Pub Date : 2023-07-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0013
Ricardo Barroso Batista, Bruno Nobre, Artur Ilharco Galvão
In the broadest sense of the term, “Thomism” refers to a set of ideas and principles, both in philosophy and theology that can be considered as derivations or representations of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. However, Thomism should not be considered as a mere conceptual body. It also represents a certain view and way of doing philosophy and theology. Alasdair MacIntyre, in his book Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, argues that the Thomistic approach provides a coherent and skillful point of view for dealing creatively and critically with opposing views, contrasting this approach with the encyclopedic and the genealogical approaches. The former imposes a single worldview, enclosing knowledge and “truth” in a monolithic structure of “progress,” while the latter, following Nietzsche, devalues and relativizes knowledge, reducing it to a multiplicity of perspectives, each with its own claims to truth, leading to incommensurability and the consequent subjugation of “truth” to the law of the strongest. On the other hand, Thomists have adopted, from the end of the thirteenth century to the present day, different styles and ways of thinking while maintaining dialogue with their “predecessors” and at the same time with their contemporaries, that is, Thomists are capable of what MacIntyre called the “rationality of tradition”.
{"title":"Retrieving Aquinas: Traditions in Dialogue","authors":"Ricardo Barroso Batista, Bruno Nobre, Artur Ilharco Galvão","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0013","url":null,"abstract":"In the broadest sense of the term, “Thomism” refers to a set of ideas and principles, both in philosophy and theology that can be considered as derivations or representations of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. However, Thomism should not be considered as a mere conceptual body. It also represents a certain view and way of doing philosophy and theology. Alasdair MacIntyre, in his book Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry, argues that the Thomistic approach provides a coherent and skillful point of view for dealing creatively and critically with opposing views, contrasting this approach with the encyclopedic and the genealogical approaches. The former imposes a single worldview, enclosing knowledge and “truth” in a monolithic structure of “progress,” while the latter, following Nietzsche, devalues and relativizes knowledge, reducing it to a multiplicity of perspectives, each with its own claims to truth, leading to incommensurability and the consequent subjugation of “truth” to the law of the strongest. On the other hand, Thomists have adopted, from the end of the thirteenth century to the present day, different styles and ways of thinking while maintaining dialogue with their “predecessors” and at the same time with their contemporaries, that is, Thomists are capable of what MacIntyre called the “rationality of tradition”.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135314781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1351
Thomas Froy
This text aims to initiate a dialogue between the works of Martin Buber and Jacques Derrida with regard to the notion of ‘reciprocity’. It is my contention that a reexamination of Buber’s notion of relation will reveal a reflection, devoid of any notions of ‘symmetry’, which strongly indicates a point of continuity with Derrida’s late thinking on hospitality. The following text, therefore, aims to provoke a reexamination of Buber’s thinking on the home, at the centre of which stands the notion entirely opposed to ‘symmetry’: namely, ‘reciprocity’. The hypothesis of this text, then, is that when it comes to thinking of dwelling, Buber and Derrida share a ‘relational’ way of thinking, which foregrounds the relation between – in Buber’s case – the relations between man and God, man and man, and man and the Land, and – in Derrida’s case – between guest and host; in addition, I will attempt to show that Derrida’s work on hospitality – in particular, his introduction of a notion of ‘identity’ – produces a necessary contribution, or response, to Buber’s notion of ‘dwelling as reciprocity’. I will conclude by reflecting upon the reciprocity of this dialogue between the work of Martin Buber and Jacques Derrida.
