Filozofski vestnik <p><em>Filozofski vestnik</em> is edited and issued by the ZRC SAZU Institute of Philosophy of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts and was founded in 1980. <em>Filozofski vestnik</em> is a philosophy journal with an interdisciplinary character. It provides a forum for discussion on a wide range of issues in contemporary political philosophy, history of philosophy, history of political thought, philosophy of law, social philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of science, cultural critique, ethics, and aesthetics. The journal is open to different philosophical orientations, styles and schools, and welcomes theoretical dialogue among them.</p> <p>Print ISSN: 0353-4510<br>Online ISSN: 1581-1239</p> en-US <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">More in: <a href="">Submission chapter</a></span></p> (Jelica Šumič Riha) (Uroš Parazajda) Wed, 11 Mar 2020 11:39:26 +0100 OJS 60 Socialism’s Encore <p>This text is a serious parody of Alain Badiou’s cruise ship lecture on Edmund Husserl and mathematics to an empty auditorium in Jean-Luc Godard’s <em>Film Socialism</em> (2010). Drawing on elements and implications of Badiou’s lecture, as well as from Jacques Lacan’s famous “Impromptu at Vincennes” (1969) and his seminar of 1972-73, the authors recreate a comparable—or incomparable&nbsp;?—scene of instruction on an imaginary cruise ship in the Aegean. Jason Barker delivers the lecture <em>in propria persona</em>. The presentation of this scene is further nested à la a Russian Matryoshka doll, according to the ancient generic logic of the fictional “found and edited manuscript.” In this case, the fiction is that the transcript of Barker’s lecture has been recovered, digitally transcribed, edited and annotated by an artificial intelligence unit called AI SYSBRO 68 from the year 2210, following the sinking of the cruise ship due to pilot error sometime in our near future—2020? 2023? the data remains unclear—and a subsequent planetary apocalypse due to climate breakdown. The AI bot’s annotations are themselves an attempt to explain to its networked brethren, denominated AI ALLSYS, some of the names and terms that appear in the lecture; however, given the AI’s situation, its entirely in- or non-human nature, it is not always the most reliable or accurate of editors. It speaks of humans, which it calls “HUMS,” to other AIs: it has no “experience” or “knowledge” of the human, other than the transcribed code itself and the links of the code-terms to other code in its database. We must recall that code is not language: the former has no gaps, whereas the latter is always missing from its place. The manifest theme of the text is the problematic relation of socialism and revolution. The threat of gaplessness emerges as a <em>telos</em> of technology and the complete catastrophe of infinite progress.</p> Jason Barker Justin Clemens Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Geld, Maß und Zeit in Marx’ Kapital. Die Technik der Messung und die Produktivkraft der Verwertung <p>A theory of capitalist money causes almost unsolvable difficulties as it requires the systematic development of its individual functions – and this requires nothing less than the development of the capitalist mode of production. Moreover, with this entanglement of money’s functions on the one hand, and the mode of production on the other, the “money riddle” must be solved, the riddle of its universal and yet finite quantitative validity as it is in this validity that seems to lie the mysterious force that is essential for the capitalist mode of production. The solution of this money riddle is to reveal the entanglement between the capitalist mode of production and the functions of money by <em>measure</em> and <em>measurement</em>: capitalism that is a valorization process which is measured and increased by money. What by money in the last instance is measured is the productive force of this valorization, and this productive force is a temporal relation. Money, by quantifying social relations with its functions, becomes the technique at once for both empowering and resolving an “economy of time” (Marx). The enigmatic nature of money hence lies in this solution: to quantify the productive force of the valorization process in an economy of time.</p> Frank Engster Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 The Absent Cause and Marxʼs Value Form <p>Marx’s analysis of value-form remains a pertinent critique of contemporary capitalist mode of production. The question “why this content assumes that form” persists even more so in the 21<sup>st</sup> century, perpetuating the question of value fetish in our societies – just think of the credit valuations in times before the Great Recession, the surge in fetishized and commodified personalities of social media or the rise of cryptocurrencies. The article introduces an inquiry into the relations between “Structural Marxism” of Louis Althusser, in particular it focuses on Jacques Rancière’s contribution to <em>Lire le Capital </em>and treats it as a forerunner to another current, the project of “New reading of Marx” (“Neue Marx Lektüre”), initiated by Adorno’s students, Hans Georg Backhaus, Helmut Reichelt and Alfred Schmidt. It reintroduces the