Pour le chrétien qui cherche Dieu, pour le théologien qui veut penser la question de Dieu, la problématique de l’accès au mystère s’avère incontournable. Les théologies contemporaines, soucieuses de « sortir la doctrine trinitaire de son isolement », et conscientes de l’enjeu tant pastoral que théologique d’une telle réouverture de l’accès pour la conscience croyante, témoignent d’une avancée impressionnante mais aussi d’une hésitation sur le mode de cet accès, en même temps que d’une impossibilité à penser le mode de (...) l’unité divine. L’expérience mystique, de par son appartenance à ce mystère, se montre alors capable d’ouvrir à un véritable « franchissement » : elle fait en effet briller plus vivement et de l’intérieur les vérités de la foi. La radicalité de l’itinéraire de Jean de la Croix et la force de son enseignement font ici autorité. Dans le processus exceptionnellement élevé pour l’âme de l’union transformante, tel que celui-ci le qualifie de « contact substantiel », Dieu se rend en effet accessible selon lui-même à la pensée. La mystique chrétienne pourrait ainsi permettre à la théologie contemporaine d’entrer davantage dans l’intériorité du mystère, et la notion de contact, telle que définie par le Docteur mystique, devenir principe d’intelligibilité renouvelée du mode même de l’unité divine. For the Christian who is seeking God and for the theologian who wishes to reflect on the question of God, the issue of access to the mystery proves to be inescapable. Contemporary theologies are eager to “bring Trinitarian doctrine out of its isolation” and are aware of the pastoral and theological stakes of re-opening this access for the believing conscience. They testify to impressive progress but have some hesitation about how this access is achieved as well as to the impossibility of thinking the mode of divine unity. Thus, mystical experience, because it belongs to this mystery, shows itself capable of opening up to a genuine “going beyond”: indeed, it makes the truths of the faith shine more vividly from within. The radical nature of the itinerary of John of the Cross and the power of his teachings are accepted as the authority here. In the exceptionally elevated process of a transforming union for the soul, which he qualifies as “substantial contact,” God renders Himself accessible to thought according to Himself. Christian mysticism could thereby enable contemporary theology to enter more fully into the interiority of the mystery, and the notion of contact, such as it is defined by the mystical Doctor, to become the principle of renewed intelligibility of the very mode of divine unity itself. (shrink)

Nombreux sont les versets coraniques qui insistent sur la toute-puissance de Dieu : en maître absolu du Bien et du Mal, il fait ce que bon lui semble, égarant et sauvant qui II veut. Pris au pied de la lettre, ces versets ont inspiré une vision déterministe et fataliste dé l'homme et du monde qui exclut toute possibilité de fonder une éthique rationnelle : le bien et le mal sont entièrement déterminés par la seule volonté de Dieu et l'islam se (...) résume alors à une soumission aveugle aux décrets divins. Tenue pour responsable de l'ankylose de la pensée musulmane, voire des dérives obscurantistes de l'islamisme radical, cette position, qui résulte du triomphe de l'as'arisme dans le sunnisme postclassique, est de nos jours sévèrement critiquée par des théologiens soucieux de promouvoir un islam éclairé. Ceux-ci renouent souvent avec des doctrines mu'tazilites visant à atténuer, d'une façon ou d'une autre, la puissance divine et à reconnaître en Dieu une certaine « impuissance », afin de créer un espace pour l'homme. L'article retrace l'historique de ce débat, qui remonte aux origines mêmes de la théologie musulmane. Many verses in the Koran insist on God's omnipotence: as the absolute Master of Good and Evil, He does whatever he likes, condemning or saving whomever He decides. Understood literally, those verses have inspired a deterministic and fatalistic vision of man and the world, one which excludes any possibility of grounding a rational ethics. Both Good and Evil are totally determined by the will of God alone, and Islam may be summed up as a blind submission to divine decrees. This position, which results from the triumph of as'arism in post-classical sunnism, has been held responsible for the stagnation of Muslim thought, indeed for the obscurantist excesses of radical Islamism and is today severely criticized by some theologians concerned to promote an enlightened Islam. These scholars have often revived mu'tazilist doctrines whose aim is to weaken one way or another, notions of divine power and, by recognizing in God a certain « powerlessness », create a space for human action. This paper retraces the history of this debate which dates back to the very origins of the Muslim theology. (shrink)

Nombreux sont les versets coraniques qui insistent sur la toute‑puissance de Dieu : en maître absolu du Bien et du Mal, il fait ce que bon lui semble, égarant et sauvant qui Il veut. Pris au pied de la lettre, ces versets ont inspiré une vision déterministe et fataliste de l’homme et du monde qui exclut toute possibilité de fonder une éthique rationnelle : le bien et le mal sont entièrement déterminés par la seule volonté de Dieu et l’islam se (...) résume alors à une soumission aveugle aux décrets divins. Tenue pour responsable de l’ankylose de la pensée musulmane, voire des dérives obscurantistes de l’islamisme radical, cette position, qui résulte du triomphe de l’as’arisme dans le sunnisme postclassique, est de nos jours sévèrement critiquée par des théologiens soucieux de promouvoir un islam éclairé. Ceux‑ci renouent souvent avec des doctrines mu’tazilites visant à atténuer, d’une façon ou d’une autre, la puissance divine et à reconnaître en Dieu une certaine « impuissance », afin de créer un espace pour l’homme. L’article retrace l’historique de ce débat, qui remonte aux origines mêmes de la théologie musulmane.Many verses in the Koran insist on God’s omnipotence: as the absolute Master of Good and Evil, He does whatever he likes, condemning or saving whomever He decides. Understood literally, those verses have inspired a deterministic and fatalistic vision of man and the world, one which excludes any possibility of grounding a rational ethics. Both Good and Evil are totally determined by the will of God alone, and Islam may be summed up as a blind submission to divine decrees. This position, which results from the triumph of as’arism in post‑classical sunnism, has been held responsible for the stagnation of Muslim thought, indeed for the obscurantist excesses of radical Islamism and is today severely criticized by some theologians concerned to promote an enlightened Islam. These scholars have often revived mu’tazilist doctrines whose aim is to weaken one way or another, notions of divine power and, by recognizing in God a certain « powerlessness », create a space for human action. This paper retraces the history of this debate which dates back to the very origins of the Muslim theology. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:diacritics 34.2 (2006) 3-13 [Access article in PDF] Biographical Illusion and Methodological Reality Leland De La Durantaye Pierre Bourdieu. Esquisse Pour Une Auto-Analyse. Paris: Raisons d'Agir, 2004. 1 Like his student and friend Nietzsche, Jacob Burckhardt often stressed the necessity for a scholar to work in solitude. Like Nietzsche, he also possessed a gift for acidic analogy and likened the world of academia to a group of dogs sniffing (...) one another.Few observers of the academic interactions of his time had such sharp senses as Pierre Bourdieu, and few have been as torn between solitary reflection and communal exchange. Trained by France's most elite academic institutions (such as the celebrated Parisian lycée Louis-le-Grand and the even more celebrated École Normale Supérieure), Bourdieu was grateful for the opportunities that this training afforded him. And he felt that this gratitude could best be repaid by submitting those elite academic institutions and their insular world to an unsparing critique, to unveiling the distance that separated their stated ideals from their real effects.Like Bergson and Jaurès, like Sartre and Aron, like Foucault and Derrida, Bourdieu studied that which was most difficult and most prestigious where it was most difficult and prestigious: philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure. Like those famous fellow alumni, he was a brilliant student, and like them, he longed to distinguish his personal vision from those around him. This led him to do something surprising, something that, despite their separate and significant dissatisfactions with the philosophy of their day, neither Bergson nor Sartre, neither Foucault nor Derrida ever did: he abandoned philosophy. He left what he saw as the intellectual royal road for the most pedestrian of paths—that of sociology.As he often reminded his readers, sociology was in a sorry state when he entered it. Both in academic appraisal and the popular imagination, it was considered dry and provincial. It was thought to have no true intellectual adventure in it—nothing of the ethnologist tramping through the rain forests of the Amazon, nothing of the lone philosopher working through the night on an opus to end metaphysics. It was laborious and abstract; it dealt in statistical generalities. Bourdieu repeatedly described sociology as "the pariah of disciplines."1 He had, however, a special mission for it in mind. [End Page 3]In Bourdieu's posthumous memoir Esquisse pour une auto-analyse, published in February 2004—two years after his death—by the small publishing house he helped found, Raisons d'Agir, he notes how, "a bit as a joke," he had often defined himself as "the leader of a liberation movement aiming to free the social sciences from philosophy's imperialism" [94].2 From early on in his career, he had wished to revolt against the "empire of the total philosopher"—an empire reigned over by, more than any other, Jean-Paul Sartre [cf. 25].3 Looking back upon this decisive period of his development, Bourdieu goes so far as to state that the shaping of his identity was done "against everything which the Sartrian enterprise represented for me" [37]. In historical accounts, Sartre is often given as counterfigure his friend and fellow normalien Raymond Aron. In his Esquisse, Bourdieu proposes a different, and less conventional, counterfigure for the imperial philosopher: the brilliant Austrian satirist and cultural critic Karl Kraus. Bourdieu notes the particular affection he had always felt for Kraus and attributes it to the latter's singular capacity for "critical reflectivenesss" [37]. Subtly, and appropriately, Bourdieu follows this remark with something that occurs nowhere else in his memoir: an epigram (the composing of which Kraus excelled in). Bourdieu writes: "there are a great many intellectuals who question the world, but there are very few intellectuals who question the intellectual world" [37]. The remark could not more compactly and precisely reflect what Bourdieu had aspired all his life to do: to excel in the art and science of questioning the intellectual world. 2 Leo Spitzer liked to cite Friedrich Gundolf's dictum "Methode ist Erlebnis" (method is lived experience). Nearing the end of his career... (shrink)

