This is a book about the philosophy of Henri Bergson which shows how relevant Bergson is to much contemporary philosophy. The book takes as its point of departure Bergson's insistence on precision in philosophy. It then discusses a variety of topics including laughter, the nature of time as experienced, how intelligence and language should be construed as a pragmatic product of evolution, and the antinomies of reason represented by magic and religion. This is not just another exposition of Bergson's work. (...) It offers an account of why Bergson commanded such a massive reading public in his own day and why he deserves to be read now. Written in a terse and clear style, this book will prove appealing to teachers and students of philosophy, cognitive science, psychology, religious studies and literature. (shrink)

This appraisal of two of the most fundamental terms in the moral language of Thomas Aquinas draws on the contemporary moral distinction between the goodness of a person and the rightness of a person's living. Keenan thus finds that Aquinas's earlier writings do not permit the possibility of such a distinction. But in his mature works, specifically the Summa Theologiae, Thomas describes the human act of moral intentionality, and even the virtues in a way analogous to our use of the (...) term moral rightness. To Thomas, only the virtue of charity expresses moral goodness. And, although Thomas describes vices and sin as wrong conduct, he never really develops a description for moral badness.Keenan compels us to carefully examine Thomas's central moral concepts and to measure them against contemporary standards for meaning and correctness. As a result, any student of Thomas will find here a forceful argument that his notion of the good is considerably different from ours. Similarly, ethicists and moral theologians will find in the Thomas presented here a consistent-virtue ethicist concerned with descriptions for right living. Any student of theology will also find here a Thomas whose critical and concrete thinking enabled him to develop and even abandon earlier positions as his comprehension of the Good evolved. This analysis prompts a re-examination of our own concepts. Measuring Thomas's standards against our own, Keenan obliges us to ask whether we sufficiently understand rightness and moral intentionality. He also asks whether we correctly describe what it means to will or to desire something. He further questions whether we have surrendered our understanding of the virtues to the voluntarism and subjectivism which Thomas relentlessly critiqued. This historically sophisticated reading of the Summa Thologiae both allows Thomas to speak again as he once did, and affords us the chance to evaluate the way we describe ourselves and one another as being good and living rightly. (shrink)

But beyond doubt also, the primacy that Plato gives to the imitation of, or participation in the Ideas, apparently substantially existing, is the main reason why critics have refused to recognize or consider possible any mode of conceptual immanence in the mind of the Demiurge or whomever they regard as the Platonic God. Text on text could be cited to exemplify the role of the Ideas as archetypes. Yet it seems rather strange that Plato should conceive of two simultaneous objects (...) of imitation, the Supreme Being and the Ideas. Despite the plurality of Ideas, however, some critics have recognized a centripetal tendency in the dialogues toward the primacy of the Good, or the One, or the Beautiful, or Being, over subordinate Ideas. Was there possibly some similar tendency toward unity of some sort between the Supreme Intellect and the Intelligibles, his archetypes, which in the Timaeus are the ideal Living Exemplar of the cosmos? (shrink)

La «question de l'Inconditionné» est développée par Paul Tillich dans une Religionsphilosophie pensée comme Logique de la raison religieuse et comme Théorie du sens, dans une perspective théonome. La présente étude analyse le projet du premier Tillich, après l'avoir situé en relation au paradigme de la Modernité. Tillich mène un double combat, face à l'«hybris religieuse» de l'hétéronomie et à l'«hybris culturelle» de la pure autonomie. Partant de la tension fondamentale entre identité mystique et différence éthique, le projet de Tillich (...) souligne l'aspect paradoxal et dialectique de la religion, son vouloir d'atteindre le contenu inconditionné à travers des formes conditionnées, sa résistance à être pur objet et concept d'une science. Dépassant le paradigme de la Modernité, Tillich construit une Philosophie de la Religion située dans le système des sciences, mais non fondée sur le conditionné, mais au contraire sur l'Inconditionné. Les éléments et catégories du religieux sont soumis à l'analyse à travers un processus méthodologique complexe, critique et dialectique, intuitif et vital; est ainsi formulée l'unité de sens entre le fondé, le fondant et le fondement ultime qui soutient tout. La dialectique du sacré et du profane, du divin et du démoniaque, de la foi et de l'incrédulité, de Dieu et du monde, est éclairée dans la perspective théonome; d'où est surpassée la pure autonomie, en lutte avec l'hétéronomie religieus. (shrink)