What S Wrong With Antitheory

Antitheory has long been a venerable brand of theory and – although seemingly opposite – the two impulses have long been intertwined. Antitheory is the first book to explore this vexed relationship from the 20th century to the present day, examining antitheory both in its historical context and its current state. The book brings together leading scholars from a wide range of Humanities disciplines to ask such questions as: · What is antitheory? · What does it mean to be against theory in the new millennium? · What is the current state of post-theory, the alleged deaths of theory, and the critique of critique?

"Antitheory has long been a venerable brand of theory and ?́" although seemingly opposite ?́" the two impulses have long been intertwined. Antitheory is the first book to explore this vexed relationship from the 20th century to the present day, examining antitheory both in its historical context and its current state. The book brings together leading scholars from a wide range of Humanities disciplines to ask such questions as: · What is antitheory? · What does it mean to be against theory in the new millennium? · What is the current state of post-theory, the alleged deaths of theory, and the critique of critique?."--

The most exhaustive mapping of contemporary literary theory to date, this book offers a comprehensive overview of the current state of the field of contemporary literary theory. Examining 75 key topics across 15 chapters, it provides an approachable and encyclopedic introduction to the most important areas of contemporary theory today. Proceeding broadly chronologically from early theory all the way through to postcritique, Di Leo masterfully unpacks established topics such as psychoanalysis, structuralism and Marxism, as well as newer topics such as trans* theory, animal studies, disability studies, blue humanities, speculative realism and many more. Featuring accessible discussion of the work of foundational theorists such as Lacan, Derrida and Freud as well as contemporary theorists such as Haraway, Braidotti and Hayles, it offers a magisterial examination of an enormously rich and varied body of work.

What form, or forms, might ethical knowledge take? In particular, can ethical knowledge take the form either of moral theory, or of moral intuition? If it can, should it? A team of experts explore these central questions for ethics, and present a diverse range of perspectives on the discussion.

"This is a timely collection of important papers. It gives focus to a new development in moral philosophy, by defining the problems it addresses, by identifying the similarities and differences among various representatives, and by articulating the common themes which run through the works of these people." -- John Kekes "The book reveals an underlying unity to what might at first appear to be a diverse body of literature. The first section on "Anti-theory in Ethics" collects all of the most important contributions to the growing skepticism about moral theory as it is currently practiced. In itself it would make an interesting and useful collection. By combining it with the second section on moral conservatism, the editors reveal that the implications of the anti-theorists' arguments are not merely negative, and extend beyond the confines of methodological disputes in academic philosophy. The essays in part two both discuss moral conservatism and exemplify it; in so doing they reveal that attempting to build comprehensive theories is not the only way in which moral philosophy can be both rigorous and critical." -- Arthur Ripstein This volume documents a movement from theory and rules in ethics to an account of morality based on local practice and perception of the particular case. The Introduction lays the foundation for this position, then the authors draw from the analytic tradition as they forcefully argue against theory derived from different philosophical ancestors. In the second half they examine moral conservatism, exhibiting how placing moral practice as primary does not restrict one to any form of political conservatism.

South African art historian Susan Grundy offers a trove of unusual and arcanely brilliant alternative ideas about the mysterious Renaissance polymath painter, found in what she calls Leonardo anti-theory. In a narrative full of twists and turns, arguments and counterarguments, readers will be transfixed from beginning to end. Significantly, the author uses anti-theory to demonstrate the paintings and the Notebooks usually attributed to one “Leonardo da Vinci,” were alternatively produced by a number of artists and scientists. Ultimately, Grundy shows all Leonardo anti-theory is (a little bit or a lot) right; while all mainstream rhetoric is (mostly a lot) wrong. The author introduces the neglected masters, and even a possible mistress, in the workshops of Milan, Florence, and Rome.

This book presents a broad and new theory of theory formation in ethics. There are many existing theories, and more could be generated, but most thinkers of theory formation have a narrow view of what a theory of ethics should be like. They favor certain kinds of grand theories that generate various ethical rules and principles. In fact these grand theories allegedly do so much work that they give the appearance of being super-theories (or strong theories). Many theory creators think that it is possible to create strong theories, and that they themselves have created such a theory. Anti-theorists scoff at these claims. In effect, then, the argument between the two sides is not one of theory versus anti-theory but of grand or strong theory versus anti-grand or strong theory. Nick Fotion argues that once a broader view of theory is accepted, it is easier to see that there really is no serious conflict between theorists and anti-theorists. In principle, both sides, if they overcome their addiction to thinking in terms of grand, strong theory formation, can accept a role for theories in ethics. Theories in ethics can be either grand or local in nature. Provided theory creators and users don't expect theories to performs all kinds of impossible tasks (e.g., to deal with all of our ethical problems and be so fully justified that only one theory can be accepted as being correct) it is easier to accept them. It is also easier to accept the idea that a theorist might very well appeal to more than one theory to help him or her deal with whatever ethical issues bother.

Many well known philosophers defend the role of theory in ethics. They suppose that it is impossible to justify the moral rules and principles we live by without a theory being in place. They also argue that theorizing is needed in order to rationally generate new or modify old rules and principles. Anti-theorists argue that theories in ethics oversimplify matters and only give the appearance of being useful. The debate between the two sides seems not to be resolvable.