In what is quite possibly the most famous passage of the De revolutionibus, Copernicus implies that nobody could ever place this supreme flaming torch that is the Sun in another or better place than that from which it can illuminate everything simultaneously, namely the centre of this extremely beautiful temple that is our world. Considering the fact that he leaves an interrogatory twist to this argument of convenience, and since he makes this statement without any justification as it seems entirely (...) evident to him, certain Copernicans choose to illustrate this by means of an analogy: if indeed the Sun must be positioned thus, it is because the most appropriate place for the torch intended to illuminate the room is at its centre, and not in one of its corners. Despite the heliosophy of the Renaissance having been shared by both geocentrists and Copernicans alike, this "torch" argument does not appear to have achieved much success: rarely adopted by the Copernican camp, it was even contested by some of them; as for the geocentrists, it held no appeal for them whatsoever. Did this argument of convenience therefore not benefit from the self-evidence attributed to it by Copernicus, and from, in his wake, it's continued support by a good many commentators? As is often the case when it comes to the history of thought, the pseudo-obviousness of this argument is merely the fruit of a blatant anachronism: presenting heliocentrism as the cosmological system that finally grants the Sun its worthy centrality by placing it in the centre of the room and not in a corner, is to ignore the fact that this star of the day already enjoyed, in geocentrism, a centrality esteemed to be perfectly in keeping with both its dignity and its inherent illuminative function. Having lost their grasp on this worldview that no longer belonged to them, the Copernicans thus put forward an argument which, for the geocentrists, is worthless. Yet they could have argued the objective superiority of their centrality over that accorded to the Sun by geocentrism: while the latter is only numerical, on a purely planetary scale, and frankly fictitious, the former is thoroughly spatial, of cosmic proportions and, at least on first approximation, very real. In order to produce arguments of convenience that could carry their own weight, the protagonists of the new cosmology would have benefited from getting to know the world vision of their adversaries a little better instead of addressing them from their own point of view; similarly, instead of treating as an obvious fact that which is only evident to one of the two parties present, historians of scientific thought would also be well advised to have a better understanding of the world vision of those who history now considers as the losers! (shrink)

La présence dans le prologue des catégories centrales de la pensée johannique affirme son lien au corps de l’évangile, tandis que l’absence dans ce dernier de plusieurs thèmes majeurs du prologue crée une distance entre l’un et l’autre. Pour rendre compte de cet ensemble de continuités et de discontinuités, beaucoup d’exégètes recourent aux analyses diachroniques, les uns voyant dans l’évangile le commentaire postérieur du prologue, d’autres, inversement, faisant de celui-ci le résumé d’un évangile antérieur. L’analyse littéraire du genre « prédiscours (...) » paraît plus féconde. Sa fonction est d’inciter au désir de lire, de mettre le lecteur en position d’écoute, de solliciter sa mémoire, de guider sa lecture, de décoder le récit évangélique. Par le langage mythologique de la remontée au commencement, le prologue invite le lecteur du récit à appréhender Jésus dans son égalité et son intimité avec Dieu. Par la dynamique de la descente du Logos divin vers le monde, il articule l’histoire de Jésus à son origine en Dieu. Ni résumé ni commentaire, mais acte de relecture, il fixe le cadre herméneutique dans lequel doit être lu le récit johannique.The presence in the Prologue of the central categories of Johannine thought affirms its connection to the body of the Gospel, while the absence in the latter of a number of major themes of the Prologue creates a distance between the one and the other. In order to take into consideration this ensemble of continuities and discontinuities, many exegetes have recourse to diachronic analyses. Some see in the Gospel a posterior commentary on the Prologue, others, on the contrary, make of the latter a resumé of an anterior Gospel. The literary analysis of a “prediscourse” genre seems more fruitful. Its function is to incite a desire to read, to put the reader in a position of listening, to provoke his memory, to guide his reading, and to decode the Gospel story. Through mythological language of a going back to the beginning, the Prologue invites the reader of the narrative to find Jesus in his equality and intimacy with God. Buy the dynamism of the descent of the divine Logos towards the world, it articulates the history of Jesus from his origin in God. Neither resumé nor commentary, but an act of rereading, it sets the hermeneutical framework in which the Johannine narrative ought to be read. (shrink)

I first explain the scholastic (Scotist) thesis on the independence of essences Bayle alludes to in the passage of the Continuation des Pensée Diverses where he presents the Stratonicians' and the Chinese philosophers' retorsion. Then, I show that this retorsion applies to the argument of the existence of God based on "aseity", but not to the occasionalist argument based on the "quod nescis" principle. I conclude that materialism (the "Stratonician hypothesis") cannot be, for Bayle, a satisfying system.

Où en sont les études pauliniennes ? Après avoir examiné quelques-unes de leurs caractéristiques , l'article s'attarde sur quelques chantiers en pleine évolution : le rapport de Paul au judaïsme et à Israël, la doctrine paulinienne de la justification par la foi, qui reste encore un des principaux sinon le centre d'intérêt majeur des recherches actuelles. Si les anciens paradigmes se sont effondrés, on ne peut dire qu'un nouveau se soit vraiment imposé, l'éventail des positions restant toujours assez contrasté. La (...) présentation finit avec une brève question sur le futur de l'exégèse paulinienne dite scientifique.What is happening with Pauline studies ? After examining some of their characteristics The relationship of Paul to Judaism and Israel, , the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, which still remains one of the principle, if not the center of major interest in present research. If the old paradigms have collapsed, one cannot say that a new one has really been put in place since the spread of positions still remains rather disparate. The presentation finishes with a brief question about the future of Pauline exegesis, called scientific. (shrink)

La pensée de Whitehead sur la vie est placée ici dans une perspective comparatiste, incluant le programme organiciste de Cantor en philosophie de la nature et le rôle accordé à la différence de potentiel chez Bergson et Whitehead. On commente également la doctrine écologique et evolutionniste de la vie de Processus et réalité, ainsi que la relation établie par Whitehead entre organisme et symbolisme. Whitehead's thought on life is hereby set within a comparatist view, including Cantor's organicist programme in the (...) philosophy of nature and the part granted to the difference of potential in Bergson and Whitehead. We here also comment the ecological and evolutionistic doctrine of life in Process and Reality, together with the relationship set by Whitehead between organism and symbolism. (shrink)

Jean-Marc Moschetta | Résumé : Phénoménologie de la transcendance, publié par Sophie Nordmann, propose une réflexion sur certains concepts classiques de la théologie : création, rédemption, transcendance, etc. La thèse principale de l’ouvrage est que le monde est insuffisant à rendre compte de lui-même et que cette incomplétude est elle-même indéductible du monde. D’où le caractère authentiquement créé du monde. La création du monde, entendue strictement sur le mode de « l’insuffisance ontologique à soi », apparaît alors comme un (...) concept délié du don originel et permet de faire l’économie d’un Dieu créateur. Cet article met en regard cette analyse et celle qui est issue de la tradition théologique. En particulier, même si la construction de la thèse principale de l’ouvrage est contestée sur la base des contre-exemples fournis par les sciences contemporaines de la nature, la conclusion de l’ouvrage qui proclame le lien entre création et rédemption d’un monde en voie d’achèvement peut être reçue comme une confirmation de la légitimité de la théologie naturelle contemporaine. |: Phénoménologie de la transcendance, published by Sophie Nordmann, offers a philosophical thought on some classical concepts of theology such as : creation, redemption, transcendence, etc. The main thesis of the book is that the world is insufficient to account for itself. Moreover, the world incompleteness cannot be inferred from the world. Hence the world as a genuine created entity. The creation of the world, strictly understood as the “ontological self-insufficiency” appears as a concept independent of the original gift and allows to consider God the Creator as unnecessary. The present article compares Ms. Nordmann’s analysis with the one inherited from the theological tradition. The main book thesis is disputed on the basis of counter-examples issued from contemporary natural sciences. Yet, the conclusion proclaims a connection between creation and redemption of a world in the process of accomplishment. That conclusion may be regarded as confirming the legitimacy of contemporary natural theology. (shrink)

Le Consistoire de Rotterdam ayant condamné plusieurs articles lors de la première parution du Dictionnaire historique et critique, les éditions ultérieures contiendront des « Éclaircissements ». Bayle, par sa maîtrise de l’écriture cryptée, va faire de ces textes, officiellement de justification et d’autocensure, un plaidoyer pour la liberté de philosopher.Dans ses premiers textes, comme les Pensées diverses sur la comète, il a pratiqué un art d’écrire d’autant plus efficace qu’il était presque revendiqué comme tel dans des « Avis aux lecteurs (...) ». Il appartient en effet à une génération d’écrivains qui tente de donner à un certain public quelques clefs de lecture permettant, en contournant la censure, de faire perdre à celle-ci une partie de sa nocivité et de sa raison d’être. Cette « pédagogie » se déploie dans les Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, dans son Dictionnaire. Ce sont ces clefs qui peuvent rendre encore le lecteur contemporain apte à déjouer les pièges de ces étranges « Éclaircissements ».The Rotterdam Consistory having sentenced a few articles on the occasion of the first edition of the Critical and Historical Dictionary, the later editions will contain a few explanations. Bayle, through his mastery of crypted writing will turn those texts – supposed to be of justification and self-censorship – into a plea for the freedom to philosophize.In his first texts, for instance in Several Thoughts on the Comet, he exercized an art of writing all the more efficient as it had been almost claimed as such in « Advices to the readers ». Indeed, he belongs to a generation of writers attempting to give some kind of audience a few keys for reading that should enable, by by-passing censorship, to deprive it of part of its noxiousness and raison d’être. Such a paedagogical approach unfolds itself in the News from the Republic of Letters and his Dictionary. Such keys still enable the contemporary reader to thwart the traps of those strange « Explanations ». (shrink)

