The mimetic theory forged by René Girard is completely closed by its own violence. Given that human violence was contained for centuries, by the victimary mechanism, its deconstruction by the Cross has unleashed a complete and total violence, leading us to the possibility of a real Apocalypse. We show here that this closure is based on a metaphysical view of desire, guiding us from the objet to the being of the model. Since Girard is always confined into metaphysics by his (...) constant use of the paradigm of the image, the presence and, consequently, the idol, we demonstrate that there is still a way out of violence, the same way that is today the way out of metaphysics. With Jean-Luc Marion and his phenomenology of givenness, we oppose the paradigm of the icon to the one of the idol, and therefore the model of the sign to the one of the image. We demonstrate then that global mimetic violence can be stopped if we no longer desire objects and start desiring saturated phenomena, which implies a complete shift in the way we think and receive phenomena. (shrink)

This dissertation focuses on teleology and functions in biology. More precisely, it focuses on the scientific legitimacy of teleofunctional attributions and explanations in biology. It belongs to a multi-faceted debate that can be traced back to at least the 1970s. One aspect of the debate concerns the naturalization of functions. Most authors try to reduce, translate or explain functions and teleology in terms of efficient causes so that they find their place in the framework of the natural sciences. Our approach (...) here is radically different, as we question the premise that teleological explanations are disguised causal explanations. On the contrary, we defend that they are acceptable in natural sciences and in biology in particular. We challenge the idea that teleological explanations are immature causal explanations, as well as the idea that teleology and functions are some sort of intentional explanations. We therefore reject the accusations of anthropomorphism, vitalism and finalism. On the contrary, we defend that teleology, causality and intentionality correspond to different, autonomous and complementary modes of representation of the outside world. -/- ———[FRANÇAIS]——— -/- Ce travail de thèse porte sur la téléologie et les fonctions en biologie. Plus précisément, il porte sur la légitimité scientifique des attributions et des explications téléofonctionnelles en biologie. Il s’inscrit dans le cadre d’un débat à plusieurs facettes que l’on peut faire remonter au moins jusqu’aux années 1970 et qui est encore très actif aujourd’hui. L’un des aspects du débat porte sur la naturalisation des fonctions, c’est-à-dire sur la manière de les réduire, de les traduire ou de les expliciter en termes de causes efficientes de sorte qu’elles trouvent leur place dans le cadre des sciences de la nature. Notre approche ici est radicalement différente, car nous remettons en question la prémisse selon laquelle les explications téléologiques seraient des explications causales déguisées. Nous défendons au contraire qu’elles sont acceptables en tant que telles aussi bien de façon générale que dans le domaine scientifique et en particulier en biologie. De façon générale, nous remettons en question l’idée selon laquelle la pensée téléologique serait une pensée causale immature, ainsi que sa dépendance présumée vis-à-vis de la psychologie, c’est-à-dire de l’intentionnalité. Nous rejetons donc les accusations d’anthropomorphisme, de vitalisme et de finalisme formulées contre elle. Nous défendons au contraire que la téléologie, la causalité et l’intentionnalité correspondent à des modes différents, autonomes et complémentaires de représentation du monde extérieur. (shrink)

El presente artículo analiza el periodo de conformación de la filosofía de Georges Canguilhem (1926-1939). Se concentra en la elaboración temprana de sus ideas relativas a la teoría del valor y de la autonomía de la acción humana. Dos aspectos de esta filosofía son tomados en consideración. En primer lugar, el vinculo que mantiene el entendimiento con los hechos que forman parte de la realidad, observando la incidencia de esta filosofía del valor y de la acción en el dominio de (...) tres disciplinas pertenecientes a las ciencias sociales (psicología, sociología, historia). Un segundo momento del texto analiza el espacio asignado por estas elaboraciones al psicoanálisis, teoría que Canguilhem asocia a los fundamentos de la dimensión política y ética de esta filosofía. (shrink)

