University of the Philippines Diliman

The Architects of the Future

(Philosophical Analysis of the Utopia-Reality Problem in International Relations)

Luis Jacob Retanan

POLSC 144

Prof. Herman Kraft

October 4, 2015

“I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made

terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.” – Umberto

Eco, Foucault’s Pendulum

Introduction

E.H. Carr’s Twenty Years’ Crisis is an in-depth analysis of the inter-war period (1919-

1939) that questions the idea of utopian idealism as a practical framework for international

politics due to its apparent weakness, gullibility and indifference in dealing with the international

political problems of that time. As a reaction to the ‘utopianification’ of international politics, he

unveils the reality of power by redefining international politics along the lines of the realist

philosophy of Machiavelli and Hobbes. But Carr is well aware also of the inherent barrenness of

realism’s obsession with power (TYC, 93)

It is the meaninglessness of power that compelled him to confess that utopian values are

still necessary to be inculcated in the conduct of international politics. But the hard reality of

power ultimately makes the realization of such values futile. Thus he resigned to a fatalistic

conclusion:

“The human will will continue to seek an escape from the logical consequences of realism in

the vision of an international order which, as soon as it crystallizes itself into concrete

political form, becomes tainted with self-interest and hypocrisy…utopia and reality –

belonging to two different planes which can never meet.” (Carr 1946; 93)

Mankind’s aspiration of building a utopian world from a reality governed by power is doomed to

fail. But is it really impossible to realize a utopian existence from the world ruled by power? I

think not.

The goal of this paper is to challenge Carr’s fatalist conclusion on the utopia-reality

problem. However the problem is not only a political but also a metaphysical issue. Thus this

paper shall approach this fundamental problem in international relations in a philosophical

manner. But instead of the orthodox state-level analysis, this essay will investigate the issue in

the existential level – reflecting on the complexities of human existence – which will be divided

into two parts, (1) exploration of relationship between human existence and the reality of power,

and (2) reconceptualization of the idea of utopia through the phenomenon of ‘worldlessness’ that

will enable the possibility of creating a utopian existence from a power-driven reality.

Part I: Reality of Power

This first part of the paper will be an existentialist reflection concerning the reality of

power through an investigation of the relation between the individual and the world he lives in

and the tragic implication that arises from such interplay to human existence.

The Genesis of Power

The existentialist philosophy generally revolves around the idea that human existence has no

innate essence and by being so it gives the individual the sense of freedom along however with

the feeling of anxiety that leaves the individual feeling alone to take up the burdens of

determining his own existence in a world devoid of any meaning.1 Considering this fundamental

idea there are therefore only three things that we can be certain of:

(1) The given uncertainty of this world due to (a) the unpredictability of the future, which is

grounded on the inherent indiscernibility of the future thus it is a logical contradiction to

say that we can objectively determine it,2 and (b) the unpredictability of the people who

are we living with in the present that arises from the problem of other minds that was left

off by the Cartesian cogito, which essentially says that we cannot fully know the

intentions of other people besides our own thereby exemplifying the fact of a subjective

reality.

(2) That we are in this world. Despite of the given uncertainty, we are still always engaged in

something as we live our daily lives.3 And these two certain things – the uncertainty of

the world and the fact that we live in such world – have an intrinsic interconnection as the

Heideggerian scholars, Dreyfus and Wrathall (2005) pointed out, “For Heidegger, our

way of being is found not in our thinking nature, but in our existing in a world. And our

being is intimately and inextricably bound up with the world that we find ourselves in ,”

(ACH, 4).

(3) The certainty of our finite existence. The inevitability of death that enables one to realize

his own timed existence thereby his own freedom that brings about anxiety or the Angst,

1 Burnham, D., & Papandreopoulos, G. (n.d.). Existentialism. Retrieved September 25, 2015, from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/existent/#SH1b 2 To imagine the future with complete determinacy would be to deny the indeterminacy essential to the future—essential to the

openness of the future. Thus this stance to the future would consist not in its affirmation but in its negation (Kompridis 2006: 11)

3 Thrownness [according to Heidegger] is the condition where in the Dasein always finds itself already in a certain spiritual and

material, historically conditioned environment (Korab-Karpowicz, 2015)

the indefinite fear of nothingness in the face of meaninglessness, which can negatively or

positively shapes the how man will make sense of the relation between his existence and

the present world depending on how one contemplates about his own imminent death.4