L’observation de la littérature théologique de notre époque permet de constater une floraison assez dense de titres sur saint Thomas. La chose est d’autant plus étonnante qu’aux lendemains immédiats de Vatican II, Karl Rahner s’inquiétait de « l’étrange silence » des théologiens au sujet du Maître d’Aquin. Comme il se doit dans un article de bilan, J.-P. Torrell commence par dresser un tableau des éditions, biographies et traductions dont S. Thomas a bénéficié depuis 1974, année de célébration du septième centenaire (...) de sa mort. Après quoi, dans une seconde partie, il donne les « Orientations » dans lesquelles s’engagent aujourd’hui les études thomistes, insistant davantage sur la production théologique plutôt que sur la production philosophique, étant donné l’abondance et la complexité de cette dernière, tenant compte pour cela des productions américaines et allemandes autant que des productions francophones.A look at present day theological literature shows a fairly dense flowering of works on Saint Thomas. This is all the more astonishing as, just after Vatican II, Karl Rahner was uneasy about “the strange silence” of theologians concerning Master Aquinas. As expected in an overview, J.-P. Torrell begins by giving a list of publications, biographies, and translations on St. Thomas since 1974, the year of the celebration of the seventh centenary of his death. In the second part, he presents the “Orientations” of Thomistic studies today, insisting more on the theological production rather than the philosophical. Given the abundance and complexity of the latter, he takes into account American and German works, as well as French. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:104 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY thus cast into the depths of skepticism. Because of his acquaintance with the skeptical literature Chilling-worth rejected the first alternative. Arguments concerning the fallibility of the senses and reason and the complexity of reality itself were too strong to be ignored. However, he was also unwilling to accept the second alternative. He developed instead a middle position. In his Religion of Protestants (London, 16S8) he (...) develops a position based on an appeal to common-sense and a doctrine of levels os evidence and certainty. Theological problems are to be solved in the same manner as problems of ordinary men in ordinary situations. Any claim to revelation, for example, is to be evaluated as any other problem, by examining the adequacy of the testimony and the reliability of witnesses. Hence the sense of mystery, of the revealedness of revelation is lost. Depending on whether one has good or poor evidence for a proposition one can be more or le~ certain of it. In most cases, one's certainty of religious propositions is of the same sort as that of the carpenter or pilot in their respective trades-not absolute certainty but certainty enough to assure good practical results. Hence religious belief is adequate if it serves to turn one from vice to virtue. Since religious truth is no longer unique, either with respect to evidence or certainty, it is available to all who are honest in their pursuit of it. Thus the epistemological justification for the democratization of religion of which Lichtenstein makes so much is provided a generation before More published his major works. My criticism of the book, then, is not that Lichtenstein attributes the de-emphasis of reason, loss of mystery, etc., of eighteenth-century thought solely to, More (though since he writes primarily on only one man one sometimes gets that impression) but that his account of the milieu from which More springs and of which he is only a part is inadequate. But for all that the book is well worth reading. HENRY G. VAN LEEUWs Hanover College Pascal. By Jean Steinmann. New edition revised and enlarged. ([Brus~ls]: Desclge De Brouwer [1962]. Pp. 378, illus. Bfr. 240.) Sorte de testament spirituel du critique tragiquement et prgmaturgment disparu, la seconde 6~dition du Pascal de Steinmann constitue sans doute la synth~se la plus agrgable et commode qui existe actuellement de la vie, de roeuvre et de la rgputation de Pascal. Entre les nombreux auteurs qui ont successivement attirg la plume rive et fgconde de Steinmann, Pascal est, en effet un de ceux avec qui il avait le plus de familiaritg. Ecrivain, th~logien, mais surtout exegete, Steinmann a d'ailleurs su mieux que presque tous ses pr~d~cesseurs, caractgriser la sensibilitg biblique de Pascal et en souligner l'importance. Inversement, il marque le caract~re peu philosophique de l'Apologi'e et voit (~t notre sens avec raison) la principale originalitg de son auteur dans le fair qu'il a cherch~ ~ mener au christianisme par la psychologie et par l'histoire, non par la metaphysique. Le chapitre le plus neuf de Steinmann est enfin celui que traite de l'histoire posthume de Pascal, sorte de bibliographie comrfientge qui sera certainment fort utile ~t celui qui abordera l'immense litt~rature publige ~ son sujet. Une rgaction en pattie l~gitime contre le clichg romantique de l'"inquigtude pascalienne " entra~ne Steinmann ~t trop insister apr~s B~guin, sur un,dogmatisme" (p. 308) d'ailleurs rattach6 ~ l'h6r6dit~ paternelle dont nous doutons qu'elle aft 6t6 dominante dans ]e cas de Pascal. On regrette aussi l'ignorance de l'article d'Et. Gilson sur "ab~tir" BOOK REVIEWS t05 (p. 254), des insuflisances au sujet du p~ht~ originel (p. 253), l'aflirmation erron~e du caract~re spontan~ de la confession au P. Beurrier (p. 207 n.) et surtout le lapsus Pinthard pour Pinthereau (pp. 363, $78). A c6t~ du petit Pascal de Jean Mesnard, cla~ique dans les universitY, le present ouvrage n'en contribuera pas moins ~ r~pondre dans un tr~s large cercle une connaissance de l'auteur des Pens~es enrichie par la sympathie. JZAN... (shrink)

— Selon Bergson « le problème de la personnalité peut être considéré comme le problème central de la philosophie ». Whitehead ajoute que « chaque philosophie doit offrir une doctrine de l’identité personnelle ». Mais l’existence d’un moi substantiel semble un défi à la Métaphysique du Processus. C’est pourquoi le problème de la personnalité offre à cette philosophie une épreuve cruciale. Notre étude montre comment Whitehead la surmonte. Au passage l’opposition entre Substance et Processus est questionnée sur le cas crucial (...) de la Mémoire. La caractérisation, par G. Deleuze, des catégorèmes whiteheadiens comme « notions nomades » trouve là un usage éclairant.— According to Bergson, « the problem of personality may be regarded as the central problem of philosophy ». Whitehead adds : « Any philosophy must provide some doctrine of personal identity. » But in Process Metaphysics, the existence of a substantial ego seems a challenge. So the problem of personality provides a crucial test for this philosophy. Our paper shows how Whitehead passes this test. By the way, the very disjunction between Substance and Process is itself questioned on the crucial case of Memory. The characterisation of Whitehead’s Categories as « nomadic notions » by G. Deleuze receives here a use as an insight. (shrink)

It is doubtless appropriate to read The Interpretation of Dreams according to the image of the journey which Sigmund Freud describes in a letter to Wilhelm Fliess:The whole thing is planned on the model of an imaginary walk. First comes the dark wood of the authorities , where there is no clear view and it is easy to go astray. Then there is a cavernous defile through which I lead my readers—my specimen dream with its peculiarities, its details, its indiscretions (...) and its bad jokes—and then, all at once, the high ground and the open prospect and the question: “Which way do you want to go?”1This walk has nothing of the nonchalant about it. Rather, it is strewn with tests and trials, as is usually the case in the “myth of the hero” or of the “conquistador,” which we know played a major role in Freud’s thought and in that of his disciples. The progress, in epic poetry, moves toward a discovery, the founding of a city, by means of difficult stages and combats. Every “discourse” capable of attaining a goal distant from its prolegomena finds its appropriate metaphor in the hero’s progress, or in the voyage of initiation. Discursivity then becomes the intellectual equivalent of the epic’s trajectory. At the time of its publication, Freud found his book insufficiently probing, and imperfect in its discursivity. He criticized himself for having failed to link properly his arguments . Doubt was momentarily cast on the achievement of the main goal…. But such severity was not to persist.But one can also read the work by discerning its framing devices. Several authors mentioned in the first chapter reappear at the work’s conclusion. Such a return is far from fortuitous; it is the result of an extremely well-calculated strategy. Another framing system which has been noticed by many readers is the one, shortly before the end of the book, which returns to a line from Virgil that Freud had placed as an epigraph on the title page: Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo. This line, because of its repetition at two crucial points in the book, traces its message in the form of an emblem. When it breaks in, it makes explicit that the dream mechanism is the return of the repressed:In waking life the suppressed material in the mind is prevented from finding expression and is cut off from internal perception owing to the fact that the contradictions present in it are eliminated—one side being disposed of in favor of the other; but during the night, under the sway of an impetus towards the construction of compromises, this suppressed material finds methods and means of forcing its way into consciousness.Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.2 1. Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 6 Aug. 1899, Freud, The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, Drafts and Notes, 1887-1902, ed. Marie Bonaparte, Anna Freud, and Ernst Kris, trans. James Strachey , p. 290.2. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, ed. and trans. Strachey , p. 647; my emphasis. The Latin is translated in n. 1 on that page of Freud’s text: “If I cannot bend the High Powers, I will move the Infernal Regions.” All further references to this work, abbreviated I, will be included in the text. Another framing device is created by the theme of the prophetic dream, discussed at the outset of the first chapters and taken up again, with the ambivalence of denial and concession, in the final paragraph of the book. Jean Starobinski, professor emeritus at the University of Geneva, has devoted studies to Montaigne, Diderot, Rousseau, Saussure, and modern French poets. As an M.D., he is familiar with psychoanalysis and participates in the editorial board of La Nouvelle Revue de Psychanalyse . Some of his recent research deals with the history of melancholia; his most recent books are Montaigne in Motion and Rousseau . He was awarded the Balzan Prize in 1984. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Adventures of Telemachus [1699] by François de Salignac de la Mothe-FénelonJean–Michel RacaultFrançois de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon. The Adventures of Telemachus [1699]. Translated with an introduction and notes by A. J. B. Cremer. London, Anastasis Books, 2022, 419 pp. Hardbound £24.50. Paperback £15. ISBN: 9781739798314.Fénelon’s 1699 novel The Adventures of Telemachus—or more precisely, the epic poem in prose—was one of the major bestsellers in many European countries (...) for nearly two centuries. The book inspired paintings, operas, fashions, and even wallpaper motifs. It gave birth to a literary subgenre, the “archeological novel,” such as Terrasson’s Sethos (1731) or Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s L’Arcadie (1788), in which the action is located in an antique setting. Still part of French schools’ syllabi a century ago, this book mainly owes its survival today to highly specialized academic research, stimulated from time to time when an “Agrégation” program generates new publications, papers, and conferences, as happened in 2009–10. The situation is similar in English-speaking countries, if perhaps just a bit worse: new editions are scarce and generally based more or less on revised versions of eighteenth-century translations, such as those editions by John Hawkesworth’s (1768) or Tobias Smollett’s (1776).The publication by A. J. B. Cremer of an entirely new translation, featuring a close rendering of the French text into modern English and preserving the original’s formal dignity without resorting to a pastiche of the classical language, is therefore a landmark in the history of Fénelon’s reception, and in the valuation of Telemachus particularly. This edition, while intended for the general reader, includes most of what is expected of a scholarly edition. In a comparatively short introduction, the editor recalls the essential facts about the author’s background (as a descendent of high nobility) and about his ecclesiastic career, which was compromised by both his involvement in mystical spirituality (the quarrel over Quietism) and his critical attitude toward the absolutism of Louis XIV’s régime. [End Page 140]In fact, Fénelon’s appointment as Archbishop of Cambrai (1695) was a kind of exile. In 1689, however, he was appointed tutor to Louis XIV’s seven-year-old grandson, the young Duke of Burgundy, second in the line of succession to the throne after his father (though both died prematurely). Fénelon wrote for this boy The Adventures of Telemachus as an educative fiction in the tradition of the “mirrors of Princes.” Of course, such a book was not intended for publication, and when it appeared in 1699—strangely enough, in a fully legal manner and with a printing privilege—it was against Fénelon’s will and in a very faulty form, which was corrected in later editions. An editor today therefore faces solving some highly complex textual problems, and choosing between the manuscript traditions. Cremer’s translation is based upon Jacques Le Brun’s authoritative text, published in Fénelon’s Œuvres, tome II (Paris: Gallimard, “Pléiade,” 1997).1After surveying the critical reception of Telemachus, particularly in England, starting at the text’s first publication and reaching the present time, the introduction discreetly hints at an apparent trend, among some interpretations, toward Christian allegory. If the figure of Mentor obviously “represents Fénelon” in his tutorial role, Cremer notes, this character, also an incarnation of Minerva, embodies humanity and divinity simultaneously, and thus may be seen as a “Christ-figure,” with Telemachus as his disciple and Ulysses, with his pursuit of a never-ending quest, as the symbolic form of the Divine. These observations are not entirely new; they have been formulated before by various critics. The editor himself concurs with a well-known article by André Blanc that describes Fénelon’s neo-platonician turn of mind: for Fénelon there is no contradiction between Christian revelation and the pagan fables of classical mythology, which he considers prefigurations or allegories of Christianity.This interpretation is abundantly and convincingly confirmed in the editor’s annotations. While as expected the commentaries point frequently to Greco-Latin mythology or classical literary sources... (shrink)

