Call for Papers
scroll down for more CFPs
Special Issue
The re-rebirth of Europe as a philosophical idea. Can an old crisis bring new hope?
The question of the meaning of the European crisis and the possibility of overcoming it is a philosophical question par excellence, all the more so because, as Barbara Skarga succinctly put it, referring to Husserl’s claim of the constitutive role of the universalism of Greek philosophy, “It was not Europe that created philosophy, it was philosophy that created Europe (…).” Skarga – in line with the established tradition – points to a lasting disposition to question one’s own beliefs as a distinctive feature of European culture and, following Krzysztof Pomian, repeats that Europe – at least in the modern era – lives “more in the form of ideas, as a programme and as a dream, as a community beyond States and religions, as a form of intellectual life and, what is more, as a certain form of culture.”
Today, however, we are all too painfully aware that what was a dream for some, for others – in Europe and especially beyond it – has too often turned out to be a nightmare, the horror of which goes beyond the possibility of grasping it as a dialectical moment of progress. We remember the words of Adorno, who stated that: “After Auschwitz there is no word tinged from on high (…) that has any right unless it underwent a transformation” and famously added: “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” In 2006, the then Prime Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin, concluded that “[Adorno] could just as well have asked whether the spirit of Europe still had any meaning after Auschwitz (…).” Additionally the baggage of colonial violence, the consequences of which we still see today, does not allow us to ignore Fanon’s call, who – also in the interest of Europe itself – proclaimed: “Leave this Europe where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them, (…). For centuries they have stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience.” On the other hand, Chantal Delsol, calling for the rejection of “the disgusting idea of Europe’s ontological superiority”, still asks about the possibility of preserving the core of its identity, which – according to the philosopher – “is not the universality of Human Rights, which belongs to all peoples as a promise of the fulfillment of the dignity of all human beings, but rather the articulation of the foundations of this universality: the original certainty of the unity of humankind and the anthropology that results from it (Saint Paul).”
Roberto Esposito reminds us that when Europe began to lose its global hegemony – both metaphysical and political (including colonial) – philosophical attempts to overcome this crisis, usually based on the postulate of refounding Europe on its Greek roots, played an ambiguous role, among other things because: “In a typical inversion of real relations, the impression prevailed that the crisis of philosophy was causing the crisis of Europe rather than the other way around.” And, commenting on the significance of the American works of Adorno and Horkeimer, he adds: “in order to speak once again to the world, European philosophy had to find a way outside the theoretical and geographic circle inside of which it had been locked up by the crisis. (…) although tied to its homeland, philosophical thought needs equally to be deterritorialized in order to acquire momentum and breadth: the outside is always what illuminates the inside, and never vice versa.” In this context, Derrida’s doubt from 1992 about whether the contemporary crisis can still be reasonably called “European” seems justified. On the other hand, the ambitious projects of abandoning “sedentary geophilosophy” through the concept of “nomadic Europe” are currently colliding with the reterritorialization of thinking about Europe and its borders. One of the obvious reasons for that is the brutal, and openly imperialist in a very classical sense, Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is also a war directly declared on the “European existential project”. However the reactions of a significant part of European societies to immigration and globalization also plays its role. Moreover, recent substantial shifts in US policy may imply the need to rethink the words of Vattimo, who, commenting on the future of Europe, stated as early as 2003 that the US represents “a different view of existence” and “a different existential plan.”
The question of the future of Europe and the meaning of this future is therefore a question of the meaning of a certain philosophical project, and as such it constitutes not only a challenge for but also the responsibility of philosophy. Philosophers who (co)created the concept of Europe cannot now renounce responsibility for the fate of this concept, risking that it will become an “empty signifier” handed over, as has happened many times in history, to the mercy of forces clearly opposed to reason in both moral and intellectual sense, which are by no means heralds of a liberating deconstruction. Are we today capable of such faith in the meaning of the European future as was expressed in 2003 by Derrida and Habermas in their famous letter proclaiming the emergence of European public sphere? Does Derrida’s bold appeal asking about the possibility of Europe that, by navigating between the traps of Eurocentrism and the rejection of its own tradition, can set “an other heading” still retain its power for us, even if this were to be a different heading than the one suggested by the French philosopher? In other words, can Europe understood as a certain idea still signify hope today, or has the question of the meaning of its future definitively lost its philosophical significance?
***
Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture invites contributions which engage with these and connected themes. As an academic journal we expect well-researched, in-depth analyses fulfilling the standards provided for academic contributions. In accordance with the profile of our journal we are open not only to purely philosophical essays but also to contributions from other cultural disciplines
Contributions can be submitted by August 31st, 2025 to: eidos.ed@uw.edu.pl
They have to be previously unpublished and they cannot be under consideration for publication elsewhere. They should be prepared for a double-blind review process. Please, make sure that your paper complies with our submission standards which are posted here.
General CFP
Apart from Calls for Papers to thematic sections, Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture invites, on a continuous basis, all high-quality papers which address topics relevant for philosophy of culture. Contemporary culture can be characterized as highly complex, dynamic if not aporetic: as a realm of ever changing conceptual and axiological frameworks, and of plural or even competing meanings. In this perspective, what is needed is constantly renewed philosophical reflection, which not only addresses but also interprets and makes sense of different cultural processes. For philosophy of culture itself demands (perhaps, more than ever before) a form of deepened meta-reflection, which confront the problems of its essence, methods, and a role it should play. Therefore, we welcome both: original analyses of contemporary cultural phenomena and methodological considerations on the current status of philosophy of culture and its relations to other philosophical disciplines as well as to the humanities in general.
We also encourage submissions of book reviews and discussion pieces devoted to contemporary issues and events in philosophy for the “Discussion Papers, Comments, Book Reviews” section. The essays for this section are not subject to the peer-review process. They are only subject to editorial assessment.
All papers should be submitted as an e-mail attachment to: eidos.ed@uw.edu.pl.
The essays have to be previously unpublished and they cannot be under consideration for publication elsewhere. They should be prepared for a double-blind review process. Please, make sure that your paper complies with our submission standards which are posted here.