In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kant without SadeFrancis SparshottErmanno Bencivenga’s discussion of “Kant’s Sadism” rests on a misrepresentation of Kant’s enterprise. 1 It presents Kantian morality as a matter of motivation, so that reason has to be pitted against desire. But Kant’s whole point is that, because the psychological causes of one’s actions can never be ascertained, they are irrelevant to morality. Morality is entirely a matter of the reasons (...) for one’s actions, no matter what one’s feelings. It is true that moral questions arise, morality exists, only for finite rational beings, who have inclinations that are relatively independent of the dictates of reason. But that independence does not mean that one should always act against one’s inclinations.The morality of an action depends on the agent’s “maxim”—the subjective practical principle on which one acts, the reasons one has and can give for thinking that what one is doing is right. Kant’s whole discussion is in terms of maxims. The word does occur twice in Bencivenga’s paper, but his account makes no use of it. When he says that “It is the motives of the action, the motives the person actually has—never mind what evidence we have for them—that confer moral content on the action” (p. 41), he does so in flat contradiction of Kant.The confusion underlying Bencivenga’s misunderstanding is most familiar to English-language Kantians from Schiller’s joke: “Gladly I serve my friends, but alas I do it with pleasure. / Hence I am plagued with doubt that I am not a virtuous person. // —Surely, your only resource is to try to despise them entirely, / and then with aversion do what your duty enjoins you.” 2 Both participants in the exchange think [End Page 151] the morality of an action depends on its psychological causes, not on the reasons the agent has for thinking the action right and doing it. Both are wrong.What is revolutionary in Kant’s position is his contention that all a maxim requires to be moral is that agents should really make it their principle at the time of action—that the agent should really stand by it. That means, obviously, that at that moment the agent should be able consistently to will that everyone should act on it. Kant argues that it also means, less obviously, that doing the right thing should be one’s paramount principle, which involves treating humanity and human freedom as an end in itself—ultimately, treating oneself and others as “law-making members of a kingdom of ends.” Thus, for Kant, morality is entirely a matter of rational consistency.Since rational consistency is all that morality requires, morality lays down no plan of action, but presupposes the familiar world in which people already have plans and purposes. What one wills is always some particular thing. Morality has to do with the principles to be followed in pursuing these objectives. 3 Bencivenga’s contention that “making the well-being of some other human, or of one’s own community, or of humankind the goal of one’s action would be relegating rationality to (at best) an instrumental role, and thus denying any ethical value to that action” is wrong. Kant insists that finite rational beings inevitably pursue happiness, 4 and it is their duty to do so for others and (in a sense) for themselves. 5 A leading contention of the Critique is that happiness, like duty, is a component of the summum bonum. Making a principle of maximizing happiness does not destroy the autonomy of the will; the principle is a principle and subject to the critique of consistency, like other principles. Kant explicitly denies what Bencivenga asserts, that it is merely an empirical matter that humans are desirous as well as rational. On the contrary, it belongs to their essence. 6 What is empirical, as Kant explains at some length, is the specific content of a person’s desires.Neither of Bencivenga’s examples tends to show that morality is opposed to inclination. It is true that if the reason moral agents treat people well is really only that, on each occasion, this is... (shrink)

In this paper, I set out to consider the extent to which Horkheimer and Adorno's account of the transition from Kant's philosophy to key features of the novels of the Marquis de Sade in the Second Excursus of their Dialectic of Enlightenment can be viewed as a fragment of the ‘history of philosophy’ and to explain this account in a way that allows us to ask whether it succeeds in establishing a necessary connection between Kant's philosophy and (...) Sade's novels. In connection with, a particular problem emerges. This problem concerns the role played by a non-instrumental form of reason in Horkheimer and Adorno's attempt to establish an essential connection between Kant's theoretical philosophy and Sade's novels, in which the practical implications of the theoretical employment of reason allegedly become explicit. It will be shown that, despite appearances to the contrary, an employment of reason of the relevant type is not identified by Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason. (shrink)

Resumo: Neste artigo, pretendemos trabalhar, a partir de uma leitura de Zizek e Lacan, a perspectiva radical de liberdade como superação da dialética entre a Lei moral kantiana e o gozo sádico. Para isso, procuramos primeiramente mostrar como Lacan articula a relação de Kant com Sade, para, em seguida, pensar como, segundo Zizek, o psicanalista encontra uma saída para o princípio de liberdade kantiana, a partir da ética do desejo puro, o que nos permitirá pensar um Kant (...) sem Sade.: In this article, based on a reading of Zizek and Lacan, we discuss the radical perspective of freedom as an overcoming of the dialectic between the Kantian moral law and sadistic joy. We first try to show how Lacan articulates Kant's relationship with Sade, and then consider how, according to Zizek, the psychoanalyst finds an outlet for the Kantian principle of freedom based the ethics of pure desire, which allows us to think of a Kant without Sade. (shrink)

Escrito em 1963, três anos depois do seminário sobre A ética da psicanálise, o texto de Jaques Lacan, Kant com Sade, possibilita férteis discussões a respeito da prática analítica. Quais os limites desta prática? Qual é a razão que a sustenta? A prática analítica é um saber, uma ética ou uma terapêutica? Quais os pressupostos que orientam a sua ação? É evidente que não dispomos de condições necessárias e suficientes para respondermos a tais perguntas no limite de um (...) artigo, tampouco temos a pretensão de fazê-lo. Entretanto, as tomaremos como bússola em busca de pistas sobre a prática analítica lacaniana e o solo em que repousa até a década de 1960. A partir do texto Kant com Sade e do Seminário VII, A ética da psicanálise, ambos escritos por Lacan, buscaremos as semelhanças e diferenças irreconciliáveis entre a lei moral kantiana, a vontade de gozo sadeana e a ética psicanalítica, apontando que é a partir das consequências práticas, efetuadas pelo Marquês de Sade, da aplicação de uma razão pura, tal qual proposta por Kant, que Lacan buscará um novo horizonte para a prática analítica não mais baseada no desejo puro. Nesse sentido, tanto o filósofo alemão Immanuel Kant quanto o escritor francês Marquês de Sade, contemporâneos dos ares da modernidade, expõem um princípio universal pelo qual a ação é valorada. Princípio cuja execução evidencia sua dimensão ética, política e, com Lacan, clínica. Nessa pista, faremos uma discussão a propósito da perversão e da melancolia como limites à prática analítica. (shrink)

This book offers the first comprehensive discussion of Lacan's Kant with Sade, an essay widely recognised as one of his most important and difficult texts. Here, the reader will find a detailed roadmap for each section of the essay, including clarifications of the allusions, implicit borrowings and references in Lacan's text, unique insights into the essay's publication history, and a critical assessment of its reception. The author expertly defines key terms, explains complex theoretical arguments, and contextualizes the work (...) within a larger philosophical discourse. No prior knowledge of Lacan, Kant or Sade is assumed, allowing both newcomers and those who are well-versed in psychoanalysis, philosophy, and literary criticism to benefit from the book. This engaging book clears the path for a long overdue re-discovery and a proper appreciation of one of Lacan's most challenging works, inspiring a renewed debate on the significance of Lacanian psychoanalysis for moral philosophy and literary theory.. (shrink)

Düşünce tarihinin neredeyse her döneminde insanı ahlaki bir faile dönüştürebilmek amacıyla çeşitli kuramlar geliştirilmiştir. Bu kuramlarda genel olarak insanın ahlaki bir ilkeyi kendi eylemsellik alanına tatbik etmesi için gerekli olan şeyin ve erdemli davranışlarla erişilmesi hedeflenen mutluluğun ne olduğu üzerine bir düşünme faaliyeti gerçekleşir. Geliştirilen yanıtlar arasında şüphesiz çok seçkin bir yere sahip olan kuram, Kant’a aittir. Kant’a göre doğa alanında eğilim ve isteklere bağlı davranışlarla amaç olarak mutluluğa ulaşmak, insanı ahlaklı kılmaz. Bu bakımdan, insanı mutlu kılan şeyin (...) değil, onu iyi yapan, bir ahlaki faile dönüştürmenin olanağını soruşturur. En yüksek iyiyi gerçekleştirmeyi, eğilim ve isteklere bağlı bir amaç olarak belirlenen çeşitli türden mutluluklara ulaşma çabasıyla eşitleyen tüm anlayışlar karşısında Kant, en yüksek iyiyi gerçekleştirmenin ilk koşulunu ahlaklılık, ikinci koşulu olarak –birinci koşul sağlandığı takdirde- ortaya çıkacağına inandığı mutluluk olarak belirler. Ona göre yalnızca ahlak yasasıyla belirlenen erdemli davranışların sonucunda gerçekleşeceği beklenen, aklın bir ideali olarak mutluluk insanı ahlaklı kılabilir. Nitekim özerk bir biçimde kendisi için koyduğu yasayla, akıl sahibi bir varlığını kişilik sahibi bir varlığa dönüştüren insan aynı zamanda ahlaki değer taşıyan davranışlarda bulunmanın sonucunda hep bir beklentisi olan bir varlıktır. İnsanın bu beklentisine yanıt, dinden gelir. Burada Kant, geliştirdiği ahlak öğretisinin mutluluk öğretisi olarak da adlandırılabilmesinin koşulunu ortaya koyar. Buna göre sırf akıl talep ettiği için insana ödevler yükleyen yasa zemininde temellenen en yüksek iyiyi gerçekleştirme isteğiyle, aklın yasa koyuculuğu altında yaşadığımız için içimizde doğan iyiyi gerçekleştirme arzusuyla dine yönelindiğinde ancak ahlak öğretisi bir mutluluk öğretisi olabilir. Bir başka deyişle, yalnızca ahlaklılık temelinde tesis edilen bir dinsellikle mutluluk ahlaki kılınabilir. Bu yazıda mutluluğun nasıl ahlaki kılınabildiği ya da mutluluğa layık olabilmek için ne yapılması gerektiği konusu irdelenip, en yüksek iyiye yönelen insana yüklenilen ödevlerin tanrısal buyruklar olarak benimsenmesiyle mutluluktan pay alma umudunu doğuran ahlak temelli din anlayışına dikkat çekilmektedir. (shrink)

This study takes up the discussion held by Philippe Sabot in Foucault, Sade and the Enlightenment when it came the Marquis de Sade's work uses in studies conducted by Michel Foucault from Madness and Civilization to The Will to Knowledge. What interests us know of this relationship? This is the main question that guided our study.

Kant metafiziğin temel meseleleri olan Tanrı, ruh ve özgürlük gibi ideaların bilgisi ya da varlığı tartışmalarının bir çözüme kavuşması gerektiğini düşünür. Ona gelene kadar sorunun çözülmemesinin sebebi olarak da metafiziksel bilgiye kaynaklık eden felsefi bilginin matematikten temelde farklı olduğunun ortaya konulamamasını göstermektedir. Kant daha önceki filozoflardan farklı olarak matematiğin temellendiği önerme türünü sentetik apriori olduğunu iddia eder. Bu nedenle de, matematiksel önermelerin felsefi bilginin temellendiği analitik önermelerden yapı itibariyle farklı olduğunu düşünür. Kant ideaların teorik olarak ortaya konulamayacağını (...) gösterdikten sonra bunların pratik alanda en yüksek iyinin gerçekleşmesinin nedenleri olarak varsayılması gerektiğini ortaya koymuştur. O, bu ideaların geçerli olduğu alanın pratik alan olduğunu göstermekle metafiziği bir yönteme kavuşturduğunu ve böylece aklın önüne geçilemez yönelimin sonucunda içine düştüğü yanılsamalardan kurtulduğunu düşünür. Bu çalışmamızda Kant’ın ideaların varlığına dair ortaya koyduğu metafiziksel yöntemin ne olduğu ve Kant’ın daha önceki filozofların yanılsamaya düşmesine sebep olarak gördüğü felsefi bilgi ile matematiksel bilgi arasındaki farklılıkların ne olduğu gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. (shrink)

