This is the first book to consider the debate between two of the most prominent philosophers and social theorists of the 20th century: Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas. It presents a unique collection of articles by the two figures and by those who have written about them, and includes pieces published in English for the first time.The book will be of interest to students and scholars with an interest in the implications of Derrida's deconstruction and Habermas's critical theory for (...) issues such as international relations, Europe, tolerance, rights, multiculturalism and identity politics, and the nature of philosophy.Including an introduction to the differences and affinities between Derrida's and Habermas's works, introductions to each text, suggestions for further reading, and a bibliography, this book is the ideal starting point for students and scholars wishing to understand the relationship between these two great thinkers.Key Features: *Unique - the first Reader to consider the Habermas-Derrida debate*Features pieces by Habermas and Derrida published in English for the first time*Includes primary and secondary texts*Provides introductions to the debate and to each text, and suggestions for further reading. (shrink)

Drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida, I propose a deconstructive reading of Gutmann and Thompson’s theory of deliberative democracy. The deconstructive reading starts from their concept of provisionality, and I argue that provisionality has consequences beyond those admitted by Gutmann and Thompson. While provisionality is an essential part of Gutmann and Thompson’s theory of deliberative democracy, it also dislocates the principles and distinctions on which their theory rests. Although Gutmann and Thompson try to control the effects of provisionality (...) – for instance, through a distinction between deliberative and non-deliberative disagreements – ultimately this is only possible by suppressing contingency and disagreement, which are otherwise part of the motivation for introducing provisionality. Thus, Gutmann and Thompson’s deliberative democ- racy is marked by a tension between their affirmation of provisionality and their attempts to limit the effects provisionality. Out of the deconstructive reading emerges an alternative deconstructive conception of democracy and provisionality in terms of Derrida’s concept of democracy to-come. (shrink)

Over the last years, there has been a steady stream of books published on deconstruction and the work of Jacques Derrida in addition to the many books by Derrida himself. Derrida’s death on 8 October 2004 in no way stopped this wealth of publications, including texts on Derrida, deconstruction, and politics. There have been a number of books on Derrida,1 including edited volumes,2 and there is now a Derrida journal, Derrida Today. This is in addition to posthumously published works (...) by Derrida himself, of which The Beast and the Sovereign will be of most interest to this journal’s readers.3 Much of this literature links deconstruction and Derrida’s writings to politics. This may be in part because of Derrida’s own engagement with political concepts and institutions in his later work, but may also be a reaction to the emergence of new political phenomena (e.g. international terrorism of the al-Qaeda type) which in turn creates a need to rethink traditional concepts (e.g. sovereignty). Interestingly much of this literature on deconstruction and politics comes not from political scientists, but from other disciplines, including philosophy, comparative literature, and law. This includes the two books under review here*Mustapha Che´rif ’s Islam and the West and Martin McQuillan’s Deconstruction After 9/114*neither of which is written by a political scientist. As is the case with many other contemporary texts on Derrida, these two books examine how Derrida and deconstruction can help us understand contemporary political phenomena. The two books both address issues related to the signifiers ‘9/11,’ ‘Islam,’ and ‘the West,’but they also question the received meanings of those signifiers, for instance, the idea of ‘Islam’ as a monolith and as the Other of ‘the West.’ (Published: 4 December 2009) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2009, pp. 383–388. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v2i4.2108. (shrink)

What, if anything, do the ‘square’ protests and ‘occupy’ movements of 2011 bring to contemporary democratic theory? And how can we, as political theorists, analyse their discourse and do justice to it? We address these questions through an analysis of the Greek and Spanish protest movements of the spring and summer of 2011, the so-called aganaktismenoi and indignados. We trace the centrality of the critique of representation and politics as usual as well as the ideas about horizontality and autonomy in (...) the protesters’ discourse. These ideas are not only important to their critique of the contemporary liberal democratic regimes in the two countries, but also important to the way in which the protesters organise themselves. Nonetheless, as we shall argue, the protesters are caught within a tension between horizontality and verticality, between autonomy and hegemony, or between moving beyond representation and accepting representational structures. Given this tension, we examine how the protesters negotiate it in three key areas: politics, representation and organisation. Drawing on Jacques Rancière, we further argue that the protesters can be seen as making a claim to equal voice. This is what Rancière refers to as politics proper, and the question is then whether such a politics is possible without falling back into traditional forms of politics. (shrink)

