L'étude de Christine Hivet concerne deux romancières, la mère et la fille, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) et Mary Godwin Shelley (1797-1851), situées à la jonction des XVIII et XIXe siècles. Hivet examine la première dans le contexte du modèle féminin esquissé par quelques romancières de seconde zone, émules ou adversaires de notre aïeule féministe. En parallèle et en contrepoint, elle étudie la seconde, Mary Shelley. Celle-ci s'exprime dans des œuvres de science-fiction (Frankenstein..

Notes prises par Jacques Lagrange lors du cours d'anthropologie donné par Michel Foucault en 1954-1955 à l'École Normale Supérieure.

Dans la première préface à sa thèse Folie et déraison, Foucault remercie trois hommes qu’il considérait comme ses maîtres et qui ont considérablement influencé son travail. Ainsi, dans sa conférence inaugurale au Collège de France en décembre 1970, ces mêmes noms sont invoqués par Foucault : Georges Canguilhem, Georges Dumézil et Jean Hyppolite. Le rapport de ces trois figures, considérées individuellement, à Foucault a été sujet de discussions plus ou moins détaillées. Cet article explore les affinités intellectuelles et les tensions (...) entre ces trois intellectuels. Canguilhem et Hyppolite avaient été contemporains à l’École Normale Supérieure dans les années 1920, et, des années après, collègues à l’Université de Strasbourg. Notamment, en 1965, ils participent à l’entretien télévisé médié par Alain Badiou et Dina Dreyfus. Même si Dumézil et Hyppolite avaient été collègues au Collège de France, ils n’ont pas discuté les travails l’un de l’autre. Dumézil, il semble, n’a pas discuté le travail de Canguilhem ; ce dernier, en revanche, a considéré soit l’œuvre de Dumézil que celle d’Hyppolite. Cet article analyse le compte rendu de Les mots et les choses par Canguilhem, où il signale l’importance de Dumézil pour le livre de Foucault ; et un rapport d’un séminaire très peu connu, qui a eu lieu dans l’automne 1970, dont Foucault discute les travaux de Dumézil et Canguilhem répondit. L’article donc considère la lecture d’Hyppolite par Canguilhem dans son texte « Hegel en France », et dans les hommages qu’il a écrit à son ami et collègue, après la mort d’Hyppolite en 1968. Une analyse de la lecture de Canguilhem de ses deux contemporains nous aide à mieux situer Canguilhem dans le contexte des débats intellectuels de la première moitié du XX e siècle. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage rassemble les communications présentées lors d'une Journée d'études organisée, le 30 avril 1998, par l'Ecole nationale des Chartes et l'Ecole normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud-Fontenay. Le rapport des femmes au livre y est envisagé sous plusieurs angles. Une partie de l'ouvrage envisage la femme comme lectrice, en Espagne et en Nouvelle Espagne, à la fin du Moyen Age et au début des Temps modernes. Les sources sont des inventaires. Les uns sont dressés après décès, tels (...) ce... (shrink)

Bergson Professeur rassemble les actes d'un colloque international qui s'est tenu a Paris, a l'Ecole Normale Superieure, en novembre 2010. On y trouve les contributions des meilleurs bergsoniens contemporains sur un theme habituellement peu traite : le role exact des cours de Bergson et des notes de cours relativement a ses ouvrages publies. Ce volume vient ainsi combler un manque dans les publications academiques sur Bergson, puisqu'il permet de restituer, dans le sillage des travaux engages il y a (...) deux decennies par Henri Hude, ce qui est trop souvent considere comme la part la moins importante de sa philosophie. En tentant de faire entendre de nouveau la voix vivante du professeur Bergson, ce travail ne rend donc pas seulement un hommage au maitre admire par tous ses auditeurs, il nous fait entrer, comme par effraction, dans l'atelier ou, a n'en pas douter, furent mises au point plusieurs des grandes trouvailles d'un genie philosophique. (shrink)

Jacques Rancière is one of France's leading intellectuals and a recent addition to the who's who of Continental philosophy. Since his time as a student at the Ecole normale supérieure, Rancière has generated a body of work that is at once wide-ranging, interdisciplinary, and consistent. His arguments for a postfoundational and postliberal democratic understanding of politics have influenced, echoed, or demanded critical response from such other Continental luminaries as Slavoj Žižek (1999, 2004) and Alain Badiou (2005). Much (...) of this cachet is no doubt due to Rancière's central thesis regarding the sources, uses, and ends of politics. According to this argument, politics does not derive from putative a priori .. (shrink)