concepts of “structural causality” and “absent cause” as a specific algebraic property in the structure of social exchange intertwined with the topological adherence of surplus-object- moments of money commodity in the “dialectic of the value-form”. The unity of concrete and abstract labour is posited as an absent cause in a structure, which is called “<em>subtractive structure</em>”, echoing Alain Badiou›s operation of subtraction. The article puts forward the following thesis: <em>A structure of Two implies a Third</em>. It tracks both objects, the labour and money commodity, alongside the two totalities – production and exchange – and relates them to this principle. By thinking together these two different logical schemas, the article advances the contemporary economic question of intertemporal analysis in the process of subjectivation.</p> Uroš Kranjc Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Towards an Object-oriented Critique of Political Economy <p>In the article I investigate the role of objects in Marx’s critical theory. I focus on the way in which Marx’s understanding of objects evolves from his earlier works towards his later works. In the first part I analyse the general theory of objectification developed by Marx in the <em>Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 </em>and in the<em> Theses on Feuerbach. </em>In the second part I focus on <em>Grundrisse</em> and <em>Capital</em>, where I believe Marx comprehends capital as a specific mode of social objectification. In the last part I analyse the distinction between the object of Marx’s scientific discourse and the object of his critical discourse. I argue that Marx’s theory of objectification is possible only from the position of class struggle, which is a position in the social structure that cannot be objectified. I claim this is the reason why Marx’s critical theory allows one to think the moment of contingency in what seems to be the deterministic structure of the capitalist mode of production.</p> Lea Kuhar Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 The Transformation Problem as a Problem of Fetishism <p>In recent decades, critical discussions and even rejections of the labour theory of value, Marx’s central theorem, have been riding a boom, even within Marxian theory itself. What is overlooked in these approaches is Marx’s fetishism-critical method, for which the labour theory of value presents the key heuristic. But even approaches that attempt to retain Marx’s labour theory of value in face of its arguably biggest challenge – the transformation of values to prices of production – often ignore the critique of fetishism related to the concepts of cost price and profit. Instead, they declare the transformation problem redundant by demonstrating the quantitative congruence of values and prices. We however argue that this <em>quantitative</em> “proof” disregards the <em>qualitative</em> problem associated with the “rupture” between value and price, and therefore the epistemological insights to be gained from it – an insight that even Marx did not seem to be fully aware of.</p> Elena Louisa Lange Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Value, Fictitious Capital and Finance. The Timeless of Karl Marx’s Capital <p>Marx’s monetary value theory constitutes a radical break from the Classical (Ricardian) notion of value; it conceives value not as a “quantity” of labour contained in the commodity but as a <em>social relation</em> expressing the immanent regularities of the capitalist mode of production. Starting from his value-form analysis in Part 1 of Volume 1 of <em>Capital, </em>Marx finally develops, in Volume 3, the concept of “fictitious capital”, which depicts the role of interest bearing capital and the financial sphere. Marx’s analysis allows for an understanding of contemporary capitalism, financialization and crisis: financialization cannot be isolated from “real” economy; it should be conceived as a “technology” of exercising capitalist power and hegemony over the labouring classes and the society as a whole. Marx’s analysis provides the terms to rethink the contemporary neoliberal form of capitalism and its crisis as expressions of the contradictions inherent in the organization of capitalist power.</p> John Milios Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 The Politics of Truth and its Transformations in Neoliberalism: the Subject Supposed to Know in Algorithmic Times <p>The development of technologies for public segmentation and selected distribution of information added new possibilities to the old art of persuasion. These technologies not only achieve an unthought-of level of individualization of information in mass media history but also can give the most acceptable cluster of information to each individual or group of individuals at a time. These technologies can be said to constitute a new kind of power, where the production of truth in algorithmic times engages thus the conduction of subjects and groups in an unprecedented close way. To try to isolate and to understand the effectiveness of these algorithmic tools, I explore Michel Foucault’s thoughts on power modalities. To conclude these reflections, I underline the renewed interest of thinking power dynamics based on a conception of language as an element that precedes the subjects. That puts the critical approach of social alienation on a different ground from rhetoric and persuasion, and closer to an analysis of the ontological effects of discourse.