This book offers productive new readings of Merleau-Ponty’s political philosophy and of other facets of his thought.

This Great Debates volume grew out of exchanges that followed the 2012 publication of a Festschrift volume for Crispin Wright, just over a decade ago (Coliva 2012). As often happens in Philosophy, the process of trying to clarify and iron out apparently local points of disagreement between us has unearthed deeper divergences concerning larger issues in the philosophy of language and mind, in epistemology, and in the theory of action. Such is our profession.

What are the ethics of child genital cutting? In a recent issue of the journal, Duivenbode and Padela (2019) called for a renewed discussion of this question. Noting that modern health care systems...

Tant par son œuvre politique importante que par le potentiel créateur de son travail sur la perception, l'expression et l'ontologie, Maurice Merleau-Ponty a exercé une influence peu remarquée sur la pensée politique française. Aux lectures des Aron, Sartre et Lefort qui ont déterminé la compréhension et le sens politiques de l'œuvre de Merleau-Ponty s'ajoute une postérité immédiate chez ses contemporains. Colette Audry, Tran Duc Thao, Jean-Toussaint Desanti, et Frantz Fanon furent marqués par leur proximité à Merleau-Ponty tout autant que par (...) ses écrits, reprenant chacun à son propre compte son attitude. Une postérité silencieuse, quelque peu différée, se remarque chez Cornelius Castoriadis, Françoise Collin et Jean-François Lyotard, qui construisirent leurs pensées dans une rupture créative avec celle de Merleau-Ponty. Enfin, une postérité politique se fait sentir dans le moment qui nous est contemporain): Vincent Peillon, Marc Crépon et Luce Irigaray reviennent ici sur leur relation à sa philosophie et sur ce qu'elle permet de penser. À travers ces postérités, les contributrices et contributeurs de cet ouvrage se penchent sur les questions de l'engagement militant et philosophique, de la relationalité et de l'altérité, de la racisation et des émotions, du corps et de la parole, de la vie esthétique, de l'ontologie et la révolution, du républicanisme, du conflit et des épreuves historiques, ou encore du toucher et de la culture politique. (shrink)

Expressivism, broadly construed, is the view that the function of utterances in a given area of discourse is to give expression to our sentiments or other (non-cognitive) mental states or attitudes, rather than report or describe some range of facts. This view naturally seems an attractive option wherever it is suspected that there may not be a domain of facts for the given discourse to be describing. Familiarly, to avoid commitment to ethical facts, the ethical expressivist suggests that ethical utterances (...) (e.g., “Gratuitous torture is wrong”, “What John did was morally good”) do not serve to ascribe ethical properties to objects, actions, persons, or states of affairs. Instead, they simply function to give voice to certain of our sentiments (or ‘pro/con’ attitudes). Along similar lines, philosophers have entertained versions of expressivism about the aesthetic, the modal, the mental, what is funny, even about theoretical science and knowledge ascriptions. (shrink)

Dorit Bar-On develops and defends a novel view of avowals and self-knowledge. Drawing on resources from the philosophy of language, the theory of action, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind, she offers original and systematic answers to many long-standing questions concerning our ability to know our own minds. We are all very good at telling what states of mind we are in at a given moment. When it comes to our own present states of mind, what we say goes; an (...) avowal such as "I'm feeling so anxious" or "I'm thinking about my next trip to Paris," it is typically supposed, tells it like it is. But why is that? Why should what I say about my present mental states carry so much more weight than what others say about them? Why should avowals be more immune to criticism and correction than other claims we make? And if avowals are not based on any evidence or observation, how could they possibly express our knowledge of our own present mental states? Bar-On proposes a Neo-Expressivist view according to which an avowal is an act through which a person directly expresses, rather than merely reports, the very mental condition that the avowal ascribes. She argues that this expressivist idea, coupled with an adequate characterization of expression and a proper separation of the semantics of avowals from their pragmatics and epistemology, explains the special status we assign to avowals. As against many expressivists and their critics, she maintains that such an expressivist explanation is consistent with a non-deflationary view of self-knowledge and a robust realism about mental states. The view that emerges preserves many insights of the most prominent contributors to the subject, while offering a new perspective on our special relationship to our own minds. (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)