Reflecting on these givens, it can be pointed out that the ontologically uncertain world is an

epistemologically problematic world due to the fact that in such reality nothing can be

objectively defined as real. And that reality goes entirely against the apparent inclination of the

human mind for order, as Camus puts it in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, “The mind’s deepest

desire, even in its most elaborate operations, parallels man’s unconscious feeling in the face of

his universe: it is an insistence upon familiarity, an appetite for clarity.” (MS, 12) This tension

between the mind and the uncertainty then inevitably leads to an epistemological breakdown that

unveils the absurdity of the world. Nonetheless this absurdity brought about by the inclination of

the mind towards order detaches us from our own mundane engagements with the world

enabling us to contemplate on the finitude of our own existence that frees us but at the same time

pushes us to confront the Angst created by our own freedom. The Angst presents us with two

stark choices, (a) to let it take over us and fall into an existential despair or (b) to determine our

own existence by creating our own meanings in order to make sense of the absurdity of the

world. Because of the inclination of the individual to sanity and the dread of the Angst, we

always choose to be the ‘masters’ of reality and of our lives. And by creating our own meanings,

we also at the same time impose them by claiming them to be or not to be in reality and it is this

very act of ontological imposition – the determination of truth and falsity – marks the genesis of

power.

The Ascendance of Power

However man’s pursuit for a meaningful and ordered existence through the exercise of

power paradoxically creates an anarchic condition not exactly because of the absence but the

volatility of our epistemological and consequently political and moral structures by the fact that

they are construed in the uncertain world we are in. Therefore the only defining element in

creating a meaningful existence in such condition is power. The constitutive rule that then

emerges for the system of human relations is in its essence is power politics or Realpolitik.

4 Hoffman, Piotr. "Chapter 7: Death, Time, History: Division II of Being and Time." The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. N.p.: U

of Cambridge, 1993. 196. Print.

From this existentialist reflection one can conclude that the ascendance of power from

our uncertain world is inevitable as we try to exemplify our own freedom by imposing our

beliefs as if they are true in reality. Thus we can say that, power emerges and manifests in the

relation between the uncertain world and the existence of mankind within such world.

Nevertheless that conclusion presents a dark future for mankind due to the fact that power, being

rooted in our strong sense of self, cultivates the domineering attitude of egoism. It is this attitude

that plunges us into the brutish existence of the state of nature5, a dog-eat-dog world, where in

order to survive we must either recognize the value of power politics or construe a way out of it

– this where utopian idealism comes into the picture.

The Tragedy of Power

Mankind’s very motivation that paved the way for the genesis of power is the insecurity

brought about by the absurdity of the given uncertainty of reality. However the state of nature,

which was ultimately created by the reality of power, is indubitably anarchical thereby driving

mankind back to an uncertain existence. Thus, threatened with Angst, mankind is compelled to

reevaluate its the act of creating and imposing values to a relatively inclusive manner thereby

giving birth to the ideas of statehood and nationhood that aims for human existence to escape the

unpredictability of the state of nature. Yet it failed and absurdly, intensified the brutality of state

of nature making the possibility of escaping increasingly more difficult as conflicts have become

more organized, highly destructive and widespread through the resources that the states have.

This consequently transforms anarchy in the world into an international anarchy that is more

dangerously unpredictable.

Seeking to emancipate once and for all from such insecure existence, mankind

conceptualizes ‘universalistic’ utopian philosophies based upon the objective ‘rational nature’ of

man. By emphasizing the ‘inherent’ rationality of mankind, such utopian thinking tries to

emancipate mankind from its entanglement with power by creating a predictable pattern that

objectifies subjective human relations. But by claiming a universal character, it inevitably

imposes a deterministic ontology to the uncertain reality and consequently to the complexities of

mankind’s existence thus rigidly distinguishing what can from what cannot be. This

standardization of human existence is then nothing more but an exercise of dominance – the very

5 “Where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what

their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal” (Hobbes, Leviathan)

thing we try to emancipate ourselves from. Mankind’s utopian projects are therefore self-

defeating.

And this self-defeating character of utopian projects only goes to show that – being

projects of imposition of values to a relativistic world – their claims for universality is

groundless thus the legitimacy of utopian projects have no and cannot have positive grounds for

legitimacy beside their own capability to persuasively impose themselves as the embodiment of

objectivity.

