James McGuirk
Related Authors
Michael Spivey
University of California, Merced
Scott R. Stroud
The University of Texas at Austin
David Seamon
Kansas State University
John Sutton
Macquarie University
Eros Carvalho
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Yannis Hamilakis
Brown University
Karl Baier
University of Vienna
Onur Ulas Ince
SOAS University of London
Silvia Citro
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Claude Romano
Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV)
Uploads
Papers by James McGuirk
What I want to do in the pages that follow is offer some reflections on the precise nature of the status that research based on narrative(s), including the researcher’s own narratives, can have in terms of what we normally think about as the empirical, and the scientific. My thoughts on this matter are largely inspired by the phenomenological and hermeneutical schools of thought, and especially their focus on subjectivity as a field of research. It is hoped that this contribution can articulate possibilities for qualitative research.
I will begin by giving an account of what the phenomenological perspective on research in subjectivity is, based predominantly on the thought of Edmund Husserl. This is important because it provides the context for understanding the hermeneutical approach to narrative and stories. At stake in the phenomenological project is the procurement of an ‘unnatural’ perspective on (one’s own) experience, such that it becomes an ‘object’ of research. I will then turn to the hermeneutical tradition, especially the thought(s)/ideas of Paul Ricoeur, to argue that stories or narratives provide an exemplary way of objectifying experience by making the story a laboratory for exploring possibilities of understanding and action. I will argue throughout, that this process of reflecting and exploring should be understood in terms of Husserl’s notion of eidetic reflection. Eidetic reflection involves an imaginative play of possibilities, whose goal is uncovering the actual and potential meanings in experience such that they provide insights both backwards and forward in time. The intention of this discussion is to contribute to what experience-based research might be.
The chapter will divide into four parts. In the first part, I will deal with the centrality of the motif of trust in much phenomenological philosophy. From the time of its earliest inception, phenomenology was intended to be a philosophy of description that, as much as possible, ‘leaves things as they are’. The point of phenomenology is to be attentive to lived experience so as to articulate the meaningful structures of the lifeworld. But if this is true, there seems to be a certain prima facie legitimacy to the abovementioned critique as to phenomenological naivety inasmuch as phenomenology seems to be wilfully blind to aspects of practice that do not appear in the focal gaze of the practitioner. I will explore this point in part two. In part three, I will argue that phenomenology is critical in at least two ways and I will attempt to show that these critical moments are not in opposition to the fundamental motif of trust, but only possible through it. The point of the chapter as a whole, then, will be to argue that phenomenology and phenomenologically-inspired research initiatives such as Practical Knowledge, are based on a fundamental attitude of trust that far from being naïve is the very condition of possibility of critique.
What I want to do in the pages that follow is offer some reflections on the precise nature of the status that research based on narrative(s), including the researcher’s own narratives, can have in terms of what we normally think about as the empirical, and the scientific. My thoughts on this matter are largely inspired by the phenomenological and hermeneutical schools of thought, and especially their focus on subjectivity as a field of research. It is hoped that this contribution can articulate possibilities for qualitative research.
I will begin by giving an account of what the phenomenological perspective on research in subjectivity is, based predominantly on the thought of Edmund Husserl. This is important because it provides the context for understanding the hermeneutical approach to narrative and stories. At stake in the phenomenological project is the procurement of an ‘unnatural’ perspective on (one’s own) experience, such that it becomes an ‘object’ of research. I will then turn to the hermeneutical tradition, especially the thought(s)/ideas of Paul Ricoeur, to argue that stories or narratives provide an exemplary way of objectifying experience by making the story a laboratory for exploring possibilities of understanding and action. I will argue throughout, that this process of reflecting and exploring should be understood in terms of Husserl’s notion of eidetic reflection. Eidetic reflection involves an imaginative play of possibilities, whose goal is uncovering the actual and potential meanings in experience such that they provide insights both backwards and forward in time. The intention of this discussion is to contribute to what experience-based research might be.
The chapter will divide into four parts. In the first part, I will deal with the centrality of the motif of trust in much phenomenological philosophy. From the time of its earliest inception, phenomenology was intended to be a philosophy of description that, as much as possible, ‘leaves things as they are’. The point of phenomenology is to be attentive to lived experience so as to articulate the meaningful structures of the lifeworld. But if this is true, there seems to be a certain prima facie legitimacy to the abovementioned critique as to phenomenological naivety inasmuch as phenomenology seems to be wilfully blind to aspects of practice that do not appear in the focal gaze of the practitioner. I will explore this point in part two. In part three, I will argue that phenomenology is critical in at least two ways and I will attempt to show that these critical moments are not in opposition to the fundamental motif of trust, but only possible through it. The point of the chapter as a whole, then, will be to argue that phenomenology and phenomenologically-inspired research initiatives such as Practical Knowledge, are based on a fundamental attitude of trust that far from being naïve is the very condition of possibility of critique.
But what kind of love is it that characterizes the life of philosophy, and how does it relate to other kinds of love? Specifically, what are the implications of the philosopher’s love of wisdom for the realization of the interpersonal forms of attachment that are necessary for ethics and politics to be possible?
James McGuirk explores this question in the present study though a close reading of Plato’s Symposium and through comparative readings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Emmanuel Lévinas, in which several indictments and defences of philosophy are explored. According to McGuirk, the trial of philosophy hangs ultimately on the meaning of philosophical eros. He argues that while eros can involve impulses toward tyranny and the subjugation of otherness, it is finally understood by Plato in terms of a subtle balance, in which the acquisitiveness of eros is enframed by a more fundamental affective attunement to the Good in Being. According to this reading, eros is not only compatible with ethical and political forms of the interpersonal, it is their condition of possibility.
But what kind of love is it that characterizes the life of philosophy, and how does it relate to other kinds of love? Specifically, what are the implications of the philosopher's love of wisdom for the realization of the interpersonal forms of attachment that are necessary for ethics and politics to be possible?
James McGuirk explores this question in the present study though a close reading of Plato's Symposium and through comparative readings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Emmanuel Lévinas, in which several indictments and defences of philosophy are explored. According to McGuirk, the trial of philosophy hangs ultimately on the meaning of philosophical eros. He argues that while eros can involve impulses toward tyranny and the subjugation of otherness, it is finally understood by Plato in terms of a subtle balance, in which the acquisitiveness of eros is enframed by a more fundamental affective attunement to the Good in Being. According to this reading, eros is not only compatible with ethical and political forms of the interpersonal, it is their condition of possibility.
What I want to do in this paper is to look at the use to which Heidegger puts Aristotle and the consequences of this employment. This issue is complex such that the ambition in the present paper can only be to sketch the main lines of Heidegger’s reading. My claim will be that Heidegger’s reading of the Nichomachean Ethics involves a series of transformations or hermeneutical re-orientations of the text and that while certain of these are legitimate, some are problematic. Chief among these problems will be the transformation of the Aristotelian discourse from an ethical to an ontological register as well as Heidegger’s understanding of how phronetic insight should be lived. This last point, as we will see, bears witness to a kind of Kierkegaardian reading of Aristotle which in itself can be problematic.