In his most recent work, Jürgen Habermas has proposed a deliberative account of tolerance where the norms of tolerance—including the threshold of tolerance and the norms regulating the relationship between the tolerating and the tolerated parties—are the outcomes of deliberations among the citizens affected by the norms. He thinks that in this way, the threshold of tolerance can be rationalized and the relationship between tolerating and tolerated will rest on the symmetrical relations of public deliberations. In this essay, and inspired (...) by Jacques Derrida's work on the concept of hospitality, I propose a deconstructive reading of Habermas's writings on tolerance. I argue that Habermas is ultimately unable to provide a rational foundation for tolerance and that his conception of tolerance encounters the same problems he is trying to avoid, namely, the contingency of the threshold of tolerance and a paternalistic relation between tolerating and tolerated. Yet, contra Habermas, the deconstruction of tolerance does not result in its destruction and does not force us to give up on the concept and practice of tolerance. (shrink)

In his most recent work, Jürgen Habermas has proposed a deliberative account of tolerance where the norms of tolerance--including the threshold of tolerance and the norms regulating the relationship between the tolerating and the tolerated parties--are the outcomes of deliberations among the citizens affected by the norms. He thinks that in this way, the threshold of tolerance can be rationalized and the relationship between tolerating and tolerated will rest on the symmetrical relations of public deliberations. In this essay, and inspired (...) by Jacques Derrida's work on the concept of hospitality, I propose a deconstructive reading of Habermas's writings on tolerance. I argue that Habermas is ultimately unable to provide a rational foundation for tolerance and that his conception of tolerance encounters the same problems he is trying to avoid, namely, the contingency of the threshold of tolerance and a paternalistic relation between tolerating and tolerated. Yet, contra Habermas, the deconstruction of tolerance does not result in its destruction and does not force us to give up on the concept and practice of tolerance. (shrink)

In this article, I take Habermas's treatment of civil disobedience as a litmus test of the way in which Habermas relates to the imperfectness of democracy. The case of civil disobedience, which Habermas deems to be a normal part of a mature constitutional democracy, shows that Habermas is ultimately unable to submit all decisions and distinctions to the public use of reason as envisaged in his deliberative account of democracy. As a consequence, I argue that we must take the imperfectness (...) of democracy as constitutive and our conceptualization of civil disobedience and democracy must start from there. The reading of Habermas and the argument for an alternative approach are inspired by the work of Jacques Derrida, central to which is an idea of democracy and justice ‘to-come’ focusing our attention on the performative role of civil disobedience in creating more legitimate laws. (shrink)

In his most recent work, Jürgen Habermas has proposed a deliberative account of tolerance where the norms of tolerance—including the threshold of tolerance and the norms regulating the relationship between the tolerating and the tolerated parties—are the outcomes of deliberations among the citizens affected by the norms. He thinks that in this way, the threshold of tolerance can be rationalized and the relationship between tolerating and tolerated will rest on the symmetrical relations of public deliberations. In this essay, and inspired (...) by Jacques Derrida's work on the concept of hospitality, I propose a deconstructive reading of Habermas's writings on tolerance. I argue that Habermas is ultimately unable to provide a rational foundation for tolerance and that his conception of tolerance encounters the same problems he is trying to avoid, namely, the contingency of the threshold of tolerance and a paternalistic relation between tolerating and tolerated. Yet, contra Habermas, the deconstruction of tolerance does not result in its destruction and does not force us to give up on the concept and practice of tolerance. (shrink)

While anti-exceptionalism about logic is now a popular topic within the philosophy of logic, there’s still a lack of clarity over what the proposal amounts to. currently, it is most common to conceive of AEL as the proposal that logic is continuous with the sciences. Yet, as we show here, this conception of AEL is unhelpful due to both its lack of precision, and its distortion of the current debates. Rather, AEL is better understood as the rejection of certain traditional (...) properties of logic. The picture that results is not of one singular position, but rather a cluster of often connected positions with distinct motivations, understood in terms of their rejection of clusters of the various traditional properties. In order to show the fruitfulness of this new conception of AEL, we distinguish between two prominent versions of the position, metaphysical and epistemological AEL, and show how the two positions need not stand or fall together. (shrink)

