This essay examines Foucault's stance towards the Enlightenment as formulated in three works he published in the last decade of his life. These works represent a partial modification of Foucault's attitude to the Enlightenment, rather than the dramatic shift claimed by some commentators. In order to substantiate this claim, the essay provides a reconstruction and critical assessment of three articles Foucault devoted to Kant and the Enlightenment, namely, ‘Qu'est-ce que la critique?’ , ‘Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution’ , and ‘What (...) is Enlightenment?’ . It argues that Foucault's reformulation of Enlightenment ideals in terms of an ethos of transgression and an aesthetic of self-fashioning is much closer to Nietzsche's vision of a transvaluation of values than to Kant's notion of maturity and responsibility. (shrink)

"Modernity versus Postmodernity," Jü rgen Habermas. Critical Rejoinders: Fred Dallmayr. Christopher Norris. David C. Hoy. James Schmidt. Joel Whitebook. ThematicReformulations: James Bohman. Diana Coole. Jay M. Bernstein. David Ingram.

The phrase, ‘political obligation’, is far more popular in English than in other European languages. Whether this may be due to historical circumstances, or to a peculiar bent of the English mind, is a fascinating question; but it is not the one which I propose to discuss here today. I am mentioning it only to explain the choice of my subject, a subject which would probably sound rather uncommon to an Italian audience, but which, I am sure, has a familiar (...) ring to English ears. My subject, I would like to emphasise, is the nature of political obligation; my approach will be analytical rather than historical; and indeed, let me say at once that this lecture is a kind of examen de conscience in which I am myself involved, since I feel personally responsible for having introduced the phrase into my own native language, and for having used it during a life-time as if its meaning were self-evident, without ever raising the questions which I want to raise today. (shrink)

First published in 1993. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

First published in 1993. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This is the classic study of the history and continuing philosophical values of the law of nature. D'Entrèves discerned three distinct sources that have contributed to the development of natural law: Roman law teachings, Christian beliefs regarding law, and egalitarian and revolutionary theories of the Enlightenment. Now regarded as a classic work, Natural Law has exercised considerable influence over the course of Anglo-American legal theory in the past forty years. The statements of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Senate confirmation hearings (...) show that the law of nature still holds powerful appeal in defining judicial rules. In the new introduction, Cary J. Nederman points out both the contemporary value and the historical significance of Natural Law. He also provides the biographical as well as intellectual context for d'Entrèves immense accomplishments. This volume is essential reading for students of legal history, political theory, and philosophy. It will also be of interest to historians. "Few texts provide as concise or as cogent an introduction to natural theory as Alexander Passerin d'Entrèves' Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy.... Transaction Publishers has performed a genuine service by bringing out a new edition of Natural Law. D'Entrèves' analysis is clear and penetrating, and will guide the student of natural law to further, fruitful study."--Mitchell Muncy, The University Bookman. (shrink)

Disjunctivism about sensory experience is frequently put forward in defence of a particular conception of perception and perceptual experience known as naïve realism. In this paper, I present an argument against naïve realism that proceeds through a rejection of disjunctivism. If the naïve realist must also be a disjunctivist about the phenomenal nature of experience, then naïve realism should be abandoned.

In this paper, the author contends that Leader's attempt to ground the value of toleration on a common understanding of democracy faces a number of fundamental obstacles. Such obstacles could only be overcome if both liberals and their opponents were to reach an agreement on the value of democracy and thereby converge in their support of toleration. The author shows that far from providing a common ground that liberals and their opponents can share, the so‐called “shareable understanding” of democracy appeals (...) primarily to liberals. The author also argues that Garzón Valdés's thesis that democracy is the system best suited to the flourishing of toleration faces the same kind of difficulty, namely, that not every group in a liberal constitutional regime can be convinced of the priority of democratic principles over their other fundamental value‐commitments. (shrink)

How ought the historian to reconcile themselves philosophically with the fact of evental contingency and of its relationship to structural determination? Does the existence of contingent causation undermine the very concept of historical necessity, or do the two instead in dialectical entanglement? In this essay, I engage with the problem of historical contingency from a transcendental-materialist perspective informed by the work of Slavoj Žižek, tendering a philosophically serious response to the famous Pascalian conundrum of Cleopatra’s nose and its challenge to (...) structuralist accounts of historical causation. The position associated with Laplace – that is to say, that the course of history would be entirely predictable were one provided with a complete account of initial conditions – is firmly rejected. Instead, I revive Althusser’s attempt to craft a theory of ‘aleatory materialism’, in which the determinative power of structural forces nevertheless leave space for the radical and unpredictable transformation of a situation by the chance crystallisation of events and encounters. In this effort, I recruit conceptual architecture not only from the fields of historiography and philosophy, but also quantum physics, psychoanalysis, and mathematics. (shrink)

This is the classic study of the history and continuing philosophical values of the law of nature. D'Entreves discerned three distinct sources that have contributed to the development of natural law: Roman law teachings, Christian beliefs regarding law, and egalitarian and revolutionary theories of the Enlightenment. Now regarded as a classic work, Natural Law has exercised considerable influence over the course of Anglo-American legal theory in the past forty years. The statements of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Senate confirmation (...) hearings show that the law of nature still holds powerful appeal in defining judicial rules. In the new introduction, Cary J. Nederman points out both the contemporary value and the historical significance of Natural Law. He also provides the biographical as well as intellectual context for d'Entreves immense accomplishments. This volume is essential reading for students of legal history, political theory, and philosophy. It will also be of interest to historians. "Few texts provide as concise or as cogent an introduction to natural theory as Alexander Passerin d'Entreves' Natural Law: An Introduction to Legal Philosophy.... Transaction Publishers has performed a genuine service by bringing out a new edition of Natural Law. D'Entreves' analysis is clear and penetrating, and will guide the student of natural law to further, fruitful study."¿Mitchell Muncy, The University Bookman. (shrink)

