TY  - CHAP
AU  - Ostojić, Aleksandar
PY  - 2021
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/2515
AB  - The paper examines two conflicting societal functions of education: on the one hand, education can work to reproduce the existing power relations, indoctrinate students, and assimilate them into the existing social order, but on the other hand, it can also contribute to the emancipation of students and the society as a whole. By contrasting the emancipatory function with the ideological one, I aim to clarify the meaning of individual and social emancipation drawing on the Enlightenment tradition, locate the main ideological forces opposing it in the field of education, as well as suggest some ways in which they can be resisted.  
First, I will explore the core emancipatory educational ideas of the Enlightenment based on three key texts: Rousseau’s Emile, Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” and Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Next, I will examine the ideological function of education, in particular of neoliberal education, in order to discern the main ways in which contemporary ideology works through education. Based on insights gained, I will suggest several main lines of resistance, capable of strengthening the emancipatory function of education and countering the ideological one in contemporary neoliberal societies.   
In the concluding discussion, I will respond to the critics arguing that the Enlightenment ideal had itself become ideological and had instrumentalized education (Biesta 2008; Osberg & Biesta 2020), which will lead me to make a conceptual distinction between ideology and ideal.
PB  - Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Liberating Education: What From, What For?
T1  - Knowledge Versus Production: Michel Serres and Idiosyncratic Roads of Education
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2515
ER  - 

@inbook{
author = "Ostojić, Aleksandar",
year = "2021",
abstract = "The paper examines two conflicting societal functions of education: on the one hand, education can work to reproduce the existing power relations, indoctrinate students, and assimilate them into the existing social order, but on the other hand, it can also contribute to the emancipation of students and the society as a whole. By contrasting the emancipatory function with the ideological one, I aim to clarify the meaning of individual and social emancipation drawing on the Enlightenment tradition, locate the main ideological forces opposing it in the field of education, as well as suggest some ways in which they can be resisted.  
First, I will explore the core emancipatory educational ideas of the Enlightenment based on three key texts: Rousseau’s Emile, Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” and Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Next, I will examine the ideological function of education, in particular of neoliberal education, in order to discern the main ways in which contemporary ideology works through education. Based on insights gained, I will suggest several main lines of resistance, capable of strengthening the emancipatory function of education and countering the ideological one in contemporary neoliberal societies.   
In the concluding discussion, I will respond to the critics arguing that the Enlightenment ideal had itself become ideological and had instrumentalized education (Biesta 2008; Osberg & Biesta 2020), which will lead me to make a conceptual distinction between ideology and ideal.",
publisher = "Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Liberating Education: What From, What For?",
booktitle = "Knowledge Versus Production: Michel Serres and Idiosyncratic Roads of Education",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2515"
}

Ostojić, A.. (2021). Knowledge Versus Production: Michel Serres and Idiosyncratic Roads of Education. in Liberating Education: What From, What For?
Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju..
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2515

Ostojić A. Knowledge Versus Production: Michel Serres and Idiosyncratic Roads of Education. in Liberating Education: What From, What For?. 2021;.
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2515 .

Ostojić, Aleksandar, "Knowledge Versus Production: Michel Serres and Idiosyncratic Roads of Education" in Liberating Education: What From, What For? (2021),
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2515 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ostojić, Aleksandar
PY  - 2021
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/2285
PB  - Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
T1  - Edgar Vind, Paganske misterije u Renesansi, Fedon, Beograd, 2019.
IS  - 3
VL  - 32
UR  - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2285
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Ostojić, Aleksandar",
year = "2021",
publisher = "Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society",
title = "Edgar Vind, Paganske misterije u Renesansi, Fedon, Beograd, 2019.",
number = "3",
volume = "32",
url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2285"
}

Ostojić, A.. (2021). Edgar Vind, Paganske misterije u Renesansi, Fedon, Beograd, 2019.. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
Beograd : Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 32(3).
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2285

Ostojić A. Edgar Vind, Paganske misterije u Renesansi, Fedon, Beograd, 2019.. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. 2021;32(3).
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2285 .

