Qu'est-ce qui fonde les relations entre philosophie et musique ` ? Qu'est-ce qui légitime leur proximité et leur désaccord ?

Lire ensemble: cela devrait s'entendre en plus d'un sens, au fil croise d'au moins quatre lectures. La premiere et la seconde sont la double attention, explicite ou plus secrete, que Derrida et Levinas ont accordee, chacun, a leurs oeuvres respectives et a l'effet de celles-ci sur leur cheminement. L'un et l'autre se sont ecoutes et cela fait deja deux lectures. A chaque moment de son histoire, la philosophie rassemble des penseurs autour d'une (ou plusieurs) oeuvre(s) singuliere(s) a laquelle ils se (...) confrontent communement. Ils forment alors autour d'elle parfois contre elle la constellation de ses lecteurs, dans la conviction, partagee, qu'aucun pas ne saurait etre accompli hors cette confrontation. Pour tous deux, outre la phenomenologie husserlienne, une oeuvre s'est imposee plus qu'aucune autre: Etre et temps de Heidegger qu'ils n'ont cesse de lire et relire, sinon ensemble, du moins en echo. A celle-ci, bien d'autres pourraient etre ajoutees, a commencer par celles qui auraient pour foyer les recits de Blanchot ou les poesies de Celan voici une troisieme facon d'entendre ce qui les associe. Mais on a parle de quatre lectures. La derniere est celle qui preside doublement a l'organisation de ce volume. Il ne s'agit plus de ce que Derrida et Levinas ont lu ensemble, mais de la facon dont nous les lisons ensemble a la fois l'un et l'autre et a plusieurs. (shrink)

Il est important de mettre en perspective la manière dont Emmanuel Levinas ausculte le phénomène sonore dans les Carnets de captivité. Il semble en effet que pour lui le son requiert un éclat particulier qui, dans sa manifestation, signifie l’expérience d’une subjectivation hors de soi, se situant au-delà du langage de l’Être. En suivant au plus près les textes et fragments de textes, depuis les Carnets de captivité, en passant par les conférences prononcées au Collège philosophique de Jean Wahl, notamment (...) « Parole et silence », on voit se présenter comme la genèse singulière de ce qui deviendra dans Totalité et Infini (1961) l’au-delà du visage et la phénoménologie de l’eros. (shrink)

On peut décrire le monde de Kafka comme mettant à l’épreuve l’expérience du rapport entre tradition juive et modernité critique. Les sources venant justifier ce parti pris d’interprétation sont nombreuses. Hormis des lecteurs aussi fondamentaux que Benjamin ou Scholem, Kafka lui-même a inscrit ce rapport duel au cœur de ses récits. Si la Loi est un des motifs les plus éloquents de cette double appartenance, on peut s’interroger quant à la pertinence qui consiste à poser l’hypothèse d’une interprétation, non pas (...) juive de l’œuvre de Kafka, ce qui n’aurait pas beaucoup de sens, mais d’une lecture qui tente de déceler dans le processus de narration une singularité qui, tout en excédant le problème d’une appartenance religieuse, met en abime la question complexe de l’identité et de la perte d’identité. Qu’en est-il alors de cette herméneutique narrative qui cherche à défaire le lien tacite entre voir et comprendre et qui privilégie un rapport au texte de l’ordre de l’écoute? Danielle Cohen-Levinas cherche à montrer comment l’œuvre de Kafka se trouve être le lieu d’un nouveau paradigme herméneutique dont la source d’inspiration n’est autre que la Révélation et la Loi : entendre et faire entendre. (shrink)

« (…) trop souvent présent dans ce livre pour être cité ». Cette phrase, devenue désormais une sorte de classique et de leitmotiv dès lors que l’on parle de Levinas, fait explicitement référence au livre de Franz Rosenzweig, Stern der Erlösung (Rosenzweig 2003 [1982]). Elle exprime à la fois un hommage, une dette et, en même temps, elle situe d’emblée Levinas dans un rapport à Rosenzweig qui serait celui d’un héritage critique envers la philosophie de Hegel. Cet héritage ne vise (...) rien de moins... (shrink)

