Durante la vida de Newton, su Óptica se publicó en sucesivas ediciones. En esta medida, fijar una versión definitiva del texto es problemático, por lo cual se hace necesario recurrir no sólo al texto sino también a los contextos y a la intertextualidad. El artículo plantea las dificultades de las lecturas tradicionales de la Óptica (como respuesta a teorías de la visión y la luz precedentes y como parte de la físico-teología inglesa) y argumenta a favor de una lectura teológica (...) del tratado, desde la epistemología de la Óptica y del entusiasmo religioso que Newton rechazó categóricamente. Consecuencia de esta lectura es una reformulación del texto, el contexto y la intertextualidad que hacen comprensible la Óptica de Newton. (shrink)

Jean-François Lyotard (1924-1998) was one of the most important French philosophers of the Twentieth Century. His impact has been felt across many disciplines: sociology; cultural studies; art theory and politics. This volume presents a diverse selection of interviews, conversations and debates which relate to the five decades of his working life, both as a political militant, experimental philosopher and teacher. Including hard-to-find interviews and previously untranslated material, this is the first time that interviews with Lyotard have been presented (...) as a collection. Key concepts from Lyotard's thought – the differend, the postmodern, the immaterial – are debated and discussed across different time periods, prompted by specific contexts and provocations. In addition there are debates with other thinkers, including Emmanuel Levinas and Jacques Derrida, which may be less familiar to an Anglophone audience. These debates and interviews help to contextualise Lyotard, highlighting the importance of Marx, Freud, Kant and Wittgenstein, in addition to the Jewish thought which accompanies the questions of silence, justice and presence that pervades Lyotard's thinking. (shrink)

This latest offering from one of the founding figures of postmodernism is a collection of fifteen "fables" that ask, in the words of Jean-Francois Lyotard, "how to live, and why?

"In a wide-ranging discussion the author examines the philosophy of Kant, Heidegger, Adorno and Derrida and looks at the works of modernist and postmodernist artists such as Cezanne, Debussy and Boulez. Lyotard addresses issues such as time and memory, the sublime and the avant-garde, and the relationship between aesthetics and politics. Throughout his discussion he considers the close but problematic links between modernity, progress and humanity, and the transition to postmodernity. Lyotard claims that it is the task of literature, philosophy (...) and the arts to bear witness to and explain this difficult transition." "This important contribution to aesthetic and philosophical debates will be of great interest to students in philosophy, literary and cultural theory and politics."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (shrink)

Nouvelle édition critique et traduction française annotée de la _Lettre à Marcella_ de Porphyre. Le philosophe néoplatonicien Porphyre (234-305) y adresse à sa femme un témoignage unique sur la manière dont une vie philosophique peut être conduite et se préserver. This book presents a new annotated and translated edition of neoplatonist 3rd-century Greek philosopher Porphyrius’ _Letter to Marcella_. This letter, adressed to his wife, gives a unique account on the ways and principles along which a philosophical life should be led (...) so as to perpetuate itself. (shrink)

In The Differend, Lyotard subjects to scrutiny- from the particular perspective of his notion of 'differend' - the turn of all Western philosophies toward language; the decline of metaphysics; the present intellectual retreat of Marxism; the hopes raised and mostly dashed, by theory; and the growing political despair. Taking his point of departure in an analysis of what Auschwitz meant philosophically, Lyotard attempts to sketch out modes of thought for our present.

The objective of this study is to analyze the measurability and interfirm comparability of sustainability performance through the qualitative content analysis of 12 sustainability reports of mining firms using the Global Reporting Initiative guidelines. The systematic comparison of information disclosed in 92 GRI indicators sheds light on the reasons underlying the impossibility of rigorously measuring and comparing the sustainability performance of firms from the same sector, which are supposed to be strictly following the same reporting guideline. These reasons include qualitative (...) aspects of sustainability, lack of compliance with GRI protocols, indicator contingency, ambiguous or incomplete information, data heterogeneity, and report opacity. The study makes it possible to return to the very notion of sustainability, its meaning, and flexible application by organizations. The results are discussed from three different theoretical perspectives, each of which proposes possible and complementary explanations of the main findings. (shrink)

The dual-process model of cognition but most especially its reflective component, system 2 processing, shows strong conceptual links with critical thinking. In fact, the salient characteristics of system 2 processing are so strikingly close to that of critical thinking, that it is tempting to claim that critical thinking is system 2 processing, no more and no less. In this article, I consider the two sides of that claim: Does critical thinking always require system 2 processing? And does system 2 processing (...) always result in critical thinking? I argue that it is plausible and helpful to consider that critical thinking requires system 2 processing. In particular, this assumption can provide interesting insights and benchmarks for critical thinking education. On the other hand, I show that system 2 processing can result in a range of outcomes which are either contradictory with critical thinking, or of debatable social desirability—which suggests that there is more to critical thinking than mere system 2 processing, and more to system 2 processing than just critical thinking. (shrink)

The political writings of Jean-Francois Lyotard, the prophet of the postmodern, are presented here as both the missing dimension of his work and the key to understanding his position within contemporary debate.