La question de Dieu dans la philosophie d'Emmanuel Levinas est notablement complexe. D'une part, elle ne cesse de la traverser, d'autre part, elle s'y trouve à peine explicitée. Cette complexité se révèle surtout dans la plurivocité de la notion de 'trace' indissociable du sens que le mot 'Dieu' y acquiert. La densité tripartite de cette notion, inscrite dans le 'visage d'autrui', dans la 'passivité du sujet' et dans le 'dire prophétique', donne à penser Dieu comme absence-présence d'une transcendance radicale ; (...) celle-ci, à même sa séparation absolue, affecte l'immanence et s'incarne comme intelligibilité première. Aussi est-ce l'événement de 'la trace' en ces trois modalités, tel qu'il pénètre l'oeuvre de Levinas, que la présente étude cherche à examiner."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage aurait pu s'intituler " matière et vie ". L'auteur nous guide sur le long chemin qui va des constituants élémentaires d'un jeune univers, dans lequel la vie est évidemment absente, jusqu'aux formes complexes de la matière. Il explique comment et pourquoi la matière se complexifie dans le coeur des étoiles de premières générations, dans la nébuleuse protosolaire, sur la jeune Terre envoie de différenciation, dans les premiers océans terrestres. Il décrit ce que l'on croit savoir, mais aussi passe (...) en revue tout ce que l'on ignore à propos de la génération spontanée des premières cellules vivantes. Lorsque la vie apparaît, l'histoire de la matière devient dépendante de l'évolution biologique. Après trois milliards d'années environ, celle-ci conduit à l'apparition de l'homme, seul être vivant capable de faire évoluer la matière. Ce livre propose ainsi une fresque d'une réelle ampleur, sans équivalent à ce jour, écrite pour être accessible à tous. Et pourtant, les questions abordées relèvent de nombreuses disciplines, comme l'astrophysique, la biologie, la chimie, le génie génétique et l'histoire des techniques. (shrink)

It is sometimes held that rules of inference determine the meaning of the logical constants: the meaning of, say, conjunction is fully determined by either its introduction or its elimination rules, or both; similarly for the other connectives. In a recent paper, Panu Raatikainen (2008) argues that this view - call it logical inferentialism - is undermined by some "very little known" considerations by Carnap (1943) to the effect that "in a definite sense, it is not true that the standard (...) rules of inference" themselves suffice to "determine the meanings of [the] logical constants" (p. 2). In a nutshell, Carnap showed that the rules allow for non-normal interpretations of negation and disjunction. Raatikainen concludes that "no ordinary formalization of logic ... is sufficient to `fully formalize' all the essential properties of the logical constants" (ibid.). We suggest that this is a mistake. Pace Raatikainen, intuitionists like Dummett and Prawitz need not worry about Carnap's problem. And although bilateral solutions for classical inferentialists - as proposed by Timothy Smiley and Ian Rumfitt - seem inadequate, it is not excluded that classical inferentialists may be in a position to address the problem too. (shrink)

This book critically assesses the implications of modern medicine's claim to be a natural science. Medicine models its scientific and clinical self-understanding on an obsolete positivist conception of science, reality, and consciousness. In this view, the body is modeled as a biological machine, disease as breakdown of the machine, and therapy as physical measures to fix the machine. The problems besetting medical science and practice are rooted in the inadequacy of the positivist philosophical assumptions regarding the nature of science, reality (...) and consciousness To base the diagnostic practices and therapeutic regimes purely on knowledge of physical processes in the human body is, in view of this analysis, at best grossly inadequate, at worst thoroughly dehumanizing (Anton van Niekerk: Editorial Foreword). This means that medicine's clinical method cannot be transformed without transforming the underlying view of science, of reality, and of the human person. The book proposes a broader model of science which overcomes the outdated dichotomy between human and natural sciences. Science is viewed as an interdisciplinary exercise generating multiple perspectives. The insights of the human sciences are essential for scientific clinical medicine. Utilizing evolutionary biology and complexity theory, the author proposes an alternative understanding of reality and human consciousness as a basis for a transformed clinical method. Reality is a hierarchy of systems of increasing complexity. Different levels can be distinguished, namely material systems, living material systems, conscious living material systems and self-conscious living material systems. Each level represents a new manner of being which requires a different scientific discourse of understanding. Using this model of reality the author argues against understanding human consciousness as a byproduct of physical processes in the brain. The human person is a self-conscious, complex, psycho-somatic system, whose well-being is conditioned by much more than physical processes. (shrink)

