Simon Glendinning
@simonglend.bsky.social
Head of the European Institute and Professor of European Philosophy at LSE.
Simon Glendinning is an English philosopher. Glendinning is Professor of European Philosophy and Head of department in the European Institute at the London School of Economics.
Source: Wikipedia
Philosophy
46%
Political science
28%
Reposted by Simon Glendinning, David Runciman
NEW EPISODE OUT NOW!
Today in our season of live recordings David and @leaypi.bsky.social. look at the biopic of a revolutionary: Margaretha von Trotta’s 'Rosa Luxemburg' (1986), which explores the deeply unstable relationship between the personal and the political.
Find us at...🎧 ppfideas.com
Today in our season of live recordings David and @leaypi.bsky.social. look at the biopic of a revolutionary: Margaretha von Trotta’s 'Rosa Luxemburg' (1986), which explores the deeply unstable relationship between the personal and the political.
Find us at...🎧 ppfideas.com
Merry Christmas from Rosa, @ppfideas.bsky.social team & me 😍! In the latest episode of the podcast, David & I discuss von Trotta's film "Rosa Luxemburg" & the life and politics of “the most brilliant intellect of all the scientific heirs of Marx and Engels Marx and Engels", as Franz Mehring put it.
“…no longer…” - when was the golden age of our govts being responsive to a demo? (Council tax?)
I would like to describe my French competence as “entertaining”.
German? Gut Frage. And Greek: very limited ancient.
German? Gut Frage. And Greek: very limited ancient.
Reposted by Simon Glendinning, Paul Nightingale
Joint Statement by Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency Maroš Šef\u010Dovi\u010D and HM Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office The...
In May, the United Kingdom and the European Union held their first ever Summit and agreed to strengthen cooperation through a new strategic partnership. This partnership will make us more secure, will
ec.europa.eu
The details of the announcement reveal that Britain is not just rejoining Erasmus, but also the EU internal energy market, a first small step to reversing the economic damage of Brexit:
ec.europa.eu/commission/p...
ec.europa.eu/commission/p...
Reposted by Simon Glendinning, Alessandro Nai, Simon Usherwood
Joint Statement by Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency Maroš Šef\u010Dovi\u010D and HM Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office The...
In May, the United Kingdom and the European Union held their first ever Summit and agreed to strengthen cooperation through a new strategic partnership. This partnership will make us more secure, will
ec.europa.eu
Official confirmation of the UK rejoining Erasmus+ in 2027.
As someone who studied in the UK (though not via Erasmus) very pleased to see this particuarly severing of connection at least partially rebuild:
As someone who studied in the UK (though not via Erasmus) very pleased to see this particuarly severing of connection at least partially rebuild:
Do you think the qualifier might be to provide space for the Hindu variant? If not then tragically awful and stupid.
Ok, this is nuts. Once you see it you cannot unsee it. Do you see it?
(OP @drgbuckingham.bsky.social )
(OP @drgbuckingham.bsky.social )
Reposted by Simon Glendinning
LBC
@lbc.co.uk
· 14d
'I'll play you Donald Trump lying, and the Met Commissioner doing what every patriotic Brit should be doing...'
@mrjamesob.bsky.social cautions against 'treachery', as Sir Mark Rowley rubbishes Trump's claims about safety under Sadiq Khan last month.
@mrjamesob.bsky.social cautions against 'treachery', as Sir Mark Rowley rubbishes Trump's claims about safety under Sadiq Khan last month.
One thing I’ve loved about university teaching is the possibility (or hope) to “displace humans into the sphere of what is great”. Reading Kant is definitely up there. I have always feared an obsession with “student experience” that ignored their *next* 20 years would prove an unmitigated disaster.
There is still a subject/object distinction in Kant - welded. Brentano was more individual-psychological. It was Husserl who joined the two in a transcendental phenomenology of intentional consciousness, where subjectivity becomes a transcendental intersubjectivity (not the subject plurality of sc).
The condition of possibility of the objectivity of objects is at the same time the condition of possibility of the unity of consciousness. Transcendental idealism entails the subject is not in the world of empirically real phenomena but a condition of it appearing. And Husserl is a Kantian of sorts.