Ostojić, Aleksandar, "Edgar Vind, Paganske misterije u Renesansi, Fedon, Beograd, 2019." in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society, 32, no. 3 (2021),
https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rifdt_2285 .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ostojić, Aleksandar
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://kritika.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/index.php/kc/article/view/66
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/2470
AB  - Delezovo razumevanje kritike, koje je izneo u delu Niče i filozofija predstavlja sistemski metod koji će Delez koristiti u svojim kasnijim delima. Zastupajući ovu tezu, rad analizira problem simulakruma, koji Delez uočava kod Platona, pokazujući na koji način je Delezovo razumevanje kritike prisutno u njegovom sagledavanju platon(izm)a. Premda se Delezov kritički metod unutar ovog rada u najvećoj meri posmatra i ispituje kroz njegovo razumevanje Platona i simulakruma, rad takođe nagoveštava mogućnost šireg razumevanje uloge kritike kod Deleza: može li se kritika razumeti kao konstantan metodski pristup kojem Delez pribegava? Takva pozicija otvara prostor unutar kog se čitava Razlika i ponavljanje može razumeti kao veliki kritički projekat, na šta Delez delimično i sam upućuje.
AB  - Deleuze’s understanding of criticism, presented in his work „Nietzsche and Philoso phy“, is a systematic method that Deleuze will use many times later. Advocating this 
thesis, the paper analyzes the problem of simulacrum, which Deleuze sees in Plato’s 
philosophy, showing how Deleuze’s understanding of critique is present in his percep tion of Plato. Although the idea of Deleuze’s critique as a method is in this paper largely 
observed and examined through his understanding of Plato and the simulacrum, the 
paper also suggests the possibility of a broader understanding of the role of criticism 
in Deleuze: can critique be understood as a constant methodological approach used 
by Deleuze? Such a position opens a space within which Difference and Repetition can 
be read as a great critical project, an Idea, which Deleuze himself partially refers to.
PB  - Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Kritika: časopis za filozofiju i teoriju društva
T1  - Simulakrum i kritika: Delezovo tumačenje platon(izm)a
T1  - Simulacrum And Critique: Deleuze’s Understanding of plato(nism)
IS  - 2
VL  - 2
SP  - 259
EP  - 272
DO  - 10.5281/zenodo.5732508
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Ostojić, Aleksandar",
year = "2021",
abstract = "Delezovo razumevanje kritike, koje je izneo u delu Niče i filozofija predstavlja sistemski metod koji će Delez koristiti u svojim kasnijim delima. Zastupajući ovu tezu, rad analizira problem simulakruma, koji Delez uočava kod Platona, pokazujući na koji način je Delezovo razumevanje kritike prisutno u njegovom sagledavanju platon(izm)a. Premda se Delezov kritički metod unutar ovog rada u najvećoj meri posmatra i ispituje kroz njegovo razumevanje Platona i simulakruma, rad takođe nagoveštava mogućnost šireg razumevanje uloge kritike kod Deleza: može li se kritika razumeti kao konstantan metodski pristup kojem Delez pribegava? Takva pozicija otvara prostor unutar kog se čitava Razlika i ponavljanje može razumeti kao veliki kritički projekat, na šta Delez delimično i sam upućuje., Deleuze’s understanding of criticism, presented in his work „Nietzsche and Philoso phy“, is a systematic method that Deleuze will use many times later. Advocating this 
thesis, the paper analyzes the problem of simulacrum, which Deleuze sees in Plato’s 
philosophy, showing how Deleuze’s understanding of critique is present in his percep tion of Plato. Although the idea of Deleuze’s critique as a method is in this paper largely 
observed and examined through his understanding of Plato and the simulacrum, the 
paper also suggests the possibility of a broader understanding of the role of criticism 
in Deleuze: can critique be understood as a constant methodological approach used 
by Deleuze? Such a position opens a space within which Difference and Repetition can 
be read as a great critical project, an Idea, which Deleuze himself partially refers to.",
publisher = "Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Kritika: časopis za filozofiju i teoriju društva",
title = "Simulakrum i kritika: Delezovo tumačenje platon(izm)a, Simulacrum And Critique: Deleuze’s Understanding of plato(nism)",
number = "2",
volume = "2",
pages = "259-272",
doi = "10.5281/zenodo.5732508"
}

Ostojić, A.. (2021). Simulakrum i kritika: Delezovo tumačenje platon(izm)a. in Kritika: časopis za filozofiju i teoriju društva
Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 2(2), 259-272.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5732508

Ostojić A. Simulakrum i kritika: Delezovo tumačenje platon(izm)a. in Kritika: časopis za filozofiju i teoriju društva. 2021;2(2):259-272.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.5732508 .