The Presentation of Sacher-Masoch is Deleuze’s boldest establishment of the three-way relation Art-Desire-Law, rich with consequences in the attempt to find new foundations for critique. Rather than trying to rethink Kant with Sade, Deleuze chose to rethink Kant with Masoch, treating the latter as a therapist as well as an artist.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kant’s SadismErmanno BencivengaIn The Ethics Of Psychoanalysis, Lacan says: “So as to produce the kind of shock or eye-opening effect that seems to me necessary if we are to make progress, I simply want to draw your attention to this: if The Critique of Practical Reason appeared in 1788, seven years after the first edition of The Critique of Pure Reason, there is another work which came out (...) six years [!] after The Critique of Practical Reason, a little after Thermidor in 1795, and which is called Philosophy in the Boudoir.” 1 What is supposed to produce the shock effect is not the simple juxtaposition of dates, of course, but the implicitly Hegelian reading of history which makes those dates significant, and which comes out in full strength when Lacan says, in Kant avec Sade: “The Philosophy in the Boudoir comes eight years [!] after the Critique of Practical Reason. If, after seeing that the former agrees with the latter, we prove that it completes it, we will say that it gives the truth of the Critique.” 2 Lacan’s “proof,” however, is anything but rigorous or systematic; so his provocative statement will probably sound inspiring to Lacan enthusiasts and gratuitous to virtually anyone else. Which is a pity, because the statement is absolutely correct: it is indeed the case that Sade brought to their extreme consequences the characteristic premises of Kant’s ethics, thus unfolding their truth in ways which the man Kant might even have vehemently resisted, but which were nonetheless necessary. Here I would like to provide more of a systematic and rigorous defense of this statement, though I make no claim as to how faithful my reconstruction might be to Lacan’s “intentions” (the irrelevance of this issue from the point of view espoused here will soon become apparent; hence it will also become apparent that it is an issue this point of view need not be concerned with). [End Page 39]According to Kant, a moral duty cannot be based on any inclination or feeling—including feelings of compassion or sympathy for another human being. Any dependence on such feelings would represent a pathology of reason, a case of reason being guided by something other than itself, of it not being practical, and hence of heteronomous behavior. Making the well-being of some other human, or of one’s community, or of humankind, the goal of one’s action would be relegating rationality to (at best) an instrumental role, and thus denying any ethical value to that action. Kant says that “kindness done from duty—although no inclination impels us, and even although natural and unconquerable disinclination stands in our way—is practical, and not pathological, love, residing in the will and not in the propensions of feeling, in principles of action and not of melting compassion; and it is this practical love alone which can be an object of command.” 3This independence of any empirical conditioning is further articulated in the distinction between acting in conformity with duty and acting from the motive of duty: “When... disappointments and hopeless misery have quite taken away the taste for life; when a wretched man, strong in soul and more angered at his fate than faint-hearted or cast down, longs for death and still preserves his life without loving it—not from inclination or fear but from duty; then indeed his maxim has a moral content.” 4 But now the problem is how exactly to understand this distinction. Kant’s talk of motives suggests that it’s one’s intentional state that makes the difference: that the very same behavior may have only the appearance of morality, or instead be truly moral, depending on what one’s goals are. If, say, I promote the well-being of my neighbor because it makes me feel good, or because I empathize with him, then there is nothing moral to what I do. If, on the other hand, I do exactly the same thing because it is rational to do so, then there will be moral content to it. And indeed this position is often identified with Kant, and sometimes suggested by Kant himself—from now... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 26.2 (2002) 397-404 [Access article in PDF] The Sexist Sublime in Sade and Lyotard Caroline Weber In this case the masculine returns to haunt the place of the feminine like a ghost...., bloody and inhuman, in order to manifest and to root unforgettably in us the idea of a perpetual conflict and a spasm in which life is constantly being cut short. Antonin Artaud, The (...) Theater and Its Double"VIOLENCE," JEAN-FRANÇOIS LYOTARD ASSERTS in a recent article on Kantian aesthetics, "is necessary to the sublime." 1 More precisely, the sublime, held to transport an individual beyond his or her "ordinary" register of aesthetic responses, may do violence to a person's faculty of imagination, by shattering the accepted limits of sensory experience. Lyotard explains: In the sublime, the imagination must be subjected to violence, because it is by way of its suffering, the mediation of its violation, that the joy of seeing—or almost seeing—the law can be obtained.... This "joy" [here Lyotard cites The Critique of Judgment] "is only possible by the mediation of pain." 2Indeed, students of Kant's work have long been familiar with the exclusion of sentiment, pathos, and personal interest that he posits as a requirement for exalted status in the aesthetic and the moral sphere. For Kant, the law is precisely about the painful suppression of pleasure-seeking impulses for the sake of a disinterested, higher good. To achieve the transcendental perfection of the law, typically understood to be the domain of God alone, one must, godlike, overcome the [End Page 397] limitations of human nature and human feeling. And this effort—of which the Passion is just one vivid example—can be extraordinarily painful. In this context, Lyotard's formulation of the problem may not strike us as particularly startling. In contending that the Kantian experience of the sublime requires the mediation of pain, the French poststructuralist appears simply to be reminding us that the law, whether aesthetic or moral in nature, always demands some sort of discomfort, some kind of sacrifice.We might be more inclined to accept this last statement if Lyotard's own work hadn't already taught us to think otherwise. For as he demonstrates admirably in The Differend, his 1983 meditation on testimony and the Holocaust, there is always a winner and a loser under the law; its attendant pains are always selectively applied. From a discursive point of view, this asymmetrical relationship manifests itself in a differend, a situation where two parties find themselves in dispute, and "the 'regulation' of the conflict that opposes them is done in the idiom of one of the parties, while the wrong suffered by the other is not signified in that idiom." 3 According to Lyotard, the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis exemplifies this pattern. In a strict juridical sense, any attempted protests by concentration camp prisoners had no meaning, and no right to mean anything, in Third Reich Germany: In the differend, something "asks" to be put into phrases, and suffers from the wrong (tort) of not being able to be put into phrases right away. This is when the human beings who thought they could use language as an instrument of communication learn through the feeling of pain... to recognize that what remains to be phrased exceeds what they can presently phrase.... 4Here Lyotard reveals that an encounter with the law, mediated by pain, inevitably creates injustices and wronged parties. In this paper, I will draw on this insight from The Differend to point up the ethical deficiencies or torts inherent in his own ruminations on the Kantian sublime—and in those of another philosopher whose thinking closely resembles Lyotard's on the subject, the notorious Marquis de Sade. To limit the scope of my inquiry, I shall focus in this brief essay on the differend to which each thinker's writings subject the figure of the mother.For Lyotard and Sade alike, the mother represents first and foremost the capacity to reproduce. With this capacity... (shrink)

Consideration of the work of Sade in relation to Adorno usually refers to the much-discussed chapter from Dialektik der Aufklärung. But Adorno made a number of other remarks across his career that suggest a very different reading. I will discuss the three most significant of these remarks and show how they develop an approach to the libidinal aspect of aesthetic experience that challenges our understanding of the relation of thought and language. In doing so, Sade’s works indicate an (...) extraordinary liberation of the dialectic of natural-history through a mimesis of desire, which is made apparent in what Sade’s texts literally present; in their contingency and also their facticity. (shrink)

Kant defines enlightenment of the individual as emergence of the individual from a self-imposed immaturity. In this definition, individuals who are not enlightened are held responsible for their failures. This is because Kant, in this text, implies that the only thing we need in order to be enlightened as individuals is to be able to use our capacity to think, which is present in every mentally fit individual. One can infer that Kant has an egalitarian understanding of (...) enlightenment, since anyone who has the courage and determination to use their mind can be enlightened. However, when the text is examined more closely and Kant's other writings are consulted, it becomes clear that another factor beyond the individual's control plays a role in whether an individual is enlightened. This factor is the individual's upbringing and education. If Kant admits that the education one receives plays a role in one’s state of being enlightened, and if not everyone is exposed to the education necessary to become an enlightened individual, then Kant would have an elitist approach to enlightenment. In this article, I will first point out the visible tension in Kant’s texts about the enlightenment of the individual. This apparent tension, however, will be resolved by showing that Kant stands in opposition to the Platonic account of enlightenment and the elitist attitude attached to it, and instead adopts a Stoic account of enlightenment and thereby develops an egalitarian approach to enlightenment. __________________ -/- Kant bireyin aydınlanmasını insanın kendi suçu ile düşmüş olduğu bir ergin olmama durumundan kurtulması olarak tanımlar. Bu tanımda aydın olamayan bireyler başarısızlıklarından kendileri sorumlu tutulur. Zira bu metinde Kant, aydın bireyler olabilmemiz için gereken tek şeyin –mental olarak sağlıklı her bireyde var olan- düşünme kapasitesini kullanabilmek olduğunu ima eder. Aklını kullanma cesareti ve azmi gösteren herkesin aydın olabileceğini iddia etmesi sebebiyle Kant’ın eşitlikçi bir aydınlanma anlayışını olduğu düşünülebilir. Ancak bu metne daha yakından baktığımızda ve Kant’ın diğer metinlerine danıştığımızda, bireyin aydın olup olmamasında bireyin kontrolü dışındaki başka bir faktörün daha rol oynadığını görüyoruz. Bu faktör de bireyin yetiştirilme tarzı ve aldığı eğitimdir. Eğer aydın olmamızda aldığımız eğitimin rolü varsa ve aydın bireyler olabilmek için herkes gerekli olan eğitimi alamıyorsa, Kant’ın aydınlanma konusunda elitist bir yaklaşıma sahip olduğunu düşünebiliriz. Bu çalışmada bireyin aydınlanması konusunda Kant’ın metinlerinde görünür bir gerilim olduğuna işaret edilecektir. Kant’ın aydınlanma konusunda kendi dönemine hâkim olan Platoncu aydınlanma anlayışından ve buna bağlı olarak gelişen elitist tavırdan farklı olarak Stoacı aydınlanma anlayışını benimsediği ve dolayısıyla da eşitlikçi bir tutum sergilediği gösterilerek bu gerilim çözümlenecektir. (shrink)

Kant, 1770 yılında Duyulur ve Anlaşılır Dünyanın Form ve İlkeleri eserini kaleme aldıktan sonra on yıl boyunca sessiz kalıp ardından Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’ni yazar. Bu bakımdan 1770 tezi Kant’ın eleştirel döneme geçiş eseri olarak değerlendirilir. Eser Kant’ın bitmez uğraşı metafiziği sağlam bir eksene yerleştirmek için giriş önerisidir. Bu bağlamda Kant duyusallığın konusu olan dünya ile anlayışın konusu olan dünyayı ayırarak metafizik için bir yol arar. Duyusallığa konu edilen dünya uzay ve zaman formları yoluyla kavranabilir. Anlaşılır dünya (...) ise duyuların sızıntılarından uzak yalnızca anlayış kavramları yoluyla belirlendiğinde metafizik yanılsamalardan korunabilir. 1770 tezi, Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nin özellikle transendental estetik bölümü göz önünde bulundurulduğunda eleştirel dönemle büyük oranda örtüşse de anlaşılır dünyada noumenanın bilinebileceğini varsayması açısından eleştirel dönemden uzaklaşır. Çalışmada 1770 tezinin temel varsayımlarını ortaya koyarak bu varsayımları eleştirel dönemle ilgileri açısından ele alacağız. Özellikle, Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nin A ve B baskılarında iki kez yazılan, deneyim ile anlama yetisi kavramları arasındaki uyuşmayı ele alan transendental türetim sorununun başlangıcının 1770 tezinde olduğunu göstereceğiz. Böylelikle 1770 tezinin eleştirel felsefede sürdürülen ve yadsınan varsayımlarını belirgin kılacağız. Çalışmadaki bir başka çabamız ise 1770’ten sonraki mektuplaşmaları yoluyla Kant’ın felsefi tutumunun nasıl farklılaştığını ortaya koymak olacak. 1772 yılında Herz’e yazdığı ünlü mektuptan önce Kant’ın Lambert, Herz ve Mendelssohn’la yazışmalarında yer alan 1770 tezi değerlendirmelerinin eleştirel döneme geçiş sürecini nasıl etkilediğini konu edeceğiz. (shrink)

