Jean-Francois Mattei, Barbaria interioara. Eseu despre imundul modern (On Inner Barbarity. An Essay on the Modern Vile) Traducere de Valentina Bumbas-Vorobiov, Paralela 45, 2005, 316 pagini.

Le vingtième siècle aura été le siècle de la démesure. La démesure de la politique avec des guerres mondiales, des déportations et des camps d'extermination, qui a culminé avec deux bombes atomiques larguées sur des populations civiles. La démesure de l'homme, ensuite, puisque ces crimes ont été commis au nom d'idéologies abstraites qui, pour sauver l'humanité, ont sacrifié sans remords les hommes réels. La démesure du monde, enfin, avec une science prométhéenne qui a tenté de percer les secrets de l'univers, (...) une technique déchaînée qui a cherché à asservir la nature et une économie mondialisée dont les échanges ont imposé le prix des choses au détriment de la dignité des hommes. Nietzsche avait clairement établi le diagnostic : "La mesure nous est étrangère, reconnaissons-le; notre démangeaison, c'est justement la démangeaison de l'infini, de l'immense. " Le sens de la démesure semble être une fatalité, aussi n'est-il pas étonnant que, déjà chez les Grecs, dans le mythe, la tragédie, la physique, l'éthique ou la politique, il se situe au coeur de la réflexion. Au travers de la tentation de la raison d'abolir toute limite, de remettre en cause la finitude humaine, la démesure témoigne du tragique de notre condition. Les Grecs, et c'est l'enseignement de ce livre, se sont attachés à la comprendre pour la convertir en cette mesure qui permet de redonner un sens à notre existence. (shrink)

Nietzsche dénonçait en 1887 les excitants qui ravageaient son temps : erotica, socialistica, pathologica. On y reconnaîtra les trois métaphores d'une même tendance à la régression : barbarica. La Barbarie éternelle, c'est l'informe, le matériau brut, la désolation qui crie la victoire du désert. Les Anciens avaient rejeté le Barbare aux confins de la civilisation ; les Modernes ont choisi une stratégie plus subtile : pour la dissoudre, la Raison a intégré la Barbarie au fond d'elle-même. En se coupant de (...) la transcendance du sens, le Sujet contemporain a engendré les formes de fragmentation psychologique et sociale les plus aberrantes. Les effets de barbarie se manifestent par la dissolution de l'homme, l'effondrement de l'éducation, la destruction de la culture et l'abolition du politique. Cette barbarie intérieure signe la faillite de l'universel dans l'avènement de l'immonde moderne. Et s'" il n'y a plus de déserts ", comme le regrettait Camus, c'est que le désert a délaissé les horizons lointains pour assécher la civilisation en ce qu'elle a de plus proche. Le désert est aujourd'hui au cœur de la cité parce que la barbarie est au cœur de la civilisation. (shrink)

" Le nihilisme est devant la porte : d'où nous vient ce plus inquiétant de tous les hôtes? ", demande Nietzsche dans un fragment posthume. L'hôte est ici celui qui vient chez nous et non celui qui octroie l'hospitalité. Le nihilisme est donc cette figure étrange qui vient nous saisir dans notre maison et faire de nous, en dépit de notre résistance, des nihilistes. Mais alors, si " la catastrophe nihiliste " dont parle Nietzsche s'abat sur nous et nous pétrifie (...) sur notre propre seuil, comment devons-nous entendre la dénonciation nietzschéenne du nihilisme et sa tentative héroïque de le surmonter? Les auteurs réunis dans ce volume tentent d'éclairer le sens de la direction à prendre en ces temps obscurs où, toujours selon Nietzsche, nous ne savons plus où aller, où venir parce que nous avons perdu le sens de la terre. Le nihilisme est peut-être la seule lumière qui permet d'éclairer le caractère équivoque du monde moderne. Mais c'est une lumière noire. Ont participé à la rédaction de cet ouvrage : Yannis Constantinidès, Marc Crépon, françoise Dastur, Paolo D'Iorio, Thierry Gontier, Dominique Janicaud, Mathieu Kessler, Jean-Paul Larthomas, Marc de Launay, Jean-François Mattéi, Olivier Ponton, franco Volpi. (shrink)

Modern barbarity will soon get rid of the human species unless a new form of violence is found able to compete with the state, without turning into a new form a state. This new form is authoritative, legitimate intimidation. But what are the conditions to speak out authoritatively? Are they not distinctive state conditions? Moreover, does authority lie in the form of discourse? If not, because consentment has superseded mere submission, which are the authoritative sources of discourse which, though (...) neither overtly nor primarily conflicting with the state, nor with corporations, could somehow not completely coincide with the interests of it and even work against it, though like it? This paper examines these questions. (shrink)

Jean-François Mattéi est un philosophe français né en 1941 à Oran et décédé en 2014 à Marseille. Sa disparition laisse incontestablement un vide dans le paysage intellectuel français contemporain, car peu de voix ne se sont élevées avec tant de force et de brio pour dénoncer l'imposture de la pensée faible et du postmodernisme, ces répliques modernes de la sophistique que Platon combattait déjà vigoureusement à l'aube de la philosophie. Un premier ouvrage collectif parut en 2015, De Platon à (...) Matrix - L'Âme du monde, qui rendit hommage au penseur sur un mode complice, amical et touchant. Une chaire vit le jour au Centre Universitaire de la Méditerranée (CUM) de Nice, dont l'ambition annoncée est de prolonger l'œuvre de Mattéi en fournissant des travaux de réflexion autour du génie méditerranéen de la pensée et de la civilisation européenne.La rame à l'épaule, expression tirée de l'Odyssée, emprunte une tierce voie, qui ne relève ni de la proximité amicale ni du travail universitaire d'érudition. Ce que vise ici Baptiste Rappin, c'est en effet le cœur de la pensée de Jean-François Mattéi : à savoir que le mythe confère à la raison son sens et son horizon, et seul lui permet de s'articuler au monde. Les symboles préservent de la sorte le langage de l'autoréférentialité et de l'inarticulation barbare. Si cet essai scrute attentivement l'œuvre de Mattéi, il en ressort, du fait même de son objet, une relecture de l'histoire de la philosophie qui s'exprime à travers les analogies de l'architecture, du ciel, de l'étoile, de la musique et du tissu qui traversent la pensée européenne de ses aurores platonicienne et même pythagoricienne jusqu'à Nietzsche, Heidegger, Arendt ou encore Boutang. (shrink)

Le "livre-testament" de Jean-François Mattéi, préfacé par Raphaël Enthoven, qui défendra dans les médias la mémoire de son professeur et ami.

