pThis article seeks to demonstrate how a dialogue between literary theorist and psychoanalyst François Flahault and Kyoto School philosopher Nishida Kitarō can be mutually beneficial in the service of building an account of good and evil that contributes to discourses in ethics. Although Flahault and Nishida share a similar commitment to disrupt the dichotomy between good and evil in the effort to liberate subjectivity, they diverge in terms of how their accounts relate subjectivity to the processes of social (...) history. As this article will discuss, the significance of their divergence, however, elucidates the strengths and limits of their approaches to the victim-victimizer duality that is implied within the problem of good and evil. Such a divergence also points to a potential space of synthesis and mutual enrichment as well: namely, on the side of championing Nishida’s contradictory logic and Flahault’s emphasis on the contextual demands and problems of social history. That is to say, within the dialogical encounter between Flahault and Nishida, as the present article suggests, is the potentiality to develop a universal conception of the common good that is contradictorily linked to the subjective interior where such provides a critical resource for a deeper engagement with the victim-victimizer duality./p. (shrink)

The main task of the article is to propose a critical analyses of the thesis of François Flahault that homo oeconomicus – an abstract subject of the cleaved Western consciousness – is responsible of economism and its mischiefs. The author shows the positive aspects of Flahault's interpretation, but also his simplifications and errors, by traversing the historical backgrounds of the concept of homo oeconomicus leading to the sophisms of the new economic doxa and its erroneous values.

In a recent paper, Eric Schwitzgebel argues that if materialism about consciousness is true, then the United States is likely to have its own stream of phenomenal consciousness, distinct from the streams of conscious experience of the people who compose it. Indeed, most plausible forms of materialism have to grant that a certain degree of functional and behavioral complexity constitutes a sufficient condition for the ascription of phenomenal consciousness – and Schwitzgebel makes a case to show that the United States (...) as a whole fulfills this condition. One way to avoid this counter-intuitive consequence of materialism about consciousness is to adopt what Schwitzgebel calls an “anti-nesting principle”: a principle that states that there can be no nested forms of phenomenal consciousness and that therefore a conscious whole cannot have parts that are themselves conscious. However, Schwitzgebel then proceeds in his paper to draw up various objections, notably based on thought experiments, in order to dismiss these kinds of “anti-nesting” principles. My aim in this paper is to present a version of a sophisticated anti-nesting principle that avoids Schwitzgebel’s objections. This principle is reasonable, intuitive, and as non-arbitrary as possible. Moreover, it can resist the objections mounted by Schwitzgebel against simple anti-nesting principles. This principle helps materialists avoid the implication that the United States has its own stream of consciousness, while granting consciousness to some entities which, in many cases, are intuitive instantiators of phenomenal consciousness. This principle therefore constitutes a way out for a materialist who wants to deny that the United States is conscious. (shrink)

Shortly after his death in 1997, the New York Review of Books called him “one of the most influential men in contemporary France.” Lies, Passions, and Illusions is a fitting capstone to this celebrated author’s oeuvre: a late-career ...

This book is a close reading of Jacques Lacan’s seminal essay, “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason Since Freud, ” selected for the particular light it casts on Lacan’s complex relation to linguistics, psychoanalysis, and philosophy. It clarifies the way Lacan renews or transforms the psychoanalytic field, through his diversion of Saussure’s theory of the sign, his radicalization of Freud’s fundamental concepts, and his subversion of dominant philosophical values. The authors argue, however, that Lacan’s discourse is (...) marked by a deep ambiguity: while he invents a new “language,” he nonetheless maintains the traditional metaphysical motifs of systemacity, foundation, and truth. (shrink)

Une conférence que Scheler prononça en 1926, intitulée « Leib und Seele » (« Le corps et l?âme »), contient le propos suivant : F. Nietzsche, Bergson, Simmel, Dilthey, l?activisme ( Aktivismus ) et toutes les variétés ( Spielarten ) d?un nouveau pragmatisme, la mauvaise philosophie de la vie ( Lebensphilosophie ) dans son ensemble, puisqu?on l?appelle ainsi, ont présenté ce courant selon la rationalité philosophique (voyez la philosophie de la vie [ Philosophie des Lebens ], voyez Rickert ; « (...) la grande raison du corps et la petite raison de notre conscience »). L?homme comme société hiérarchisée ( Gesellschaftsb [?]) de pulsions ( Trieben ) 1 . Il est question de l?intérêt de la jeunesse, dans tous les pays, pour le sport, la danse, la « force et la beauté » ( die ?Kraft und Schönheit? ) 2 . Un tel intérêt serait solidaire d?une horreur pour les valeurs de l?esprit conscient ainsi que pour une société mécaniste du travail. Tout cela, Scheler le nomme la « manière d?être dionysiaque » ( dionysischer Zug ) 3 . Les trois principaux thèmes de la critique adressée par Scheler à Nietzsche et Bergson sont présents ici : la théorie de la connaissance (il est question d?un « pragma­tisme »), l?ontologie de la vie (c?est à une certaine « philosophie de la vie » que Scheler s?en prend) et l?anthropologie (c?est une conception déterminée de l?homme qui est impliquée par la. (shrink)