{"title":"Rereading Notions of ‘Reciprocity’ and ‘Hospitality’ in the Work of Martin Buber and Jacques Derrida","authors":"Thomas Froy","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1351","url":null,"abstract":"This text aims to initiate a dialogue between the works of Martin Buber and Jacques Derrida with regard to the notion of ‘reciprocity’. It is my contention that a reexamination of Buber’s notion of relation will reveal a reflection, devoid of any notions of ‘symmetry’, which strongly indicates a point of continuity with Derrida’s late thinking on hospitality. The following text, therefore, aims to provoke a reexamination of Buber’s thinking on the home, at the centre of which stands the notion entirely opposed to ‘symmetry’: namely, ‘reciprocity’. The hypothesis of this text, then, is that when it comes to thinking of dwelling, Buber and Derrida share a ‘relational’ way of thinking, which foregrounds the relation between – in Buber’s case – the relations between man and God, man and man, and man and the Land, and – in Derrida’s case – between guest and host; in addition, I will attempt to show that Derrida’s work on hospitality – in particular, his introduction of a notion of ‘identity’ – produces a necessary contribution, or response, to Buber’s notion of ‘dwelling as reciprocity’. I will conclude by reflecting upon the reciprocity of this dialogue between the work of Martin Buber and Jacques Derrida.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48899610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1457
Robby Ngofo
This paper’s central argument is that Michel Henry’s phenomenology of Life can be used to establish an ethic of hospitality. Henry recalls, by establishing the relationship to the other inside the Life’s community, that the stranger is not primarily an invader, but rather a brother, but in the meaning of the African term “ndeko”, derived from Lingala, spoken in both Congo. It is a phenomenology that asks us to transcend geographical, biological, cultural, etc. contingencies, in order to (re)discover what unites us and must be fostered and protected: our humanity. In the era of humanitarian dramas of immigration in the Mediterranean Sea and in the face of identity withdrawals following the growth of extreme beliefs, the phenomenology of Life shows itself as a vital contribution, notably on the topic of the foreigner’s status and reception.
{"title":"Éthique de l’hospitalité, relation au frère à partir du paradigme de l’éthique henryenne","authors":"Robby Ngofo","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1457","url":null,"abstract":"This paper’s central argument is that Michel Henry’s phenomenology of Life can be used to establish an ethic of hospitality. Henry recalls, by establishing the relationship to the other inside the Life’s community, that the stranger is not primarily an invader, but rather a brother, but in the meaning of the African term “ndeko”, derived from Lingala, spoken in both Congo. It is a phenomenology that asks us to transcend geographical, biological, cultural, etc. contingencies, in order to (re)discover what unites us and must be fostered and protected: our humanity. In the era of humanitarian dramas of immigration in the Mediterranean Sea and in the face of identity withdrawals following the growth of extreme beliefs, the phenomenology of Life shows itself as a vital contribution, notably on the topic of the foreigner’s status and reception.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46246016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1387
Léopold Mfouakouet
Between “the one who arrives” (and triggers the new age of migrations), and “what happens” (an expression used in some instances by Derrida to refer to deconstruction), there is an eventuality to think about. This brings out a concept of unconditional hospitality which is defined as “hospitality to reality,” “hospitality to the event.” The ethical and political analyses that criticize this notion are far from tackling within this perspective, an aspect on which Derrida himself has not been always clear enough. Furthermore, the “arrivant” (Derrida) shall be understood in the light of the “arrivage” (Marion). The phenomenality expressed by the phenomenon of migration calls for a description to the extent of unconditional eventuality that seems to saturate such phenomenon.
{"title":"L’hospitalité derridienne au prisme de l’événementialité","authors":"Léopold Mfouakouet","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1387","url":null,"abstract":"Between “the one who arrives” (and triggers the new age of migrations), and “what happens” (an expression used in some instances by Derrida to refer to deconstruction), there is an eventuality to think about. This brings out a concept of unconditional hospitality which is defined as “hospitality to reality,” “hospitality to the event.” The ethical and political analyses that criticize this notion are far from tackling within this perspective, an aspect on which Derrida himself has not been always clear enough. Furthermore, the “arrivant” (Derrida) shall be understood in the light of the “arrivage” (Marion). The phenomenality expressed by the phenomenon of migration calls for a description to the extent of unconditional eventuality that seems to saturate such phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45677845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1473
Fernanda Bernardo
At his last conference in France, on 8 June 2004, in Strasbourg, under the title “Le souverain bien – ou l’Europe en mal de souveraineté”, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), always very concerned about Europe and about the future of Europe, dared to admit that he dreamed, without the slightest Eurocentrism or identitarianism, of “a Europe whose universal hospitality and new laws of hospitality or the right of asylum would make it the Noah’s Ark of the 21st century” – since the Bible (Gen. 6-9), Noah’s Ark [Tevat Noah] symbolizing the covenant, that is, Elohim’s alliance with Noah and “every living being” (Gen. 9, 15). Through the problematic of unconditional hospitality – which, as we try to point out, translates the singularity of this biblical alliance as well as underlines the singularity of Deconstruction as a philosophical idiom – , it is the silhouette of this dream of Derrida, as well as its juridical and political scope and implications not only in the European scene but also in the so-called Globalization scene, that we try to sketch here, showing how such a dream deconstructs, that is, denounces and critically re-thinks presumption and violence of the carno-fallo-logo-centric register of philosophical-cultural Westernity.