Une réflexion en forme de coda : l’esthétique comme relance de la pensée de Jean-Luc Nancy au lieu même où le sens a disparu. Faisant l’expérience d’un visible qui se dérobe au regard à travers la question du portrait (L’Autre portrait), Nancy interroge la place et la vocation du portrait dans la tradition occidentale. N’y aurait-il pas dans la question du portrait la mise en œuvre de l’infini du sens qui réfute les désignations et nominations de la vérité de l’art (...) comme de la vérité philosophique et politique? (shrink)

Danielle Cohen-Levinas (DCL) : Qu’est-ce qui se trouve pour Rosenzweig définitivement achevé après la guerre? C’est par cette question à bien des égards brutale, que j’aimerais entrer avec vous dans l’œuvre de Franz Rosenzweig, une œuvre complexe, qui déplace les interprétations hégéliennes de l’histoire, mais qui toutefois reste encore confidentielle, confinée à quelques cercles de savants, érudits, ou intellectuels qui ont trouvé chez ce philosophe un « agir » de la philosophie. Que ma pre...

Un hommage à l'œuvre d'Emmanuel Levinas avait été organisé à la Sorbonne, peu après la mort du philosophe, certaines communications ont été publiées dans un numéro de la revue Rue Descartes. Celles-ci déclinent, selon un modèle propre à chaque auteur, un moment de ce que Levinas appelle " l'altérité d'autrui ". Deux directions caractéristiques de la pensée de Levinas sont privilégiées, l'une encline à l'exégèse et à l'étude du Talmud, dérangeant la souveraineté de la raison, l'autre, la philosophie, permettant d'accéder (...) à une réflexion partagée sur la vérité. Présentés par Danielle Cohen-Levinas, les textes sont signés par Miguel Abensour, Pierre Bouretz, Catherine Chalier, Simon Critchley, Marc de Launay, MarieLouise Mallet, Jean-Luc Marion, Stéphane Mosès, Silvana Rabinovich, Jacques Rolland, Shmuel Trigano. Le lecteur trouvera également dans la collection Quadrige, Le tempe et l autre, ouvrage regroupant quatre conférences d'Emmanuel Levinas faites au Collège de philosophie. (shrink)

Autour de la grande conference de Jacques Derrida, intitulee Justices, prononcee en 2003 et demeuree inedite en francais a ce jour, cet ouvrage collectif convoque certains des meilleurs specialistes de son oeuvre. Il s'agit moins ici de commemorer ou de dresser un etat des lieux que de penser, a partir de Derrida et avec lui, ce qui vient et de repondre a l'appel, aux appels pluriels qui resonnent dans son travail philosophique. Sont ainsi examines les principaux legs de sa pensee (...) dans les differents domaines (philosophie, politique, science des religions, esthetique, litterature) qu'elle a profondement transformes. Autant de reponses et de responsabilites, autant de provocations a lire et a relire l'oeuvre de Jacques Derrida a sa hauteur, comme elle nous y engage toujours. Avec les textes de: Gil Anidjar, Philip Armstrong, Fernanda Bernardo, Mireille Calle-Gruber, Danielle Cohen-Levinas, Gianfranco Dalmasso, Francoise Dastur, Jacques Derrida, Silvano Facioni, Edoardo Ferrario, Jerome Lebre, Georges Leroux, Michel Lisse, Rene Major, Marie-Louise Mallet, Serge Margel, Joana Maso, Ginette Michaud, J. Hillis Miller, Raoul Moati, Jean-Luc Nancy, Evando Nascimento, Francois Nault, Laura Odello, Jean-Michel Rabate, Marta Segarra, Peter Szendy, Chantal Talagrand, Francesco Vitale et Hent de Vries. (shrink)