</p> Nelson da Silva Junior Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Art and Criticism <p>In the article the author offers a brief sketch of the history and different meanings of criticism as they were formed over the last three centuries. He points out the original meaning of the usage of the term and then points to the narrower meaning, especially that found in art criticism. He then claims that a large portion of art criticism has retained its essence and meaning unchanged since its beginning and that this is also true insofar as it has not changed when art is compared with new media and Chinese art. The author also notes that art criticism represents an important constituent part of art proper.</p> Aleš Erjavec Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Criticism as a Form of Cognition <p>The question of the cognitive role of art criticism persists in twentieth and twenty-first century aesthetic theories. My approach to this topic is first to consider art criticism in reference to two aspects of cognition as represented in the German terms, <em>Erlebnis </em>and <em>Erkenntnis. </em>These concepts will represent the main forms of cognition as it relates to art criticism in the discussion offered here. Following this section, the focus will be on the views of three American philosophers, Monroe Beardsley, Arthur Danto, and Noël Carroll, whose writings attend prominently to art criticism in twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Of particular interest will be how <em>Erlebnis </em>and <em>Erkenntnis </em>are employed in the different approaches to criticism (evaluation, description, interpretation) and the priorities assigned in the writings of these aestheticians.</p> Curtis L. Carter Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Flattery or Abuse: Art Criticism in China <p>Chinese art criticism has a long history. However, modern art criticism in China did not begin until the second half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. After 40 years development, art criticism in China has changed from political criticism into commercial criticism. The pressures of ideology are replaced by the worries about capitalist co-option of criticism. Flattery and Abuse are the inevitable results of commercial and political criticism. Only academic criticism can help art criticism get out of this crisis.</p> Peng Feng Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Aesthetic Anthropology: Constructing A New System of Contemporary Aesthetic and Art Criticism <p>The past two or three decades have witnessed increasing interconnection between anthropology and cultural studies, theory of aesthetics, and art criticism. A trend is under way to combine ontology and methodology. In addition to Grosse, Frye, Strauss, and others, Chinese scholars such as Yuanpei CAI, Xiaotong FEI, and Huixiang LIN also have made significant contributions to aesthetics and offered aesthetic considerations in classic anthropological works. Many contemporary researchers have made significant achievements in aesthetics using the concepts and methods of anthropology, a movement which constitutes the building blocks of a new discipline. We are lucky to be among those who inherit, become involved in, and benefit from this trend. The time has come for a systematic summary and reflection on this historical trend in aesthetics, which may help solve complex aesthetic problems in this era and beckon scholars down a promising path of aesthetics and art criticism. The goals of this article revolve around the core issues and basic methodologies of aesthetic anthropology, and then summarize and extend its application to art criticism, with an aim to perfect the theoretical structure and methodology and stress its practical, operational value. By virtue of self-reflection and others’ criticism, we respond to trends in this emerging field while underscoring the vitality, practical value, and future creativity of aesthetic anthropology that has drawn ideological inspiration from Marxist aesthetics.</p> Wang Jie Meng Fanjun Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 China’s Internet Movie and Its Industrial Development <p>During the past ten years, China’s micro film genre has undergone a rapid development because of the technological changes related to intermedia practices. Focusing on three types of micro film production, we will try to explore some characteristics of China’s micro film genre. This chapter takes <em>A Murder Case Triggered by a Steamed Bun</em> as the first type of micro film, which is a parody of the movie <em>Wuji</em>. The second concerns conspiracy, including intertextual and intermedia conspiracy, and will be illustrated by the micro films <em>Imminent</em> and <em>The Only Choice</em>. The last type of micro film production focuses on social welfare, and is represented by the title <em>I will give you happiness when I grow up</em>. All these productions call into question how to coordinate and harmonize the conflict that arises between social welfare on the one hand, and market efficiency on the other. The author believes that Chinese micro film productions will be regulated into China’s Model of socialist cultural productions, which is different from the time when the government managed everything during the Planned Economy, and is also different from the cultural policy models in the West.