Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, encompassing philosophy, literature, politics and history, John Foley examines the full breadth of Camus' ideas to provide a comprehensive and rigorous study of his political and philosophical thought and a significant contribution to a range of debates current in Camus research. Foley argues that the coherence of Camus' thought can best be understood through a thorough understanding of the concepts of 'the absurd' and 'revolt' as well as the relation between them. This book includes a (...) detailed discussion of Camus' writings for the newspaper "Combat", a systematic analysis of Camus' discussion of the moral legitimacy of political violence and terrorism, a reassessment of the prevailing postcolonial critique of Camus' humanism, and a sustained analysis of Camus' most important and frequently neglected work, "L'Homme revolte". (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: From Absurdity to Revolt Metaphysical Revolt Historical Revolt From Phenomenological Ethics to Virtue Ethics notes further reading.

This article examines the significance of Friedrich Nietzsche to Albert Camus’ concepts of absurdity and revolt. It rests on three related claims. First, that Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics is the point of departure for Camus’ absurdist inquiries. Second, that Camus’ philosophy of revolt is informed in crucial ways by Nietzsche’s views on the sources of moral and intellectual authority in the modern world. Finally, that Camusian revolt is an attempt to deal with the political crisis of (...) foundationalism in a way that preserves Nietzsche’s anti-essentialism while also avoiding the excesses of absolutist politics. Ultimately, I suggest that the origins and implications of Camus’ project cannot be grasped apart from an account of its engagement with Nietzsche. (shrink)

Camus’ early “logic of the absurd” has been interpreted and assessed differently. In this article I do two things: First, I outline what I take to be the most adequate interpretation. Second, I discuss three challenges defenders of the “logic of the absurd” may be said to face (given that my interpretation in the first part is correct). My approach is rather unorthodox. Although Camus explicitly refused to be seen as a philosopher, and although if one sees him as a (...) philosopher, he certainly has to be seen as belonging to the tradition of continental (as opposed to analytic) philosophy, I look at him from the perspective of analytic philosophy. It appears, first, that Camus conceives of the absurd as a relation between man’s search for meaning and the world which is not answering this search for meaning, and that he takes the fact of there being this absurd relation to imply proscriptions of both physical and philosophical suicide and an obligation to revolt. And it appears, second, that beliefs in the existence of the absurd can not be shown false by reference to their causal history (genetic challenge) and that Camus is not violating Hume’s law (is-ought challenge), but that the early philosophy of the absurd is inconsistent (consistency challenge). (shrink)

Camus’ notions of absurdity and revolt remain relevant today, especially with respect to very recent developments in the growing role of electronic and digital mass media. Cormac McCarthy’s 2006 novel The Road , describing a father and child’s journey after the world as we know it has been destroyed, is used to highlight the nature of absurdity and revolt in their updated early 21 st century version.

Identities were “murderous” in Algeria, to borrow an expression from Amin Maalouf. However, through this process, Algeria won its independence. Albert Camus, a son of France and a child of Algeria, caught between his two mothers’ identities, was torn apart and sometimes had to make choices; he was blamed for his Franco-French vision of Algeria and, above all, in the crucial hours, for preferring his biological mother to his cultural one. In other words, Camus had a poor record in (...) Algeria. And yet, there is something like a tuning fork vibrating in unison at the sound of “Camus” and “Algeria”: it is Camus’ Mediterranean, with its timeless and universal present, which takes its sense and essence from the “Algerian Mediterraneanness”. It is a fact: Algeria allows us to understand Camus, but Camus also allows us to know Algeria. Questionable dark areas lie within either of them, but would not it be better if we imagined that Camus and Algeria could find together a world beyond the absurd and revolt, on a quest for universality that would not abolish identities which are still asserted but played down today? (shrink)

As Sartre pointed out, philosophical questions are questions that each generation must ask themselves because only this promotes the feeling of being alive, which is especially true for existential questions closely related to time–space, the moment, and our society. Sartre placed his philosophy of existentialism in wartime and the social conditions of the time at the beginning of the 20th century. We can equate these conditions with today’s conditions; we are once again facing threats of war, and once again, we (...) are facing chaotic conditions that increasingly lead to absurdity but are also entirely different. Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, the clarity and disambiguation of the 20th century no longer exist, as the relationships between beings and the world have drastically changed. We can observe that (1) the world is not one; there are two worlds, the physical and the cyber world and (2) being is not one; there are two beings (entities), human and AI-based forms of artificial life (ALF), between which there is a permanent tension. We advocate the thesis that in the society of the future, man must still play a master role; he must still be the being who will guide this society. Also, as Sartre claimed, each era must create its philosophy and consider real time–space. Responses to changes in this time–space also relate to existentialism in the 21st century. In this context, it is necessary to redefine the view of the future and the guidelines for the development of future society. (shrink)

This article examines Kamel Daoud’s treatment of solidarity and the absurd in Meursault, contre-enquête and posits that the question of how to live in solidarity with others is central to the novel, although the word ‘solidarity’ never appears in it. After recalling Camus’s discussion of the absurd in Le Mythe de Sisyphe and of solidarity in L’Homme révolté, the article examines the manner in which Haroun, Daoud’s narrator and the brother of the Arab Meursault killed in L’Étranger, reveals his own (...) failures of solidarity. He justly criticizes Meursault for privileging his confrontation with the absurd over the death of the Arab he did not even name, but Haroun too has killed. Haroun has, however, a greater understanding of solidarity than his fellows: he at least recognizes that murder is significant. He thus joins Meursault as an unworthy prophet who proclaims the absurd while surrounded by people who flee from it—and proclaiming the absurd can be a gesture of solidarity when one speaks for others, as Haroun speaks for his brother Moussa. Daoud’s novel reminds us that there are no final answers telling us how to live in solidarity with others and that we must do so all the same. (shrink)