No figure among the western Marxist theoreticians has loomed larger in the postwar period than Louis Althusser. A rebel against the Catholic tradition in which he was raised, Althusser studied philosophy and later joined both the faculty of the Ecole normal superieure and the French Communist Party in 1948. Viewed as a "structuralist Marxist," Althusser was as much admired for his independence of intellect as he was for his rigorous defense of Marx. The latter was best illustrated in For (...) Marx (1965), and Reading Capital (1968). These works, along with Lenin and Philosophy (1971) had an enormous influence on the New Left of the 1960s and continues to influence modern Marxist scholarship. This classic work, which to date has sold more than 30,000 copies, covers the range of Louis Althusser's interests and contributions in philosophy, economics, psychology, aesthetics, and political science. Marx, in Althusser's view, was subject in his earlier writings to the ruling ideology of his day. Thus for Althusser, the interpretation of Marx involves a repudiation of all efforts to draw from Marx's early writings a view of Marx as a "humanist" and "historicist." Lenin and Philosophy also contains Althusser's essay on Lenin's study of Hegel; a major essay on the state, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," "Freud and Lacan: A letter on Art in Reply to Andre Daspre," and "Cremonini, Painter of the Abstract." The book opens with a 1968 interview in which Althusser discusses his personal, political, and intellectual history. (shrink)

-Cours sur Plotin, École normale supérieure, probablement vers 1898-1899 (manuscrit conservé à la bibliothèque Victor Cousin)-Cours d'histoire de la philosophie grecque, Khâgne, Lycée Henri-IV, année scolaire 1894-1895-Leçons sur l'École d'Alexandrie, Lycée Blaise-Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, probablement vers 1884-Le cahier noir, Université de Clermont-Ferrand, 1884-1885.

The world we live in is unjust. Preventable deprivation and suffering shape the lives of many people, while others enjoy advantages and privileges aplenty. Cosmopolitan responsibility addresses the moral responsibilities of privileged individuals to take action in the face of global structural injustice. Individuals are called upon to complement institutional efforts to respond to global challenges, such as climate change, unfair global trade, or world poverty. Committed to an ideal of relational equality among all human beings, the book discusses the (...) impact of individual action, the challenge of special obligations, and the possibility of moral overdemandingness in order to lay the ground for an action-guiding ethos of cosmopolitan responsibility. This thought-provoking book will be of interest to any reflective reader concerned about justice and responsibilities in a globalised world. Jan-Christoph Heilinger is a moral and political philosopher. He teaches at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich, Germany, and at Ecole normale supérieure, Port-au-Prince, Haiti. (shrink)

This biography of Jacques Derrida tells the story of a Jewish boy from Algiers, excluded from school at the age of twelve, who went on to become the most widely translated French philosopher in the world – a vulnerable, tormented man who, throughout his life, continued to see himself as unwelcome in the French university system. We are plunged into the different worlds in which Derrida lived and worked: pre-independence Algeria, the microcosm of the École Normale Supérieure, the (...) cluster of structuralist thinkers, and the turbulent events of 1968 and after. We meet the remarkable series of leading writers and philosophers with whom Derrida struck up a friendship: Louis Althusser, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean Genet, and Hélène Cixous, among others. We also witness an equally long series of often brutal polemics fought over crucial issues with thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, John R. Searle, and Jürgen Habermas, as well as several controversies that went far beyond academia, the best known of which concerned Heidegger and Paul de Man. We follow a series of courageous political commitments in support of Nelson Mandela, illegal immigrants, and gay marriage. And we watch as a concept – deconstruction – takes wing and exerts an extraordinary influence way beyond the philosophical world, on literary studies, architecture, law, theology, feminism, queer theory, and postcolonial studies. In writing this compelling and authoritative biography, Benoît Peeters talked to over a hundred individuals who knew and worked with Derrida. He is also the first person to make use of the huge personal archive built up by Derrida throughout his life and of his extensive correspondence. Peeters’ book gives us a new and deeper understanding of the man who will perhaps be seen as the major philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century. (shrink)

Henri Maldiney est ancien élève de l’Ecole normale supérieure. Il fut prisonnier en Allemagne pendant la guerre. Il est un des représentants en France du courant philosophique de la phénoménologie. Ses champs de réflexion concernent la maladie mentale, l'art et, bien sûr la philosophie. Il a influencé nombre de psychiatres, de philosophes et d'artistes. La meilleure façon de proposer une introduction à la pensée de Henri Maldiney, c’est peut-être de faire partager une expérience personnelle de rencontre. Bernard (...) Rigaud, en travaillant sur différents sujets, a croisé et recroisé de façon régulière la pensée de ce philosophe. À chaque occasion, il a eu le sentiment d’être éclairé et inspiré. Partant des différentes modalités du mal-être, la pensée d’Henri Maldiney devient une pensée sur l’être. Mais comment penser ce qui est? Le philosophe nous conduit sur les voies de l’art, et sur les voies des dysfonctionnements, de la folie, de la dépression... (shrink)