Thus these projects can only be then a manifestation and an instrument of egoism of

states, an attitude rooted in our strong sense of identity and our desire to express such identity as

the identity. As Carr pointed out,

Theories of social morality are always the product of a dominant group which identifies

itself with the community as a whole, and which possesses facilities denied to subordinate

groups or individuals for imposing its view of life on the community (TYC, 79)

This is the reason Carr resigned to the conclusion of impossibility of realization of utopia in the

world driven by power. Tragically therefore mankind’s project of utopianism is nothing more but

a hegemonic project, showing not only the failed attempt of mankind to transcend from power

but also the complete signification of power in its very existence – to exist is to dominate.

To exist is to dominate. It seems that the world will ultimately essentialize human

existence into a monolithic nature, which solely revolves around the pursuit of power, due to the

fact its uncertainty always compels us to impose and objectify meanings in order to continuously

escape the Angst that it has brought upon our existence. But a world driven by domination, if we

come to think of it, is absurd for it will never enable man to escape the senselessness of life – it

will only emphasize it – due to the fact that the pursuit of power is geared towards ultimately to

its own preponderance thereby nothing more but a meaningless endeavor. Meaninglessness of

power stems from the violence, exploitation and injustice brought about by it, through

Realpolitik, compromise the very hegemony of power over our existence as it separates us from

the meanings that we created and hold on to better our existence. Marder and Viera (2012)

reflects on this phenomenon of existential separation,

“Dasein [the individual] reacts with shock to the deficiencies in the totality of its world, such

that its sense of astonishment causes the displacement of what used to be familiar not to

mention a total breakdown of previously established meanings.” (EU 39)

The tragedy of power is not exactly the inevitable sufferings brought about it but its

powerlessness to save mankind from the anxiety caused by the senselessness of the uncertain

reality that continuously compels the futile pursuit of power in order to escape it. Thereby power

traps mankind’s existence to seemingly endless cycle of tragedy, which can be likened to the

tragedy of Sisyphus – as we already think that we have already achieve meaningful existence, we

are confronted by its absurdity as we try to hold on into it in an increasingly meaningless world

of power that throws us back into the abyss of the Angst perpetually forcing us again to pursue

power.

Part II: Into Utopia

The first part of the paper is a philosophical reflection of the impossibility of realization

of utopian existence from our world driven by power. By exploring the genesis, ascendance and

tragedy of power, we have come to realize the absurdity and false hopes it brings to our lives.

The tragic Sisyphean cycle of power entraps mankind to an alienating existence that increasingly

compels them to pursue power that only strengthens the trapping force of the unfortunate cycle.

However in this second part of the essay, I will (a) challenge that seemingly inescapability of the

cycle of power and (b) affirm the possibility of harmonization of our pursuit for utopian

existence and the given uncertainty of the world we live in.

Worldlessness

If we come to think of it, the only thing that entraps our existence in the seemingly

perpetual tragedy of power is not exactly our pursuit of power but our fear of the Angst brought

about by the absurdity of this world– a fear that we unquestionably need to escape from if we

seek a meaningful life. Thus in order to escape this fear, as discussed earlier, man “overcomes” it

by constructing his own meanings of the world. As sarcastically pointed out by Camus,

“Conquerors sometimes talk of vanquishing and overcoming. But it is always ‘overcoming

oneself’ that they mean. You are well aware of what that means. Every man has felt himself to be

the equal of a god at certain moments.” (MS, 55) We delude ourselves as being gods but by

doing so we let our existence be enslaved by power – the more we try to overcome this fear, the

more we trap ourselves to the cyclical tragedy of power. So then it seems that the only way out

of this Sisyphean condition is to do the unthinkable – to embrace the absurdity of this world and

confront the Angst.

The tragedy of power paradoxically constantly presents us the way out of it. As we

reflected earlier, the prevalence of violence and injustice caused by power unveils the uncertainty

of the world, which then alienates our existence from the meanings we have imposed on it –

losing trust from everything we hold to be true. This tragedy will go on if we are just to re-

impose our selves to the world but if we are to contemplate the shock that separation had brought

upon us and embrace the absurdity of the world, we withdraw our existence from the trappings

of the world we live into ‘worldlessness’.

