The article analyses libertine themes and authors of 17th century in articles, critical notes and reviews of three major Italian journals of the 20th century – Rivista di filosofia, Giornale critico della filosofia italiana and Rivista critica di storia della filosofia (since 1984 titled Rivista di storia della filosofia). The category of ‘libertinism’ refers to various disciplinary fields: philosophy, politics, literature, modern history or religious history. This ambiguity influences the analyses of libertinism in the Italian historic-philosophical debate. The last two (...) decades of the 20th century show a renewed interest of the three journals on libertine themes and on the relationship between libertinism and philosophy. Research on libertine thought focuses mainly on French libertinism (i.e. libertinage érudit) and on the philosophical clandestine literature: the journals discuss or review clandestine texts, as the Theophrastus redivivus (1659), whose critical edition was published in Italy in 1981–1982. (shrink)

In his Bibliographia politica Naudé reviews in about one hundred pages authors and works that have dealt with politics, from the Antiquity to the first decades of the Seventeenth Century. In few enlightened pages on the ordinary and extraordinary administration of the State, Naudé elaborates his own idea of Reason of State, including the use of an extraordinary administration in the name of the public benefit. We can find a continuity between his Bibliographia politica and his Considérations politiques sur les (...) coups d’Estat. In both his political works Naudé gives to the category of wisdom, derived from Aristotle, a new practical and political value, which goes back to authors such as Machiavelli or Cardano, Lipsius or Charron. Naudé’s political wisdom uses dissimulation and any form of justice, also against common law, to act in extraordinary administration of the State or to carry out “coups d’État.”. (shrink)

A central passage in Cusset’s essay states: “God, for Sade, is fiction that ‘took hold of the minds of men’. What makes God’s weakness, the impossibility of rationally proving his existence, is precisely what constitutes his strength as fiction. Negated as authority, eliminated as the figure of the almighty father, God is nonetheless everywhere in the Sadean novel: he exists as the fiction principle. Libertines are never done with God because his name represents the power, not of the law, but (...) of the imagination. In showing their contempt for God, libertines reveal their anger against fiction, which does not have the power to prove its own truth: fiction — and Sade chose to write novels, not philosophical essays — is based on the desire for illusion” (119). Sade’s L’Histoire de Juliette, argues Cusset, breaks from his earlier writings in that Juliette has an agency missing from Sade’s previous female characters, and she, unlike earlier characters, breaks through the central Sadean impasse: “her ‘story’ represents the solution through which Sade paradoxically resolves the aporia of libertinage” (120). She is perfectly aware of scientific explanations for phenomena, but, “for the sake of play, Juliette chooses metaphor, and does not try to ‘unveil truth’ entirely. Juliette distinguishes herself from her teachers and masters through her relation to imagination. […] The end of the novel confirms Juliette’s choice of a playful imagination” (123). In short, Juliette is the libertine who breaks the very rules of the libertines by means of resurrecting the sense of play, imagination, and romantic delicacy which her fellow criminals forbid. Cusset concludes: “Sade invites us to read his texts as fictive and humorous texts, and not, as suggested the French feminist Elisabeth Badinter who wanted to censor Sade’s novel, as rational demonstrations inviting readers to commit murder. Juliette’s transformation through the novel allows us to understand why Sade entitled his last long novel L 'Histoire de Juliette. Juliette chooses fiction, without trying to prove its truth; she chooses pleasure, without trying to annihilate every belief, since imaginary belief is a component of pleasure. What Sade tells us with the invention of Juliette is that freedom is the very choice of limit. […] L’Histoire de Juliette is Sade’s critique of pure fiction” (129). (shrink)

Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. offers erudite and compelling arguments for the view that all families should try to realize the traditional family. Although I tend to agree with him from my personal standpoint, I doubt that this view can be justified to those with whom we are in reasonable disagreement about the family. I make three critical points. First, though Engelhardt stops short of saying that the state should encourage people to form traditonal families, or discourage those who do not, some (...) state perfectionists might do so. From the perspective of public reason, it is unjust for the state to favor some conceptions of the good over others, if these conceptions are all reasonable. Moreover, those whose conceptions of the good are not favored would feel that they are disrespected. Second, insofar as Engelhardt thinks that all families should try to realize the traditional families, the traditional family would not be a good to those who do not like children. Moreover, it would be difficult to persuade those who have decided not to have children for reasons of career, burden, or more altruistic concern. Third, against Engelhardt’s stance against the “egalitarian aspirations” of liberalism, I argue that too often women sacrifice their possible careers for the sake of the family, even should they hold advanced degrees from prestigious universities, or professional qualifications. This kind of injustice is too uncomfortable to ignore. (shrink)

This chapter is divided into three sections. In the first, I identify the mentions of Schopenhauer in À la recherche du temps perdu. I use an implicit reference to Schopenhauer by Swann to open a discussion of Schopenhauer’s theory of music. I attempt to downplay its identification, suggested by some commentators, with both the views about music expressed in the novel and the form of the novel itself. In the second section, I discuss Proust’s references to Schopenhauer in his essay (...) on reading. I confirm that Proust well understood Schopenhauer’s relationship with his own erudition and suggest that Schopenhauer’s influence on Proust may take the form of an incitement to think for oneself. In the third and final section, I consider several potential points of convergence between Proust and Schopenhauer concerning states of the will. However, in all cases I find, as I do throughout the chapter, that below the surface Proust and Schopenhauer often part ways. (shrink)

John Smith (1618-1652), long known for the elegance of his prose and the breadth of his erudition, has been underappreciated as a philosophical theologian. This book redresses this by showing how the spiritual senses became an essential tool for responding to early modern developments in philosophy, science, and religion for Smith. Through a close reading of the Select Discourses (1660) it is shown how Smith’s theories of theological knowledge, method, and prophecy as well as his prescriptive account of Christian piety (...) rely on his spiritual aesthetics. Smith offers a coherent system with intellectual intuition informing natural theology and revelation supplemented by spiritual perception via the imagination too. The central uniting feature of Smith’s philosophical theology is thus ‘spiritual sensation’ broadly construed. The book closes with proposals for research on Smith’s influence on the accounts of the spiritual senses developed by significant later figures including Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and John Wesley (1703-1791). (shrink)

