Michel Foucault's death in 1984 coincided with the fading away of the hopes for social transformation that characterized the postwar period. In the decades following his death, neoliberalism has triumphed and attacks on social rights have become increasingly bold. If Foucault was not a direct witness of these years, his work on neoliberalism is nonetheless prescient: the question of liberalism occupies an important place in his last works. Since his death, Foucault's conceptual apparatus has acquired a central, even dominant position (...) for a substantial segment of the world's intellectual left. However, as the contributions to this volume demonstrate, Foucault's attitude towards neoliberalism was at least equivocal. Far from leading an intellectual struggle against free market orthodoxy, Foucault seems in many ways to endorse it. How is one to understand his radical critique of the welfare state, understood as an instrument of biopower? Or his support for the pandering anti-Marxism of the so-called new philosophers? Is it possible that Foucault was seduced by neoliberalism? This question is not merely of biographical interest: it forces us to confront more generally the mutations of the left since May 1968, the disillusionment of the years that followed and the profound transformations in the French intellectual field over the past thirty years. To understand the 1980s and the neoliberal triumph is to explore the most ambiguous corners of the intellectual left through one of its most important figures. (shrink)

We argue that philosophers are competent to facilitate public discussion concerning restrictions on human migration across political borders. We also argue that presenting public audiences with a prima facie case for open borders offers a unique opportunity to elucidate important aspects of philosophical reasoning. Finally, we share resources and a lesson plan for those keen to examine the case for open borders with students, or to facilitate public discussion on these issues.

In this paper, I present an interpretation of Kant’s view that reason’s hypostasis of the idea of a sum-total of reality is dogmatic and illegitimate. In the section on the ‘Transcendental Ideal’, the second section of the Ideal of Pure Reason chapter in the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant starts by describing reason’s procedure from the affirmation of the principle of thoroughgoing determination to the hypostasis in question. According to the interpretation I defend, the argument for hypostasis deployed in this (...) section constitutes an improvement upon an argument defended by the pre-critical Kant himself in his 1673 essay “The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God”. By making reference to the concept of omnitudo realitatis, the argument in the ‘Transcendental Ideal’ section presents a much more radical and convincing interpretation of the thesis that ‘possibility presupposes actuality’. Second, I present transcendental idealism and its related distinction between objects of sense and objects in general as the main dissuasive argument of the critical philosopher against hypostasis. Finally, I consider an argument against hypostasis that is independent of transcendental idealism: the threat of set-theoretical paradoxes if we hypostatize the relevant idea, intended as the concept of an absolutely comprehensive totality. (shrink)

La mort de Michel Foucault en 1984 a coïncidé avec l'évanouissement des espoirs de transformation sociale qui avaient caractérisé l'après-guerre. Dans les décennies qui ont suivi sa mort, le néolibéralisme a triomphé et les attaques contre la sphère publique se sont amplifiées. Si Foucault n'a pas été un témoin direct de ces années, ses travaux sur le néolibéralisme n'en sont pas moins prémonitoires : la question du libéralisme occupe une place importante dans ses dernières œuvres. Depuis sa mort, l'appareil conceptuel (...) de Foucault a acquis une position centrale, voire dominante, pour une partie importante de la gauche intellectuelle mondiale. Cependant, comme le montrent les contributions à ce volume, l'attitude de Foucault à l'égard du néolibéralisme était pour le moins équivoque. Loin de mener une lutte intellectuelle contre l'orthodoxie du marché libre, Foucault a semblé y voir une opportunité pour inventer de nouvelles subjectivités. Un espace libéré du pouvoir pastoral de l'Etat social. Comment comprendre sa critique radicale de ce dernier, comprise comme un instrument du biopouvoir? Ou son soutien à l'anti-marxisme des nouveaux philosophes? Est-il possible que Foucault ait été séduit par le néolibéralisme? Cette question n'a pas qu'un intérêt biographique : elle nous oblige à nous confronter plus généralement aux mutations de la gauche depuis mai 1968, aux désillusions des années qui ont suivi et aux transformations profondes du champ intellectuel français depuis trente ans. Comprendre les années 1980 et le triomphe néolibéral, c'est explorer les recoins les plus ambigus de la gauche intellectuelle à travers l'une de ses figures les plus importantes. Ce livre est édité par Daniel Zamora et M.0 Behrent Daniel Zamora est professeur de sociologie à l'Université Libre de Bruxelles. Il travaille sur les conceptualisations de la pauvreté au XXe siècle, sur les inégalités et sur l'histoire moderne des idées. Il a écrit pour Le Monde Diplomatique, Jacobin, la Los Angeles Review of Books, Dissent, et ses textes ont été traduits dans une quinzaine de langues."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

The essay presents a historical overview and critical discussion of the debates over the relation between classical liberal and neoliberal conceptions of the relation between state and market, with particular reference to the idea of freedom. Through figures like Beveridge, Mises, and Friedman, the author explores the move from social planning to market dominance, showing the shift from citizens to consumers and from a collective to a more individual definition of freedom, and emphasizing the implications for citizenship and democracy.