It is evident to anyone who is at all familiar with the documents and witnesses of the times that Aztec society at the time of the discovery of Mexico appears to be intensely religious, that all public and private life was invaded, so to speak, by rites and dominated by beliefs. But what exactly was the place of religion and its ministrants in the hierarchy of powers? To what degree was the priestly function interwoven with that of government and the (...) administration of the city? Can the regime of ancient Mexico be described as a theocracy? To answer these questions, it is of no small use, first, to go back to the period preceding the foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. (shrink)

Cet article expose les linéaments d’une recherche en cours. Celle-ci se base sur l’hypothèse que certaines tendances de l’architecture contemporaine, malgré des formes a priori dissemblables, développent un espace architectural d’une profonde cohérence, nouvelle épistémè de la pratique architecturale. Autrement dit, nous nous posons la question de savoir quelles sont les conditions qui rendent possible une certaine architecture contemporaine. Mais pour nous, l’effort épistémologique n’est pas une fin en soi; notre recherche ne vise pas à opposer certaines formes à d’autres, (...) mais plutôt à montrer les nouvelles possibilités que recèlent les formes créées à l’aune du nouveau paradigme. Par nouvelles possibilités, nous entendons une évolution de l’habiter pouvant déterminer de nouveaux rapports entre les hommes, ainsi qu’une relation renouvelée à la nature. Est-ce trop demander à l’architecture? Si l’on considère que d’un côté bien des choses – la majorité de ce qui se construit – se bâtissent sans architectes et que de l’autre des bâtiments «signés» à l’originalité outrée servent à étancher la soif d’images publicitaires de la société du spectacle, non, il ne nous semble pas déplacé de chercher à savoir si certaines formes architecturales répondent à la question du vivre autrement. (shrink)

Terrible ethics -- The ethic of terror -- Phares; or, divisible sovereignty -- The logic of sovereignty -- A Sadean community -- Materia in the critique of autonomy -- Three women, three bombs -- Distracted republic.

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

During the seminar 'Time and Death penalty', which took place on November 14th 2000 in Triest's Department of Philosophy, Jacques Derrida presented a summary of his lectures of Paris and Irvine: 'Responsibility Problems. Forgiveness, Perjury and Death Penalty'. In Derrida's opinion the philosophical thought has never been - historically - against death penalty. Philosophy has either shown agreement towards its principle or it has remained silent. The aim of deconstruction is to confute the philosophical principles in favour of death (...) penalty , therefore producing a philosophically relevant thought capable of facing such a complex and delicate ethical-political situation. For this purpose Derrida relates the issue of reason to the issue of a 'supernatural world', in which the philosophical responsibility of a different form of reasoning is located. The obvious and immediate comparison is with Kant's position, whose inner contradictions are closely analysed by Derrida. The second reference is the psychoanalytical tradition, which Derrida profusely uses in order to show the equivocal nature of concepts such as 'cruelty' and 'exception' that characterise the juridical and political discourse on death penalty; opaque concepts which constitute its hidden foundation. (shrink)