This paper is not an article in a regular sense. It is a dialogue between François-David Sebbah, one of the two editors of this topical collection, and Jean-Luc Nancy, one of the most eminent representatives of the contemporary French Thought. This dialogue took place in the first half of 2022 in a written form, because of the sanitary restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic and because Nancy was heavily sick. Sebbah sent to Nancy a text, corresponding to Section 2.1, and (...) Nancy responded to it with another text, corresponding to Section 2.2. Unfortunately, Nancy died on August 23, 2022, and could not revise his own text nor pursue the dialogue, as it was originally planned. For this reason, an introductory clarification by Sebbah, corresponding to Section 1, has been added. The purpose of such clarification is to introduce the reader to Nancy’s philosophy of technology—although technology never had a central role in Nancy’s reflections. In Section 2.1, Sebbah proposes a distinction between “French Theory,” “French Thought,” and “French Philosophy.” He also proposes a list of twelve possible intersections between the French Thought and the philosophy of technology. In Section 2.2, Nancy criticizes the use of expressions such as “French Thought.” He also insists, in a Heideggerian vein, on the fact that Technology (with a capital “T”) does not depend on human ends but has its own ends. (shrink)

In exploring the nature of excess relative to a phenomenology of the limit, Testing the Limit claims that phenomenology itself is an exploration of excess. What does it mean that "the self" is "given"? Should we see it as originary; or rather, in what way is the self engendered from textual practices that transgress—or hover around and therefore within—the threshold of phenomenologial discourse? This is the first book to include Michel Henry in a triangulation with Derrida and Levinas and the (...) first to critique Levinas on the basis of his interpolation of philosophy and religion. Sebbah claims that the textual origins of phenomenology determine, in their temporal rhythms, the nature of the subjectivation on which they focus. He situates these considerations within the broader picture of the state of contemporary French phenomenology (chiefly the legacy of Merleau-Ponty), in order to show that these three thinkers share a certain "family resemblance," the identification of which reveals something about the traces of other phenomenological families. It is by testing the limit within the context of traditional phenomenological concerns about the appearance of subjectivity and ipseity that Derrida, Henry, and Levinas radically reconsider phenomenology and that French phenomenology assumes its present form. (shrink)

Bernard Stiegler’s prolific career consisted both in philosophical reflection and concrete political interventions. In this article, Stiegler’s project in Technics and Time is re-evaluated with an eye towards its philosophical specificity and radicality. Technics and Time, read in this way, is shown to be a genuine rival to Heidegger’s fundamental ontology from Being and Time. By making use of André Leroi-Gourhan’s paleoanthropological reflections among other forms of non-philosophical knowledge, Stiegler is able to grasp the fundamental importance of technics in an (...) unprecedented way, in turn pushing his thinking beyond other important philosophical influences such as Bergson, Simondon, and Derrida. Stiegler’s distinctive attention to technics is thus shown to be an essential factor in his prescient political diagnostics. (shrink)

Este artículo se propone evaluar la pertinencia de la lectura de la “relación ética” levinasiana propuesta por Jean-Luc Marion. El gesto levinasiano, que permite su despliegue en diversos sentidos, se sitúa en el corazón mismo del “momento francés de la fenomenología”.

This article explores the seemingly exaggerated emphasis of Lyotard on the importance of hearing the ethical commandment in Levinas, instead of seeing or perceiving it in sensibility. Lyotard wants to read Levinas as a “Jewish thinker,” and his ethics as deeply connected to “Hebraic ethics.” Such a reading contrasts with phenomenological and Christian interpretations of Levinas, like Jean-Luc Marion’s, that focus on incarnation, the face, love, and the concrete relation to the other. Yet Lyotard outbids the rigor of commandment in (...) Levinas, insisting on the radical heterogeneity of hearing and any phenomenological seeing. Ethics is completely outside phenomenology. This article argues that, instead of reading Lyotard as misreading Levinas, his approach can be one of the names for the skeptical phase that suspends or interrupts the Levinasian Said itself, especially when it tends to become excessively Christian. (shrink)

Ces articles expriment la pensée de J.-T. Desanti et permettent de cerner la cohérence de ses positions philosophiques pour dégager un ensemble cohérent de positions ontologiques qui constitueraient sa philosophie.

La notion d’« amour » apparaît sous la plume de Levinas dans divers contextes et à des moments différents de l’œuvre : de « l’amour sexuel » désigné comme origine du social à l’« amour » qui nommerait mieux encore la responsabilité infinie pour autrui que le vocable « éthique », en passant par l’Eros décrit en particulier dans Le temps et l’autre (TA) puis dans Totalité et Infini (TI), c’est peu dire que la notion renvoie à des significations sensiblement (...) différentes, au point que le lecteur... (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Emmanuel Levinas Michel Henry Jacques Derrida Jean‐Luc Marion Jacques Derrida The Saturated Phenomenon According to Jean‐Luc Marion The Face According to Levinas The Auto‐Revelation of the Figure of Christ in Michel Henry.

Ce livre trouve sinon son origine, du moins son impulsion, dans une rencontre avec des textes : ceux d'Emmanuel Levinas, de Michel Henry et de Jacques Derrida. Ces textes ne confrontent-ils pas leur lecteur à une pratique excessive de la méthode phénoménologique? N'a-t-on pas affaire à une phénoménologie pour ainsi dure victime d'un emballement parce que son souci de l'originaire la mènerait inéluctablement à se porter vers ce qui excède le champ de l'apparaître? Une phénoménologie caractérisée par une surenchère à (...) l'originaire? S'intéresser à la pratique de l'excès, c'est s'intéresser à la pratique de la limite, la limite dans la transgression de laquelle l'excès est ce qu'il est. En l'occurrence, lorsqu'il s'agit de phénoménologie, cette limite est celle du domaine de ce qui apparaît n tant qu'il apparaît, de ce qui se donne. Aussi le questionnement informe-t-il l'ensemble de la lecture ici proposée : que peut-on attendre, en phénoménologie, de la pratique de l'excès? Peut-on convertir cette violence en fécondité? Qu'en est-il, en général, d'un bon usage de la limite et de l'excès en phénoménologie? Questionnement qui ne se laissera jamais séparer d'une autre interrogation : e, l'épreuve de la limite, n'est-ce pas toujours une subjectivité qui s'éprouve? (shrink)

Ce texte fait l’hypothèse que ce que Levinas nomme dans ses Carnets la « scène d’Alençon » traduit une « décision séminale », est comme la « pensée situation » de la réduction proprement lévinassienne. Il en étudie deux occurrences dans l’œuvre lévinassienne : l’une à propos de l’être juif et l’autre dans le croisement avec la déconstruction derridienne.

The aim of this article is to give an account of the Levinasian description of the Father/Son relation and to evaluate its philosophical implications, in particular in the domain of phenomenology. It will also consider the Levinasian description of the feminine, which is often problematical on account of its machismo. It is argued that these two questions, apparently quite unrelated, are in fact closely linked: they both derive from a common aporia situated at the heart of the decisive phenomenological description (...) of the trial of otherness. (shrink)