Books by Adrian Costache
Papers by Adrian Costache
Articles
Adrian COSTACHE, For A Post-Historicist Philosophy Of History. Beyond Hermeneutics
Axe... more Articles
Adrian COSTACHE, For A Post-Historicist Philosophy Of History. Beyond Hermeneutics
Axel GELFERT, Who is an Epistemic Peer?
Stephen GRIMM, What is Interesting?
Paul HUMPHREYS, Unknowable Truths
Mark McBRIDE, Evidence and Transmission Failure
Rik PEELS, Tracing Culpable Ignorance
John TURRI, Promises to Keep: Speech Acts and the Value of Reflective Knowledge
Brian WEATHERSON, Defending Interest-Relative Invariantism
Debate
Anthony BRUECKNER, Christopher T. BUFORD, Bailey on Incompatibilism and the “No Past Objection”
Alex BUNDY, On Epistemic Abstemiousness: A Reply to Aikin, Harbour, Neufeld, and Talisse
Trent DOUGHERTY, Re-Reducing Responsibility: Reply to Axtell
Steven D. HALES, Reply to Licon on Time Travel
History of Epistemology
Teodor DIMA, Complementarity and Antinomy
Articles
Adrian COSTACHE, From Historical Change to Historical Knowledge: Directions of a New ... more Articles
Adrian COSTACHE, From Historical Change to Historical Knowledge: Directions of a New Epistemology of the Human Sciences
Simon D'ALFONSO, Explicating a Standard Externalist Argument against the KK Principle
Andrew McFARLAND, Misfired Slingshots: A Case Study on the Confusion of Metaphysical and Semantic Considerations
Teodor NEGRU, Self: A Dynamic Approach
Debate
Thomas KROEDEL, Why Epistemic Permissions Don’t Agglomerate – Another Reply to Littlejohn
Robin McKENNA, Why Assertion and Practical Reasoning Are Possibly Not Governed by the Same Epistemic Norm
Reviews
David CHRISTENSEN and Jennifer LACKEY, eds., The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, reviewed by Eugen Huzum
Philippe HUNEMAN, ed., Functions: Selection and Mechanism, reviewed by Ciprian Jeler
Stephen HETHERINGTON, ed., Epistemology: The Key Thinkers, reviewed by Cătălina-Daniela Răducu
Logos & Episteme
With the publication of Being and Time and Truth and Method philosophical hermeneutics seems to h... more With the publication of Being and Time and Truth and Method philosophical hermeneutics seems to have become the official philosophy of history, with exclusive rights on the questions arising from the fact-of-having-a-past. From now on the epistemological approach of the German historical school, reaching a peak in Dilthey's thought, is unanimously recognized as definitively overcome, aufheben, by the ontological interrogation of hermeneutics. But, with the same unanimity, it is also recognized that the reasons behind this overcoming and their validity are not readily apparent. For, as it has been shown in the literature, Heidegger's critique of Dilthey proves to be partial and lacunar, whereas Gadamer's is straightforwardly ambiguous. Our paper assumes as its first task a re-evaluation of these critiques and of the hypotheses proposed in the literature with regard to what could be the problem with Dilthey's epistemology. In this sense the paper argues that the problem resides in that the fundamental concepts on which it is based are bound to miss the peculiarity of history by idealizing it and masking the power relations inhabiting it. As a second task, our paper proposes an investigation of whether philosophical hermeneutics itself manages to rise to the expectations through which Dilthey's thought is evaluated. As it will become manifest, the answer to this question is in the negative. That is why, in the end, we will defend the necessity of a post-historicist and post-hermeneutic philosophy of history.
Journal for Communication and Culture
The present paper deals with the philosophical styles of the hermeneutic project and deconstructi... more The present paper deals with the philosophical styles of the hermeneutic project and deconstruction and tries to answer the question whether there really is, as Derrida argues, a fundamental difference, even an opposition between them. In this sense, taking the questions Derrida addressed Gadamer in their famous Paris encounter in 1981 as a clue, the author retraces the fundamental articulations of deconstruction, descending from Derrida"s own description of the idea to his actual deconstructive practice, and shows that the presupposition Derrida takes as separating the hermeneutic project from deconstruction is actually one these two share in common.