The article focuses on an unexamined so far aspect of byzantine philosophy, namely the influence of Arabic philosophy upon byzantine thinkers. Despite the vicinity of Byzantium and Arabic territories, the philosophical interactions were minimal. Scholarios claimed, in a dedicatory epistle to Constantine Paleologus (1405-1453), that he had studied the treatises of Avicenna, Averroes, and other Arab and Persian philosophers. He admitted that Averroes was beyond doubt the best commentator of Aristotle. Scholarios acknowledged that the study of the Arabs contributed immensely (...) to his philosophical education and particularly to the proper understanding of the Aristotelian philosophy (Scholarios, vii.1-6). Scholarios aimed at the enrichment and renewal of Byzantine philosophy. Besides his high esteem for Arabic philosophy, he devoted a large part of his life translating and paraphrasing the Scholastics, especially Aquinas. Despite Scolarios’ claim about his erudition on the Arab and Persian philosophers, a detailed examination of his works proves that in most cases he simply reproduced and incorporated sections from Aquinas’ works, without resorting to the original sources. Scholarios’ references to the Arabs are multiplied in his translations and compendia of Aquinas’ works, but are reduced significantly in his original texts. Frequently Scholarios refrained from mentioning the Arab philosophers, despite the fact that he commented on Aquinas’ passages, which are dedicated to Avicenna or Averroes. On the contrary, Scholarios did not avoid mentioning in detail Aquinas’ Christian or ancient Greek sources. It is obvious that Scholarios did not have a consistent approach towards Arabic philosophy. Most of the times he reproduced loosely Aquinas’ passages, where the latter commented on the Arabs. (shrink)

Max Charlesworth’s Philosophy and Religion: From Plato to Postmodernism is an erudite and scholarly work, grounded in an impressive command of the history of philosophy of religion. However, despite its many virtues, the work has some serious shortcomings, due more to what it overlooks than to what it includes. In this paper, I review Charlesworth’s taxonomy of approaches to philosophy of religion, and argue for an alternative taxonomy that does more justice to the diversity of religions and the evidence produced (...) by social scientific studies of religion. In particular, I suggest that Charlesworth pays insufficient attention to the project of articulating, comparing and assessing competing religious and non-religious worldviews. (shrink)

Just started a new book. The aim is to establish a science of knowledge in the same way that we have a science of physics or a science of materials. This might appear as an overly ambitious, possibly arrogant, objective, but bear with me. On the day I am beginning to write it–June 7th, 2020–, I think I am in possession of a few things that will help me to achieve this objective. Again, bear with me. My aim is well (...) reflected in the title I chose (just now) for this book: Knowledge & Logic: Towards a science of knowledge. Its most important feature is that I shall take logic to be to knowledge science as calculus is to physics or to materials science. I do not intend to reclaim knowledge from the bosom of philosophy, in which, known as epistemology its erudite discussion has hardly progressed since Plato first defined it as true belief with logos. With only a few adjustments, it will actually provide me with the right, science-bound start. More recently, knowledge has been reclaimed by the field of BA, a reclaim that has opened the box of Pandora: Among the evils, and perhaps at the head of the list, is an overly lay, essentially naive, notion of knowledge. But the very idea that one can have something like “knowledge (management) software” puts us on the right track. (shrink)

This book offers an in-depth exploration of the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, one of the leading social and ethical philosophers of our time. Because MacIntyre's historical and philosophical arguments exhibit great erudition and a dense style, his work is sometimes not so accessible to readers who might otherwise find his thought enlightening. Bruce Ballard provides a great service in Understanding MacIntyre, clearly explaining the philosopher's basic tenets as set forth in the works After Virtue, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? and Three (...) Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry. A thorough summary of MacIntyre's philosophy is followed by a critical discussion of his ideas and a comparison of his work with that of other philosophers. Understanding MacIntyre is a seminal study that will contribute greatly to our understanding of contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

