Avec ce livre, l'humanisme change de visage.

This chapter highlights the impact of the work of French phenomenologist Michel Henry and Austrian psychoanalyst Otto Rank on psychoanalysis. I contend that Henry and Rank clarify the nature and role of mindfulness and creativity in psychoanalysis. To begin, I draw out the implications of Henry’s critique of Freudian psychoanalysis. In my view, Henry’s work reveals and untangles basic inconsistencies in Freud’s views on the unconscious, affective layer of the subject’s life, and establishes that the creativity of life’s immanent movement (...) is essential to the development of the subject’s personality and to the acquisition and alleviation of neuroses. At the same time, I maintain that, while Henry’s work acknowledges a potential role for mindfulness in the development of life’s creativity, his account is problematic. At the end of the day, Henry’s conception of life as an immanent, self-enclosed reality fails to adequately account for the relation between life (creativity) and intentionality (mindfulness). As a result, it fails to sufficiently account for the intersubjective character of creativity and mindfulness. To address these issues, I bring Henry’s insights into these matters into dialogue with Rank’s psychology of difference, which similarly regards affectivity and creativity as central to human life and to psychoanalysis. By doing so, what comes forward is that mindfulness and creativity are relationships that can strengthen and weaken one another, and which always involve self-enclosure and openness towards others and the cosmos. Bearing this in mind, I maintain that mindfulness and creativity can play an important role in allowing psychoanalysis to realize its aim of improving the well-being of human beings. (shrink)

This article addresses the problematic relation between Michel Henry’s phenomenology of life and ethics. More specifically, it asks whether Henry’s account of the self’s transcendental birth in the immanent self-generation of life allows for a sense of individual responsibility. I begin by discussing Henry’s generation of the self and show how the historical essence of the self is structured according to the antinomy of affectivity. I then show how, for Henry, this history of life is full and yet incomplete. Accordingly, (...) life is attracted to growth and this growth happens insofar as living beings proceed through a series of stages of despair. I develop these stages by looking at Henry’s analyses of anxiety, desire, and humility in relation to Kierkegaard. I argue that even though there is already an initial sense of responsibility at work in the earliest stirrings of anxiety, it is only in humility that the self comes to know who it truly is and how it ought to relate to others. Cet article se penche sur la relation problématique entre la phéno-ménologie de la vie et l’éthique de Michel Henry. Plus spécifiquement, nous nous demandons si l’explication de la naissance trans-cendantale du soi dans l’auto-génération immanente de la vie que propose Henry permet de rendre compte d’un sens de la responsabilité personnelle. Nous débutons avec une analyse de la génération du soi chez Henry et montrons comment l’essence historique du soi est structurée selon l’antinomie de l’affectivité. Nous montrons en-suite comment, pour Henry, cette histoire du soi est pleine bien qu’incomplète. En conséquence, la vie est attirée par la croissance, et cette croissance se produit dans la mesure où les êtres vivants passent à travers une série de stades du désespoir. Nous dévelop-pons ces divers stades en nous tournant vers les analyses que fait Henry de l’angoisse, du désir, et de l’humilité en relation avec Kierkegaard. Nous soutenons que même s’il y a déjà un sens initial de la responsabilité à l’oeuvre dans le premier éveil de l’angoisse, c’est seulement en atteignant le stade de l’humilité que le soi en vient à savoir qui il est vraiment et comment il doit se rapporter aux autres. (shrink)

This paper seeks to address whether human life harbours the possibility of a gratuitous or non-reciprocal form of trust. To address this issue, I take up Descartes’ account of the cogito as the essence of all appearing. With his interpretation of Descartes’ account of the cogito as an immanent and affective mode of appearing, I maintain that Henry provides the transcendental foundation for a non-reciprocal form of trust, which the history of Western philosophy has largely covered over by forgetting this (...) aspect of Descartes’ thought. I demonstrate that Heidegger’s reading of Descartes serves as a preeminent example of this. Because Heidegger overlooks Descartes’ insight into the essence of appearing, and reduces this essence to the finite transcendence of the world, I maintain that Heidegger reduces trust to reciprocal relations of understanding between beings of shared contexts of significance. (shrink)