Qu'est-ce que la fameuse caverne de Platon si ce n'est la plus grande chambre noire que l'on ait jamais réalisée? Reprenant cette intuition de Paul Valéry, Jean-François Mattéi procède à une relecture magistrale des grands dialogues de Platon, de La République au Timée, pour y découvrir la matrice de notre monde, un monde envahi par les images et les simulacres. Du cinéma aux jeux vidéo en passant par Internet, le cyberespace et les téléphones portables, nouvelles "cavernes personnelles ", les (...) images ont en effet pris le pouvoir. Censées initialement représenter le réel, elles se sont mises à le simuler, à le dupliquer, voire à l'absorber pour faire surgir une nouvelle dimension, celle du virtuel. Matrix, Avatar, World of Warcraft, Toy Story, la 3D, sont le vecteur de cette révolution. Pour la plupart des philosophes, la victoire des simulacres constitue un renversement sans précédent du rapport entre image et réalité, institué il a 2500 ans par Platon. Les images ne seraient plus le miroir d'une réalité intelligible qui leur confère consistance, mais de purs simulacres sans aucun rapport avec le réel. En croisant la lecture minutieuse de Platon avec une plongée passionnante dans les processus les plus contemporains de modélisation des images, cet essai démontre qu'il n'en est rien. Loin d'être autonomes, les phénomènes de simulation proviennent de procédés rationnels qui projettent leur intelligibilité dans le sensible. Et ces procédés artificiels redoublent l'opération première, advenue dans la nuit des temps, au cours de laquelle le monde fut structuré grâce à des modèles intelligibles qui se sont inscrits en lui. (shrink)

Si l’on juge et apprécie les objets uniquement par concepts, on perd toute représentation de la beauté.Emmanuel Kant Toute la duplicité de l’art contemporain est là : revendiquer la nullité, l’insignifiance, le non-sens, viser la nullité alors qu’on est déjà nul. Viser le non-sens alors qu’on est déjà insignifiant. Prétendre à la superficialité en des termes superficiels.Jean Baudrillard En 1934, dans une conférence prononcée à Bruxelles sur « Le surréalisme », André Breton faisait état d’une...

En apparence l'enjeu est clair, il s'agit de dépasser la métaphysique ou de la déconstruire pour retrouver la question primordiale du sens de l'être. Comment faut-il entendre la nécessité de ce " dépassement de la métaphysique "? Heidegger a répondu à ces questions en mentionnant, de manière explicite, le " tournant " (Kehre) propre de sa pensée, lequel permet moins d'effectuer le " dépassement " (Überwindung) que l' "appropriation " (Verwindung) de la métaphysique. Après cet épisode du " tournant " (...) que l'on peut faire remonter à 1930, Heidegger se dé-tournera de la métaphysique pour se consacrer à la pure pensée de l'être, dans laquelle la poésie, celle de Hölderlin en particulier, jouera désormais un rôle déterminant. Le poète précède toujours le penseur au cœur de cette forêt profonde qu'est l'Être. Pour Heidegger comme pour Dante, l'homme est un poème qui s'achève sous le regard scintillant d'une étoile. (shrink)

Si les interprétations de ce qu'il est convenu de nommer la « dernière philosophie » de Heidegger sont aujourd'hui monnaie courante, non sans risque d'inflation parfois quand on les lie sans précaution à l'engagement politique de l'auteur de Sein und Zeit, personne pourtant n'avait jusqu'ici pris le risque d'aborder la question controversée du « tournant » de front. Les différences évidentes entre un Heidegger I, parti de la phénoménologie pour revenir à une « ontologie fondamentale », et relevant encore à (...) ce titre de la philosophie, et un Heidegger II, voué désormais à une « autre pensée » réfractaire à l'élaboration conceptuelle, sinon à une sorte de mysticisme poétique, paraissent si tranchées à la plupart des commentateurs qu'ils entérinent sans plus attendre une telle division. Celle-ci a d'ailleurs été accréditée par l'auteur lui-même qui, le premier, mentionna l'existence d'un « tournant » de sa propre pensée, en termes réservés toutefois, sinon énigmatiques. (shrink)

Cet article s'interroge sur l'origine des quatre causes d'Aristote (formelle, matérielle, efficiente, finale), c'est-à-dire sur le coeur de la métaphysique. En effet pourquoi y a-t-il quatre causes? Qu'est-ce qui fait leur communauté et leur « systématicité »? Dans un premier temps, l'auteur montre que le système des quatre causes est articulé par deux couples d'opposition formant deux schèmes de la causalité : d'une part le couple cause formelle/cause matérielle, statique, qui renvoie à une causalité analytique (schème rationnel) ; d'autre part (...) le couple cause finale/cause efficiente, dynamique, qui renvoie à une causalité synthétique (schème causal). Dans un deuxième temps, l'A. montre que ce « système étiologique tétrapolaire » est déjà présent dans l'oeuvre de Platon : plus particulièrement dans le Timée, avec les couples d'opposition démiurge/milieu matériel (chôra) et formes intelligibles/monde sensible, mais aussi dans le Philèbe et le Sophiste, où une double opposition systématique analogique à la précédente est à l'oeuvre. Une fois mises en évidence ces « deux souches de la métaphysique », l'auteur montre que le schème rationnel l'emporte sur le schème causal, aussi bien dans l'oeuvre d'Aristote que dans celle Platon. (shrink)

En rupture avec la philosophie contemporaine, Levinas est conduit, dans sa quête du sens, à revenir à un certain platonisme. Sa métaphysique du « rapport à l'Autre » pourrait être considérée comme se fondant sur le Sophiste de Platon, au prix d'une critique de l'ontologie de Heidegger. Levinas privilégie le couple Même-Autre au détriment du couple Mouvement-Repos. Alors que Heidegger insiste sur l'élément, Levinas met en avant l'Autre, la Parole, l'Infini. Breaking up with contemporary philosophy, Levinas, in his quest for (...) meaning, is led to return to some kind of platonism. His metaphysics of the « relationship to the other » may be understood as resting on Plato's Sophist et the cost of a criticism of Heidegger's ontology. Levinas priviledges the couple « the same / the other » to the détriment of the couple « movement/rest ». Whereas Heidegger insists on the element, Levinas stresses forward : the other, speech and the infinite. (shrink)

Quant à la culture formelle […], elle s’est révélée être le caprice absolu de la « libre personnalité », c’est-à-dire la barbarie et l’anarchie.Nietzsche On peut approcher l’équivoque notion de « culture », dont l’inflation présente – « tout est culture » – a rejoint l’inflation déjà ancienne des « droits de l’homme » – « tout est droit » – de deux façons distinctes. La première est historique et philologique, la seconde philosophique et artistique. La nécessité d’élaborer une critique (...) de la... (shrink)

« Sir, you shall present before her The Nine Worthies... as concerning some entertainment of time, some show in the posterior of this day... »« There’s no business like show business ! »Georges Duhamel voyait dans le cinéma naissant un divertissement d’ilotes. Le même mépris a pu accabler les pièces de Shakespeare dont la rudesse de langue chagrine les esprits éclairés depuis..