The continuous demand for Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens led to this revised edition which analyses the recent socio-economic and political changes that have taken place. Caste-based marriage and control over women's sexuality have been crucial for the continuation of the caste system in India. Thus, caste and gender are linked. Brutal reprisals have followed when dalits and women have tried to challenge caste-based marriage and inequality which allots strict rules of conduct for women and all dalits. Maithreyi Krishnaraj, (...) the Series Editor, highlights the author’s discussion on the new ways in which caste violence targets women and on the changes within the family—immediate and extended—that still keep women subservient to caste norms. She points to the new discussion on an economy in transition to capitalism, and persistent conflicts over religion, language, ethnicity and other differences that relate to gender. The book also includes a new ‘Afterword: Caste and Gender in the New Millennium’, which provides an updated discussion on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 1989. Erudite, yet accessible, this book enables the reader to understand the ramifications of caste today. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Spinoza: Une Lecture d'AristoteYitzhak MelamedFrédéric Manzini. Spinoza: Une Lecture d'Aristote. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009. Pp. 334. Paper, $39.95.The occasion that prompted the current study was the discovery of a tiny typo in the text of Spinoza's Cogitata Metaphysica—the appendix to his 1663 book, Descartes' Principle of Philosophy. As it turned out, this typo, a reference to Book XI instead of Book XII of Aristotle's Metaphysics, was (...) inadvertently reproduced by Spinoza from a contemporary edition of Aristotle's works, allowing Manzini to identify precisely the edition used by Spinoza as the 1548 edition of Aristotle's works printed in Basel by Johannes Oporinus. It also led him to conclude that, contrary to the belief of many, Spinoza read Aristotle's text very closely, and convinced him of the importance of studying the dialogue between the two great philosophers.The book is comprised of three parts, reversing the order of Spinoza's presentation of his philosophy in the Ethics. The first part discusses Spinoza's ethical and political theories—where, the author claims, the influence of Aristotle is most manifest—against the background of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics. Here, much attention is given to the notions of the summum bonum and beatitude. The second part discusses Aristotelian and Spinozistic theories of knowledge. In the third and final part, dedicated to metaphysics and first philosophy, the author compares the philosophers' absolutely impersonal conceptions of God, examines their conceptions of substance, and develops a reading of what he calls Spinoza's "ousio-theology" (305).According to Manzini, Aristotle was one of Spinoza's first major philosophical interlocutors, and there is no doubt he is right about this. This conclusion, however, is unsurprising, [End Page 126] since seventeenth-century philosophers, whether devoted Aristotelians or determined anti-Aristotelians, conversed in an Aristotelian philosophical language. Manzini shows that Spinoza engaged directly with Aristotle's text, but also tries to substantiate an even stronger claim by stressing the agreements between the two philosophers.There are two reasons that make it difficult to see Spinoza as being consciously and positively influenced by Aristotle, however. First, Spinoza's dialogue with his philosophical predecessors is, without exception, highly critical and polemical. He does not usually mention philosophers with whom he agrees (e.g. Crescas and Machiavelli). Secondly, several of Spinoza's explicit references to Aristotle are highly critical. Consider, for example, Spinoza's claim, in a letter to Hugo Boxel, that "the authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates carries little weight with me" (Letter 56), or his mockery of the "delusions of the Aristotelians and Platonists" (Theological Political Treatise [TTP], Pref.; cf. ch. 13). Manzini suggests that in these passages Spinoza is not so much addressing Aristotle, but rather using him as a foil to target medieval Aristotelianism (13). Looking closely at the context, my impression is that he is right about the passages in the TTP, but not about the quote from Letter 56. More importantly, the claim that Spinoza uses Aristotle's name as a foil is a double-edged sword that may also serve to undermine Manzini's argument. Throughout the book, Manzini points out interesting and significant similarities between Spinoza's and Aristotle's texts, but to establish direct positive influence one must consider and rule out mediating agents. In the present case there is plenty of evidence that Spinoza read medieval Hebrew Aristotelians closely. Unfortunately, most of the Hebrew authors mentioned by Spinoza were never translated into modern European languages, and there are very few, if any, good studies of Spinoza's dialogue with these texts; in the absence of such translations and studies, some of Manzini's conclusions must remain tentative.Manzini's erudition and analysis of the text are impressive. For example, near the end of his celebrated Letter on the Infinite, Spinoza criticizes "recent Peripatetics" for misunderstanding the ancient method of proving God's existence, citing Crescas's correct formulation of the ancient proof. Manzini rightly points out that the proof Spinoza ascribes to the "recent Peripatetics" was in fact Aristotle's, while the alleged "ancient" proof (which allows for actual infinity and relies on Avicennian... (shrink)

In 1 Peter 1:3-7 we read that the Christians were facing persecution because of their faith and the author reminds them that every trial is a test of their faith. The trials and consequential suffering can be withstood because they are able to look forward to an inheritance – eternal life with God. Christians can endure all trials and suffering because of the hope of glory and ultimate joy. There is a grace afforded by God in the presence to match (...) whatever trial or suffering they might face. Thus it appears that there is both a purpose – one being the testing, transforming and purifying of one’s faith and a great prize for those who endure suffering – the Lord himself rewarding us. It is with this thought I will end this essay - with this belief of an inheritance, a resurrection and the gift of immortality. However, I will not shun asking the difficult questions, nor will I avoid critical reflection and analysis of a number of the contradictory or unpleasant answers. I will not eschew the lack of answers relating to evil and suffering – the pains of the scourges of poverty, persecution and oppression, the ravages of war and natural disasters, and all the inequity and injustice that has fallen throughout history – often on the innocent. This wickedness and agony that has throughout history indiscriminately befallen Christians and non-believers alike, has initiated great dismay, depression and consternation for many and some have even rejected the concept of God and the Gospel because of the malevolence and affliction they have been subjected to. The horrendous profundity and extent of human suffering and the history of the inhumanity of people makes the idea of a loving Creator seem quite implausible and predisposes many to accept a naturalistic theory of religion. At the end of this essay I will attempt to show that the declarations that the writer of 1 Peter makes concerning the Christian’s inheritance and suffering proffers some expectation for those who are faced with the quandary of evil and offer some hope now to enable them to endure whatever life has thrown onto their journey. Whilst I will with candour endeavour to query the issues and questions relating to evil I am conscious of the fact that many books and essays have been written by vastly more erudite authors. Consequently I acknowledge that what I have to say is ultimately nothing more than the personal reflection birthed in my own life’s experiences and learning. (shrink)

In this essay, I try to go through the questions and analysis that Judith Butler puts on Althusser’s work—reading fundamentally and almost exclusively the essay on the “Ideological State Apparatus” from 1970, and the relationship she maintains in her reading with the Freud’s concept of repression and the Lacanian “symbolic order”. My central hypothesis is that it is the Foucauldian reading of Freud and Lacan, begun early in 1990 with Gender Trouble, that guides Butler in his interpretation of the Althusserian (...) concept of interpellation understood almost exclusively from the perspective of the “hailing” example that Althusser provides in his essay from 1970. This leads Butler to a reading that I characterize here as biographical—for its obscene reliance on a particular episode in Althusser’s life: the murder of Helène Rytman—and anti-Cartesian, insofar as it attempts reading the ideological readiness of the subject as something beyond the split of the cogito, and materially effected by an ontological repetition. The problem with Judith Butler's concept of repression is its unappealable juridical nature—which is paradoxical for an erudite reader of Michel Foucault—insofar as the agent of repression appears as analogous to the State and therefore it results assimilable with rebellions “melancholic” subjectivity. This conflation of the psychological and the social is conducive to some mass psychologism, which forgets Althusser’s debt to Lacan when elaborating his theory of ideology. I proceed to investigate the origins of this theory in the text “Three Notes on the Theory of Discourses” (1968) and in the recently published Que faire (2018). My tentative conclusion is that there is an idea of supplementary violence (in the Lacanian sense of plus-de-jouir) constitutive of the unconscious in Althusserian theory of ideology that cannot be overlooked, and that is linked to his reading of Freud. (shrink)

