Negotiating the relation between divine transcendence and divine immanence lies at the heart of Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed and of Kierkegaard's philosophical works. The purpose of the paper is to explore the manners in which they do so. I argue that despite various differences between them, both engage with the tension between divine transcendence and immanence by turning away from objectivity to subjectivity and, moreover, by placing paradox, riddle and secret at the heart of their philosophical works. In other (...) words, I argue that they do not attempt to solve or dissolve the great paradox of God's immanent transcendence but to present it in its most acute forms as the paradox within which the religious life is lived. (shrink)

Rather than assume—based on the contents of the Nachlass—that the Eternal Recurrence, in its initial formulation, coheres with the later theoretico-metaphysical sense (i.e., sharing abstract space with the Will to Power) I propose the inverse (contrary to Heidegger, Deleuze, and Nehamas (whose Proustian exegesis (Nietzsche: Life as Literature) I’m obliged to radically extend)); namely, that the rotary cosmology of recurrence, as a literal proposition, is a consequence of the poetic sense of the earlier parable (GS)–which, I find, ultimately prefigures (...) the design of his own virulent relapse into theoria (WP). (shrink)

Nietzsche mobiliza recursos retóricos de natureza heterogênea em sua obra, que podem ser distribuídos em pelo menos quatro grandes rubricas: elementos que (1) incidem sobre a materialidade sonora e rítmica da linguagem (dimensão expressiva associada à prova ética); (2) orientam a adoção de um conjunto de estratégias argumentativas que variam conforme as necessidades filosóficas do momento (dimensão argumentativa ou dialética); (3) dizem respeito a escolhas relativas à forma de apresentação dos argumentos, ou à sua inserção no interior de diferentes gêneros (...) literários (aqui vale a tese do pluralismo defendida por Nehamas, pois Nietzsche explora as potencialidades de diferentes formas de apresentação para as suas ideias, sendo a principal delas um gênero híbrido que incorpora elementos do aforismo e do ensaio); finalmente, (4) retomam aspectos relativos à invenção (dimensão heurística do paradigma indiciário, com a valorização da inferência abdutiva). Neste artigo pretendo mostrar, através de uma caracterização sumária da prática discursiva de Nietzsche, assim como de uma rápida retomada de sua tematização da retórica, como essas diversas dimensões (expressiva, inventiva, argumentativa e expositiva) se integram em seu projeto filosófico, tornando-se uma parte constitutiva do mesmo. Essa leitura se contrapõe a uma tradição que nega relevância filosófica à dimensão retórica da obra de Nietzsche, relegando-a a uma suposta dimensão exotérica de seus escritos. Há formas implícitas e explícitas pelas quais um intérprete pode chegar a esse resultado. Dentre as formas implícitas de contornar o desafio retórico posto pela filosofia de Nietzsche, a mais célebre é a de Heidegger. Ela se funda em sua decisão filologicamente controversa, no limite indefensável, de conferir primazia aos póstumos em detrimento dos livros publicados pelo filósofo, que deveriam, segundo ele, ser tomados como fachada. Paul de Man representa a forma explícita dessa recusa, mas com resultados curiosamente próximos aos de Heidegger, ainda que movido por intenções filosóficas distintas. No presente ensaio recuso ambas as estratégias de evasão e procuro mostrar que os diversos aspectos retóricos presentes na obra de Nietzsche se integram de forma relativamente harmônica ao seu projeto filosófico de cunho perfeccionista. (shrink)

This article discusses the relationship (or lack thereof) between authors’ intentions and the meaning of literary works. It considers the advantages and disadvantages of Extreme and Modest Actual Intentionalism, Conventionalism, and two versions of Hypothetical Intentionalism, and discusses the role that one’s theoretical commitments about the robustness of linguistic conventions and the publicity of literary works should play in determining which view one accepts.

A critical notice of Alexander Nehamas's Only a Promise of Happiness: The Place of Beauty in a World of Art.

