrary, as commodity and commodiication,
becomes a process o homologation o the dierence and irreducible
translation o the quantity into quality: the consumption, ater all, re-
quires and implies more and more the category o quantity. 1his is the
reason why Debord can state that in the society o the spectacle the use
alue disappears and the exchange alue reigns.
1his is why, again, the spectacle sponsors the number o immigrants
that inade our shores more than their indiidual narrations. 1he 1V im-
age, thereore, in its arious magazines and newspapers, can decide to
terminate the indiiduality and the identitarian narration o each migrant
in a numerical quantity that increases the anxiety o the geographically
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Cultura. International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

59

stable population. 1he migrants, then, are so rightening because they
are too many!` Once again the power o the image is paralysing: once
again the ragment`, spectacularly constructed, becomes the whole.
And when the ragment becomes the whole there is a complete waste o
time as an historical narratie and, thereore, loss o identity seen as the
planning o the dierence, as quality time o the sphere o speciicity and
modiiability.
About spectacular or pseudo-cyclic time Debord writes that it is an
ininite accumulation o equialent interals. It is the abstraction o irre-
ersible time where all the segments o the chronometer must only proe
their merely quantitatie equality. 1his time is in reality exactly what it is
in its ecbavgeabte character` ,Debord, 190: 84,.
In short, 1he spectacle, as the present social organization o the pa-
ralysis o history and memory, o the abandonment o history built on
the oundation o historical time, is the fat.e cov.ciov.ve.. of tive` ,Debord,
190: 8,.
1he iewer is doomed to consume absolutized pieces o time that ex-
change themseles hastily according to the logic o the spectacular ma-
chine. Lach narratie is taken rom its historical temporalization and the
identities, the identical and the dierent, are ixed into homogeneous
moments that determine a sort o approal. 1he indiidual experience o
separate daily lie remains without critical access to its own past, which,
Debord writes, is not deliered anywhere. 1here is no communication. It
is misunderstood and orgotten or the beneit o the alse spectacular
memory o the non-memorable.
In short, the spectacle annihilates the memory o the historical narra-
tie and keeps alie the accidental, ariable and ragmented memory o
consumption. Once again it is the image to deine memory and obliion,
to bend in the equialent moments o the spectacular temporality the
speciicity o each historical indiiduality.
Identity and dierence, then, in the spectacular image generate and
disintegrate themseles in a representation that teleologically selects the
monologue suitable or sel-preseration, a monologue that does not in-
clude empty spaces in which een only by chance reedom and critical
meta-relection can be exerted. In the society o the spectacle eerything
has to be illed.
\hat was said ollowing Debord may be useul to emphasize how the
real enemy o cultural dierence and intercultural relations lurks in the
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Giuseppe D`ANNA , On the Correlatiistic Construction o the Other

60

spectacular transposition o the symbolic, imaginary and representation,
a transposition that originates in its correlatiist orms and content o
conceiability o otherness.
Len more radical is another lrench thinker, Jean Baudrillard, who in
the text 1be Perfect Crive states that the identity-dierence dyad is de-
signed or an artiicial synthesis o otherness. 1he real otherness, in act,
the one which resists, that does not oppose itsel because it is radically
other` has been deeated, liquidated and must be reproduced. 1he
otherness is lost and we must absolutely produce the other as a dier-
ence, instead o liing otherness as destiny.` 1he other, then, must be
redesigned as a dierence to be related in a correlatiistic way to the
identical. Only this way, as an oppositional negotiation, the otherness is
controlled in the irtual world, since the murder o the reality, o the
other, has to leae no traces, what claims to be unique, incomparable and
which plays outside the game o dierence, must be exterminated
,Baudrillard, 1996: 123,.
Identity and dierence, then, become categories o reduction and ne-
gotiation o a construction o the conceptual, tamed and mastered
otherness, within the entertainment and the irtual world. Beore talking
with the dierence, with the other, it should be appropriate to set it ree
rom the genetic engineering o its reduction to the conceptual and do-
mestic ield o identity because, Baudrillard writes: 1his reconciliation
o all antagonistic orms in the name o consensus and coniiality is the
worst thing we can do. \e must reconcile nothing. \e must keep open
the otherness o orms, the disparity between terms, we must keep alie
the orms o the irreducible` ,Baudrillard, 1996: 123,.
1he otherness as ate, as uncompromising and unyielding resistance,
as the nature o what does not enter in a relation because it is incompa-
rable, then, een in the tragic risk o the existence o parallel and in-
communicable worlds, it becomes the essential igure o the anti-
spectacular dierence, it becomes the otherness released rom mediatic
correlatiism which intends to project` it in the moments o consumis-
tic pseudo-cyclicity ree rom the memory o the spectacular image.