RESUMO O artigo tem por objetivo analisar a raiz heideggeriana do tratamento da história no jovem Derrida. Juntamente à sua análise do problema genético em Husserl, Derrida constrói sua discussão crítica da razão histórica referindo-se ao problema da historicidade originária em "Ser e Tempo". São conhecidos os seus estudos dos anos 1970 em matéria de Heidegger, em torno do problema do tempo e da diferença, porém, uma nova e mais explícita evidência sobre esta relação primária com Heidegger em torno do (...) problema histórico é oferecida pelo curso que Derrida ministrou na École Normale Supérieure de Paris no período 1964-1965, sob o título "Heidegger: a questão do Ser e da História". Nesse curso, que acaba de ser publicado, Derrida discute a questão linguística associando-a ao problema heideggeriano da contaminação ineludível entre narração e fundação. No texto que segue, pretende-se analisar os termos de tal herança heideggeriana e, ao mesmo tempo, destacar as questões críticas que emergem desse curso e detalham a distância entre o jovem Derrida e Heidegger. ABSTRACT The article aims at analyzing the treatment of history in Young Derrida under a Heideggerian basis. Together with that, add Heidegger's analysis on the genetic issue in Husserl, Derrida builds his critical discussion on the historical reason referring to the originary historicity issue in "Ser e Tempo". His studies from the 70s, in terms of Heidegger, are known, regarding the issue of time and difference, but, a new and more explicit evidence on that primary relation with Heidegger round the historical issue is offered by the course Derrida taught at the École Normale Supérieure de Paris from 1964-1965, under the title "Heidegger: a questão do Ser e da História". In that course, which has just been published, Derrida discusses the linguistic issue linking it to Heideggerian issue of the unavoidable contamination between narrations and foundation. In the text below, we intend to analyze terms such as Heideggerian heritage and, at the same time, highlighting the critical issues emerging from that course and which detail the distance between the young Derrida and Heidegger. (shrink)

Michel Foucault’s formative years included the study not only of history and philosophy but also of psychology: two years after he took license in philosophy at the Sorbonne in 1948, he took another in psychology, and then obtained, in 1952, a Diplôme de Psycho Pathologie . From his earliest years at the Ecole Normale Superieur he had taken courses on general and social psychology with one of most influential psychologists of the time, Daniel Lagache, who was attempting to (...) integrate psychoanalysis with clinical methods.(Eribon 1991, 42) Foucault’s studies included experimentation and clinical instruction in which patients were presented in an amphitheatre just as in the days of Charcot. For several years after he had received his Diplôme, Foucault continued research in psychopathology, observing practices in mental hospitals, reportedly sometimes volunteering in experiments himself. He purchased the material required to administer Roschach tests, subjecting numerous friends to the inkblots, and became, when it was founded, the honorary president of the French Rorschach organization. Foucault’s first books were on the topic of the psychological characterization of madness and the development of clinical medicine, and his last books addressed the development of psychological norms within the establishment of modern prisons as well as within an increasingly scientific approach to sex. Thus, he worked at the intersections of philosophy and psychology throughout his life. Nonetheless, Foucault reported feeling an intense aversion to psychology no less than to philosophy.(Sheridan 1980, 5) Foucault’s oeuvre is almost exclusively focused on particular knowledges in the human sciences, especially those aspects which pertained to psychological theories of human behavior, capacity, and normative functioning. His historical approach to these, and his emphasis on the role of discourse, is readily reminiscent of Thomas Kuhn’s similarly historical approach to scientific method with its emphasis on the role of paradigms and the untranslatability of paradigm dependent objects.. (shrink)

"La méditation du Principe est le principe même de la philosophie." Cette sentence par laquelle débute le présent ouvrage ne décline pas seulement le projet d'un livre, elle traduit l'ambition d'une oeuvre. Son auteur, Stanislas Breton, disparu le 2 avril 2005, métaphysicien original et génial, parvenu alors au faîte d'une recherche initiée dans les universités romaines, poursuivie dans les Instituts catholiques de Lyon de Paris et relancée à l'Ecole normale supérieure d'Ulm, en déroulait alors la thèse dans (...) une étonnante fulgurance. Trente ans exactement après sa première publication, celle-ci se trouve à nouveau, plus actuelle que jamais, présentée au public. Les quatre parties qui la structurent sont consacrées au concept antique de "Principe" à "l'Ineffable" auquel il se trouve nécessairement confronté, à ses usages en philosophie et en théologie, et à la critique à laquelle le soumet la pensée contemporaine. Elles déchiffrent, chemin faisant, ce qui décide, sous des modes bien différents, de l'"organisation du pensable" à l'intérieur des philosophies et des théologies. Ainsi réédité, cet ouvrage se livre à l'inspiration de nouvelles générations soucieuses d'honorer et d'exploiter, dans la ligne du N Fonds Breton une oeuvre d'exception. (shrink)