All three books reviewed here are turning over again for us the pages of perennially irresistible thinkers whose ideas never cease to hold us transfixed; all three are inviting us to notice that the material that we thought we knew has got more to do with what Nehamas calls 'the art of living' than we might have realised; and all three are making space for attitudes, responses and areas of self-understanding that are, by traditional classifications, irrational and hence sometimes (...) inadequately acknowledged by philosophy as we usually understand it. And, of course, all three are juxtaposing thinkers from the ancient world with major figures from recent and early modern times. (shrink)

Responding to a set of essays by Walter Benn Michaels, this paper argues that we can solve some interesting puzzles about intention in photography without the need for any fancy Anscombian footwork. Three distinctions are enough to do the job. First, with Alexander Nehamas, we should separate the empirical photographer from the postulated artist. Next we should mark off generic intentions (such as the intention to make a work of art) from specific intentions (such as the intention to critique (...) capitalism). And finally we should draw a line between intention at time of conception and intention at time of display. A good interpretation, then, will attribute *specific* intentions to the *postulated* artist at the time of *display*. Problem solved? The postulated author of this essay thought so, at least, at the moment when he hit "send.". (shrink)

[Proofs; please cite published version] In recent years, some prominent scholars have been making a surprising claim: examining literary texts for hidden depths is overblown, misguided, or indeed downright dangerous. Such examination, they’ve warned us, may lead to the loss of world Heidegger warned of (Gumbrecht), to the world-denying metaphysics Nietzsche warned of (Nehamas), or to the suspicious form of hermeneutics Ricoeur warned of (Best, Marcus, Moi). This paper seeks to suggest that, though the concerns are understandable, there’s ultimately (...) nothing to worry about. The fact that Nietzsche himself happily used metaphors of surface and depth suggests that they are not, in fact, metaphysically fraught. The fact that it’s possible to appreciate surfaces at the same time as depths means that there’s no real danger of losing the world. And as for depth-talk turning us into suspicious hermeneuts, that would happen only if we made two fallacious assumptions: first, that all depths are meanings; second, that all hidden features are in a text by accident. But since plenty of authors hide things deliberately, and since what’s hidden often has nothing to do with propositional content, both assumptions are profoundly mistaken. Meanwhile, the surface/depth metaphor is the only thing that adequately captures the phenomenology of reading, especially when it comes to misdirection-based, hermetic, enigmatic, ironic, or satirical texts, where special activity on our part prompts a sudden leap to a radically different mode of understanding. And unlike its rivals, the surface/depth metaphor reflects a real asymmetry: depths explain surfaces, but not vice versa; surfaces are available without depths, but not the other way around. We need the metaphor, and we need to stay open to hidden depths as we read. As long as we don’t come in with terrible assumptions, nothing bad will happen to us, and plenty of good things will. It’s perfectly safe to go back in the water. (shrink)

The relationship of the author’s intention to the meaning of a literary work has been a persistently controversial topic in aesthetics. Anti-intentionalists Wimsatt and Beardsley, in the 1946 paper that launched the debate, accused critics who fueled their interpretative activity by poring over the author’s private diaries and life story of committing the ‘fallacy’ of equating the work’s meaning, properly determined by context and linguistic convention, with the meaning intended by the author. Hirsch responded that context and convention are not (...) sufficient to determine a unique meaning for a text; to avoid radical ambiguity we must appeal to the author’s intention, which actualizes one of the candidate meanings. Subsequent writers have defended refined versions of these views, and a variety of positions on the spectrum between them, in a debate that remains central to philosophical aesthetics. This Teaching and Learning Guide lists key readings and suggests how they might be incorporated within a syllabus. It also offers focus questions related to the readings. See also the companion article, Sherri Irvin, “Authors, Intentions and Literary Meaning.” Philosophy Compass 1 (2006), 114-128. (shrink)