피에르 샤롱은 몽테뉴의 새로운 피론주의를 계승한 피론주의자다. 하지만 그는 피론주의자들에게 금기의 대상이었던 신아카데미 학파의 회의주의를 수용함으로써, 전통적인 피론주의자였던 섹스투스 엠피리쿠스와 새로운 피론주의자였던 몽테뉴와는 차별화되는 새로운 형태의 회의주의를 선보였다. 그의 『지혜에 관하여』에는 신아카데미 학파의 다양한 흔적들이 존재하는데, 필자는 이것을 다음 3가지 측면에서 고찰하였다.BR 첫째로, P. 샤롱은 몽테뉴의 『수상록』에 흩어져 있던 도덕철학적 논의들 중 의미 있는 것들을 가려 뽑아 삶의 길잡이 역할을 할 수 있는 ‘지혜의 안내서’를 만들었는데, 그것이 바로 『지혜에 관하여』였다. 그의 이러한 작업의 배경에는 현세의 삶의 영역에 있어 실천의 문제를 강조하였던 (...) 신아카데미 학파의 영향이 크게 작용하였다.BR 둘째로, P. 샤롱은 무지를 고백하였던 소크라테스를 최초의 회의주의자로 이해하였는데, 그의 이러한 이해의 배경에는 소크라테스를 이상적인 회의주의자의 모델로 간주하였던 신아카데미 학파의 영향이 크게 작용하였다. 그는 탐구보다 무지에 대한 고백을 더 강조함으로써, 무지에 대한 고백보다 탐구를 더 강조하였던 몽테뉴와는 다른 길을 갔다.BR 셋째로, P. 샤롱은 ‘오류가능성을 지닌 현자’라는 개념을 강조하였는데, 이것은 그가 신아카데미 학파의 영향 하에 있다는 것을 잘 보여준다. 스토아 학파가 현자의 오류불가능성을 주장한 데 반해, 신아카데미 학파는 현자의 오류성, 즉 현자도 상황에 따라 오류를 저지를 수 있다는 것을 주장하였다. 그는 신아카데미 학파의 현자관을 수용함으로써, 근대 회의주의의 새로운 길을 개척하였다.BR 결론적으로, P. 샤롱은 몽테뉴를 따라 신앙주의자이면서 회의주의자였다. 하지만 그는 몽테뉴의 신앙주의를 외재화시키고, 그의 회의주의를 신아카데미 학파의 회의주의와 융합시킴으로써, 몽테뉴와 차별화되는 그만의 새로운 회의주의를 선보였다. 그의 새로운 회의주의로 인하여, 16후반-17세기 초반 서구 회의주의의 지평은 더욱 더 다양해지고 풍부해질 수 있었다. (shrink)

This book is a reevaluation and a reinterpretation of Pierre Charron (1541-1603)--in particular La Sagesse--and of the impact of his writings. Jean Daniel Charron sheds new light upon this great figure in French literature, and argues that he should be considered more important and original than previously thought.

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 was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. 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. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. 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)

Bioethics experts played a key role in ensuring a coherent ethical response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the fields of healthcare, public health, and scientific research in Canada. In the province of Quebec, a group of academic and practicing bioethicists met periodically in the early months of the pandemic to discuss approaches and solutions to ethical dilemmas encountered during the crisis. These meetings created the opportunity for a national survey of bioethics practitioners from different fields. The survey, in which forty-five (...) Canadian bioethics practitioners (clinical ethicists, ethicist members of REBs and government health policy ethicists, or any bioethicist practicing outside of academia) participated, explored their concerns, challenges and opportunities during the first wave of the pandemic, with the objective of informing bioethics research about the difficulties experienced by bioethicists “in the field”. Participants reported increased stress levels, increased workloads, and a greater proportion of their work being devoted to public health ethics. Most of their concerns focused on groups other than themselves, such as health professionals, patients, research participants, and people in vulnerable socio-economic situations. An optimism about the future of bioethics was noted due to an increased awareness of the importance of bioethics by the public and by health and research institutions. (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 was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. 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.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. 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)

Quelle est la structure du désir et comment le petit d'homme en vient-il à éprouver le désir pour un objet? Freud s'était posé la question et la théorie du complexe d'Oedipe était une pièce essentielle de sa réponse. R. Girard estime que Freud s'est trompé et que la théorie du désir mimétique, elle, fournit une solution au problème. Je retiendrai trois thèses centrales de la théorie de Girard. Après les avoir situées dans leur contexte pour en saisir correctement le sens, (...) je dirai en quoi, à mon avis, ces thèses ne répondent pas à la question de Freud. Je distinguerai trois moments dans la formation du sujet désirant, moments que je mettrai en rapport avec la structuration de la psyché. À la situation oedipienne, il faut opposer un temps pré-oedipien et un temps post-oedipien; ce dernier implique la résolution de l'Oedipe. Je montrerai que le concept d'étayage permet à Freud de comprendre la genèse du désir à partir du besoin tout en marquant la spécificité du désir par rapport au besoin. Au dire de Girard, Freud a pressenti la nature mimétique du désir. L'usage qu'il fait de la notion d'identification le montre bien. Mais cette intuition n'arrive pas à porter tous ses fruits car Freud soutient par ailleurs une thèse qui contredit la première, à savoir que la libido est directement fixée sur la mère. (shrink)

En plus d'être partout présente dans l'expérience et le discours ordinaires, la culpabilité a fait l'objet des discours traditionnels que sont le discours religieux et le discours philosophique. Voici qu'avec Freud et la psychanalyse apparaît dans notre culture une interprétation qui se veut nouvelle de ce spectre qui hante notre vie individuelle et collective. Quelle est donc l'originalité et la fécondité de cette approche? Quelle place occupe la culpabilité dans la théorie psychanalytique? Comment sont conçus dans cette perspective les rapports (...) et les différences entre se sentir coupable, se sentir inférieur, éprouver de la honte et éprouver de l'angoisse? Sur chacun de ces problèmes, J. Goldberg analyse et discute les principales thèses avancées par la psychanalyse depuis sa fondation jusqu'à nos jours. Voilà un livre extrêmement riche, subtil et complexe. Il n'est pas aisé d'en faire brièvement état sans le trahir, d'autant plus qu'il se déploie dans le double registre de la clinique et de la théorie métapsychologique. Notre souci premier ici sera de montrer à des philosophes en quoi la psychanalyse se différencie du discours philosophique ou religieux. Si notre présentation de cet ouvrage se veut néanmoins une étude critique de type philosophique, c'est par les questions épistémologiques qu'elle pose et non par une confrontation des théories de Goldberg avec une théorie philosophique de la culpabilité. (shrink)