Reerences
Baudrillard, Jean. 1be Perfect Crive. London & New-\ork: Verso, 1996.
Cacciatore, Giuseppe. Ltica interculturale e uniersalismo critico.` In vtercvt
tvratita.1ra etica e otitica. Lds. Giuseppe Cacciatore and Giuseppe D`Anna. Roma:
Carocci, 2010. 29-42.
Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM
Cultura. International Journal o Philosophy o Culture and Axiology 8,2,,2011: 51-61

61

Debord, Guy. ociet, of tbe .ectacte. Detroit: Black & Red, 190.
lerrara, Alessandro. a fora aett`e.evio. t araaigva aet givaiio. Milano: leltrinelli,
2009.
lornet-Betancourt. Ral. 1rav.forvaciv ivtercvttvrat ae ta fito.ofa. Bilbao: Descle de
Brouwer, 2001.
lartmann, Nicolai. Zvr Crvvategvvg aer Ovtotogie. Berlin: \alter De Gruyter, 1965.
Kimmerle, leinz. vter/vttvrette Pbito.obie. Zvr ivfvbrvvg. lamburg: Junius Verlag,
2002.
Lukacs, Gyorgy. Ovtotogia aett`e..ere .ociate 1. Roma: Lditori Riuniti, 196.
Mall, Ram Adhar. Pbito.obie iv 1ergteicb aer Kvttvrev. vter/vttvrette Pbito.obie: eive veve
Orievtiervvg. Darmstadt: \issenschatliche Buchgesellschat, 1995.
Nussbaum, Martha C. rovtier. of ;v.tice: Di.abitit,, ^atiovatit,, ecie. Mevber.bi.
Cambridge MA: larard Uniersity Press, 2006.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Cvttirativg bvvavit,: a cta..icat aefev.e of reforv iv tiberat eavcatiov.
Cambridge MA: larard Uniersity Press, 199.
Rawls, John. . tbeor, of ;v.tice. Cambridge MA: larard Uniersity Press, 191.
Said, Ldward. Orievtati.v. London: Pinguin, 19.
Sen, Amartya. Ov tbic. ava covovic.. Oxord: Basil Blackwell: 198.
Sen, Amartya. aevtit, ava 1iotevce. 1be ittv.iov of De.tiv,. New \ork & London: \.\.
Norton, 2006.
1odoro, 1zetan. 1be covqve.t of .verica. New \ork: larper & Row, 1984.
\immer, lranz Martin. vter/vttvrette Pbito.obie. ive ivfvbrvvg. \ien: Passagen
Verlag, 2004.

Notes

1 Lnglish translation by Maria Matrone.
2 lere is the Lnglish translation: 1hinkers such as Natorp, Cassirer, Rickert,
lusserl, and leidegger succumbed in this regard to the same error. 1hey opposed
the same psychologism which shared with their logical theories the misjudging o
the transcendence in the phenomenon o cognition . But behind this denial o the
problem there is still a much older consideration which dominates as a source o
error with large consequences, een the critique o pure reason. \ou could call it the
Correlatiist argument.` It states that there is an object o knowledge without a
subject o knowledge and that you cannot separate the object rom the conscious-
ness, that the object in general is that only to` the conscience.`
3

Sen`s ,198 and 2006, and Nussbaum`s ,2006, theories o capability are ounded on
an Aristotelian approach to the ethical and political dimension o the human being.
On the contrary, Rawls ,191, ound his political and ethical positions in Kantian phi-
losophy.

Authenticated | 2.237.10.46
Download Date | 11/4/12 7:51 PM