The “ground” I am talking about relates to the “arche” or basic historical sources of the “European” or “Western” understanding of the world and the significance of our lives. Not like a worldview you base your opinions on, religious or not. And I do not call res publica a Christian concept!
But it’s not really “like this” for Kant — though my claim is the it really is something like this for the social construction theorists. The way you can tell it is not really Kant is that you have a person in the graphic. But such any “thing” is for Kant a part of empirical reality (in the world).
Requires? I certainly did not argue that. That makes it sound like I argue that you have to be a Christian (or at least Abrahamic) to have a desire or hope to work towards a better future. That’s nuts.
The experiential given for us for Kant is things appearing thus and so. Not blind at all. We take “what is” in stride in the only way we can: as objects. However, because Kant retains an idea of another (God’s) form of (non-receptive, creative) intuition he is saddled with something like an e-ject…
There is no scheme/content dualism in Kant. For that you need a doctrine of the pre-conceptual given (sensation), which is exactly what Kant’s empirical realism overcomes. Positivism is one line out of classical empiricism. Quine another. It definitely arrives into social science with Sapir-Wharf.
In philosophy I think a scheme/content dualism is what gets the problematic idea of construction going: objectivity becomes internal to a scheme. But that distinction belongs to empiricism not Kant. And it is, I think, that empiricist constructivism that really takes off in social science.
Is this the right line out of Kant? I think you have to include genuinely idealistic constructivism of the kind that belongs properly to “empirical social science” wherever that thinks it got the idea from. The idea that everything is “socially constructed” is the real bugbear. A distorted errancy.
Not Kant. The empirical world in Kant is (precisely) knowable. Perhaps a better culprit is…Hume? All we know are inner “impressions” etc? Kant wanted to overcome the kind of subjective idealism that he supposed Hume could not escape.
That would indeed be a moronic thing to say. In fact, better to put it the other way around. Or at least prudently to acknowledge that European places are not simply Greek and Christian (as the NYT piece might have suggested) but include (especially but not only) Judaic and Islamic legacies too.
Is the conception of progress that frames Ibn Sina’s thinking of scientific advance (which is culturally and historically rich and diverse right) is the one in view in the post on progress I commented on? I didn’t think so - it looked more or less garden variety “Western”, but sure I might be wrong.
I would imagine you can replace “you” with “someone”. But the Darwin point is a good one: Darwinian eugenicists conceived of “breeding” a “new man” that would be the attained ideal end of human developmental history. Slap that on!
Exactly - which is why I said the theism/atheism thing was a total red herring. The best thinking of war and peace has always recognised that the idea of attaining a condition of “perpetual peace” is an illusion, but that we can indeed strive to make war “less likely” (Kant).
I was asking whether the conception of progress being deployed was free of a conception of history that has its ground in Christian messianic eschatology. I don’t think it was - but what is the non-Western conception of historical progress that you had in mind that might have informed the comment?
No, you can’t. But there is decent thinking behind the idea of the secularisation of theological concepts- rather than supposing secular concepts simply replace theological ones. But no, you’re right, one cannot do this willy nilly. Nor when it is apt does it make the concept “inherently religious”.
There was Orcus of course. And the gods in general …they would mess with humans at their pleasure. But isn’t it the case that the idea of the threat of a fate worse than death after death was not lost to them? It’s lost to me. And I’m not sure what this has to do with humans as not gentle creatures.
Too normal to want to? Too normal to try to? Too normal to make an effort to? Too normal to care? Too normal to dare? Too normal to give a fuck? (Apology accepted- there is literally no obligation whatsoever to enter into “any of this”. Though - I believe it is worth it, normally.)
I was inviting some one to think the ground of their own thinking in its fundamental history. Thinking “outside a Christian framework” is for sure possible, if one regards that as a worldview among others. We have so many to choose from! - “we” the ones who have our being within a certain history.
I do not have that problem. I do have a different kind of difficulty. I was born in England in the 20th C. You get saddled with stuff just by being born into a world that is up and running, a world that is through and through historical. It supplies the basic conceptual resources of (each) my life.
False cause? So the theism of one belief system was the cause of its outrageous violence -but the atheism of another had nothing to do with its outrageous violence? My view is less complex: we are a dangerous not a gentle creature - and leave it at that. The theism/atheism contrast is a red herring.