Ostojić, Aleksandar, "Simulakrum i kritika: Delezovo tumačenje platon(izm)a" in Kritika: časopis za filozofiju i teoriju društva, 2, no. 2 (2021):259-272,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5732508 . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ostojić, Aleksandar
PY  - 2021
UR  - https://journal.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/index.php/fid/article/view/1379
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/2494
AB  - This paper analyzes the notion of recollection in Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur’s thought, in the context of time distance as “obstacles” towards understanding the past. Particular attention is paid to the understanding the phenomenon of “Death” as a time gap between the past and the present. In connection with this problem, we find efforts of philosophical hermeneutics on the one hand and historicism on the other. Differences between historicism and hermeneutics can be outlined in relation to the role that memory plays in the process of understanding in Gadamer and Ricoeur. What does Death mean in terms of understanding for history, and what for hermeneutics? How can we understand temporal distance? Is it possible and necessary to overcome it? What is the role of recollection and how does it participate in understanding? – these are some of the main issues that will be addressed in the text. Finally, the task of the text is to offer the meaning and significance of the hermeneutics of recollection in relation to the mentioned questions, through the interaction of the thoughts of the two authors.
AB  - Tekst analizira pojam sećanja kod Hansa Georga Gadamera i Pola Rikera u kontekstu vre menske distance kao „prepreke“ razumevanja prošlosti. Naročita pažnja usmerena je na ra zumevanje fenomena „smrti“ kao vremenskog ponora između prošlosti i sadašnjosti. U vezi 
sa tim stoje i nastojanja filozofske hermeneutike sa jedne strane i istoricizma sa druge. U 
odnosu na ulogu koju sećanje igra u procesu razumevanju kod Gadamera i Rikera, daće se 
ocrtati razlike između istoricizma i hermeneuitke. Šta smrt predstavlja u pogledu razumevanja za istoriju a šta za hermeneutiku? Kako razumeti vremensku distancu? Da li je moguće i 
da li je neophodno prevazići je? Koja je uloga sećanja i kako ono učestvuje u razumevanju? 
– neka su od glavnih pitanja koja će biti adresirana u tekstu. Na kraju, zadatak teksta je da 
kroz interakciju misli dvojice autora, ponudi značenje i značaj hermeneutike sećanja u pogledu na navedena pitanja.
PB  - Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
T2  - Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
T1  - Hermeneutics of Recollection: Gadamer and Ricoeur
T1  - Hermeneutika sećanja: Gadamer i Riker
IS  - 4
VL  - 32
SP  - 714
EP  - 725
DO  - 10.2298/FID2104714O
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Ostojić, Aleksandar",
year = "2021",
abstract = "This paper analyzes the notion of recollection in Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur’s thought, in the context of time distance as “obstacles” towards understanding the past. Particular attention is paid to the understanding the phenomenon of “Death” as a time gap between the past and the present. In connection with this problem, we find efforts of philosophical hermeneutics on the one hand and historicism on the other. Differences between historicism and hermeneutics can be outlined in relation to the role that memory plays in the process of understanding in Gadamer and Ricoeur. What does Death mean in terms of understanding for history, and what for hermeneutics? How can we understand temporal distance? Is it possible and necessary to overcome it? What is the role of recollection and how does it participate in understanding? – these are some of the main issues that will be addressed in the text. Finally, the task of the text is to offer the meaning and significance of the hermeneutics of recollection in relation to the mentioned questions, through the interaction of the thoughts of the two authors., Tekst analizira pojam sećanja kod Hansa Georga Gadamera i Pola Rikera u kontekstu vre menske distance kao „prepreke“ razumevanja prošlosti. Naročita pažnja usmerena je na ra zumevanje fenomena „smrti“ kao vremenskog ponora između prošlosti i sadašnjosti. U vezi 
sa tim stoje i nastojanja filozofske hermeneutike sa jedne strane i istoricizma sa druge. U 
odnosu na ulogu koju sećanje igra u procesu razumevanju kod Gadamera i Rikera, daće se 
ocrtati razlike između istoricizma i hermeneuitke. Šta smrt predstavlja u pogledu razumevanja za istoriju a šta za hermeneutiku? Kako razumeti vremensku distancu? Da li je moguće i 
da li je neophodno prevazići je? Koja je uloga sećanja i kako ono učestvuje u razumevanju? 
– neka su od glavnih pitanja koja će biti adresirana u tekstu. Na kraju, zadatak teksta je da 
kroz interakciju misli dvojice autora, ponudi značenje i značaj hermeneutike sećanja u pogledu na navedena pitanja.",
publisher = "Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju",
journal = "Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society",
title = "Hermeneutics of Recollection: Gadamer and Ricoeur, Hermeneutika sećanja: Gadamer i Riker",
number = "4",
volume = "32",
pages = "714-725",
doi = "10.2298/FID2104714O"
}