S'étonnant qu'un simple physicien sache traiter des rapports de la physique et de la métaphysique, Edmond Domet de Vorges s'était demandé si Pierre Duhem n'avait pas bénéficié de l'aide de quelque théologien dans l'élaboration de son articulation de ces deux disci­plines. Faisant suite à cette question très perti­nente, cet article liste d'abord les intellectuels catholiques qui étaient en relation avec Duhem avant la publication, en 1893, de son article Physique et métaphysique et qui auraient effec­tivement pu l'aider à concevoir (...) une telle articulation. Se con­sacrant ensuite spécifiquement à l'un d'entre eux, à savoir Maurice Blondel, il étudie les similitudes et divergences existant entre les pensées du physicien bordelais et du philosophe d'Aix pour conclure que Blondel ne peut pas être celui qui aurait inspiré Duhem. À l'appui de cette conclusion, il fait notamment état d'une lettre inédite adressée par Duhem à Ambroise Gar­deil et dans laquelle celui-ci porte un jugement sévère à l'en­droit de son «pauvre ami» Blondel. ––– One might be surprised to find that a simple physician could be able explain with clarity the subtle relationship between physics and metaphysics. It is with this question in mind that Edmond Domet de Vorges asked himself if it might not have been with the aid of theologians that Pierre Duhem was able to find and express his subtle articulation between the two disciplines. Following in the footsteps of this pertinent question, this article begins by listing the catholic intellectuals who were acquain­tances of Pierre Duhem before the publication in 1893 of “Physique et métaphysique”, who may have been able to help him arrive at the relationship between the two sciences expressed in his publication. This line of questioning is followed by a specific study of one of these men, namely Maurice Blondel. The similarities and differences in the opinions of the physician from Bordeaux and the philosopher from Aix are explored with the resulting conclusion that Blondel could not have been he who inspired Duhem. This conclusion can be confirmed by a previously unpublished letter from Duhem to Ambroise Gardeil which contains a very severe judgement with regards to his “poor friend” Blondel. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Eichmann, Empathy, and LolitaLeland de la DurantayeISometime in late 1960 or early 1961 Adolf Eichmann, jailed and awaiting trial in Jerusalem, was given by his guard a copy of Vladimir Nabokov's recently published Lolita, as Hannah Arendt puts it, "for relaxation." After two days Eichmann returned it, visibly indignant: "Quite an unwholesome book"—Das ist aber ein sehr unerfreuliches Buch—he told his guard. 1 Though we are not privy to, (...) and nor does Arendt speculate upon this officer's intentions, it is difficult to imagine that they were limited to procuring Eichmann a little "relaxation." The tale of a homicidal madman writing under observation and awaiting a trial that will consign him either to death or prolonged imprisonment—which fate spares him by felling him with a heart attack—could hardly have been very relaxing for someone at that moment writing his own memoirs and himself awaiting a trial with similar stakes.We might imagine other intentions on the part of Eichmann's guard. Could the gesture have been ironic? Or was it motivated by a dark curiosity—something of the order of an experiment? The sulphurous halo of Nabokov's book was still burning brightly in the popular consciousness of 1960. 2 Might Eichmann's guard have seen Lolita as a sort of litmus test for radical evil, and wanted to see whether the real-life villain—he who impassively organized the transport towards certain death of countless innocents—would coldly, even gleefully, approve the various and vile machinations of Nabokov's creation?This is all only speculation. In Arendt's account, she congratulates Eichmann for his indignation and moves on to other matters. In any event, given Eichmann's radical conventionality one could hardly imagine him liking—or even very well understanding—much of the book. As [End Page 311] Eichmann himself avowed, during his adult life he had read only two books, one of them being Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State. But whatever the motivations of Eichmann's guard, whatever Eichmann's degree of comprehension, and whatever congratulations Eichmann might have deserved for his disgust, the incident raises a question for the study of Nabokov's finest work which has yet to be answered.IIBefore turning to this question, let us remain with Arendt and her notorious reader for a moment. Arendt notes elsewhere that it appeared to her that Eichmann was nearly "aphasic." She comments that, "when he did succeed in constructing a sentence of his own, he repeated it until it became a cliché," and that, "his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else." Arendt offers here nothing less than a definition of thought itself. "To think" is glossed ("... namely") by Arendt as, "to think from the standpoint of someone else." Though as a definition of thought, it is hardly impressive, it nevertheless expresses something essential about Arendt's conception of thought and thinking. (3) In her view, thought is to be placed under the sign of intellectual empathy, under the sign of living in the strangeness and wonder of another's world. (Though Arendt does not mention the connection, both the language she wrote Eichmann in—English—and her native one—German—make special provision for such a sense, as he or she who is "thoughtless" is not her or she who is incapable of some form of cognition or calculation, as "thoughtless" people can indeed be very clever and very clever people have been capable of great "thoughtlessness.")Thought is thus a communal, not individualistic, thing. 4 This point is important as, though Adolf Eichmann was unlikely to have seen much of himself in the irreverent and urbane genius of Nabokov's Humbert Humbert, nor in the latter's strange eloquence, Eichmann the man and Humbert the character of the first part of the novel (to leave the repenting Humbert of the book's last pages out for the moment), share an essential trait. What Eichmann the man shares with Nabokov's literary creation is the inability or unwillingness "to think from the standpoint of somebody else." The evil they share is the... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:104 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY thus cast into the depths of skepticism. Because of his acquaintance with the skeptical literature Chilling-worth rejected the first alternative. Arguments concerning the fallibility of the senses and reason and the complexity of reality itself were too strong to be ignored. However, he was also unwilling to accept the second alternative. He developed instead a middle position. In his Religion of Protestants (London, 16S8) he (...) develops a position based on an appeal to common-sense and a doctrine of levels os evidence and certainty. Theological problems are to be solved in the same manner as problems of ordinary men in ordinary situations. Any claim to revelation, for example, is to be evaluated as any other problem, by examining the adequacy of the testimony and the reliability of witnesses. Hence the sense of mystery, of the revealedness of revelation is lost. Depending on whether one has good or poor evidence for a proposition one can be more or le~ certain of it. In most cases, one's certainty of religious propositions is of the same sort as that of the carpenter or pilot in their respective trades-not absolute certainty but certainty enough to assure good practical results. Hence religious belief is adequate if it serves to turn one from vice to virtue. Since religious truth is no longer unique, either with respect to evidence or certainty, it is available to all who are honest in their pursuit of it. Thus the epistemological justification for the democratization of religion of which Lichtenstein makes so much is provided a generation before More published his major works. My criticism of the book, then, is not that Lichtenstein attributes the de-emphasis of reason, loss of mystery, etc., of eighteenth-century thought solely to, More (though since he writes primarily on only one man one sometimes gets that impression) but that his account of the milieu from which More springs and of which he is only a part is inadequate. But for all that the book is well worth reading. HENRY G. VAN LEEUWs Hanover College Pascal. By Jean Steinmann. New edition revised and enlarged. ([Brus~ls]: Desclge De Brouwer [1962]. Pp. 378, illus. Bfr. 240.) Sorte de testament spirituel du critique tragiquement et prgmaturgment disparu, la seconde 6~dition du Pascal de Steinmann constitue sans doute la synth~se la plus agrgable et commode qui existe actuellement de la vie, de roeuvre et de la rgputation de Pascal. Entre les nombreux auteurs qui ont successivement attirg la plume rive et fgconde de Steinmann, Pascal est, en effet un de ceux avec qui il avait le plus de familiaritg. Ecrivain, th~logien, mais surtout exegete, Steinmann a d'ailleurs su mieux que presque tous ses pr~d~cesseurs, caractgriser la sensibilitg biblique de Pascal et en souligner l'importance. Inversement, il marque le caract~re peu philosophique de l'Apologi'e et voit (~t notre sens avec raison) la principale originalitg de son auteur dans le fair qu'il a cherch~ ~ mener au christianisme par la psychologie et par l'histoire, non par la metaphysique. Le chapitre le plus neuf de Steinmann est enfin celui que traite de l'histoire posthume de Pascal, sorte de bibliographie comrfientge qui sera certainment fort utile ~t celui qui abordera l'immense litt~rature publige ~ son sujet. Une rgaction en pattie l~gitime contre le clichg romantique de l'"inquigtude pascalienne " entra~ne Steinmann ~t trop insister apr~s B~guin, sur un,dogmatisme" (p. 308) d'ailleurs rattach6 ~ l'h6r6dit~ paternelle dont nous doutons qu'elle aft 6t6 dominante dans ]e cas de Pascal. On regrette aussi l'ignorance de l'article d'Et. Gilson sur "ab~tir" BOOK REVIEWS t05 (p. 254), des insuflisances au sujet du p~ht~ originel (p. 253), l'aflirmation erron~e du caract~re spontan~ de la confession au P. Beurrier (p. 207 n.) et surtout le lapsus Pinthard pour Pinthereau (pp. 363, $78). A c6t~ du petit Pascal de Jean Mesnard, cla~ique dans les universitY, le present ouvrage n'en contribuera pas moins ~ r~pondre dans un tr~s large cercle une connaissance de l'auteur des Pens~es enrichie par la sympathie. JZAN... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Image and SilenceGiorgio AgambenTranslated by Leland de la Durantaye (bio)[End Page 94]In the Roman pantheon there is a goddess named Angerona, represented with her mouth bound and sealed (ore obligato signatoque).1 Her finger is raised to her lips as if to command silence. Scholars claim that she represents, in the context of pagan mystery cults, the power of silence, although there is no consensus among them as to how (...) to understand this power. Etymologically speaking, myein, the root of the Greek word mysterion, means “to close the mouth, to silence.” At the beginning of the sacred rites in Eleusis a herald “commanded silence” (epittatei tēn siōpen). It is said that that the initiates into these Eleusinian mysteries were required to maintain absolute silence concerning what they had seen and heard during their initiation. Our question is how to understand this silence. Was it a prohibition aimed at keeping a secret doctrine from the uninitiated? Or did it concern, instead, something truly impossible to say?To begin we might ask what sense there might have been in the obligation to remain silent given that it was possible for anyone—including slaves, and thus, potentially, the entire population of Athens—to be initiated into the mysteries. In his early work, “On Philosophy,” Aristotle affirmed that, “the initiates do not need to learn something (mathein ti), but, instead, to be disposed to something, to experience and to undergo something (pathein kai diatethēnai).”2 It would therefore be possible that in the ancient mystery cults the initiate did not learn a doctrine that could be expressed in words (yet had to remain secret), but, instead, experienced something essentially silent, something impossible to say. “A great awe in face of the gods,” we read in the Homeric ode to Demeter, “silences the voice.”3The impossibility of speaking—and the power of silence—has two forms, one joyful and the other disturbing. In myth muteness is often associated with rape. The Romans tell the story of Lara who was punished for her inclination to gossip by being rendered mute and who was then raped in a sacred wood by Mercury (who took advantage of her impossibility of speaking). Before being transformed into a swallow Philomela was raped by Tereus, who cut off her tongue to prevent her from recounting his misdeed. Persephone, raped, kidnapped, and conducted to Hades, remained there silent as the dead. In every one of these cases silence is the painful experience of a privation of speech, of being unable to say what one wishes to say.In Gnostic mythology, the preexisting, eternal, uncreated God contains within himself a female figure which is his silence, Sigē. From his union with Silence Thought is born. “Sigē,” we read in a Valentinian text, “is the mother of all the beings that have emerged from the Abyss. He who has failed to say the unsayable has silenced it; he who was understood the unsayable, has declared it unsayable.”4 Here too silence appears as the experience of an impossibility of saying, as a privation. It is in opposition to this abyssal figure of silence that the church fathers affirmed the primacy of the logos in which God is revealed. Nevertheless, of the power of silence Heidegger would write: “This primordial silence is more powerful than any human potentiality. No one, on his or her own, has ever invented language—that is, has been strong enough to break the power of this silence.”5 [End Page 95]In Kafka’s parable on Ulysses, we are told that the silence of the Sirens is more perilous than their song, and that Ulysses—who realized, as his ship neared them, that the Sirens were silent—put on an act to protect himself from this silence, plugging his ears with wax and having his men tie him to the mast.6 In Kafka’s retelling of the tale, the silence of the Sirens represents a zero degree of song and, following a stubborn tradition that sees in absence the most extreme form of presence, also represents an at once zero and ultimate degree of reality. In this sense Heidegger could write... (shrink)

