Trois parties: la démocratie athénienne; les institutions oligarchiques; les fédérations de cités. [SDM].

Le livre de Nadine Bernard n’aborde pas un sujet neuf et ne comble pas un vide bibliographique. Les synthèses anciennes, telle celle de Claude Mossé, et plus récentes, comme le premier volume de l’Histoire des femmes paru sous la direction de Pauline Schmitt-Pantel ou encore le livre récent de Pierre Brulé, ont déjà beaucoup donné au lecteur, spécialiste ou non, qui s’intéresse à ce champ d’étude. Mais ce livre fait pourtant oeuvre utile. Procédant d’une bonne connaissance de la bibliographie...

Husserl saw the Cartesian critique of scepticism as one of the eternal merits of Descartes’ philosophy. In doing so, he accepted the legitimacy of the very idea of a universal doubt, and sought to present as an alternative to it a renewed, specifically phenomenological concept of self-evidence, making it possible to obtain an unshakable foundation for the edifice of knowledge. This acceptance of the skeptical problem underlies his entire conceptual framework, both before and after the transcendental turn, and especially the (...) immanence/transcendence distinction, i.e., the very basis of intentionality. In taking as its starting point an analysis of perception, the article puts forth a certain number of phenomenological arguments in order to put into question the validity of the skeptical problem and, therefore, of the Husserlian conceptual framework; it defends, in the first place, a disjunctive conception of perception and, in the second place, a holism of experience. (shrink)

Édition commentée des deux fragments de manuscrits littéraires grecs découverts dans la trésorerie du palais d'Aï-Khanoum, dans un contexte daté de 145 av. J.-C. Ces manuscrits avaient été rédigés dans des officines méditerranéennes et sont paléographiquement datables entre le milieu du IIIe et le début du IIe s. av. J.-C. Le premier texte, rédigé sur papyrus, est un dialogue philosophique platonicien ou aristotélicien relatif à la théorie platonicienne des Idées ; le second, rédigé sur parchemin en trimètres iambiques, relève peut-être (...) du genre théâtral. Leur présence à Aï Khanoum atteste l'existence d'une bibliothèque dans le palais de cette cité. (shrink)

The question of the oeuvre -- The concept of Machiavellianism -- Reading The prince. First signs -- The logic of force -- The social abyss and attachment to power -- Good and evil, the stable and the unstable, the real and the imaginary -- The present and the possible -- Reading The discourses. From The prince to The discourses -- Rome and the "historical" society -- Class difference -- War, and the difference of times -- Authority and the political subject (...) -- The oeuvre, ideology, and interpretation. (shrink)

O artigo pretende investigar se há uma intencionalidade da perceção e caminhar na direção de um realismo fenmenológico.

What does the ostensibly innocuous phrase “das Selbst” exactly mean in Heidegger’s fundamental ontology? Does Heidegger really have a “theory of the self ” in the same way as, say, Descartes, Locke or Husserl? This is what has been often concluded by many interpreters of Being and Time, and it is that view that the current paper attempts to challenge. Heidegger not only rejects the supposition of a substantial ego, along the lines of Descartes’ conception, but he also repudiates any (...) “self ” understood as a present-at-hand being, an inner core of Dasein, and he insists on the intrinsic connection between the “egologies,” from Descartes to Husserl, and “traditional ontology”. What seems to be at stake in the fundamental-ontological approach of Sebstheit and Selbstsein, Being-oneself, is rather a complete paradigm-shift, since both concepts refer to “ways of being” or “ways of existing” of Dasein, and no longer at all to a self-identical being of a condition of its self-identity. In trying to investigate the economy of the related existential concepts of Jemeinigkeit, Selbstheit and Man-selbst, this article makes the claim that Heidegger’s break with egology is much deeper that it has been often thought, and that the phenomenologist raises a completely new question, rather than trying to give a new response to older ones. (shrink)

"A genuinely innovative contribution to philosophical accounts of subjectivity and temporality. Romano develops what he calls an 'evential hermeneutics' that takes as its starting point the life-changing events that upend our world. He studies the structure of these events in terms of the genuine change and novelty that they open up, distinguishing them from mere occurrences, which can be explained as a subject realizing pre-existing possibilities. Because such events introduce radically new possibilities by transforming me and my world, Romano argues (...) that they must be understood as establishing a world rather than as happening in the world."--Shane Mackinlay, Catholic Theological College, University of Divinity, Melbourne. (shrink)