It has been widely argued that Michel Henry dismisses the importance of the subject’s worldly and intentional mode of existence in his account of the well-being of life. However, through a careful analysis of Henry’s theory of life and his study of culture and barbarism, I will demonstrate that the prevailing position on this point is both correct and incorrect: (i) correct in that absolute life does not require a moral transformation of the world; and (ii) incorrect inasmuch as Henry’s (...) philosophy does not, for all that, deny that, from the perspective of human beings, the subject’s existence in the world does indeed matter to the well-being of their life. In my view, Henry’s work harbours the implication that, from the perspective of the subject’s existence in the world, the creation of a moral world through the development of the correspondence between one’s inner life and the natural world is humanity’s most pressing task, to the point that his entire phenomenology is oriented toward the achievement of this end. I will highlight two of the ways in which the subject’s existence is vital to life’s well-being: (i) as an expression of life; and (ii) as more or less befitting of life’s current needs. As part of this study, I argue that some of Henry’s conclusions regarding theoretical knowledge and its part in the aforementioned correspondence between life and the natural world do not entirely agree with his own analyses and therefore need to be reformed. (shrink)

It has been widely argued that Michel Henry dismisses the importance of the subject's worldly and intentional mode of existence in his account of the well-being of life. However, through a careful analysis of Henry's theory of life and his study of culture and barbarism, I will demonstrate that the prevailing position on this point is both correct and incorrect: (i) correct in that absolute life does not require a moral transformation of the world; and (ii) incorrect inasmuch as Henry's (...) philosophy does not, for all that, deny that, from the perspective of human beings, the subject's existence in the world does indeed matter to the well-being of their life. In my view, Henry's work harbours the implication that, from the perspective of the subject's existence in the world, the creation of a moral world through the development of the correspondence between one's inner life and the natural world is humanity's most pressing task, to the point that his entire phenomenology is oriented toward the achievement of this end. I will highlight two of the ways in which the subject's existence is vital to life's well-being: (i) as an expression of life; and (ii) as more or less befitting of life's current needs. As part of this study, I argue that some of Henry's conclusions regarding theoretical knowledge and its part in the aforementioned correspondence between life and the natural world do not entirely agree with his own analyses and therefore need to be reformed. (shrink)

This paper will address the concept of labor through a study of Karl Marx and Michel Henry. While Henry claims to uncover, against the tradition of Marxism itself, the truth of Marx’s philosophical conception of the human being as a laborer within a social context, I will argue that both Marx and Marxism (i.e., Étienne Balibar) can help rectify certain shortcomings in Henry’s view of the matter. Toward this end, I will begin by laying out Henry’s account of Marx’s theory (...) of labor and demonstrate that it is central to Henry’s phenomenology of life. As part of this, I will show that a proper understanding of the concept of labor goes some way toward undermining the dominant view of Henry’s work as one that neglects the role of the human being’s engagement in the world in life’s transformations. For all that, as I will demonstrate, Henry’s work fails to do justice to the ways in which the living labor of human beings is determined by the world. By analyzing the work of Marx and Balibar, this paper will show that these figures provide insights into the inter-affective, even transindividual, character of labor and thereby help remedy these pitfalls and improve Henry’s account of the nature and function of living labor. (shrink)

This paper addresses the claim that the social orders of Western civilization operate on the basis of the law’s presumed sovereignty over life. I demonstrate how the respective works of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben and French phenomenologist Michel Henry are joined in their concern over this issue, and in their shared belief that life can be made sovereign over the law through a communal life based upon habit. At the same time, I argue that their respective conceptions of this communal (...) life are flawed, and that they would benefit from being brought into a productive dialogue with one another. More specifically, I show that Henry’s account of a Christian communal life based upon the habitual practice of love moves at least some way toward addressing Agamben’s account of a coming community that is decidedly abstract and lacking in a substantial ethic. However, I maintain that Henry’s own account of this community is founded upon a problematic conception of potentiality that would benefit from Agamben’s study of the matter. By bringing these two figures together and drawing out the lessons that can be learnt from each of them, this work provides a more concrete and substantial account of how a coming Christian community can play a role in making life sovereign over the force of the law. (shrink)

This chapter highlights the impact of the work of French phenomenologist Michel Henry and Austrian psychoanalyst Otto Rank on psychoanalysis. I contend that Henry and Rank clarify the nature and role of mindfulness and creativity in psychoanalysis. To begin, I draw out the implications of Henry’s critique of Freudian psychoanalysis. In my view, Henry’s work reveals and untangles basic inconsistencies in Freud’s views on the unconscious, affective layer of the subject’s life, and establishes that the creativity of life’s immanent movement (...) is essential to the development of the subject’s personality and to the acquisition and alleviation of neuroses. At the same time, I maintain that, while Henry’s work acknowledges a potential role for mindfulness in the development of life’s creativity, his account is problematic. At the end of the day, Henry’s conception of life as an immanent, self-enclosed reality fails to adequately account for the relation between life (creativity) and intentionality (mindfulness). As a result, it fails to sufficiently account for the intersubjective character of creativity and mindfulness. To address these issues, I bring Henry’s insights into these matters into dialogue with Rank’s psychology of difference, which similarly regards affectivity and creativity as central to human life and to psychoanalysis. By doing so, what comes forward is that mindfulness and creativity are relationships that can strengthen and weaken one another, and which always involve self-enclosure and openness towards others and the cosmos. Bearing this in mind, I maintain that mindfulness and creativity can play an important role in allowing psychoanalysis to realize its aim of improving the well-being of human beings. (shrink)