In A History of Florence, Machiavelli recounts revolts, especially of the Ciompi of 1378, which display the repeated surfacings of the desire for freedom navigating ceaselessly between the desire to abolish freedom through the recourse to absolute power and moments when virtue triumphs over fortuna and achieves an order that, while fragile, makes the antagonisms fit in such a way that instead of fights they become debates. For Machiavelli, the speeches made in these situations serve to both analyze the circumstances (...) within which the struggles take on meaning and to display the desire for freedom carving out its path using the energy deployed via the negativity of the desire not to be dominated. Key Words: Ciompi • domination • Florence • guilds • license • Machiavelli • non-domination. (shrink)

The year 2020 began with the world being controlled by a then-unknown force. This unknown force would later be called a coronavirus or Covid-19. Not a single country would be free from infection by this virus. We are petrified with astonishment when confronted with this disease. Initially, after admitting the reality, we started struggling with and revolting against this virus. Time has led us to the consideration of our existence. This pandemic inclines us to revisit the major themes in (...) existential philosophy discussed by Sartre in the Nausea and the philosophy of the absurd by Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus, The Plague, and The Stranger. The study addresses the concepts of anxiety, suffering, freedom, self-deception, absurdity, and choices. When confronted with the reality of the disease, we are shocked by an odd sensation like what Roquentin felt in his experience of nausea. This bizarre feeling brought an initial rejection, a self-deception followed by suffering, and a reflection of one's freedom. The concept of freedom leads us to certain decisions we make and the choices we are offered. The absurdity brought about by the pandemic is a reality that we must accept as it is. How would Sisyphus feel if he were living in the present? The struggle by Sisyphus can be our struggle now against a coronavirus. We feel condemned to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, a punishment that seems like 'futile and hopeless labor.' However, we are stronger than our rock. The paper presents a parallelism between our suffering during the pandemic and the sufferings of Sisyphus and Roquentin. (shrink)

In his essay “A Scale of Eternity,” Cavell probes into Mahler’s ‘Cassandra-like fate’—being blessed with a perfect capacity for telling or expressing the truth and cursed with the fate of forever being misunderstood—in relation to Wittgenstein’s predicament as a philosopher in a time without culture. Cavell observes that both Mahler and Wittgenstein were concerned with the maddening and distortion of life, a concern which gives rise to a yearning to hear the music—in human life and in language. Both exhibit the (...) kind of fear of inexpressiveness or suffocation, and a twin fear of uncontrollable expressiveness and exposure, which are fundamental to Cavell’s reading of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. In this essay I take a closer look at this nexus of ideas, which portrays Mahler (reasonably, I contend) as a sort of intellectual alter-ego for Wittgenstein. I argue that Cavell’s observation is supported by his reading (contra Von Wright) of Wittgenstein’s diurnalized Spenglerian view of cultural decline. From that perspective, Mahler’s unique stature is to be portrayed as being endowed with an ability to pronounce the truth in the specious present of the normal, internal death of “high culture” music in the West. I argue further that Wittgenstein’s little studied middle-period diary entries on modern and future music lend support to the contention that, for Wittgenstein, Mahler’s music did not fit the ‘standard’ absurdities of musical decline. It is sui generis philosophical absurd, a limiting case in the history of music. Wittgenstein’s frustration with Mahler had little to do with not caring for his music, and everything to do with Mahler’s artistic failure to allow for an after-image of the breakdown of similarities that unity our form of life, hence his failure to revolt against cultural decline by embracing it—a failure, Wittgenstein feared he shared with Mahler. (shrink)

The right to revolt is a central concept in political philosophy, denoting when it is justified to replace a corrupt government with a new one. As such, it is a normative concept that would-be revolutionaries should consult in order to determine the justness of a possible revolution. However, this article argues that within Kierkegaard’s thought lies a wholly new conception of revolution that does not look to describe when it might be just to revolt but that instead sees (...) revolution as an act we are sometimes obligated to enact. Consequently, revolt transforms from a right to a responsibility, with important ethical and political consequences. (shrink)

Brief: Analysis on English and British Literature widely along-with creative genre, on using different styles of linguistic capability at different types of Essays, reflected now on recent book 'The Revolt in the Desert (Journey on English Literature from India to USA).

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:From Passions to Emotions: The Creation of a Secular Psychological CategoryMax RosenkrantzThomas Dixon. From Passions to Emotions: The Creation of a Secular Psychological Category. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Pp. x + 287. Cloth, $60.00Thomas Dixon's From Passions to Emotions defends a provocative set of theses. (1) The concept of "emotion" is of relatively recent vintage, having been designed by secular Scottish writers in (...) the first half of the nineteenth century. (2) That concept embraces a range of phenomena that earlier Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas understood in terms of a manifold of concepts such as "appetites," "passions," "affections," and "sentiments." (3) The concept of "emotion" is too crude an instrument for understanding human psychology. Further, (4) today the secular conceptual framework has completely displaced the religious one. This has nothing to do with the former's greater proximity to the truth, as is shown by the persistence of cogent Christian theories in the second half of the nineteenth century, the period of secularism's triumph; and (5) The opposition between reason and emotion arises only when theorists begin to think of "emotions" rather than "appetites," "passions," "affections," and "sentiments." Christian writers did not see the passions as simply the enemies of reason.The basis for Dixon's argument is his interpretation of nineteenth-century psychological theory in the English speaking world. Specifically he argues that the concept of "emotion" was invented by the Scottish thinker Thomas Brown (1778-1820). Brown's innovation was then appropriated and developed by Spencer, Darwin, and William James. The foil for this story is the Christian tradition represented most compellingly by Augustine and Aquinas and carried on by a host of lesser nineteenth-century figures. In my judgment, the story thus told cannot bear the weight Dixon places upon it.The centerpiece of Dixon's argument is his claim that Brown "invents" (109) the emotions and thereby initiates a conceptual revolution in western thought. While Dixon may be right in asserting that Brown is the first to use the word 'emotion' in a systematic fashion, this achievement is merely terminological. Brown deploys the term to develop a mechanistic account of human nature, one in which the springs of action are located not in the will and reason, but in the emotions. Replace 'emotion' in the preceding sentence with 'passion' and one gets a concise characterization of Hobbes's view. Dixon is aware that Brown and others work within a Hobbesian framework (250) but does not attend to that framework. Thus his claims for the significance of the developments he describes fail to convince. The real innovation in psychological theory—as in so much else—took place in the seventeenth century.Just as Dixon overestimates the importance and originality of the Scottish writers he discusses, so too he overestimates the intellectual importance of Augustine and Aquinas. His presentation of their views (26-62) is accurate, but he does not note that they take over the Platonic-Aristotelian view of the soul according to which reason can and should penetrate, educate and direct the passions. Thus the guiding thought that structures the work—the nineteenth century witnesses an ultimately successful revolt against Christian psychology—must be rejected. The revolt is against ancient, pre-Christian modes of thought and is undertaken and largely won in the seventeenth century. The events Dixon describes are skirmishes in that larger campaign.The rest of the theses Dixon defends can be dispatched with more quickly. The idea that the modern concept of "emotion" is insufficiently subtle is averted to frequently, but never adequately defended. At no point does Dixon demonstrate, or even claim to demonstrate, that Christian thinkers recognized something secular thinkers miss. Roughly the same can be said for his claims about the persistence of Christian psychology in the nineteenth century. What Dixon means is not just that such thinkers exist, but that their thought remains vibrant. Again I see no argument for such a verdict. Finally, there is the matter of the opposition between reason and passion. To his credit Dixon rejects the view according to which almost all Western thought is hostile to the passions. As he shows, this... (shrink)