2004年6月8日，雅克·德里达在法国斯特拉斯堡举行了最后一次会议，题为“Le souverain bien–ou l‘Europe en mal de souveraineté”，他一直非常关心欧洲和欧洲的未来，敢于承认自己的梦想，没有丝毫的欧洲中心主义或同一主义，“一个欧洲，其普遍的好客和新的好客法或庇护权将使其成为21世纪的诺亚方舟”——自《圣经》（Gen.6-9）以来，诺亚方舟（Tevat Noah）象征着契约，即埃洛希姆与诺亚和“每一个生物”的联盟（Gen.9，15）。通过无条件好客的问题——正如我们试图指出的那样，这翻译了这种圣经联盟的独特性，并强调了解构主义作为一种哲学习语的独特性——这是德里达梦想的轮廓，以及它的法律和政治范围和含义，不仅在欧洲场景中，而且在所谓的全球化场景中，我们试图在这里勾勒出来，展示这样一个梦想是如何解构的，也就是说，谴责和批判性地重新思考以卡诺-法洛标志为中心的哲学文化西方主义的假设和暴力。
{"title":"Rêver l’Europe. L’Europe – l’arche de Noé de l’avenir? Derrida, l’Europe et l’Hospitalité","authors":"Fernanda Bernardo","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1473","url":null,"abstract":"At his last conference in France, on 8 June 2004, in Strasbourg, under the title “Le souverain bien – ou l’Europe en mal de souveraineté”, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), always very concerned about Europe and about the future of Europe, dared to admit that he dreamed, without the slightest Eurocentrism or identitarianism, of “a Europe whose universal hospitality and new laws of hospitality or the right of asylum would make it the Noah’s Ark of the 21st century” – since the Bible (Gen. 6-9), Noah’s Ark [Tevat Noah] symbolizing the covenant, that is, Elohim’s alliance with Noah and “every living being” (Gen. 9, 15). Through the problematic of unconditional hospitality – which, as we try to point out, translates the singularity of this biblical alliance as well as underlines the singularity of Deconstruction as a philosophical idiom – , it is the silhouette of this dream of Derrida, as well as its juridical and political scope and implications not only in the European scene but also in the so-called Globalization scene, that we try to sketch here, showing how such a dream deconstructs, that is, denounces and critically re-thinks presumption and violence of the carno-fallo-logo-centric register of philosophical-cultural Westernity.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42265172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1195
A. Lind, Bruno Nobre, João Carlos Onofre Pinto, Ricardo Barroso Batista
The imperative to practice hospitality constitutes a mark of Western civilization. Already in Homer’s Odyssey, the hero Ulysses punishes Polyphemus for not having respected the obligation of hospitality towards him and his companions. In fact, hospitality has been a constitutive element of the West, marked by linguistic, cultural, and religious differences, in a world whose borders are supposed to be well defined. In his discussion of hospitality, Derrida shows how Socrates, in Plato’s dialogue The Apology of Socrates, places himself in the position of a foreigner. In fact, Socrates presents himself as foreigner, that is, someone who is alien to the language and procedures of the court that is judging him. According to Derrida, he shows, in this way, the extent to which the foreigner is forced to ask for hospitality in a language he does not know. The court reduces Socrates to the other, the different. Moreover, the court forces him to deny his difference, his own identity, asking him to adapt himself to a system that he does not control. The paradox arises when Socrates, who regrets being regarded as a foreigner, asks the court to treat him at least as a foreigner. He feels so outraged that he asks to be granted at least the rights of a non-national. In doing so, Socrates shows how recognizing the rights of the foreigner generates hospitality but, at the same time, also limits it. Whenever a human being is recognized as human being, he or she will necessarily be seen as another, as someone different. This person will have to adapt him or herself to a system, culture or world that will define him or her as a foreigner. In short, in the phenomena that we tend to see as hospitality there is always a certain hostility. In a world of ongoing migratory crises, and in the context of a return to nationalisms of exclusion combined with populisms of prejudice and aversion to those who are different, it becomes imperative to rethink the ethics and politics of hospitality. In this context, Derrida’s distinction between conditioned and unconditioned hospitality can be useful.