Ostojić, A.. (2021). Hermeneutics of Recollection: Gadamer and Ricoeur. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society
Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju., 32(4), 714-725.
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2104714O

Ostojić A. Hermeneutics of Recollection: Gadamer and Ricoeur. in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society. 2021;32(4):714-725.
doi:10.2298/FID2104714O .

Ostojić, Aleksandar, "Hermeneutics of Recollection: Gadamer and Ricoeur" in Filozofija i društvo/Philosophy and Society, 32, no. 4 (2021):714-725,
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2104714O . .

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ostojić, Aleksandar
PY  - 2019
UR  - http://rifdt.instifdt.bg.ac.rs/123456789/2155
AB  - Giordano Bruno u filozofijskoj tradiciji nije interpretiran jednoznačno. Analiza tih interpretacija pokazuje da je Bruno tumačen kao začetnik nove znanosti ili pak kao mistik, mag,
poklonik hermetičke tradicije. Sukladno tim dvama pogledima, Brunova ars memoriae bit
će tumačena kao obična tehnika pamćenja u službi empirijske znanosti ili pak kao okultna magijska vještina. Cilj je ovoga rada otvoriti puteve koji nadilaze spomenutu striktnu
podjelu i kojima se može pristupiti Brunu i poimanju njegove metode. Tijekom razdoblja
renesanse, koja predstavlja izniman spoj tradicije i onoga novog, magija i znanost ne isključuju se međusobno; u potrazi za znanjem, svaka metoda nalazi svoje prikladno mjesto.
Ars memoriae je univerzalna metoda koja dopušta da se znanje sagleda u svojoj mnogostrukosti. U radu ćemo predstaviti neke od ključnih elemenata Brunove filozofije, ispitujući
razna tumačenja i perspektive pokazati zašto je Bruno bio razumijevan na način na koji
jest i zašto je neophodno pristupati ars memoriae s nastojanjem objedinjavanja znanstvenih
i magijskih elemenata. Mnoštvo je mjesta kod Bruna na kojima znanstveno i magijsko ne
samo da su međusobno suprotstavljeni nego, nadograđujući se uzajamno, predstavljaju
nerazdvojnu cjelinu unutar koje im je upravo znanje ono zajedničko. Stoga, zadatak nije
detaljno analizirati samu ars memoriae, nego ispitati moguće pristupe toj metodi, o čemu
naposljetku i ovisi razumijevanje samog Bruna.
AB  - The relationship of tradition towards Bruno is twofold, and the analysis of this relationship will
show that Bruno is interpreted either as a pioneer of new science or as a mystic, mage, and
follower of hermetic tradition. Following these two viewpoints, Bruno’s ars memoriae will be
interpreted either as a mere memory technique in the service of empirical science or as an occult, magical art. This paper aims to open up and analyse the ways by which we can approach
and understand Bruno and his method, that goes beyond the mentioned strict division. In the
period of Renaissance, which represents an incredible combination of tradition and the new,
magic and science do not exclude one another; in search for knowledge, each method finds its
proper place. Ars memoriae is precisely that: a universal method that allows knowledge to be
understood in its multiplicity. In this paper, we will present some of the key elements of Bruno’s
philosophy, by exploring different interpretations and perspectives, and show why Bruno was
understood and interpreted in the way in which he was and why is it necessary to access the
ars memoriae by striving to unite scientific and magical elements. In Bruno’s thought there are
many places where scientific and magical are not only not opposed to each other, but are complementary, and represent an inseparable whole within which knowledge is commonplace both
to former and latter. The task, therefore, is not to analyze ars memoriae in detail, but to examine
possible approaches to that method. Understanding of Bruno depends upon understanding his
method of ars memoriae.
PB  - Zagreb: Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo
T2  - Filozofska istraživanja
T1  - Giordano Bruno i ars memoriae: između znanosti i magije
IS  - 4
VL  - 39
SP  - 907
EP  - 928
DO  - 10.21464/fi39410
ER  - 

