The head and the stomach January 1996 -- Borges in Sarajevo March 1996 -- Fin de siècle and new millenarium May 1996 -- Cold racism July 1996 -- The last enemy November 1996 -- The grounded plane January 1997 -- Dialectic in the dialectic August 1997 -- Voyage to the country of the last sociologists November 1997 -- Justice in the past April 1998 -- The crisis of art or a crisis of thought July 1998 -- Is cinema to blame (...) March 1999? -- The nameless war May 1999 -- One image right can sweep away another October 1999 -- The syllogism of corruption October 2000 -- Voici/voila : the destiny of images January 2001 -- From facts to interpretations : the new quarrel over the holocaust April 2001 -- From one torture to another June 2001 -- The filmmaker, the people and the government August 2001 -- Time, words, war November 2001 -- Philosophy in the bathroom January 2002 -- Prisoners of the infinite march 2002 -- From one month of May to another June 2002 -- Victor Hugo : the ambiguities of a bicentenary August 2002 -- The machine and the foetus January 2003 -- Death of the author or all too living artist April 2003 -- Logic of amnesia June 2003 -- The principle of insecurity September 2003 -- The new fictions of evil November 2003 -- Criminal democracy March 2004 -- The difficult heritage of Michel Foucault June 2004 -- The new reasons for the lie A\august 2004 -- Beyond art October 2004 -- The politics of images February 2005 -- Democracy and its doctors May 2005. (shrink)

L’article part d’une constatation inattendue : la pensée naît renversée!... Je veux dire que la pensée naît “renversée” dans la mesure où elle doit se soumettre à d’innombrables idées reçues pour pouvoir accéder à sa propre originalité – et y parvient, en effet, entre l’enfance et l’adolescence. Mais pas toujours, hélas! Le conflit est donc immédiat entre la censure imposée par l’Ordre établi d’une génération, et les penseurs suivants – en fait, actuellement, tous les êtres humains – qui, au nom (...) de la démocratie, opposent sans cesse aux élus ou aux experts une remise en question de l’indiscutabilité de leurs Lois ou Vérités prétendues absolues. En art comme en science, en religion comme en philosophie. Inversement, la soif d’Absolu des rébellions, dès l’adolescence, aboutit, à gauche, à la même “justification” de la Terreur et des totalitarismes, à droite, à la dictature fascisante des soi-disant libéralismes les plus dévastateurs et, dans les deux cas, à la guerre et à la répression “justifiée” au nom de l’Unité de tous ; redoutable paradoxe! (c’est celui de la morale de l’ambiguïté héritée de Robespierre, dont les contradictions encombrent les réseaux sociaux). Ainsi, selon qu’on s’interdit ou que l’on justifie rationnellement d’anéantir l’être ou la pensée des autres, penser fait vivre ou penser tue… Mais il existe encore une perspective épistémologique autre : la modification du monde par l’actualisation de nos connaissances comme réalisation de la pensée. Ce que j’invite à nommer une diathèse. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:diacritics 30.2 (2000) 113-126 [Access article in PDF] Dissenting Words:A Conversation with Jacques Rancière 1 Davide Panagia:In your writings you highlight the political efficacy of words. In The Names of History, for instance, this emphasis is discussed most vividly in terms of what you refer to as an "excess of words" that marks the rise of democratic movements in the seventeenth century. Similarly, in On The Shores of (...) Politics, you begin your discussion with an excursus on the end of politics as the end of the promise. Finally, in Dis-agreement you speak of "the part of those who have no-part" as voicing a "wrong" for the sake of equality.In each of these instances, however, your treatment of words (and language more generally) is very different from those thinkers of the "linguistic turn" in political philosophy who expound on an ethics of deliberation as the first virtue of modern democracies. For that matter, your approach is quite different from those thinkers who focus on the aporias of language as such.Could you discuss this thematic of the proliferation of words in your thinking about democratic politics?Would it be fair to characterize your research on and exposition of democratic thinking as a "poetics of politics"?Rancière's Reply:In order to address your question adequately, it would be wise to enlarge the sense of "linguistic turn" you invoke. In its most generally accepted sense, the linguistic turn in philosophy consists in ascribing to linguistic processes certain phenomena and specifiable modes of relating objects attributed, in a previous instance, either to factual processes or lines of thought. This approach is not limited to the two figures you invoke in your question. The linguistic turn also has two stages of development that, from my experience, have been more noticeable in France than in the United States. The first phase, then, emerged with Lévi-Strauss and his structural approach to social relations founded on a linguistic model of relationality, subsequently reprised in Lacan's psychoanalytic notion that "the unconscious is structured like a language" that, in its turn, conjoins the energetic mental processes Freud discusses to linguistic practices. The primacy of "the linguistic" thus granted language all the properties of the Freudian unconscious [End Page 113] along with those of a Marxist notion of infrastructure. The Saussurian opposition between langue and parole provided a privileged status to a linguistic model whose role was that of a general law that unconsciously structures the behavior of individuals and societies. It is on the basis of these parameters that the structuralist moment of the linguistic turn was constituted. At one and the same time, the analysis of speech acts became first and foremost a "symptomatic" analysis of those procedures of misrecognition that linguistically structured both the behavior of individuals and social relations. When we "read" Le Capital with Althusser, the interpretive and methodological schema for linguistic phenomena operated like a kind of "policing of the enunciated": that is, a search for those unsuccessful (i.e., inadequate) modes of expression that exemplify such symptomatic procedures of misrecognition.The second phase of the linguistic turn constituted itself more ambiguously. For those who shared intellectual experiences similar to my own, this version involved a critique of the langue/infrastructure model; that is, a further and more favorable consideration of the value of the political and the linguistic games therein that, according to the Althusserian/Marxist model (and, indeed, with structuralism more generally), were to be treated as ideological artifacts. In a very real sense, it all began with the May '68 assertion that "we are all German Jews"--an entirely ideological statement, the validity of which, if analyzed at the level of its content, one finds to rest entirely on the capacity to overturn the political relationship between the order of designations and that of events by emphasizing the gap that separates subject and predicate. From there, an entire field of understanding speech acts as political gestures opened up: a field that reconfigured the division between words and things while rearranging the distinction between legitimate... (shrink)

