Setting out from the categories of totality and histori（ci）sm in Kosik＇s Dialectics of the Concrete, we look at the relationship between theory and praxis： empty, abstract totality versus concrete, reified and ali...Setting out from the categories of totality and histori（ci）sm in Kosik＇s Dialectics of the Concrete, we look at the relationship between theory and praxis： empty, abstract totality versus concrete, reified and alienated practice （Lukacs, Habermas, Honneth）; a bad totality, in which the real polydimensional subject is replaced by the one-dimensional, mythologized, fetishized, and economistically reduced ＂subject＂ of consummation （Marcuse, Baudrillard）. The dialectics of concrete totality implies a marxistic critique of the ethical and juristic universalism, in the context of the ＂positive＂ side of globalization and political unilateralism, as a concrete, militant, hegemonistic, post-colonial, and neo-imperial practice （Apel, Habermas, Chomsky, Zinoviev）; globalization as totali（tari）zation, the ＂last man,＂ the ＂end of history,＂ and the ＂end＂ of dialectics in its neo-liberal, eschatological, empty ideological ＂realization＂ （Hegel, Marx, Fukuyama, Arendt）; the totality of the （invariable） being as a pseudo-concrete and pseudo-dialectical ontologistic speculation （Heidegger）： A ＂return＂ to a concrete history and a return of the ＂positive＂ dialectics as a critical awareness, mind, and method in the discourse ＂game＂ of human＇s cognitive, creative, and practical powers. The assumption of Kosik＇s humanism is a synchrony of nature and history in the ＂absolute＂ totality of human＇s concrete existence （Lukacs, Goldmann, Adorno, Sartre, Kosik）.展开更多
In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism...In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.展开更多
This paper deals with the problems encountered while translating the book of short novels M. L., a gyilkos （The Murderer L. M.）, written by the contemporary Hungarian author Lazlo Marton （b. 1959）. One of the most...This paper deals with the problems encountered while translating the book of short novels M. L., a gyilkos （The Murderer L. M.）, written by the contemporary Hungarian author Lazlo Marton （b. 1959）. One of the most important reasons why the translator of this book （who also happens to be the author of this paper） has chosen to translate into Serbian this particular book, and not some other, more famous work of Marton, lies in the thematic, geocultural, and historical parallels with the Serbian context, which form the main fabular line of these short stories. The other, from the perspective of this paper, even more relevant reason for this translational choice can be found in the non-everyday challenge that Marton＇s hardly translatable style and language pose to the translator. This kind of a situation almost requires that the translator sacrifices formal fidelity to the original text and tries to find more creative solutions; in other words, it suggests choosing the principle of the so-called dynamic equivalence over the formal equivalence principle. In this respect, a special problem is the need to translate the so-called ＂talking names＂, a narrative trick with a great tradition in Hungarian literature. The aim of this paper is to try to answer, with the use of a representative corpus of examples, the following question： Is it possible and where can we draw limits in this author-translation related field of play, and what should be the level of consistency allowed to the translator, i.e., to what extent can he/she become the ＂coauthor＂of the translated work？展开更多
文摘Setting out from the categories of totality and histori（ci）sm in Kosik＇s Dialectics of the Concrete, we look at the relationship between theory and praxis： empty, abstract totality versus concrete, reified and alienated practice （Lukacs, Habermas, Honneth）; a bad totality, in which the real polydimensional subject is replaced by the one-dimensional, mythologized, fetishized, and economistically reduced ＂subject＂ of consummation （Marcuse, Baudrillard）. The dialectics of concrete totality implies a marxistic critique of the ethical and juristic universalism, in the context of the ＂positive＂ side of globalization and political unilateralism, as a concrete, militant, hegemonistic, post-colonial, and neo-imperial practice （Apel, Habermas, Chomsky, Zinoviev）; globalization as totali（tari）zation, the ＂last man,＂ the ＂end of history,＂ and the ＂end＂ of dialectics in its neo-liberal, eschatological, empty ideological ＂realization＂ （Hegel, Marx, Fukuyama, Arendt）; the totality of the （invariable） being as a pseudo-concrete and pseudo-dialectical ontologistic speculation （Heidegger）： A ＂return＂ to a concrete history and a return of the ＂positive＂ dialectics as a critical awareness, mind, and method in the discourse ＂game＂ of human＇s cognitive, creative, and practical powers. The assumption of Kosik＇s humanism is a synchrony of nature and history in the ＂absolute＂ totality of human＇s concrete existence （Lukacs, Goldmann, Adorno, Sartre, Kosik）.
文摘In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.
文摘This paper deals with the problems encountered while translating the book of short novels M. L., a gyilkos （The Murderer L. M.）, written by the contemporary Hungarian author Lazlo Marton （b. 1959）. One of the most important reasons why the translator of this book （who also happens to be the author of this paper） has chosen to translate into Serbian this particular book, and not some other, more famous work of Marton, lies in the thematic, geocultural, and historical parallels with the Serbian context, which form the main fabular line of these short stories. The other, from the perspective of this paper, even more relevant reason for this translational choice can be found in the non-everyday challenge that Marton＇s hardly translatable style and language pose to the translator. This kind of a situation almost requires that the translator sacrifices formal fidelity to the original text and tries to find more creative solutions; in other words, it suggests choosing the principle of the so-called dynamic equivalence over the formal equivalence principle. In this respect, a special problem is the need to translate the so-called ＂talking names＂, a narrative trick with a great tradition in Hungarian literature. The aim of this paper is to try to answer, with the use of a representative corpus of examples, the following question： Is it possible and where can we draw limits in this author-translation related field of play, and what should be the level of consistency allowed to the translator, i.e., to what extent can he/she become the ＂coauthor＂of the translated work？