There is a long and distinguished tradition in philosophy and psychology according to which the mind’s fundamental, foundational connection to the world is made by connecting perceptually to features of objects. On this picture, which we’ll call feature prioritarianism, minds like ours first make contact with the colors, shapes, and sizes of distal items, and then, only on the basis of the representations so obtained, build up representations of the objects that bear these features. The feature priority view maintains, then, (...) that our perception/knowledge of objects asymmetrically depends on our perception/knowledge of simple features. This paper has two aims. First, we will present evidence, drawn from a variety of perceptual effects, that feature prioritarianism cannot be true, since there are cases that speak against the priority of feature representations in perceptual processing. Instead, we claim that the evidence supports an alternative —-and more complex—- no-priority view. Second, we will offer a framework for a no-priority view that both captures the cases we cite and provides a more sensible architecture in which to understand a variety of productive projects in perceptual science, and show how the framework cross-cuts some recent discussions in philosophy of perception. (shrink)

The Jewish Philosophy Reader is the first comprehensive anthology of classic writings on Jewish philosophy from the Bible to postmodernism. The Reader is clearly divided into four separate parts: Foundations and First Principles, Medieval and Renaissance Jewish Philosophy, Modern Jewish Thought, and Contemporary Jewish Philosophy. Each part is clearly introduced by the editors. The readings featured are representative writings of each era listed above and are from the following major thinkers: Abrabanel, Baeck, Bergman, Borowitz, Buber, Cohen, Crescas, Fackenheim, Geiger, (...) Gersonides, Goodman, Graetz, Halevi, Hartman, Heschel, Hess, Hirsch, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Paquda, Kellner, Kook, Krochmal, Leibowitz, Levinas, Maimonides, Maybaum, Mendelssohn, Novak, Philo, Plaskow, Rosenzweig, Saadia, Scholem, Seeskin, Soloveitchik, Spinoza, Strauss, Wolf, Zunz. (shrink)

Levinas on the possibility and need for humanist ethics In Humanism of the Other, Emmanuel Levinas argues that it is not only possible but of the highest exigency to understand one's humanity through the humanity of others. In paperback for the first time, Levinas's work here is based in a new appreciation for ethics and takes new distances from phenomenology, idealism, and skepticism to rehabilitate humanism and restore its promises. Painfully aware of the long history of dehumanization that reached its (...) apotheosis in Hitler and Nazism, Levinas does not underestimate the difficulty of reconciling oneself with another. The humanity of the human, Levinas argues, is not discoverable through mathematics, rational metaphysics, or introspection. Rather, it is found in the recognition that the other person comes first, that the suffering and mortality of others are the obligations and morality of the self. (shrink)

Here, we argue that any neurobiological theory based on an experience/function division cannot be empirically confirmed or falsified and is thus outside the scope of science. A ‘perfect experiment’ illustrates this point, highlighting the unbreachable boundaries of the scientific study of consciousness. We describe a more nuanced notion of cognitive access that captures personal experience without positing the existence of inaccessible conscious states. Finally, we discuss the criteria necessary for forming and testing a falsifiable theory of consciousness.

Orthodox decision theory gives no advice to agents who hold two goods to be incommensurate in value because such agents will have incomplete preferences. According to standard treatments, rationality requires complete preferences, so such agents are irrational. Experience shows, however, that incomplete preferences are ubiquitous in ordinary life. In this paper, we aim to do two things: (1) show that there is a good case for revising decision theory so as to allow it to apply non-vacuously to agents with incomplete (...) preferences, and (2) to identify one substantive criterion that any such non-standard decision theory must obey. Our criterion, Competitiveness, is a weaker version of a dominance principle. Despite its modesty, Competitiveness is incompatible with prospectism, a recently developed decision theory for agents with incomplete preferences. We spend the final part of the paper showing why Competitiveness should be retained, and prospectism rejected. (shrink)

Although our subjective impression is of a richly detailed visual world, numerous empirical results suggest that the amount of visual information observers can perceive and remember at any given moment is limited. How can our subjective impressions be reconciled with these objective observations? Here, we answer this question by arguing that, although we see more than the handful of objects, claimed by prominent models of visual attention and working memory, we still see far less than we think we do. Taken (...) together, we argue that these considerations resolve the apparent conflict between our subjective impressions and empirical data on visual capacity, while also illuminating the nature of the representations underlying perceptual experience. (shrink)