Logic isn’t special. Its theories are continuous with science; its method continuous with scientific method. Logic isn’t a priori, nor are its truths analytic truths. Logical theories are revisable, and if they are revised, they are revised on the same grounds as scientific theories. These are the tenets of anti-exceptionalism about logic. The position is most famously defended by Quine, but has more recent advocates in Maddy, Priest, Russell, and Williamson. Although these authors agree on many methodological issues about logic, (...) they disagree about which logic anti-exceptionalism supports. Williamson uses an anti-exceptionalist argument to defend classical logic, while Priest claims that his anti-exceptionalism supports nonclassical logic. This paper argues that the disagreement is due to a difference in how the parties understand logical theories. Once we reject Williamson’s deflationary account of logical theories, the argument for classical logic is undercut. Instead an alternative account of logical theories is offered, on which logical pluralism is a plausible supplement to anti-exceptionalism. (shrink)

Introduction to this special issue of The Australasian Journal of Logic.

The historical consensus is that logical evidence is special. Whereas empirical evidence is used to support theories within both the natural and social sciences, logic answers solely to a priori evidence. Further, unlike other areas of research that rely upon a priori evidence, such as mathematics, logical evidence is basic. While we can assume the validity of certain inferences in order to establish truths within mathematics and test scientifi c theories, logicians cannot use results from mathematics or the empirical sciences (...) without seemingly begging the question. Appeals to rational intuition and analyticity in order to account for logical knowledge are symptomatic of these commitments to the apriority and basicness of logical evidence. This chapter argues that these historically prevalent accounts of logical evidence are mistaken, and that if we take logical practice seriously we fi nd that logical evidence is rather unexceptional, sharing many similarities to the types of evidence appealed to within other research areas. (shrink)

Pendant quatre ans, un cours de philosophie des sciences a été proposé aux étudiants et aux personnels de l'université Pierre et Marie Curie. Il répondait à une attente réelle de la part de ce monde de scientifiques. Chacun cherchait des mises au point sur une science qui semble ne pas " penser " pour reprendre le mot d'Heidegger. Il ne s'agissait pas de proposer une nouvelle vulgarisation scientifique qui a par trop tendance à créer une sorte de mythologie ne cédant (...) en rien à la cosmogonie d'Hésiode. Parler du Big Bang, du chaos par exemple provoque des images qui ne correspondent en rien ni à la réalité ni à son expression par un modèle scientifique. On a vu l'engouement qu'a provoqué l'université de tous les savoir où des scientifiques ont parlé de leur science telle qu'elle se crée. Nous souhaitons ici mettre en perspective les différents domaines de la science avec un minimum d'outillage philosophique. Notre but sera atteint si les étudiants et toute personne qui souhaite réfléchir à ces problèmes qui interpellent tous les citoyens trouvent matière à réflexion personnelle. Les perspectives historiques seront présentes car la science se construit dans un contexte sociologique. La maturation des idées se fait au travers d'individus qui sont dans un contexte précis : par exemple, la lutte pour la vie qui sous-tend le darwinisme ne saurait être dissociée de la révolution industrielle de l'Angleterre du XIXe siècle. Ce livre est le résultat de cette expérience qui se prolonge actuellement sur les amphis de la cinquième chaîne de télévision. (shrink)