The victims of torture and of political-economic injustice are expelled from the world, or

better yet, the world as a meaningful set of significations is withdrawn from them, inscribing

the idea that it “is going very badly” right on their bodies. Devoid of the mediations of

mundane concerns and put face-to-face with death, which, aside from intimating a certain

worldlessness, is perceived as the utmost injustice, they embody an ex-topic existence, are

placeless and reduced to the status of worldless things (Marder and Viera 2012; 39)

Wordlessness is therefore the condition brought about the acceptance of the absurdity of the

cyclic tragedy of power thus within this condition the ontological reality of the meanings we

hold to be true is thrown into the flames of skepticism – it is an ontological ‘limbo’, “…where

old meanings are no longer valid, while new ones have not yet been found, is not accessible from

the standpoint of ontological experience, lacks phenomenal clarity, and withholds the possibility

of naming...” (Marder and Viera 2012; 39) However the existence of man can only be if it is

bound up and engaged with the world. Thus by detaching one’s existence from the everydayness

of the world and venturing into worldlessness, one condemns his own existence to nothingness

of the Angst. However, being detached from all our routine in the world, the Angst leaves us with

only one thing to contemplate about and that is our own death. Death according to Heidegger

individuates us from the crowd leading to an authentic existence because this individualization

brings forth again our freedom that will enable us to redefine our understanding in life thereby

ultimately to determine or to interpret our existence.6

“If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the

anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself.” –

Martin Heidegger

Therefore worldlessness is not really a condition where existence is trapped and being slowly

consumed into nothingness by the Angst but it is the condition where the Angst offers a

liberating mood and opportunity of existential authenticity as it reveals our own finitude thereby

leading us to the understanding of the world that alienated us.

World Disclosure

Having authentic existence – being aware of one own self – the individual is now ready to

disclose the reality of power and the tragedy it has brought upon him. This contemplative

orientation towards the world as a whole is called reflective disclosure. Reflective disclosure is a

continuous reflective activity geared towards the awareness of the underlying ontological

structure of the world thereby it decenters and refocuses our understanding of the meanings that

were imposed upon reality through introduction of dissonant perspectives and new modes of

perceptions (Kompridis 2006: 34-36) It is therefore a heuristic attitude for social critique. But

nevertheless the idea of reflective disclosure is problematic; it presents us with two problems, (1)

problem of other minds – how do we understand the existence of other human beings? And (2)

the problem of ontological establishment – how can we put forward our social critique into

action and begin anew?

A. Recognition of the Others

The fundamental thing that hinders man’s realization of utopia is not just the act of

imposition but the act of imposition in an uncertain world wherein there is no innate connection

of consciousness between human beings. Descartes’ discovery of the cogito, in my view,

highlights this reality of subjectivism – the problem of other minds. So imposing an objective

ontology in a relativistic reality is doomed to fall into the tragedy of power. This is why I focus

instead on the existence of the individual itself – how it has been shaped by power and how it is

6 Critchley, Simon. "Being and Time Part 6: Death." The Guardian. N.p., 13 July 2009. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

able to detach itself from power. But that brings up the question, how can the individual immerse

himself back to the world and transform it? He must be able then to relate himself with others.

Yet that would seem to be impossible, as others would argue, due to the fact as one affirms his

authenticity he then takes hold of his own interpretation of the world – the others are now then

irrelevant. But if we are to close ourselves to that thinking we are bound to fall back into the

tragedy of power.

Heidegger nonetheless sees the individuation of existence – realization of authenticity –

not as a hindrance but even a necessary requirement in connecting with others as expressed in his

conceptualization of Entschlossenheit or “resoluteness” that enables an individual to be receptive

of the “call of conscience’7 that makes us intelligible (Kompridis 2006: 58) Thus having

Entschlossenheit, one possesses then a high degree of sensitivity that opens to the ‘call of

conscience’, which by making us aware of our selves it also discloses to us our own concerns

(called ‘care’ in Heideggerian term) that are necessary to our claim of authenticity as they are the

manifestations of how we determine the course of our own lives. And it is through our concerns

that express our relationships with others who are helpful with respect to that concerns. This

means that by becoming aware of our selves we also become aware of others – “call of

conscience” is the “call of care” and it comes from Dasein itself.” (BT 322/227) Our sensitivity

and recognition of the existence of other fellow human beings therefore inevitably becomes an

essential part of our authenticity. This recognition of significance of others, in my view, is the

first act of reflective disclosure. However this first step of disclosing brought about by our

authentic self is not just manifested by receptivity but also of activity by actively engages with

the world again but now as the ‘conscience of others’ (Kompridis 2006: 59)