It is puzzling to notice that in his 1784 essay on Enlightenment, Kant addresses every human being with his watchword « Have the courage to use your own understanding! », while at the same time he seems to restrict the access to the public discussion of matters of common interest to the learned persons. This begs the question: Is the participation in the public debate part and parcel of Kant’s conception of Aufklärung? A positive answer to this question is given (...) by Katerina Deligiorgi in her Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. A critical assessment of this book will lead us however to consider that Kant has a differentiated approach to enlightenment depending on whether someone is educated or uneducated. Following Rousseau, Kant has come to recognize as a matter of fact this inequality toward the products of culture. Now the two-level conception of enlightenment entailed by this inequality becomes explicit in the 1790s, especially in the very last work Kant has published: The Conflict of the Faculties. (shrink)

On connaît de Charles Larmore (1950), philosophe moral américain contemporain, ses célèbres objections à John Rawls, mais peu de travaux se concentrent sur sa philosophie : son réalisme moral, sa réhabilitation partielle de l'idéal d'authenticité, sa version du libéralisme politique ou encore à sa théorie normativiste du moi. Ce sont ces différents aspects de sa pensée que les études contenues dans ce volume, premier ouvrage entièrement consacré à l'oeuvre de Charles Larmore, interrogent et mettent en perspective. Un essai inédit du (...) philosophe américain ainsi qu'un débat entre Charles Larmore et Alain Renaut autour de la controverse réalisme-idéalisme y figurent également, en guise de conclusion. (shrink)

La question soulevée par cet article est celle de la légitimité d’un des concepts qui semble le mieux établi dans le lexique philosophique contemporain, celui du moi. Ce concept qui, à sa création, répond à des problèmes bien définis, a revêtu un sens de plus en plus vague au fur et à mesure de sa diffusion, au point qu’il est devenu souvent difficile de dire ce qu’il signifie au juste chez la plupart des philosophes qui l’emploient. En revenant à la (...) source de cette notion, le présent article s’efforce d’examiner quelques-uns des problèmes qu’elle soulève. Il s’attache plus particulièrement à montrer que la thèse selon laquelle le moi possède une identité en première personne, distincte de l’identité en troisième personne de l’individu dans le monde, soulève des problèmes insolubles. Or cette thèse repose nécessairement au fondement de toute conception qui prétend distinguer le moi de l’être humain individuel. (shrink)

This paper argues that the dominant mainstream neo‐classical economic theory propounds a world‐view which is based not simply on half‐truths, but on straight lies. This is particularly significant since the influence of the economic world‐view reaches into every realm of social thought. Although overtly grounded in utilitarianism, the basis of neo‐classical thought has undergone two shifts of meaning which have converted the original self‐evident utilitarian presuppositions into an ideology.The first of these alters the utilitarian proposition that ‘we seek satisfaction’ into (...) the statement that ‘we only seek satisfaction’. It follows that human action is motivated by nothing other than selfishness and greed, and that altruism therefore cannot exist: anything that looks like altruism is therefore nothing other than egoism in disguise, and there is no place for ethical reasoning in individual choice.The second shift alters the premise that our goal is ‘maximum satisfaction’ to the assertion that what we seek is ‘maximum monetary gain’. This shift is already present in the writings of Jeremy Bentham, and forms the basis of much subsequent work in economics. In particular, it has facilitated the emergence of what one might term ‘economic imperialism’, i.e. the use of economic theory to analyse social issues – family size, racial discrimination, marriage, education choices, among others. In all of these cases monetary gain is the paramount criterion. For business ethics the most obvious example here is the absolutisation of profit as the sole criterion of business achievements, and of salary as the sole criterion of work choice and worker satisfaction.Both of these premises are then used to demonstrate that it is free competition which will ensure maximum social welfare. This conclusion is both relativistic and reductionistic. In the first place, the necessary conditions for perfect competition can never exist. Nor can ‘optimum social welfare’ be translated into ‘optimum welfare for all’ in an economic world‐view which sees wealth and poverty as the ‘just deserts’ of hard work and laziness respectively.The dominant economic theory is thus explicitly immoral in that it enshrines the absolute sovereignity of the individual and the law of the jungle as social norms. The qualitative measure of human happiness is desire, the quantitative measure is money. From an ethical perspective we must reject the falsity of this world‐view. (shrink)