La mode est à la mort. Celui qui exalte aujourd’hui la vie gêne, par son inconvenance, ceux qui sont occupés à lever les amarres. C’est sans doute un effet d’époque. Il vaut mieux, à tout prendre, rire dans les cimetières que pleurer dans les maternités. L’art contemporain, cette fashion victim, a réussi à faire les deux. De Platon à Nietzsche..

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..

Une simple anecdote peut révéler des enjeux philosophiques inattendus. Dans une lettre à Clément Rosset du 18 juin 1983, Gilles Deleuze mentionnait l’ « étrange livre » qu’il avait reçu de ma part. Il s’agissait de L’Étranger et le Simulacre, paru quelques mois plus tôt dans la collection « Épiméthée ». Je l’avais adressé par courtoisie..

Depuis la Grèce, en dépit des rêves d'une langue bien faite, les philosophes s'expriment dans des langues qui sont le partage de peuples différents. Or, peut-on inscrire le discours de l'universel dans le champ limité d'une langue particulière? Le français fait sa joie des analyses sèches, comme l'on parle d'une pointe sèche qui grave le cuivre nu. Celui qui saurait le conduire vers la synthèse, pourtant, aurait reconnu, selon le mot de von Humboldt, " l'énigme de cette langue ". Le (...) colloque de Nice, " Philosopher en français ", a tenté d'approcher une telle énigme. Trente-deux chercheurs internationaux ont croisé leurs exposés selon quatre thèmes : la philosophie française au XXe siècle ; la philosophie française et les courants internationaux ; l'histoire française de la philosophie ; le philosophe français et le style. Tous mettent l'accent sur l'approche " à la française ", comme disait Montaigne, des grandes questions théoriques et cherchent à définir ce qu'il en est du style français en philosophie. J.-F. M. (shrink)

Jean-Paul Sartre: Mind and Body, Word and Deed celebrates Sartre's polyvalence with an examination of Sartrean philosophy, literature, and politics. In four distinct yet related sections, twelve scholars from three continents examine Sartre's thought, writing and action over his long career. "Sartre and the Body" reappraises Sartre's work in dialogue with other philosophers past and present, including Maine de Biran, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Didier Anzieu. "Sartre and Time" offers a first-hand account by Michel Contat of Sartre and Beauvoir working (...) together, and a "philosophy in practice" analysis by François Noudelmann. "Ideology and Politics" uses Sartrean notions of commitment and engagement to address modern and contemporary politics, including insights into Castro, De Gaulle, Sarkozy and Obama. Finally, an important but neglected episode of Sartre's life the visit that he and Beauvoir made to Japan in 1966 is narrated with verve and humour by Professor Suzuki Michihiko, who first met Sartre during that visit and remained in touch subsequently. Taken together, these twelve chapters make a strong case for the continued relevance of Sartre today. (shrink)

Marcel Gauchet's theory of democracy focuses on the secularization of Western societies and the emergence of “autonomy” in them—Weber's “disenchantment of the world.” The nineteenth-century liberalism that resulted failed to generate a sense of collective purpose that could fill the gap left by the retreat of religion. Totalitarian ideologies achieved this by harnessing the passions unleashed by World War I, but at the cost of radicalization. Conversely, the (unexpected and lasting) post-1945 “social state” set the groundwork for modern individualism (...) and established new legitimacy for the regulatory and protective nation-state, conceptually bonded directly with its voter-citizens. Democracy is thus impossible to disentangle from social democracy—regardless of its actual effectiveness. If Gauchet is right, the left's embrace of “voice” over “exit” mixes a deep insight with flawed prescriptions, as it overlooks the national nature of the experience of citizenship, whereas classical liberals favoring the “exit” option risk undermining the core of the democratic compact. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Impact of Aristotelianism on Modern PhilosophyJean-Robert ArmogatheRiccardo Pozzo, editor. The Impact of Aristotelianism on Modern Philosophy. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004. Pp. xvi + 336. Cloth, $69.95.The status of a "great" philosopher is to stand out for centuries, asking questions in such a way that the answers can never be definitive. Not so many of them are able to stand such (...) a severe proof. Aristotle phrased some questions we are still groping to answer. It was a very good idea to ask thirteen scholars to deliver a lecture series at the Catholic University of America during the Fall 1999 about the reception of Aristotle's theory of intellectual virtues (Nich. Ethics VI). The speakers did not stick to this issue, and enlarged their purpose to a general approach of Aristotle's receptions in various moments of Western modern philosophy.Edward Mahoney complements Charles Schmitt's basic introduction to Aristotle and the Renaissance, with some very valuable pages about Cardinal Bessarion's contribution to the Byzantine debate aroused in 1439 by Plethon's comparison between Plato and Aristotle (in favor of the former). Along with Charles Schmitt, Antonino Poppi is the best specialist of the Paduan tradition, and wrote a very qualified paper about Zabarella (1533-89), who shaped Aristotelianism into the rigorous science of the schoolbooks: for centuries, Aristotle is read through Zabarella's glasses. Apart from a bird's view on recent Galilean studies (where Alistair Crombie is not mentioned), William A. Wallace makes his point about Aristotle's influence on Galilean logics, linking Galileo's 1640 letter to Liceti (where he states that, in matters of logic, he has been an Aristotelian all his life) to the scientist's deep knowledge as revealed by the logical questions in one of the juvenile treatises (ms 27 in Florence, more thoroughly studied in Wallace's book, Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof [Dordrecht, 1992]). John Doyle, a specialist of Late Scholastic Philosophy, figures out a [End Page 209] strange character, the French Jesuit André Semery (1630-1717), who taught for thirty years at the Collegium romanum. In a very anti-Aristotelian way, he holds a definite belief in metaphysical beings of reason. The boundary between what we can think and say is quietly stepped over, when Semery and other Jesuits begin to think about thinking, opening a very modern path which leads to Brentano and Quine. Christia Mercer states that Leibniz's combination of a Platonist epistemology with an Aristotelian conception of nature brings a very innovative view in ethics. A very forceful paper by Richard L. Velkley compares Rousseau's politics to Aristotle's view of man (the paper became a chapter of his 2002 impressive book Being after Rousseau), while Riccardo Pozzo gives a short presentation of Aristotle's reception in modern Germany, and an elaborate analysis of Kant's debt to Aristotle for the intellectual virtues. Hegel's appropriation of Aristotelian intellect is presented by Alfredo Ferrarin, while Michael Davis reconstructs Nietzsche's path from Aristotle to the tragedy and back, in a very convincing way. Husserl (Richard Cobb-Stevens), Heidegger (Stanley Rosen), Wittgenstein (Daniel Dahlstrom) and Gadamer (Enrico Berti) conclude brilliantly the series, showing how the thought of the Stagirite fertilized contemporary philosophers, in a permanent dialogue of disagreement or borrowing, never at rest, and never leaving anyone indifferent. The old Greek man remains a vivid debater for our age of anxiety.Jean-Robert ArmogatheThe University of Paris-SorbonneCopyright © 2005 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Inc.... (shrink)

