The texts on this page develop the philosophical premises of Dioramics. They explore how lifeworlds acquire meaning and coherence, how norms operate within them and how different worlds relate to one another without any one of them being designated as the ultimate foundation.
The manifesto offers a brief introduction. The article develops the dioramic method and discusses possible objections. The monograph explores the underlying philosophical questions in greater depth.
De dioramische benadering / The Dioramic Approach
Een manifest voor ervaringsfilosofie / A Manifesto for Experiential Philosophy
An introduction to the dioramic approach, which attends to the lifeworld in which we always already find ourselves. How does that world become familiar and compelling, and what happens when what seems self-evident within it shifts? The manifesto sets out the premises of a philosophy that seeks to understand such worlds through their own coherence.
Plurality Without Foundations
The Dioramic Method and the Reinstallation of Priority
Philosophical approaches that acknowledge plurality sometimes nevertheless grant a privileged position to consciousness, bodily experience or a particular form of insight. This article examines how a hierarchy is thereby reinstated and develops the dioramic method as a way of describing the coherence of worlds without elevating its own description to ultimate authority.
An illustration from experimental physics gives the method a more concrete form. The article then addresses questions of relativism, comparison and critique: how can we make judgements between worlds, and how can a coherent yet oppressive world be criticised? A distinction is drawn between a provisional, situated overview and the claim to an absolute standpoint.
Living in Worlds: Plurality Without Foundations
A more extensive inquiry into lifeworlds, plurality and the desire for an ultimate foundation. The monograph explores how experience appears within a meaningful coherence and how philosophical attempts to ground that experience can once again give priority to a single way of understanding.
The central question is how description, normativity and critique remain possible when no world is regarded as the foundation of all the others. The available PDF is a working draft.