Felsefe, kümülatif yapısı ile ele alınmalıdır. Bu yüzden, bir filozofun düşünceleri anlaşılmak istendiğinde, o kendi çağındaki mevcut ve geçmiş teorilerden soyutlanmamalı ve bu kümülatif ve devamlılık arz eden yapı dikkate alınarak incelenmelidir. Bu bağlamda, Kant, Bergson ve İkbal’in zaman anlayışları, bazı uyumsuz noktalara sahip gibi anlaşılabilseler de, dikkatle incelendiğinde birbirleri arasında bir devamlılığın bulunduğu göze çarpar. Kant’ın zaman anlayışı, Kritik öncesi ve Kritik dönemi olmak üzere iki dönemde incelenebilir. Kritik öncesi döneminde Kant, zamanın insan zihninin dışında kendinde (...) bir gerçekliğe ve varlığa sahip olduğunu kabul eder. Fakat Kant, zamanı bütün duyuları önceleyen bir görü olarak anlamasının tohumlarını da hala Kritik öncesi dönemde iken eker. Bu doğrultuda, onun odağı özneyi merkeze alan bir tutuma doğru ilerler görünür. Kritik döneminde özne merkezci konumu daha da belirginleşir ve Kant, zamanın bütün dışsallıkları öncelediğini iddia eder. Ona göre zaman, duyulur bir görü olarak, eşyayı zihnin algılayabilmesi için eşzamanlılık ve ardışıklık içinde konumlandırır. Diğer taraftan Bergson, Kant’ı pek çok açıdan eleştirmekle beraber onun düşüncelerinden açık bir şekilde faydalanır. Bergson’un zaman anlayışı iki bileşenden oluşur: Salt süre ve homojen zaman. Salt süre, özne-merkezci olması bakımından üzerinde Kant’ın düşünce pratiğinin etkisinin görünür olduğu bir kavramsallaştırmadır. Bu, her bir bilincin, kişinin geçmiş ve şimdisini bir bütünde birleştirerek bireysel olarak sahip olduğu ve özünde heterojen, sırasız bir şekilde ardışık ve bölünemez zamandır. Homojen zaman ise sıralı ve eşzamanlı olması bakımından köklerini yine Kant’ta bulur. Homojen zaman, salt sürelerin uyum içinde çalışmasını sağlayan, bireyler için ortak zemini teşkil eden zamandır. Bu iki filozofun düşünceleri doğrultusunda İkbal’in zaman teorisi incelendiğinde, onun hem duyulabilir görünün bir formu olan Kant’ın zamanından hem de Bergson’un salt süresinden faydalandığı ortaya çıkar. İkbal, bu iki zaman anlayışını kullanarak İslam düşüncesinde İlahi Zaman’ı ve dolayısıyla da özgür iradeyi yeniden inşa eder. Salt süre ve yaratıcılık açısından, evrene yönelik mekanik bir anlayış Bergson ve İkbal tarafından reddedilir. Böylece İkbal, özgür iradenin Tanrı’nın salt süresi, yani İlahi Zaman, aracılığı ile yayılmasına ve tüm benliklere ait salt sürelere nüfuz etmesine izin verir. Biz, bu makale aracılığı ile, İkbal’in salt süre mefhumunu ve Tanrı’ya ait salt süre olarak İlahi Zaman’ı kullanarak özgür irade anlayışını yeniden inşa etmesinin köklerine gitmek niyetindeyiz. (shrink)

Kant’ın (ö.1804) felsefesi eklektik bir felsefedir ve Aydınlanma felsefesinin devamı niteliğindedir. Aydınlanma felsefesine benzer şekilde felsefesinin temeli akıldır ve aklın sınırları ve kullanımı hakkında fikirler ileri sürmüştür. Kant, dini ele alırken Tanrı’nın varlığının saf akılla ispatlanamayacağı sonucuna varmıştır. Çünkü akılla yapılan ispatlarda Tanrı’nın varlığına getirilen deliller kadar yokluğuna da eşit derecede deliller getirilebilir. O nedenle Tanrı’nın varlığının ispatında saf aklın değil pratik aklın önemli olduğunu ve ahlâksal yasaların bizi Tanrı’nın varlığına götüreceğini ileri sürer. Bu görüşünü desteklemek için eserlerinde (...) teistik delillerin akla uygun olmadığını ve akılla bilinemeyeceğini ispatlamaya çalışmıştır. Ona göre ontolojik, kozmolojik, teleolojik.. vb. teistik delillerin işlevi zihni tanrıbilim için hazırlamaktan ibarettir. Fakat tek başına Tanrı’nın varlığını ispat etmekten uzaktır. Ontolojik delili Tanrı’nın varlığının ispatı ile ilgili belli bir felsefi delilin adı olarak kullanan ilk kişi 18.yy. filozoflarından Christian Wolff’tur (ö.1754). Ontolojik delil, diğer deliler gibi ‘olgulara dayalı’ değildir. Bu delil tamamen kavramsal ve a priori önermelere dayanır. Delil, Tanrı’nın doğrudan doğruya ve hiçbir vasıtaya gerek kalmadan bilineceği üzerine kurgulanmıştır. Tanrı’nın mükemmelliği, ‘Tanrı vardır’ önermesinin sadece düşünsel bir önerme mi yoksa dış varlığa karşılık gelen bir önerme mi olduğu, Tanrı’nın varlığının zorunluluğu meselesi ontolojik delil içinde tartışılan konulardır. Ontolojik delilde ‘Tanrı vardır’ önermesi a priori ve analitik bir önerme olarak kabul edilmektedir. Analitik önermeler ise Tanrı’nın varlığının zorunluluğunu gösterir. Kant’ın eleştirisine göre a priori kavramlar yoluyla her şeyi olanaklı düşünebiliriz ve bunun için zihnimizde herhangi bir sınırlama olamaz. Tanrı ve zorunlu varlık kavramlarını zihnimizde düşündüğümüz gibi Anka Kuşu, Kaf dağı, Pamuk Prenses..vb. kavramların da var olduğu düşünülebilir ve bizim düşünmemiz bunları zorunlu yapmaz, tıpkı Tanrı’yı düşündüğümüzde Tanrı’yı zorunlu var kılmadığı gibi. Bu bildiride Kant’ın düşüncesi ortaya konulduktan sonra onun düşüncesindeki tutarlılık ve tutarsızlıklara değinilecektir. Anka Kuşu, Kaf Dağı, Pamuk Prenses ..vb. gibi hayali kavramlarla Tanrı kıyaslanabilir mi? Biz hayali varlıkları zihnimizde oluştururken yine duyu verilerinden yararlanır ve dış dünyada gözlemlediğimiz canlılara benzer ‘hayali varlıklar’ üretiriz. Dış dünyada, kuş, dağ ve prenses vardır. Bizim tek yaptığımız bunu hayali adlar takmaktır. Fakat Tanrı söz konusu olduğunda dış dünyada gözlem yaparak bir Tanrı’ya şahit olmayız ve bu şahit olduğumuz Tanrı’ya benzer bir Tanrı’yı hayal ederek zihnimizde hayali bir varlık oluşturmayız. Tam tersine Tanrı kavramını zihnimizde oluştururken hiçbir şeye benzemeyen, sebebi olmayan, her şeyi varlığa getiren, mükemmel bir varlık çıkarımını akıl ve mantığımızın bizi götürdüğü sonuçla ortaya koyarız. Çünkü insan olarak biz birbirimize benzeriz, bizim bir sebebimiz vardır, hiçbir şey yaratamayız ve mükemmel değilizdir. Ve evrenin sonsuzluğu, yıldızlar, gezegenler, insanın biyolojik yapısı, matematiksel düzen bizi zorunlu olarak ‘sebebi olmayan mükemmel bir sebep’ aramaya iter. Ve Ontolojik Delil ortaya çıkar. Bu bakımdan Kant’ın eleştirisini kabul etmek mümkün değildir. (shrink)

Bu makale, Kant’ın felsefesinde özgürlük konusunu incelemeyi ve tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla öncelikle Kant’ın özgürlük anlayışının ahlak felsefesiyle olan ilişkisi irdelenmiştir. İnsanın çevresini olduğu gibi kabul etmesi ve kendi özgür iradesi ile çevresine müdahale etmesi, onu değiştirmesi ve deneyimleri ile idrak etme süreci onun eylemlerinin dolayısıyla özgürlüğünün sınırları olduğu bilincine varması koşuluyla gerçekleşir. Dolayısıyla istediği biçimde eylemde bulunma ve her istediğini yapma anlamında bir özgürlük nasıl gerçekleşir. Bu anlamda İnsan özgür olduğunu biliyorsa bu bilginin nereden geldiğini belirtmek gerekir. (...) Kant’a göre özgürlüğü teorik olarak anlayamasak da bütün ideler içinde doğuştan olarak bildiğimiz tek idedir. Çünkü özgürlüğü ahlak yasasının koşulu olarak görmekteyiz. Yani özgürlüğün bilincine varmanın koşulu ahlaklılıktır. (shrink)

Par l'expression ile de la verite, Kant designe l'objet de la premiere partie de la logique transcendantale - la logique de la verite ou encore l'Analytique transcendantale. C'est celle-ci que l'on s'est propose de suivre ici. Les resultats ont, apres une etude de la Deduction transcendantale, permis de mieux saisir le principe de la grandeur intensive et surtout de renouveler l'approche de la chose en soi reliee a la methode qui n'est autre que le sujet transcendantal. Et la serie (...) des equivalences nous a conduit a mettre en lumiere les concepts limites de mort et de neant, si negliges par les interpretes. Cette lecture est une aventure qui mene beaucoup plus loin que les acquis de l'oeuvre de Kant. Elle suscitera, esperons-le, au moins des controverses. (shrink)

Kant’ın Saf Aklın Eleştirisi’nin A-basımında ele aldığı üç katlı sentez, deneyim ve bilginin nesne ile ilişkisini açığa çıkarma bakımından önemli bir yere sahiptir. O, B-basımında transandantal dedüksiyona yeni bir biçim verir ve üç katlı sentezi buraya dahil etmez. Öyle olsa da A-basımında vardığı sonuçlar Transandantal Felsefe içinde etkisini sürdürmeye devam eder. Çünkü üç katlı sentez deneyimin temellerini açık kılar ve bu açıdan bakıldığında burada elde edilen sonuçlardan uzaklaşmak deneyimi ve bilgiyi yeniden tanımlamak anlamına gelecektir. Bu çalışmada Kant’ın onu (...) deneyim ve bilginin nesnel içeriğini temellendirebilmek için nasıl şekillendirdiği ve konumladığı ele alınacaktır. (shrink)

Our study aims to deal with different and similar conditions between Ghazali and Kant, as characters that can show two different thinking forms and two different cultural structures in their thoughts, in context of the same subject. We will deal with why and how that the approaches of both thinkers to the subject transcendental dialectic occur by passing through which stages and try to display that both cultural world incline to this subject by which aim.Çalışmamız iki ayrı düşünme biçimi (...) ve iki ayrı kültürel yapıyı düşüncelerinde gösterebilen kişilikler olarak Gazali ve Kant arasındaki benzer ve ayrık durumları aynı konu bağlamında ele almak amacındadır. Her iki düşünürün de aşkınsal diyalektik konusuna yaklaşımının hangi aşamalardan geçerek gerçekleştiğini, niçini ve nasılı ile birlikte ele alacak ve her iki kültür dünyasının hangi amaç ile bu konuya eğildiklerini göstermeye çalışacağız. (shrink)

İyi bir yaşamın nasıl mümkün olabileceğinin erdemle açıklanması, erdemin insan yaşamındaki önemini göstermektedir. Dolayısıyla insan fenomenlerini konu alan felsefede geniş bir yer tutan erdem kavramı özellikle etik alanında önemli bir araştırma konusudur. Etiğin tarihi geçmişinde, etik sorunlara kararmayan bir ışık tutmuş olan Kant’ın etik görüşüne genel olarak bakıldığında, erdem kavramının pek ön planda olmadığı görülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, Kant’ın erdem ile ilgili söyledikleri, erdemin ahlak yasasından daha az önemli olmadığını göstermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kant’ın erdem temelli bir etik (...) kurmadığı için klasik bir erdem etikçisi olmadığı veya etiğinde erdemin yerini ve önemini göstererek bir erdem etikçisi olduğu tartışmasının pek de anlamlı olmadığını göstermektir. Çünkü bu tartışma, Kant etiğini bir yere taşımaz. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, Kant’ı, bir erdem etikçisi olduğu ya da olmadığı tartışmasına sokarak kategorize etmeden, Kant etiğinde erdemin yeri ve önemini ortaya koymak amacıyla, Ahlak Metafiziği adlı eserinin _Erdem Öğretisi_ bölümünde yapılan erdem tanımlamaları ve açıklamaları ile “en yüksek iyi” (_summum bonum_) kavramı ve erdem ödevleri ele alınacaktır. (shrink)

Za „ojca” filozoficznej kategorii „godności”, która legła u podstaw kategorii prawnej, uznawany jest powszechnie Immanuel Kant. Przypomnieć jednak trzeba, że w bardzo podobny sposób, choć w zasadniczo odmiennym kontekście systemowym, charakteryzował godność Tomasz z Akwinu, pół tysiąca lat wcześniej, uznając ją za fundament bycia osobą. Stąd najistotniejszym i centralnym elementem, tytułowej, klasycznej koncepcji człowieka jest koncepcja godności. Akwinata jest autorem bodaj najbardziej rozbudowanej koncepcji osoby w tradycji filozofii klasycznej. Co więcej zmierzać będę do wykazania, że jego koncepcja lepiej nadaje (...) się do teoretycznego ugruntowania praw człowieka niż koncepcja Kanta. Rekonstruując propozycję Kanta ograniczam się, zasadniczo rzecz biorąc, do analizy Uzasadnienia metafizyki moralności. Interesować będą mnie zagadnienia podstawowe, przede wszystkim – wynikające z różnicy kontekstów systemowych – różnice w pojmowaniu bycia celem samym w sobie. W perspektywie ontologicznej koncentrować się będę na powiązaniu godności z indywidualnością; w perspektywie antropologicznej – na tym, jakiego typu działania stanowią o doskonałości człowieka, jakie działania (czym określone) realizują człowieka jako cel sam w sobie. W szczególności interesować się będę miejscem rozumu i woli w określaniu treści działań (w perspektywie kantowskiej będzie to pytanie o określenie treści powinności; w perspektywie Tomasza – pytanie o treść realizowanego dobra). Zasadnicze pytanie, które leży u podłoża podjętej problematyki antropologicznej, jest pytaniem o to, na ile dla pojmowania godności istotne jest uznanie woli jako w sposób wolny współokreślającej treść powinności (Kant) lub dobra (Akwinata), a na ile woli jedynie podążającej za poznaną powinnością lub poznanym dobrem. Zmierzać będę do uzasadnienia tezy, że koncepcja Akwinaty w ugruntowaniu godności akcentuje wprost indywidualność opartą na wyborze czegoś, co nie jest jednoznacznie treściowo obiektywnie zdeterminowane i co wykracza poza to, co powszechne, poza to, co gatunkowe; natomiast koncepcja Kanta godność wiąże przede wszystkim z tym, co powszechne, gatunkowe i zapoznaje doniosłość indywidualności dla pojmowania godności. (shrink)

