We argue that friendship is constituted in the practice of narration, not merely identified through psychological or sociological criteria. We show that whether two people have, as Aristotle argues, ‘lived together’ in ‘mutually acknowledged goodwill’ can be determined only through a narrative reconstruction of a shared past. We demonstrate this with a close reading of Thomas Bernhard’s Wittgenstein’s Nephew: A Friendship (1982). We argue that this book provides not only an illustration but also an enactment of the practice of friendship as the urge to redeem—and thus to instantiate—Aristotelian suzên (‘living together’) by means of its telling.

In this paper, I focus on the notion of creation in Bergson’s works, and I characterize it as a virtuous circle. The pattern of the virtuous circle displays a process that retrospectively finds its identity in itself through present events. I show that this pattern is at work in the free act, in the actions of living organisms, and mostly in the evolutionary process itself. I then move on to ask weather it is possible to broaden the perspective beyond the traditional pattern associated with Bergson’s spiritualism. I show that, contrary to what Bergson envisioned, this virtuous circle can be broadened as to include even the material world.

In this paper, I demonstrate the pivotal function of consciousness in the second part of Phenomenology of Perception. A new meaning of the notion avoids the alternative between empiricism and intellectualism that gives this second part its structure. Consciousness, bogged down with the world, is neither only a state, nor only an act; in other words, it conveys life, conceived by Merleau-Ponty as a ‘living’ and a ‘making.’ Thus, it has a metaphysical dimension that renders it irreducible to experience. Consciousness, which I show is both ‘original’ and ‘philosophical,’ corresponds to an effective comprehension of contradiction in everything.

In The Language Animal, Charles Taylor’s struggle to provide a theoretical framework for his narration of the self finally becomes obvious. About 30 years after he wrote his great and fascinating Sources of the Self, Taylor closes the gap between the self as a radical being-in-the-world and its analytical premises. Even if the main topic of Taylor’s new book may seem to be only a comparison of what he calls ‘HHH-theory’ and ‘HLC-theory,’ there are two other authors, the combination of whose ideas clarifies not only his approach to language but also to his concept of ‘reality’ as such: Gottlob Frege and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

This paper focuses on the process of language acquisition in childhood. Departing from accounts—such as that of Jean Piaget, which considers cognitive development as the main condition of language acquisition—Taylor shows how deeply our linguistic capacity is rooted in a prior socio-affective realm of social spaces or communion. Beyond Taylor, the question arises as to whether one can identify different normative consequences for pedagogical practices, as well as for the status of childhood in social theory. The implications of Taylor’s language theory for the relation between human and world will be suggested by connecting the intrinsic dimensions of linguistic communication to the theory of resonance.

For three centuries the primary aspiration of Western governments has been constant economic growth but with the Industrial Revolution this objective became troublesome. In the 20th century unprecedented levels of industrial production and social consumption caused palpable harm to humans and the environment. Hannah Arendt and John Kenneth Galbraith turned their pens to such concerns and Bill Mollison and David Holmgren advocated a permaculture approach to growth, one that strives to limit human interference in natural growth processes. Today’s precarious economic and ecological imbalances could be stabilized by a shift in applied growth paradigms, from capitalist to permaculturist.

What is realism in film? Focusing on a test case of High Frame Rate (HFR) high-definition movies, I discuss in this article various types of realism as well as their inter-relations. Precision, recessiveness of the medium, transparency, and ‘Collapse’ are discussed and compared. At the end of the day, I defend the claim that ‘less is more’ in the sense that more image precision can actually have a negative impact on storytelling.

Philosophers of religion have begun to explore the value question of whether God’s existence would add to, detract from, or have no impact on the value of our world. The Meaningful Life Argument is one of the most promising arguments in support of the view that God’s existence would make the world worse, at least for certain individuals. I offer an objectivized version of the Meaningful Life Argument and show why recent objections leveled against it by Myron A. Penner do not apply to this version.

Proponents of the ‘Threshold View’ have held that to believe a proposition is to be sufficiently confident of the proposition’s truth, but that there is no sharp cutoff between degrees of confidence that constitute belief and degrees of confidence that do not. Brian Weatherson has objected that no plausible account of vagueness can support this view. In this paper, I reply to Weatherson’s objection. Along the way, I identify a way in which one might hope to maintain the Threshold View without a fuzzy threshold, and I reformulate the Threshold View to accommodate fuzzy thresholds without begging substantive questions about vagueness.

One of the features of an encompassing account of language that Charles Taylor examines in Chapter Five, “The Figuring Dimension of Language,” of The Language Animal is a special kind of metaphor, which is rooted in the embodiment of humans. Their perspective-taking, their intuition of position in space, etc., provide ‘structural templates’ for thinking and leave their traces in their expressions. Taylor compares these metaphors with paradigms. My paper discusses the differences between the two. Taylor’s example ‘Time Is a Resource’ is understood more deeply if seen as a paradigm, i.e., a set of beliefs and practices, instead of as a ‘structural template,’ i.e., rooted in embodiment.

In this paper, we consider the ‘mere-difference’ view of disability, a popular strategy amongst disability theorists and advocates. This view is nicely summarized by Elizabeth Barnes, who claims that disability is “a natural part of human diversity [and] something that should be celebrated” instead of something to be pitied or cured (2014). We find Barnes’s defence of the view problematic, argue that there are significant philosophical problems with the mere-difference view if it is intended as an accurate account of disability, and suggest that there are worrisome consequences if it is used as a politically strategic overstatement.

Does the creative force of discourse Taylor describes enable the subaltern to speak for themselves? To answer this question, I underlay Jacques Rancière’s concept of politics. I correlate Charles Taylor’s opposition of HLC- and HHH-language theories to Rancière’s distinction of ‘politics’ and ‘police.’ However, since the creative force of discourse also re-enacts human order through rituals and repetitions, it is not political per se. I discuss Taylor’s example of the “avuncular” relationship to show at which point the creative force could turn into a fundament of politics and where it doesn’t.

Certain non-voluntarists have recently defended political authority by advancing views with a two-fold structure. First, they argue that the state, or the law, is best (or uniquely) capable of accomplishing something important. Second, they defend a substantive normative principle on which being so situated is sufficient for de jure authority. Widely accepted tenets undermine all such views.

In Chapter 8 of The Language Animal, Charles Taylor claims that narratives are unsubstitutable for an appropriate understanding of social life and ‘human affairs’ in general. In order to identify open questions in his argumentation as well as unwanted consequences of his outlook, I proceed in three consecutive steps. I first problematize Taylor’s distinction between laws and stories, then go on to address his intentional blurring of stories and histories, and finally suggest that the concept of genealogy might be a promising candidate for describing Taylor’s approach, concluding that he implicitly forms the equation: narrative equals history equals critique.