Andrzej Waleszczyński, Michał Obidziński and Julia Rejewska
Language 22 (4), 2007, pp. 346-65.
20. Paprzycka, K. Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. In A. Kuźniar, and J. Odrowąż-Sypniewska (eds.), The Sciences, Leiden, Boston: Brill Rodopi, 2016, pp. 204-33.
21. Paprzycka, K. The Omissions Account of the Knobe Effect and the Asymmetry Challenge, Mind and Language 30 (5), 2015, pp. 550-71.
22. Piekarski, M. One or Many Normativities? Studia Philosophiae Christianae 54 (1), 2018, pp. 5-24.
23. Piekarski, M. Two Arguments Supporting the
The aim of this article is to discuss the character of regularities occurring in informal social bonds, be they friendships, romantic partnerships, competitions or rivalries. Since Simmel’s work is emblematic for the theme of social norms involved in durable informal bonds, I take his original concept of forms of association as my point of reference. The argument I propose challenges several of Simmel’s assumptions, namely his objectivist stance, his formal sociology and the autopoiesis of systems of reciprocal effects. Based on this critical rereading of Simmel, I introduce the concept of “socially constructed typical bonds” as a more dynamic and versatile alternative to the static patterns of forms of association. By bringing a subjectivist turn (inspired by Berger, Luckmann and Butler) to Simmel’s forms of association, I argue for the recognition of the blurry, diverse and contradictory understandings of the typical social bond as the ground for relational normativity.
Bilgrami, A. 1992. Belief and Meaning . Oxford: Blackwell.
Boghossian, P. 2003. The normativity of content. Philosophical Issues 13: 31–45.
Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Broome, J. 1999. Normative Requirements. Ratio , repr. in Dancy 2000.
Bykvist, K. & Hattiangadi, A. 2007. Does Thought Imply Ought ? Analysis 67 (296): 277–285.
Dancy, J., ed. 2000. Normativity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Davidson, D. 1998. ‘Reply to Pascal Engel,’ in L. Hahn, ed. The Philosophy of
Crisp, Roger. 2000. Review of Value … And What Follows , by Joel Kupperman, Philosophy, 75.
Crisp, Roger. 2005. Value, Reasons, and the Structure of Justification: How to Avoid Passing the Buck. Analysis 65.
D’Arms, Justin and Jacobson, Daniel. 2000. Sentiment and Value. Ethics 110.
Gibbard, Allan. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgement . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rabinowicz, Wlodek and Rønnow-Rasmussen, Toni. 2004. The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro-attitudes and Value. Ethics
: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery” Cognitive Science 39, pp.1727-1763.
De Caro M., Macarthur D. (eds.), 2004, Naturalism in Question , Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
De Caro M., Macarthur D. (eds.), 2010, Naturalism and Normativity , Columbia University Press, New York.
Doppelt G. 1990, “The Naturalist Conception of Methodological Standards in Science: a Critique”, in Philosophy of Science 57, pp. 1-19.
Dürr D., Goldstein S., Zanghì N. 2013, Quantum Physics without Quantum Philosophy
1. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012).
2. Diez, Thomas, and Ian Manners. “Reflecting on Normative Power Europe”: 173-188. In: F. Berenskoetter and M. J. Williams, eds. Power in World Politics . New York: Routledge, 2007.
3. Diez, Thomas, and Ian Manners. “Reflecting on Normative Power Europe”: 23-57. In: Thomas Diez, ed. A Different Kind of Power? The EU’s Role in International Politics . New York: Idebate Press, 2014.
4. Diez, Thomas
Steinbock, A. (2003). Grenzüberschreitungen. Generative Phänomenologie nach Husserl. Übers. T. Stähler. Freiburg: Alber.
Taipale, J. (2010). Normalität. In H.-H. Gander (Hrsg.). Husserl-Lexikon (S. 212-213). Darmstadt: WBG.
Taipale, J. (2012). Twofold Normality. Husserl and the Normative Relevance of Primordial Constitution. Husserl Studies 28, 49-60.
Waldenfels, B. (1998). Grenzen der Normalisierung. Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 2. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp.
Wehrle, M. (2010). Die Normativität der
Chaudhuri, P. P. (2011), Europe and the Rise of Asia, Jean Monnet Lecture, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, held on 17 October 2011.
Cox, M. (2003), “The Empire’s Back in Town: or America’s Imperial Temptation- Again,” Millenium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03058298030320010101
Diez, T. (2005), “Constructing the Self and Changing Others: Reconsidering ‘Normative Power Europe’,” Millennium, Journal of International Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 613
The historical kiss of peace between Polish Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl in Krzyżowa/Kreisau in 1989 serves as an example for how existential experiences can profoundly impact and even alter liturgy. However, liturgy can also be an obstacle for the further reflection and processing of such experiences, if they are not taken up in the liturgical setting. The political situation of a divided Europe as well as the Cold War following World War II indicate a unique situation in recent history that concernes believers all over the world. The question that results from taking this immediate past seriously is what kind of experiences liturgy can and should address (and in what form) and if there might be experiences or forms of handling such experiences that threaten the power of the ritual.
alternative approach, better suited to rights’ adjudication in contemporary pluralistic legal orders. It is submitted that a humbler approach to constitutional rights’ adjudication—one that is sensitive to the particular circumstances of the relevant jurisdiction—better reflects the realities of constitutional adjudication and is normatively preferable to the dominant approach. It is further argued that the normative reasons for having courts undertake the value-choices implicit in rights’ adjudication, and for preferring certain legal methodologies over others, are to a