Publication: Utopía inmanente, utopía trascendente y utopía trascendental
Authors
Gamero Cabrera, Isabel G.
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Universidad de Murcia
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
En este artículo quisiera contemplar
los argumentos de dos autores muy distintos,
Seyla Benhabib y Slavoj Žižek, quienes coinciden
en señalar que la aportación de Judith Butler a la
filosofía política no resulta demasiado convincente
por no considerar la tendencia utópica que toda
teoría y práctica política debería mantener. Nos
aproximaremos en orden cronológico a estas dos
críticas, orden que nos va a permitir entender
mejor la evolución del pensamiento de Butler.
Abstract: In this paper, we would like to analyse the arguments of two quite different philosophers: Seyla Benhabib and Slavoj Žižek, who, neverless, share a point of view in their respective critiques of Judith Butler. Both authors argue that Butler’s aportation to political philosophy is not quite convincing, because she does not consider the utopical tendency that every theory and praxis of politics should maintain. We aim at understanding these two arguments in chronological order, which facilitates comprehension of the evolution of Butler’s theory.
Abstract: In this paper, we would like to analyse the arguments of two quite different philosophers: Seyla Benhabib and Slavoj Žižek, who, neverless, share a point of view in their respective critiques of Judith Butler. Both authors argue that Butler’s aportation to political philosophy is not quite convincing, because she does not consider the utopical tendency that every theory and praxis of politics should maintain. We aim at understanding these two arguments in chronological order, which facilitates comprehension of the evolution of Butler’s theory.
Citation
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.