Ricœur’s philosophy never locates itself directly in the field of philosophical aesthetics inasmuch as philosophical aesthetics never arises as a field of major questioning and discursive development for Ricœur’s philosophy or as a field that would guide that philosophy. However, Ricœur maintains an ongoing but complex connection with aesthetics throughout his philosophical work. Here we defend the thesis that there are difficulties relating both to the complexity of Ricœur’s philosophy and to the crisis situation of aesthetics as an autonomous field (...) of philosophical inquiry. A more direct confrontation with philosophical aesthetics, such as that developed by analytic philosophy and critical theory today, is necessary in order to be aware of this connection between Ricœur’s philosophy and aesthetics. It then appears that if Ricœur’s philosophy makes it possible to maintain a certain autonomy of the field of aesthetics inherited from Kant, it is not through developing some unlikely “Ricœurian aesthetic” but thanks to a Ricœurian philosophy of aesthetics essentially determined on three levels: 1) the connection between poetics and aesthetics within a philosophy of imagination, 2) the connection between criticism and hermeneutics with regard the notions of text and distanciation, 3) the connection between ontology and communication that summarizes the two previous steps by combining phenomenological, analytic and critical perspectives. Thus it can be assumed that this autonomy of the field of aesthetics is possible only at a horizon of meaning determined by Ricœur’s philosophical anthropology: at the axiological level, the field of aesthetics differs upstream from the field of poetics and downstream from the field of ethics; at the ontological level, Ricœur’s philosophy of aesthetics concerns a region that is both intermediate between and congruent to those treated by Ricœur’s philosophy of imagination and by Ricœur’s philosophy of action. (shrink)

Résumé L’article vise à souligner la signification politique de l’avènement de la Critique kantienne. Pour ce faire, une double thèse est défendue : il y a une matrice juridique sous-jacente au mouvement conceptuel de la philosophie critique, dont la puissance émancipatrice et révolutionnaire se manifeste à la lumière du contexte historique de sa formulation. L’argument se déploie de la façon suivante : une exploration des rapports entre la formule « révolution de la pensée » que l’on trouve dans la Critique (...) de la raison pure et le contexte historique de la publication l’œuvre ; ensuite un examen de la métaphore juridique et la façon dont elle incarne l’idée d’une philosophie critique ; et pour conclure la suggestion d’une hypothèse interprétative d’après laquelle le « contrat originaire » est un opérateur conceptuel accomplissant un mouvement analogue à celui qui est exigé de la philosophie critique : le passage du niveau individuel au niveau intersubjectif.The aim of the article is to highlight the political significance of the advent of Kant’s Critique. In order to establish it, a double thesis is defended: there is a juridical matrix underlying the conceptual movement of the critical philosophy, whose emancipatory and revolutionary strength is revealed in the light of the context of its formulation. The argument will be deployed in the following way: an exploration of the connections between the formula “a revolution in thought” articulated in the Critique and the historical context of its publication; followed by an exam of the juridical metaphor of the Tribunal and the way in which it embodies the idea of a critical philosophy and finally, as a conclusion, the suggestion of an interpretative hypothesis according to which the notion of contract is a conceptual operator accomplishing an analogous movement to the one required from the critical philosophy: the passage from the subjective level to the intersubjective one. (shrink)

According to Kojève, all philosophical thought develops systematically. Thus, when reading Hegel, he could not go over the text without reflecting on the delicate status of the Philosophy of nature. As opposed to ordinary readings, he defends its necessity and truth, in spite of the outdated statements present in this work. Hegel is right to make a radical distinction between the philosophy of nature and the mathematics – i.e. science – of nature. Kojevian thought draws on a reflection on different (...) forms of language. It especially opposes philosophical conceptual discourse to scientific measure. However, he is also interested in the objects of discourse or measure. He establishes the existence of three objects of phenomenological discourse: minerals, human beings and men that are characterized by the primacy of present, past and future. (shrink)