According to Heidegger (1956) by becoming authentic beings we become the

‘conscience of others’ that “liberates” them from the reality of power to become the such as well

and this act is the emancipative version of the so called positive solicitude8 (BT 158-159/122)

7 “Call of conscience” as a call that comes “from me and yet from outside and beyond me” (BT 320/275)

8 There are two kinds of positive solicitude, “It can, as it were, take away “care” from the other and put itself in her position in

concern: it can supplant her ( für ihn einspringen). This kind of solicitude takes over for the other that with which she is to concern herself. . . . In such solicitude the other can become one who is dominated and dependent, even when this domina- tion (Herrschaft) is a tacit one and remains hidden from her. . . . In contrast to this, there is also the possibility of a kind of solicitude which does not supplant the other, but clears the way for her (ihm vorausspringt) in her existentiell ability to be, not in order to take away her “care,” but rather, to give it back to her authentically as such for the first time. . . . (It) helps the other to become perspicuous (durchsichtig) to herself in her care and to become free for it. (BT 158–159/122)

But ultimately in order to be the ‘conscience of others’, as we pointed earlier, we need first to be

aware of the significance of their existence in the formation of our authenticity. Therefore

reflective disclosure in the acts of ‘call of conscience’ and emancipative positive solicitude

mankind establishes a mutually dependent connection of consciousness creating an

intersubjective understanding that cultivates each other’s freedom by fostering cooperation and

dialogue.

However this idea of intersubjectivity that we put forward raises two questions (a) is it

consistent with the given uncertainty of the world? (b) How one can be “liberated” without being

able to experience worldlessness, which starkly requires the trauma of injustice? For the first

question, it is still consistent because (1) it does not contradict the given notion of an uncertain

reality that seeks not to standardize the present and future human relations but to understand its

dynamics and potential possibilities unlike objectivity, (2) it still starts from the individual, and

does not claim that the individual has innate knowledge of the other. For the second question

liberation for Heidegger can only take place when the individual has put the ontological reality

of the world of power into question – self-decentering experience of crisis (Kompridis 2006: 64)

And we pointed out earlier that it is the trauma of violence and injustice that compels an

individual to question the world so does this imply that injustice is somehow necessary after all

for that endeavor? No, ‘liberation’ in this context does not imply a forceful indifferent

emancipation of the other from the reality of power, wherein the authentic individual acts as a

messiah to souls that he do not even have experiential connections with. But on the contrary, in

my view, it is simply the outcome of an open and intimate dialogue between the authentic

individual and the other enabling not only intersubjective learning but also more importantly the

realization of authenticity

B. Architecting Utopia

Nevertheless how do we put into concrete action our realizations brought about by

reflective disclosure? As reflected earlier, we cannot just introduce new perspectives, meanings,

and values and present them as the utopian ideals because by doing so we inevitably impose

them to be ontologically real thus dictating objectively what can be only true to our lives. This

then constrains one’s existence under a single predictable pattern and being such, it is nothing

more but an exercise of dominance over others. But utopian ideals that arise from an

intersubjective understanding have a distinctive feature that enables them to be applied into the

world without having to impose them to be real and that is their openness. The ontological

openness of intersubjective utopian ideals makes these ideals unique in the sense that they (1)

accept their own temporality as utopian ideals disclaiming the idea of universality thereby

leaving room for flexibility and transformation, and (2) deconstructs the rigid structure of power

relations brought about by ontological imposition, opening human existence to possibilities of

becoming thereby enabling every individual to pursue authenticity (Marder and Viera 2012; 40-

42) Therefore reflective disclosure because of its intersubjective character, enables the

possibility for mankind to lay down the ontological blueprint for a new utopia that is receptive of

the complexities of human existence – an existential utopia – from the old reality driven by

power.