Few philosophers held greater fascination for Jacques Derrida than Martin Heidegger, and in this book we get an extended look at Derrida’s first real encounters with him. Delivered over nine sessions in 1964 and 1965 at the École Normale Supérieure, these lectures offer a glimpse of the young Derrida first coming to terms with the German philosopher and his magnum opus, Being and Time. They provide not only crucial insight into the gestation of some of Derrida’s primary conceptual (...) concerns—indeed, it is here that he first uses, with some hesitation, the word “deconstruction”—but an analysis of Being and Time that is of extraordinary value to readers of Heidegger or anyone interested in modern philosophy. Derrida performs an almost surgical reading of the notoriously difficult text, marrying pedagogical clarity with patient rigor and acting as a lucid guide through the thickets of Heidegger’s prose. At this time in intellectual history, Heidegger was still somewhat unfamiliar to French readers, and Being and Time had only been partially translated into French. Here Derrida mostly uses his own translations, giving his own reading of Heidegger that directly challenges the French existential reception initiated earlier by Sartre. He focuses especially on Heidegger’s Destruktion of the history of ontology, and indeed of ontology as such, concentrating on passages that call for a rethinking of the place of history in the question of being, and developing a radical account of the place of metaphoricity in Heidegger’s thinking. This is a rare window onto Derrida’s formative years, and in it we can already see the philosopher we’ve come to recognize—one characterized by a bravura of exegesis and an inventiveness of thought that are particularly and singularly his. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Breaking the Revolutionary Deadlock?Volney's Leçons and the Debate on the Value of HistoryNiccolò ValmoriThis article explores the crucial contribution of Constantin-François de Chasseboeuf, better known by his pen name, Volney, to the eighteenth-century debate on the nature of history as a discipline.1 My claim is that Volney's Leçons d'histoire is the result of a complex dynamic between two forces: on the one hand, a century-long debate on how history (...) should be both written and taught; on the other, the revolutionary calls for a thoroughgoing revision of the past amid concurrent references to the virtuous moral examples of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Volney had a very narrow gap to "save" history from deadlock between these opposite perspectives. His history course at the École normale supérieure showed how the eventful years of the French Revolution had changed his own understanding of the discipline of history.I argue that Volney's supposed distrust toward the importance of the study of history was not an attempt to devalue history itself.2 On the contrary, the French author approached history as a discipline based on the principle [End Page 773] of investigative doubt and on dialogue with other scientific domains such as geography, geology, and meteorology. As Jean Gaulmier puts it: "The true heirs of Volney's dream of a total history were Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch."3 However, if Volney's proposal for a new historiography is set within the eighteenth-century debate on how to write and teach history, it appears neither original nor new. Nonetheless, I argue, Volney attempted a synthesis between divergent positions on the role of history, as they emerged and were debated during the eighteenth century in the light of the first years of the French Revolution. The context of the French Revolution left Volney with more doubts than certainty on the value of the discipline, given the manifold and controversial uses of historical examples proposed in those years. As Minchul Kim has pointed out, Volney's Leçons are a "work in history rather than a work on history."4 While Kim is right to point out the importance of the revolutionary context for understanding Volney's skepticism toward the value of history, I argue that while Volney's personal understanding of how history should be written matured through the revolutionary experience, it was also the fruit of a dialogue with Enlightenment historiography.In the first part of the article, I present the main features of the eighteenth-century debate on the limits and meaning of writing history, with a particular focus on its relationship with ancient history and on the stature of history among the other disciplines. In the second part, I analyze how Volney dealt with this debate in some of his works that preceded his appointment to the chair of history at the École normale. Three of Volney's pre-1795 works are considered here: Voyages en Syrie et en Égypte (1787), Considérations sur la guerre actuelle des Turcs (1788), and Les Ruines (which was published during the Revolution). In the last section of the article I delve into the Leçons to highlight how this work represented Volney's provisional resolution of the long debate over the role of history as a scientific endeavor as well as a subject that could be taught. [End Page 774]ENLIGHTENMENT HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE TEACHING OF HISTORY: THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY QUESTIn this section I review the main contributors to the Enlightenment historiographical debate on the status of history as a discipline and on its relationship with antiquity. I do not claim to cover all aspects of Enlightenment historiography; rather I aim to set Volney's contribution to these two aspects of the debate in a broader context. His open skepticism toward the heuristic value of history cannot be reduced simply to a reaction to the political uses and misuses of history during the French Revolution. Volney's Leçons addressed a larger audience than the select group of French teachers attending his class. The philosopher-traveler, as his contemporaries called him, joined a conversation about history that had started at... (shrink)

Academic careers in French science during the mid-nineteenth century were made within the Université de France, an integrated state system of secondary and higher education controlled by a centralized Parisian educational administration. Among the most respected members of thecorps universitairewere Charles d'Almeida and Pierre Bertin, two historically obscurephysicienswhose significance derives from their substantial contributions to the social organization, teaching and communication of French experimental physics. This two-part comparative biography uses their entwined careers to make a case for the emergence of (...) a discipline of French experimental physics from the corps during the tumultuous politico-cultural transition from the Second Empire to the Third Republic. Of fundamental importance are disciplinary regimes of teaching and inspection within the corps, the foundation of the Société française de physique and theJournal de physique, and the diversification of the traditional pedagogical role of the Ecole normale supérieure, which, from around 1860, began to offer a career pathway for aspiring scientific researchers. Having established in this paper the socio-institutional mechanisms for the stabilization of a distinct field, in part two I characterize the epistemological–methodological aspects of French experimental physics. (shrink)

Livres [1] P. Engel, Identité et référence, la théorie des noms propres chez Frege et Kripke, Paris : Presses de l’École normale supérieure. [2] P. Engel, La Norme du vrai, philosophie de la logique, Paris : Gallimard, 3e éd. [3] P. Engel, The Norm of Truth, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic, New York : Harvester Wheatsheaf. Traduction en anglais de [2] par P. Engel & M. Kochan. [4] P. Engel, États d’esprit, questions de philosophie de l’esprit, (...) Aix-en-Pro... (shrink)

Marc Crépon es director de investigación en el Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique y director del Departamento de Filosofía de l’École normale supérieure de París. Entre sus publicaciones se encuentran: La culture de la peur, I. Démocratie, identité, sécurité ; La culture de la peur, II. La guerre des civilisations ; Le consentement meurtrier ; La vocation de l’écriture ; La gauche c’est quand?.