The Postmodern explained to children : Correspondence 1982- 1985.

Kant describes a conflict among the different theories of knowledge. A productive conflict whose emergence is the origin of a renewal: it awakens the spirit and it leads it to think critically. Philosophy becomes critique, Kant says, when it is not focused on the doctrines and on their demands, but on the relationship between general rules (the “sense”) that coordinates all the faculties – and their particular expression, that is to say the specific cases. Similarly operates the judge, that, in (...) court, has to invent (ausdenken) the rule capable of corresponding to the single case: a judge that, in order to decide (jus dicere) and utter the decision, tries to compensate the absence of adequate legal rules and often decides without the adapt general rule. The problem of the différend does not concern, thus, anthropology. It concerns language. Exemplary cases provide analoga of the sensitive data and are devices that allow the dialectic between different systems of value by connecting their core meaning, the proper names involved and what Kant defines the Darstellung. Nevertheless, against this background, a change of paradigm becomes necessary – a change that entails the break with hegelian philosophy of law and with a thought built on mediation, that is to say with the kantian Zusammenstimmung. It is not possible, nor desirable, to substitute the battle field with the court and to subordinate the individual interests to the general logic of argumentation, because the synthesis of the different voices might imply totalitarianism and the end of the différend might correspond to the beginning of terror. (shrink)

Jean-Francois Lyotard's contribution to the debate, Heidegger and 'the Jews, ' is a marked departure from the standard fare. In the first of the two interrelated essays, 'the Jews, ' Leotard quickly establishes the theme of the entire text, placing 'the Jews' in lower case, plural, and in quotation marks to represent the outsiders, the nonconformists: the artists, anarchists, blacks, homeless, Arabs, etc. --and the Jews; as an alien and dangerous disruption, they represent an 'other' to be excised from (...) the West's dream of unbounded fulfillment and development. (shrink)

In this book it explores science and technology, makes connections between these epistemic, cultural, and political trends, and develops profound insights into the nature of our postmodernity.

Reasoning research has traditionally focused on the derivation of beliefs from beliefs, but it is increasingly turning to reasoning about decisions. In the absence of a single, entrenched normative model, the drive toward normativism is weaker in this new field than in its parent fields. The current balance between normativism and descriptivism is illustrated by three approaches to reasoning about decisions.

In what is quite possibly the most famous passage of the De revolutionibus, Copernicus implies that nobody could ever place this supreme flaming torch that is the Sun in another or better place than that from which it can illuminate everything simultaneously, namely the centre of this extremely beautiful temple that is our world. Considering the fact that he leaves an interrogatory twist to this argument of convenience, and since he makes this statement without any justification as it seems entirely (...) evident to him, certain Copernicans choose to illustrate this by means of an analogy: if indeed the Sun must be positioned thus, it is because the most appropriate place for the torch intended to illuminate the room is at its centre, and not in one of its corners. Despite the heliosophy of the Renaissance having been shared by both geocentrists and Copernicans alike, this "torch" argument does not appear to have achieved much success: rarely adopted by the Copernican camp, it was even contested by some of them; as for the geocentrists, it held no appeal for them whatsoever. Did this argument of convenience therefore not benefit from the self-evidence attributed to it by Copernicus, and from, in his wake, it's continued support by a good many commentators? As is often the case when it comes to the history of thought, the pseudo-obviousness of this argument is merely the fruit of a blatant anachronism: presenting heliocentrism as the cosmological system that finally grants the Sun its worthy centrality by placing it in the centre of the room and not in a corner, is to ignore the fact that this star of the day already enjoyed, in geocentrism, a centrality esteemed to be perfectly in keeping with both its dignity and its inherent illuminative function. Having lost their grasp on this worldview that no longer belonged to them, the Copernicans thus put forward an argument which, for the geocentrists, is worthless. Yet they could have argued the objective superiority of their centrality over that accorded to the Sun by geocentrism: while the latter is only numerical, on a purely planetary scale, and frankly fictitious, the former is thoroughly spatial, of cosmic proportions and, at least on first approximation, very real. In order to produce arguments of convenience that could carry their own weight, the protagonists of the new cosmology would have benefited from getting to know the world vision of their adversaries a little better instead of addressing them from their own point of view; similarly, instead of treating as an obvious fact that which is only evident to one of the two parties present, historians of scientific thought would also be well advised to have a better understanding of the world vision of those who history now considers as the losers! (shrink)