The recent developments in new media tools promise to improve our personal access to information management and our personalized abilities concerning i-communication. Rather than focusing on the practical implications of this evolution, I take a step back and address two underlying cultural phenomena in order to get a grip on the contemporary significance of ‘new media’. The first phenomenon (technotopia) concerns the place technology occupies in our psychological perception. ‘Technology’ is a concept on the move. In post-war culture, technology stands (...) for industrialization and mechanization. It is often associated withan external power, like capitalism (consumerism), military force (WW II, Cold War warfare) or ideology (the race for space travel, biotechnoscience). In post-wall culture, technology increasingly stands for new media and digital user-oriented innovations. The threat or fascination with respect to an external authority is replaced by a democratization of technology. New media constantly remediates our relation to the world, hence becoming immanent and ubiquitous. The second phenomenon (Cybertribes) concerns the function of new media in our society. From an anthropological point of view, it is worthwhile to conceive new media as acontemporary ‘totem’ that structures communities. Unlike ‘myths’ or ‘gods’, ‘totems’ are ideological organization principles that are conceptually ambiguous, heterogeneous, open and incomplete. Hence, it can fulfill plurality of functions. For instance, it intensively shapes our daily interaction, it allows for aspiration and identification (cf. Cyborg-mania, avatars in Second Life). Moreover, it is a device to express and revolt (cf. Hacktivism, Etoy‐war, Marx 2.0). (shrink)

This article explores the origins of the problematic of political community by considering it in relation to the founding principles of `modern thought'. These principles are identified with the extirpation of moral values and ends from nature, in keeping with the rise of a `disenchanted' and mechanical scientific world-view. The transition from an `ancient' to a `modern' world-view is elaborated by drawing upon the work of Hans Blumenberg and Leo Strauss. The `demoralization' of nature, it is claimed, projects (...) the formation of the political commons into the space of history, a space within which community must be produced via artifice on the part of the willing subject. This Leitbild of modern community is examined through a reading of Hobbes's Leviathan which, it is claimed, stands as the founding attempt to remember the political commons from the sphere of human immanence, without recourse to natural or theological externality. However, it is argued, nature occupies an intermediary and ambiguous position in Hobbes's thought, at once transcended and reinscribed into political life as a `hedonist anthropology' that defines the human animal. Further, Hobbes's insistence that conventionally produced standards need be misrecognized as necessary and non-contingent undermines their legitimacy from the standpoint of human autonomy. This failure to break decisively with the appeal to nature leads to a political community that is at best a simulacrum, far removed from the vision of ethical unity that characterizes the classical conception of the polis and political life. Yet, it is argued, Hobbes's strategy nevertheless presents the key to subsequent attempts to complete a political `revolt' against nature, as developed in the thought of Rousseau, Kant and Hegel. (shrink)

Kojève’s lectures on Phenomenology of Spirit generated two ideas – otherness is something threatening that must be overcome and one’s relationships with others are inexorably violent – that fundamentally shaped the way many exponents of early French phenomenology regarded intersubjectivity. This essay shows how Beauvoir’s appropriation of Hegel in The Ethics of Ambiguity offers a perspective on intersubjectivity that defies the other-conquering Cartesian hero implied by Kojève and celebrated in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness. Beauvoir appreciates the degree to which Hegel (...) makes subjectivity indebted to otherness. Like Hegel, she defines oppression as the failure to recognise the otherness of the other. Beauvoir shares Hegel’s optimism that individuals can sublate their naïve solipsism. She associates reciprocal recognition between subjects with ethical freedom, which she distinguishes from Sartre’s concept of freedom. From the analysis of ethical freedom it is concluded that both conflict and friendship are side-effects of the essential bond between subjects and their mutual need for one another. The Hegel-inspired hopefulness at the core of The Ethics of Ambiguity is further demonstrated by Beauvoir’s rejection of the absurd in favour of ambiguity, her positive rendering of failure, her appeal to outrageousness, and focus on the joy of existence. (shrink)