La somme d’Humbrecht fait preuve d’une érudition peu commune et d’un réel amour de Thomas d’Aquin (mais au détriment d’Aristote, comme c’est de mode). Sa réflexion s’allonge au fil de la plume, en des méandres et des reflux quelquefois difficiles à suivre. Mais donne aussi le sentiment heureux d’une libre méditation de l’auteur voguant au gré de ses pensées, méditation à laquelle il nous invite avec amitié, pourvu que nous acceptions de nous laisser guider. Hélas, si nous branchons un GPS, (...) nous réalisons que nous nous promenons benoîtement au milieu de sables mouvants prêts à nous engloutir tout entiers à chaque pas. (shrink)

Vous obtenez un échantillon formidable de mauvaise écriture, des idées confuses et dépassées et un jargon obsolète. Si l’on a une bonne éducation actuelle, il est doublement douloureux de lire ce livre (et la plupart écrit sur le comportement humain). Douloureux parce qu’il est si torturé et déroutant, et puis encore quand vous vous rendez compte à quel point il est simple avec la psychologie moderne et la philosophie. La terminologie et les idées sont horriblement confuses et datées (mais moins (...) dans l’analyse de Wilber que dans ses sources). Ce livre et la plupart de ses sources sont des textes de psychologie en soi, bien que la plupart des auteurs ne s’en soient pas rendu compte. Il s’agit du comportement humain et du raisonnement sur les raisons pour lesquelles nous pensons et agissons comme nous le faisons et comment nous pourrions changer à l’avenir. Mais (comme toute une telle discussion jusqu’à récemment) aucune des explications n'est vraiment des explications, et donc ils ne donnent aucun aperçu du comportement humain. Personne ne discute des mécanismes mentaux impliqués. C’est comme décrire comment une voiture fonctionne by discuter du volant et du métal et de la peinture sans aucune connaissance du moteur, du carburant ou du train d’entraînement. En fait, comme la plupart des anciens «exemples» de comportement, les textes cite ici et les commentaires par Wilber sont souvent plus intéressants pour ce genre de choses qu’ils acceptent (et omettre!) comme explications, et le genre de raisonnement ils utilisation, que pour le contenu réel. Si l’on est sur la philosophie et la psychologie cognitive et évolutive, la plupart de ce qui est archaïque. Comme presque tout le monde (érudits et public—e. g. voir mon examen de La Liberté Evoluie de Dennett et d’autres livres), il ne comprend pas que les bases de la religion et l’éthique - en fait tout comportement humain, sont programmés dans nos gènes. Une révolution dans la compréhension de nous-mêmes a eu lieu alors qu’il écrivait ses nombreux livres et il l’a passé par. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systemes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

Horwich donne une belle analyse de Wittgenstein (W) et est un érudit W de premier plan, mais à mon avis, ils sont tous en deçà d’une pleine appréciation, comme je l’explique longuement dans cet examen et beaucoup d’autres. Si l’on ne comprend pas W (et de préférence Searle aussi) alors je ne vois pas comment on pourrait avoir plus qu’une compréhension superficielle de la philosophie et de la pensée de l’ordre supérieur et donc de tout comportement complexe (psychologie, sociologie, (...) anthropologie, histoire, littérature, société). En un mot, W a démontré que lorsque vous avez montré comment une phrase est utilisée dans le contexte d’intérêt, il n’y a rien de plus à dire. Je vais commencer par quelques citations notables, puis donner ce que je pense sont les considérations minimales nécessaires pour comprendre Wittgenstein, la philosophie et le comportement humain. Tout d’abord, on pourrait noter que mettre "meta" en face de n’importe quel mot devrait être suspect. W a fait remarquer par exemple, que la métamathématique est mathématiques comme les autres. L’idée que nous pouvons sortir de la philosophie (c’est-à-dire la psychologie descriptive de la pensée de haut ordre) est elle-même une profonde confusion. Une autre irritation ici (et tout au long de l’écriture académique pour les 4 dernières décennies) est le sexisme linguistique inverse constant de «elle» et «la sienne» et «elle» ou «il / elle», etc, où «ils» et «leur» et «eux» ferait bien. De même, l’utilisation du mot Français «répertoire» où le «répertoire» anglais se portera plutôt bien. La lacune majeure est l’échec complet (bien que très commun) d’employer ce que je considère comme la vue extrêmement puissante et intuitive de deux systèmes de HOT et Searle cadre que j’ai décrit ci-dessus. C’est particulièrement poignant dans le chapitre sur le sens p111 et seq. (en particulier dans les notes de bas de page 2-7), où nous nageons dans l’eau très boueuse sans le cadre de l’automatisé vrai seul S1, propositionnelle dispositionnelle S2, COS etc. On peut également avoir une meilleure vue de l’intérieur et de l’extérieur en lisant par exemple, Johnston ou Budd (voir mes commentaires). Horwich fait cependant beaucoup de commentaires incisifs. J’ai particulièrement aimé son résumé de l’importation de la position anti-théorique de W sur p65. Il doit mettre davantage l’accent sur 'On Certainty', récemment l’objet de beaucoup d’efforts de Daniele Moyal- Sharrock, Coliva et d’autres et résumé dans mes récents articles. Horwich est de premier ordre et son travail vaut bien l’effort. On espère qu’il (et tout le monde) étudiera Searle et une certaine psychologie moderne ainsi que Hutto, Read, Hutchinson, Stern, Moyal-Sharrock, Stroll, Hacker et Baker, etc. pour atteindre une large vision moderne du comportement. La plupart de leurs papiers sont sur academia dot edu et philpapers dot org, mais pour PMS Hacker voir http : info dot sjc dot ox dot ac dot uk/ scr / hacker / DownloadPapers dot html. Il donne l’un des plus beaux résumés de l’endroit où une compréhension de Wittgenstein nous laisse que j’ai jamais vu. « Il ne doit y avoir aucune tentative d’expliquer notre activité linguistique/conceptuelle (PI 126) comme dans la réduction de l’arithmétique à la logique de Frege ; aucune tentative de lui donner des fondations épistémologiques (PI 124) comme dans les comptes basés sur le sens d’une connaissance a priori; aucune tentative de caractériser des formes idéalisées de celui-ci (PI 130) comme dans le sens logique; aucune tentative de réforme (PI 124, 132) comme dans la théorie de l’erreur de Mackie ou l’intuitionnisme de Dummett; aucune tentative de rationaliser (PI 133) comme dans le récit de Quine de l’existence; aucune tentative pour le rendre plus cohérent (PI 132) comme dans la réponse de Tarski aux paradoxes menteurs; et aucune tentative pour le rendre plus complet (PI 133) comme dans le règlement des questions d’identité personnelle pour des scénarios hypothétiques bizarres de « téléportation ». Enfin, permettez-moi de suggérer qu’avec la perspective que j’ai encouragée ici, W est au centre de la philosophie et de la psychologie contemporaines et n’est pas obscure, difficile ou non pertinente, mais scintillante, profonde et limpide et que de lui manquer est de manquer l’une des plus grandes aventures intellectuelles possibles. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deuxemssyst peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir «Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 3e ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