In what arrived belatedly as an announced, but delayed, preface to Marquis de Sade’s Philosophy in the Bedroom, Jacques Lacan interrogates the relations Sade could be said to have had with, on the one hand, Sigmund Freud, and, on the other, Immanuel Kant.1 Despite the presuppositions at the time of its writing, the text was first published as “Kant avec Sade” in the journal Critique in 1963 and only later reappeared as the preface it had (...) been conceived as: announcing the dogma of de Sade as an introduction to one of his key works. What had happened in the meantime, Lacan cryptically suggests, is that his – Lacan’s – collection of lectures and essays, Écrits, had arrived with a certain acclaim on the French cultural scene, and what had at first appeared to the publisher as inconsequential ravings had morphed into a profound and potentially significant enframing of de Sade’s “philosophy.” -/- What is it we find here? It is stupid, says Lacan, to pronounce – as too many “literary types” do – that de Sade’s perversions prefigured Freud’s interrogation of sexual mores. True, they both have the appearance of schooling, and so serve to prepare, Lacan informs us, the way for a new science. To understand the difference between them we need to arrive at some conception of Freud’s ethics of pleasure. -/- With what is known as the pleasure principle – announced in 1911 – Freud ordained a mechanism whereby pleasure is maintained at the lowest possible level.2 Lacan elsewhere referred to this principle as a homeostatic device, since it seeks to secure the functioning of the organism with as little excitement as possible. -/- Freud’s principle is different from traditional ethics in that it doesn’t disallow some sexual practices that had hitherto been condemned as wrong. However, such a realization doesn’t relieve us from approaching the principle as ethical. To Lacan, Freud’s homeostatic device is what “preordains the creature to its good.” In other words, it is by indulging in just enough pleasure to avoid unpleasure, either by becoming abstinent or consumptive, that we maintain our experience of goodwill. -/- What is remarkable, Lacan notes in his foreword to de Sade, is that Freud did not find it necessary to explicitly refer to this principle as an ethical prerogative. The only reason we can find for this, Lacan claims, is the 19th century obsession with the theme of “happiness in evil.” -/- The “happiness in evil” – or, as we should say, happiness in the will – has its precursor in Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, which was published eight years prior to de Sade’s Philosophy in the Bedroom.3 To Lacan, de Sade subverts the Enlightenment directive inaugurated by Kant, and it is as such that it is possible to say that de Sade offers the truth of Kant’s Critique. -/- This “happiness in evil” becomes de Sade’s Being-Supreme-in-Wickedness. Recall that this is quite a different notion of perversion – of which the Marquis figures as the first and predominant example in Lacan – from that which reigned in the “literary” epoch, i.e., prior to Freud, as well as from Freud’s own inflection of the term. Perversion is no longer reducible to a catalogue of abominations – whipping, homosexuality, you name it – such as was the case prior to Freud, nor to a more select line of such – Freud famously excluded homosexual love from the list, while retaining sadomasochism. Lacan would draw the conclusion of Freud’s tentative first step by positing that perversion is a position, and specifically a location in relation to the phallus. -/- The novelty and force of this perspective should become clear to those who study the present volume. It is not a clinical attempt, nor the final word on a philosophy of mind without psychoanalysis. Rather, it should be regarded as situated in between these two domains, and with eyes to both. (shrink)

In this article I revisit the relationship between Immanuel Kant and the Marquis De Sade, following not Jacques Lacan but Pierre Klossowski. In the process I suggest that Sade's work is marred by a series of antinomies that prevent him from stating a pure practical libertine reason and leave his view purely theoretical.

Kant’ın teorik akla getirdiği sınırlamayla metafiziği bilginin konusu olmaktan çıkarma iddiası modern dönemde gerçekleştirilen fikri faaliyetleri derinden etkilemiştir. Kant düşüncesinin daha ileri boyutlara taşınması mantıkçı pozitivizm gibi ekollerde metafiziğe dair önermelerin ve bu önermelerin temel kavramı olan “tanrı” teriminin anlamsız kabul edilmesi sonucunu doğurmuştur. Mantıkçı pozitivistlerin bu iddialarına karşın din felsefesi alanında “tanrı” teriminin gönderimi bir problem olarak tartışılmakta ve modern gönderim kuramlarıyla tanrıya gönderimde bulunabilmenin yani onu adlandırabilmenin imkânı soruşturulmaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı, tanrıya gönderim meselesinin tartışıldığı çalışmalardaki (...) iki temel eksikliği gidermektir. Konuyla ilgili çalışmalarda, ya tümel bir kavram olan tanrı kavramı veya Hristiyanlığın ve Yahudiliğin tanrısına gönderim imkânı soruşturulmuştur. Ancak özel bir ad olan “Allah” lafzı inceleme kapsamına dahil edilmemiş ve İslam düşüncesinin konuya yaklaşımı göz ardı edilmiştir. Bu makalede, zikredilen eksikliği giderme amacıyla Fahreddin er-Râzî ve Nâsırüddîn el-Beyzâvî’nin “Allah” adına dair açıklamaları ele alınacaktır. Tanrıya gönderim/tanrıyı adlandırma tartışmalarında karşımıza çıkan ikinci eksiklik ise modern gönderim kuramlarının metafiziksel arka planlarının dikkate alınmıyor olmasıdır. Çalışmamızda tanrıyı adlandırma noktasında imkân olarak görülen betimsel gönderim kuramı ve nedensel gönderim kuramının Kant düşüncesi ile irtibatına dikkat çekilecek ve onların klasik delaletiyle Allah’ı adlandırmada yeterli olamayacağı iddia edilecektir. (shrink)

: Gill and Sade, in the preceding article in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, argue that living individuals should be free from legal constraints against selling their organs. The present commentary responds to several of their claims. It explains why an analogy between kidneys and blood fails; why, as a matter of public policy, we prohibit the sale of human solid organs, yet allow the sale of blood; and why their attack on Kant's putative (...) argument against the sale of human body parts is misplaced. Finally, it rejects the claim that the state is entitled to interfere with the actions of individuals only if such actions would harm others. We draw certain lines grounded in what Rawls has termed "public reason" beyond which we do not give effect to the autonomous self-regarding decisions of individuals. Public resistance to the sale of human body parts, no matter how voluntary or well informed, is grounded in the conviction that such a practice would diminish human dignity and our sense of solidarity. A system of organ donation, in contrast, conveys our respect for persons and honors our common humanity. (shrink)

The subversion of tradition of ethics carried out by Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason is, according to Lacan, the intelligibility background on which it is possible a science of the subject as developed by Freud. This would be shown up in a particularly effective way if comparing Kant’s moral theory with Sade’s antimoral one. It is not difficult to show the formal-structural identity of the state of affairs established by inconditionality of law in both theoretical (...) systems, and thus expose the possibility of that anti-moral as a kind of Kantian variation. Moreover, Lacan holds, it is necessary to recognize in Sade’s Philosophy in the Bedroom the truth of Critique of Practical Reason. Our study proposes an examination of this well-known Lacanian thesis. On the one hand, we seek to establish the exact content of this thesis and the diagnosis of the relationship that it involves between Kant and Freud (between Enlightenment and psychoanalysis). On the other hand, we seek to confront that diagnosis with the reconstruction of the specific terms of the practical subject question in Kant’s philosophy. The ultimate aim is at least to raise a question about the place of the concept of “Reason” in psychoanalysis, that is, about the margin that the truth of the subject discovered by this theory leaves for making the difference (at least de iure) between the weight of reason and the illusions of moral masochism, and about the very conditions of psychoanalysis as a theory. (shrink)

Nesta edição especial, O Corpo é discurso apresenta os resultados do Curso A construção do sujeito em Kant - As luzes de Foucault, organizado pelo professor Nílton Milanez e por Jamille Silva Santos, integrante do Labedisco e mestranda do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, pela Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia.

İslamiyet’in Türkler tarafından kabul edilmesiyle birlikte Türk edebiyatında, İslamiyet’i konu alan eserler telif edilmiştir. Bu eserlerin bilhassa tevhid, naat, münâcât ve hâtime bölümlerinde Allah’ın rahmetine ve Hz. Muhammed’in şefaatine nail olmak arzusunun dile getirilmesi bir gelenek hâline gelmiştir. Zamanla, şefaati konu edinen ve başta Hz. Muhammed olmak üzere Allah’ın şefaat etmesine müsaade buyurduğu kişilerden şefaat isteğinde bulunulan manzum ve mensur müstakil eserler telif edilmiştir. Bu eserler, dinî-tasavvufi türlerden ayrılarak şefaatnâme olarak adlandırılmıştır. Şefaatnâmelerin geneli, eski Anadolu Türkçesi döneminde telif edilen Hikâye-i (...) Kesikbaş, Hikâye-i Deve, Hikâye-i Güvercin, Hikâye-i Geyik, Hikâye-i Kız, Hikâye-i İsa, Hikâye-i İsmail ve Hikâye-i İbrahim gibi dinî manzum hikâyelere anlatım ve üslup özellikleri bakımından benzemektedir. İslam dinini halka öğretmek amacıyla sade bir Türkçe ile kaleme alınan ve tahkiyenin ön planda olduğu bu hikâyelerden biri, muhtevasından dolayı şefaatnâme türü içerisinde değerlendirdiğimiz Şefaatnâme-i Yahyâ’dır. Çalışmamıza konu edilen bu eser, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi Yazma Bağışlar Bölümü’nde 4042 demirbaş numarasıyla kayıtlı olan ve içerisinde Süleyman Çelebi’nin (ö. 1422?) Vesîletü’n-Necât’ı ile eski Anadolu Türkçesi döneminde telif edilen dinî muhtevalı pek çok manzum hikâyenin bulunduğu yazmanın 155a-160a sayfaları arasında yer almaktadır. Şefaatnâme-i Yahyâ, aruzun “fâ‘ilâtün / fâ‘ilâtün/ fâ‘ilün” kalıbıyla ve mesnevi nazım şeklinde yazılmıştır. 154 beyitten müteşekkil bu eserde, Hz. Muhammed’in günahkâr ümmet için üzülüp ağlaması, o esnada sohbetinde bulunan Hz. Ebû Bekir, Hz. Ömer, Hz. Osman, Hz. Ali, Hz. Ayşe ve Hz. Fatma’ya günahkâr kullara şefaat için ne yapacaklarını sorması ve onların da bu soruyu cevaplamaları tahkiye edilmiştir. Bu makalede, öncelikle şefaatnâme hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Ardından, Şefaatnâme-i Yahyâ’nın dil, şekil, anlatım ve muhteva özellikleri incelenmiştir. Sonrasında ise Yahyâ’nın Şefaatnâme’sinde ele alınan konunun Ömeroğlu’nun (ö. 14. yy) Şefaatnâme’sinde, Pir Muhammed’in (ö.?) Şefaatnâme’sinde, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi Y. Y. 520/2 numarada kayıtlı yazmanın 30a-34a yaprakları arasında bulunan müellifi meçhul bir şefaatnâmede de yer alması sebebiyle bu dört metin mukayese edilmiştir. Farklı şairlerin kaleminde, aynı olay örgüsünün nasıl ifade edildiği bir tablo dâhilinde ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Makalenin sonunda, Şefaatnâme-i Yahyâ’nın transkripsiyonlu metni hazırlanarak araştırmacıların istifadesine sunulmuştur. (shrink)

