{"title":"Être tenu d’obéir : le problème de l’obligation chez Spinoza","authors":"M. Blancher","doi":"10.3917/RIP.295.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/RIP.295.0019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"19-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42736070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Injustice et rébellions populaires","authors":"Gérard Bras","doi":"10.3917/RIP.295.0109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/RIP.295.0109","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49607630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"L’aventure cartésienne de la substance. « Ego autem substantia » dans l’ordre des raisons","authors":"Olivier Dubouclez","doi":"10.3917/rip.296.0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.296.0027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44576409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
My paper begins with a reflection on the Foucauldian category of “infamy,” which I would like to consider both as a political category and as a literary category. “La vie des hommes infâmes” (1977) is a particularly noteworthy text in that there is both a clear distinction between archive and literature and an analysis of a recomposition of the relationship between discourse, truth, and power that draws what Foucault calls “the line of literature’s tendency since the seventeenth century, since it commenced to be literature in the modern sense of the word.” On the one hand, Foucault defends the idea that, to allow the archive to deliver its strictly political dimension, it is necessary to clean it up, to build it out of literature and in a strict relation to reality. On the other hand, he claims that literature has become capable at some point of having the ambition to tell the real, to “tell of the ultimate, and the most minute, degrees of the real”: of being, perhaps more than any other form of language, the “discourse of infamy.” This paper aims to explore this tension, from the (methodological/archaeological) exclusion of literature to the genealogy of a literature of reality and infamy.
{"title":"Écritures transgressives et pensée de la transgression. Sade et Bataille lus par Foucault","authors":"P. Sabot","doi":"10.3917/rip.292.0105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.292.0105","url":null,"abstract":"My paper begins with a reflection on the Foucauldian category of “infamy,” which I would like to consider both as a political category and as a literary category. “La vie des hommes infâmes” (1977) is a particularly noteworthy text in that there is both a clear distinction between archive and literature and an analysis of a recomposition of the relationship between discourse, truth, and power that draws what Foucault calls “the line of literature’s tendency since the seventeenth century, since it commenced to be literature in the modern sense of the word.” On the one hand, Foucault defends the idea that, to allow the archive to deliver its strictly political dimension, it is necessary to clean it up, to build it out of literature and in a strict relation to reality. On the other hand, he claims that literature has become capable at some point of having the ambition to tell the real, to “tell of the ultimate, and the most minute, degrees of the real”: of being, perhaps more than any other form of language, the “discourse of infamy.” This paper aims to explore this tension, from the (methodological/archaeological) exclusion of literature to the genealogy of a literature of reality and infamy.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"105-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46662841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dans cet article, en commencant par une analyse inedite de l’Œdipe Roi de Sophocle, nous abordons le probleme du statut du temoin oculaire et de sa prise de parole, ou mieux, de son « dire-vrai » en tant qu’acte de langage specifique, notamment au sein de la litterature de temoignage. Nous soutenons que la question cruciale a poser a ce propos est celle de l’engagement du locuteur dans son discours, et que l’acte de temoigner va donc bien au-dela de la simple transmission d’une serie de contenus ou d’informations. Cet acte se situe en effet sur deux plans : celui du lien ethique entre le locuteur et ce qu’il dit et celui du lien social entre le locuteur et ses interlocuteurs ou auditeurs. En nous inspirant des analyses de Michel Foucault sur la parresia et de J. L. Austin sur la dimension perlocutoire du langage, nous concluons alors que les recits de temoignage relevent d’une « dramatique du discours » qui joue le plus souvent le role d’un veritable acte de resistance.