Assia Djebar, ce fut un beau nom : consolation et fierté y résonnent. Elle le choisit dès son premier roman, La Soif, paru en 1957. Celle qui était encore aux yeux de l’administration française Fatima Zohra Imalhayène, élève de l’École normale supérieure de jeunes filles, suivit les consignes de l’UGEMA, l’Union générale des étudiants algériens, et renonça à passer les examens dus. Elle ne renonça pas pour autant aux responsabilités universitaires et soutint sur le tard, en 1999, une (...) thèse re... (shrink)

These autobiographical and philosophical essays, in the form of expertly probing interviews, provide a superb introduction to the work of one of the most significant contemporary political philosophers and a marvelously readable perspective on the French intellectual and political arenas from the 1970s to the present. Those already familiar with Manent's work will find an indispensable reflection on his transition from the critique of modernity brilliantly represented in his earlier books (most notably Tocqueville and the Nature of Democracy and The (...) City of Man), a critique at once original and significantly indebted to Leo Strauss, toward a perspective that emerges in his recent The Metamorphoses of the City, a monumental and profoundly original study that endeavors to situate modernity within the original Greek founding of the act of politics. The autobiographical passages in this vivid and engaging work invite the reader into, first, the world of postwar France in which Manent grew up, in which he was presented with the choice between the Communist hopes of his father and the opposing power and prestige of all things American. There is also an impressive portrait of the rigors and spirit of a provincial lycee where the first sparks of philosophical eros ignited in Manent's soul, and of his studies in the legendary Ecole Normale Superieur in the midst of the ideological confusion associated with the ferment of 1968. The reader then is invited to an inside view of the rise of a broadly Tocquevillean school of French thought around the journal Contrepoints and its successor Commentaire. (shrink)

En cette entame du troisième millénaire, la musique adresse une question aux autres arts comme aux sciences : comment ajuster les différentes écritures (musicale, mathématique, chorégraphique, biologique...) aux nouvelles matières sur lesquelles ces pensées embrayent? S'il est vrai que le système autonome d'écriture musicale (le solfège), inventé il y a près de 1 000 ans, s'avère désormais en partie inadapté aux nouveaux matériaux sonores qu'il s'agit de composer, la prolifération empirique des simples notations à laquelle on assiste aujourd'hui ne saurait (...) pourvoir aux mutations en jeu : en matière d'écriture musicale, il en va non de simples techniques neutres mais bien de logique musicale, donc de ce qu'un discours ou un développement veulent musicalement dire. S'il s'agit donc en cette affaire de penser les mutations en cours en matière de "logique musicale" et leurs exigences en matière de nouvelles "lettres/notes" musicales, qu'en est-il de soucis semblables dans les autres arts et dans les sciences? Qu'en est-il de mutations équivalentes dans les autres arts, singulièrement dans ceux qui entreprennent de se doter d'une écriture qui leur soit propre (la chorégraphie)? Qu'en est-il surtout dans les sciences, dans les mathématiques bien sûr mais aussi en logique comme dans les sciences ayant à nouer leurs propres lettres à l'impératif galiléen de s'écrire mathématiquement? Comment ce double dispositif (écriture mathématique importée/modes endogènes d'inscription) tend-il aujourd'hui à se nouer en physique, en chimie, en biologie, en informatique? Ce volume rassemble différentes contributions soutenues et discutées lors d'un colloque tenu à l'Ecole normale supérieure (Paris, Ulm) en octobre 2007. (shrink)