One result of successful argumentation – able arguers presenting cogent arguments to competent audiences – is a transfer of credibility from premises to conclusions. From a purely logical perspective, neither dubious premises nor fallacious inference should lower the credibility of the target conclusion. Nevertheless, some arguments do backfire this way. Dialectical and rhetorical considerations come into play. Three inter-related conclusions emerge from a catalogue of hapless arguers and backfiring arguments. First, there are advantages to paying attention to arguers and their (...) contexts, rather than focusing narrowly on their arguments, in order to understand what can go wrong in argumentation. Traditional fallacy identification, with its exclusive attention to faulty inferences, is inadequate to explain the full range of argumentative failures. Second, the notion of an Ideal Arguer can be defined by contrast with her less than ideal peers to serve as a useful tool in argument evaluation. And third, not all of the ways that arguers raise doubts about their conclusions are pathological. On the contrary, some ways that doubts are raised concerning our intended conclusions are an integral part of ideal argumentative practice. (shrink)

In this book, Daniel Cohen explores the connections between arguments and metaphors, most pronounced in philosophy because philosophical discourse is both thoroughly metaphorical and replete with argumentation. Cohen covers the nature of arguments, their modes and structures, and the principles of their evaluation, and addresses the nature of metaphors, their place in language and thought, and their connections to arguments, identifying and reconciling arguments' and metaphors' respective roles in philosophy.

It has been a decade since the phrase virtue argumentation was introduced, and while it would be an exaggeration to say that it burst onto the scene, it would be just as much of an understatement to say that it has gone unnoticed. Trying to strike the virtuous mean between the extremes of hyperbole and litotes, then, we can fairly characterize it as a way of thinking about arguments and argumentation that has steadily attracted more and more attention from argumentation (...) theorists. We hope it is neither too late for an introduction to the field nor too soon for some retrospective assessment of where things stand. (shrink)

The claim that argumentation has no proper role in either philosophy or education, and especially not in philosophical education, flies in the face of both conventional wisdom and traditional pedagogy. There is, however, something to be said for it because it is really only provocative against a certain philosophical backdrop. Our understanding of the concept "argument" is both reflected by and molded by the specific metaphor that argument-is-war, something with winners and losers, offensive and defensive moments, and an essentially adversarial (...) structure. Such arguments may be suitable for teaching a philosophy, but not for teaching philosophy. Surely, education and philosophy do not need to be conceived as having an adversarial essence-if indeed they are thought to have any essence at all. Accordingly, philosophy and education need more pragmatic goals than even Pierce's idealized notion of truth as the end of inquiry, e.g., the simple furtherance of inquiry. For this, new metaphors for framing and understanding the concept of argumentation are needed, and some suggestions in that direction will be considered. (shrink)

In this paper we present an account of practical rationality and weakness of will in terms of rational capacities. We show how our account rectifies various shortcomings in Michael Smith's related theory. In particular, our account is capable of accommodating cases of weak-willed behaviour that are not `akratic', or otherwise contrary to the agent's better judgement. Our account differs from Smith's primarily by incorporating resolve: a third rational capacity for resolute maintenance of one's intentions. We discuss further two ways to (...) explain the importance of resolve to practical rationality: one based on Richard Holton's recent work, and an alternative, non-consequentialist account. (shrink)

Virtue argumentation theory provides the best framework for accommodating the notion of an argument that is “fully satisfying” in a robust and integrated sense. The process of explicating the notion of fully satisfying arguments requires expanding the concept of arguers to include all of an argument’s participants, including judges, juries, and interested spectators. And that, in turn, requires expanding the concept of an argument itself to include its entire context.