Three years before the publication of L'Erotisme of George Bataille (1957), the bogotanian thinkerNicolas Gomez Davila, at instances of his brother, published his first work with the succinct and modest title ofNotes (1954). Two different philosophical traditions meet in the study of the same topic, showing that flesh, skin,sensuality, pleasure and other related themes connect each other with all dimensions of human life, and that no onereflect, in an honest and serious way about it, may relegate them or hide them (...) behind the folding screen of taboo.More than an erudition work, this will be the pretext to recognize the great input of them both to the history of theideas about the problem of eroticism. (shrink)

There are few if any good summaries of this neglected work on the internet, or even in publication generally. The one given here is more extensive than most, and points out the wisdom and erudition of Kant's thinking about freedom of the will. It also paves the way for another article already on this website on Kant’s view of the world in general.

Mark Coeckelbergh is a Belgian philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of technology. His work primarily explores the intersection of technology and society, specifically the philosophical implications of emerging technologies such as AI and robotics. He has written on whether machines can be moral agents and how ethical frameworks should be applied to autonomous machines. He has a broad philosophical perspective drawing on classical sources, Eastern philosophy, Marxism, Foucault, phenomenology, and the postmodernists. In this short text, he brings his remarkable (...) insights and erudition to bear on our attempts at self-improvement in the age of AI. (shrink)