The citation index of Thomas Kuhn’s work may strike any imagination. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is undoubtedly a twentieth-century record-breaker in the field of philosophy of science in terms of such a scientometric parameter. But such fame has been bitter in many ways and placed a heavy burden on the author. For several decades he has been the target of the harshest and most severe criticism. Often the concept of “normal science” and the “scientific revolution” as a “Gestalt switch” (...) was declared ridiculous and absurd. The paper analyses three lines of criticism of Kuhn’s concept: the first came from practicing scientists, the second from specialists in the philosophy of science, and the third from the field of social epistemology. Reproaches about the political bias of Kuhn’s concept were taken to extremes, since his views were widely popular. In our opinion, Kuhn should be called a victim of spontaneous hypercriticism. This circumstance did not allow him to improve the original model of scientific revolutions. In this respect, replacing the concept of “paradigm” with the concept of “disciplinary matrix” was a step backwards, not forwards. However, it is impossible to deny that in the field of the historiography of science, he acted as a real reformer. With the courage of Don Quixote, he defended the rights of historical reconstruction, the preservation of the historical past of science, which should not be completely assimilated within the framework of the modern system of knowledge. His motto was – “penetrate the minds of other people who lived in the past.” He boldly argued that in the process of historical development, science changes not only ideas about the object of knowledge, but also the reference of its ideas and concepts. Such a formulation of the question has not yet been fully reflected in modern epistemological concepts. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.3 (2001) 453-454 [Access article in PDF] Gregory Fried. Heidegger's Polemos: From Being to Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Pp. xvi + 302. Cloth, $35.00. That an outstanding philosopher could align himself with a monstrous ideology has always been a scandalous puzzle: but since Farias's Heidegger and Nazism (1989), it is impossible to dismiss Heidegger's "political episode" as the reprehensible (...) but forgivable lapse of a backwoods academic without political sense. Learning that Heidegger not only was a dedicated Nazi, but engineered a postwar cover-up of his involvement, was for many Heideggereans like entering a beloved office and finding swastikas spraypainted over everything. Consternation has hardly died down in the years since. Philosophers have struggled either to repudiate Heidegger's thought entirely or argue that the parts of it he pledged to Nazism were inconsistent with the rest. It isn't that such people deny (or not out loud) what would seem to be an obvious fact: that a bad man can be a good philosopher. They fear that something in Heidegger's thinking somehow "entails" fascism. A dilemma gets set up: either Heidegger's philosophy is contaminated by his actions, or to engage in those actions, Heidegger must have ignored his philosophy.Fried's book on polemos in Heidegger navigates between these horns: on the one hand, Fried dismisses as "absurd" any simple claim that Heidegger's work entails fascism (5), but on the other hand, he attempts to trace, throughout Heidegger's "middle period" (roughly Being and Time to the end of World War II), a notion he believes is consistent with embracing Nazism, not to argue that Heidegger's political decisions were correct or unavoidable, but that they were predictable—though fatally hubristic—responses to the European situation as Heidegger saw it. More, Fried wants to endorse Heidegger's understanding of polemos as valuable for politics today, not because it is insulated against fascism but because fascism is still a possibility we need to confront, even while we attempt to preserve Enlightenment ideals and liberal-democratic institutions in a "nihilistic" world.Heidegger bases his views about polemos ("struggle," "confrontation") on Heraclitus Fragment 53, where it is called "father and king of all." As he explores Heidegger's [End Page 453] treatment, Fried stresses that "what is of interest is not whether Heidegger's interpretations are philologically correct, but rather how these readings shed light on his own way of making sense of history and of politics" (29). And "confrontation" is the closest thing to a consistent political doctrine in Heidegger. He understands it as a respectful opposition that allows each "side" to appear in all its validity and therefore potential risk to the other "side." Confrontation is a principle of interpretation, dialogue between individuals, and interaction between nations (see 79-80). Fried insists that this idea is a crucial part of a number of central Heideggerean concepts, as well as how Heidegger viewed his own task, and Germany's, when National Socialism appeared with its promise of a new spiritual mission for the German Volk. That Heidegger's "romantic" hopes in Nazism were unfounded does not diminish the usefulness of his work on polemos, Fried thinks, because "postmodernist" thinkers, molded by Heidegger, have nothing better to offer as they "confront" the dying or dead "modern" world with dreams of a new society. Some respect for "liberal" values will still be necessary if postmodernist "deconstruction" of oppressive structures is not to leave inroads for new, opportunistic forms of fascism.Fried's is an important study, by a sympathetic but undazzled scholar of Heidegger, of a concept that may be as basic and fruitful as he claims: but his insistence on making everything in "middle Heidegger" depend on it causes him in many places to conflate separate projects and periods in Heidegger's work that were better left distinct. He is particularly unconvincing when he suggests (e.g., 59, 100, 116) that for Heidegger, human beings can "lose their Dasein" and become "unbeings" to whom "Being is... (shrink)

Arguments for the inherent value, equality of interests,or rights of non-human animals have presented a strong challenge for the anthropocentric worldview. However, they have been met with criticism.One form of criticism maintains that,regardless of their theoretical consistency,these 'pro-animal arguments' cannot be accepted due to their absurdity. Often, particularly inter-species interest conflicts are brought to the fore: if pro-animal arguments were followed,we could not solve interest conflicts between species,which is absurd. Because of this absurdity, the arguments need to be (...) abandoned. The paper analyses the strength, background and relevance of this 'argument from absurdity'. It is claimed that in all of the three areas mentioned above, the argument faces severe difficulties. (shrink)

This thesis aims to explain why art is the ideal agent for overcoming the absurdity and the meaninglessness of existence. The focus is Camus’ Rebellion in conjunction with Sartre’s notion of Authenticity. Together they provide an adequate answer to the fundamental questions of human existence. Together Camus’ rebellion and Sartre’s authenticity provide the necessary foundations for the overall authenticity of art, facilitating the emergence of purpose from the abyss of absurdity.

The research of Professor J. D. Roberts has interested me for several years. It has interested me because he has been working in a really rich area of intellectual history. Even before Professor Whitehead taught us to speak of the seventeenth century as the "century of genius," many of us looked with wonder on the creativity of the men who produced religious and philosophical literature in that period of contro versy and of power. It was, in a most unusual way, (...) a flowering time of the human spirit. The present volume is devoted to one fascinating chapter in the history of ideas. We know now, far better than we knew a generation ago, how incendiary Puritan ideas really were. They had tremendous consequences, many of which continue to this day, in spite of the absurd caricature of Puritanism, which is popularly accepted. The best of Milton's contemporaries were great thinkers as well as great doers. (shrink)

Hubert and Patricia Dreyfus, commenting on the common theme of Harold Pinter's The Dumbwaiter, The Room, and The Collection, write, "Something savage intrudes into an island of order, suddenly revealing this island's vulnerability demanding a response."1 Written in the late 1950s and early 1960s, these plays may or may not have been intended as commentaries on Hitler's exposé of the West's vulnerability to savagery. Read as such a commentary, however, the allied military victory, the Nuremburg trials, and the United Nations (...) Declaration of Human Rights may be seen as responses that attempt to reestablish the island's order. The military victory relied on science, technology, guns, tanks... (shrink)