Michael Smith has resisted Harry Frankfurt's claim that moral responsibility does not require the ability to have done otherwise. He does this by claiming that, in Frankfurt cases, the ability to do otherwise is indeed present, but is a disposition that has been `finked' or masked by other factors. We suggest that, while Smith's account appears to work for some classic Frankfurt cases, it does not work for all. In particular, Smith cannot explain cases, such as the Willing Addict, where (...) the Frankfurt devise - e.g. the addiction - is intrinsic to the agent. (shrink)

Virtue epistemology was modeled on virtue ethics theories to transfer their ethical insights to epistemology. VE has had great success: broadening our perspective, providing new answers to traditional questions, and raising exciting new questions. I offer a new argument for VE based on the concept of cognitive achievements, a broader notion than purely epistemic achievements. The argument is then extended to cognitive transformations, especially the cognitive transformations brought about by argumentation.

While morality prohibits us from creating miserable children, it does not require us to create happy children. I offer an actualist explanation of this apparent asymmetry. Assume that for every possible world W, there is a distinct set of permissibility facts determined by the welfare of those who exist in W. Moral actualism says that actual-world permissibility facts should determine one's choice between worlds. But if one doesn't know which world is actual, one must aim for subjective rightness and maximize (...) expected actual-world permissibility. So, because one should expect actual people to be worse off than they could have been if one creates a miserable child, creating a miserable child is subjectively impermissible. And because one should expect actual people to be at least as well off as they could have been if one fails to create a happy child, failing to create a happy child is subjectively permissible. (shrink)

This paper presents an approach for monitoring exercises of hand rehabilitation for post stroke patients. The developed solution uses a leap motion controller as hand-tracking device and embeds a supervised machine learning. The K-nearest neighbor methodology is adopted for automatically characterizing the physiotherapist or helper hand movement resulting a unique movement pattern that constitutes the basis of the rehabilitation process. In the second stage, an evaluation of the patients rehabilitation exercises results is compared to the movement pattern of the patient (...) and results are presented, saved and statistically analyzed. Physicians and physiotherapists monitor and assess patients’ rehabilitation improvements through a web application, furthermore, offer medical assisted rehabilitation processes through low cost technology, which can be easily exploited at home. Recorded tracked motion data and results can be used for further medical study and evaluating rehabilitation trends according to patient’s rehabilitation practice and improvement. (shrink)

Current evolutionary and cognitive theories of religion posit that supernatural agent concepts emerge from cognitive systems such as theory of mind and social cognition. Some argue that these concepts evolved to maintain social order by minimizing antisocial behavior. If these theories are correct, then people should process information about supernatural agents’ socially strategic knowledge more quickly than non-strategic knowledge. Furthermore, agents’ knowledge of immoral and uncooperative social behaviors should be especially accessible to people. To examine these hypotheses, we measured response-times (...) to questions about the knowledge attributed to four different agents—God, Santa Claus, a fictional surveillance government, and omniscient but non-interfering aliens—that vary in their omniscience, moral concern, ability to punish, and how supernatural they are. As anticipated, participants respond more quickly to questions about agents’ socially strategic knowledge than non-strategic knowledge, but only when agents are able to punish. (shrink)

Technology has made argumentation rampant. We can argue whenever we want. With social media venues for every interest, we can also argue about whatever we want. To some extent, we can select our opponents and audiences to argue with whomever we want. And we can argue however we want, whether in carefully reasoned, article-length expositions, real-time exchanges, or 140-character polemics. The concepts of arguing, arguing well, and even being an arguer have evolved with this new multiplicity and diversity; theory needs (...) to catch up to the new reality. Successful strategies for traditional contexts may be counterproductive in new ones; classical argumentative virtues may be liabilities in new situations. There are new complications to the theorist’s standard questions—What is an argument? and Who is an arguer?—while new ones move into the spotlight—Should we argue at all? and If so, why? Agent-based virtue argumentation theory provides a unifying framework for this radical plurality by coordinated redefinitions of the concepts of good arguers and good arguments. It remains true that good arguers contribute to good arguments, and good arguments satisfy good arguers, but the new diversity strains the old unity. Ironically, a unifying factor is provided by examining those paragons of bad arguers, argument trolls whose contributions to arguments are not very good, not really contributions, and, ultimately, not genuine argumentation. (shrink)