En 1927, Sartre dépose à l’Ecole normale supérieure un mémoire sur l’image, qui vient enfin d’être publié. Il y défend déjà une des thèses centrales de L’Imagination et de L’Imaginaire, à savoir que l’image mentale n’est pas un tableau intérieur, la reproduction de sensations anciennes : c’est une création, un acte de liberté. Dans son mémoire, Sartre inscrit l’image dans la vie du corps et de l’esprit, d’une manière encore hésitante mais aussi très inventive, qui éclaire ses (...) livres ultérieurs sur l’image sans s’y laisser réduire.In 1927, Sartre submitted a dissertation to the Ecole normale supérieure about the Image, that has been published recently. Already in this work he outlines one of the central theses of L’Imagination and L’Imaginaire, namely that a mental image is neither an internal image, nor the reproduction of previously known sensations, but is a pure act of creation. In his dissertation, Sartre sets down in writing the image in the life of the body and the mind, in a hesitant yet very inventive manner. It helps us to understand his subsequent books concerning image without detracting from their originality. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Ideas 62.4 (2001) 577-592 [Access article in PDF] Eclecticism and the History of Ideas Donald R. Kelley "What we call the history of ideas," Joseph Mazzeo wrote in in 1972, "itself has a history." 1 In this country the history of ideas in the past century has been associated with the American philosopher and founder of this journal, Arthur O. Lovejoy, and his epigones (...) and critics. However, this field has an earlier history sub literam, going back almost two centuries, and a still deeper prehistory before the coinage of the phrase, traceable at least indirectly back to antiquity. The purpose of this essay is to trace some aspects of one intellectual tradition out of which the history of ideas has, knowingly or not, emerged.In 1829 Victor Cousin gave a diagnosis of and his prescription for philosophy in the wake of one revolution and on the threshold of another. He saw just three possibilities: either it could renounce its independence and submit again to authority, it could keep on retracing the circle of obsolescent systems, or--and this was his solution--it could "disengage what is true in each of these systems, and thus construct a philosophy superior to all systems [and] shall be neither this or that philosophy in its essence and in its unity." This procedure, "to select in all what appears to be true and good, and consequently everlasting,--this, in a single word, is ECLECTICISM." Moreover, Cousin added, "[i]f this philosophy is to be Eclectic, it must also be sustained by the history of philosophy."How had Cousin come upon this program? In December 1815, in the first year of both the Restoration Monarchy and his teaching at the École Normale Supérieure, he was lecturing on the history of philosophy. In post-revolutionary France this was a field in great disarray, and Cousin looked back to the great schools of the earlier generation, noting three in particular--the French, the [End Page 577] Scottish, and the German traditions, represented respectively by Condillac, Reid, and Kant. "It would be an interesting and instructive study," he told his enthusiastic young students, "to examine the weaknesses of these schools by engaging one with another and by selecting their various merits in the context of a great eclecticism which would contain and surpass all three." 2Over the next three decades this doctrine was publicized and extended by Cousin's many scholarly publications, by the still more famous lectures he gave after returning to his chair of philosophy in 1828, by his many international contacts and disciples, and by his later public career as minister of education. 3 For half a century before his death in 1867 Cousin had an unparalleled intellectual influence as virtually the "official philosopher" in France, with Eclecticism being widely regarded as a "state philosophy," 4 and translations of his works extending his renown into other parts of Europe and this country. In defending his achievements and hegemonic position Cousin claimed an absolute originality and a unique truth-value for his ideas. Eclecticism had not been drawn from German sources, he protested in 1855. "It was born spontaneously in our own spirit [notre esprit] from the spectacle of the resounding conflicts and the hidden harmonies of the three great philosophical schools of the eighteenth century," he declared. "Thus," he concluded, "eclecticism is a French doctrine and peculiar to us." 5Historically speaking, however, nothing could be further from the truth--or indeed further from the premises of the earlier eclectic tradition on which Cousin knowingly drew. The defining characteristic of his philosophy was its dependence not only on the three schools he recognized in his early years of teaching but on the whole history of philosophy from its Greek and especially Platonic beginnings, to which Cousin himself devoted much of his historical and philological [End Page 578] scholarship. That Eclecticism was a sort of higher plagiarism was admitted by Cousin himself: "What I recommend," Cousin said in 1817, "is an enlightened eclecticism which, judging with equity, and even with benevolence... (shrink)

This text derives from a recording, and transcripts, of the introduction which Althusser gave on 6 December 1963, to a seminar for students in the École Normale Supérieure, Paris, offered at his invitation by Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron. Althusser takes the opportunity to raise questions about the status of social science and suggests that Bourdieu and Passeron represent slightly different strands of contemporary research practice, partly as a result of their different formation and practice since themselves leaving (...) the École. Althusser first considers the relation between the human sciences and the traditionally instituted Faculty of Letters or Humanities. What is the origin of the compulsion to constitute a science of human relations? Given that the social sciences have established themselves, Althusser then tries to define their nature. He suggests that they have three forms: as abstract and general theory, as ethnology, and as empirical sociology. He discusses the pros and cons of each in some detail. Althusser then asks what are the features which constitute sciences and concludes that they must always possess discrete theoretical perspectives corresponding with discrete components of reality but must also possess an element of self-referentiality or, as he puts it, must be objects to themselves. Althusser suggests that his contemporary social sciences are not philosophically adequate by the criteria which he advances. He proceeds to introduce Bourdieu and Passeron in such a way as to invite consideration of whether their practices meet his criteria. (shrink)

