Hopefully not too cynical (via), or redundant. Of literary note there was Josipovici on Modernism. Also new issues of Borderlands (new home, plus see this take) and Collapse, are out. And don't miss the perennial yet necessary reminder: on dogma and being polite.
For those with more time still, one wonders if these (relatively) old articles from PMC: How to Read Adorno on How to Read Hegel, and After Reading After Postructuralism have received proper attention. From the latter:
Those that try to criticize theory as "Theory" with a capital "t" create a strawman argument, in that poststructuralist philosophy has never been about creating the ultimate frame of reference, but wanted to open up philopsophy to other questions. It's the opponents of theory--to varying degrees Picard, Sokal, and Habermas--who end up trying to create a definitive "scientific" platform from which to prosecute theory for foreclosing the Enlightenment project of modernity. Davis reminds us that poststructuralism doesn't spell the death of philosophy or of Western civilization; rather, poststructuralism holds the door open to allow new questions to enter the unfinished project of modernity.
And finally, last but certainly not least Ulrich Beck has a new article on cosmopolitanism, worth noting:
The nationalist perspective - which equates society with the society of the nation state - blinds us to the world in which we live. In order to perceive the interrelatedness of people and of populations around the globe in the first place, we need a cosmopolitan perspective. The common terminological denominator of our densely populated world is "cosmopolitanisation", which means the erosion of distinct boundaries dividing markets, states, civilizations, cultures, and not least of all the lifeworlds of different peoples. The world has not certainly not become borderless, but the boundaries are becoming blurred and indistinct, becoming permeable to flows of information and capital. Less so, on the other hand, to flows of people: tourists yes, migrants no. Taking place in national and local lifeworlds and institutions is a process of internal globalisation. This alters the conditions for the construction of social identity, which need no longer be impressed by the negative juxtaposition of "us" and "them". For me, it is important that cosmopolitanisation does not occur somewhere in abstraction or on a global scale, somewhere above people's heads, but that it takes place in the everyday lives of individuals ("mundane cosmopolitanisation"). The same is true for the internal operations of politics, which have become global on all levels, even that of domestic politics, because they must take account of the global dimension of mutual interdependencies, flows, networks, threats, and so on ("global domestic politics"). We must ask, for example: How does our understanding of power and control become altered from a cosmopolitan perspective? By way of an answer, I offer seven theses.