(Título: Por outras Historiografias, Filosofias, Sociologias, Antropologias, Teorias da História e Filosofias da História |||\\\ -/- Subtítulo: Três Ensaios sobre a ‘Antiguidade, a era Medieval, a Modernidade e a Pós-modernidade: Transições, Rupturas, Continuidades, Ligações e Interconexões) |||\\\ -/- (Title: For other Historiographies, Philosophies, Sociologies, Anthropologies, Theories of History and Philosophies of History |||\\\ -/- Subtitle: Three Essays on 'Antiquity, the Medieval Era, Modernity and Postmodernity: Transitions, Ruptures, Continuities, Links and Interconnections) |||\\\ -/- (Título: Para otras Historiografías, Filosofías, Sociologías, Antropologías, Teorías (...) de la Historia y Filosofías de la Historia |||\\\ -/- Subtítulo: Tres ensayos sobre 'La antigüedad, la época medieval, la modernidad y la posmodernidad: transiciones, rupturas, continuidades, vínculos e interconexiones') |||\\\ -/- (1. Tema: ‘O declínio e a queda do império romano,’ um equívoco interpretativo, linguístico, conceitual ou metodológico? Ou uma fluidez das percepções, narrativas e concepções estéticas do ‘Antigo frente ao Novo?’ |||\\\ -/- 'The decline and fall of the Roman Empire,' an interpretative, linguistic, conceptual or methodological misunderstanding? Or a fluidity of perceptions, narratives and aesthetic conceptions of the 'Old in the face of the New? |||\\\ -/- «Decadencia y caída del Imperio Romano», ¿un malentendido interpretativo, lingüístico, conceptual o metodológico? ¿O una fluidez de percepciones, narrativas y concepciones estéticas de lo «Antiguo frente a lo Nuevo»?) |||\\\ -/- (2. Tema: O Antigo e Atual ritual de sacrifícios humanos aos Deuses e ou Divindades: Ritos que se repetem em novas roupagens, fórmulas e modus operandi. |||\\\ -/- The Ancient and Current Ritual of Human Sacrifice to the Gods and/or Divinities: Rites that are repeated in new guises, formulas and modus operandi. |||\\\ -/- El Ritual Antiguo y Actual del Sacrificio Humano a los Dioses y/o Divinidades: Ritos que se repiten con nuevos disfraces, fórmulas y modus operandi.) |||\\\ -/- (3. Tema: ‘Feudalismo erudito,’ ‘feudalismo rústico’ e ‘feudalismo pós moderno:’ termos com sutis interconexões e em práticas também sutis na atualidade capitalista |||\\\ -/- Erudite feudalism,' 'rustic feudalism' and 'pos-tmodern feudalism:' terms with subtle interconnections and in equally subtle practices in today's capitalist world. |||\\\ -/- 'Feudalismo erudito', 'feudalismo rústico' y 'feudalismo posmoderno': términos con sutiles interconexiones y en prácticas igualmente sutiles en el mundo capitalista actual.).|||\\\ -/- Apresentação sobre e dos três Ensaios - ||| - \\\ - ||| -/- Durante certos períodos de estudos, sempre ouvi falar sobre a ascensão, declínio e queda do império romano, o período romano monárquico, republicano e imperial. E atrelado a esses assuntos, outros não menos importantes, tais como a era ou período medieval, sistema feudal, feudalismos, capitalismo, era ou período moderno ou da modernidade e a pós-modernidade. Talvez esta última seja a nossa contemporaneidade. Geralmente há alguns consensos e também certas dissenções ou polêmicas sobre tais temas, assuntos, seus conteúdos e demarcações históricas. Até então estamos falando apenas da historiografia e de suas produções. Entretanto, é notório que é difícil falar de historiografia sem recorrer a arqueologia, sociologia, filosofia, filologia, antropologia, epigrafia, linguística, geografia, biologia, artes e dentre outras. Isso porque a historiografia necessita do auxílio e apoio dessas como de tantas outras áreas de estudos para investigar seus objetos e fontes, e assim extrair seus conteúdos, interpretações e compor os dados e achados durante os procedimentos e processos de estudos e análises das fontes e de seus dados. Portanto, é bastante difícil falar em historiografia sem reconhecer a necessidade de suporte de outras inúmeras áreas e campos de estudos e de produção de conhecimentos. Ou seja, há intercâmbios diretos e indiretamente tanto para e em modos de olhares investigativos, conceituais, métodos e outros instrumentos quanto de ferramentas para e de análises de dados e fontes. Enfim, há certa composição multidisciplinar para a prática da historiografia quanto para a formação de seus ‘produtos.’ Sendo assim, realizar um ensaio sobre a ascensão, declínio e queda do império romano, o período romano monárquico, republicano e imperial. E atrelado a esses assuntos, outros não menos importantes, tais como a era ou período medieval, sistema feudal, feudalismos, capitalismo, era ou período moderno ou da modernidade e a pós-modernidade, não é uma tarefa fácil. Ainda mais investigar questões, assuntos e conteúdos que dizem respeito as práticas de magias, de rituais e de sacrifícios ao longo da história, bem como novos olhares sobre o sistema feudal e relacionar todos estes fatos com a contemporaneidade. Até porque de alguma forma, todos esses fatos, acontecimentos e processos do passado ou mundo antigo, tem influências e relações com muitas práticas e modos de ser, pensar e agir na atualidade. E por isso também eles são importantes de serem reanalisados, estudados continuamente e revistos através e por meio das novas tecnologias e os novos olhares que elas podem nos proporcionar. Porém, sem incorrermos em anacronismos. Com isso, é de suma importância abrirmos novos olhares, horizontes, possibilidades e perspectivas para reinvestigar tais assuntos e eventos históricos mencionados, seus conteúdos, fontes e produtos. E assim, quem sabe talvez possamos extrair novas informações, conteúdos e saberes que possam cooperar com nossas sociedades na e da contemporaneidade. É importante dizer que, quando incluímos em tais temas, assuntos e seus conteúdos, áreas, disciplinas ou campos de estudos como a filosofia, a sociologia, a antropologia, a geografia, a filologia, a arqueologia, a biologia, a epigrafia, as artes e dentre outras, a discussão se torna ainda maior, mais complexa e gerando também maiores problemáticas. Entretanto, isso não inviabiliza tal abordagem e ação, muito pelo contrário, é justamente melhor que isso ocorra sobre tais assuntos, temas e seus conteúdos a serem estudados, pois os tornam mais ricos, amplos e abertos, e não fechados e isolados em si mesmos. Logo, é de suma relevância e importância, bem como de grande urgência se evocar, invocar e complementar tais investigações auxiliadas pelas vias da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, isso para não se correr riscos de se cair em dogmatismos, apologias ou doutrinas dentro dos grupos ou guetos de tais áreas ou campos de saber. Já que é um fato e realidade a existência de correntes e ‘vertentes’ historiográficas, históricas, sociológicas, filosóficas, antropológicas e assim por diante. Ou seja, como dentre outras, bem como também em outras áreas de estudo ou campos do saber. E por isso a importância da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, pois se dificultam os processos e formações de dogmatismos, apologias, doutrinas, paradigmas engessados, diretrizes ultra ou extremamente conservadoras de certos status quo e de cânones postos em certos pedestais. Desse modo, há certas correntes com suas convenções, consensos, seus paradigmas e diretrizes, no qual as seguem, e assim elas criam quase que amarras ou emolduram alguns assuntos, temas e seus conteúdos históricos. No qual as discussões ficam por décadas como as mesmas, com raros casos em que alguns daqueles temas, assuntos ou conteúdos recebem algum novo tratamento e talvez novas considerações, ou às vezes nenhum ou nenhuma. Permanecendo quase que os mesmos ou intactos como uma moldura a ser preservada, até que surja alguém que ouse remexê-los, trazer alguma novidade e inovações. Se algo não for feito, tudo fica do mesmo modo por décadas. Tais fatos ocorrem com e em muitas outras áreas e campos do saber, ou seja, não é apenas um fato na historiografia, sociologia, filosofia, antropologia e outras. É justamente por tudo isso que ousamos escrever um ensaio, no caso aqui três, envolvendo questões, assuntos, temas, conteúdos, novas reflexões e produções que giram em torno da antiguidade até a contemporaneidade, e sobretudo novas abordagens e produções sobre a era do império romano desde a monarquia aos tempos do império; sobre a era feudal do ou com o seu ‘início no séc. V d.C. até o séc. XV d.C., bem como sobre práticas e manifestações místicas, mágicas, ritualísticas e sacrificiais contemplando a antiguidade até a contemporaneidade. No qual lançamos mais luz em pequenos detalhes que talvez tenham passado desapercebidos em alguns escritos ou produções historiográficas, onde o fizemos com auxílio da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, onde denominamos de ‘Por outras Historiografias, Filosofias, Sociologias, Antropologias, Teorias da História e Filosofias da História.’ Nossa ação, movimento e intervenção se dá justamente pelos fatos aqui apontados e criticados, que ocorrem devido aos seus consensos, convenções e porque não dizer: dogmas, apologias ou doutrinas. Uma vez que, como já mencionado, muitas das produções sejam da historiografia, sociologia, antropologia e até mesmo da filosofia, infelizmente, estão repletas de dogmas, doutrinas, apologias de teorias, teóricos e de certos cânones que são idolatrados mais do que o fazer científico e a produção de novos conhecimentos. Nosso trabalho talvez não possua um caráter acadêmico ou científico, já que é um ensaio talvez hipotético, de novas observações, visões, possibilidades e perspectivas. Mas que não renunciou ao rigor em e nos estudos, investigações e coletas de dados para a produção de um construto que comungue e dialogue com as produções de caráter científicas e acadêmicas. Infelizmente nós brasileiros ainda possuímos muitos novos horizontes quase pouco ou nunca explorados, isso por e em muitas de nossas áreas e produções de conhecimentos e científicas, onde quase não há grandes e efetivos incentivos, e muito menos para se ousar fazer e produzir tais conhecimentos. Às vezes com pequenas exceções e para alguns grupos e guetos seletos, geralmente já beneficiados com vastos recursos. Vale ainda dizer que mesmo assim e com tudo isso, boa parte do saber e da produção de conhecimentos e científicos do país, infelizmente foi, se tornou e ainda é bastante dependente e submisso das produções, arcabouços e cânones euramericanos. E isso dificulta ainda mais as produções, incentivos e inovações da produção de conhecimentos e científicos do e no Brasil. Já que o que é produzido aqui, geralmente em boa medida é uma reprodução dos produtos daqueles quanto a ânsia da chancela, legitimação, autorização e aprovação daqueles sobre as produções dos daqui do país. Ou seja, o Brasil parece que fica a certa mercê ou a espera de aprovações, legitimações e chancelas das ‘autoridades cientificas e dos saberes euramericanos.’ E assim, infelizmente em muitos casos nos tornamos mais reprodutores de ideias, teorias, conteúdos, métodos, paradigmas e diretrizes, bem como sintetizadores e resumidores das ideias deles, talvez até mesmo nos posicionemos como meros copistas das produções euramericanas. Foi através e por meio de tais observações, percepções, inquietações e críticas que passei a ler, reler e examinar certos cânones teóricos e bibliográficos com mais atenção e pelo crivo da criticidade. Isso sob olhares não etnocêntricos, e nem tão pouco eurocêntricos e ou ocidentais. Onde com o auxílio da interdisciplinaridade, multidisciplinaridade e da transdisciplinaridade, bem como e inclusive também da e entre as várias correntes das áreas de estudos da historiografia, sociologia, filosofia e antropologia, passei a reanalisar certos eventos históricos e da historiografia, me apoiando em várias áreas ou campos do saber e ou do conhecimento, tal como a biologia, geografia, política, análises do discurso, teologia, ciência da religião, linguística e dentre outras. E com isso, os objetos observados e analisados foram nos mostrando novos conteúdos, novos fenômenos, novos movimentos e nos proporcionando também novos olhares sobre tais objetos e seus dados a serem observados, estudados e analisados. Sendo assim, surgiu os três ensaios aqui em tela e em discussão. No qual colocamos sobre a crítica se realmente o império romano do ocidente declinou e caiu, bem como o que seria esse declinar e cair. Se realmente podemos marcar e demarcar as datas convencionais e consensuais ou podemos especular em hipóteses outras novas. Inclusive se podemos talvez estender tal declínio, se é que houve, bem como a sua queda, para datas mais adiantes do suposto ocorrido. Estas hipóteses, especulações e possibilidades geraram o ensaio de título ou tema: ‘O declínio e a queda do império romano,’ um equívoco interpretativo, linguístico, conceitual ou metodológico? Ou uma fluidez das percepções, narrativas e concepções estéticas do ‘Antigo frente ao Novo?’ A segunda reflexão crítica sobre acontecimentos, períodos, fenômenos, fatos, movimentos, eventos e narrativas historiográficas e sociológicas foram sobre manifestações, processos e práticas místicas, mágicas e ritualísticas ao longo da história, da antiguidade até a contemporaneidade, no qual surgiu o ensaio com o título ou tema: O Antigo e Atual ritual de sacrifícios humanos aos Deuses e ou Divindades: Ritos que se repetem em novas roupagens, fórmulas e modus operandi. E o último ensaio faz reflexões críticas sobre o período medieval com seu suposto feudalismo e ou sistema feudal. Onde trazemos novas reflexões sobre a prática feudal ou de feudos, demonstrando que tais práticas eram além de mais antiga do que pensamos, elas eram comuns, normal e naturais em vários sentidos, âmbitos e aspectos, e isso ocorrendo em muitas sociedades, culturas e civilizações desde a era romana monárquica, republicana e imperial e que se tornou em um sistema, o feudal, dentro da era tida como medieval (que possuo certas críticas a ambos os conceitos e seus pejorativismos). Através disso desenvolvemos três novas categorias de feudos ou de práticas feudais: o feudo erudito, o feudo rústico e os elementos feudais na contemporaneidade. Ora, o sistema feudal ou feudalismo não era ou foi apenas uma nomenclatura com certo ar pejorativo, mas sim um sistema econômico e ‘financeiro (até mesmo comercial)’ baseado e fundamentado na produção rural e ou do campo, seus insumos, matérias primas, mão de obra barata e escrava, no poderio militar ou de milicias, bem como e sobretudo posse e poderio da terra e de quem as obtém em grandes quantidades e extensões, em certa política descentralizada, na organização de uma sociedade estamental e sua divisão social em determinados grupos, os sem terras e os donos de muitas terras. E esse sistema econômico não surgiu do nada e nem do acaso, mas teve suas origens nas práticas feudais eruditas e rústicas, dando origem a um sistema, o feudal. E que ainda hoje podemos ver elementos de suas práticas, no qual resistiram a era capitalista, a modernidade e onde certos elementos feudais foram incorporados e reelaborados desde o surgimento do sistema capitalista até a contemporaneidade, e assim tais elementos avançaram com e em novas formas, roupagens e fórmulas pelo capitalismo. No qual ainda é um fato a relação de donos de grandes extensões de terras com poder, política, riquezas, conflitos, milicias e guerras. Se tais fatos dos resquícios ou elementos feudais não fossem reais, países da Europa em pleno século XXI não teriam ou manteriam ainda sua dominação sob colônias na África, Ásia e até mesmo nas Américas, bem como tentando as recolonizar ou neocolonizar, inclusive em outras regiões do globo, como assim ‘bem’ o faz os EUA desde o fim do século XIX, início do XX até a atualidade. Colonização e expansão de domínio e poder, bem como exploração e expropriação de mãos de obra, terras, matérias primas etc. Fundamentalmente a dominação de terras nacionais e sobretudo alheias, bem como a exploração das mesmas e de seus povos presos nas mesmas, digo ao sistema de seus países. Ou seja, o sistema capitalista também utiliza elementos das práticas feudais. Entretanto, de modos reformulados, personalizados e atualizados conforme seus interesses, do capitalismo e das classes ou grupos dominantes, e das necessidades contextuais para cumprir as metas de tal sistema, o capitalista e seus ditames. A estas reflexões críticas surgiu o ensaio: ‘Feudalismo erudito,’ ‘feudalismo rústico’ e ‘feudalismo pós-moderno:’ termos com sutis interconexões e em práticas também sutis na atualidade capitalista. Para que os leitores já pudessem adentrar nos temas, assuntos, conteúdos, fatos e discussões, isso em certa cronologia, foi colocado de antemão os resumos de cada ensaio e seus respectivos temas. Com isso, o leitor poderá observar certas conexões ou interligações entre tais acontecimentos, processos, fatos e fenômenos sócio-históricos, políticos, econômicos, culturais etc. E não apenas entre ou na transição da antiguidade para a era medieval e moderna, mas também daquelas com seus resquícios na e para a contemporaneidade. Entretanto, há um grande problema que precisaremos superar continuamente, é que ao longo da história, muitas das narrativas e produções históricas e historiográficas são e ou estão repletas de eufemismos, de jogos de linguagens e inundados neles, nos referidos. E isso consegue mascarar ideologias dominantes, hegemônicas, colonialistas, antagonismos, alienações, contradições e até mesmo certos paradoxos (como observaremos nos textos dos ensaios). Sendo assim, tais eufemismos conseguem como que ‘em passes de mágicas,’ criarem muitas ilusões e confusões nos prováveis e possíveis entendimentos, percepções, compreensões, concepções e ideias entre os fatos e as realidades, e tudo isso feito intencionalmente. Portanto, essas produções fantasiadas com os eufemismos e seus jogos de linguagens criam certas ‘ilusões de ‘óticas’ e em suas mágicas,’ no qual confundem vários leitores e estudiosos descuidados com esses instrumentos e ferramentadas metodológicas logocêntricas, grafocentricas e verborrágicas. Logo, tais fatos geram inúmeras confusões e conflitos intelectivos, de reflexões lógicas e de fatos que verdadeiramente correspondam com as realidades sociais e históricas. O trabalho em tela fará justamente o esforço de superar tais embaraços e armadilhas, filtrando e sintetizando as reflexões e interpretações extraídas das bibliografias e as relacionando com outras áreas, campos e saberes, e os submetendo ao crivo da lógica e da crítica. (shrink)