This paper engages in a critical examination of Michel Henry’s (1922-2002) phenomenological study of the erotic relation. I argue that while Henry’s analysis sheds light on the nature of eros and how it might be renewed from the obscene objectivism to which it has largely been reduced in Western society today, his analysis of eros undermines his account of the phenomenological life of the subject as a radically immanent mode of appearing and calls for revision. I contend that it is (...) by acknowledging life as a movement of transcendence toward the world that we can resolve this issue and further refine Henry’s insights into the nature of eros and how it might once again be renewed in contemporary Western civilization. I begin by laying out Henry’s account of how the forgetting of life results in a reduction of the erotic (i.e., inter-subjective) relation to a merely sexual (i.e., inter-objective) one, and how this lays the groundwork for what he regards as the destructive sadomasochistic practices of voyeurism and pornography. Following this, I outline Henry’s account of the nature and limits of the erotic relation, and I demonstrate how Henry’s work harbours the latent suggestion that the failure of eros can serve as a step toward a higher union with others in a love of God. In the closing section, I show how Henry’s analysis of the erotic relation calls for a re-conception of life as a movement of transcendence. I outline how this re-conception better accounts for the complex exchanges between the non-objectifying drives of life and the objectifying acts of consciousness, and I show how this allows us to retain some of Henry’s insights into eros and its renewal while forcing us to modify others. (shrink)

Quels sont les rapports entre la nature et la grâce chez Rahner et Henri de Lubac? A première vue, les positions fondamentales des deux hommes sont en profonde contradiction. Pourtant, l'A. montre qu'il existe un accord de fond sur des principes essentiels comme cette relation nature-grâce, la potentia oboedientialis de Thomas d'Aquin ainsi que sur le désir naturel. H. de Lubac affirmait que le désir de Dieu est le plus absolu de tous les désirs. En dépit de son esprit (...) irréniste, Henri de Lubac n'acceptait pas de suivre Rahner sur le terrain de la distinction entre nature fermée ici-bas et la finalité absolue de la nature dans le surnaturel. (shrink)

Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg were the originators of two approaches, known respectively as “wave mechanics” and “matrix mechanics”, to what is now called “quantum mechanics” or “quantum theory”. The two approaches appear to be extremely different, both in their technical forms, and in their philosophical underpinnings. Heisenberg arrived at his theory by effectively renouncing the idea of trying to represent a physical system, such as a hydrogen Bohr's atom model for example, as a structure in space—time, but instead, following (...) the lead of Einstein's 1905 theory of relativity, representing only empirically observable properties, such as the transition amplitudes between the stationary states of the atom. These amplitudes can be arranged in square arrays of numbers. In Heisenberg's scheme these arrays, and other like them, are combined according to certain rules that were later recognized by Max Born to be the rules of matrix multiplication. The whole scheme is abstract and mathematical, and avoids using any space—time picture of what is going on at the atomic level. Schrödinger, on the other hand, represented the electron in an atom by a cloudlike wave surrounding the nucleus. This is a space—time structure that, superficially at least, is more in line with the classical physical theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. -/- Niels Bohr invited Schrödinger to come to Copenhagen to present his ideas, and to discuss this subject with himself, Heisenberg, and others. Schrödinger arrived in Copenhagen on October 1st, 1926, and was immediately intensively engaged by Bohr and the others in a “debate” that lasted for days. Eventually, Schrödinger become ill, and was confined in Bohr's home to a bed, upon which Bohr sat, continuing the discussion. Schrödinger finally exclaimed “If all the quantum jumping is here to stay, then I am sorry that I ever became involved in quantum mechanics”. Bohr replied, “But we are glad that you did!”. (shrink)