Existential utopia, oriented toward possibilities, is a liking and an enabling of (indeed, an

opening unto) a future that would be eventful – not predicated on a choice between

potentiality and impotentiality still tethered to the hegemonic framework of signification

[meaning] – and that would impel the construction of new worlds in response to the appeal

of others, those victim to injustice, who prompt the search for a new structure of

meaningfulness. (Marder and Viera 2012; 43)

One question remains and I think this is the most important one, what will be in the

ontological blueprint of existential utopia? What ideals that have to be put forward if existential

utopia is to be receptive of human existence? It is utterly impossible to create new meanings ex

nihilo or devoid of any connection with the experiences of the past for the very fact that they do

not have meaning to our own existence, “Utopian hope without memory is senseless; utopian

memory bereft of hope is empty.” (Marder and Viera 2012; 49) Thus the historicity of human

existence – his former beliefs, values and experiences under the old reality – must be the guiding

idea in the creation of utopian ideals because by knowing what one had went through or has been

going through, intersubjective dialogues are able to foster understanding of what kind of values

are to be preserved, discarded and created (Kompridis 2006: 7-8, 10). Understanding of the past

enables mankind to better interpret the needs of the present. Existential utopia because of its

ontological openness recognizes its temporality and fragility thereby it does not claim that it can

make heaven on earth in such a way that it can totally free this world from power and the

sufferings that goes with it but rather focuses on attending the human needs in the present and

opens the future to possibilities. And if we come to think of it, by fully accepting the

responsibility of tending to the present challenges that confront mankind, it makes its ideals

appealing to be continued into the future. Thus existential utopia through reflective disclosure is

not only a continuous struggle for a better and more harmonious existence but also it is a

sustainable and reflexive human project of hope.

Conclusion

The reality of power arises from the subjective imposition of order of man compelled by

the Angst brought upon him by the given uncertainty of the world. However imposing subjective

yet ultimately absurd notions of what reality really is constrains mankind into an egoistic and

anarchical existence where power politics is the only rule – and the creation of states only

magnified and systematized such existence into an international anarchy. “Universalistic”

utopian projects failed to eliminate the international anarchy due to the fundamental fact they

have no and cannot have solid basis in a relativistic world other than their ability to impose

themselves which then leads to the conclusion that they are ultimately hegemonic instruments of

states aiming for global dominance. This then highlights Carr’s conclusion that mankind’s

pursuit for utopia is futile and its existence is condemned to the preponderance of power that is

ultimately meaningless – the Sisyphean tragedy of power.

Within such Sisyphean reality inevitably conflicts will arise as everyone tries to dominate

each other leading to violence, exploitation and injustice, we lost trust of the objectivity of the

meanings we claim to be true thereby alienating our existence from our own values in life. It is

this sense of separation that (if we choose to confront the Angst) puts us into the existential

condition called “worldlessness” where all meanings are meaningless. That limbo condition

nevertheless provides the opportunity for the act of reflective disclosure, enabling us to become

aware not only of our own self but of others relevance in our pursuit of disclosing the world that

alienated us. Reflective disclosure enables us to re-immerse ourselves into the world of power

and to connect with people that will capacitate us to help them become aware of the world they

are living in. This creates the possibility intersubjective understanding among mankind. It is the

intersubjectivity of human existence that deformalizes rigid normative structures and paves the

way for the creation of the existential utopia, a utopia intimately connected with human existence

and the present challenges it faces in the world of power.

Therefore it can be concluded that the realization of a utopian existence from the reality

of power is possible due to the fact that its very possibility arises from such reality. But

nevertheless it is a utopia wherein its realization will always be a continuous project for

humanity – the architects of the future.

Bibliography

Burnham, D., & Papandreopoulos, G. (n.d.). Existentialism. Retrieved September 25,

2015, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/existent/#SH1b

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Trans. Justin O'brien. N.p.: n.p.,

1955. Print.

Carr, Edward. The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of

International Relations. London: Macmillian &, 1946. Print.

Critchley, Simon. "Being and Time Part 6: Death." The Guardian. N.p., 13 July 2009.

Web. 25 Sept. 2015.

Guignon, Charles, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. N.p.: Cambridge UP,

1993. Print.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. Joan Stambaugh. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer

Verlag, 1953. Print.

Kompridis, Nikolas. "Chapter 1: What Is Critical Theory For?" Critique and Disclosure:

Critical Theory between Past and Future. Cambridge, Massachusets, London:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006. 3-30. Print.

Kompridis, Nikolas. "Chapter 2: Dependent Freedom” Critique and Disclosure: Critical

Theory between Past and Future. Cambridge, Massachusets, London: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, 2006. 43-81. Print.

Viera, Patricia. "Existential Utopia: Of the World, the Possible, the Finite." Existential

Utopia: New Perspectives on Utopian Thought. By Michael Marder. New York:

Continuum International Group, 2012. 35-50. Print.