With a clear presentation, Ethics: Theory and Practice educates readers about ethical theory and has them apply what they learn to specific classic and contemporary moral problems (lying, cheating, establishing ethical business practices, honoring ethical obligations in medicine, etc.). Jacques P. Thiroux first wrote this text 1977 in order to educate readers about ethical theory and its applications in a way that beginning students could understand. The result was an accessible text that isn't too technical and doesn't plunge into (...) complex readings without sufficient background. The text is fully updated with global issues and non-Western ethical views. Keith W. Krasemann now continues Thiroux's efforts of making Ethical Ideas accesible to students. Besides updating the foundations of the text, Krasemann incoporates new and relevant material, most of which is often unique only to this text. (shrink)

Jacques Maritain's An Introduction to Philosophy was first published in 1931. Since then, this book has stood the test of time as a clear guide to what philosophy is and how to philosophize. Inspired by the Thomistic Revival called for by Leo XIII, Maritain relies heavily on Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas to shape a philosophy that, far from sectarian theology in disguise, is driven by reason and engages the modern world. Re-released as part of the Sheed & Ward (...) Classic series, An Introduction to Philosophy is sure to enliven the minds of students and general readers for years to come. From the new introduction by Ralph McInerny: You are about to read a magnificent introduction not only to a kind of philosophy but to philosophizing itself. Jacques Maritain was a relatively young man when he wrote this book, but his effort is one that attracts any philosopher more and more as he grows older. However odd and unusual what he says becomes, the philosopher yearns to show how even the most abstruse claims can be put into relation with what the reader already knows. That, in its essence, is what teaching is. In this book, the reader will find a wise and certain guide into philosophizing as such. And, in the end, he will find that what he reads is really only a refinement and development of what he and everybody else already knew. (shrink)

Anti-exceptionalism about logic is the Quinean view that logical theories have no special epistemological status, in particular, they are not self-evident or justified a priori. Instead, logical theories are continuous with scientific theories, and knowledge about logic is as hard-earned as knowledge of physics, economics, and chemistry. Once we reject apriorism about logic, however, we need an alternative account of how logical theories are justified and revised. A number of authors have recently argued that logical theories are justified by abductive (...) argument (e.g. Gillian Russell, Graham Priest, Timothy Williamson). This paper explores one crucial question about the abductive strategy: what counts as evidence for a logical theory? I develop three accounts of evidential confirmation that an anti-exceptionalist can accept: (1) intuitions about validity, (2) the Quine-Williamson account, and (3) indispensability arguments. I argue, against the received view, that none of the evidential sources support classical logic. (shrink)

Logical pluralism has been in vogue since JC Beall and Greg Restall 2006 articulated and defended a new pluralist thesis. Recent criticisms such as Priest 2006a and Field 2009 have suggested that there is a relationship between their type of logical pluralism and the meaning-variance thesis for logic. This is the claim, often associated with Quine 1970, that a change of logic entails a change of meaning. Here we explore the connection between logical pluralism and meaning-variance, both in general and (...) for Beall and Restall's theory specifically. We argue that contrary to what Beall and Restall claim, their type of pluralism is wedded to meaning-variance. We then develop an alternative form of logical pluralism that circumvents at least some forms of meaning-variance. (shrink)

A leading philosopher presents a radical manifesto for the future of art andfilm.

In philosophy and political theory, divisions come and go, but some persist despite being obviously problematic. The analytic and Continental divide is one such division. In political philosophy and political theory, the division has been particularly pronounced. Analytic and Continental thinkers are divided not only over substantial issues but also over the very nature of political theorising. In spite of this fundamental nature, theorists often seem to assume that, as a division, the analytic/Continental divide requires no explanation. We suggest that, (...) as a central division within political theory, and despite being acknowledged as problematic for quite some time, it has persisted because it has not been adequately examined. Once examined, the division turns out to be operationally weaker than it once was. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in engaging thinkers from the other side. This has been accompanied by a corresponding tendency, among both analytic and Continental philosophers and political thinkers, to reflect on the nature of their own tradition and ‘philosophy’. Both traditions have entered a self-conscious period of meta-reflection. Such questioning indicates the possibility of transformation within both groups, in the absence of settled frameworks and divisions. However, it is also clear that such signs are the beginning of the possibility of a new relation rather than a sign of the eclipse of the division. The continued institutional separation and the space between their respective philosophical vocabularies suggest that, while the time is ripe for work here, there is still much to be done. (shrink)

