Actualism and its Author: Prospects for the future of Gentile studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
Actualism and its author: Prospects for the future of Gentile studies [DRAFT]
Giovanni Gentile remains, in Sergio Romano's words, 'an awkward philosopher'. Some twenty years after Gabriele Turi called for 'a return to a strictly philosophical Gentile', this paper sets out some of the major interpretations of actualism and its author to have emerged since interest in them was revived in the 1990s. It is argued that what remains to be seen is a robust analytic treatment of actualism, which leaves the historical Gentile to a large extent out of the picture. Such a treatment would constitute a valuable addition to the existing literature on Gentile and to Anglo-American philosophy more broadly.
The Integral Philosophical Exprerience of Actualism
Collingwood and British Idealism Studies , 2014
This essay explores the central role that Gentile assigns to concrete thinking. Through a combination of historical and theoretical interpretation, Pesce argues that Gentile’s radical ideas had their roots in great cultural shifts of the nineteenth century, and in particular in the widespread dissatisfaction with the reduced conception of the person that had arisen through the scientific advances of that period. Gentile’s stress on the richness of concrete thinking makes actualism an especially pertinent alternative to the empiricism and positivism that pervade mainstream thinking today.
'GIOVANNI GENTILE' - An Introductory Essay to 'THE THEORY OF MIND AS PURE ACT'
THE THEORY OF MIND AS PURE ACT (translated from 'La Teoria dello Spirito come Atto Puro') - by Giovanni Gentile, 2002
This 'Introductory Essay' serves as an entry-point to the philosophy of Giovanni Gentile. A biographical sketch is provided of his life, taking us from his youth up through his university studies, his friendship with Benedetto Croce and his involvement with Benito Mussolini's fascism. Gentile's 'idealist' philosophy is described in its general theory so as to make the perusal of this difficult volume easier for the reader. His philosophy represents one of the most hard-line and extreme versions of idealism ever committed to print. In fact, it is the species of idealism known as 'Solipsism', for in his philosophy nothing outside of the perceiving self actually exists. It is essential to go back to J.G. Fichte and George Berkeley to discover anything that equals his idealism in its thoroughgoing nature. The relationship of his philosophy to that of Kant, the forefather of modern idealism, is discussed briefly in the section on Gentile's philosophy. His roles as an educator and politician are not, however, ignored, and separate sections are devoted to each of these topics. This essay is not for the advanced Gentile scholar but it does serve as a useful introduction to his work for those who are not aware of this important Italian Idealist. A bibliography of his works, including references to some works about Giovanni Gentile, follow the essay itself.
The Free Spirit: Guido de Ruggiero's actualism and politics [DRAFT]
Guido de Ruggiero is better remembered for his contributions to intellectual history than to philosophy proper, and as an interpreter, critic and correspondent of his contemporaries than as a philosopher in his own right. Nonetheless, he made contributions to idealist theory and specifically, at least in his early works, to actualism, a form of idealism most often associated with his sometime teacher Giovanni Gentile. While de Ruggiero’s ideas were never developed into a comprehensive system, his position on moral and historical theory was both original and distinctive. After he broke with Gentile over his adhesion to the National Fascist Party in the 1920s, de Ruggiero remained a fierce opponent of Fascism and a champion of liberalism, both intellectually and in real-world politics. The philosophers’ separation over politics prompts a question. Actualism is distinguished by its ‘omnibus character’, such that each part of the system – theories of self and identity, theories of truth and knowledge, theories of ethics and politics – is rooted in a unified ‘general theory’, according to which reality is endlessly reproduced by a free and unconditioned act of thinking. Supposing that de Ruggiero and Gentile considered their respective political convictions to be rooted in the same general theory, on what theoretical basis, if any, did the split occur? In this paper I rehearse three responses to this question. One is that actualism does in fact favour liberalism or Fascism, but not both, so either de Ruggiero or Gentile is mistaken in his belief that his political convictions are rooted in his metaphysics. The second response is that the philosophers’ political differences can be explained by reference to differences between their interpretations of the general theory. Each supports a different version of actualism: Gentile’s supports Fascism and de Ruggiero’s supports liberalism. The third response is that actualism favours neither Fascism nor liberalism, leaving open the question of on what grounds either philosopher can stand his political convictions. I argue that de Ruggiero’s interpretation of actualism hinges on a conception of liberty broader than Gentile’s. However, de Ruggiero’s more expansive conception of liberty cannot be explained in terms of the actualist general theory. It is better understood as a product of the intellectual tradition in which de Ruggiero saw himself, his work and the history of ideas in Italy. The failure of actualism to provide a robust account of liberty, I suggest, was a major reason for de Ruggiero’s disillusionment with the theory in the latter half of his career.
