Comme de nombreux penseurs antiques avant et après eux et contrairement à Socrate, Calliclès et Diogène ont déclaré avoir fondé leur éthique sur l’observation de la nature. Et pourtant, les deux discours normatifs qui sont tirés d’une nature que l’on pourrait a priori croire être la même sont on ne peut plus opposés. Calliclès croit que l’homme est appelé à dominer autrui ; Diogène pense plutôt qu’il doit se dominer lui-même ; le premier est un hédoniste débridé, le second croit (...) que le bonheur ne s’achète qu’au prix du sacrifice des désirs artificiels. Comment expliquer cette dichotomie ? Nous empruntons deux routes explicatives. D’abord, nous montrons que pour Calliclès et Diogène, la notion de nature non seulement diffère, mais est observée sous un angle différent. La première est celle des tyrans et de dieux anthropomorphes, la seconde, celle de petits animaux et de dieux autarciques. La première concerne la relation des hommes entre eux ; la seconde, celle de l’homme avec lui-même. Ensuite, nous exposons la différence des présupposés normatifs qui précèdent ou accompagnent l’observation de la nature ; nous contrastons, pour ce faire, les formes d’anticonventionnalisme et d’anti-intellectualisme défendues par Calliclès et Diogène. -/- SUMMARY. Like many ancient thinkers before and after them and contra Socrates, Callicles and Diogenes said they based their ethics on the observation of nature. And yet, the two normative discourses that are derived from nature that we might a priori believe to be the same could not be more opposed. Callicles believes that people are called to dominate others, Diogenes rather thinks people must dominate themselves. The first is an unbridled hedonist, the second believes that happiness can be bought only at the price of sacrificing artificial desires. How to explain this dichotomy? We take two explanatory routes. First, we show that for Callicles and Diogenes, the notion of nature not only differs but is observed from a different angle. The first one is the nature of tyrants and anthropomorphic gods, the second that of small animals and autarkic gods. The first focuses on the relationship between people, the second focuses on the relationship of a person with themselves. Secondly, we expose the difference in normative assumptions that precede or accompany the observation of nature; in order to do so, we contrast anticonventionalism and anti-intellectualism forms proper to both Callicles and Diogenes. (shrink)

De concert avec ses fonctions politiques - et cela sur vingt ans -, Montaigne rédigea ses Essais que l'on considère trop souvent comme séparés de ses responsabilités publiques aujourd'hui reléguées à l'arrière plan de sa carrière d'écrivain. Nous voudrions arguer que ses Essais sont indissociables de sa vie publique. Certes, les préoccupations littéraires et politiques de Montaigne changent avec son temps, mais ce qui fonde la forme de l'essai - à savoir un discours profondément inscrit dans le présent - ne (...) permet pas d'établir une différence théorique entre le privé et le public puisque les deux sont pratiquement inséparables quand ils sont réduits à leur unité la plus stricte qui se rapporte essentiellement au quotidien, car dans l'immédiat du vécu, le privé et le public sont pratiquement indissociables. Si une philosophie se dégage indubitablement des Essais, elle a peut-être plus à voir avec la manipulation constante effectuée par Montaigne entre le particulier (vie privée) et l'universel (vie publique) que sur le contenu de tel précepte moral ou dogme des écoles antiques. La temporalité de l'écriture et celle des événements ne sont pas en synchronie dans les Essais et Montaigne joue constamment sur cette image d'un livre privé (hors de toute temporalité historique) alors que les Essais sont conçus comme un objet lui permettant précisément l'accès à la vie publique. Cette philosophie du quotidien et du temps présent qui ressort des Essais ne saurait mettre à l'écart les considérations publiques et historiques qui rythment toujours l'écriture d'une vie bien particulière. Paralelamente a suas funções políticas - e isso em 20 anos - Montaigne escreveu seus Ensaios frequentemente considerados como separados de suas responsabilidades públicas, atualmente relegadas a um segundo plano em relação à sua carreira de escritor. Gostaríamos de argumentar que seus ensaios são inseparáveis ​​de sua vida pública. Certamente, as preocupações literárias e políticas de Montaigne mudam com o seu tempo, mas o que funda a forma do ensaio - a saber, um discurso profundamente inscrito no presente - não permite estabelecer uma diferença teórica entre público e privado, uma vez que os dois são praticamente inseparáveis ​​quando reduzidos à sua unidade mais estrita, a qual se relaciona principalmente com a vida cotidiana, porque no imediato do vivido, o privado e o público são praticamente indissociáveis. Se uma filosofia emerge, sem dúvida, dos Ensaios, ela talvez tenha mais a ver com a manipulação constante realizada por Montaigne entre o particular (vida privada) e o universal (vida pública) do que com o conteúdo de algum preceito moral ou dogma das escolas antigas. A temporalidade da escrita e a dos eventos não estão em sincronia nos Ensaios e Montaigne opera constantemente sobre a imagem de um livro privado (fora de toda temporalidade histórica), enquanto os Ensaios são concebidos como um objeto, permitindo-lhe precisamente o acesso à vida pública. Essa filosofia do cotidiano e do tempo presente que promana dos Ensaios não afasta as considerações públicas e históricas que sempre dão ritmo à escrita de uma vida muito particular. (shrink)

In his Pramāṇaviniścaya 3, Dharmakīrti criticizes the view of the Sāṅkhyas that the word anityatva (“impermanence”) means a process of transformation ( pariṇāma ) of primordial matter ( pradhāna ). In this connection, he deals with the following two explanations of transformation: (1) the disappearance ( tirodhāna ) of the previous dharma of an entity ( dharmin/dravya ) and (2) the cessation ( nivṛtti ) of the previous state ( avasthā ) of an entity ( avasthātṛ ). In response to (...) these explanations, he proves that whenever a transformation takes place, the previous entity is destroyed, and therefore, impermanence does not mean transformation, but only destruction ( vināśa ). His criticism is basically along the same lines as Vasubandhu’s arguments found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya . However, because of developments in the theory of transformation, Vasubandhu’s criticism allows room for a retort from the Sāṅkhya. For this reason, Dharmakīrti augments Vasubandhu’s theory in order to make it sustainable against the more developed Sāṅkhya theory. (shrink)

Many nations in the world are facing times of austerity with resulting economic pressures. The church is not exempt from this and often responds with practical plans to reshape their ministry and mission in the light of reduced resources. Yet there is a need to engage more positively in developing a contextual ecclesiology that enables mission in challenging times. This article seeks to explore this challenge through the example of the Church of England which is seen in terms of eleven (...) elements of its ecclesiology. Ways in which the context of austerity affects thinking about these elements are explored, both in their positive and negative impacts. Austerity is explored through the themes of fear, security, retreat and connectedness. These themes are used as the basis of the suggestion for a positive shape to an ecclesiology that provides an attractive mission model in such contexts. Resources from a charismatic research project, Flame of Love, are used in support of this model. The aim is to suggest a theological as well as practical response to the challenges that austerity presents. (shrink)

This introduction argues for the value of projecting as a category of analysis, while exploring the contexts for its emergence and spread as a genre of intellectual and practical activity in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. The emergence of the morally ambivalent figure of the “projector” in Elizabethan and Stuart England – initially in connection with confessional strife and attacks on corruption, and subsequently in relation to colonial expansion, experimental philosophy, and commercial and fiscal innovation – provoked defences of (...) projecting that articulated the relationship between private interest, individual effort, the public good, and collaborative ­scientific practice in new ways. German cameralists and French philosophes extended these arguments, while recuperating the figure of the projector, in the eighteenth century. (shrink)