{"title":"Alèthurgie oculaire et littérature de témoignage de Sophocle à Soljenitsyne","authors":"Daniele Lorenzini","doi":"10.3917/rip.292.0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.292.0017","url":null,"abstract":"Dans cet article, en commencant par une analyse inedite de l’Œdipe Roi de Sophocle, nous abordons le probleme du statut du temoin oculaire et de sa prise de parole, ou mieux, de son « dire-vrai » en tant qu’acte de langage specifique, notamment au sein de la litterature de temoignage. Nous soutenons que la question cruciale a poser a ce propos est celle de l’engagement du locuteur dans son discours, et que l’acte de temoigner va donc bien au-dela de la simple transmission d’une serie de contenus ou d’informations. Cet acte se situe en effet sur deux plans : celui du lien ethique entre le locuteur et ce qu’il dit et celui du lien social entre le locuteur et ses interlocuteurs ou auditeurs. En nous inspirant des analyses de Michel Foucault sur la parresia et de J. L. Austin sur la dimension perlocutoire du langage, nous concluons alors que les recits de temoignage relevent d’une « dramatique du discours » qui joue le plus souvent le role d’un veritable acte de resistance.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"17-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46523931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cette presentation au volume Lectures de Martial Gueroult a pour objet de redonner le cadre general dans lequel Gueroult a defendu sa methode en histoire de la philosophie. Plus que l’opposition entre genese et systeme, ce sont plutot les manieres differentes de comprendre ce qu’est un heritage philosophique qui ont structure le debat. Gueroult a cherche a restituer ce que les œuvres leguent d’elles-memes en heritage, par une lecture interne ou verticale, qui ne les juge ni par leur inscription horizontale dans une serie d’œuvres antecedentes, ni par les heritages revendiques par la posterite. En considerant qu’un texte philosophique n’est pas le temoin d’une intuition mais le porteur d’une methode propre, ce n’est pas seulement a Ferdinand Alquie qu’il s’est oppose, mais a toute une tradition francaise dont il identifie la pointe chez Henri Bergson.
{"title":"Contre Saint-Bergson, ou l’héritage philosophique selon Martial Gueroult","authors":"Arnaud Pelletier","doi":"10.3917/rip.291.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.291.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Cette presentation au volume Lectures de Martial Gueroult a pour objet de redonner le cadre general dans lequel Gueroult a defendu sa methode en histoire de la philosophie. Plus que l’opposition entre genese et systeme, ce sont plutot les manieres differentes de comprendre ce qu’est un heritage philosophique qui ont structure le debat. Gueroult a cherche a restituer ce que les œuvres leguent d’elles-memes en heritage, par une lecture interne ou verticale, qui ne les juge ni par leur inscription horizontale dans une serie d’œuvres antecedentes, ni par les heritages revendiques par la posterite. En considerant qu’un texte philosophique n’est pas le temoin d’une intuition mais le porteur d’une methode propre, ce n’est pas seulement a Ferdinand Alquie qu’il s’est oppose, mais a toute une tradition francaise dont il identifie la pointe chez Henri Bergson.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45199167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Martial Gueroult donna un cours au College de France sur la Critique de la raison pure de Kant lors de l’annee 1957-1958, qui est a ce jour inedit. Le texte qui est presente ici est l’edition d’une des lecons portant sur la difference entre les deux versions de la deduction transcendantale des categories. Gueroult y aborde une question classique du commentaire, celle de savoir si la deuxieme edition de la Critique a renie la doctrine de la premiere version. Contre l’interpretation de Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer, Gueroult defend que l’effort de clarification de la deduction, non moins que le souci d’ecarter une lecture psychologisante des facultes, ont conduit Kant a emprunter un unique chemin de la deduction des categories : de haut en bas.
1957-1958年，马歇尔·格鲁特在法兰西学院（College de France）教授了一门关于康德对纯粹理性的批判的课程，这门课程至今尚未发表。这里的文本是其中一个教训的版本，涉及类别超越演绎的两个版本之间的差异。Gueroult提出了一个经典的评论问题，即《评论》第二版是否否认了第一版的学说。Gueroult反对Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer的解释，认为澄清演绎的努力，以及对教师心理解读的关注，导致康德走上了一条从上到下演绎类别的独特道路。
{"title":"Leçon inédite sur les deux versions de la déduction kantienne des catégories","authors":"M. Guéroult, Arnaud Pelletier","doi":"10.3917/rip.291.0091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.291.0091","url":null,"abstract":"Martial Gueroult donna un cours au College de France sur la Critique de la raison pure de Kant lors de l’annee 1957-1958, qui est a ce jour inedit. Le texte qui est presente ici est l’edition d’une des lecons portant sur la difference entre les deux versions de la deduction transcendantale des categories. Gueroult y aborde une question classique du commentaire, celle de savoir si la deuxieme edition de la Critique a renie la doctrine de la premiere version. Contre l’interpretation de Herman Jan de Vleeschauwer, Gueroult defend que l’effort de clarification de la deduction, non moins que le souci d’ecarter une lecture psychologisante des facultes, ont conduit Kant a emprunter un unique chemin de la deduction des categories : de haut en bas.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"91-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42306231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cet article concerne l’application de la methode « dianoematique », ou « etude des doctrines », dans le commentaire important de Martial Gueroult aux deux premieres parties de l’Ethique de Spinoza. Gueroult met l’accent sur deux affirmations distinctes dans les deux volumes de ce commentaire. La premiere affirmation, tiree du premier volume, est que Spinoza adopte une version du monisme dans la premiere partie de l’Ethique selon laquelle Dieu, en tant que substance infinie, consiste en une union d’une infinite de substances distinctes constituees chacune d’un attribut unique. La deuxieme affirmation, tiree du deuxieme volume, est que Spinoza est contraint, du fait de ce qu’il ecrit dans la deuxieme partie de l’Ethique, d’accepter la conclusion qu’il existe deux types de «parallelisme» differents entre les attributs divins.