In bilateral systems for classical logic, assertion and denial occur as primitive signs on formulas. Such systems lend themselves to an inferentialist story about how truth-conditional content of connectives can be determined by inference rules. In particular, for classical logic there is a bilateral proof system which has a property that Carnap in 1943 called categoricity. We show that categorical systems can be given for any finite many-valued logic using $n$-sided sequent calculus. These systems are understood as a further development (...) of bilateralism—call it multilateralism. The overarching idea is that multilateral proof systems can incorporate the logic of a variety of denial speech acts. So against Frege we say that denial is not the negation of assertion and, with Mark Twain, that denial is more than a river in Egypt. (shrink)

ABSTRACT What do we disagree about when we disagree about logic? On the face of it, classical and nonclassical logicians disagree about the laws of logic and the nature of logical properties. Yet, sometimes the parties are accused of talking past each other. The worry is that if the parties to the dispute do not mean the same thing with ‘if’, ‘or’, and ‘not’, they fail to have genuine disagreement about the laws in question. After the work of Quine, this (...) objection against genuine disagreement about logic has been called the meaning-variance thesis. We argue that the meaning-variance thesis can be endorsed without blocking genuine disagreement. In fact, even the type of revisionism and nonapriorism championed by Quine turns out to be compatible with meaning-variance. (shrink)

La pensée de Lévinas demande à être prise au sérieux, aventure philosophique où le verset ne vaut pas preuve, et qui a toujours gardé sa route comme un marin, son cap. Aujourd'hui que l'œuvre est close, il est clair que cette navigation n'allait vers aucun port mais que, par essence hauturière, elle cingla droit, là où les mers étaient vastes et les vents, forts. Là, une haute vague se leva : Autrement qu'être ou au-delà de l'essence. Ce titre, où un (...) adverbe pointe démesurément au-delà du verbe, dresse le livre au-delà de son propre contexte. Mais il permet de rassembler toute l'œuvre dans le sillage de sa course, et donne une vue sur la philosophie du siècle, et celle qui nous fut transmise. Prendre cette pensée au sérieux, c'est d'abord faire le pari de la neutralité, ne pas y chercher une morale mais l'accompagner dans sa quête du sens éthique comme intelligibilité ultime de l'humain et possibilité de la compréhension de l'être. Adjectif substantivé (au neutre, das Ethische) avant que substantif (die Ethik), l'éthique se formule en se cristallisant autour de certains vocables (Je, Tu, Il, Es - sujet, autrui, Dieu, être) qu'elle compose, comme un poème ou, mieux, une partition. Accompagner cette pensée, c'est seulement dérouler l'intrigue que tissent - " Ensemble, mais pas encore " - ces mots obéissant à leur loi. C'est dire le sonnet ou interpréter la sonate. On suit alors le mouvement an-archique d'une pensée qui, au profond du sujet, discerne une brûlure, nécessaire pour qu'autrui ne soit pas loup pour un loup. Ce ravage, seule la grâce improbable d'un Dieu qui s'absente s'offre à le réparer, concédant ainsi à l'homme d'être. J. R. (shrink)

Nonclassical theories of truth have in common that they reject principles of classical logic to accommodate an unrestricted truth predicate. However, different nonclassical strategies give up different classical principles. The paper discusses one criterion we might use in theory choice when considering nonclassical rivals: the maxim of minimal mutilation.

ABSTRACTWhat do we disagree about when we disagree about logic? On the face of it, classical and nonclassical logicians disagree about the laws of logic and the nature of logical properties. Yet, s...