Leibniz lit, recopie et commente le fragment pascalien publié sous le titre « Connaissance générale de l’homme » au numéro 22 de l’édition de Port-Royal des Pensées au moment de l’élaboration de la doctrine des monades, de très longues années après avoir pris connaissance du livre. L’objet de cette étude est d’apprécier les conditions de réception par Leibniz d’une doctrine qui, à de multiples égards, s’oppose à la sienne, ainsi que certaines difficultés tournant autour des concepts d’infini et d’organisme. Les (...) remarques sur les « deux infinis » donnent des éléments de compréhension de l’articulation entre le plan phénoménal et continu d’une part et son fondement réel dans les unités ou monades de l’autre. En annexe, on donne une version revue des deux états du passage de Leibniz accompagné du texte pascalien publié en 1670.A great many years after first reading Pascal’s Thoughts, while elaborating his own doctrine of monads, Leibniz studied, wrote out and commented Pascal’s fragment published as number 22 in the Port-Royal edition of the Pensées under the title « Connaissance générale de l’homme ». The purpose of this study is first to examine how Leibniz reacted and related to a doctrine that opposed his in so many respects, and then to focus on some difficulties pertaining to the concept of the infinite and to that of organisms. Leibniz’s remarks on the « two infinites » provide elements that can help understand the way the phenomenal and continuous plane and its actual foundation in units or monads are articulated. A revised edition of the two versions of Leibniz’s commentary, along with the fragment by Pascal published in 1670, are supplied in an appendix. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Eichmann, Empathy, and LolitaLeland de la DurantayeISometime in late 1960 or early 1961 Adolf Eichmann, jailed and awaiting trial in Jerusalem, was given by his guard a copy of Vladimir Nabokov's recently published Lolita, as Hannah Arendt puts it, "for relaxation." After two days Eichmann returned it, visibly indignant: "Quite an unwholesome book"—Das ist aber ein sehr unerfreuliches Buch—he told his guard. 1 Though we are not privy to, (...) and nor does Arendt speculate upon this officer's intentions, it is difficult to imagine that they were limited to procuring Eichmann a little "relaxation." The tale of a homicidal madman writing under observation and awaiting a trial that will consign him either to death or prolonged imprisonment—which fate spares him by felling him with a heart attack—could hardly have been very relaxing for someone at that moment writing his own memoirs and himself awaiting a trial with similar stakes.We might imagine other intentions on the part of Eichmann's guard. Could the gesture have been ironic? Or was it motivated by a dark curiosity—something of the order of an experiment? The sulphurous halo of Nabokov's book was still burning brightly in the popular consciousness of 1960. 2 Might Eichmann's guard have seen Lolita as a sort of litmus test for radical evil, and wanted to see whether the real-life villain—he who impassively organized the transport towards certain death of countless innocents—would coldly, even gleefully, approve the various and vile machinations of Nabokov's creation?This is all only speculation. In Arendt's account, she congratulates Eichmann for his indignation and moves on to other matters. In any event, given Eichmann's radical conventionality one could hardly imagine him liking—or even very well understanding—much of the book. As [End Page 311] Eichmann himself avowed, during his adult life he had read only two books, one of them being Theodor Herzl's The Jewish State. But whatever the motivations of Eichmann's guard, whatever Eichmann's degree of comprehension, and whatever congratulations Eichmann might have deserved for his disgust, the incident raises a question for the study of Nabokov's finest work which has yet to be answered.IIBefore turning to this question, let us remain with Arendt and her notorious reader for a moment. Arendt notes elsewhere that it appeared to her that Eichmann was nearly "aphasic." She comments that, "when he did succeed in constructing a sentence of his own, he repeated it until it became a cliché," and that, "his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think, namely, to think from the standpoint of somebody else." Arendt offers here nothing less than a definition of thought itself. "To think" is glossed ("... namely") by Arendt as, "to think from the standpoint of someone else." Though as a definition of thought, it is hardly impressive, it nevertheless expresses something essential about Arendt's conception of thought and thinking. (3) In her view, thought is to be placed under the sign of intellectual empathy, under the sign of living in the strangeness and wonder of another's world. (Though Arendt does not mention the connection, both the language she wrote Eichmann in—English—and her native one—German—make special provision for such a sense, as he or she who is "thoughtless" is not her or she who is incapable of some form of cognition or calculation, as "thoughtless" people can indeed be very clever and very clever people have been capable of great "thoughtlessness.")Thought is thus a communal, not individualistic, thing. 4 This point is important as, though Adolf Eichmann was unlikely to have seen much of himself in the irreverent and urbane genius of Nabokov's Humbert Humbert, nor in the latter's strange eloquence, Eichmann the man and Humbert the character of the first part of the novel (to leave the repenting Humbert of the book's last pages out for the moment), share an essential trait. What Eichmann the man shares with Nabokov's literary creation is the inability or unwillingness "to think from the standpoint of somebody else." The evil they share is the... (shrink)

Cet article interroge l’originalité ludique du dispositif sociotechnique conçu par les réseaux socionumériques autour du profil pour organiser les différentes activités en ligne. Alors que les jeux constituent une des activités les plus prisées par les membres du réseau à laquelle ils consacrent un temps important, peu de recherches se sont focalisées sur l’analyse des activités ludiques sur les réseaux socionumériques. Par l’application de cadres conceptuels éprouvés pour analyser les jeux et activités ludiques, il est possible d’interroger la spécificité des (...) modalités de jeux qui sont proposées sur les réseaux socionumériques. Une analyse centrée sur les fonctionnalités offertes par Facebook conduit à interroger de façon critique la nature même de l’activité ludique menée dans le contexte particulier des réseaux socionumériques.This article looks into the distinctively “playful” nature of the socio-technical system that social networking sites construct around user profiles in order to organize different online activities. Although games some of the most popular activities among network members, to which they devote a considerable amount of time, there have been few analyses to date of game-playing on social networking sites. A number of proven conceptual frameworks can be used to analyze online games and game-playing and to examine the particular patterns found on the social networking sites. Based on an analysis of Facebook features, we offer an in-depth discussion of the nature of the game-playing that takes place in the particular context of social networking sites. (shrink)

Littérature et philosophie entretiennent des rapports évidents, du fait que certains philosophes sont poètes, comme Lucrèce, ou écrivains, comme Montaigne. On examine deux cas, Martha Nussbaum, qui soutient que la littérature, en particulier le roman, peut induire des analyses morales bien supérieures à celles des philosophes, et Maria Zambrano, philosophe et poète, qui soutient que c'est le même Logos qui est à l'oeuvre dans les deux domaines. Par le style, et par le souci conjoint de la signification, la poésie (...) a un sens philosophique. L'histoire de la pensée ne peut pas négliger le rôle eminent de la poésie philosophique à travers l'histoire : Chateaubriand, Paul Valéry, Paul Claudel ont accompli une œuvre littéraire d'une grande portée philosophique. Literature and philosophy keep obvious relationships since a few philosophers are poets too, such as Lucretius, or writers, as Montaigne. Here we examine two cases: on the one hand that of Martha Nussbaum, who supports that only literature, in particular the novel, can lead to moral analyses much superior to those of the philosophers, and, on the other hand, that of Maria Zambrano, both a philosopher and a poet, who supports that it is the same Logos which is at stake in both fields. By the style, and through the joint concern of meaning, the poetry has a philosophical meaning. The history of thought cannot neglect the prominent part played by philosophical poetry throughout history: Chateaubriand, Paul Valéry, Paul Claudel carried out a literary work of a long lasting philosophical range. (shrink)