Italian New Realism and Transcendental Philosophy: A Critical Account
2017
By recognizing Immanuel Kant as the founder of the so-called being-knowing fallacy, the Italian new realism proposed and defended by Maurizio Ferraris argues for the autonomy of ontology from epistemology. The dependence of reality on our conceptual framework would in fact transform our world in a system of beliefs that loses its connection with the " hardness " of the given data. This paper discusses Ferraris's claims by maintaining that they are based upon an insufficient reading of history of philosophy, particularly, upon a misinterpretation of Kant's philosophy. Firstly, we shortly analyze the relationship between transcendental philosophy and post-modernism through a comparison with Friedrich Nietzsche: we criticize their conflation. Secondly, we take into consideration Kant's arguments about science and answer a particular objection of Ferraris by investigating how we can legitimately acquire knowledge in the deep past without contradicting Kantianism. In this sense, we believe that the new realism presents inconsistent arguments.
Dear Colleagues, As members of the Scientific Committee of the 2022 edition of the San Raffaele School of Philosophy, we are pleased to inform you that the School will be held on September 20th–22nd, 2022 at the University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan. The venue of the School will be the Faculty of Philosophy in Cesano Maderno. The title of this edition is “The True, the Valid, and the Normative”. It will be devoted to ontological, semantic and axiological issues connected with the notions of truth, validity and normativity, as well as their possible relationships. You can find the detailed topics of the School in the attached call for papers, which can also be found at the following link: http://ojs.lexis.srl/index.php/PhMind/announcement/view/10 The School invites both expert scholars and young researchers to submit papers, which will be selected on the basis of a double-blind peer review process. Accepted papers shall be presented in one of the four sections of the School. The deadline for submissions is May 31st, 2022. We would be very happy if those interested considered submitting a paper: it will surely give an important contribution to the School and it will be for us a precious occasion to discuss these topics with you. We would also be grateful if you could notify the call for papers to other scholars and researchers that can be interested. The Programme will also include five keynote speakers: Pedro M. S. Alves (University of Lisbon), Roberta De Monticelli (Vita-Salute San Raffaele University), Anna Donise (University of Naples “Federico II”), Pascal Richard (University of Toulon) and Wojciech Żełaniec (University of Gdańsk). We want to remark that the School is linked to a dedicated special issue of the journal “Phenomenology and Mind”, in which all the papers presented in September shall be subsequently published. The expected date of publication of the issue is June 2023. Maybe you already know about the journal; should that not be the case, you can find more information at the following link: https://www.rosenbergesellier.it/eng/journals/phenomenology-and-mind. Should you need further information, do not hesitate to write to us. All the best, Paolo Di Lucia, Edoardo Fittipaldi, Giuseppe Lorini, Lorenzo Passerini Glazel
S. De Bianchi, L. Giovannetti (eds.), The Real and the Known
Thaumazein vol 11 No. 1, 2023
The notions of reality and knowledge are among the main topics of philosophical reflection since its Greek inception. It has become a topos in the history of Western philosophy that some sort of crucial change occurred in the early modernity and that this change marked a fundamental shift from ancient and medieval conceptions. This special issue deals with two interrelated questions. First, it addresses some aspects of how early modern thinkers are inspired by ancient sources or distance themselves from ancient conceptions. Second, it provides some insights into how the relation between ontology and epistemology dramatically changed, by giving new impulse to relevant subjects, such as the ontology of relations or of mathematics, innatism, and so forth. In order to provide a conceptual framework to these insights, we define the dynamics between reality and knowledge in terms of cohesion and rupture. A relation of cohesion between reality and knowledge implies that knowing what reality is in itself is a condition for defining knowledge in general. On the contrary, to assume a rupture between reality and knowledge means defining knowledge independently of what reality is in itself. These two stances, we argue, are represented by Plato and Kant, respectively. Thus, the two philosophers provide the boundaries of the present investigation, but our conceptual framework can be applied even beyond Kant in order to provide a guideline in our continuous dialogue with ancient philosophers.