Drawing on ancient writers, from Aesop to Ovid, classicist and working farmer, Mark Usher compiles in this book an anthology of Greco-Roman passages illustrating how they thought about animals and illuminating they might help us to rethink our relationships with them. Not many contemporary readers will know, for example, the compelling arguments the second century AD Greek philosopher Porphyry makes for vegetarianism, long before a plant-based diet began to garner headlines. Plutarch's serio-comic exposition of the rationality and inherent dignity of (...) non-human creatures-put on the lips of one of Circe's pigs-is so fresh that it sounds like it was formulated just yesterday. The knowledge the poet Theognis derived from Greek sponge divers about the behavior of octopods rivals our contemporary fascination with the octopus. Aristotle's introduction to the scientific study of animal morphology and behavior remains unparalleled for its elegance and insight, and it represents one of the first forays into natural history writing. Seneca, employing an ingenious etymological pun on the word animal, endeavors to show that we humans are morally inferior to our animal cousins, who instinctively know and are satisfied with their place in Nature. The Greeks and Romans, amidst all their magnificent cultural achievements and reckless, destructive behavior, lived closer than most of us to the perils and prospects of their environments. This afforded them a sensitivity to their environments and, in particular, to their fellow creatures that can perhaps help to disabuse us of our disconnectedness from animal life. This small volume demonstrates how astoundingly relevant the ancients still are in this regard. (shrink)

In recent years, a number of prominent thinkers have argued that democratic arrangements tend to favour the flourishing of toleration among groups with radically different comprehensive worldviews. This article examines one of the most insightful arguments, advanced by Sheldon Leader, for grounding the practice of toleration on the value of democracy. It shows that Leader's attempt to ground the practice of toleration on a common understanding of democracy faces a number of fundamental obstacles. Such obstacles could only be overcome if (...) both liberals and their opponents were to reach an agreement on the value of democracy and thereby converge in their support for toleration. It argues that, far from providing a common ground that liberals and their opponents can share, the so?called ?shareable understanding? of democracy appeals primarily to liberals. (shrink)

We all know of course more or less what the answer of the historian would be if we turned to him alone for enlightenment. He would, to be sure, begin by pointing out that throughout Western history the two notions of legality and legitimacy have played an important part in political thought, providing as it were two of its most solid pillars. Without reaching as far back as the Greeks, the historian would probably recall to our attention the distinction, current (...) in Medieval and Renaissance thought, between the two criteria for establishing the rightfulness of political power. Power, in order to be "just," must be both legitimate and law-abiding. Accordingly, the unjust ruler or tyrant may be defined ex parte exercitii as well as ex defectu tituli. His rule can be unjust for the manner in which it is exercised, if he does not keep within the bounds of legality. But it can also be unjust, and is inevitably so, if it lacks that proper "title" which confers legitimacy upon it. The quest for that title, namely for the ultimate foundation of authority, has long been the main concern of political theory. Some among us are old enough to remember the time when dynastic legitimacy was still an accepted doctrine in Europe. In our day, legitimacy is rarely invoked, and does not seem to be any longer an intelligible political principle. Yet there is still one European statesman who does not hesitate to use it as a prop for his political doctrine, if he has any. Shortly after his accession to power, President de Gaulle made the startling claim that "for twenty years" he had been "the incarnation of national legitimacy." Some of his recent actions seem clearly to evince the view which he once candidly expounded to an American visitor: that "legitimacy does not depend on legality, and legality is not necessarily a proof of legitimacy.". (shrink)

The public and private distinction is essential to our moral and political vocabularies as it continues to structure our social and legal practices. Public and Private provides a multidisciplinary perspective on this distinction which has been at the centre of controversial debate in recent years. The focus of the debate has been on delineating acceptable boundaries between public and private in economic, social and cultural spheres. What is the nature and scope of citizenship? What are the implications of new reproductive (...) technologies? And what is the fate of state sovereignty in a globalised world economy? At first glance these questions may appear unrelated, yet they all raise underlying and serious concerns regarding the scope and proper boundaries between the public and the private. Public and Private will stimulate the current debate with its original approach and provide a valuable resource for all those interested in the role the public and private play in structuring our societies. (shrink)

The public and private distinction is essential to our moral and political vocabularies as it continues to structure our social and legal practices. _Public and Private_ provides a multidisciplinary perspective on this distinction which has been at the centre of controversial debate in recent years. The focus of the debate has been on delineating acceptable boundaries between public and private in economic, social and cultural spheres. What is the nature and scope of citizenship? What are the implications of new reproductive (...) technologies? And what is the fate of state sovereignty in a globalised world economy? At first glance these questions may appear unrelated, yet they all raise underlying and serious concerns regarding the scope and proper boundaries between the public and the private. _Public and Private_ will stimulate the current debate with its original approach and provide a valuable resource for all those interested in the role the public and private play in structuring our societies. (shrink)