Le nom de Jean Cavailles evoque pour les uns le heros de la Resistance, le combattant intrepide fusille a 40 ans par les Allemands, pour les autres le philosophe brillant qui a propose une conception neuve de la pensee logique. Cet homme ne fait pourtant qu'un, l'unite de la pensee abstraite et de l'action concrete s'arrimant chez lui dans une meme disposition ethique, disposition a prendre des risques, a vivre le risque - theorique ou pratique - comme la solution exigee (...) par un probleme rationnellement pose. Or ce chemin qui va de la position d'un probleme theorique a l'invention de sa solution, le philosophe Cavailles se demande s'il est necessaire ou contingent. L'apparition de la theorie des ensembles de Cantor par exemple est-elle le fruit necessaire du developpement de la mathematique ou bien un evenement contingent qui aurait non seulement pu ne pas se produire mais se produire selon une autre modalite? Mais si plusieurs mathematiques differentes peuvent coexister, n'est-ce pas le modele le plus rigoureux du savoir qui perd d'un coup son unite et sa necessite? Le probleme de Cavailles est de trouver comment d'un univers ancien peut sortir un nouvel univers, comment on peut allier la continuite de la demarche rationnelle et la rupture des concepts. Ce sont les voies utilisees par Cavailles pour resoudre cette question que le livre d'Hourya Benis Sinaceur degage avec une grande clarte. Loin de perdre le lecteur profane dans des considerations mathematiques et logiques qui le depasseraient, l'auteur s'emploie a cerner l'originalite de la pensee philosophique de Cavailles, en montrant comment il fait jouer les unes contre les autres les sources philosophiques auxquelles il puise pour construire une histoire du sens absolument singuliere, irreductible a l'une ou l'autre des philosophies qui l'alimentent pourtant. Entre Frege et Bolzano du cote d'une conception objectiviste des idees, et Hegel et Husserl du cote d'une logique subjectiviste, c'est-a-dire de la conscience, Cavailles tisse une voie moyenne une dialectique materielle (du contenu) sans sujet. L'auteur Ancienne eleve de l'Ecole Normale Superieure et docteur d'Etat es Lettres, Hourya Benis Sinaceur est directrice de recherche emerite au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Membre du comite national d'histoire et philosophie des sciences de l'Academie internationale d'histoire des sciences, elle dirige aujourd'hui une collection d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences chez Vrin. Elle est l'auteur de: - Corps et Modeles, Paris, Vrin, Collection Mathesis, 1991, 2e edition 1999. - Le labyrinthe du continu (co-edition avec SALANSKIS J.-M.), Springer-Verlag France, 1992. - Les paradoxes de l'infini, edition francaise, avec notes et introduction, de BOLZANO Bernard, Die Paradoxien des Unendlichen, Paris, Le Seuil, 1993. - Jean Cavailles, Philosophie mathematique, Paris, PUF, 1994. - La creation des nombres, edition francaise de DEDEKIND Richard, avec notes et introductions, Paris, Vrin, Collection Mathesis, 2008. (shrink)

Preface: The Review of Philosophy and Psychology Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s13164-010-0024-1 Authors Dario Taraborelli, University of Surrey Centre for Research in Social Simulation Guilford GU2 7XH United Kingdom Roberto Casati, Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure 29 rue d’Ulm 75005 Paris France Paul Egré, Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Supérieure 29 rue d’Ulm 75005 Paris France Christophe Heintz, Central European University Budapest Hungary Journal Review of Philosophy and Psychology Online ISSN (...) 1878-5166 Print ISSN 1878-5158 Journal Volume Volume 1 Journal Issue Volume 1, Number 1. (shrink)

This paper provides a discussion of Jacques Rancière’s former teacher at École Normale Supérieure, then famous for fashioning Marxism with the philosophical gauge of structuralism, Louis Althusser. Perhaps a brief discussion on the relation between the two would render context to the origins of Rancière's philosophico-political praxis, specifically the humble beginnings of conceptualizing an egalitarian method out of his philosophical rupture with Althusserianism. Meanwhile, to reduce the philosophical enterprise of Althusser into its practical shortcomings and silence during the (...) revolutionary events of May 1968 in France would do an injustice to the magnitude of his contribution to contemporary French political theory and his major revisions in the theoretical direction of the Parti communiste français. Thus, the following discussions focus on sketching Althusser's theoretical foundations, which possibly clarifies the political decision he has made during May '68: a demand for organization over spontaneous revolutionary activity based on the authority of theoretical practice over the ideological activities—a decision that became the point of departure for Rancière's subversion of both mastery and the structural inequality Althusserianism entail. The whole piece is guided by the following two-fold question—a question, perhaps, akin to Badiou's inquiry: What were the philosophico-political interventions of Louis Althusser, and why did Rancière move away from his direction? (shrink)