Julian Huxley’s eclipse of Darwinism narrative has cast a long shadow over the historiography of evolutionary theory around the turn of the nineteenth century. It has done so by limiting who could be thought of as Darwinian. Peter Bowler used the eclipse to draw attention to previously understudied alternatives to Darwinism, but maintained the same flaw. In his research on the Non-Darwinian Revolution, he extended this problematic element even further back in time. This paper explores how late nineteenth-century neo-Darwinian conceptualizations (...) of Darwinism were later utilized by several advocates and detractors of the Modern Synthesis. John Beatty has shown how this continuity hinges at least partly on the perceived importance of the creativity of natural selection. The paper provides a more thorough look at Darwin’s two conflicting accounts of variation, ascribed to struggles in explaining quantitative versus qualitative characters. In doing so, it suggests that other forms of Darwinism persisted, in both the non-Darwinian revolution and eclipse periods, because of tension between contingency and creativity in Darwin’s own work. This tension is traced out from Darwin’s conceptions of variation into the work of Alfred Russel Wallace, Hugo de Vries, and Thomas Henry Huxley. Based on this, the eclipse narrative is criticized for not considering the meaning of Darwinism in different geographical locations. Britain and the United States showed few signs of an eclipse. Rather, the rise of German debates about Haeckel’s vision of Darwinism have been mistaken for a universal decline in support. (shrink)

This translation makes available to the Anglophone world, for the first time, what is possibly Max Stirner’s final reply to his critics, entitled ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’ (1847). The article was signed ‘G. Edward’, and its authorship has been disputed ever since John Henry Mackay ‘cautiously’ attributed it to Stirner and included it in his collection of Stirner’s lesser writings. If it is indeed Stirner’s final reply, then some of the main traits of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum are restated and (...) posited against those whom Stirner scornfully refers to as ‘the philosophers’. Since it was written almost three years after his magnum opus, it would offer a unique insight into Stirner’s own appraisal of the book in the wake of the ultimate demise of Young Hegelianism. Other than its obvious historical-philosophical significance, the text bears witness to Stirner’s own ‘spectrality’. The controversy over Stirner’s authorship is related to the inherently idiosyncratic nature of his thought. Stirner defies – and indeed mocks – all philosophical and theoretical conventions or categorizations. Yet, perhaps the controversy over Stirner’s authorship of ‘Die Philosophischen Reactionäre’ need not be settled after all: the mystery surrounding it only affirms the spectrality of the thinker who, in the words of ‘Edward’, one can ‘go crackers’ on. (shrink)

Sehr geehrte Frau Henry-Hermann. In Fortsetzung meiner vor zwei Jahren erschienene[n] Studie über die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Quantenmechanik arbeite ich jetzt an einer Arbeit, die die begriffsgeschichtliche Entwicklung der Interpretationen dieser Theorie zum Thema hat.

Sehr verehrte Frau Professor! Für Ihr ausführliches Schreiben vom 23. März bin ich Ihnen sehr zum Danke verbunden. Ich glaube, dass ich jetzt Ihre Gedankengänge nachvollziehen kann. Trotzdem kann ich noch nicht alle Ihre Behauptungen akzeptieren. Wenn Sie erlauben, würde ich, um Missverständnisse zu vermeiden, einfach den Gedankengang auf English niederschreiben, ungefähr so, wie ich es im Manuskript reinschreiben würde. Bitte, teilen Sie mir mit, ob ich Ihre Ausführungen richtig darstelle. In deutscher Sprache werde ich meine Zwischenbemerkungen bringen.

This book is an intellectual history of intuition.

Mrs. G. Henry, former Miss Hermann, has been a student in my department at Goettingen University. She has got a Ph. D. degree in 1925, talking Mathematics as chief subject, and Physics and Philosophy in addition. In the same year she passed the state examinations for teachers license in the same subjects.

Max Skjönsberg's The Persistence of Party: Ideas of Harmonious Discord in Eighteenth-Century Britain is a rich, detailed, and nuanced study of eighteenth-century ideas about party politics and the British political contexts that both inspired and were affected by their development. The study is ambitious in scope and extensively researched. With David Hume and Edmund Burke as its principal protagonists, the book is organised chronologically and centered on analyses of writings by Paul de Rapin-Thoyras, Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, Hume, (...) John Brown, and Burke to illustrate the centrality of party, as a concept, to political debate in the eighteenth... (shrink)

ArgumentThis paper arrives at a normative position regarding the relevance of Henri Bergson's philosophy to historical enquiry. It does so via experimental historical analysis of the adaptation of cinematographic devices to physiological investigation. Bergson's philosophy accorded well with a mode of physiological psychology in which claims relating to mental and physiological existence interacted. Notably however, cinematograph-centered experimentation by British physiologists including Charles Scott Sherrington, as well as German-trained psychologists such as Hugo Münsterberg and Max Wertheimer, contributed to a cordoning-off (...) of psychological from physiological questioning during the early twentieth century. Bergson invested in a mode of intellectual practice in which psychological claims had direct relevance to the interpretation of physiological nature. The in-part cinematograph-inspired breakdown of this mode had significance for subsequent interpretations of his philosophy. It is suggested that this experimental particularization of Bergson's contentions indicates that any adaptation of his thought for historical enquiry must be disciplinarily specific. (shrink)