Through the study of Richard Gruneau and Gunter Gebauer’s respective works, this article examines the social significance and theoretical implications of sport’s capacity to represent social life in a theatrical manner. The drama-like images and representations sporting practices produce, institutions codify, and television programs enhance is considered in relation to ideology’s integrative, legitimating, and distorting functions . Acknowledging the filiations of ‘theatre’ with ‘theory’ – both words stand for ‘to contemplate, to see, to observe’ – this study considers theatricality as (...) a valuable theoretical notion that enables a synthetic and reflexive understanding of athletic practices’ bodily dimension, symbolic representations, and institutional determinants. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Impact of Aristotelianism on Modern PhilosophyJean-Robert ArmogatheRiccardo Pozzo, editor. The Impact of Aristotelianism on Modern Philosophy. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004. Pp. xvi + 336. Cloth, $69.95.The status of a "great" philosopher is to stand out for centuries, asking questions in such a way that the answers can never be definitive. Not so many of them are able to stand such (...) a severe proof. Aristotle phrased some questions we are still groping to answer. It was a very good idea to ask thirteen scholars to deliver a lecture series at the Catholic University of America during the Fall 1999 about the reception of Aristotle's theory of intellectual virtues (Nich. Ethics VI). The speakers did not stick to this issue, and enlarged their purpose to a general approach of Aristotle's receptions in various moments of Western modern philosophy.Edward Mahoney complements Charles Schmitt's basic introduction to Aristotle and the Renaissance, with some very valuable pages about Cardinal Bessarion's contribution to the Byzantine debate aroused in 1439 by Plethon's comparison between Plato and Aristotle (in favor of the former). Along with Charles Schmitt, Antonino Poppi is the best specialist of the Paduan tradition, and wrote a very qualified paper about Zabarella (1533-89), who shaped Aristotelianism into the rigorous science of the schoolbooks: for centuries, Aristotle is read through Zabarella's glasses. Apart from a bird's view on recent Galilean studies (where Alistair Crombie is not mentioned), William A. Wallace makes his point about Aristotle's influence on Galilean logics, linking Galileo's 1640 letter to Liceti (where he states that, in matters of logic, he has been an Aristotelian all his life) to the scientist's deep knowledge as revealed by the logical questions in one of the juvenile treatises (ms 27 in Florence, more thoroughly studied in Wallace's book, Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof [Dordrecht, 1992]). John Doyle, a specialist of Late Scholastic Philosophy, figures out a [End Page 209] strange character, the French Jesuit André Semery (1630-1717), who taught for thirty years at the Collegium romanum. In a very anti-Aristotelian way, he holds a definite belief in metaphysical beings of reason. The boundary between what we can think and say is quietly stepped over, when Semery and other Jesuits begin to think about thinking, opening a very modern path which leads to Brentano and Quine. Christia Mercer states that Leibniz's combination of a Platonist epistemology with an Aristotelian conception of nature brings a very innovative view in ethics. A very forceful paper by Richard L. Velkley compares Rousseau's politics to Aristotle's view of man (the paper became a chapter of his 2002 impressive book Being after Rousseau), while Riccardo Pozzo gives a short presentation of Aristotle's reception in modern Germany, and an elaborate analysis of Kant's debt to Aristotle for the intellectual virtues. Hegel's appropriation of Aristotelian intellect is presented by Alfredo Ferrarin, while Michael Davis reconstructs Nietzsche's path from Aristotle to the tragedy and back, in a very convincing way. Husserl (Richard Cobb-Stevens), Heidegger (Stanley Rosen), Wittgenstein (Daniel Dahlstrom) and Gadamer (Enrico Berti) conclude brilliantly the series, showing how the thought of the Stagirite fertilized contemporary philosophers, in a permanent dialogue of disagreement or borrowing, never at rest, and never leaving anyone indifferent. The old Greek man remains a vivid debater for our age of anxiety.Jean-Robert ArmogatheThe University of Paris-SorbonneCopyright © 2005 Journal of the History of Philosophy, Inc.... (shrink)

On the basis of a historical reconstruction of the stages through which the Christian notion of sin took shape in Protestantism, the significance of this term for modern bioethics is derived from its opposition to a holiness of God and his creatures, which in turn translates into the secular moral concept of dignity. This dignity imposes obligations to respect and to relationships that are sustained by faithfulness and trust. In being based on the gratuitousness of God’s grace, such relationships (...) preclude attempts at instrumentalization, denial of singularity, and subjection to market forces. Accordingly, reproductive cloning as well as exposing medicine to economical considerations can be classified as sinful. The difference between sinful acts and humans’ sinful state furthermore permits to address the problems of evil and misfortune in the world, and to acknowledge humans’ responsibility for the threats to humanity entailed by those ills. While the Christian faith relies on God’s mercy, it also imposes the task of following Christ by fighting against evil and misfortune. (shrink)

