En este ensayo interpretamos algunas de las más complejas páginas de la novela de Cormac McCarthy The Crossing como “parábolas filosóficas”, es decir, como cuentos dentro de un cuento en los que el autor aborda algunas de las más estimulantes cuestiones filosóficas y éticas. Nos referimos a la ambigua relación entre vida humana y animal así como está conceptualizada en la figura del cazador; al complicado entramado de arraigo y andanza, destino y determinismo, sentido y sinsentido de toda vida; a (...) la búsqueda de Dios como garante de una vida llena que nunca se puede alcanzar; a las condiciones de posibilidad de la verdad en la narración y en la historia. Finalmente, consideramos cómo la obra y la filosofía de McCarthy pueden ser interpretadas como parte de la literatura y del pensamiento postmoderno. (shrink)

1. Prolegomena -- 2. [Without special title] -- 3. Opera theologica.

Towards biodeconstruction -- Between life and death: différance -- The absolute programme -- The text and the living -- Between life and death: the bond -- Beyond life death: autoimmunity -- Living on: the arche-performative.

Examines the relationship of Derrida’s writings on architecture to his methodology of deconstruction and to deconstrutivism in architecture. Between 1984 and 1994 Jacques Derrida wrote and spoke a great deal about architecture both in his academic work and in connection with a number of particular building projects around the world. He engaged significantly with the work of architects such as Bernard Tschumi, Peter Eisenman, and Daniel Libeskind. Derrida conceived of architecture as an example of the kind of multidimensional writing that (...) he had theorized in Of Grammatology, identifying a rich common ground between architecture and philosophy in relation to ideas about political community and the concept of dwelling. In this book, Francesco Vitale analyzes Derrida’s writings and demonstrates how Derrida’s work on this topic provides a richer understanding of his approach to deconstruction, highlighting the connections and differences between philosophical deconstruction and architectural deconstrutivism. “Although there has been some discussion of the intersection of deconstruction and architecture in the past, mostly among architects and architectural critics, Vitale’s work is distinguished by the fact that it is written by a true philosopher who has a much more acute sense than has usually been the case of the philosophical underpinnings of Derrida’s exchanges with Tschumi, Eisenman, and others. Vitale is throughout concise, precise, insightful, and often brilliant.” — Geoffrey Bennington, author of Interrupting Derrida. (shrink)

Abstract:Francesco Vitale discusses with Rodolphe Gasché the history of Heidegger reception in France and Germany, and more.

This paper intends to verify the extent and effectiveness of the transforming appropriation of the Derridean concept of ‘differance’ by Stiegler with respect to the problems that, according to Stiegler, make this creative critical operation necessary; in particular with respect to the most recent question concerning the possibility of thinking about and putting into practice a ‘neganthropological différance’ capable of facing the ecological crisis that today seems to threaten the very existence of life on earth. The paper goes back to (...) Technics and Time 1. to analyze the distinction between ‘vital difference’ and ‘noetic difference’ that constitutes the condition of possibility of the ‘neganthropological différance.’ In this perspective, the distinction proposed by Stiegler seems to re-propose the hierarchically oriented oppositional structure that characterizes metaphysical thought and in particular the opposition between man and animal, attributing to the human being the ability to free himself from the constraints of his biological-natural condition. Finally, the paper attempts to account for the repercussions of this approach on the very possibility of an effective response to the ecological crisis, concluding with a provocation regarding the role that theory can and must play with regard to such an urgent and far-reaching problem. (shrink)