Summary The career of Jacques-Pierre Brissot (1754–1793) featured two phases, separated dramatically by the Revolution of 1789. Before the revolutionary crisis and the subsequent political struggle that was to cost him his life, Brissot was an avocet who never practised but sought instead a career as a writer—and indeed as a philosophe, seeing himself as an ally of Diderot. The improbability of such an alliance was not lessened by his early and continuing alliance with Linguet. Before embarking in1778 on what (...) would be a prolific career as a published author, Brissot had written the manuscript on which attention is focused here. This is an uncompleted ‘Plan Raisoné’ for a comprehensive sceptical critique of all systematic claims to certainty in knowledge. There is an evident though problematic relationship here with Brissot's 1782 De la vérité, but it is also clear that the influence of Rousseau and Brissot's increasingly radical political outlook must have entailed a widening divergence from the scepticism he had previously extolled—the ‘Pyrrhonism’ that would protect sensible readers against dogmatic absurdity. Death on the scaffold proclaimed certainty, not doubt. (shrink)

Seeing philosophy as conversation with a number of fruitful avenues of discourse, Rorty seems to be caught in limbo, unwilling to follow through or commit himself to any particular line of discourse for fear of closing himself off to alternative discourses. Choosing to adopt this particular attitude he still has made a choice: he has made a commitment to non-commitment, or as Ortega puts it, “decided not to decide.” Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, trans. anonymously (...) (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1957), p. 48. Such a commitment or decision is in no way neutral, for it attempts to enforce, by moral requirement, Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 394. a new vocabulary which views philosophy as conversation between speakers, with a whole range of obligations and implications included. Thus the Rortian alternative, like the alternatives he criticizes, plays the role “of the cultural overseer who knows everyone's common ground — the Platonic philosopherking who knows what everybody else is really doing whether they know it or not, because he knows about the ultimate context ... within which they are doing it.” Ibid., pp. 317–318. In fact, Rorty even refers to “conversation as the ultimate context” Ibid., p. 389. In assuming to know everyone's common ground, that every-one is participating in the conversation of humankind whether they realize it or not, Rorty seems to fall prey to a similar “self-deceptive ... absurdity of thinking that the vocabulary [he uses] ... has some privileged attachment to reality which makes it more than just a further set of descriptions.” Ibid., p. 361.One implication of such a position is that despite its holder's claims that he or she will at least attempt to incorporate abnormal discourses of all sorts, the conversationalist will not be able to consider seriously a number of types of discourse. If the edifying, hermeneutical philosopher were really “willing to pick up the jargon of the interlocutor rather than translating it into his own terms,” Ibid., p. 318. it would often be necessary to drop the notion of conversation as being a fundamental practice or moral obligation. Rorty is obviously unwilling to really pick up the jargon of the epistemologist and the meta-physician he criticizes, or of Nietzsche and Stirner, for each of these does not have contained within them, at least as a primary consideration, the continuing of the conversation of humankind. Because he imposes his vocabulary and descriptions on them - they are merely speakers in a conversation - he will see them as merely threads in a larger social fabric, he will be translating their “jargon” into his own, and thus will never be able to take their position seriously, never be prepared to adopt their position as his own. Being possessed by the notion of continuing the conversation, he is closing himself off to traditional epistemological and metaphysical projects, as well as to the perspectives of thinkers like Stirner and Nietzsche, despite his claim to be open to all of them. He can only consider them as topics of conversation as long as he remains committed to conversation, and thus never consider them as live options, or consider them as alternative life-projects to be pursued on their own terms. In insisting on the moral obligation of philosophers to continue the conversation of the West, he is insisting on the moral obligation of philosophers not to whole-heartedly adopt any of the alternatives which would tend to close off this conversation. Therefore, instead of decrying “the very notion of having a view, while avoiding having a view about having views,” Ibid., p. 371. Rorty has a rather clear view about having views: one should not hold any view whole-heartedly except the view that philosophy should be conversation, and this conversation should be the way to decide among views; that is, the way to decide among all views except the view that conversation should be the way to decide, which for Rorty is not open to discussion, but is a moral obligation. All perspectives are encouraged in the conversation, but the conversational morality has already prescribed that these views should not be whole-heartedly adopted by responsible individuals. Requiring that philosophy be conversation, Rorty closes off numerous possible life-styles, and almost all traditional philosophical projects: he merely saves the appearances of these alternatives. Morally required to continue the conversation, philosophy becomes just talk. Along the same lines, when Rorty claims that the normal and abnormal discourses “do not compete, but rather help each other out,” Ibid., p. 346. he assumes that the epistemological and metaphysical discourses will be helped by various abnormal discourses, and assumes thinkers like Nietzsche and Stirner will be helped by being made to see the significance of societies which have fallen together and are united by civility. Yet, in doing this, Rorty is not attempting to understand - either sympathetically or intellectually - what it would mean to help these projects on their own terms, and as such is not trying to understand and assimilate these alternatives as he claims he is. Rather, he is holding each of these alternatives up to his own ideal of an “open conversation,” and judging what it would mean to “help out” these alternatives only according to his own particular standards. In continually translating what others are offering into his own particular frame of reference, he does not appreciate these philosophical alternatives for their worth as individual activities which can contribute to life and/or society, but values them only for what they can contribute to his larger project, the conversation of humankind. However, if these alternatives were taken seriously, then they would surely be seen to compete with his view which advocates social criteria for adjudicating disputes, thereby denying many of the fundamental aspects of the above-mentioned alternative philosophical under-takings. It should be seen that contrary to what Rorty suggests, edification also “provides only some, among many, ways of describing ourselves,” Ibid., p. 361. and is only one type of human project among many others. In suggesting that we shift our focus “from the relation between human beings and the objects of their inquiry to the relation between alternative standards of justification, and from there to the actual changes in these standards which make up intellectual history,” Ibid., pp. 389–390. Rorty neither breaks free from traditional concerns, nor brings the focus of attention onto our own lives. As Bernstein notes, “there is a sense in which Rorty himself is obsessed. It is almost as if he can't quite ‘let go’ and accept the force of his own critique. It is as if Rorty himself has been more deeply touched by what he is attacking than he realizes.... He himself is obsessed with the obsessions of philosophers.” R.J. Bernstein, “Philosophy in the Conversation of Mankind,” pp. 767, 775.As a result of this, Richard Eldridge correctly notes that Rorty is unable to realize that “[c]riticism matters just insofar as it enables us fruitfully to develop our lives and our practices out of the past.” Richard Eldridge, “Philosophy and the Achievement of Community: Rorty, Cavell and Criticism,” Metaphilosophy 14, No. 2 (1983), p. 124. As an alternative to the Rortian attitude, I invite the reader to entertain a perspective which is not primarily concerned with identifying oneself in accordance with, or in opposition to, particular traditions, but rather with assimilating and utilizing all previous philosophical labors in order to achieve the greatest appreciation of one's own personal possibilities, and the fullest expression of one's own powers. (shrink)