Translated by Drew S. Burk and Anthony Paul Smith. Excerpted from Struggle and Utopia at the End Times of Philosophy , (Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing, 2012). THE END TIMES OF PHILOSOPHY The phrase “end times of philosophy” is not a new version of the “end of philosophy” or the “end of history,” themes which have become quite vulgar and nourish all hopes of revenge and powerlessness. Moreover, philosophy itself does not stop proclaiming its own death, admitting itself to be half dead (...) and doing nothing but providing ammunition for its adversaries. With our sights set on clearing up this nuance, we differentiate philosophy as an institutional entity, and the philosophizability of the World and History, of “thought-world,” which universalizes the narrow concept of philosophy and that of “capital.” We also give an eschatological and apocalyptical cause to this end, of “times” or “ages” rather than those of philosophical practice. Last but not least, it is the Future itself in the performativity of its ultimatum that determines this end times, reversing these times from the Identity the Future accorded to it, withdrawing the thought-world from the lie of its death. Why this style of axioms and oracles, these more or less subtle distinctions, old and debased, with an appeal to the ultimata , to end times and last words? We fight to give, parallel to the concept of Hell, its new theoretical position, for its philosophical return and its non-philosophical transformation. No more so than any other word, Hell is not a metaphor here, just the Principle of Sufficient World. Every man, no doubt, has his “hell” readily available, connivance, control, conformism, domestication, schooling, alienation, extermination, exploitation, oppression, anxiety, etc. We have our little list that the Contemporaries established in the previous century in the same way one used to construct lists of virtues and vices or honors and wealth. They invented it for us without knowing it, for us-the-Futures who have as our responsibility to invent its use. In the Christian and Gnostic tradition, the struggle of the End Times takes place “on earth.” The most sophisticated of believers have it taking place in Heaven as well, above all in Heaven. The various kinds of gnosis imagine infinite falls and vertiginous highs, the vertigo of salvation. On Earth as in Heaven, a hell is available. The Marxists have the law of profit and the control of production, the class struggle Capital imposes on man. The Nietzscheans, the dull grumble of the struggle in the foundations of World and History, the domestication of man, the society of control. The phenomenologists, the capture of being, the most superficial amongst them, the age of suspicion. But all of these “hells” are taken from World, History, Society, and Religion. What we call Hell is no longer of the order of these specific and total intra-worldly generalities, it is both more singular and more universal, no longer being at all of the same order, it is the determinant Identity of these small hells strung out through history but unified here in the name of the last Humaneity. It is even found within the French idiom for hell [ enfer ], en-fer literally means “in-irons.” We are as much “in-irons” as we are “alive” [ en-Vie ]. We believe in Hell but as non-philosophers and it is even because we are non-philosophers that we can believe in it outside of any sort of religion. Hell is less mythological than ideological, it combines philosophizability with universal capital. Under what form? A single term could work for them without being a metaphor or something they would participate in by analogy, a more innovative and conjectural term than control, more universal than profit. It would denote the growing and permanent extortion of a surplus-value of communication, of speed and of urgency in change, in productivity and in work, in the pressure of images and slogans. It would be worse than solicitation, more tenacious than capture, more active and persecutory than control, softer and more insidious than a frontal attack, just as perverse as questioning and accusation, less brutal and offensive than extermination, less ritualized than inquisition, it would be soft and dispersed, instantaneous and vicious, it would be a crime without declared violence. Collusion and conformism, it would be afraid to show itself. Related to rumor, from which it borrows its infinite and tortuous ways. It is harassment. As a modernized form of Hell, perhaps harassment has a long future in front of it, of innocent torture, slow assassination, in short the fall, but radical with no way of recovering and which tolerates only salvation. THE PHILOSOPHICAL PAST OF NON-PHILOSOPHY Non-philosophy is thus Man as the utopian identity of the philosophical form of the World, a utopia destined to transform it. We still have to understand these equations, in particular that of the being-uni-versed from Man, and this book adheres to this by re-exposing non-philosophy in a different way via one of its new possibilities. It uses this opportunity to once again take up formulations that lead to objections answering certain external critics, as well as revisiting diverging interpretations specific to non-philosophers. A portion of this book is devoted to going through these theories via a strict or “lengthy” presentation of non-philosophy, and its defense against more expeditious solutions. This work of rectification is the occasion, merely the occasion, for refocusing non-philosophy on Man (the “Man-in-person,” “Humaneity”), and in a more innovative manner, on its utopian vocation established since the book Future Christ . As for this “occasion,” it is quite obvious. A school of posture, not to say a school of thought, supposes a minimum of closure from the most liberating of knowledge, a heritage, its utilization, and its no less certain dispersal. Within its development, a variety of interpretations will no doubt appear, deviations that are as much normalizations, and a struggle against this multiplication of divergent tendencies. These are perhaps not inevitable evils, especially here, merely a normal development according to the twisting paths of history. But the problem is made worse by the fact that this school of non-philosophers is that of utopia. Not the former attempts devoted to commenting on the worst authoritarian and criminal forms of the past and the present, but utopia as the determinant principle for human life, or to put it another way, of the Future as an irreducible presupposition of (for) thinking the World and History. Non-philosophers are engaged in an aleatory navigation between the respect for the most rigorous utopia, whose rules are not that of the reproductive imagination but those from the Future determining imagination itself, as well as the temptations, diversions, and remorse of history. Little by little, we will begin to understand that the Future as we understand it no longer has any temporal consistency or positive content, without being an empty form or a nothingness, but that it is foreclosed to past and present History, just as it is foreclosed to the place of places, the World, and that it is the only method for establishing the practice of thinking in a non-imaginary instance. Because it is the World and History that are imaginary and have a terrible materiality, it is not necessarily utopia. We will overlap two objectives here: the defense of non-philosophy against the (non-) philosophers that we are, only occasionally, and the introduction of philosophy to a rigorous future. Together they set out to definitively render, without any possible return to philosophical conformism or towards the facilities of the past and present, the non-philosophical enterprise understood as utopia or uchronia. Imagination and speculation, left to themselves and thus undistinguished, are quite good for participating in the grand game of History but have little value or worse for the Future which is unimaginable and unintelligible and must be maintained as such. MAN-IN-PERSON AS SUSPENSION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHORA The point where philosophical resistance is concentrated is without a doubt the invention of the Name-of-Man, first name, oracular as much as axiomatic, of the determining cause for the non-philosophical posture. And that which concentrates the differends is the style of non-philosophy as identity that possesses the dual aspect, of discipline and of the oeuvre, of the theorem and of the oracle. But the real difficulty in understanding the simplicity of non-philosophy is profoundly hidden in the depths of philosophy itself. Because philosophy, from Parmenides to Derrida, even Levinas, continues to be a divided gesture, without a veritable immanence, transforming its thematic contents of transcendence in also forgetting to transform the operative transcendence in the element from which the ontology of surface is established which we will call, in memory of Plato, the chorismos. The general effect of the chora literally gives place to philosophy, demanding binding and sutures to which we will once and for all “oppose” the Man-in-person, his power of cloning, and his future being. All philosophy contains a hinter-philosophy in which it deploys its operations and weaves its tradition like an understudy of a topographical nature and in the best of cases being itself topological. Philosophy as well consists of two levels, its pre-ontological operative conditions on the one hand, and its superficial theme on the other, it too has its presupposed, but is not aware of it or erases it within the unity of appearance named Logos. Rightly, the Logos, and its flash or lightning nature, possesses a “dark precursor,” the chora, which is as much a virtual image, and philosophy, dazzled by its own lightning flash, seems to completely forget about it at the same time it sets itself up within it. Non-philosophy risks taking this same path, of confusing what it believes to be the real with its phantom double, contenting itself to working on the thematic level of philosophy, not its surface objects and its idle chatter (we stopped talking about this a long time ago and in any case they are merely simple materials for inducing a work of transformation), but the transcendence-form of its objects. In the end it risks, through precipitation, taking back up the heritage of philosophy, a heritage of a misunderstood presupposed, even more profound than the play of transcendences. This is what the imperative of the radicality of immanence meant, to treat immanence in an immanent manner, not to make a new object out of it. And from here we get non- (philosophy) and its refusal of the Platonic chorismos , symbol of all abstraction, and thus all transcendental appearance. There are no illusions. The message will leave a heritage in tattered pieces and interpretations. But it was difficult not to dispute the differend to its core. There will be complete confusion of the multiple, possible, and necessary effectuations of non-philosophy with its interpretations. The non-philosophical or human freedom of philosophical effectuation and the philosophical freedom of interpretation. Effectuations demand non-philosophy to return to zero from the point of view of its philosophical material and thus also but within these limits the formulation of its axioms , but in no way providing from the outset divergent interpretations of the aforementioned axioms. They are divergent because they do not take into account the material from which these axioms are derived within non-philosophy, and because they do not see themselves as symptoms of another vision of the World. The utterances of non-philosophy are not mathematical theorems and pure axioms, they merely have a mathematical aspect . They are, by their extraction or origin, mathematical and transcendental. And by their determined function in-Real, within non-philosophy, they are identically in-the-last-Humaneity entities which have an aspect of an axiom and an aspect of interpretation (or an oracular aspect as we say) that attempts (sometimes it is ourselves who provide the occasion) to isolate and transform, in complete freedom of interpretation. There will be an