This paper argues that the dominant mainstream neo‐classical economic theory propounds a world‐view which is based not simply on half‐truths, but on straight lies. This is particularly significant since the influence of the economic world‐view reaches into every realm of social thought. Although overtly grounded in utilitarianism, the basis of neo‐classical thought has undergone two shifts of meaning which have converted the original self‐evident utilitarian presuppositions into an ideology. The first of these alters the utilitarian proposition that ‘we seek satisfaction’ (...) into the statement that ‘we only seek satisfaction’. It follows that human action is motivated by nothing other than selfishness and greed, and that altruism therefore cannot exist: anything that looks like altruism is therefore nothing other than egoism in disguise, and there is no place for ethical reasoning in individual choice. The second shift alters the premise that our goal is ‘maximum satisfaction’ to the assertion that what we seek is ‘maximum monetary gain’. This shift is already present in the writings of Jeremy Bentham, and forms the basis of much subsequent work in economics. In particular, it has facilitated the emergence of what one might term ‘economic imperialism’, i.e. the use of economic theory to analyse social issues – family size, racial discrimination, marriage, education choices, among others. In all of these cases monetary gain is the paramount criterion. For business ethics the most obvious example here is the absolutisation of profit as the sole criterion of business achievements, and of salary as the sole criterion of work choice and worker satisfaction. Both of these premises are then used to demonstrate that it is free competition which will ensure maximum social welfare. This conclusion is both relativistic and reductionistic. In the first place, the necessary conditions for perfect competition can never exist. Nor can ‘optimum social welfare’ be translated into ‘optimum welfare for all’ in an economic world‐view which sees wealth and poverty as the ‘just deserts’ of hard work and laziness respectively. The dominant economic theory is thus explicitly immoral in that it enshrines the absolute sovereignity of the individual and the law of the jungle as social norms. The qualitative measure of human happiness is desire, the quantitative measure is money. From an ethical perspective we must reject the falsity of this world‐view. (shrink)

Al-Jazeera and other satellite television stations have transformed Arab politics over the last decade.

Interculturalism and multiculturalism have been the subject of university courses, seminars and international colloquia for two decades, producing a large literature which has become the basis for a general political debate about democracy in the US and Western Europe. These concepts are now central even in discussions about an Eastern Europe recently liberated from the communist yoke — especially in regions with large national minorities. Just mentioning them seems sufficient to resolve the age old problems of the struggles between majority (...) and minority in those regions. Is it legitimate to borrow such concepts? Can the same terms be used to describe the new migrations of people from the impoverished South or East to the rich West and those historical movements which resulted in the Europe of nations? (shrink)

Major theme in the history of philosophy, the problem of universals has been transmitted to the Latin West mainly through the exegesis that, in his Second commentary on the Isagoge, Boethius gave of the famous Porphyrian questionnaire on the genera and species. Our study focuses on the series of philosophical key concepts, sometimes difficult to define, which, in this seminal commentary, form the redactional framework, often misunderstood, of the Boethian Solution of an Aporia that claims to have demonstrated the impossibility (...) of the existence of the genera and species (among others by the argument of the regressus ad infinitum), as well as the redhibitory defects of their (consonant or not consonant) intellections. For Boethius, all this is basically about the relation between thought and reality. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage, qui est dédié à Karl Jaspers et préfacè par le maître, est une nouvelle édition de l'œuvre parue il y a vingt ans. Son auteur nous affirme aujourd'hui : « J'aurais dû, peut-être, retoucher ce livre. J'y ai pensé mais je ne l'ai pas pu ». Il est sans doute très difficile de récrire une œuvre de jeunesse.Le propos de ce livre est relativement simple; il veut montrer que la philosophic est une illusion, parce qu'elle repose sur une (...) décision du sujet qui se cherche à travers les objets qu'il examine. Il y aurait, à la base de l'entreprise philosophique une « duplicité fondamentale », de telle sorte que cette discipline ne peut aller que d'échec en échec. « Pour la clarté même de l'intelligence, il faut qu'elle sache oû ses preuves sont impossibles. Or, l'histoire me semble avoir démontré que la philosophic n'atteint pas à l'évidence scientifique ». (shrink)