{"title":"Hospitality and Identitarian Tensions","authors":"A. Lind, Bruno Nobre, João Carlos Onofre Pinto, Ricardo Barroso Batista","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1195","url":null,"abstract":"The imperative to practice hospitality constitutes a mark of Western civilization. Already in Homer’s Odyssey, the hero Ulysses punishes Polyphemus for not having respected the obligation of hospitality towards him and his companions. In fact, hospitality has been a constitutive element of the West, marked by linguistic, cultural, and religious differences, in a world whose borders are supposed to be well defined. In his discussion of hospitality, Derrida shows how Socrates, in Plato’s dialogue The Apology of Socrates, places himself in the position of a foreigner. In fact, Socrates presents himself as foreigner, that is, someone who is alien to the language and procedures of the court that is judging him. According to Derrida, he shows, in this way, the extent to which the foreigner is forced to ask for hospitality in a language he does not know. The court reduces Socrates to the other, the different. Moreover, the court forces him to deny his difference, his own identity, asking him to adapt himself to a system that he does not control. The paradox arises when Socrates, who regrets being regarded as a foreigner, asks the court to treat him at least as a foreigner. He feels so outraged that he asks to be granted at least the rights of a non-national. In doing so, Socrates shows how recognizing the rights of the foreigner generates hospitality but, at the same time, also limits it. Whenever a human being is recognized as human being, he or she will necessarily be seen as another, as someone different. This person will have to adapt him or herself to a system, culture or world that will define him or her as a foreigner. In short, in the phenomena that we tend to see as hospitality there is always a certain hostility. In a world of ongoing migratory crises, and in the context of a return to nationalisms of exclusion combined with populisms of prejudice and aversion to those who are different, it becomes imperative to rethink the ethics and politics of hospitality. In this context, Derrida’s distinction between conditioned and unconditioned hospitality can be useful.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46462537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1561
G. Longo, Sergio Salles
The recognition of self as other and others as self continues to be one of the greatest challenges to the ethos necessary for institutions, public and private, engaged in hospitality. Indeed, hospitality is an intrinsic part of the recognition of the common and communal bond in which each human person can rediscover a sense of belonging and his or her own specific creaturality, the fruit of mutual and diverse encounters in the relationship between peoples and among peoples. Inspired by papal words and documents, as well as philosophical and political debates of jus, here we defend the value of experiences of mutual bonds of memory and humanitarian revelation, in which a clear distinction between demos and ethnos can be established. By questioning globalization in its economic and financial promises, unrelated to human dignity and hospitality, it reveals how paths to peace are sustained by the synodal consolidation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thus, a distinction must be made between claims of ethnic recognition, on the one hand, and the promises of global recognition of civil rights and pseudo-cultural acquisitions, which have in recent years risen to legal protection and political guarantee; on the other hand, it is pointed out that true recognition of the human person as constituted in a relational, social and community dignity is only beyond the economic-financial constraints of globalization.