Lucien BOSSY, «La physique d’Einstein» de Georges Lemaître, 1922 (pp. 9-22). Jean-Marc GÉRARD, Georges Lemaître et l’his­toire de notre Univers (pp. 23-55). Jean LADRIÈRE, La portée philo­sophique de l’hypothèse de l’atome primitif (pp. 57-80). Dominique LAMBERT, Pie XII et Georges Lemaître : deux visions distinctes des rapports sciences-foi (pp. 81-111). Marc LEC­LERC, La liberté intellectuelle de l’homme de sciences catho­lique (pp. 113-117). Alfonso PÉREZ DE LABORDA, Cosmologies et dogma­tiques : un problème d’interférence et de représen­tation (pp. 119-142). (...) class='Hi'>Jean-François STOFFEL, Mgr Georges Lemaître : bio-biblio­graphie (pp. 145-220). Jean-François STOFFEL, «La physique d’Einstein», texte inédit de Georges Lemaître (pp. 223-360). (shrink)

Cette analyse critique se propose, dans un premier temps, de reconstituer le raisonnement apologétique de l'auteur et, dans un second temps, de l'évaluer critiquement. Ce raisonnement nous semble pouvoir se synthétiser comme suit. L’Église, qui tenait que «tout ce qui est contenu dans l’Écriture doit être cru» tant que des raisons contraignantes n’ont pas été avancées, a démontré, contrairement au seul exemple de condamnation portée au nom de convictions religieuses qui est le fait de l’antiquité païenne, qu’elle a été capable (...) de renoncer à la lettre de l’Écriture, avant l’«affaire Galilée», en acceptant la sphéricité de la Terre et, après cette «affaire», en abandonnant le géo­cen­trisme, qui n’était pas seulement la façon de parler du «vul­gaire», mais celle de tous, au profit de l’héliocentrisme en 1757. Mais elle l’a fait, dans un cas comme dans l’autre, à condition que lui soit donnée une preuve valable, ce qui n’était pas le cas lors des événements de 1616 et 1633, comme en témoigne d’ailleurs le fait que les Coperniciens n’ont pas cessé d’avoir recours à la Bible et à des arguments de convenance. En revanche, en présence de tels arguments, l’Église n’aurait pas hésité à réviser son exégèse. Alors que le conflit entre l’astro­nomie nouvelle et l’Écriture sainte était potentiellement inévi­table dès l’apparition de l’héliocentrisme, car le nouveau sys­tème cosmologique touche indirectement une question aussi essentielle que le géocentrisme anthropocentrique chrétien, l’Église, malgré une première hésitation, a pu laisser libre cours à la nouvelle théorie durant une septantaine d’années. Sa condamnation de l’héliocentrisme copernicien en 1616, qui n’est donc nullement la conséquence ni d’une acte précipité et irréfléchi de la part des Consulteurs du Saint-Office, ni d’une méconnaissance de leur part des connaissances scientifiques de l’époque, ni d’un durcissement consécutif au Concile de Trente et à la Réforme, ni la conséquence d’une attaque de Galilée portée sur le terrain de la Bible à défaut de pouvoir être menée avec efficacité au niveau astronomique, a été rendue nécessaire par l’attitude de Galilée et témoigne du souci de l’Église de sauver «les “tout-petits du Christ” qui pouvaient être atteints dans leur foi». Une telle condamnation, aujourd’hui inimaginable en raison d’une séparation des savoirs dont il faut bien se rappeler qu’elle n’était aucunement de mise lors de ces événements, aurait sans doute pu être évitée si l’Église avait tiré les leçons du premier conflit (celui de la sphéricité de la Terre), en prenant conscience de l’historicité du texte biblique, au lieu d’occulter quelle était la véritable cosmologie biblique. (shrink)

Foucault débute le cours de 1983, l’avant-dernier de son enseignement au Collège de France, par la lecture de Qu’est-ce que les Lumières?, texte auquel il confère le statut que Kant attribue à l’ Aufklärung, celui de Wahlspruch, à la fois blason, précepte et marque distinctive. On se demande comment le lecteur est engagé par la lecture qu’il expose aux auditeurs du cours. S’agit-il de se reconnaître l’obligé de ce que Kant envisage en termes de sortie, une redistribution du rapport du (...) gouvernement de soi et du gouvernement des autres? S’agit-il de s’approprier d’une manière inédite le mode kantien de l’attention à ce rapport en s’appliquant à un examen théorico-pratique qui sera à la hauteur de ce que l’actualité exige de nous? (shrink)

Dominique Janicaud, qui nous a quittés brutalement en août 2002, à la veille de son départ à la retraite, était né le 14 novembre 1937 à Paris. Élève d’André Jacob en Terminale, puis de Jean Brun en khâgne au lycée Lakanal, il entre à l’ENS de la rue d’Ulm en 1958. Agrégé de philosophie en 1961, il est professeur à l’ENI de Caen et à l’École militaire de Saint-Cyr..

A major figure in the contemporary critical world, Jean-Francois Lyotard originally introduced the term 'postmodern' into current discussions of philosophy. The Postmodern Explained is an engaging collection of letters addressed to young philosophers, including the actual children of some of Lyotard's colleagues, that inform the trajectory of his thinking in the period before The Postmodern Condition through The Differend.