</p> Qingben Li Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 My Twentieth Century: Zeitdiagnose and Modern Art in Badiou, Sloterdijk, and Stiegler <p>Alain Badiou, Peter Sloterdijk, and Bernard Stiegler offered three distinct, but interrelated anatomies of the 20<sup>th</sup> century or, as Badiou expressed it, simply “The Century.” These included Badiou’s <em>The Century</em>, Sloterdijk’s <em>You Must Change Your Life</em> and <em>What Happened in the Twentieth Century?</em>, and Stiegler’s two-volume <em>Symbolic Misery</em> (I: <em>The Hyperindustrial Epoch</em>, II: <em>The Katastrophē of the Sensible</em>) and his related short book <em>Acting Out</em>. This paper considers their argument for the central role of <em>art</em> and <em>aesthetics</em> in the political, economic, cultural, and artistic legacy of the twentieth century, and their corollary arguments for the need to reconstruct and reorient our aesthetic understanding going forward into the post-20<sup>th</sup>-century future. It also highlights their discussions of the changing relationship between the <em>subject</em> of aesthetic experience and the subject of collective politics. Although each construes differently the specific content and causes of the 20<sup>th</sup> century mutation in subjectivity, as well as its aesthetic dimensions, they notably share a common focus and general structure of their <em>Zeit-</em>diagnostic arguments and prognostic conclusions.</p> Tyrus Miller Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Participatory Art, Philosophy and Criticism <p>The paper addresses the critical reflection of participatory art practices in light of the need to find new ways of analysing art that would no longer be associated only with the visual. Starting from the point of view that participatory art cannot be properly evaluated within the traditional framework of art criticism, which uses purely aesthetic and formal conceptual tools, the author is resorting to more general concepts within the field of philosophy. In this project Rancière’s rehabilitation of aesthetics and his critique of the ethical turn of aesthetics prove particularly helpful, as do the consideration of the historical failure of aesthetics as a philosophical treatment of art and its consequences for critical discourse on contemporary participatory art.</p> Mojca Puncer Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Is Art itself a Criticism? Linking Wilde to Derrida, Rancière and Badiou <p>Our essay starts with the famous quotation from Oscar Wilde’s dialogue <em>The Critic as Artist</em>: “Criticism is itself an art.” We will link this seductive idea with two contemporary philosophers: Jacques Derrida and Alain Badiou. Derrida asserts that there is not one single intrinsic meaning to be found in a work, but rather many, and often these can be conflicting. In <em>La Vérité en peinture</em> he uses the example of Vincent van Gogh’s painting <em>Old Shoes with Laces</em>, arguing that we can never be sure whose shoes are depicted in the work, making a concrete analysis of the painting difficult. In <em>Inaesthetics</em> Badiou claims that art produces its own truth and thus he redefines a relation of truth over beauty within the contested field of aesthetics. He thus describes the strictly intraphilosophical effects produced by the independent existence of some works of art. Aesthetics has historically brought philosophy to art; Badiou reverses the situation. Can therefore Art itself produce its own criticism?</p> Tomaž Toporišič Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100 Film, Philosophy, and Intercultural Film Criticism <p>Film, contrary to the other “traditional” arts that have been developing over centuries, is a creation of modern times, and when it emerged it was not only a modern technological achievement but also a medium intended for the masses. Torn between art and popular entertainment, from its very beginning film was a source of oppositions, dichotomies, and fierce struggles. Some oppositions exist on the level of production, others on the level of reception, and above all they are present in the field of film criticism, which itself is split between journalistic criticism and the more philosophically and theoretically informed academic variety. This essay focuses on intercultural film criticism and scrutinises different variations of its relationship with philosophy and points out that so-called “classical” film criticism, based on psychoanalysis, semiotics, and Marxism, as well as film criticism of the “analytic-cognitivist” variety, cannot properly address this topic. It also shows that the approach developed by Fredric Jameson offers a much more adequate option, which not only addresses the film medium in the geopolitical context, but also enables, through film, an understanding of contemporary global society.</p> Ernest Ženko Copyright (c) Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0100