{"title":"Il diritto umano all’ospitalità sinodale: oltre la contrapposizione tra demos ed ethnos nell’era della globalizzazione","authors":"G. Longo, Sergio Salles","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1561","url":null,"abstract":"The recognition of self as other and others as self continues to be one of the greatest challenges to the ethos necessary for institutions, public and private, engaged in hospitality. Indeed, hospitality is an intrinsic part of the recognition of the common and communal bond in which each human person can rediscover a sense of belonging and his or her own specific creaturality, the fruit of mutual and diverse encounters in the relationship between peoples and among peoples. Inspired by papal words and documents, as well as philosophical and political debates of jus, here we defend the value of experiences of mutual bonds of memory and humanitarian revelation, in which a clear distinction between demos and ethnos can be established. By questioning globalization in its economic and financial promises, unrelated to human dignity and hospitality, it reveals how paths to peace are sustained by the synodal consolidation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thus, a distinction must be made between claims of ethnic recognition, on the one hand, and the promises of global recognition of civil rights and pseudo-cultural acquisitions, which have in recent years risen to legal protection and political guarantee; on the other hand, it is pointed out that true recognition of the human person as constituted in a relational, social and community dignity is only beyond the economic-financial constraints of globalization.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48647265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1407
S. Newman
This paper develops a new understanding of hospitality on the basis of an anarchist philosophy of cosmopolitanism. It is argued that anarchism – in its radical critique of the principle of sovereignty and sovereign ipseity – is primarily a philosophy and politics of hospitality. The argument proceeds in five key steps. Firstly, the relationship between ontological anarchism (Schürmann and Levinas) and political anarchism (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Godwin) is explored. Secondly, anarchism’s critique of nation state sovereignty is linked to a radical cosmopolitanism based on cross-border solidarity, mutual aid, and human rights activism, including the defence of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. Thirdly, I show how the anarchic subject cannot be reduced to a fixed or definable identity with closed borders, but, rather, embodies an attitude of hospitality towards the Other and an openness to being transformed by this encounter. On this basis, I aim to develop an anarchist ethics formulated around the idea of care – for the other, both human and non-human, for the world, for the natural environment (Four) – and an alternative cosmopolitan ethical and political horizon (Five).
{"title":"Anarcho-Cosmopolitanism: Towards a New Ethos of Hospitality","authors":"S. Newman","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1407","url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops a new understanding of hospitality on the basis of an anarchist philosophy of cosmopolitanism. It is argued that anarchism – in its radical critique of the principle of sovereignty and sovereign ipseity – is primarily a philosophy and politics of hospitality. The argument proceeds in five key steps. Firstly, the relationship between ontological anarchism (Schürmann and Levinas) and political anarchism (Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Godwin) is explored. Secondly, anarchism’s critique of nation state sovereignty is linked to a radical cosmopolitanism based on cross-border solidarity, mutual aid, and human rights activism, including the defence of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. Thirdly, I show how the anarchic subject cannot be reduced to a fixed or definable identity with closed borders, but, rather, embodies an attitude of hospitality towards the Other and an openness to being transformed by this encounter. On this basis, I aim to develop an anarchist ethics formulated around the idea of care – for the other, both human and non-human, for the world, for the natural environment (Four) – and an alternative cosmopolitan ethical and political horizon (Five).","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47881218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-31DOI: 10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297
Yves Vendé
The history of the philosophical exchanges between China and the West is the history of the translations between the two traditions. On the western side, after the Jesuits, the range of translators became gradually broader. On the Chinese side, many intellectuals introduced Western classics in their language in the twentieth century. This led several historians to argue that Chinese philosophy took off with the translation-comparison of both traditions. However, not all comparisons are of equal value. Thus, translation in philosophy implies comparing concepts or arguments and considering all the cultural references involved. This means taking a risk and accepting a limit. A risk is to be taken because translating interprets a “foreign thought” according to one’s context. This implies disclosing one’s presuppositions. There is a limit because transitioning from one set of references to another implies welcoming a part of “untranslatable” that always remains. According to Ricoeur’s words, “linguistic hospitality” is required here. This article first presents two interpretations of the translation-comparison processes. In the last part, it describes the necessity of linguistic hospitality in the context of Comparative Philosophy.
{"title":"L’hospitalité langagière, point critique de la philosophie comparée entre la Chine et l’Europe","authors":"Yves Vendé","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2022_78_4_1297","url":null,"abstract":"The history of the philosophical exchanges between China and the West is the history of the translations between the two traditions. On the western side, after the Jesuits, the range of translators became gradually broader. On the Chinese side, many intellectuals introduced Western classics in their language in the twentieth century. This led several historians to argue that Chinese philosophy took off with the translation-comparison of both traditions. However, not all comparisons are of equal value. Thus, translation in philosophy implies comparing concepts or arguments and considering all the cultural references involved. This means taking a risk and accepting a limit. A risk is to be taken because translating interprets a “foreign thought” according to one’s context. This implies disclosing one’s presuppositions. There is a limit because transitioning from one set of references to another implies welcoming a part of “untranslatable” that always remains. According to Ricoeur’s words, “linguistic hospitality” is required here. This article first presents two interpretations of the translation-comparison processes. In the last part, it describes the necessity of linguistic hospitality in the context of Comparative Philosophy.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44566094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：