This article has two mail goals. The first one, to present a synthesis of the main characteristics of Castoriadis’ sociohistorical world ontology. In other words, to expose the "theory of society" of the Greek French philosopher and its central concepts. The second is to problematize some of the key elements of this proposal, particularly the notion of social imaginary significations. Through a reflection on the idea of the site of significations, a proposal will be presented for the extension of the (...) Castorian ontology that will allow the organic inclusion in its interior of the whole of the material world. This will provide the reader with a tool for analysing the sociohistorical world, which may be the starting point for an entire programme of specific sociohistorical researchs. (shrink)

Ce texte revient sur le parcours intellectuel de Castoriadis pour réfléchir le lien entre sa situation d'exilé en France et sa pensée philosophique. Sans parler de rapport intrinsèque entre l'existence et la pensée, on peut toutefois entendre certaines résonances entre un parcours de vie marqué par l'exil et un cheminement intellectuel travaillé par le mise en question des concepts philosophiques traditionnels. Ainsi la réflexion menée par Castoriadis, à travers sa critique de l'ontologie déterministe et identitaire, permet d'articuler autrement le rapport (...) entre désordre et institution. Ne pouvant se prévaloir d'aucune autorité sous-jacente, la politique démocratique doit dès lors se composer en vertu de la créativité dont peuvent faire preuve les individus et les sociétés. (shrink)

The problem advanced societies have tried to answer since the last part of the twentieth century can be ascribed to a fundamental question: how to go beyond the constitutive (and unsustainable) limit of nation-state capitalism, constrained by an excessively circumscribed and univocal idea of social organization, without losing the ability to govern? Or, expressed in other terms, how can you dismantle the center (the state) without losing the power to control? The answer to this (difficult) question has been sought for (...) along two main axes. The first has concerned the seizing of new opportunities distributed over a space larger than the national space. As historians have shown (Arrighi 1996), if global projection is a constant of capitalism only the disastrous politico-military vicissitudes of the first half of the twentieth century created the conditions according to which the nation-state capitalism model could be born, in the form that dominated the fifty years following the Second World War. But first the exhaustion of colonialism, then the urgency of the energy question, the signs of a possible demise of Anglo-Saxon hegemony and, subsequently, the collapse of the Soviet empire, have changed the rules of the game. Within a rapidly transforming international framework, the recovery of a global outlook promised the exploitation of important opportunities with the opening of new markets, the valorization of investment possibilities, the displacement and utilization of low-wage labor, financial speculation, the acquisition and control of energy resources and raw materials. It is a promise that Anglo-Saxon elites have contemplated since the early 1980s, the moment in which?to counter the increasingly worrying signs of decline of their hegemony?they abandoned the Keynesian doctrine to embrace the neoliberal doctrine. The second axis along which a new growth cycle has been developed has to do with the increased manipulation of meanings available individually and collectively. Such a process is formed from the combination of two rationales, the subjectivist imperative, which inscribes into social life some of the philosophical developments of the twentieth century, and the formation of De-territorialized Aesthetic Space, which makes technically possible, a degree of cultural mobility hitherto unthinkable. Both these factors facilitate the insertion of the immaterial dimension into the cycle of capitalist valorization, making it more readily available for exploitation by economic forces on a global scale. (shrink)

In this paper, we explore a selection of Castoriadis’ writings, paying special attention to the seminars devoted to Plato’s Statesman, and discuss his divorce from the Platonic and Platonic tradition. Castoriadis places Plato beyond a theoretical and academic interpretation: the Ancient Greece that Castoriadis claims, from his political ontology, is not a paradigm, but a “germ” of autonomy, by which understand the birth of democracy, philosophy and history in order to transform himself and society.

¿Qué significa “la creación política”? Si deducimos esta idea general valorizando el discurso del filosofo contemporáneo Cornelius Castodiadis, cuando habla de proyecto de autonomía refiriéndose al proceso social-histórico donde nace la polis de Atenas, gracias al imaginario político griego, y donde se produce la revolución francesa a partir de la fin del cambio de la sociedad religiosa de la Edad Media, entonces podemos mostrar cuales son las presuposiciones lógica-ontológicas que constituyen las raíces de esta idea. Podemos aclarar su condición especifica (...) y su condición general, como también su expresión concreta a nivel de praxis de transformación social-histórica. Para llegar a este resultado es necesario analizar críticamente las ideas principales que Castoriadis conecte con la idea y la práctica de autonomía, y, en particular, las ideas de social-histórico y de política. Encontrando en la filosofía practica de Aldo Capitini, filosofo de la religión, una confirmación importante de una posible traducción ético-política de estas presuposiciones. (shrink)

The discovery of Palaeolithic cave art in the late 19th century entails many problems, some of which are perceptual. Presenting doxology as a post-phenomenological way of approaching epistemic and perceptual questions, this article draws on the problematics of cave art and contemporary cognitive science to discuss the process of perception — what it takes to see what one sees — in caves (and elsewhere). The article concludes that in order to see and perceive anything at all, both our physical and (...) our conceptual resources — the light of the sun as well as the light of the mind, as Empedocles might have said — are needed. The light of the mind is always inextricably linked to doxa. Thus, the article argues that a doxological approach to questions of perception and knowledge is required. (shrink)

Contemporary Anglo-American political thought is witnessing a revival of theories of deliberative democracy. The principle of public argumentation, according to which the legitimation of a general norm is predicated upon a rational and open dialog among all those affected by this norm, constitutes their common underlying assumption. This assumption is itself grounded in the metatheoretical claim that arguing is the defining activity of a demos of free and equal members. Habermas' well-known formulation of communicative or discursive democracy represents one of (...) the earliest, most discussed, and indeed most emblematic versions of the existing models of deliberative democracy. It is here, I believe, that Castoriadis' political theory can prove exceptionally important as it provides a starting point and a solid ground for articulating one of the most incisive and convincing critiques of the limits and flaws of communicative democracy. Although Castoriadis himself never directly discussed deliberative democracy as such, we can try to approximate from various parts of his work what he might have thought about, especially when it comes to Habermas' model. (shrink)

This text looks back at Castoriadis' intellectual path to reflect on the link between his situation as an exile in France and his philosophical thinking. Not to mention the intrinsic relationship between existence and thought, however, we can hear certain resonances between a life path marked by exile and an intellectual course worked by the questioning of philosophical concepts traditional. Thus, the reflection conducted by Castoriadis, through his critique of deterministic and identity ontology, allows us to articulate in a different (...) way the relationship between disorder and institution. Unable to claim to be based on a principle of authority, democracy must do with the creativity of individuals and societies. (shrink)

The most fundamental communication paradox is that of the society communicating with itself. Culture's paradox is that in establishing itself as a culture, society has to create an impossible distance to itself in order to be able to remain within itself. Thus, society finds its bearings by putting itself into perspective, by giving itself a project which naturally takes its starting point in the culture but which always considers what is outside society itself. It is not necessary to be aware (...) of the paradox in order to be able to work with it. Still it is paradoxical that the very society which declares itself ready to work with itself is not capable of doing so. (shrink)