opportunity to complain about the complex character of the language of non-philosophy, an idiom saturated with classical references, sophisticated in a contemporary way. Its freedom of decision up against the whole of philosophy demands these effects of “complication” and “privatization,” as the saying goes. But it also demands fighting against the drift [ dérive ] of the pedagogical-all and the mediatic-all that leads philosophy into the shallow depths of opinion, which is the site of its impossible death. The noble idealism of “pop-philosophy” has been consumed into a “philo-reality;” against this we propose philo-fiction. Parricide, which is at the bottom of these interpretations and which we can judge as being quite fertile, although it has informed tradition, only takes place once or within one lone meaning. In regards to Parmenides, it was possible; Plato introduced the Other as non-being and language, bringing into existence the philosophical system of the World, but is it possible to repeat it again with the same fecundity in regards to non-philosophy, this time in introducing (non) religion or (non) art, still mixing them without taking into account this mixture, alternatively as a philosophical or religious resentment? If philosophy begins via a crime, it is no doubt obliged to continue down similar pathways, to the effect that the crimes of philosophy, once the founding crime has been committed, are a reaction of self-defense. It is undoubtedly from this that we get Marx’s declaration that history begins by tragedy and repeats itself or ends in farce. The preservation of rigor and fecundity is, in every respect, a psychologically difficult task within a theory such as non-philosophy. Having posited an essential objective of liberation in regards to philosophy and its services, one has often understood this objective as an authorization of providing particular interpretations of its axioms and ends up obliterating their scope. This ends up confusing, on one hand, two kinds of freedoms in regards to non-philosophy, the freedom of its interpretations and the freedom of its effectuations. On the other hand, any defense of “principles” against precipitated interpretations is immediately taxed with a will to orthodoxy, a prohibitive objection when we are dealing with, as is the case here, a heretical theory of thought. Nevertheless, it is time to stop confusing heresy as the cause of thought with an ideology of heresies, which is certainly not at all our object, but rather a form of normalization. As for the “disciplinary” aspect, which is not the only aspect, it demands something other than philosophical “answers to objections,” a precision in the definition and use of its procedures in the formation of utterances, since non-philosophy is neither a supplementary doctrine interior to philosophy nor a vision of the world but one whose priority is a “vision of Man,” or rather Man as “vision” that implies a theory and a practice of philosophy. In the end, struggle is only one aspect of non-philosophy, not its whole or telos, struggle coming only from its materiality. In particular, if the discipline of non-philosophy is inseparable from struggle, it is not a question of reducing the monomaniacal obsession of its “marching orders.” This would reduce its complexity and kill its indivisibility, deploying it in a “long march” and a form of Maoization whose philosophical presuppositions no longer have any pertinence here, a case of the One and the Two, which are now cloned and no longer tied together. More generally, non-philosophy is a complex thought composed of a multitude of aspects, which is to say, unilateral interpretations, of a philosophical origin but reduced by their determination in-the-last-instance . The “liberalism” of non-philosophy is merely one of the aspects of which it is capable, not an essence. Similarly, it is only capable of having a “Maoist” aspect. Let us generalize. The weakness of non-philosophy is due to a specific cause, the determination-in-the-last-Humaneity of a subject for the World. Everything that has a right to the philosophical city can be said about it in turn and in a retaliatory mode since Man contributes nothing of himself that Man takes from the World. We can consider non-philosophy as being pretentious, absurd, idealistic, empty, materialistic, formalistic, contradictory, modern, post-modern, Zen, Buddhist, Marxist; it endures or tolerates, perhaps “appeals” to, or at least renders possible, sarcasms, ironies, and insults without even talking about the misunderstandings, partly for the same reason as psychoanalysis. All of this goes beyond simple “deviations.” They are its aspects, which is to say, its “unilateral” philosophical interpretations in both senses of the word, being either sufficient coming from the mouth of philosophers, or reduced to their absolute dimension of sufficiency and totality in the mouths of non-philosophers, and both times due to the weakness and strength of Man-in-person as their determination only in-the-last-instance. The non-philosopher is certainly not a Saint Paul fantasizing about a new Church. The non-philosopher is either a (Saint) Sebastian whose flesh is pierced with as many arrows as there are Churches, or a Christ persecuted by a Saint Paul. What is engaged in here is the practice of retaliation. A negative rule of the non-philosophical ethics of outlawed discussion by way of argumentation (the sufficient is you, the orthodox one is always you, you are the fashionable one, and when a master you are someone else) that is founded on the confusion of effectuations of non-philosophy and of its overall interpretations. Retaliation is the law but as with any too-human law, it must acquire a dimension that displaces it, or rather emplaces it and takes away its authority but not all of its effectiveness. If the non-philosopher is only authorized by himself, which is to say by philosophy but limited by the Real-of-the-last-instance, its critique of other non-philosophers can merely be retaliatory under the same conditions, only by the Real limited in-the last-instance. THE TREE OF PHILOSOPHICAL SAINTLINESS The thematic horizon or material of these debates is in the relationships between philosophy, religion as gnosis, and non-philosophy. It is inevitable, regarding non-philosophers in general (whether they are non-philosophers by name or simply its neighbors) that we often end up evoking Marx’s Holy Family and imagining, arranged on the neighboring branches of the tree of philosophy and annexed, sometimes abusively, to non-philosophy, authors who would quite evidently and quite rightly refuse this label. So it is that we find, for example, a Saint Michel, a Saint Alain, a Saint Gilles 1 without even mentioning the youngest who aspire as well to the freedom of “saintliness” and who make their muted voices heard here. If there is a Holy Family of non-philosophers, it extends completely beyond these three, provided that the sectarian spirit can save us. This book is organized in the following manner: To begin, in order to recall the essential part of the problematic, we have organized a Summary of Non-Philosophy , a vade-mecum of notions and basic problems, in a classical style. Secondly, there is Clarifications On the Three Axioms of Non-Philosophy , designed to posit their proper use as much as to elucidate their meaning. Thirdly, an analysis of Philosophizability and Practicity , both being extreme constituents of philosophical material or the contents of the third axiom. Fourthly, the heart of this work: Let us Make a Tabula Rasa of the Future or of Utopia as Method . Fifthly, we have a theoretical outline of a non-institutional utopia, The International Organization of Non-Philosophy, L’Organisation Non-Philosophique Internationale, (ONPHI) already created in practice but under the conditions of possibility and functioning from which here we put into question “de jure,” thus not without a perplexity concerning “facts,” in any case, without the capability of “getting to the bottom of things.” Sixthly, an essay characterizing The Right and the Left of Non-Philosophy , a brief topology of several philosophizing and normalizing positions of proponents or tenants of this problematic. Seventhly, Rebel in the Soul: A Theory of Future Struggle , a systematic discussion starting from a confrontation of non-philosophical gnosis and non-religious gnosis to the extent that they pose, posed or perhaps still will pose themselves as rivals to non-philosophy in a mixture of fidelity and infidelity. Despite the fact that it can also be read as putting non-philosophy into perspective: it pits against a standard Platonism two contemporary appropriations of Gnosticism. On the basis of the paradigm of Man who never ceases to come as the Future-in-person, each one of these moments strives to reestablish not the “true” non-philosophy and its orthodoxy, but the minimal conditions to respect in order to allow for its maximum fecundity. And in order to bring about one of the last possibilities of its development, making explicit Humaneity as a utopia-for-the-World. In introducing these considerations in the form of a “testament” and “ultimatum,” we want to indicate two things: First, that this is the last time we will intervene in order to caution non-philosophers against the temptation of returning and looking backwards towards philosophy. Only a disillusioned nostalgia for the former World and its traditions barely remain permissible to us.… Secondly, that non-philosophy is also a sort of ultimatum for considering one’s life and transforming one’s thought from the perspective of a uni-version rather than a conversion. Man as future is this ultimatum in action, not an impatient self-proclaimed genius, and philosophy is his testament. It is obviously the ultimatum that determines this testament as “old” with a view towards a life that is, itself, non-testamentary. In and of itself, the “old” can never bear a veritable eschaton. Thus, this book intersects according to the logic of this paradigm, under the sign of the ultimate or “last” as future, philosophy as testament and cautionary note for maintaining the non-philosophical oeuvre as “future” or “utopian.” We will see that between these two dimensions it cradles a theory of struggle. In the end, this book envisions non-philosophers in multiple ways. It inevitably sees them as subjects of knowledge, most often academics insofar as life in the world demands, but above all as close relatives of three great human types. The analyst and political militant are quite obvious, for non-philosophy is close to psychoanalysis and Marxism insofar as it transforms the subject in transforming philosophy. Here again, one must have a sense not of certain nuances but of aspects (of the interpretations, albeit unilateralized) and not in order to construct a simple proletarization or militarization of thought as theory. To be rigorous, rather than authoritarian or spiteful, is its task. And lastly, non-philosophy is a close relative of the spiritual but definitely not the spiritualist. Those who are spiritual are not at all spiritualists, for the spiritual oscillate between fury and tranquil rage, they are great destroyers of the forces of Philosophy and the State, which are united under the name of Conformism. They haunt the margins of philosophy, gnosis, mysticism, science fiction and even religions. Spiritual types are not only abstract mystics and quietists; they are heretics for the World. The task is to bring their heresy to the capacity of utopia, and their utopia to the capacity of the paradigm. NOTES We will recognize allusions, and sometimes references, to closely related or distant themes, but which are related, in the work of Michel Henry, Alain Badiou and via the representative of “non-religious” gnosis of a Platonic origin, in Gilles Grelet. It goes without saying that these discussions are current and local, neither concerning the ensemble of doctrines nor prejudging the eventual evolution of certain amongst them. This concerns defining certain proximities with non-philosophy (rather than adversaries which in some sense they are) and typological and emblematic differends (rather than conflicts with a certain author). (shrink)