In earlier work I wrestled with the question of the “ontological status” of organisms. It proved difficult to come to a clear decision, because there are many candidates for what such a status is or would be and of course many definitions of what organisms are. But what happens when we turn to theoretical projects “about” organisms that fall under the heading “organicist”? I first suggest that organicist projects have a problem: a combination of invoking Kant, or at least (...) a Kantian “regulative ideal,” usually presented as the epistemological component (or alternately, the complete overall vision) of a vision of organism – as instantiating natural purposes, as a type of “wholeWhole, wholes” distinct from a merely mechanistically specifiable set of parts, etc. – and a more ontological statement about the inherent or essential features of organisms, typically presented according to a combination of a “list of heroes” or “laundry list” of properties of organisms. This amounts to a category mistake. Other problems concern the too-strict oppositions between mechanism and organi(ci)sm, and symmetrical tendencies to “ontologize” (thus objectifying) properties of organisms and to “subjectify” them (turning them into philosophies of subjectivity). I don’t mean to suggest that no one should be an organicist or that Kant is a name that should be banished from civilized society. Rather, to borrow awkwardly from Sade, “organicists, one more effort!” if one wants a naturalistic, non-foundationalist concept of organicism, which is indeed quite active in recent theoretical biology, and which arguably was already alive in the organismic and even vitalist theories of thinkers like Goldstein and Canguilhem. (shrink)

Writing involves risks—the risk that one will be misunderstood, the risk of being persecuted, the risks of being made a champion for causes in which one does not believe, this risk of inadvertently supporting a reader’s prejudices, to name a few. In trying to give expression to what is true, the writer must “clear a passage within the agitated world of passions,” an undertaking that always to some extent fails: writers are never the master of their own speech. In _Writing: (...) The Political Test, _France’s leading political philosopher, Claude Lefort, illuminates the process by which writers negotiate difficult path to free themselves from the ideological and contextual traps that would doom their attempts to articulate a new vision. Lefort examines writers whose works provide special insights into this problem of risk, both literary artists and political philosophers. Among them are Salman Rushdie, Sade, Tocqueville,m Machiavelli, Leo Strauss, Orwell, Kant, Robespierre, Guizot, and Pierre Clastres. In Tocqueville, for example, Lefort finds that the author’s improvisatory and open-ended expression represents the character of the democratic experience. Orwell’s work on totalitarianism shows up the totalitarian subject’s complicity in this political regime. And Rushdie is remarkable for his solid attack on relativism. With the character and fate of the political forms of modernity, democracy, and totalitarianism a central theme, Lefort concludes with some reflections on the collapse of the Soviet Union. This intriguing and accessible exploration of literature’s political aspects and political philosophy’s literary ones will be welcomed by those who have been stymied by current efforts to bridge these two fields. Taken together, the essays in this volume also stand as an intellectual autobiography of Lefort, making it an excellent introduction to his work for less experience students of political theory or philosophy. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of PhilosophyPaul S. MiklowitzSusan Neiman. Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Pp. xii + 358. Cloth, $29.95.Contemporary philosophy in America tends to regard epistemological questions as the most fundamental of the discipline, but Susan Neiman's Evil in Modern Thought sets itself against this assumption in an attempt to sketch "an alternative history of (...) philosophy." "It's possible to begin to worry about the difference between appearance and reality because... a dream is so vivid that you want to grasp one of its objects for a moment or two of sleepy half-consciousness," Neiman writes, but then "you wake up in your bed, slap your face if you have to... " (5). The problem of evil, in stark contrast to such skeptical speculations, is far more urgent and trenchant; it is "the place where philosophy begins, and threatens to stop" (ibid.). Moreover, the problem of evil, far from being merely a theological quandary, actually forms a link between metaphysics and epistemology by starkly posing questions about the intelligibility of the world: Why are things like that? wants the answer Because it's best that way. For the early modern period, these questions centered on the "theodicy" debates focused by the catastrophic Lisbon earthquake of 1755, while for us the holocaust threatens to explode all our hopes and expectations for the possibility of a world that is as it should be. Thus, Lisbon and Auschwitz frame for Neiman the historical topoi that ground discussion of the relation between natural and moral evils, the evolving philosophical understanding of which defines "who we have become in the three centuries that separate us from the early Enlightenment" (10).The problem of theodicy is introduced through the figure of Alfonso X, king of Castille in 1252, and "the first Enlightenment hero" (14), according to Neiman. Having studied astronomy under the guidance of learned Jews from Toledo, Alfonso scandalously remarked "If I had been of God's counsel at the Creation, many things would have been ordered better" (15). Serving as a paradigm of blasphemy for half a millennium, Alfonso's boast also expresses the inevitable dismay that must accompany the delighted wonder at natural order exploited by the argument from design: while Creation is surely miraculous in its manifestation of seemingly intelligent structure, it is just as surely astonishing that so much of that structure seems so wantonly destructive. Can this really be the best of all possible worlds if innocent lives are cut short by cruel diseases or natural disasters while vicious villains prosper into comfortable old age?! Alfonso's remark serves Neiman as a leitmotif around which she orders central figures in the canon of western philosophy into two camps: those who struggled to reconcile natural evil with God's goodness or with reason (Leibniz, Pope, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Marx), and those who skeptically condemned reason by appealing to "brute appearances" (Bayle, Voltaire, Hume, Sade and Schopenhauer). Because the very categories of natural and moral evil tend to break down as a result of the development of psychology as a "science of nature" (to the extent that human motives are regarded as natural processes subject to empirical explanation, they cease to manifest a unique ontology), Nietzsche and Freud fall outside the philosophical canon thus construed—although Neiman's discussion of these two thinkers is perhaps the most compelling of the book.No new interpretive ground is broken in the resulting exegesis of western philosophical history, but Neiman's treatment of each of these figures is intelligent and skillful. In discussing Kant, for example, a deep paradox at the center of his moral thought is brilliantly harnessed to the book's argument. Whereas theodicies from Leibniz onward had focused on attempts to show that Providence ultimately guaranteed a connection between virtue and happiness despite obvious evidence to the contrary, Kant took exactly the opposite tack. As Neiman puts it, "Solving the problem of evil is not only impossible but immoral. For knowing the connections between moral and natural evils would undermine the possibility of morality" (69). If we could be sure that good deeds... (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é – a partir da Dialética do Esclarecimento, de Adorno e Horkheimer – mostrar por que, embora o pensamento de Kant represente a forma mais acabada do projeto moderno de racionalidade, não é ele que leva, no domínio moral, o esclarecimento às últimas conseqüências, mas sim Sade e Nietzsche. Veremos como o diálogo entre filosofia e literatura é fundamental nesse diagnóstico.

