"To think with Nietzsche against Nietzsche." Thus the editors describe the strategy adopted in this volume to soften the destructive effects of Nietzsche's "philosophy with a hammer" on French philosophy since the 1960s. Frustrated by the infinite inclusiveness of deconstructionism, the contributors to this volume seek to renew the Enlightenment quest for rationality. Though linked by no common dogma, these essays all argue that the "French Nietzsche" transmitted through the deconstructionists must be reexamined in light of the original context in (...) which Nietzsche worked. Each essay questions the viability of Nietzsche's thought in the modern world, variously critiquing his philosophy of history as obsessed with hierarchy, his views on religion and art as myopic and irrational, and his stance on science as hopelessly reactionary. Contending that we must abandon the Nietzsche propped up as patron saint by French deconstructionists in order to return to reason, these essays will stimulate debate not just among Nietzscheans but among all with a stake in modern French philosophy. Contributors are Alain Boyer, André Compte-Sponville, Vincent Descombes, Luc Ferry, Robert Legros, Philippe Raynaud, Alain Renault, and Pierre-André Taguieff. (shrink)

With the publication of French Philosophy of the Sixties, Alain Renaut and Luc Ferry in 1985 launched their famous critique against canonical figures such as Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan, bringing under rigorous scrutiny the entire post-structuralist project that had dominated Western intellectual life for over two decades. Their goal was to defend the accomplishments of liberal democracy, particularly in terms of basic human rights, and to trace the reigning philosophers' distrust of liberalism to an "antihumanism" inherited mainly from Heidegger. In (...) The Era of the Individual, widely hailed as Renaut's magnum opus, the author explores the most salient feature of post-structuralism: the elimination of the human subject. At the root of this thinking lies the belief that humans cannot know or control their basic natures, a premise that led to Heidegger's distrust of an individualistic, capitalist modern society and that allied him briefly with Hitler's National Socialist Party. While acknowledging some of Heidegger's misgivings toward modernity as legitimate, Renaut argues that it is nevertheless wrong to equate modernity with the triumph of individualism. Here he distinguishes between individualism and subjectivity and, by offering a history of the two, powerfully redirects the course of current thinking away from potentially dangerous, reductionist views of humanity. Renaut argues that modern philosophy contains within itself two opposed ways of conceiving the human person. The first, which has its roots in Descartes and Kant, views human beings as subjects capable of arriving at universal moral judgments. The second, stemming from Leibniz, Hegel, and Nietzsche, presents human beings as independent individuals sharing nothing with others. In a careful recounting of this philosophical tradition, Renaut shows the resonances of these traditions in more recent philosophers such as Heidegger and in the social anthropology of Louis Dumont. Renaut's distinction between individualism and subjectivity has become an important issue for young thinkers dissatisfied with the intellectual tradition originating in Nietzsche and Heidegger. Moreover, his proclivity toward the Kantian tradition, combined with his insights into the shortcomings of modernity, will interest anyone concerned about today's shifting cultural attitudes toward liberalism. Originally published in 1997. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

El artículo plantea el problema de si la filosofía kantiana es un humanismo o un antihumanismo. El autor se propone defender una lectura humanista de dicha filosofía, pues en esa lectura se fundamentan los valores de la libertad y la democracia. Heidegger dio lugar a una lectura antihumanista de Kant, la cual quebrantaría a lo humano como origen de toda norma para actuar y juzgar. Reemplazar a la razón humana como fundamento de la libertad por una trascendencia que dicta leyes (...) a las cuales se obedece por venir del Ser o de Dios es la abolición de la libertad y, por ende, de la responsabilidad, de la imputabilidad y de la posibilidad de todo juicio moral. El antihumanismo es la tumba de la libertad. The paper raises the question whether Kantian philosophy is humanism or an anti-humanism. The author proposes a humanist interpretation of Kantian philosophy, in which the values of freedom and democracy are grounded. Contrariwise, Heidegger's interpretation of Kant runs opposite to humanism as the origin of patterns of action and judgement. The replacement of human reason as basis for freedom, for a trascendentality that dictates rules which must be obeyed since they originate in the Being or in God, amounts to abolition of freedom as well as of human responsibility, imputation and even moral judgement. Therefore, anti-humanism is the tomb of freedom. (shrink)

In this final volume of Political Philosophy, Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut summarize these efforts and put forward their own set of arguments.

Quels enseignements tirer de la crise pandémique mondiale de 2020? La violence extrême du risque sanitaire nous a évidemment rappelé que nous étions mortels - quels que soient nos systèmes de santé. Mais au-delà, ce sont nos équilibres sociaux, éthiques, économiques ou politiques qui ont été remis en cause. Comment justifier éthiquement le tri des patients? Quelles décisions politiques prendre au moment où la protection de la santé est mise en rivalité avec la nécessité de soutenir une activité économique également (...) vitale? La mondialisation est-elle responsable de nos vulnérabilités? Autant de questions épineuses abordées dans cet essai, qui revendique la pertinence d'une approche philosophique de terrain, loin d'une réflexion abstraite sur la fragilité écologique ou d'une critique convenue de nos systèmes mondialisés. Si le risque incite au repli sur soi, l'enjeu est ici de comprendre que la résilience ne passera que par une plus grande solidarité internationale et une redéfinition de la souveraineté."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)