This is a continuation of [2]. We study the Tychonoff Compactness Theorem for various definitions of compactness and for various types of spaces . We also study well ordered Tychonoff products and the effect that the multiple choice axiom has on such products.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity: Interpretations of the “De Anima.” by H.J. BlumenthalLloyd P. GersonH.J. Blumenthal. Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity: Interpretations of the “De Anima.” Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Pp. x + 244. Cloth, $57.50.The label ‘Neoplatonism’, coined in the eighteenth century to indicate a putative and rather ill-defined development within the Platonic tradition, is to this day applied in sundry ways. Presumably, ‘Neoplatonic’ (...) is supposed to be distinguished from ‘Platonic’, but the problem with this is that most of those ancient philosophers called ‘Neoplatonic’ thought of themselves simply as Platonists, that is, as authentic interpreters and continuators of Plato. Nevertheless, there are several important and relatively clear differentiations to be made among those within this tradition. One such refers to those Platonists who attempted to appropriate Aristotle’s philosophy. This was done principally in two ways. For Plotinus, Aristotelian concepts and distinctions were employed to defend Plato against Peripatetic attacks. For Porphyry and the later Platonic commentators on the works of the Aristotelian corpus, Aristotle was co-opted as an authority on the philosophy of the sensible world, leaving the higher, intelligible world to Plato. The commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima are particularly revealing in this regard. For one would assume that in matters regarding the soul it would be extremely difficult to see Aristotle and Plato as anything other than irreconcilable. Aristotle’s hylomorphism and explicit denial of the immortality of the soul hardly seem to be compatible with that which can be called, even on the most charitable interpretation, genuinely Platonic. In fact, the reconciliation of Aristotelian and Platonic soul doctrines is one of the central tasks late Platonists set for themselves. As Blumenthal notes: “Whatever the historical truth about the relation of Aristotle’s thought to Plato’s may have been, the Neoplatonist regarded it as propaedeutic to Plato’s as well as aiming at the same goal” (25).H. J. Blumenthal’s long-anticipated monograph explores in minute detail the extant commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima written by late Platonic or, if one insists, Neoplatonic philosophers. This book builds upon a large body of frequently groundbreaking work by the author on various facets of late Greek philosophy. The main commentaries studied are those of John Philoponus and the unknown authors dubbed ‘Pseudo-Philoponus’ and Pseudo-Simplicius’, though there is also considerable attention paid to Themistius, the last Peripatetic commentator on De Anima and, of course, [End Page 315] Alexander of Aphrodisias, whose commentary on De Anima has not survived but whose own immensely influential Peripatetic treatise on the soul does.This book is divided into two parts: I. Commentaries and Commentators and II. Interpretations of the De Anima. The first part provides the essential background to the second. Anyone approaching the Aristotelian commentators for the first time will find here a most useful guide. Even those who have some familiarity with this material will benefit from the author’s extensive knowledge of detail and judicious examination of some of the difficult issues of dating, authorship, philosophical lineage, and so on.The second section of the book concentrates on the De Anima commentaries. Here the author, following the order of the text of De Anima, systematically surveys the positions of the commentators on some of the central issues taken up in Aristotle’s work. These include the commentators’ efforts to reconcile Aristotle’s definition of the soul with Platonic assumptions about its nature and Plato’s tripartite division of the soul with Aristotle’s not entirely clear divisions. One of the instructive features of this comparative study of the commentaries is to see frequently how the issues that seize the imagination of modern commentators trouble the ancients not at all and vice versa.Most readers will be mainly interested in the chapters on the commentaries on the latter part of Book Two and Book Three of De Anima. From Plotinus onward, some of the most original philosophizing in the Platonic tradition focuses on self-consciousness, memory, imagination, and the integrative operation of the rational and arational powers. The last two chapters are filled with material about these issues as well as the... (shrink)

Far from merely rejecting the ongoing political reform, the coordination of the « intermittents and précaires » proposes a reform project based on the reality of the discontinuity of labor. The aim is not a melancholy plea for the creation of some hypothetical « real jobs n, but rather, to demand the means which are required for the practices of intermittence to be placed on a solid, permanent basis. The model of unemployment compensation suggested here should enable these practices (...) to be rendered permanent, thereby guaranteeing the linkage of various temporalities as a condition for acting on the meaning and content of activity, through forms of shared benefits which grant indemnities to those with lower income and sacrifice those with a higher income. This presupposes the creation of a real threshold of indemnities but also a minimum wage-type platform. What remains to be thought is other forms of financing which would do justice to the frequently unacknowledged production of wealth in intermittence. (shrink)

Loin d’être un auteur mineur, thuriféraire d’un naïf “laissez-faire”, Bastiat apparaît comme le précurseur de la plupart des courants libéraux contemporains.Il est frappant de constater que le diagnostic porté par Bastiat sur le fonctionnement de la démocratie demeure d’une brûlante actualité.C’est donc injustement que Hayek a méconnu son devancier : une étude critique de la philosophie juridique et politique du Français lui aurait permis d’éviter quelques inconséquences, telle sa théorie des fonctions non coercitives de l’Etat.Far from being a minor economist, (...) or flattering some naive “laissez-faire”, Bastiat is indeed a precursor of most of the contemporaneous views defending liberalism.It is striking to note how much Bastiat’s diagnosis about the workings of democracy applies with acuity to the current world.Thus, Hayek unduly disregarded his precursor: a critical study of Bastiat’s philosophy and conception of law would have allow Hayek to not fall into some traps, such as his theory on the non-coercitive functions of government. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage s’inscrit délibérément en dehors des études médiévales traditionnelles si bien que, pour en donner une idée, je suis obligé de le décrire de façon un peu détaillée. Il se présente comme une histoire de la « balance » des années 1250 à 1375. Mais quel sens a ici le mot « balance »? L’auteur –J.K.- donne « équilibre » comme quasi synonyme. L’introduction va plus loin. Elle en parle comme d’un sentiment non exprimé de la façon dont les (...) choses sont ou doivent être arrangées, d’une ap.. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.3 (2003) 416-417 [Access article in PDF] Jean-Baptiste Rauzy. La Doctrine leibnizienne de la vérité. Aspects logiques et ontologiques. Paris: Vrin, 2001. Pp. vii + 353. Paper, FF 170,55.This important book provides a reappraisal of Leibniz's philosophy of logic and epistemology based on a close scrutiny of the recently edited manuscripts in the Akademie-Ausgabe, and a reconstitution of Leibniz's sequential investigations. The (...) author displays an exceptional knowledge of the Leibnizian corpus, the ancient and medieval sources for the various doctrines he analyzes, and the contemporary issues underpinning Leibniz's investigations. He aims at rectifying misconceptions that stemmed originally in Couturat's La Logique de Leibniz (1901) and have since affected several studies. Three methodological statements set the ground for Rauzy's analysis: (1) Leibniz's notion of truth concerns in unified fashion all the elements of discourse: terms, concepts, and propositions. (2) Leibniz did not restrict his doctrine of truth to consistency relations, but yielded a complex, well-articulated conception of truth as correspondence, as evidenced in New Essays on Human Understanding, IV, v, sect. 11; yet, at the same time, his doctrine focused on conceptual relations which specify an order of reasons deserving to be analyzed for their own sake: "Dans la doctrine leibnizienne de la vérité, l'adaequatio rei constitue encore le cadre général en dehors duquel le prédicat de vérité n'a pas de sens. Mais les concepts et les liaisons conceptuelles donnent désormais la raison pour laquelle telle phrase particulière est vraie..." (47). And (3) one should resist attributing to Leibniz a purely syntactic conception of truth since the semantic dimension of his logical analyses deserves to be reconstituted and due consideration should be given to the evolution of his thoughts on central philosophical issues, which occasioned significant variations in the elements and formulas of his calculus rationis.It is merely possible to render the rich contents of the book by mentioning some of its more striking features. In Chapter 1, the inesse principle (Praedicatum inestsubjecto) is shown to serve grammatical, logical, and conceptual functions. The doctrine of expression is finely analyzed: expression is shown to provide the major translation tool between characters and thoughts and to condition the combinatorial treatment of rational discourse. In Chapter 2, the distinction between concept and object is shown to involve some relativity, even if the understanding of complete notions is supposed to entail real knowledge of the corresponding realities. Leibniz is thus justified to represent the manifold of ontological relations, including the requisites of actual existence, in a tentatively unified logical way: "Que [End Page 416] l'existence soit une propriété relationnelle complexe, conçue tantôt par la relation de compatibilité, tantôt par une relation à l'esprit en général—et éventuellement [...] par un mixte des deux—n'interdit nullement de maintenir que la vérité de toutes les propositions dépend de relations conceptuelles" (124-5). In Chapter 3, the project of a calculus based on concepts is shown to entail a special relation, hardly dealt with in the literature, between intension and extension (cf. for instance New Essays, IV, xvii, sect. 8). Rauzy reassesses in particular Leibniz's critical revision of nominalism and of inductive procedures as these require universal propositions to ground rational presumptions. The extensional notion of class is considered an abstraction: a class presupposes therefore the extension of a concept in order to become an object of thought. The principle of conceptual inherence requires to be interpreted as stating the equipollence between the requisites of subject and predicate; if such an equipollence may be reached a priori in exceptional cases, most of the time it will require various kinds of additions and derivations to yield sufficient congruence between the related terms. Chapter 4 is devoted to substitutions, more precisely to the theory of definition and the context, at once logical and discursive, from which a potential Leibnizian theory of communication might be derived. Rauzy notes that substitutive equivalences... (shrink)

Marx’s debt to the liberal historians of the 19th century, in particular to Augustin Thierry, has long been a key formula in the “materialist conception of history”, through which to explain the crucial function of the concept of “class struggle”. The present article offers a reconsideration of this presumption, by way of a consideration of various sources (including some little-known notes by Marx, published by the MEGA). The analysis addresses both the question of what Marx actually read and drew (...) upon in Augustin Thierry, in particular his Essay on the History of the Formation and the Progress of the Third Estate, and the way that Marxism constructed a positive reference to Augustin Thierry (in particular through the mediation of Plekhanov), consequently evading certain intuitions of Marx. In its conclusion, the article reconsiders some of the tensions which a historical analysis in terms of class struggle gives rise to, between the focalization on the short time of the revolutionary moment (1789, 1848) and the integration of a detailed, longue durée analysis of social classes (in particular for the medieval era and the Ancien Régime). (shrink)