A la manière de Charles Taylor, dans les travaux qu'il a consacrés à la genèse du "moi" ou à l'évolution du sentiment religieux à travers les âges, Daniel Jacques trace un vaste panorama historique où il suit le développement de l'idée d'humanisme depuis l'Antiquité à nos jours. Il montre comment l'humanisme est posé à la Renaissance comme un retour à la sagesse des Anciens, puis comment il est, à l'époque des lumières, la mesure suprême de l'action et de la (...) pensée des forces progressistes. Il montre enfin comment, à partir du 19e siècle, des critiques perçoivent l'humanisme non plus comme l'heureuse manifestation d'une liberté conquise de haute lutte à l'encontre des traditions passées, mais comme la cause même de cette démesure et du déclin du sens moral qui l'accompagne. (shrink)

L'anthropologie scientifique est plurielle. L'identification des gênes par le généticien grâce au séquençage du génome ne problématise pas l'humain de la même façon que l'ethnologue qui cherche à penser ensemble la mondialisation de la culture et le respect des différences. Comme ses principes explicatifs reposent sur la réduction du complexe au simple, une première alternative se fait jour : faut-il disjoindre la nature et l'homme qui deviennent étrangers. Ou bien réduire l'humain au biologique et de là au physique? Dans les (...) deux cas, il devient impossible de poser la question du sens sauf à dire que cette question, qui n'est pas un problème, relève de l'arriération ou de la débilité mentale. Qu'est-ce que l'homme comme objet de science? Cette formulation est dénoncée par l'anthropologie philosophique comme l'amnésie à combattre, celle qui fait toujours oublier qu'il y a un sujet de toute objectivation : " si l'on suppose un air de flûte, dit Socrate, il faut également supposer un musicien " Mais encore, demande l'anthropologie théologique, qu'est-ce que l'homme en tant que créé, eu égard à son origine divine, haute puissance de primitivité? Seconde alternative : la division entre anthropologies est-elle une survivance historique en passe de résorption ou une diffraction productive? Penser l'homme, à quelle instance cela revient-il? Cette question préalable est à la clef de ces Écrits. C'est la différence de leur modalité interrogative qui fait le sérieux du pluriel des anthropologies. Une philosophie de la nature fait retour aujourd'hui, qui rétablit la légitimité de l'analyse causale des processus naturels. Elle suppose que l'on peut interroger la nature même, y compris sur les opérations de l'esprit en restituant ce qu'il en est. Mais l'homme est tel qu'il est dans son être question de son être. Troisième alternative. Va-t-on reconnaître ou effacer la spécificité anthropologique au sein des grandes régions de la réalité? Ces trois alternatives sous-tendent le questionnement sur l'homme aujourd'hui. La vie et la mort de l'homme ne sont pas que des problèmes, car leur phénomène premier est de nous trouver sans réponse à leur question. Pour l'heure il appelle des reprises critiques et des reformulations consenties. Ainsi la recherche de la personne - ce que l'humain a à être - est à la jonction de trois anthropologies. L'enjeu de ces Écrits d'allure dialogique apparaît : un rapport multiple à la vérité, dont on ne peut ni affirmer (ni souhaiter) qu'il s'uniformise... (shrink)

Les auteurs de l'Antiquité grecque, chacun dans sa voie propre, chacun avec sa voix propre, partagent tous une préoccupation qui nous les rend particulièrement proches comment bien vivre dans un monde de l'immanence où chacun de nous n'a, en dernier ressort, de comptes à rendre qu'à soi-même - et ces comptes à soi, nous le savons bien, sont les plus difficiles et les plus délicats. Paradoxalement, c'est l'éloignement qui rend ces auteurs plus proches, plus audibles, plus directs. C'est leur éloignement (...) qui fait de leurs textes des classiques, des textes qui laissent respirer, penser, rêver, des textes qui n'appartiennent à personne et appartiennent en propre à chacun de nous. Qu'est-ce qu'une bonne vie, qu'est-ce qu'une vie heureuse, qu'est-ce qu'une belle vie? Pour bien des philosophes grecs, la fin de l'homme est de vivre conformément à la nature. Est-ce qu'une telle injonction a encore un sens aujourd'hui, et si oui, lequel? Qu'en est-il aujourd'hui de la sagesse, n'est-elle plus qu'un souvenir de notre enfance en Grèce? Ce sont ces questions classiques et toujours actuelles que cet essai sur la bonne vie cherche à éclairer, en prenant comme point d'appui la parole des Anciens et en la lisant à la lumière de notre contemporanéité. (shrink)

Terrible ethics -- The ethic of terror -- Phares; or, divisible sovereignty -- The logic of sovereignty -- A Sadean community -- Materia in the critique of autonomy -- Three women, three bombs -- Distracted republic.