When he died in 2004, Jacques Derrida left behind a vast legacy of unpublished material, much of it in the form of written lectures. With The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume 1, the University of Chicago Press inaugurates an ambitious series, edited by Geoffrey Bennington and Peggy Kamuf, translating these important works into English. The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume 1 launches the series with Derrida’s exploration of the persistent association of bestiality or animality with sovereignty. In this seminar (...) from 2001–2002, Derrida continues his deconstruction of the traditional determinations of the human. The beast and the sovereign are connected, he contends, because neither animals nor kings are subject to the law—the sovereign stands above it, while the beast falls outside the law from below. He then traces this association through an astonishing array of texts, including La Fontaine’s fable “The Wolf and the Lamb,” Hobbes’s biblical sea monster in Leviathan, D. H. Lawrence’s poem “Snake,” Machiavelli’s Prince with its elaborate comparison of princes and foxes, a historical account of Louis XIV attending an elephant autopsy, and Rousseau’s evocation of werewolves in The Social Contract. Deleuze, Lacan, and Agamben also come into critical play as Derrida focuses in on questions of force, right, justice, and philosophical interpretations of the limits between man and animal. (shrink)

Taking as its point of departure Edmund Husserl's 1935-36 text The Crisis of European Sciences, this essay attempts to develop a new conception of reason by means of a thoroughgoing critique of some ideas often used to support and define it. Because the notion of "enlightenment" has been tied since the time of Kant to a certain coming of age of reason or rationality, the "enlightenment" to come must at once draw upon the resources of this reason and open reason (...) to some of the aporias it has traditionally rejected. Reducible neither to a simple irrationalism nor to a mere mode of calculative thought, such reason must ultimately challenge, it is argued, not only the sovereignty and identity of the subject but the very concepts of sovereignty and identity. Only such a renewed thinking of reason or of what is reasonable, the essay suggests, can help us diagnose, analyze, and help treat some of the aporias posed by a whole host of contemporary issues, from cloning to the erosion of the nation-state to globalization and terrorism. Only in this way can we at once "save the honor of reason" - to use a phrase that runs throughout the essay - and help reorient the reason of politics, of the sciences, and, indeed, of philosophy along the lines of a more fundamental and urgent ethical imperative. (shrink)

A group of essays prepared for publication by Maritain in the year before his death. The first series of articles consists of 10 philosophical essays, while second is made up of mainly theological articles. A meditation closes the volume.

Résumé En liant le mal et l’incompréhension, l’identité du sujet et l’éthique, nous voulons montrer les limites de l’autonomie pure. L’humain baigne dans des influences extérieures de sorte qu’il est toujours pris dans un dialogue soit transcendant, soit immanent ou encore extérieur. L’humain est l’être qui est témoin de ces forces. Il est un être attentif, un être ouvert à l’altérité, un être à l’écoute de ce qui le porte : la créativité.By linking evil and misunderstanding, the identity of the (...) subject and ethics, we intend to bring out the limits of pure autonomy. Human beings are affected by external influences on all sides, so much so that they are invariably involved in dialogues which are either transcendent, internal or external. Humans are aware of those forces. They are awake, open to otherness, all attentive to what carries them through : creativity. (shrink)

On déplore le manque d'éducation du cœur. Qu'attend-on pour en préciser la logique et la rhétorique? Notre éducation est trop informative, pas assez transformative. Trop centrée sur l'acquisition et l'échange des informations, pas assez sur les valeurs de tendresse et de fraternité. On n'admire les marques de la présence du Christ que par les yeux du cœur. Mais faut-il vraiment en appeler au tiers d'un véritable Ordre du cœur, comme ordre de vérité? Pourquoi un ordre de vérité? Il y a (...) trois ordres de choses : la chair, l'esprit, la volonté ; et trois ordres de discours : philosophique (qui s'adresse à l'intelligence), théologique (à l'intelligence éclairée par la foi), mystique (adressé au cœur).0Le réalisme biblique veut qu'il existe dans le réel une autre dimension entée sur les questions qui engagent l'homme dans l'existence et peuvent la transformer. Au lieu de s'installer sur le terrain métaphysique de l?Être, adoptons une théorie du being dont les éléments ne s'écarteront pas de leur mode d'interroger et de catégoriser. Une philosophie néo-critique de l'interrogation en prend acte. (shrink)

My topic will be philosophical and, more precisely still, ontological. If we wish to conceive of what is at stake in the ‘dehumanization of the world’ and if we want to oppose it, we need to widen our perspective and take in not only the destiny of the human but the status of things and beings in general.The thesis I am going to put forward, which is still quite daring given the current stage of my thinking, is a hunch and (...) a hypothesis that I am trying gradually to clarify. My theory is that there was a kind of originating decision, a primal ontological choice made by the Greco-Latin as well as the Judeo-Christian West about the way of viewing beings in general; a decision in favour of differentiated forms and against the representation of a real, supposed to be composed in the final analysis of a basic single substrate whose differentiated forms were merely states, pure appearances without substance. I am also putting forward the notion that this primal choice, which is or was our choice and remains my own, was not absolutely necessary; it was a contingent free opting in favour of something and against another possible option. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and (...) made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)