A partir da perspectiva intelectualista grega, na qual o dualismo entre corpo e alma requer o primado do discurso racional [lógos] em detrimento do páthos filosófico, busca-se com este artigo associar a noção de "desmedida" [hybris] com a noção de melancolia. Essa associação ganha ainda mais relevo, quando a aproximamos da interpretação de Simone Weil para o poema épico de Homero, a Ilíada. Se essa aproximação se justifica, então é patente a aproximação entre o caráter trágico que o destino adquire, (...) na perspectiva clássica, e a noção de contingência enquanto fundamento do absurdo existencial, no pensamento existencialista. We seek to associate the notion of "excess" [hubris] with the notion of melancholy from the intellectualist Greek perspective, in which the dualism between body and soul requires the rule of rational discourse [logos] at the expense of philosophical pathos. This association becomes more relevant when understood in light of Simone Weil's interpretation of Homer's epic poem, the Iliad. If this approach is justified, then a rapprochement becomes evident between the tragic character takes on destiny in the classical view, and the notion of contingency as the basis of existential absurdity in existentialist thought. (shrink)

Mass ideology is unique to modern society and rooted in early modern philosophy. Traditionally, knowledge had been viewed as resting on metaphysics. Rejecting metaphysical truth evoked questions about the source of "truth." For nineteenth-century ideologists, "truth" comes either from dominating classes in a progressively determined history or from a post-Copernican freedom of the superior man to create it. In From Physics to Politics Robert C. Trundle, Jr. uncovers the relation of modern philosophy to political ideology. And in (...) rooting truth in human nature and Nature by modal reasoning, he resolves the problem of politicized truth. Our concepts of scientific truth, logic, and necessity are essentially connected. Modern philosophy restricts our understanding of necessity to the political dreams and aspirations of Enlightenment intellectuals. As a result, these intellectuals refuse to acknowledge as factual or meaningful whatever is not intelligible within the practical goals of establishing science as a system of enlightened ideas. The effect of these ideas is that in our time metaphysical principles, speculative truths, our understanding of science, and the nature of logic have become subordinated to ideological dreams. Fascism, Nazism, Marxism, political correctness, and moral relativism are not historical aberrations but essential consequences. Trundle's work is groundbreaking and daring, and his underlying thesis demonstrates why scientific truth demands a modal defense. The defense not only integrates science, ethics, and politics, but shows how "truth" may be ascribed to moral and scientific principles in contrast to a modern philosophical tradition. Since this tradition is the origin of political ideology, it has led to an irrational politicization of truth. The book will appeal particularly to those interested in political history, histories of philosophy, the philosophy of sciences, and ethics. Robert C. Trundle, Jr. is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Scientific Research Society of Sigma Xi, an affiliate scholar for Idealistic Studies, and has served as reader for University de Laval's Laval Theologique et Philosphique. His publications include over three dozen articles in Res Publica, Logique et Analyse, Thought, Philosphy in Science, and New Horizons in the Philosophy of Science. His books include Beyond Absurdity (with R. Puligandla), Ancient Greek Philosophy, and Medieval Reasoning. He is currently professor in the department of social sciences and philosophy at Northern Kentucky University. (shrink)

In this article, I situate Orlando Patterson’s magnum opus, Slavery and Social Death alongside his earlier writings on slavery and slave revolts in Jamaica. To appreciate fully Patterson’s contributions to sociology, comparative historical sociology, and the wider literature on slavery, readers must engage with the full corpus of his scholarly production. By reading his body of work all together, as part of a much larger whole, social death may take on new angles, depths, and dimensions. Patterson’s previous work on slavery (...) and slave revolts in Jamaica, I suggest, invites novel ways to read his formulations of social death while opening other archives through which to study the (after)lives of slavery. (shrink)

This article responds to a call from Philosophy of Management (Vandekerckhove 2020) to open a discussion on the contribution of Albert Camus’s work to management. The aim of this article is to argue that Camus’s sense of cyclicality related to the recurrence of crises is particularly important for existential management. This idea is embodied primarily by Camus’s famous retelling of the myth of Sisyphus, which is not only a provocative metaphor of his thoughts, as discussed by many authors, but (...) is also an inspiring expression of the idea of ​​revolt, which is further developed in Camus’s later work. The article focuses on recent updates to Camus’s Sisyphean revolt in existentially oriented approaches to management. These are mainly the concepts of the existential manager, an analysis of managerial lived experience within existential hermeneutic phenomenology, and the perspective of an absurd organization. Camus’s motif of cyclicality represents a stimulating framework for analysing lived managerial experience, which is characterized by alternating phases of success and failure. The article also draws attention to other important motives in Camus’s work, such as avoiding extremes and idealistic constructs, and expressing the value of human life as a basis for ethical behaviour. All the mentioned motives are closely related to the concept of revolt. This article also provides several explanatory comments on the editorial, which help to take a closer look at Camus’s style of thinking and avoid possible misinterpretations. In this respect, the distinction between Camus’s approach and forms of existentialism is particularly important. (shrink)