Simone Weil (1909-1943) sort aujourd'hui du cercle des philosophes et des intellectuels pour toucher de nombreux lecteurs de différents milieux. Même, des artistes et des personnalités du monde politique avouent avoir été influencés par ses écrits. De santé fragile, elle s'adapte d'abord difficilement à la vie scolaire mais montre dès ses premières années une maturité intellectuelle surprenante, des idées très affirmées et une volonté indomptable. Inséparable de son frère qu'elle admire d'autant plus qu'elle se croit très inférieure à lui ; (...) il sera mathématicien, titulaire de la médaille Field (l'équivalent du Prix Nobel), estimé à l'égal d'Albert Einstein, elle se montre déterminée à rechercher la pureté et la vérité. Elle est animée très tôt par une curiosité insatiable et par un désir d'aller vers les personnes les plus vulnérables et les plus maltraitées par la vie. Sa rencontre avec le philosophe Alain est déterminante pour son avenir. Après le baccalauréat à 16 ans et des études à l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, elle enseigne quelque temps la philosophie. Comme Antigone et Jeanne d'Arc, ses modèles, obéissant aux lois non-écrites, elle a toujours mis sa vie en totale conformité avec ses paroles ou ses écrits. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Pound of Flesh: Lacan’s Reading of The Visible and the InvisibleCharles Shepherdson (bio)This cut in the signifying chain alone verifies the structure of the subject as discontinuity in the real.—Lacan, “Subversion of the Subject”This moment of cut is haunted by the form of a bloody scrap—the pound of flesh that life pays in order to turn it into the signifier of signifiers, which it is impossible to restore, (...) as such, to the imaginary body.—Lacan, “Direction of the Treatment”A philosophy of the flesh is the condition without which psychoanalysis remains anthropology.—Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible1. The Limit of LanguageWhen The Visible and the Invisible was published in 1964, Lacan was teaching for the first time at the École normale supérieure. In the fall of 1963, the previous semester, the French Society for Psychoanalysis had excluded Lacan from its list of approved training analysts, which also meant his rejection from the society founded by Freud himself, the International Psychoanalytic Association. 1 As a result, Lacan cancelled his seminar at Sainte-Anne [End Page 70] Hospital, where it had been running for ten years, and began teaching for the first time before a university audience (at the invitation of Fernand Braudel, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Louis Althusser, and other supporters who had arranged for him to continue his teaching). Philosophers like Jean Wahl and Jean Hyppolite had of course taken an interest in his work for many years, but this was the first time that participants in his seminar no longer needed the special credentials required to enter the psychiatric clinic at the teaching hospital. The seminar was now open to the public, was considerably larger than it had ever been, and its participants came mainly from the university. Lacan was now obliged to make a case for his work before the academic world.The seminar he had planned for that year was called Les noms-du-père (The Names-of-the-Father), but only one session took place. 2 When he moved from Sainte-Anne to the École normale, he offered a different course, which was published as Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, although it was originally entitled Les fondements de la psychanalyse (The Foundations of Psychoanalysis). 3 It is clear, therefore, that this seminar constitutes a new beginning of sorts, a return to fundamental principles. It also involves a concerted effort, on Lacan’s part, to prove himself.If we begin with these historical details, it is not because of their intrinsic importance, or because a theoretical text can be reduced to its historical milieu, but because Lacan’s remarks on The Visible and the Invisible can be grasped only if we recognize the specific concerns that occupied him during this course. 4Before we turn to that course, however, let us sketch its horizon more precisely. The ill-fated session from the Names-of-the-Father seminar, which has been published in the English (but not the French) edition of Television, contains an analysis of the “voice” which is very close to the account of the “gaze” that organizes his discussion of Merleau-Ponty [see Salecl and Zizek]. The session on the “voice” develops through a reading of the biblical account of Abraham and Isaac [see Derrida], which is in turn elaborated by reference to Caravaggio’s depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac and Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling—the entire session providing a brief summary of Lacan’s course on anxiety from the previous semester (the unpublished Seminar X: L’angoisse, 1962–63), in which Heidegger is never far away. 5 The context for his treatment of Merleau-Ponty is therefore extremely complex and overdetermined, opening in many directions, but at the same time it is extremely precise, in the sense that Lacan’s purpose in exploring these materials is not primarily philosophical, but concerns the development of a fairly narrow and technical point within psychoanalytic theory, namely, the problem of the drive. 6 [End Page 71]We thus have an initial orientation: as objects of the drive, the “voice” and the “gaze” are not properties of the subject (the... (shrink)

This article examines Jacques Derrida’s work of self-reflection on his own teaching practice by using as a guiding thread the problematics of reproduction in the seminars of the 1970s. The first part of the article examines the sequence of seminars taught by Derrida at École normale supérieure from 1971 to 1977 to show how the concept of reproduction is deconstructed by Derrida across several seminars. Derrida systematically demonstrates, across several themes and fields (sociology and economy, biology and sexuality, (...) art, technique, ontology, and so on), that the critical recourse to the concept of reproduction (for instance, in its Marxist form) risks being complicit in the reproductive system it criticizes. The deconstructive motif of débordement is introduced to problematize this onto-logic of re-production. The second part of the article analyzes more specifically the unpublished seminar “GREPH, le concept de l’idéologie chez les idéologues français” (1974–75), in which Derrida examines the seminar function, his role as a teacher, and his own situation within the French educational system. In particular, Derrida offers a deconstructive critique of the reproductive effects of teaching, and of the institution of philosophy inasmuch as it functions as a reproductive machine. This work of deconstruction is done in the seminar notably through readings of Marx, Engels, and Althusser, with special attention to the concepts of ideology, reproduction, and sexual difference. (shrink)

The classical Reason is too often linked with the conquest of Nature and with modern scientific and technological world. But Bruno Pinchard shows that this kind of philosophizing is a source of freedom in the relation that is endeavored to be established between Faith and Rationality. The classical Reason is equidistant from the might of science and the dogmas of faith. This Reason is an actualization of pure thought. In this perspective, the author declares 12 propositions that would need to (...) be developed with historical proves to be fully justified. Meanwhile, these first steps have a systematic aim, like all the conceptual constructions of classical thought. The paper is concluded with a short “Coda” about the necessity of love to give strength to the reason to achieve ultimate goals of the latter. The translation is made according to the text which is a revised and updated version of the article: Pinchard B. Quelques principes de raison classique. L’Archicube, n° 24, juin 2018, pp. 156–164. Paris: École Normale Supérieure. (shrink)