The European Journal of Science and Theology
Drawing upon Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense, the present paper aims to show tha... more Drawing upon Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense, the present paper aims to show that, in spite of proclaiming itself anti-historical, Gilles Deleuze"s ontology offers us a concept of historical event better suited to account for the facticity and reality of what happens in the passing of time than all the others put forth in the History of the philosophy of History. For even though Deleuze defines the historical event as "impassive" and "incorporeal", thus as an ideal entity he still manages to find a way to institute it as agent of the transformation of history. In this ways he escapes the trap of reducing history to the status of a history of ideas to which the classical Philosophy of history falls prey.
Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies
Journal for Communication and Culture
The present paper aims to bring to light the relevance of Wittgenstein's thought for philosophica... more The present paper aims to bring to light the relevance of Wittgenstein's thought for philosophical hermeneutics. In this sense it offers a thorough discussion of the Austrian philosopher's understanding of the concept of translation through a detailed examination of its development from its first formulation in the context of the picture theory of meaning in the Tractatus to its reformulation as -language game‖ and -form of life‖ within the use theory put forth in Philosophical Investigations.
Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Philosophia, Jan 1, 2006
Revista de pedagogie
Rezumat: Studiul de față arată că deși funcția educativă a metaforei și raționamentului analogic ... more Rezumat: Studiul de față arată că deși funcția educativă a metaforei și raționamentului analogic a fost semnificativ minimalizată odată cu ceea ce s-ar putea numi "disciplinarizarea" educației (în sensul lui Howard Gardner), acestea fiind excluse aproape complet din școală în timpurile noastre, ele ar trebui totuși să ocupe un rol central în demersul de instruire și o poziție privilegiată în predarea unor discipline precum cele economice. Și aceasta deoarece procesul metaforizării descrie îndeaproape principiul formării naturale a coornceptelor de la care pornește orice știință și se suprapune perfect peste structura epistemică manifest catenară pe care se constituie științele economice.
Book Reviews by Adrian Costache
Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, Jan 1, 2010
Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, Jan 1, 2010
Conference Presentations by Adrian Costache
072030:9.,4:0,8$4.,',:0 336:7394 &313/,-0 -0.9841%4:9 /7,3489,.0 !489/4.947,04 %0#42,3,3.,/02 , 7... more 072030:9.,4:0,8$4.,',:0 336:7394 &313/,-0 -0.9841%4:9 /7,3489,.0 !489/4.947,04 %0#42,3,3.,/02 , 7,3. $%#% 3 4:7 4-,0/ 47/ ,8 4.:8 41 03.4:3907 -09003 , 2:95.9 41 .:9:708 70438 97,/9438 .3 4:7 9208 90 945. /,4:0 ,8 84., ;,:0 /408 349 8002 94 706:70 0903/0/ /8.:8843 9 8 034: 94 9,0 , 6:. ,3.0 ,9 90 /423,39 5:-. /8.4:780841,384.,8507094-0.43;3.0/4190;,:0,884.,90/9/,4:0 4190;,:,-0.,7,.90741/,4:034:784.09 %,0 147 0,250 90 /8.4:780 43 3907/8.53,79 /423,39 3 4:7 ,.,/02.3899:9438,99.4208/4394,3/,99706:708410;077080,7.07 8 39003/ ,34503308894/,4:098470750078174290490710/8,3/, 897;394,7/890.43899:94341,.42243,3:,0,.6:08077/,2801 430 419024894:985403.79.83,3/414:79208 8,8905.9 -00;0 9,9 34 7080,7. 8 5488-0 3 , .422:39 147 0,250 ,.,/02. 94:990574780,7.14790232,.438038:8,3/94:9/8.:8843,74:3/98 232,.438038:8 077/, ;0783.04304190248957423039704:83899:943839047/ 974:90;4.041!450!,:90 9 574.,20/ ,4:0 8 /02,3/0/ 34,/,8 8 /02,3/0/ -90 /3,2. .4:780 41 ,.943 . 8 .,33 90 1,.0 41 24/073 84.09 9 8 /02,3/0/ -90 5:7,82 41 84.09,3/-902,9:792,3,870,.0/398/,,3/,0 !450!,:90 9 1907 90 57434:3.02039 41 98 03..., , 9044,3 8:. ,8 043,7/ $/07 809 1479 94 089,-8 90 -,8. 7:08 9,9 4:9 94 :/0 ,3 397, %85,507,82,/093%0340/0,80/$4.09!740.98:554790/-90$0.947, 507,943,!747,220:2,3#084:7.080;
Uploads
Books by Adrian Costache
Papers by Adrian Costache
Adrian COSTACHE, For A Post-Historicist Philosophy Of History. Beyond Hermeneutics
Axel GELFERT, Who is an Epistemic Peer?
