Abstract: El coloquio nos invita a reflexionar sobre la movilidad, considerando si respecto a nuestros modos de desplazarnos hay diferencias entre hombres y mujeres y, si es así, en qué situaciones tales diferencias se traducen en desigualdades socialmente significativas. It is part of: Comunicació a: III Col·loqui Mobilitat i Gènere Asociación para la Prevención de Accidentes de Tráfico (P(A)T) Barcelona, 14 de desembre de 2023.

La categoria de passivitat és tan nuclear en la filosofia d’Emmanuel Levinas com en la de Paul Ricoeur. Aquesta categoria està intrínsecament vinculada a una altra que també és crucial: la d’alteritat. Per entendre la proximitat entre aquests dos autors, alhora que per veure’n la distància que els separa, resulta molt revelador prestar atenció, primer, a la manera com cadascun d’ells concep les dues categories i, després, al motiu pel qual mentre en el cas de Levinas el lloc de la (...) passivitat és exclusivament un —la relació amb l’altre—, en el de Ricoeur és triple: la carn o el cos propi, l’altre i la consciència. (shrink)

Almost all scholars of the Enlightenment consider Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke as the founding theorists of the “secular modern state.” In contrast to the widely held view of the modern state, I argue that far from being “secular” it was the product of the sacralization of politics, which resulted from the way these philosophers interpreted the Scriptures as part of their philosophical inquiries. The analysis of the “linguistic turn” in their biblical interpretations reveals how they tried to undermine the power (...) of the Church to claim greater freedoms for the state. Their philosophical inquiries initiated the secularization of the Christian religion and the sacralization of politics as two correlative developments, rather than the secularization of the state per se, as is usually supposed. The philosophical arguments proposed by Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke helped to resolve the religious battles of Europe’s many confessions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but are still pertinent to our c... (shrink)

The article addresses the question of whether Derrida in his political theology can be considered an “unfaithful” reader of Schmitt. While Derrida does not quote Schmitt’s Political Theology, some of his assertions are reminiscent of Schmitt’s disciplinary use of political theology. Indeed, Schmitt’s account of the relationship between exception, decision, and sovereignty was abundantly discussed in Derrida’s last seminar, The Beast and the Sovereign. Derrida attempts in this seminar to deconstruct the sovereignty of the nation-state and its onto-theologico-political foundation. The (...) question I raise in this article is whether, in previous years, Derrida himself had not implicitly made a different political theology that, considering the negative theological path, develops an alternative idea of power. The hypothesis explored is that this alternative paradigm is derived from one of the names of the impossible: the gift. (shrink)