" L'homme a toujours pensé que le visage du monde devait l'instruire sur lui-même. " Fort de cette certitude, le philosophe et historien des sciences français Jacques Merleau-Ponty a cherché toute sa vie à donner un sens à l'extraordinaire histoire que nous racontent les astronomes contemporains. Or le visage de l'univers actuel est une véritable énigme pour l'homme moderne : origine inaccessible, histoire chaotique, espace infini, temps relatif, avenir imprévisible... A l'accumulation des connaissances, il fallait répondre par le courage de (...) la pensée. Contemporain de toutes les découvertes cosmologiques du XXe siècle, Jacques Merleau-Ponty a été un des très rares philosophes à y réfléchir pour redonner une place à l'homme dans cet ensemble démesuré. Car si la science cosmologique appartient aux spécialistes, la description du ciel est un bien commun et la pensée du big bang une nouvelle nécessité. Ce livre expose pour la première fois cette pensée qui prend le risque de poser la plus universelle et intime des questions : quel est le sens de l'univers? Depuis Copernic, l'homme n'est décidément plus au centre du cosmos mais il est toujours au coeur de sa signification. (shrink)

Ayahuasca is a psychoactive traditional plant medicine preparation used by the indigenous tribes of the Upper Amazon in their shamanic traditions. Its use has become popular amongst Westerners seeking alternative means of healing, and the medicine has now spread across the globe via syncretic spiritual healing traditions such as the Santo Daime Church. Despite the increased use of the medicine, little research exists on its effectiveness for healing depression. The existing literature does not contain a detailed self-reported phenomenological account of (...) ayahuasca healing a case of depression. The aim of this paper is to share a personal account of healing depression using ayahuasca in a Santo Daime ritual in Johannesburg, South Africa. This experience was unplanned and unexpected and resulted in a profoundly transformative healing process. Based on my experience, I describe ayahuasca’s ingestion as having created a powerful mind-body-spirit connection that resulted in what appeared and felt like a profound reconfiguration of the bio-electrical energy system in my body and a powerful anti-depressant action on my mind. These effects were catalyzed by a strong intention to heal and trust in and take responsibility for myself. Other South African Santo Daime members have reported healing of depression with ayahuasca, although in longer and different processes. It appears that the medicine engages the individual’s unique collective self (life-history, physical and mental disposition, beliefs and intents) resulting in different outcomes for different individuals. Thus, from my own and others’ experience, I describe ayahuasca as a spiritual medicine; one that promotes enhanced awareness and deeper connection to one’s core self, to others and the greater universe, while facilitating the manifestation of one’s intentions and beliefs. This encounter with ayahuasca provided me a first-hand experience of learning and healing from the medicine, making real to me the indigenous Amazonian description of plants as being teachers and doctors. (shrink)