In an (indirectly or involuntarily) iconoclastic subject, Claude Fintz proposes to put in perspective the conceptual universe of the humanities by confronting it with the thought of a master of contemporary Indian advaita, Nisargadatta Maharaj—as reflected by his disciple Ramesh S. Balsekar. In this “between” of the scientific and spiritual quest, the great notions of the philosophy of the subject will resonate. The author hypothesizes that this paradoxical encounter is likely to bring out the mystery of a first-person search (...) where, in the context of a certain philosophy of consciousness (resonating with the quest of Henri Michaux), the looking subject turns out to be the mirror of the looked object. This apocalypse projects vitriol on the conceptual bubbles that are the so-called subject (and his free will), knowledge and imagination—all constituents of the human “sciences”, bordered in fact by nothingness, according to a “vacant” anthropology. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Historiography of Philosophy by Michael FredeClaude PanaccioMichael Frede. The Historiography of Philosophy. Edited by Katerina Ierodiakonou, with a postface by Jonathan Barnes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. 256. Hardback, $80.00.From the 1970s until his tragic death in 2007, Michael Frede was one of the most prominent scholars in ancient Greek philosophy, with landmark contributions to the study of Aristotle and of Hellenistic thought in particular. This (...) volume contains his theoretical reflections on the work of historians of philosophy. The main part of the book reproduces with minor corrections the previously unpublished text of the Nellie Wallace Lectures that Frede gave in 1989–90 in Oxford (1–135). Then come three papers that he published on pretty much the same topic between 1987 and 1992 (137–88). Jonathan Barnes's postface, finally, launches an exciting discussion of Frede's proposals by raising a number of questions and critical remarks about them (189–230).Frede's main claim throughout the book is that there is, and should be, a distinctively historical approach to the history of philosophy that has not yet been sufficiently recognized as such in the academic world. This is not to say that he considers more philosophical approaches to be illegitimate. His point is that we have to be clear about the distinction and what it involves in terms of requirements and methods. What Frede calls the "historical history of philosophy" is thus contrasted by him with two varieties of philosophical approaches. One of them he identifies as the "philosophical history of philosophy." It consists in retrospectively studying the past of philosophy as a kind of maturation toward some more recent doctrinal stage, as Aristotle or Hegel saliently did with their respective predecessors. Frede takes this to be "a perfectly intelligible and legitimate, though perhaps not particularly interesting or fruitful, enterprise" (41). Most of the time, he thinks, it would be led by its own philosophical presuppositions to be too selective and to provide a badly distorted picture of past philosophy.Frede is much more sympathetic to the other philosophical approach to the history of philosophy he acknowledges, the one he calls "doxography." This is the study of past philosophers with the aim of finding something of interest in them for ongoing philosophical discussions—a familiar practice, indeed, in the philosophical discipline as we know it. There is an inevitable amount of anachronism in such endeavors, according to Frede, insofar as the commentators will have to reformulate the old views in contemporary terms to a certain extent and to look at them in connection with the questions that are currently debated in the field. But Frede deems this kind of anachronism acceptable as long as sufficient care is taken to correctly identify the views of the past we are interested in and to report them in the best available way. He strongly insists, however, that there are inherent risks of distortion in this approach. This might not be a problem if we are prepared to deal, as philosophers, with views that were not exactly those of the past; but we then run the risk of leaving out something of great philosophical interest, even to us, since "as a rule the philosopher subjected to doxographical treatment was a much better philosopher than the doxographer" (34). If we turn to the past for philosophical inspiration, we should also do it seriously, and this presupposes a historical study of past authors that is pursued for its own sake. [End Page 317]The latter is what Frede is really interested in, and he wants this historical approach to be "as independent as possible from philosophy and not just an ancilla to philosophy" (60). Its practitioners must have a strong philosophical training, of course, in order to understand the views they study and the arguments that were adduced in support of them, but Frede insists that they nevertheless are historians first and foremost: they strive to provide a correct account of "the actual, historical evolution of these views and positions" (14) and of how new doctrines actually grew out of previous ones given the historical context. Insofar as this is what they are doing, historians of... (shrink)

Peut-on interpréter le Cratyle sans recourir aux développements du Théétète et du Sophiste sur la proposition verbale ? L'exigence analytique, présentée pour la première fois par G. Ryle, autorise à examiner la prétention soit des noms, soit de leurs éléments phonétiques à jouer le rôle de « signifiants » authentiques. Could we give an interpretation of Cratylus without looking at the later dialogues (Theaetetus and Sophist) which carry Plato on to the concept of verbal proposition ? The requirements of analytical (...) philosophers (first, G. Ryle) lead us to examine the claim of the word or of its phonetic elements as genuine « significantes ». (shrink)