Antoine Arnauld, dit le Grand Arnauld, théologien janséniste, grammairien et logicien, a bien servi la philosophie : interlocuteur de Descartes ; correspondant de Leibniz, éditeur des Pensées de Pascal, il est l'un de ceux qui ont le plus contribué à légitimer le cartésianisme. Foucault et Chomsky se sont intéressés à sa Logique ou art de penser et à sa Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port Royal, nées de la controverse qui a opposé Jansénistes, jésuites et Curie romaine au XVIIe siècle. (...) Sa théorie des idées, construite en opposition à celle de Malebranche, constitue une étape importante dans la constitution du problème de l'idéalité - qui trouvera son aboutissement chez Kant. Plusieurs raisons, par conséquent, de revenir sur une œuvre méconnue. On commence par rappeler le contexte dans lequel le jansénisme est né ; on situe ensuite Arnauld relativement à Descartes, au cartésianisme et à la philosophie en général ; on précise sa doctrine, principalement sa conception de l'homme déchu ; on détaille également sa morale. Après quoi, on restitue les grands thèmes de sa Logique et de sa Grammaire. On examine enfin la théorie des idées d'Arnauld et on fait le point sur son retour dans le champ des sciences cognitives. (shrink)

1. La formazione del pensiero filosofico dalle origini a Platone, VI-IV a.C. -- 2. Filosofia, cultura, scuole tra Aristotele e Augusto, IV-II secolo a.C. -- 3. Pensiero, culture e concezioni religiose, II secolo a.C.-II secolo d.C. -- 4. Cultura, filosofia, politica e religiosità, II-VI secolo d.C.

This extensive collection develops the philosophical content of sections from the previously published The Structure of the Mind . Dr. Belfiore begins from the basic ontological conception that considers the human 'mind' or 'spirit' as an evolving, conscious triad composed of intellect, sensitivity, and power, each exerting a selfish or moral activity. Through this approach the author develops new concepts about ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of law. Dr. Belfiore poses these and other concepts under the opinion that issues (...) concerning human beings can only be discussed by referring to what humans are as ontological entities. Thus, the notions of good and norms of morality, law, and society are derived from the structure and function of the mind. It follows that the solutions Dr. Belfiore presents are the results of a discovery and not the consequence of a conscious choice. Otherwise stated, ethics, politics, and law are given an ontological foundation. For each topic considered, Dr. Belfiore shows how his thought can reinterpret the views of other philosophers. The result of this is an innovative and highly stimulating text, which is of interest to graduate students and scholars in the philosophical branches of ethics, politics, and law. (shrink)

Molta filosofia moderna rifiuta l'idea di verità (filosofica) oggettiva, in quanto porterebbe alla violenza. Così ad esempio Derrida. Ma una corretta idea di verità oggettiva non ha questa implicazione di intolleranza.

Forse Tommaso non ha davvero tradito né il realismo di Aristotele, né il verbum cordis di Agostino. Nemmeno Gadamer forse ha veramente tradito Tommaso.

Laboratori didattici-Ipotesi di percorso. Sono raccolte le proposte di fruibilità didattica di alcuni tra gli aspetti più rilevanti del complesso problema delle Origini nelle Scienze Contemporanee, sviluppate dai Docenti, Studenti e Specializzandi di diverse scuole della Regione Toscana, che hanno partecipato ai Laboratori Didattici della Fondazione Stensen di Firenze, nel contesto delle celebrazioni dell’Anno Internazionale dell’Astronomia del 2009, a memoria dei 400 anni dall’utilizzazione astronomica da parte di Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) del cannocchiale.

In the field of life science there is a growing awareness of the metaphorical tenor of many of its key concepts and the problems that arise from them, as in the now-controversial case of the genetic ‘program’. In the seminar Life Death (2019) Derrida addresses this question from Georges Canguilhem’s difficulties in establishing a clear distinction between metaphor and concept, precisely with regard to the notion of ‘program’, concluding that this difficulty ‘demand[s] a recasting of this division and of the (...) law of this division’ between metaphor and concept. Beginning with these pages from Life Death, the present essay aims to reconstruct the deconstruction of this opposition and its epistemological consequences by going back to the Derridean essay ‘White Mythology’ (1971), to which Derrida refers in the seminar and in which the question of metaphor in the life sciences had been addressed in a critical confrontation with Bachelard and Canguilhem. (shrink)