continent. 1.1 : 3-13. / 0/ – Introduction I want to propose, as a trajectory into the philosophically weird, an absurd theoretical claim and pursue it, or perhaps more accurately, construct it as I point to it, collecting the ground work behind me like the Perpetual Train from China Mieville's Iron Council which puts down track as it moves reclaiming it along the way. The strange trajectory is the following: Kant's critical philosophy and much of continental philosophy which has (...) followed, has been a defense against horror and madness. Kant's prohibition on speculative metaphysics such as dogmatic metaphysics and transcendental realism, on thinking beyond the imposition of transcendental and moral constraints, has been challenged by numerous figures proceeding him. One of the more interesting critiques of Kant comes from the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land stating, “Kant’s critical philosophy is the most elaborate fit of panic in the history of the Earth.” And while Alain Badiou would certainly be opposed to the libidinal investments of Land's Deleuzo-Guattarian thought, he is likewise critical of Kant's normative thought-bureaucracies: Kant is the one author for whom I cannot feel any kinship. Everything in him exasperates me, above all his legalism—always asking Quid Juris? Or ‘Haven’t you crossed the limit?’—combined, as in today’s United States, with a religiosity that is all the more dismal in that it is both omnipresent and vague. The critical machinery he set up has enduringly poisoned philosophy, while giving great succour to the academy, which loves nothing more than to rap the knuckles of the overambitious [….] That is how I understand the truth of Monique David-Menard’s reflections on the properly psychotic origins of Kantianism. I am persuaded that the whole of the critical enterprise is set up to to shield against the tempting symptom represented by the seer Swedenborg, or against ‘diseases of the head’, as Kant puts it. An entire nexus of the limits of reason and philosophy are set up here, namely that the critical philosophy not only defends thought from madness, philosophy from madness, and philosophy from itself, but that philosophy following the advent of the critical enterprise philosophy becomes auto-vampiric; feeding on itself to support the academy. Following Francois Laruelle's non-philosophical indictment of philosophy, we could go one step further and say that philosophy operates on the material of what is philosophizable and not the material of the external world. [1] Beyond this, the Kantian scheme of nestling human thinking between our limited empirical powers and transcendental guarantees of categorical coherence, forms of thinking which stretch beyond either appear illegitimate, thereby liquefying both pre-critical metaphysics and the ravings of the mad in the same critical acid. In rejecting the Kantian apparatus we are left with two entities – an unsure relation of thought to reality where thought is susceptible to internal and external breakdown and a reality with an uncertain sense of stability. These two strands will be pursued, against the sane-seal of post-Kantian philosophy by engaging the work of weird fiction authors H.P. Lovecraft and Thomas Ligotti. The absolute inhumanism of the formers universe will be used to describe a Shoggothic Materialism while the dream worlds of the latter will articulate the mad speculation of a Ventriloquil Idealism. But first we must address the relation of philosophy to madness as well as philosophy to weird fiction. /1/ – Philosophy and Madness There is nothing that the madness of men invents which is not either nature made manifest or nature restored. Michel Foucault. Madness and Civilization. The moment I doubt whether an event that I recall actually took place, I bring the suspicion of madness upon myself: unless I am uncertain as to whether it was not a mere dream. Arthur Schopenhauer. The World as Will and Idea, Vol. 3. Madness is commonly thought of as moving through several well known cultural-historical shifts from madness as a demonic or otherwise theological force, to rationalization, to medicalization psychiatric and otherwise. Foucault's Madness and Civilization is well known for orientating madness as a form of exclusionary social control which operated by demarcating madness from reason. Yet Foucault points to the possibility of madness as the necessity of nature at least prior to the crushing weight of the church. Kant’s philosophy as a response to madness is grounded by his humanizing of madness itself. As Adrian Johnston points out in the early pages of Time Driven pre-Kantian madness meant humans were seized by demonic or angelic forces whereas Kantian madness became one of being too human. Madness becomes internalized, the external demonic forces become flaws of the individual mind. Foucault argues that, while madness is de-demonized it is also dehumanized during the Renaissance, as madmen become creatures neither diabolic nor totally human reduced to the zero degree of humanity. It is immediately clear why for Kant, speculative metaphysics must be curbed – with the problem of internal madness and without the external safeguards of transcendental conditions, there is nothing to formally separate the speculative capacities for metaphysical diagnosis from the mad ramblings of the insane mind – both equally fall outside the realm of practicality and quotidian experience. David-Menard's work is particularly useful in diagnosing the relation of thought and madness in Kant's texts. David-Menard argues that in Kant's relatively unknown “An Essay on the Maladies of the Mind” as well as his later discussion of the Seer of Swedenborg, that Kant formulates madness primarily in terms of sensory upheaval or other hallucinatory theaters. She writes: “madness is an organization of thought. It is made possible by the ambiguity of the normal relation between the imaginary and the perceived, whether this pertains to the order of sensation or to the relations between our ideas” Kant's fascination with the Seer forces Kant between the pincers of “aesthetic reconciliation” – namely melancholic withdrawal – and “a philosophical invention” – namely the critical project. Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis is a combination and reversal of Kant's split, where an aesthetic over engagement with the world entails prolific conceptual invention. Their embrace of madness, however, is of course itself conceptual despite all their rhizomatic maneuvers. Though they move with the energy of madness, Deleuze and Guattari save the capacity of thought from the fangs of insanity by imbuing materiality itself with the capacity for thought. Or, as Ray Brassier puts it, “Deleuze insists, it is necessary to absolutize the immanence of this world in such a way as to dissolve the transcendent disjunction between things as we know them and as they are in themselves”. That is, whereas Kant relied on the faculty of judgment to divide representation from objectivity Deleuze attempts to flatten the whole economy beneath the juggernaut of ontological univocity. Speculation, as a particularly useful form of madness, might fall close to Deleuze and Guattari’s shaping of philosophy into a concept producing machine but is different in that it is potentially self destructive – less reliant on the stability of its own concepts and more adherent to exposing a particular horrifying swath of reality. Speculative madness is always a potential disaster in that it acknowledges little more than its own speculative power with the hope that the gibbering of at least a handful of hysterical brains will be useful. Pre-critical metaphysics amounts to madness, though this may be because the world itself is mad while new attempts at speculative metaphysics, at post-Kantian pre-critical metaphysics, are well aware of our own madness. Without the sobriety of the principle of sufficient reason we have a world of neon madness: “we would have to conceive what our life would be if all the movements of the earth, all the noises of the earth, all the smells, the tastes, all the light – of the earth and elsewhere, came to us in a moment, in an instant – like an atrocious screaming tumult of things”. Speculative thought may be participatory in the screaming tumult of the world or, worse yet, may produce its spectral double. Against theology or reason or simply commonsense, the speculative becomes heretical. Speculation, as the cognitive extension of the horrorific sublime should be met with melancholic detachment. Whereas Kant's theoretical invention, or productivity of thought, is self -sabotaging, since the advent of the critical project is a productivity of thought which then delimits the engine of thought at large either in dogmatic gestures or non-systematizable empirical wondrousness. The former is celebrated by the fiction of Thomas Ligotti whereas the latter is espoused by the tales of H.P. Lovecraft. /2/ – Weird Fiction and Philosophy. Supernatural horror, in all its eerie constructions, enables a reader to taste treats inconsistent with his personal welfare. Thomas Ligotti Songs of a Dead Dreamer. I choose weird stories because they suit my inclination best—one of my strongest and most persistent wishes being to achieve,momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us and frustrate our curiosity about the infinite cosmic spaces beyond the radius of our sight and analysis H.P. Lovecraft. “Notes on Writing Weird Fiction” Lovecraft states that his creation of a story is to suspend natural law yet, at the same time, he indexes the tenuousness of such laws, suggesting the vast possibilities of the cosmic. The tension that Lovecraft sets up between his own fictions and the universe or nature is reproduced within his fictions in the common theme of the unreliable narrator; unreliable precisely because they are either mad or what they have witnessed questions the bounds of material reality. In “The Call of Cthulhu” Lovecraft writes: The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. Despite Lovecraft's invocations of illusion, he is not claiming that his fantastic creations such as the Old Ones are supernatural but, following Joshi, are only ever supernormal. One can immediately see that instead of nullifying realism Lovecraft in fact opens up the real to an unbearable degree. In various letters and non-fictional statements Lovecraft espoused strictly materialist tenets, ones which he borrowed from Hugh Elliot namely the uniformity of law, the denial of teleology and the denial of non-material existence. Lovecraft seeks to explore the possibilities of such a universe by piling horror upon horror until the fragile brain which attempts to grasp it fractures. This may be why philosophy has largely ignored weird fiction – while Deleuze and Guattari mark the turn towards weird fiction and Lovecraft in particular, with the precursors to speculative realism as well as contemporary related thinkers have begun to view Lovecraft as making philosophical contributions. Lovecraft's own relation to philosophy is largely critical while celebrating Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. This relationship of Lovecraft to philosophy and philosophy to Lovecraft is coupled with Lovecraft's habit of mercilessly destroying the philosopher and the figure of the academic more generally in his work, a destruction which is both an epistemological destruction and an ontological destruction. Thomas Ligotti's weird fiction which he has designated as a kind of “confrontational escapism” might be best described in the following quote from one of his shortstories, “The human phenomenon is but the sum of densely coiled layers of illusion each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity. That there are persons of any kind when all there can be is mindless mirrors laughing and screaming as they parade about in an endless dream”. Whereas Lovecraft's weirdness draws predominantly from the abyssal depths of the uncharted universe, Ligotti's existential horror focuses on the awful proliferation of meaningless surfaces that is, the banal and every day function of representation. In an interview, Ligotti states: We don't even know what the world is like except through our sense organs, which are provably inadequate. It's no less the case with our brains. Our whole lives are motored along by forces we cannot know and perceptions that are faulty. We sometimes hear people say that they're not feeling themselves. Well, who or what do they feel like then? This is not to say that Ligotti sees nothing beneath the surface but that there is only darkness or blackness behind it, whether that surface is on the cosmological level or the personal. By addressing the implicit and explicit philosophical issues in Ligotti's work we will see that his nightmarish take on reality is a form of malevolent idealism, an idealism which is grounded in a real, albeit dark and obscure materiality. If Ligotti's horrors ultimately circle around mad perceptions which degrade the subject, it takes aim at the vast majority of the focus of continental philosophy. While Lovecraft's acidic materialism clearly assaults any romantic concept of being from the outside, Ligotti attacks consciousness from the inside: Just a little doubt slipped into the mind, a little trickle of suspicion in the bloodstream, and all those eyes of ours, one by one, open up to the world and see its horror [...] Not even the solar brilliance of a summer day will harbor you from horror. For horror eats the light and digests it into darkness. Clearly, the weird fiction of Lovecraft and Ligotti amount to a anti-anthrocentric onslaught against the ramparts of correlationist continental philosophy. /3/ – Shoggothic Materialism or the Formless Formless protoplasm able to mock and reflect all forms and organs and processes—viscous agglutinations of bubbling cells—rubbery fifteen-foot spheroids infinitely plastic and ductile—slaves of suggestion, builders of cities—more and more sullen, more and more intelligent, more and more amphibious, more and more imitative—Great God! What madness made even those blasphemous Old Ones willing to use and to carve such things? H.P. Lovecraft. “At the Mountains of Madness” On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit. Georges Bataille. “Formless”. The Shoggoths feature most prominently in H.P. Lovecraft's shortstory “At the Mountains of Madness” where they are described in the following manner: It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train – a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self -luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. The term is a litmus test for materialism itself as the Shoggoth is an amorphous creature. The Shoggoths were living digging machines bio engineered by the Elder Things, and their protoplasmic bodies being formed into various tools by their hypnotic powers. The Shoggoths eventually became self aware and rose up against their masters in an ultimately failed rebellion. After the Elder Ones retreated into the oceans leaving the Shoggoths to roam the frozen wastes of the Antarctic. The onto-genesis of the Shoggoths and their gross materiality, index the horrifyingly deep time of the earth a concept near and dear to Lovecraft's formulation of horror as well as the fear of intelligences far beyond, and far before, the ascent of humankind on earth and elsewhere. The sickly amorphous nature of the Shoggoths invade materialism at large, where while materiality is unmistakably real ie not discursive, psychological, or otherwise overly subjectivist, it questions the relation of materialism to life. As Eugene Thacker writes: The Shoggoths or Elder Things do not even share the same reality with the human beings who encounter them—and yet this encounter takes place, though in a strange no-place that is neither quite that of the phenomenal world of the human subject or the noumenal world of an external reality. Amorphous yet definitively material beings are a constant in Lovecraft's tales. In his tale “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadatth” Lovecraft describes Azathoth as, “that shocking final peril which gibbers unmentionably outside the ordered universe,” that, “last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blashphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity,” who, “gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time”. Azathoth's name may have multiple origins but the most striking is the alchemy term azoth which is both a cohesive agent and a acidic creation pointing back to the generative and the decayed. The indistinction of generation and degradation materially mirrors the blur between the natural and the unnatural as well as life and non-life. Lovecraft speaks of the tension between the natural and the unnatural is his short story “The Unnameable.” He writes, “if the psychic emanations of human creatures be grotesque distortions, what coherent representation could express or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulousity as the spectre of a malign, chaotic perversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature?”. Lovecraft explores exactly the tension outlined at the beginning of this chapter, between life and thought. At the end of his short tale Lovecraft compounds the problem as the unnameable is described as “a gelatin—a slime—yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory”. Deleuze suggests that becoming-animal is operative throughout Lovecraft's work, where narrators feel themselves reeling at their becoming non-human or of being the anomalous or of becoming atomized. Following Eugene Thacker however, it may be far more accurate to say that Lovecraft's tales exhibit not a becoming-animal but a becoming-creature. Where the monstrous breaks the purportedly fixed laws of nature, the creature is far more ontologically ambiguous. The nameless thing is an altogether different horizon for thought. The creature is either less than animal or more than animal – its becoming is too strange for animal categories and indexes the slow march of thought towards the bizarre. This strangeness is, as aways, some indefinite swirling in the category of immanence and becoming. Bataille begins “The Labyrinth” with the assertion that being, to continue to be, is becoming. More becoming means more being hence the assertion that Bataille's barking dog is more than the sponge. This would mean that the Shoggotth is altogether too much being, too much material in the materialism. Bataille suggests that there is an immanence between the eater and the eaten, across the species and never within them. That is, despite the chaotic storm of immanence there must remain some capacity to distinguish the gradients of becoming without reliance upon, or at least total dependence upon, the powers of intellection to parse the universe into recognizable bits, properly digestible factoids. That is, if we undo Deleuze's aforementioned valorization of sense which, for his variation of materialism, performed the work of the transcendental, but refuse to reinstate Kant's transcendental disjunction between thing and appearance, then it must be a quality of becoming-as-being itself which can account for the discernible nature of things by sense. In an interview with Peter Gratton, Jane Bennett formulates the problem thusly: What is this strange systematicity proper to a world of Becoming? What, for example, initiates this congealing that will undo itself? Is it possible to identify phases within this formativity, plateaus of differentiation? If so, do the phases/plateaus follow a temporal sequence? Or, does the process of formation inside Becoming require us to theorize a non-chronological kind of time? I think that your student’s question: “How can we account for something like iterable structures in an assemblage theory?” is exactly the right question. Philosophy has erred too far on the side of the subject in the subject-object relation and has furthermore, lost the very weirdness of the non-human. Beyond this, the madness of thought need not override. /4/ - Ventriloquial Idealism or the Externality of Thought My aim is the opposite of Lovecraft's. He had an appreciation for natural scenery on earth and wanted to reach beyond the visible in the universe. I have no appreciation for natural scenery and want the objective universe to be a reflection of a character. Thomas Ligotti. “Devotees of Decay and Desolation.” Unless life is a dream, nothing makes sense. For as a reality, it is a rank failure [….] Horror is more real than we are. Thomas Ligotti. “Professor Nobody's Little Lectures on Supernatural Horror”. Thomas Ligotti's tales are rife with mannequins, puppets, and other brainless entities which of replace the valorized subject of philosophy – that of the free thinking human being. His tales such as “The Dream of the Manikin” aim to destroy the rootedness of consciousness. James Trafford has connected the anti-egoism of Ligotti to Thomas Metzinger – where the self is at best an illusion and we plead desperately for someone else to acknowledge that we are real. Trafford has stated it thus, “Life is played out as an inescapable puppet show, an endless dream in which the puppets are generally unaware that they are trapped within a mesmeric dance of whose mechanisms they know nothing and over which they have no control”. An absolute materialism, for Ligotti, implies an alienation of the idea which leads to a ventriloquil idealism. As Ligotti notes in an interview, “the fiasco and nightmare of existence, the particular fiasco and nightmare of human existence, the sense that people are puppets of powers they cannot comprehend, etc.” And then further elaborates that,“[a]ssuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear”. The externality of the idea leads to the unfortunate consequence of consciousness eating at itself through horror which, for Ligotti, is more real than reality and goes beyond horror-as-affect. Beyond this, taking together with the unreality of life and the ventriloquizing of subjectivity, Ligotti's thought becomes an idealism in which thought itself is alien and ultimately horrifying. The role of human thought and the relation of non-relation of horror to thought is not completely clear in Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. Ligotti argues in his The Conspiracy Against the Human Race,that the advent of thought is a mistake of nature and that horror is being in the sense that horror results from knowing too much. Yet, at the same time, Ligotti seems to suggest that thought separates us from nature whereas, for Lovecraft, thought is far less privileged – mind is just another manifestation of the vital principal, it is just another materialization of energy. In his brilliant “Prospects for Post-Copernican Dogmatism” Iain Grant rallies against the negative definition of dogmatism and the transcendental, and suggests that negatively defining both over-focuses on conditions of access and subjectivism at the expense of the real or nature. With Schelling, who is Grant's champion against the subjectivist bastions of both Fichte and Kant, Ligotti's idealism could be taken as a transcendental realism following from an ontological realism. Yet the transcendental status of Ligotti's thought move towards a treatment of the transcendental which may threaten to leave beyond its realist ground. Ligotti states: Belief in the supernatural is only superstition. That said, a sense of the supernatural, as Conrad evidenced in Heart of Darkness, must be admitted if one's inclination is to go to the limits of horror. It is the sense of what should not be- the sense of being ravaged by the impossible. Phenomenally speaking, the super-natural may be regarded as the metaphysical counterpart of insanity, a transcendental correlative of a mind that has been driven mad. Again, Ligotti equates madness with thought, qualifying both as supernatural while remaining less emphatic about the metaphysical dimensions of horror. The question becomes one of how exactly the hallucinatory realm of the ideal relates to the black churning matter of Lovecraft's chaos of elementary particles. In his tale “I Have a Special Plan for This World” Ligotti formulates thus: A: There is no grand scheme of things. B: If there were a grand scheme of things, the fact – the fact – that we are not equipped to perceive it, either by natural or supernatural means, is a nightmarish obscenity. C: The very notion of a grand scheme of things is a nightmarish obscenity. Here Ligotti is not discounting metaphysics but implying that if it does exist the fact that we are phenomenologically ill-equipped to perceive that it is nightmarish. For Ligotti, nightmare and horror occur within the circuit of consciousness whereas for Lovecraft the relation between reality and mind is less productive on the side of mind. It is easier to ascertain how the Kantian philosophy is a defense against the diseases of the head as Kant armors his critical enterprise from too much of the world and too much of the mind. The weird fiction of both Lovecraft and Ligotti demonstrates that there is too much of both feeding into one another in a way that corrodes the Kantian schema throughly, breaking it down into a dead but still ontologically potentiated nigredo. The haunting, terrifying fact of Ligotti's idealism is that the transcendental motion which brought thought to matter, while throughly material and naturalized, brings with it the horror that thought cannot be undone without ending the material that bears it either locally or completely. Thought comes from an elsewhere and an elsewhen being-in-thought. The unthinkable outside thought is as maddening as the unthought engine of thought itself within thought which doesn't exist except for the mind, the rotting décor of the brain. /5/ - Hyperstitional Transcendental Paranoia or Self -Expelled Thought Weird fiction has been given some direct treatment in philosophy in the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land. Nick Land along with others in the 1990s created the Cyber Culture Research Unit as well as the research group Hyperstition. The now defunct hyperstitional website, an outgrowth of the Cyber Culture Research Unit, defined hyperstition in the following fourfold: 1-Element of effective culture that makes itself real. 2-Fictional quantity functional as a time-traveling device. 3-Coincidence intensifier. 4-Call to the Old Ones. The distinctively Lovecraftian character of hyperstition is hard to miss as is its Deleuzo-Guattarian roots. In the opening pages of A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari write, “We have been criticized for over-quoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into”. The indisinction of literature and philosophy mirrors the mess of being and knowing as post-correlationist philosophy, where philosophy tries to make itself real where literature, especially the weird, aims itself at the brain-circuit of horror. The texts of both Lovecraft and Ligotti work through horror as epistemological plasticity meeting with proximity as well as the deep time of Lovecraft and the glacially slow time of paranoia in Ligotti. Against Deleuze, and following Brassier, we cannot allow the time of consciousness, the Bergsonian time of the duree, to override natural time, but instead acknowledge that it is an unfortunate fact of existence as a thinking being. Horror-time, the time of consciousness, with all its punctuated moments and drawn out terrors, cannot compare to the deep time of non-existence both in the unreachable past and the unknown future. The crystalline cogs of Kant's account of experience as the leading light for the possibility of metaphysics must be throughly obliterated. His gloss of experience in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics could not be more sterile: Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments which the understanding makes entirely out of sensuous intuitions are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in sensuous intuition [....] Experience consists in the synthetic connection of appearances in consciousness, so far as this connection is necessary. Here it is difficult to dismiss the queasiness that Kant's legalism induces upon sight for both Badiou and David-Menard. Kant's thought becomes, as Foucault says when reflecting on Sade's text in relation to nature, “the savage abolition of itself”. For Badiou, Kant's philosophy simply closes off too much of the outside, freezing the world of thought in an all too limited formalism. Critical philosophy is simply the systematized quarantine on future thinking, on thinking which would threaten the formalism which artificially grants thought its own coherency in the face of madness. Even the becoming-mad of Deleuze, while escaping the rumbling ground, makes grounds for itself, mad grounds but grounds which are thinkable in their affect. The field of effects allows for Deleuze's aesthetic and radical empiricism, in which effects and/or occasions make up the material of the world to be thought as a chaosmosis of simulacra. Given a critique of an empiricism of aesthetics, of the image, it may be difficult to justify an attack on Kantian formalism with the madness of literature, which does not aim to make itself real but which we may attempt to make real. That is, how do Lovecraft's and Ligotti's materials, as materials for philosophy to work on, differ from either the operative formalisms of Kant or the implicitly formalized images of Deleuzian empiricism? It is simply that such texts do not aim to make themselves real, and make claims to the real which are more alien to us than familiar, which is why their horror is immediately more trustworthy. This is the madness which Blanchot discusses in The Infinite Conversation through Cervantes and his knight – the madness of book-life, of the perverse unity of literature and life a discussion which culminates in the discussion of one of the weird's masters, that of Kafka. The text is the knowing of madness, since madness, in its moment of becoming-more-mad, cannot be frozen in place but by the solidifications of externalizing production. This is why Foucault ends his famous study with works of art. Furthermore extilligence, the ability to export the products of our maligned brains, is the companion of the attempts to export, or discover the possibility of intelligences outside of our heads, in order for philosophy to survive the solar catastrophe. To borrow again from Deleuze, writing is inseparable from becoming. The mistake is to believe that madness is reabsorbed by extilligence, by great works, or that it could be exorcised by the expelling of thought into the inorganic or differently organic. Going out of our heads does not guarantee we will no longer mean we cannot still go out of our minds. This is simply because of the outside, of matter, or force, or energy, or thing-in-itself, or Schopenhauerian Will. In Lovecraft’s “The Music of Erich Zahn” an “impoverished student of metaphysics” becomes intrigued by strange viol music coming from above his room. After meeting the musician the student discovers that each night he plays frantic music at a window in order to keep some horridness at bay, some “impenetrable darkness with chaos and pandemonium”. The aesthetic defenses provided by the well trained brain can bear the hex of matter for so long, the specter of unalterability within it which too many minds obliterate, collapsing everything before the thought of thought as thinkable or at least noetically mutable on our own terms. Transcendental paranoia is the concurrent nightmare and promise of Paul Humphrey's work, of being literally out of our minds. It is the gothic counterpart of thinking non-conceptually but also of thinking never belonging to any instance of purportedly solid being. As Bataille stated, “At the boundary of that which escapes cohesion, he who reflects within cohesion realizes there is no longer any room for him” Thought is immaterial only to the degree that it is inhuman, it is a power that tries, always with failure, to ascertain its own genesis. Philosophy, if it can truly return to the great outdoors, if it can leave behind the dead loop of the human skull, must recognize not only the non-priority of human thought, but that thought never belongs to the brain that thinks it, thought comes from somewhere else. To return to the train image from the beginning “a locomotive rolling on the surface of the earth is the image of continuous metamorphosis” this is the problem of thought, and of thinking thought, of being no longer able to isolate thought, with only a thought-formed structure. [1] One of the central tenets of Francois Laruelle's non-philosophy is that philosophy has traditionally operated on material already presupposed as thinkable instead of trying to think the real in itself. Philosophy, according to Laruelle, remains fixated on transcendental synthesis which shatters immanence into an empirical datum and an a prori factum which are then fused by a third thing such as the ego. For a critical account of Laruelle's non-philosophy see Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound. (shrink)