In his “Marxism and the Post-Modern Condition” Raulet examines the relation between modernity, post-modernity, and the aesthetics of the sublime. I would like to make a modest clarification. Raulet argues that I counterpose the Kantian sublime, which is based on incommensurability of powers [Vermögen], to the Hegelian dialectic which totalizes them. Thus I place myself in a position of being able to oppose totalitarianism only by means of a politics of terror. Both equations (speculative discourse = totalitarianism; and philosophy (...) of the sublime = terrorism) need to be dissolved. Let us briefly recall the objections to these equations. (shrink)

Selon l’interprétation traditionnelle, la révolution copernicienne, qui opère le passage du géocentrisme à l’héliocentrisme, aurait détrôné et dévalorisé l’homme, en lui retirant sa position cen­trale, et donc privilégiée, dans le cosmos, pour le reléguer sur une planète devenue analogue aux autres et occupant une place quelconque à l’intérieur du système solaire. Cette inter­prétation ne pèche pas seulement dans sa compréhension de l’héliocentrisme copernicien, mais également dans sa percep­tion du géocentrisme aristotélico-médiéval. Il faut donc dénon­cer sa fausseté générale et, plus encore, (...) lui substituer un autre schéma interprétatif qui, peut-être moins évocateur de notre rapport au monde, soit plus respectueux de la vérité historique. ––– According to the traditional interpretation, the Copernican revo­lution, which brought about the transfer from geocentrism to heliocentrism, is said to have dethroned and devalued man by removing his central and hence privileged position in the cos­mos and by relegating him to a planet now seen as analogous to others occupying an insignificant position within the solar system. This interpretation fails not only in its understanding of Copernican heliocentrism, but also in its percep­tion of Aristo­telian mediaeval geocentrism. It is necessary, therefore, not only to denounce its general falsity, but also to substitute for it a different interpretative scheme which, although it may empha­size less our link with the world, may be more respectful of historical truth. (shrink)

Deux appréciations différentes peuvent être portées quant à l'in­fluence de la cosmologie moderne sur l'héliolâtrie tradition­nelle. Selon la première, la cosmologie moderne a valorisé le Soleil en lui accordant une position cosmologique conforme à son incontestable importance physique, astronomique et sym­bolique. Selon la seconde au contraire, en conduisant au dé­senchantement du monde, elle a mis fin à l'héliolâtrie an­tique. Ces appréciations, apparemment con­tra­dic­toires, contiennent chacune une part de vérité, dans la mesure où la cosmologie moderne se décompose en trois étapes (...) presque simul­tanées, mais aux conséquences bien différentes : 1°) le passage du géocentrisme à l'héliocentrisme, qui opère un renforcement de la symbolique solaire : 2°) la suppression de la bipartition entre monde sublunaire et monde céleste, qui au contraire vient infir­mer la perfec­tion et l'excellence traditionnellement reconnues à l'astre du jour ; et enfin 3°) le passage du monde clos à l'uni­vers infini, qui parachève la désacralisation du Soleil précédem­ment entamée. Cet article est con­sacré à la deuxième de ces trois étapes. Il met notam­ment en évi­dence, d'une part, que le Soleil, maintenant qu'il est connu comme couvert de taches, symbo­lise non plus la divinité, mais l'imperfection inévitable du monde et du genre humain et, d'autre part, que si sa désigna­tion traditionnelle comme étant «l'omnivoyant» reste de mise, c'est dorénavant au sein d'usages comiques et irrévérencieux. –– There are two possible points of view with regards to how modern cosmology has influenced the traditional heliocentric system. The first would say that modern cosmology has given a greater importance to the sun by giving her a place in the universe which is equal to her undeniable physical, astrono­mical and symbolic value. Another possible point of view would be that when the symbolic value of the earth was diminished, the sun suffered the same fate. Both of these two, apparently contradictory, points of view are true in their own way, insofar as modern cosmology can be divided into three stages which although simultaneous, have very different effects. 1) Passing from a geocentric to a heliocentric system strengthened the symbolic value of the sun. 2) However, this movement caused what had been a clear distinction between the sublunary world and the heavens to be lost. This distinction had upheld the excellence of the day star. 3) Finally the world which had been finite and well defined became infinite. The third stage was the final blow in the devaluation of the sun. This article deals with the second of these three stages: that, on the one hand, the sun is covered with marks and can no longer be seen as symbolising divinity but only inevitable imperfection, which reflects the world and mankind itself. On the other hand, if the sun was “all seeing”, this vision is now at best a comic parody, if not strictly irreverent. (shrink)

"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)