In The Good Place, Chidi Anogonye has difficulty making decisions. In fact, that may be his defining characteristic, and it is the one that ultimately led to his demise on Earth. The belief in “fundamental truths” entails a belief in “objective values,” that is, values that exist outside of the frame of human thinking. Simone de Beauvoir calls such a belief “the spirit of seriousness”. Beauvoir also makes a distinction between absurdity—that which has no meaning—and ambiguity—that which has no (...) fixed meaning. Chidi follows one of Beauvoir's favorite principles of existentialism: “Do what one must, come what may”. In order to understand both Chidi's and Beauvoir's meaning of “must” we have to move away from an understanding of right and wrong as existing in the world, independent of human thought and assessment. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Materialism from Hobbes to Locke by Stewart DuncanThomas HoldenStewart Duncan. Materialism from Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. 248. Hardback, $80.00.Stewart Duncan’s Materialism from Hobbes to Locke presents a tightly focused study of the seventeenth-century English debate over materialism in the philosophy of mind, from Hobbes’s uncompromising rejection of incorporeal substance as a contradiction in terms through to Locke’s cautious calibrations (...) around the metaphysics of mind and body. Along the way, Duncan considers Hobbes’s exchange with Descartes and examines the contributions of a handful of mid- and late seventeenth-century figures, including those of the Cambridge Platonists Henry More and Ralph Cudworth writing in scandalized reaction to Hobbes, and that of the more bohemian figure Margaret Cavendish, with her own panpsychist variation of materialism. An epilogue considers some of Locke’s more radical self-described followers in the early eighteenth century, with their own iteration of materialist-inclined pseudo-Lockean speculations.Duncan’s book will take its place as an essential study of the debate over materialism and the metaphysics of mind in early modern England. It is particularly illuminating when examining the ways in which Locke’s own treatment of materialism is shaped both positively and negatively by the intervening responses to Hobbes. Locke himself is not always terribly scrupulous about registering his own influences, and—at least when read from our distance—can seem to present his monumental Essay Concerning Human Understanding more as an achievement of epic psychological introspection and experimental self-examination than a series of moves in a complex dialogue with other contemporary figures. Duncan brings significant parts of that subtextual dialogue back into view, shedding light on Locke’s cautious agnosticism about materialism through plausible treatment of his likeliest sources. In attending closely to Locke’s own influences, Materialism from Hobbes to Locke makes a substantial contribution to the project of naturalizing Locke that one also sees advanced in recent scholarship by Hannah Dawson, Nicholas Jolley, and Antonia LoLordo. And Duncan’s approach yields striking results, as when he intervenes compellingly in the well-known debate between Jonathan Bennett and Michael Ayers over whether Locke’s theory of substance commits him to a pure propertyless substratum or merely a material microstructure that is responsible for the empirically observable properties of objects. Ayers had rejected the pure substratum view as absurd and unthinkable for Locke. But Duncan shows that More had explicitly endorsed just such a theory and was very plausibly one of Locke’s sources. The hypothesis of a pure propertyless substratum was then at least a thinkable option for Locke, and it is arguable that his own view of substance was in part inspired by More.Throughout the book, Duncan’s spotlight is on the question of the metaphysical basis of the human mind, consciousness, and thought, together with the analogous question for other minds, whether animal, angelic, or divine. Most of the time, this focus on the metaphysics of mind tracks well with the leading concerns and arguments of the figures under discussion, and it helps give Duncan’s history an engaging narrative course. But it is arguable that for Hobbes, at least, materialism was as much a research program and methodological manifesto for what we would now call the natural sciences as it was an answer to a question about the nature of the conscious mind. Questions about the explanatory reach of materialism in natural philosophy—including questions about the nature of space and time, cohesion, elasticity, the existence of a vacuum, and the nature of active forces and materially penetrable fields—arise here only obliquely, if at all, as and when they inform the central question of mind.Duncan’s discussion is circumscribed in one other way as well. The “from Hobbes to Locke” of his title should not be taken as simply declaring the book’s chronological framework—as specifying the time period to be examined, bookended by each of these important figures. It should also be read causally, developmentally, genealogically: from Hobbes to Locke. Duncan’s book “is about the reactions to Hobbes’s materialism” (5, emphasis added), particularly the reactions in England (and... (shrink)

This is an admirable anthology of the ten chief writers who, in Dr. Kaufmann’s opinion mark the chief stages or variations in the contemporary challenge to the inauthentic existence of academic philosophy. In fact the only professed existentialist is Sartre, who coined the title to indicate the priority of existence over essence and understood it subjectively and absolutely of human freedom. The other live members of this classification repudiate the association with their verbal founder—the dead never had the opportunity. Sartre, (...) who straddles both literature and philosophy, is given the largest representation—with a story illustrating the absurdity of a prisoner’s choice, a psychological analysis from his technical philosophy on self-deception, complemented by an abridged essay, ‘Portrait of an Antisemite’ and his apologetic lecture, ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’. While Sartre is a virtuoso of keen insight and Cartesian clarity, his exercises in literature and philosophy provoke the criticism that he fails to fulfil either and thus has a lived ambiguity of his own: the intellectual play of abstract ideas in a novel or drama inhibit the development of character situation, while the dramatic interaction of characters may sacrifice the rigorous pursuit of the merely intellectual problem. The present lull in existentialist philosophy may be a concession to this fretful complaint, the French exponents in particular forsaking the technical treatise for the professional theatre. (shrink)

In some cases, you may release someone from some obligation they have to you. For instance, you may release them from a promise they made to you, or an obligation to repay money they have borrowed from you. But most take it as clear that, if you have an obligation to someone else, you cannot in any way release yourself from that obligation. I shall argue the contrary. The issue is important because one standard problem for (...) the idea of having duties to oneself relies on the impossibility of self-release. The argument is that a duty to oneself would be a duty from which one could release oneself, but that this is an absurdity, and so there can be no duties to oneself. This argument is to be rejected because a duty from which one can release oneself is perfectly possible, and such release occurs quite properly from time to time. (shrink)