Dini sahada tartışılan bazı kavramlar birden fazla disipline konu olmuş ve bu kavramlar her disiplinde farklı açılardan ele alınmıştır. Dinî nasların anlaşılmasında önemli yeri olan hakikat ve mecaz bu tür kavramlardandır. Hakikat ve mecaz salt dilbilimsel kavramlar gibi görünseler de birçok dini disipline önemli ölçüde konu olmuşlardır. Fıkıh usûlü, bu kavramları yoğun bir şekilde konu edinen temel dini disiplinlerden biridir. İlk dönem dil kaynaklarında mecaza dair bir tanım yapılmamışsa da ana hatlarıyla “lafzın dilde vazedildiği anlam dışında kullanılması” mecaz kabul edilmiştir. (...) Günümüze ulaşan ilk fıkıh usulü eserinin müellifi İmam Şâfiî (öl. 204/820) ve Mu‘tezilî öncülerden Câhiz (öl. 255/869), Ebû Ali el-Cübbâî (öl. 303/916) ve Ebû Hâşim el-Cübbâî (öl. 321/933) de görüşlerini temellendirirken kavram tanımı yapmadan mecazı kullanmışlardır. Kelamcı usûlcülerden ilk defa mecaz tanımı yapan Ebû Abdullah el-Basrî’den (öl. 369/979-80) iki farklı tanım nakledilmiştir. Ebû Abdullah’ın yaptığı bu tanımlar ana hatlarıyla sonraki asırlarda yaşayan usûlcülerin tanımları üzerinde etkili olmuşsa da yakın takipçileri tarafından kabul görmemiştir. Cessâs (öl. 370/981) ve Bâkıllânî (öl. 403/1013) düşünsel mülahazalar içermeyen sade bir tanım yaparken Mu‘tezilî usûlcülerden Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî (öl. 436/1044) mecaza dair kelâmî mülahazalar içeren komplike bir tanım geliştirmiştir. Ebü’l-Hüseyin, yaptığı tanımda lafzın mecazi anlamda kullanıldığını ortaya koymak için ilk olarak hitabın türünün temel belirleyici unsurlardan biri olduğuna dikkat çekmiştir. Ebü’l-Hüseyin yaptığı tanımda ikinci olarak lafzın hakiki anlamı gibi mecazi anlamının da bir vazՙ ile olduğuna işaret etmiştir. Ayrıca yaptığı tanımda açık şekilde ifade etmese de konu çerçevesinde yaptı değerlendirmelerde lafzın mecazi anlamda kullanıldığını ortaya koymak için karinenin temel belirleyici unsurlardan biri olduğunu vurgulamıştır. Ona göre lafız, ancak hakiki anlamda kullanılmasına engel bir karinenin olması durumunda mecazi anlama hamledilir. Mu‘tezilî usûlcülerin mecaz tanımlarını konu edinen bu çalışmada öncelikle İlk beş asırda dilcilerin ve Mu‘tezile dışındaki fıkıh usûlcülerinin ortaya koydukları mecaz tanımları incelenmiştir. Daha sonra Mu‘tezilî usûlcülerin mecaz tanımları değerlendirilmiştir. Mu‘tezilî âlimlerin mecaz tanımları içerisinde ekolün düşünsel mülahazalarını dikkate alan Ebü’l-Hüseyin el-Basrî’nin tanımı yakından incelenmiştir. Mu‘tezilî düşünürlerden Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ın mecaz anlayışını yansıtan tanımı günümüze ulaşmadığı için Ebül-Hüseyin’in tanımı incelenirken Kādî Abdülcebbâr’ın görüşleri de irdelenmiştir. Böylece Ebül-Hüseyin’e ait fıkıh usulü sahasında yoğun kelâmî mülahazalar ihtiva eden mecaz tanımının temelde Kādî Abdülcebbâr’a dayandığı ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmamızda son olarak Ebül-Hüseyin’den nakledilen mecaz tanımının diğer ekollere mensup usûlcüler üzerindeki etkisi de ortaya konulmuştur. Bu tanımın söz konusu usûlcülerden Fahreddin er-Râzî (öl. 606/1210) tarafından kabul gördüğü belirtilmiş ve Râzî’nin bu tanım çerçevesindeki görüşleri Mu‘tezile’nin düşünsel zemininde tartışılmıştır. (shrink)

Historia kłamstwa zaczyna się tam, gdzie historia prawdy. Na przestrzeni wieków zmieniają się jego definicje i oceny moralne. Warunki historyczne, polityczne, społeczne ujawniają jego nowe konteksty. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiam trzy charakterystyki kłamstwa: ze względu naprawdę, w odniesieniu do języka i jego rolę w sztuce. Różnorodność znaczeń implikuje oceny moralne tego zjawiska. Filozoficzna refleksja jest o tyle istotna, o ile stanowi bazę dla innych nauk, np. dla psychologii lub socjologii. Historia kłamstwa wskazuje na niejednoznaczność rozumienia tego pojęcia i konieczność ciągłej (...) refleksji nad jego konsekwencjami. Ta wieloaspektowość sprawia, że mamy do czynienia z relatywizmem, na który jednak nie wszyscy filozofowie się zgadzają. Arystoteles, Aureliusz Augustyn czy Kant bezwzględnie kłamstwo potępiali. Na współczesne postrzeganie kłamstwa składa się więc szereg często niezgodnych ze sobą określeń. (shrink)

Die Aufklärung erfuhr ihre wohl radikalste Infragestellung in Max Horkheimers und Theodor W. Adornos Dialektik der Aufklärung. Ihre These, dass die Aufklärung, statt Emanzipation und Humanität zu befördern, verhängnisvolle Folgen zeitigte, stützt sich einerseits auf eine grundsätzliche Rationalitätskritik, andererseits auf eine Analyse der Philosophien von Autoren, die sie als Protagonisten der Aufklärung einstufen: Bacon, Spinoza, Kant und de Sade. Zwar ist ‚Aufklärung‘ im Sinne Horkheimers und Adornos ein von Anbeginn mit der okzidentalen Kultur verbundenes Phänomen. Doch trat aus (...) ihrer Sicht erst in den Philosophien des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts ihre ambivalente, ja fatale Natur vollends zutage. Während sich die Diskussionen über die Dialektik der Aufklärung zumeist auf die grundsätzliche Rationalitätskritik Horkheimers und Adornos konzentrierten, haben Philosophiehistoriker nur selten die Frage aufgeworfen, ob die dort herangezogenen Philosophen tatsächlich geeignete Kronzeugen ihrer Aufklärungskritik sind. Ziel des vorliegenden Bandes ist es daher, das von Horkheimer und Adorno gezeichnete Gesamtbild der Aufklärung und ihre Interpretationen Bacons, Spinozas, Kants und de Sades auf den Prüfstand zu stellen. (shrink)