Les définitions de la rationalité fondées sur les seules ressources des activités communicationnelles et des formes de vie qui leur sont liées se heurtent à des difficultés dont la tentative de Habermas constitue un eminent exemple. La question de la légitimation en constitue la pierre de touche; elle est au coeur de la controverse qui oppose Apel à Habermas et de ce qui les conduit à chercher différemment une issue dans les prétentions à la validité que renferment à leurs yeux (...) les activités communicationnelles. Leur mobilisation d’un modèle pragmatique de la rationalité s’articule ainsi à la recherche d’un élément inconditionné dans lequel on peut voir une source majeure d’apories et de désaccords quant aux solutions respectivement envisagées. Cette situation conduit à se demander 1) si le concept de « rationalité communicationnelle » n’est pas intrinsèquement affecté par l’ambiguïté qui associe à l’argumentation et à l’immanence des pratiques communicationnelles l’idée d’une légitimation, elle-même liée à une transcendance que celles-ci paraissent exclure, 2) si un éclairage, à défaut d’une issue, ne résiderait pas dans une meilleure compréhension des liens qui associent le nécessaire à l’arbitraire.The possibility of defining the rationality upon the only basis of communicative actions and forms of life lies at the root of several difficulties, of which Habermas’ attempts give a very significant example. Legitimation is its touchstone. It is the central point of the Apel-Habermas controversy and it is the basis of its latest developments. Apel and Habermas are both seeking an out- come by looking at " claims to validity " which they consider to be embodied in communicative actions. So they appeal at the same time to a pragmatist account of rationality and to some Unconditional, which is the main source of the dilemmas and disagreements they have to cope with. One may wonder whether the kind of tension which strikes the tie relating argumentation to some " transcendant moment " is not built into the very notion of communicative rationality. But one may also wonder whether some illumination, if not outcome, might not consist in some attempt to investigate the very connections between Necessary and Arbitrary. (shrink)

During his long and continuing scholarly career, Patrick Suppes contributed significantly both to the sciences and to their philosophies. The volume consists of papers by an international group of Suppes colleagues, collaborators, and students in many of the areas of his expertise, building on or adding to his insights. Michael Friedman offers an overview of Suppes accomplishments and of his unique perspective on the relation between science and philosophy. Paul Humphreys, Stephen Hartmann, and Tom Ryckman present essays in the philosophy (...) of physics. Jens-Erik Fenstad, Harvey Friedman, and Jaako Hintikka consider problems in the foundations of mathematics, while the late Duncan Luce, Jean-Claude Falmagne, Brian Skyrms, and Hannes Leitgeb have contributed essays in theory of measurement, decision theory and probability. Foundations of economics and political theory are addressed by Adolfo Garcia de la Sienra, Russell Hardin, and Kenneth Arrow. Psychology, language, and philosophy of language are addressed by Elizabeth Loftus, Anne Fagot-Largeault, Willem Levelt, Dagfinn Follesdal, and Marcos Perreau-Guimares and some of Suppes most recent research in neurobiology is addressed in essays by Colleen Crangle, Acadio de Barros and Claudio Carvalhes. Finally Nancy Cartwright and Alexandre Marcelles consider the alignment (or misalignment) of method and policy. Each of the essays is accompanied by a response from Suppes.". (shrink)

Jean Richard | Résumé : René-Michel Roberge proteste contre le modèle hiérarchique, autoritaire, du magistère de l’Église (catholique romaine). Selon ce modèle, la révélation vient d’en haut et passe par la hiérarchie ecclésiale pour parvenir aux fidèles. Cette conception ne fonctionne plus à notre époque, caractérisée par « le refus des arguments d’autorité » (Luc Ferry). Par opposition à ce modèle hiérarchique et doctrinal, notre auteur propose un magistère ecclésial de type pastoral. La fonction magistérielle consiste alors à entretenir (...) et à vitaliser la foi déjà présente dans la communauté des fidèles. |: René-Michel Roberge protests against the pattern of a hierarchical and authoritarian Church magisterium. According to this conception, revelation comes from on high, through the Church hierarchy, to the faithful. Such a conception has become irrelevant in our age, characterized by the rejection of authoritarian arguments (Luc Ferry). By contrast, R.-M. Roberge preconizes a pastoral type of magisterium, which upholds the faith yet present in the community of the faithful. (shrink)

Le but de cet article est de confronter trois acceptions du terme Gestalt , concept et entité qui a joué en Europe un rôle considérable dans l’émergence de la phénoménologie et de la psychologie descriptive entre 1890 et 1930, avant que les représentants de l’école berlinoise n’émigrent aux États-Unis. On confronte ici le sens donné à l’appréhension de la Gestalt , d’abord chez E. Mach, puis chez le fondateur de ce courant de pensée, C. von Ehrenfels, et enfin chez Meinong, (...) dont Ehrenfels a été l’élève. Le problème central de la relation de complexité et de son « fondement » ontologique dans le domaine particulier de l’ écoute musicale est abordé par ces trois auteurs. On explique pourquoi leurs divergences ont ensuite conduit à remplacer, par une conception psycho-génétique , ce qui se présentait à l’origine comme une espèce nouvelle de relation que la « forme » entretient à l’égard de ses éléments constitutifs, sans jamais dépendre d’eux par une explication causale.The aim of this article is to contrast three readings of the term Gestalt , a concept and an entity which has had a considerable role in the emergence of phenomenology and descriptive psychology, between 1890 and 1930, before the members of the Berlin school go to the U.S.A. We contrast the sense given to the apprehension of the Gestalt by Ernst Mach with the one it takes in the works of C. von Ehrenfels, the founder of this school of thought, and then with its sense in the works of Ehrenfels' master, Meinong. The central problem of the complexity relation and of its ontological “foundation” is discussed by these three thinkers, with respect to the special case of musical listening . We explain why their diverging views led to replace what at the beginning was a new kind of relation which the “form” could entertain with its constitutive elements without causally depending on them, by a psycho-genetic conception. (shrink)

Partant des premières manifestations du « philosopher » occidental, chez Pythagore, Héraclite et Platon, J. Greisch mesure d’abord l’écho que « ces échos anciens » ont rencontré en premier lieu dans la philosophie d’un Heidegger. Mais le concept d’ « expérience », maître mot de la modernité contemporaine, oblige à un parcours complexe qui ramène au philosophe américain, William James, dont on doit se demander s’il n’y a pas quelque chose à déconstruire dans sa façon d’aborder « les variétés de (...) l’expérience religieuse » ? Ne faisant pas l’économie de l’indispensable détour par une enquête sérieuse et l’audace de quelques hypothèses sur les multiples sens du mot « expérience », J. Greisch propose, en terminant, des voies « pour une phénoménologie herméneutique de l’expérience ».Beginning with the first manifestations of “philosophizing” in the West, with Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato, J. Greisch first assesses the echo that “these ancient echoes” encountered in the philosophy of Heidegger. But the concept of “experience,” a key word in contemporary modernity, forces us to follow a complex itinerary leading to the American philosopher William James, whose approach to “the varieties of religious experience” may need to be deconstructed. J. Greisch makes an indispensable detour through a serious inquiry into the multiple meanings of the word “experience,” and ends by proposing some paths “for a hermeneutic phenomenology of experience”. (shrink)

The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its own: digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate (...) students, and independent scholars. Delve into what it was like to live during the eighteenth century by reading the first-hand accounts of everyday people, including city dwellers and farmers, businessmen and bankers, artisans and merchants, artists and their patrons, politicians and their constituents. Original texts make the American, French, and Industrial revolutions vividly contemporary. ++++ The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition identification: ++++ British Library T100404 With a half-title. Anonymous. By P. P. F. J. H. Le Mercier de la Rivière. Possibly printed in Paris (or the Low Countries). Londres: chez Jean Nourse; & se trouve à Paris, chez Desaint, 1767. [2], vii, [1],511, [1]p.; 4°. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage s’inscrit délibérément en dehors des études médiévales traditionnelles si bien que, pour en donner une idée, je suis obligé de le décrire de façon un peu détaillée. Il se présente comme une histoire de la « balance » des années 1250 à 1375. Mais quel sens a ici le mot « balance »? L’auteur –J.K.- donne « équilibre » comme quasi synonyme. L’introduction va plus loin. Elle en parle comme d’un sentiment non exprimé de la façon dont les (...) choses sont ou doivent être arrangées, d’une ap... (shrink)

On cherche à mettre en perspective les divers ouvrages généraux de Geneviève Rodis-Lewis sur Descartes, « ses » Descartes, qui se reprennent et se corrigent sans se répéter ni se contredire, avec les trois images de Descartes qui dominent les études cartésiennes en France autour des années 1950 : « les » Descartes de Gouhier, d'Alquié et de Gueroult. La notion de développement semble un trait commun à l'objet étudié et à la méthode mise en œuvre pour l'approcher. 1 /Le (...) Colloque de Royaumont fait passer G. Rodis-Lewis d'une « petite querelle » avec P. Mesnard sur l'ordre des passions de l'âme à la « grande querelle » sur l'essence de la pensée, comme purement intellectuelle ou comme activité de la volonté. M. Gueroult, tout en le rejetant comme leibnizien et non cartésien, reconnaît l'importance de l' « embryon de conscience » mis en valeur par G. Rodis-Lewis. 2 / Désormais, elle ne cessera d'approfondir l'enquête sur « la première métaphysique de Descartes », celle de 1628-1630, méconnue à la fois par ceux qui refusent avec Gueroult tout ordre chronologique et par ceux qui le réduisent avec Alquié à une évolution unilatérale, les uns et les autres manquant ainsi le développement de la pensée de la liberté. 3 / On termine par le fragment du manuscrit Cartesius, que G. Rodis-Lewis a retraduit et dont elle a, la première, sinon la seule, dégagé l'importance. Sans se confondre avec la double définition de la liberté de la Méditation IV, ce passage l'anticipe et « il est difficile de se défendre de l'impression que voilà rembryon d'où sortira la pensée métaphysique de Descartes ». We try to put into perspective the various general books on Descartes by Geneviève Rodis-Lewis, her Descartes which are alluded to one another and are corrected without repetition or contradiction, with the three images of Descartes which are the most important of the Cartesion studies in France around the 1950's : Gouhier's, Alquie's and Gueroult's Descartes. The notion of development seems to be a common feature of the studied object and the method used to tackle it. 1 /Royaumont's Colloquium makes G. Rodis-Lewis pass from a « little quarrel » with P. Mesnard about the order of the passions of the soul to the « great quarrel » dealing with the essence of thought as purely intellectual or as an activity of the will. M. Gueroult, while rejecting the « embryo of conscience » emphasized by G. Rodis-Lewis as Leibnizian and non Cartesian, admits its importance. 2 /From then on, she kept on studying thoroughly the search for « Descartes' first Metaphysics », dated back to 1628-1630, unrecognised both by those, like Gueroult, who reject any chronological order and by those, like Alquié, who reduce it to a unilateral evolution, both of them thereby missing this way the development of the thought of freedom. 3 / We finish with the part of the Cartesius manuscript that G. Rodis-Lewis translated again. She was the first one, if not the only one, to show its importance. Without its being confused with the double definition of freedom of Meditation IV, this passage anticipates it and « it is difficult to avoid the impression that this is the embryo from which Descartes' metaphysical thought will emerge ». (shrink)