Stephen GRIMM, What is Interesting?
Paul HUMPHREYS, Unknowable Truths
Mark McBRIDE, Evidence and Transmission Failure
Rik PEELS, Tracing Culpable Ignorance
John TURRI, Promises to Keep: Speech Acts and the Value of Reflective Knowledge
Brian WEATHERSON, Defending Interest-Relative Invariantism
Debate
Anthony BRUECKNER, Christopher T. BUFORD, Bailey on Incompatibilism and the “No Past Objection”
Alex BUNDY, On Epistemic Abstemiousness: A Reply to Aikin, Harbour, Neufeld, and Talisse
Trent DOUGHERTY, Re-Reducing Responsibility: Reply to Axtell
Steven D. HALES, Reply to Licon on Time Travel
History of Epistemology
Teodor DIMA, Complementarity and Antinomy
Adrian COSTACHE, From Historical Change to Historical Knowledge: Directions of a New Epistemology of the Human Sciences
Simon D'ALFONSO, Explicating a Standard Externalist Argument against the KK Principle
Andrew McFARLAND, Misfired Slingshots: A Case Study on the Confusion of Metaphysical and Semantic Considerations
Teodor NEGRU, Self: A Dynamic Approach
Debate
Thomas KROEDEL, Why Epistemic Permissions Don’t Agglomerate – Another Reply to Littlejohn
Robin McKENNA, Why Assertion and Practical Reasoning Are Possibly Not Governed by the Same Epistemic Norm
Reviews
David CHRISTENSEN and Jennifer LACKEY, eds., The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, reviewed by Eugen Huzum
Philippe HUNEMAN, ed., Functions: Selection and Mechanism, reviewed by Ciprian Jeler
Stephen HETHERINGTON, ed., Epistemology: The Key Thinkers, reviewed by Cătălina-Daniela Răducu
Book Reviews by Adrian Costache
Conference Presentations by Adrian Costache
Adrian COSTACHE, For A Post-Historicist Philosophy Of History. Beyond Hermeneutics
Axel GELFERT, Who is an Epistemic Peer?
Stephen GRIMM, What is Interesting?
Paul HUMPHREYS, Unknowable Truths
Mark McBRIDE, Evidence and Transmission Failure
Rik PEELS, Tracing Culpable Ignorance
John TURRI, Promises to Keep: Speech Acts and the Value of Reflective Knowledge
Brian WEATHERSON, Defending Interest-Relative Invariantism
Debate
Anthony BRUECKNER, Christopher T. BUFORD, Bailey on Incompatibilism and the “No Past Objection”
Alex BUNDY, On Epistemic Abstemiousness: A Reply to Aikin, Harbour, Neufeld, and Talisse
Trent DOUGHERTY, Re-Reducing Responsibility: Reply to Axtell
Steven D. HALES, Reply to Licon on Time Travel
History of Epistemology
Teodor DIMA, Complementarity and Antinomy
Adrian COSTACHE, From Historical Change to Historical Knowledge: Directions of a New Epistemology of the Human Sciences
Simon D'ALFONSO, Explicating a Standard Externalist Argument against the KK Principle
Andrew McFARLAND, Misfired Slingshots: A Case Study on the Confusion of Metaphysical and Semantic Considerations
Teodor NEGRU, Self: A Dynamic Approach
Debate
Thomas KROEDEL, Why Epistemic Permissions Don’t Agglomerate – Another Reply to Littlejohn
Robin McKENNA, Why Assertion and Practical Reasoning Are Possibly Not Governed by the Same Epistemic Norm
Reviews
David CHRISTENSEN and Jennifer LACKEY, eds., The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, reviewed by Eugen Huzum
Philippe HUNEMAN, ed., Functions: Selection and Mechanism, reviewed by Ciprian Jeler
Stephen HETHERINGTON, ed., Epistemology: The Key Thinkers, reviewed by Cătălina-Daniela Răducu