2017
DOI: 10.5325/jspecphil.31.4.0594
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On Rupture: An Intervention into Epistemological Disruptions of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Hume

Abstract: An epistemology of rupture is evasive. In contrast to an established system or structure, ruptures are fleeting and interruptive. This is why the intervals manifested by rupture are so important. Machiavelli's situationist disruption, Hobbes's destructionist break, Hume's empiricist interruption—we know we are in the presence of rupture when the continuous order of things is disturbed in a moment, when the very emergence of a value appears in a new and nonsensical way—a way whose possibilities cannot be garner… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As it is coextensive to the dominant epistemologies, it is impossible to remain wholly within rupture. What remains after the break is not the rupture but a new epistemological system of being—which will, in time, be broken from as well” (Kingsmith 2017 : 596–597). Therefore, the epistemic rupture has a nuanced underpinning.…”
Section: The Splendour Of Negationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As it is coextensive to the dominant epistemologies, it is impossible to remain wholly within rupture. What remains after the break is not the rupture but a new epistemological system of being—which will, in time, be broken from as well” (Kingsmith 2017 : 596–597). Therefore, the epistemic rupture has a nuanced underpinning.…”
Section: The Splendour Of Negationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Rousseau, morals were directly involved in the leadership ability of a ruler (Rousseau, 2016). According to Hobbes, if two men held their interest in a common thing that they could not both enjoy, they became enemies (Kingsmith, 2017). He asserted that those living in the same natural state were regularly at war and did not differentiate the right from wrong.…”
Section: Machiavelli and Hobbesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, Indigenous peoples drove a resurgence of community-based planning, a renewal of Indigenous planning. It was part of an “epistemological disruption” (Kingsmith 2017) in planning generally, an evolution from thinking about what planning should be to empirical studies of what planners do —to studies of and critical reflection on actual planning institutions and practices, listening to the language of planning practitioners and those who are affected by them (Healey 2012; Innes and Booher 2015; Teitz 2000). The result for Indigenous planning was that by the 1980s, a new era of “self-determination” had emerged as Indigenous peoples regained control and were able to begin shaping planning institutions to their own purposes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%