Sade's personal fate has too long encouraged critics to concentrate on his personal isolation and personal revolt. Extraordinary as his life was, the light that it throws on his work casts into shade the intellectual context that was much more important to its generation than his actual experience. This book is about how Sade took a pure version of eighteenth-century materialism and rendered it into an even purer form of pornography. The eternal yet unequal clashing of atomic bodies became (...) the endless torture of human ones. It traces the intellectual genealogy that links Sade to his materialist forebears (d'Holbach, Condillac, Buffon, Diderot, La Mettrie, Robinet, Delisle de Sales) and shows how the germs of cruel pleasure were already present in elements of their work, as much in their rhetoric and stylistics as in their arguments. Sade, aided by his grounding in the interpretative techniques of illicit clandestine and libertine literature, read them attentively and developed their presentation as well as their content into a flawlessly logical and self-referential system. Thus the arrogant philosopher (the author / the libertine) did not just mouth his cruel positions but enacted them, proving the behaviour of matter as he/she did so. This reading of Sade's work refers its principal elements - shape, style and contents - back to the hardcore of materialism, offering an account which, while not making it more tolerable, renders it at once more accessible and more comprehensible. (shrink)

Translated from Arabic, the novels June Rain by Jabbour Douaihy and Dear Mister Kawabata by Rachid El-Daïf constitute a written testimony that allows us to discover the cultural heritage of the Lebanese village Zgharta. The novel of Douaihy is inspired from a historical fact, the massacre of Miziara which has happened in a church. The heroic abaday myth glorified and dethroned at the same time emerges in an authentic context in Juin Rain. However, Douaihy represents a positive divine (...) figure which incarnates the revolt against violence in a holy space. This heroic world is devalorized by the exogenous westernized vision. In fact, El-Daïf denounces violence that he associates to ignorance, rejection of modernization that he links to the resistance of a divine figure in the collective conscience of the villagers. (shrink)

Coming Back to the Absurd is a celebration of the enduring significance and impact of Albert Camus's first philosophical essay The Myth of Sisyphus. This collection of essays, from some of the world's leading Camus scholars, examines Camus's unique contribution to philosophy through The Myth since its publication.

G. E. Moore famously observed that to say, “ I went to the pictures last Tuesday but I don’t believe that I did” would be “absurd”. Why should it be absurd of me to say something about myself that might be true of me? Moore suggested an answer to this, but as I will show, one that fails. Wittgenstein was greatly impressed by Moore’s discovery of a class of absurd but possibly true assertions because he saw that it illuminates “the (...) logic of assertion”. Wittgenstein suggests a promising relation of assertion to belief in terms of the idea that one “expresses belief” that is consistent with the spirit of Moore’s failed attempt to explain the absurdity. Wittgenstein also observes that “under unusual circumstances”, the sentence, “It’s raining but I don’t believe it” could be given “a clear sense”. Why does the absurdity disappear from speech in such cases? Wittgenstein further suggests that analogous absurdity may be found in terms of desire, rather than belief. In what follows I develop an account of Moorean absurdity that, with the exception of Wittgenstein’s last suggestion, is broadly consistent with both Moore’s approach and Wittgenstein’s. (shrink)

YouTube's fastest-growing education and humor based channel. Real Life Lore goes from the screen to the pages with even more research, trivia, bizarre and true stories and fascinating facts than ever before.

Current popular narratives regarding the history of astronomy espouse the narrative of scientific development arising from clashes between observed phenomena and dogmatic religious scripture. Such narratives consider the development of our understandings of the cosmos as isolated episodes in ground-breaking, world-view shifting events, led by rational, objective and secular observers. As observation of astronomical development in the early 1600s shows, however, such a narrative is false. Developments by Johannes Kepler, for instance, followed earlier efforts by Nicholas Copernicus to refine (...) Aristotelian-based dogma with observed phenomena. Kepler's efforts specifically were not meant to challenge official Church teachings, but offer a superior system to what was than available, based around theological justifications. Popular acceptance of a heliocentric model came not from Kepler's writings, but from the philosophical teachings of Rene Descartes. Through strictly mathematical and philosophical reasoning, Descartes not only rendered the Aristotelian model baseless in society, but also provided a cosmological understanding of the universe that centred our solar system within a vast expanse of other stars. The shift than, from the Aristotelian geocentric model to the heliocentric model, came not from clashes between theology and reason, but from negotiations between theology and observed phenomena. (shrink)

Democracy has come under pressure in many countries in recent years. Authoritarian tendencies, populism and the cult of leadership threaten pluralistic societies in Europe and other parts of the world. But democracy is more than just a method of finding a majority; it is inextricably linked to the fight against oppression and injustice in all contexts of life. Especially in times of democratic crisis, it is necessary to focus on its core aspects. The political thinking of French philosopher and writer (...) Albert Camus, who died in 1960, offers the basis for a redefinition of democracy that is linked to and dependent on rebellion. From his reflections, a radical theory of democracy can be derived that is based on the absurdity of the world, its incompleteness, revolt and resistance to authoritarianism, on doubt, dialogue and foreignness. (shrink)

This article examines Václav Havel's unconventional route to democracy. At the core of the enquiry is an analysis of the role his Absurdism played in the development of his thought and activism. The essay illustrates how a typically literary, non-democratic intellectual orientation sustained Havel in his struggle for democratic political change against the abuses of really existing socialism. Yet, Havel's thought did not stop there; he eyed Western liberalism critically as well. Springing from his Absurdist sensibility was a vision (...) of democracy that was neither wholly liberal nor socialist, yet quite practical. By making a case for reconsidering ideas that typically fall outside the purview of democratic theory, this article also suggests the possibility of critically rethinking democracy itself. (shrink)

In this paper, I respond to Sterpetti’s attempt to defend Kyle P. Stanford’s Problem of Unconceived Alternatives and his New Induction over the History of Science from my reductio argument outlined in Mizrahi :59–68, 2016a). I discuss what I take to be the ways in which Sterpetti has misconstrued my argument against Stanford’s NIS, in particular, that it is a reductio, not a dilemma, as Sterpetti erroneously thinks. I argue that antirealists who endorse Stanford’s NIS still face an absurd (...) consequence of this argument, namely, that they should not believe their own brand of scientific antirealism. (shrink)