George Gemistos Plethon’s work in all its dimensions has attracted many scholars across the ages. One of those scholars was Alexandre Joseph Hidulphe Vincent, a French mathematician and erudite, who in the first and the only critical edition of Plethon’s Book of Laws by C. Alexandre in the nineteenth century, added three notes on his calendar, metrics and music, as he could reconstruct them from the ancient text. Vincent’s calculations were dictated by the main scientific thought of his time, which (...) was Positivism, and through this he thus contributed to the elucidation of some practical aspects of Plethon’s metaphysics. The results of meticulous calculations of the Plethonian calendar, metrics and musical modes show that the scientific spirit, which started appearing in the last days of Byzantium and during the Renaissance, was not only a revival of Antiquity, but an innovative attempt at explaining and being in accordance with the social demands and the physical reality of the time, both being understood as an extension of the metaphysical order. Vincent’s positivistic approach allows considering the impact of Plethon’s system in a postmodern perspective. (shrink)

This book is a compilation of papers that Zangwill has had published previously in a number of journals; this journal among them. The topics of these papers centre on the nature of aesthetic properties. Read as such, the papers are, for the most part, erudite and illuminating, presenting as they do a very clear synthesis of various well known positions on the relation of aesthetic properties to non-aesthetic properties; the relation of beauty to other aesthetic concepts; and the nature of (...) the aesthetic. (shrink)

This is a fine book by an extraordinary author whose literary followers have awaited a definitive statement of his views on consciousness since his participation in the important book on biological autopoiesis, The Embodied Mind (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) and his recent neurophenomenology of biological systems, Mind in Life (2007). In the latter book, Thompson demonstrated the continuity of life and mind, whereas in this book he uses neurophenomenology as well as erudite renditions of Buddhist philosophy and a good (...) dash of personal experience to argue for the reality of altered states of consciousness, but also that these states are not distinct from the physical systems that subtend them. He must have touched a nerve, for Waking, Dreaming, Being continues to be read and widely discussed by the literate public. (shrink)

Clausewitz made the intuitively appealing claim that wars tend to “absoluteness,” and that all limitations imposed by law and morality are in theory alien to it. Clausewitz of course knew that there are in practice many limitations to how wars are fought, but he saw them as contingent to what war is. Since then, however, historians such as John Lynn (Battle: A History of Combat and Culture [Westview Press, 2003]), John Keegan (A History of Warfare ([Random House,1993]) and Victor Davis (...) Hanson (The Western Way of War [Oxford University Press, 1989]) have taught us to see things differently: war is a cultural phenomenon, and the limitations that rituals and taboos impose are essential to what war is. With Conspiring with the Enemy, her intelligent and erudite book on cooperation in war, Yvonne Chiu builds on that work by showing the wide variety of forms cooperation in war can take—something that, Chiu claims, we tend to overlook and take for granted at the same time. (shrink)

If a short, shallow, and much less erudite version of the Description de l’Égypte were to be re-written today by a US State Department staff member it would read very much like the book which is under review here. Springborg is supposedly an “expert on Egyptian affairs”, however it seems that a basic understanding of modern Egyptian history in its global context is not a necessary condition for being considered an “expert on Egyptian affairs”. This book is thus valuable not (...) for any first-order knowledge that it contains regarding Egypt’s post-1952 history, but rather as a case study for understanding how “expertise” regarding the MENA region is constructed, and how “experts” can serve to obscure the past and present of imperialism in the region. (shrink)

A survey of Bayle's skeptical arguments regarding Descartes' criterion of truth, which Bayle refers to as "evidence." Bayle's arguments for degrees of evidence, as well as for the necessity and sufficiency of possessing a high degree of evidence in order to form virtuous beliefs, are surveyed as well.