{"title":"Gueroult on Spinoza and the Ethics","authors":"Tad M. Schmaltz","doi":"10.3917/rip.291.0051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.291.0051","url":null,"abstract":"Cet article concerne l’application de la methode « dianoematique », ou « etude des doctrines », dans le commentaire important de Martial Gueroult aux deux premieres parties de l’Ethique de Spinoza. Gueroult met l’accent sur deux affirmations distinctes dans les deux volumes de ce commentaire. La premiere affirmation, tiree du premier volume, est que Spinoza adopte une version du monisme dans la premiere partie de l’Ethique selon laquelle Dieu, en tant que substance infinie, consiste en une union d’une infinite de substances distinctes constituees chacune d’un attribut unique. La deuxieme affirmation, tiree du deuxieme volume, est que Spinoza est contraint, du fait de ce qu’il ecrit dans la deuxieme partie de l’Ethique, d’accepter la conclusion qu’il existe deux types de «parallelisme» differents entre les attributs divins.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"51-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70468500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The starting point of this essay is the logical and political objection that Plato made against poetry, as well as the lack of distinction that he specified as the origin of its dangerousness, and which modernity converted into the condition of possibility of certain egalitarian forms of sensible experience and material life. I will then look at the function that the historical rearticulation of Platonic idealism has fulfilled from Romanticism to the present day in the age-old dispute between philosophy and poetry, paying particular attention to the different readings of Holderlin and Mallarme carried out by Benjamin, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Agamben as symbols of the disfiguration of poetry. I will analyze the tension between sense and sound as the founder of an irreducible territory that opens a potentiality indicative of its political force. Lastly, I will turn to Michel Foucault’s The Government of Self and Others to analyze the function of messianism and parrhesia in the contemporary characterization of political poetry and its conflicts with the truth-telling of philosophy.
{"title":"Hate as Ideal. Poetry and Thought: Transatlantic Update of a Dispute","authors":"Erika Martínez","doi":"10.3917/rip.292.0071","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.292.0071","url":null,"abstract":"The starting point of this essay is the logical and political objection that Plato made against poetry, as well as the lack of distinction that he specified as the origin of its dangerousness, and which modernity converted into the condition of possibility of certain egalitarian forms of sensible experience and material life. I will then look at the function that the historical rearticulation of Platonic idealism has fulfilled from Romanticism to the present day in the age-old dispute between philosophy and poetry, paying particular attention to the different readings of Holderlin and Mallarme carried out by Benjamin, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Agamben as symbols of the disfiguration of poetry. I will analyze the tension between sense and sound as the founder of an irreducible territory that opens a potentiality indicative of its political force. Lastly, I will turn to Michel Foucault’s The Government of Self and Others to analyze the function of messianism and parrhesia in the contemporary characterization of political poetry and its conflicts with the truth-telling of philosophy.","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"71-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70469278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Chapitre III. Le questionnement du monde : monde en soi ou monde hors de soi ?","authors":"C. Sălăvăstru","doi":"10.3917/rip.294.0109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.294.0109","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44846,"journal":{"name":"REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"1 1","pages":"109-133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70469900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：