Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-4 of 4 documents


1. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Erdinç Sayan, Tevfik Aytekin

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Our aim in this essay is to take a look at cartoons under philosophical light. What are some of the similarities between philosophy and the art of cartooning? In what ways can cartoons be helpful to philosophy? What are some of the problems cartoons pose for philosophy? Perhaps the most basic philosophical question concerning cartoons is, “What is a cartoon?”. We argue that it is not easy to pin down necessary and sufficient conditions for something being a cartoon. We defend the view that cartoons form a class whose members are interconnected with the Wittgensteinian “family resemblance” relations. We then look into the problems involved in finding a connectionist parallel-processing correlate of the Wittgensteinian notion in the context of cartoons.

2. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Serdar Tekin

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In Nicomachean Ethics X.7, Aristotle argues that perfect happiness consists in contemplation alone. The question that I want to take up in this essay is whether the superiority of contemplative life fits with Aristotle’s argument for the self-sufficiency of the political life, according to which politics can lead us to happiness without being guided by philosophical knowledge of the highest sort. My basic argument is that, paradoxical as it may seem, Aristotle is led to acknowledge that contemplative life is superior to political life by the same strand of argumentation which makes him plea for the self-sufficiency of the political life in the first place. In order to show how this argument unfolds, I take my point of departure from Aristotle’s analysis of phronēsis as stated in Nicomachean Ethics VI and bring it to bear on his discussion of the respective virtues of the contemplative and political ways of life in Politics VII.

3. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Adnan Akan

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Çağdaş dönemin dikkat çekici Fransız filozoflarından olan Alain Badiou, felsefeyi ve onun temeli olan hakikat fikrini her türlü son iddiasına karşı muhafaza etmeye çalışır. Bu muhafaza, ne tutucu bir tavır ne de felsefe tarihine yönelik bir nostalji değildir. Felsefenin dört temel koşulu ve içinde bulunulan çağ dikkate alınarak gerçekleştirilen bir muhafazadır. Badiou, çağın sosyo-kültürel, ekonomi-politik sorunlarının yanı sıra felsefenin içinde bulunduğu krizle hesaplaşabilecek bir felsefi tavır sunmaya çalışır. Dolayısıyla felsefenin ne olması gerektiğinin belirlenmesi çağın çeşitli felsefi eğilimleriyle veya felsefeye dair yaklaşımlarıyla hesaplaşılmasını gerektirmiştir. Bu gereklilik Badiou’yu felsefenin tanımını, gayesini, arzusunu ve koşullarını açıklamaya taşır. Nihayetinde Badiou’da felsefe, Nietzsche, Heidegger ve Wittgenstein’ın etkisi altındaki çağdaş sofizme karşı çağdaş Platonculuk’tur.Alain Badiou who one of the remarkable French philosopher of contemporary period is tries to maintain philosophy and its basis is the idea of truth against the every claim of last. This preservation is nor a conservative attitude or not a nostalgia for the history of philosophy. It is realized by take into consideration the four basic condition of philosophy and in the current era. Badiou is trying to submit a philosophical attitude that it will be able to deal with the crisis of philosophy as well as socio-cultural, economic and political problems of era. Consequently determination of what philosophy should be is required to struggle with the philosophy trends of era and approaches to philosophy. This requirement is lead Badiou to explain to definition, purpose, conditions of philosophy and desire for philosophy. As a result the philosopy of Badiou is contemporary Platonism opposite to contemporary sofism which under the influence of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein.

4. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 3 > Issue: 3
Özlem Derin

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Metin cennetten düşme sahnelemesinden itibaren insanın başkaldırma iradesini barındırdığı meselesi ile başlamaktadır. Devamında bu durumun insana özsel olduğu ve kendisini her an gösterebildiği, hatta göstermesi gerektiği ortaya konmaktadır. Bu, tam anlamıyla kronolojik zamanı kesintiye uğratan bir yaklaşımdır ve Benjaminci anlamda Mesiyanik’tir. Bu Mesiyanik kırılma, metnin devamında Nietzsche’nin bengi dönüşü ile bağdaştırılmış, Blanchot ve Derrida’nın zamana bakışları ile işlenecektir. Son olarak zamanda kırılma yaratma durumunun aktörel bir tutum olduğundan bahsedilerek bu durum sinemadaki “kesme” süreci ile açıklanacaktır. Bu noktada amaç, insanın başkaldırma durumunun aslında onda her zaman bulunan ve aktörel bir tutumla açığa çıkması beklenen bir yapı olduğunu sunmaktır.Text is beginning with the problem of human will of rebellion, which is having from the fall from heaven on. This exactly is an approach which makes interruption on chronologic time and which is Messianic on the sense of Benjamin. This Messianic interruption, on the hereafter of text was reconciled with Nietzschean eternal return, processed with the time view of Blanchot and Derrida. Finally with mentioning of creating temporal interruption is the ethical manner, this condition will be explained with the “cutting” process on cinema. At this point, the aim is presenting of the human’s rebellion condition’s is actually always presented on him and is the structure which waiting to be come to present with ethical manner.