Dans la lettre XXXII à Oldenburg, Spinoza affirme que l'esprit humain n'est que la puissance de la pensée divine, non en tant qu'elle est infinie et perçoit toute la nature, mais en tant qu'elle est finie et ne perçoit que le corps humain, ce qui fait de l'esprit humain « une partie de quelque entendement infini ». C'est à Pélucidation de ce « quelque entendement infini » qu'on travaille ici en montrant comment s'élaborent, dans l'Éthique, la doctrine de l'infinité des (...) attributs divins, puis la doctrine des modes infinis qui, au plan ontologique sinon au plan éthique, implique qu'on s'interroge sur la manière dont se comporte l'attribut de la pensée par rapport à l'infinité des autres attributs. On suggère enfin l'importance de cette enquête, tant pour la compréhension de la formule spinoziste de la connaissance que pour la compréhension de la formule spinoziste du salut. In letter XXXII to Oldenburg, Spinoza asserts that the human mind is but the power of divine thought, not as being infinite and encompassing nature, but as being finite and encompassing only the human body, which makes the human mind « a part of some infinite understanding ». We labor here for the clarification of this part of « some infinite understanding » by showing how, in Spinoza's Ethics, the doctrine of the infinity of divine attributes, then the doctrine of infinite modes are elaborated. The latter at the ontological level but not at the ethical level, implies that we question the way the attribute of thought functions with regard to the infinity of the other attributes. Lasty we underline the importance of this investigation, both for the understanding of the Spinozan formula for knowledge and for the understanding of his formula for salvation. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Philosophy of religion has become in our days a considerable part of philosophy. Alain 's books on religion, published in the early thirties, remain among the most valuable which have been ever written by philosophers on this subject, but unfortunately they are scarcely known to-day, at least in North America. The most important of them —-Les Dieu× —- has recently been translated in English: The Cods, Richard Pevear, New York, New Direction, 1974. Although inspired by Hegel, Alain 's method and (...) ideas really are very original as well as profound, because Alain 's style and doctrine deeply differ from Hegel's. They differ no less from analytical philosophers' models, because Alain never argues with religion but reflect on it, in order to draw a true picture of man. The following essay tries to indicate both the contents and the main features of this philosophy. (shrink)

The implementation of a diplomacy that could put more emphasis on democracy and human rights was not an easy process in Belgium. Treatment of these matters have taken a different perspective in Zaïre, Rwanda and Burundi, Belgium 's three most important African partners. Reasons for that are twofold. Fore one thing, the Belgian foreign affairs service has always been overloaded by mercantile preoccupations. Secondly, knowledge on Africa has been limited to short circle diplomatic contacts while no instruments were ever implemented (...) that could have ensured some following up of the African civil society at large.In the future, the continuation for a slow process of disengagement might be foreseable. New "partners" might come to the forefront such as South Africa while the U.S. and international financial organisations will definitely try to impose "good governance" together with a reasonable dose of human rights. (shrink)

Les Républicains français poursuivent la mise en œuvre du projet de société des Lumières, dans la ligne, volontiers anticléricale, de la sécularisation de la société. Rejetant l'idée de l’utilité sociale de la religion, ils lui opposent l'idéal d'un humanisme laic, censé capable de satisfaire les aspirations les plus hautes des hommes. Ils entendent aussi fonder l'État sur la souveraineté populaire, les droits de l'hornme et les libertés civiques.Léon XIII combat inlassablement ces conceptions de la société et de l'autorité qui ne (...) font pas référence à Dieu, ni ne respectent le Statut auquel l'Église a droit, et ne peuvent que causer la ruine des États et des Peuples. L'effort du Pape de « rallier » les catholiques monarchistes à la République n'empêcha pas la dégradation des relations entre l'Église et l'État. Capable de s'adapter aux situations qu'elle réprouvait , la pensée politique de Léon XIII et des théologiens romains a toujours revendiqué avec intransigeance la place centrale de l’Église dans la société.French Républicans continued to pursue the Enlightenment’s project towards the secularization of society, wbich often was consciously anti-clerical. Rejecting the idea of the social value of religion, they opposed it with the idea of a lay humanism, whicb they tbougbt capable of satisfying mans highest aspirations. They also wanted to found the State on popular sovereignty, the rights of man, and civil liberties.Leo XIII untiringly fought those conceptions of a society and authority, that made no reference to God : they did not respect the statute to wbicb the Churcb had a rigbt and they would bring about the ruin of States and its peoples. The effort of the Pope to “rally” Catbolic monarchists to the Republic did not impede the degradation of relations between the Cburch and the State. Capable of adapting himself to the situations of wbicb he disapproved, Leo XIII’s political tbought and that of Roman theologians had always claimed witb insistence the central place of the Cburcb in society. (shrink)

Le Canada a engendré deux tendances opposées dans la pratique et l'étude de la communication. D'une part, la pensée structuraliste et déterministe de Marshall Mc Luhan à Toronto pour qui la technique est une forme organisationnelle de la communication entre les hommes. D'autre part, la communication sociale, véritable laboratoire des médias, qui naquit pendant la Révolution tranquille des années 1960 et s'articula autour du Vidéographe de Montréal.Canada has spawned two opposing trends in the practice and study of communication. On the (...) one hand, the structuralist thought and deterministic Marshall McLuhan in Toronto that the technique is an organizational form of communication between people. On the other hand, social communication, real media lab, who was born during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and revolved around Videographer Montreal. (shrink)

En rupture avec la philosophie contemporaine, Levinas est conduit, dans sa quête du sens, à revenir à un certain platonisme. Sa métaphysique du « rapport à l'Autre » pourrait être considérée comme se fondant sur le Sophiste de Platon, au prix d'une critique de l'ontologie de Heidegger. Levinas privilégie le couple Même-Autre au détriment du couple Mouvement-Repos. Alors que Heidegger insiste sur l'élément, Levinas met en avant l'Autre, la Parole, l'Infini. Breaking up with contemporary philosophy, Levinas, in his quest for (...) meaning, is led to return to some kind of platonism. His metaphysics of the « relationship to the other » may be understood as resting on Plato's Sophist et the cost of a criticism of Heidegger's ontology. Levinas priviledges the couple « the same / the other » to the détriment of the couple « movement/rest ». Whereas Heidegger insists on the element, Levinas stresses forward : the other, speech and the infinite. (shrink)

When it was first published in France in 1961 as _Folie et Déraison: Histoire de la Folie à l'âge Classique_, few had heard of a thirty-four year old philosopher by the name of Michel Foucault. By the time an abridged English edition was published in 1967 as _Madness and Civilization_, Michel Foucault had shaken the intellectual world. This translation is the first English edition of the complete French texts of the first and second edition, including all prefaces and appendices, (...) class='Hi'>some of them unavailable in the existing French edition. _History of Madness_ begins in the Middle Ages with vivid descriptions of the exclusion and confinement of lepers. Why, Foucault asks, when the leper houses were emptied at the end of the Middle Ages, were they turned into places of confinement for the mad? Why, within the space of several months in 1656, was one out of every hundred people in Paris confined? Shifting brilliantly from Descartes and early Enlightenment thought to the founding of the Hôpital Général in Paris and the work of early psychiatrists Philippe Pinel and Samuel Tuke, Foucault focuses throughout, not only on scientific and medical analyses of madness, but also on the philosophical and cultural values attached to the mad. He also urges us to recognize the creative and liberating forces that madness represents, brilliantly drawing on examples from Goya, Nietzsche, Van Gogh and Artaud. The _History of Madness_ is an inspiring and classic work that challenges us to understand madness, reason and power and the forces that shape them. (shrink)

Si elles ne sont pas d'un philosophe, les œuvres de Fénelon ne témoignent pas moins d'une réelle préoccupation pour les questions relatives à l'origine et la nature de la connaissance. Cette étude tente d'établir que, loin de s'en tenir à une simple répétition de positions strictement augustiniennes, l'archevêque de Cambrai reprend très largement des thèmes et des solutions malebranchistes sur un certain nombre de points cruciaux, comme la conception de l'idée et de sa vision en Dieu ainsi que la définition (...) du principe d'individuation. Nous tentons ensuite de confirmer cette hypothèse en montrant que la noétique fénelonienne dépend très largement de sa conception de la causalité, et que celle-ci, sur le fond d'une négation de toute interaction réelle entre les étants finis, s'inscrit dans la constellation de l'occasionnalisme, peut-être mieux représenté qu'on ne le croit à la fin du XVIIe siècle. Although he did not describe himself as a philosopher, Fénelon's works nevertheless do show a true concern for questions relating to the origin and nature of knowledge. This paper argues that far from just simply repeating classical Augustinian doctrines, Fénelon actually took over from Malebranche several solutions to crucial problems of seventeenth century meta-physics, such as the définition ofthe idea and its vision in God and the définition oftheprin-ciple of individuation. The paper then attempts at confirming that hypothesis by showing that the Fenelonian theory of knowledge strongly dépends upon his conception ofcausality. Based on a négation ofanyform ofreal interaction between fïnite beings, his theory ofcausality is imbedded in the constellation of occasionalism, a tradition that therefore appears as much more widespread at the end ofthe seventeenth century than it is usually acknowledged. (shrink)

La distinction entre l'essence et les énergies divines a fait l'objet d'une élaboration et d'une précision remarquables dans la théologie de saint Grégoire Palamas et occupe une place considérable dans la théologie et la spiritualité de l'Eglise orthodoxe, tandis que la théologie de l'Eglise latine non seulement est restée étrangère à cette distinction mais s'est généralement montrée critique à son encontre, accusant Palamas d'innovation. Les enjeux de cette distinction sont cependant d'une grande pertinence puisqu'ils concernent notamment les questions de la (...) nature et des limites de la connaissance de Dieu, de la nature de la grâce, et des modalités de l'union de l'homme à Dieu et de sa déification. On peut donc dire que, bien que ce sujet n'y soit guère abordé, l'avenir du dialogue oecuménique en dépend aussi. La question de la représentation chrétienne de la notion d'énergie divine est importante également par rapport à des représentations parachrétiennes ou non chrétiennes de cette notion que l'on a pu observer dans certains courants philosophiques et religieux du Bassin méditerranéen, du Moyen-Orient ou de l'Extrême-Orient, de l'Antiquité et du haut Moyen Age, et qui resurgissent de nos jours dans certains courants spiritualistes qui s'en inspirent. Cette étude a pour but de préciser la place et le sens de la notion d'énergie divine et de ses corrélats dans la théologie des Pères grecs de la période patristique classique, s'étendant des origines à saint Jean Damascène, en n'omettant pas de considérer ses racines scripturaires et ses occurrences philosophiques dans l'Antiquité et durant la même période. (shrink)