A study of Marey, physician, physiologist, aviation researcher, and inventor, delineates his innovative work in chronophotography.

A defence of the 'pragmatic' theory of anaphora (which stresses the analogy between anaphora and deixis) against an argument put forward by Gareth Evans.

Response to Voltolini's contribution in the proceedings of the Granada workshop.

Alors qu’il était précepteur en Suisse, le jeune Hegel traduisit minutieusement un libelle révolutionnaire dénonçant l’oppression que les autorités bernoises exerçaient sur le Pays de Vaud. Il publia ces Lettres de Jean-Jacques Cart à son retour en Allemagne, en 1798, sous le couvert d’un anonymat qu’il ne leva jamais. Derrière le caractère anecdotique de cette première publication, on peut déceler des enjeux qui conduisirent à l’instauration de l’idéalisme spéculatif. Le motif de la lutte pour la reconnaissance, en particulier, semble y (...) trouver sa première apparition. Plus fondamentalement cette première publication éclaire le travail d’élaboration stylistique conduisant progressivement au système, avec, à l’horizon, la question de la portée pratique de la philosophie. (shrink)

In this highly insightful analysis of Western and Chinese concepts of efficacy, François Jullien subtly delves into the metaphysical preconceptions of the two civilizations to account for diverging patterns of action in warfare, politics, and diplomacy. He shows how Western and Chinese strategies work in several domains (the battlefield, for example) and analyzes two resulting acts of war. The Chinese strategist manipulates his own troops and the enemy to win a battle without waging war and to bring about victory effortlessly. (...) Efficacity in China is thus conceived of in terms of transformation (as opposed to action) and manipulation, making it closer to what is understood as efficacy in the West. Jullien’s brilliant interpretations of an array of recondite texts are key to understanding our own conceptions of action, time, and reality in this foray into the world of Chinese thought. In its clear and penetrating characterization of two contrasting views of reality from a heretofore unexplored perspective, A Treatise on Efficacy will be of central importance in the intellectual debate between East and West. (shrink)

Response to Brabanter's contribution in the proceedings of the Granada workshop.

Linguistique et philosophie logique du langage: deux traditions de pensee que bien des choses opposent. La premiere est plutot mentaliste, et orientee vers l'etude de la syntaxe; la seconde, plus preoccupee de semantique, cherche volontiers le sens dans les conditions de verite des phrases. Ce portrait n'est pas faux, mais il est incomplet: entre logique et linguistique, les relations n'ont pas ete, ne sont pas que d'opposition. Dans cet ouvrage, les auteurs proposent une sorte d'histoire conceptuelle des interactions fecondes entre (...) les deux disciplines au cours du XXe siecle. La premiere partie, consacree a la notion de categorie semantique et/ou syntaxique, raconte comment les theories a priori de la signification (Husserl, Frege, Russell) ont progressivement donne lieu au programme des grammaires categorielles, d'inspiration plus descriptive et empirique. La deuxieme partie traite d'un autre episode, datant des annees cinquante a soixante-dix, et lie a la naissance des grammaires generatives: celui au cours duquel l'opposition entre la these avancee par Chomsky de l'autonomie de la syntaxe, et l'idee de la priorite conceptuelle de la semantique, soutenue par des logiciens comme Montague, vient au premier plan. Enfin la troisieme partie traite des recherches tout a fait contemporaines concernant l'etude des expressions indefinies et des relations anaphoriques qu'elles soutiennent, theme ou se dessinent des convergences nouvelles entre l'analyse logique et l'analyse linguistique: la comprehension des rapports entre generalite et reference dans les langages naturels y gagnera certainement en finesse et en adequation empirique. (shrink)