Writing involves risks—the risk that one will be misunderstood, the risk of being persecuted, the risks of being made a champion for causes in which one does not believe, this risk of inadvertently supporting a reader’s prejudices, to name a few. In trying to give expression to what is true, the writer must “clear a passage within the agitated world of passions,” an undertaking that always to some extent fails: writers are never the master of their own speech. In _Writing: (...) The Political Test, _France’s leading political philosopher, Claude Lefort, illuminates the process by which writers negotiate difficult path to free themselves from the ideological and contextual traps that would doom their attempts to articulate a new vision. Lefort examines writers whose works provide special insights into this problem of risk, both literary artists and political philosophers. Among them are Salman Rushdie, Sade, Tocqueville,m Machiavelli, Leo Strauss, Orwell, Kant, Robespierre, Guizot, and Pierre Clastres. In Tocqueville, for example, Lefort finds that the author’s improvisatory and open-ended expression represents the character of the democratic experience. Orwell’s work on totalitarianism shows up the totalitarian subject’s complicity in this political regime. And Rushdie is remarkable for his solid attack on relativism. With the character and fate of the political forms of modernity, democracy, and totalitarianism a central theme, Lefort concludes with some reflections on the collapse of the Soviet Union. This intriguing and accessible exploration of literature’s political aspects and political philosophy’s literary ones will be welcomed by those who have been stymied by current efforts to bridge these two fields. Taken together, the essays in this volume also stand as an intellectual autobiography of Lefort, making it an excellent introduction to his work for less experience students of political theory or philosophy. (shrink)

This book stems from an examination of how Western philosophy has accounted for the foundations of law. In this tradition, the character of the “sovereign” or “lawgiver” has provided the solution to this problem. But how does the sovereign acquire the right to found law? As soon as we ask this question we are immediately confronted with a convoluted combination of jurisprudence and theology. The author begins by tracing a lengthy and deeply nuanced exchange between Derrida and Nancy on the (...) question of community and fraternity and then moves on to engage with a diverse set of texts from the Marquis de Sade, Saint Augustine, Kant, Hegel, and Kafka. These texts—which range from the canonical to the apocryphal—all struggle in their own manner with the question of the foundations of law. Each offers a path to the law. If a reader accepts any path as it is and follows without question, the law is set and determined and the possibility of dialogue is closed. The aim of this book is to approach the foundations of law from a series of different angles so that we can begin to see that those foundations are always in question and open to the possibility of dialogue. (shrink)

This book tells the story of modern ethics, namely the story of a discourse that, after the Renaissance, went through a methodological revolution giving birth to Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s new science of natural law, leaving room for two centuries of explorations of the possible developments and implications of this new paradigm, up to the crisis of the Eighties of the eighteenth century, a crisis that carried a kind of mitosis, the act of birth of both basic paradigms of the two (...) following centuries: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. The new science of natural law carried a fresh start for ethics, resulting from a mixture of the Old and the New. It was, as suggested by Schneewind, an attempt at rescuing the content of Scholastic and Stoic doctrines on a new methodological basis. The former was the claim of existence of objective and universal moral laws; the latter was the self-aware attempt at justifying a minimal kernel of such laws facing skeptical doubt. What Bentham and Kant did was precisely carrying this strategy further on, even if restructuring it each of them around one out of two alternative basic claims. The nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics of the Enlightenment attacked both not on their alleged failure in carrying out their own projects, but precisely on having adopted Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project. What counter-enlightenment has been unable to spell out is which alternative project could be carried out facing the modern condition of pluralism, while on the contrary, if we takes a closer look at developments in twentieth-century ethics or at on-going discussions on practical issues, we might feel inclined to believe that Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project is as up-to-date as ever. -/- Table of Contents -/- Preface I. Fathers of the Reformation and Schoolmen 1.1. Luther: passive justice and the good deeds; 1.2. Calvin: voluntarism and predestination; 1.3. Baroque Scholasticism; 1.4. Casuistry and Institutiones morales -/- II Neo-Platonists, neo-Stoics, neo-Sceptics 2.1. Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, neo-Epicurean and neo-Cynic Humanists; 2.2. Oeconomica and the art of living; 2.3. Neo-Stoics; 2.4. Neo-Sceptics; 2.5. Moralistic literature -/- III Neo-Augustinians 3.l. The Jansenists on natura lapsa, sufficient grace, pure love; 3.2. Nicole on the impossibility of self-knowledge; 3.3. Nicole on self-love and charity; 3.4. Nicole against civic virtue, for Christian civility; 3.5. Malebranche on general laws and necessary evil; 3.6. Malebranche on Neo-Augustinianism and Platonism. -/- IV Grotius, Pufendorf and the new moral science 4.1. Grotius against Aristotle and the sceptics; 4.2. Mersenne and Gassendi; 4.3. Descartes on ethics as the last branch of philosophy’s tree; 4.4. Hobbes on scepticism and the new moral science; 4.5. Spinoza on the new moral science as a descriptive science;4.6. Locke on voluntarism and probabilism; 4.7. Pufendorf on natural law as an exact science; 4.8. Pufendorf on physical and moral entities; 10. Pufendorf on self-preservation -/- V The empiricist version of the new moral science: from Cumberland to Paley 5.1. Cumberland against Hobbesian voluntarism; 5.2. Cumberland and theological consequentialism; 5.3. Cumberland on universal benevolence and self-love; 5.4. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 5.5. Hutcheson on natural law and moral faculties; 5.6. Gay, Brown, Paley and theological consequentialism. -/- VI The rationalist version of the new moral science: from Cudworth to Price 6.1. The Cambridge Platonists; 6.2. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 6.3. Butler and a third way between voluntarism and scepticism; 6.4. Price and the rational character of moral truths; -/- VII Leibniz’s compromise between the new moral science and Aristotelianism 1.Leibniz against voluntarism; 2.Leibniz against the division between the physical and the moral good; 3.Leibniz on la place d’autrui and theological consequentialism; 4.Thomasius, Wolff, Crusius -/- VIII French eighteenth-century philosophers without the new moral science 8.1. The genealogy of our ideas of virtue and vice; 8.2. Maupertuis and moral arithmetic 8.3. The philosophes and the harmony of interests; 8.4. Rousseau on corruption, self-love, and virtue; 8.5. Sade on the merits of vice -/- IX Experimental moral science: Hume and Adam Smith 9.1. Mandeville’s paradox; 9.2. Hutcheson on the law of nature and moral faculties; 9.3. Hume on experimental moral philosophy and the intermediate principles; 9.4. Hume’s Law; 9.5. Hume on the fellow-feeling; 9.6. Hume on natural and artificial virtues and disinterested pleasure for utility; 9.7. Adam Smith’s anti-realist metaethics; 9.8. Adam Smith on self-deception and the paradox of happiness; 9.9. Adam Smith on sympathy and the impartial spectator; 9.10. Adam Smith on the twofold criterion for moral judgement and its paradox; 9.11. Reid on the refutation of scepticism and the self-evidence of duty -/- X Kantian ethics 10.1. Kantian metaethics: moral epistemology; 10.2. Kantian metaethics: moral ontology; 10.3. Kantian metaethics: moral psychology; 10.4. Kantian normative ethics; 10.5. Kant on the impracticability of applied ethics; 10.6. Kantian moral anthropology; 10.7. Civilisation and moralisation; 10.8. Theology on a moral basis and the origins of evil; 10.9. Fichte and the transformation of theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy XI Bentham and utilitarianism 11.1. Bentham’s linguistic theory; 11.2. Bentham’s moral ontology, psychology, and theory of action; 11.3. The principle of greatest happiness; 11.4. The critique of religious ethics; 11.5. The new morality; 11.6. Interest and duty; 11.7. Virtues; 11.8. Private ethics and legislation -/- XII Followers of the Enlightenment: liberal Judaism and Liberal Theology 12.1. Mendelssohn; 12.2. Salomon Maimon; 12.3. Haskalā and liberal Judaism; 12.4. Liberal Theology. -/- XIII Counter-Enlighteners 13.1.Romanticism and the fulfilment of individuality as the Summum Bonum; 13.2. Hegel on history as the making of liberty; 13.3. Hegel on the unhappy consciousness and the beautiful soul; 13.4. Hegel on Morality and Sittlichkeit; 13.5. Marx on ideology, alienation, and praxis; 13.6. Schopenhauer on compassion; 13.7. Kierkegaard on faith beyond ethics. -/- XIV Followers of the Enlightenment: intuitionists and utilitarian 14.1 Whewell‘s criticism of utilitarianism; 14.2 Whewell on morality and the philosophy of morality; 14.3 Whewell on the Supreme Norm; 14.4 Whewell on the conflict between duties; 14.5 Mill and the proof of the principle of utility; 14.6 Mill’s eudemonistic utilitarianism; 14.7 Mill on rules -/- XV Followers of the Enlightenment: neo-Kantians and positivists 15.1. French spiritualism; 15.2. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.3. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.4. Comte’s positivism and the invention of altruism; 15.5. Social Darwinism; 15.6. Wundt and an ethic of humankind -/- XVI Post-enlighteners: Sidgwick 16.1. Criticism of intuitionism; 16.2. On ethical egoism; 16.3. Criticism of utilitarianism -/- XVII Post-enlighteners: Durkheim 17.1. Sociology as physics of customs; 17.2. Morality as physics of customs and as practical science; 17.3. On Kantian ethics and utilitarianism; 17.4. The variability of moralities;17.5. Social solidarity as end and justification of morality; 17.6. Secular morality as “sociodicy”; XVIII Post-enlighteners: Nietzsche 18.1. On the Dionysian; 18.2. On the deconstruction of the world of values 18.3 On the twofold genealogy of moralities; 18.4. On ascetics and nihilism; 18.5. Normative ethics of self-fulfilment -/- Bibliography / Index of names / Index of concepts -/- . (shrink)

In J. B. Schneewind's The Invention of Autonomy we are given a monumental history of moral philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a history more comprehensive and richer in detail than one would have thought possible in a single volume. Though the daunting erudition, agreeably unobtrusive, inspires confidence, it is Schneewind's gift of narrative that makes his book such a pleasure and his story so compelling. Schneewind originally conceived the book, he tells us, to "broaden our historical comprehension of (...) Kant's moral philosophy by relating it to the earlier work to which it was a response", but he does much, much more as he charts the fitful transition from morality as obedience to the later and now widely accepted conception of morality as self-governance. In its broad outline, the story is familiar, beginning with Montaigne's skepticism, moving through modern natural law theory, rationalist, perfectionist, and moral sense responses and ending with Bentham and Kant. But Schneewind adds to acute and deeply informed discussions of Hobbes, Locke, Clarke, Hume, and Kant, clear, often arresting summaries, in varying degrees of detail, of Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Machiavelli, Suarez, Charron, Grotius, Cumberland, Pufendorf, Thomasius, DuVair, Justus Lipsius, Herbert of Cherbury, Descartes, Gassendi, Whichcote, John Smith, More, Cudworth, Spinoza, Leibniz, Barbeyrac, Malebranche, Nicole, Bayle, Harrington, Shaftesbury, Mandeville, Butler, Price, Adam Smith, Reid, Paley, Hartley, Helvetius, d'Holbach, Bentham, de Sade, Wolff, Crusius, Voltaire, La Mettrie, Diderot, Rousseau, and others. If, as no doubt they will, some readers will fault some of Schneewind's interpretations, none will fail to admire his achievement in ferreting out and combining in such a fascinating narrative the leading ideas of this host of thinkers. It is safe to predict, moreover, that this study will inspire others to explore some of these less-read authors and to produce more fine-grained monographs, and further to deepen our understanding of the period and of the way we have come to think of ourselves. (shrink)

This book traces the genealogy of ideas of reason, self and sexuality in the West, opening the way to a richer and more diverse understanding of sexual experience. Western philosophy and religion have distorted and continue to distort our experience of sex and love through three far-reaching constellations of reason, self and sexuality. Thinkers like Plato, Aquinas and Kant helped to fashion an ascetic ideal of reason hostile to bodily pleasures and sexual diversity. By contrast, philosophical hedonism advocates a (...) less demanding conception of rationality and defends sexual pleasure. But this approach of thinkers like Hume, Bentham, La Mettrie and de Sade is still one-sided and limiting. A third constellation, Romanticism avoids the limitations of both forms of rationalism, but in the name of a religion of love and passion that ultimately threatens the integrity of the self. In Reason and Sexuality in Western Thought, a richer understanding of sexual experience is traced to a dissident philosophical tradition. In their different ways Montaigne, Spinoza, Hegel and Kierkegaard, Marcuse and Foucault contribute to a more holistic, multi-layered and open conception of reason, sexuality and the self. This book will be essential reading for all students of philosophy and gender studies. (shrink)