@article{
author = "Ostojić, Aleksandar",
year = "2019",
abstract = "Giordano Bruno u filozofijskoj tradiciji nije interpretiran jednoznačno. Analiza tih interpretacija pokazuje da je Bruno tumačen kao začetnik nove znanosti ili pak kao mistik, mag,
poklonik hermetičke tradicije. Sukladno tim dvama pogledima, Brunova ars memoriae bit
će tumačena kao obična tehnika pamćenja u službi empirijske znanosti ili pak kao okultna magijska vještina. Cilj je ovoga rada otvoriti puteve koji nadilaze spomenutu striktnu
podjelu i kojima se može pristupiti Brunu i poimanju njegove metode. Tijekom razdoblja
renesanse, koja predstavlja izniman spoj tradicije i onoga novog, magija i znanost ne isključuju se međusobno; u potrazi za znanjem, svaka metoda nalazi svoje prikladno mjesto.
Ars memoriae je univerzalna metoda koja dopušta da se znanje sagleda u svojoj mnogostrukosti. U radu ćemo predstaviti neke od ključnih elemenata Brunove filozofije, ispitujući
razna tumačenja i perspektive pokazati zašto je Bruno bio razumijevan na način na koji
jest i zašto je neophodno pristupati ars memoriae s nastojanjem objedinjavanja znanstvenih
i magijskih elemenata. Mnoštvo je mjesta kod Bruna na kojima znanstveno i magijsko ne
samo da su međusobno suprotstavljeni nego, nadograđujući se uzajamno, predstavljaju
nerazdvojnu cjelinu unutar koje im je upravo znanje ono zajedničko. Stoga, zadatak nije
detaljno analizirati samu ars memoriae, nego ispitati moguće pristupe toj metodi, o čemu
naposljetku i ovisi razumijevanje samog Bruna., The relationship of tradition towards Bruno is twofold, and the analysis of this relationship will
show that Bruno is interpreted either as a pioneer of new science or as a mystic, mage, and
follower of hermetic tradition. Following these two viewpoints, Bruno’s ars memoriae will be
interpreted either as a mere memory technique in the service of empirical science or as an occult, magical art. This paper aims to open up and analyse the ways by which we can approach
and understand Bruno and his method, that goes beyond the mentioned strict division. In the
period of Renaissance, which represents an incredible combination of tradition and the new,
magic and science do not exclude one another; in search for knowledge, each method finds its
proper place. Ars memoriae is precisely that: a universal method that allows knowledge to be
understood in its multiplicity. In this paper, we will present some of the key elements of Bruno’s
philosophy, by exploring different interpretations and perspectives, and show why Bruno was
understood and interpreted in the way in which he was and why is it necessary to access the
ars memoriae by striving to unite scientific and magical elements. In Bruno’s thought there are
many places where scientific and magical are not only not opposed to each other, but are complementary, and represent an inseparable whole within which knowledge is commonplace both
to former and latter. The task, therefore, is not to analyze ars memoriae in detail, but to examine
possible approaches to that method. Understanding of Bruno depends upon understanding his
method of ars memoriae.",
publisher = "Zagreb: Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo",
journal = "Filozofska istraživanja",
title = "Giordano Bruno i ars memoriae: između znanosti i magije",
number = "4",
volume = "39",
pages = "907-928",
doi = "10.21464/fi39410"
}

Ostojić, A.. (2019). Giordano Bruno i ars memoriae: između znanosti i magije. in Filozofska istraživanja
Zagreb: Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo., 39(4), 907-928.
https://doi.org/10.21464/fi39410

Ostojić A. Giordano Bruno i ars memoriae: između znanosti i magije. in Filozofska istraživanja. 2019;39(4):907-928.
doi:10.21464/fi39410 .

Ostojić, Aleksandar, "Giordano Bruno i ars memoriae: između znanosti i magije" in Filozofska istraživanja, 39, no. 4 (2019):907-928,
https://doi.org/10.21464/fi39410 . .