This paper explores types of organisational ignorance and ways in which organisational practices can affect the knowledge we have about the causes and effects of our actions. I will argue that because knowledge and information are not evenly distributed within an organisation, sometimes organisational design alone can create individual ignorance. I will also show that sometimes the act that creates conditions for culpable ignorance takes place at the collective level. This suggests that quality of will of an agent is not (...) necessary to explain culpable ignorance in an organisational setting. (shrink)

A group is lying when it makes a statement that it believes to be untrue but wants the addressee(s) to believe. But how can we distinguish statements that the group believes to be untrue from honest group statements based on mistaken beliefs or confusion within the group? I will suggest a narrative constraint for honest group statements, made up of two components. Narrative coherence requires that a new group statement should not conflict with group knowledge on the matter, or beliefs (...) of relevant operative subgroups, unless a coherent rationale is given. Narrative intention looks at the process of gathering new evidence on the area of expertise of the group and requires that the group position behind the statement is formed in good faith. The narrative constraint will help to distinguish group lies from more innocent erroneous statements of group beliefs when there is an internal disagreement within the group, including in cases involving spokespersons. (shrink)

The topic of my thesis is individual and collective responsibility for collectively caused systemic harms, with climate change as the case study. Can an individual be responsible for these harms, and if so, how? Furthermore, what does it mean to say that a collective is responsible? A related question, and the second main theme, is how ignorance and knowledge affect our responsibility. -/- My aim is to show that despite the various complexities involved, an individual can have responsibility to address (...) climate change. I argue that climate change is not a problem just for states and international bodies, but also for individuals. There are three possible sources of moral responsibility for individuals in relation to climate change harms: direct responsibility (individuals qua individuals), shared responsibility as members (individuals qua members of collective agents), and shared responsibility as constituents (individuals qua constituents of unorganised collectives). -/- Accounts that deny individual responsibility fail to either take our interdependent reality seriously or fail to understand marginal participation (or in the case direct responsibility, fail to appreciate the nature of the climate change phenomenon). Individuals can be complicit in climate change harms, either as members of collective agents (e.g. as citizens of states or employees of a corporation) or as constituents of unorganised collectives (e.g. as consumers or polluters). -/- Although I focus on individual complicity, I do not deny the obligations of collective agents. However, nation-states, governments, and international bodies are not the only relevant collective agents in climate ethics: other collective agents, such as corporations, matter also and can have obligations concerning making sure that their activities are as carbon-neutral as possible. In addition, those corporations that have engaged in lobbying against climate regulation through creating and disseminating misleading information have acquired themselves additional obligations to mitigate climate change and compensate for the harm they have caused. Even so, the ethical claims can only be understood by individual members of these collective agents because only they can feel the pull of moral claims. I suggest that we could distinguish between what one must possess in order to be capable of making moral claims (i.e. moral agency conditions), and what it means to have the ability to exhibit such claims through one’s conduct. -/- Individual direct responsibility is to not to increase the probable risk of serious harm to other people, at least as long as we can do so at a less than significant cost to ourselves. It is limited to relatively wealthy individuals. Offsetting is not a reliable way to meet this duty; we need to look at the emissions from our lifestyle choices (within the available infrastructure). Shared responsibility qua members of collective agents is the key individual responsibility, and it presses especially on those occupying key positions within key collective agents. Saying that, our shared responsibility qua constituents of unorganised collectives has the potential to be decisive in whether some action is taken or not, either through a set of actions that can signal certain acceptance or support, or as a form of political support from the grass roots. (shrink)

How should we make sense of praise and blame and other such reactions towards collective agents like governments, universities, or corporations? Collective agents can be appropriate targets for our moral feelings and judgements because they can maintain and express moral positions of their own. Moral agency requires being capable of recognising moral considerations and reasons. It also necessitates the ability to react reflexively to moral matters, i.e. to take into account new moral concerns when they arise. While members of a (...) collective agent are capable of this, the collective frames the thinking of the individual moral agents within it and affects their options in myriad ways. The moral positions thus formed and expressed belong to the collective. Crucially, unlike marginal moral agents, collective agents as moral actors can be held fully responsible for their acts and omissions. (shrink)

Climate change can be construed as a question of collective responsibility from two different viewpoints: climate change being inherently a collective problem, or collective entities bearing responsibility for climate change. When discussing collective responsibility for climate change, “collective” can thus refer to the problem of climate change itself, or to the entity causing the harm and/or bearing responsibility for it. The first viewpoint focuses on how climate change is a harm that has been caused collectively. Collective action problem refers to (...) an aggregation of individual actions which together produce an outcome that is not intended at the level of an individual action. It cannot be solved by any one agent acting unilaterally. Instead, climate change action must be enacted and supported by numerous agents. The second way to conceptualize climate change as a question of collective responsibility focuses on the collective entities that bear responsibility for climate change. As a global problem, climate change is linked to the realm of international politics, where states, governments, and intergovernmental organizations are the main collective entities. Other important agential collectives in terms of climate responsibility are corporations, including carbon majors who have produced the bulk of emissions. Climate change has also been theorized as a structural injustice, which combines elements from both the viewpoints on what is collective about responsibility for climate change. (shrink)

Does it make sense to talk about corporate responsibility for climate change mitigation? Through utilizing systems thinking, I will argue that mitigation should be incorporated into corpora...

Universities are knowledge institutions. Compared to several other knowledge institutions (e.g. schools, government research organisations, think tanks), research universities have unusual, anarchic organisational features. We argue that such anarchic features are not a weakness. Rather, they reflect the special standing of research universities among knowledge institutions. We contend that the distributed, self-organising mode of knowledge production maintains a diversity of approaches, topics and solutions needed in frontier research, which involves generating relevant knowledge under uncertainty. Organisational disunity and inconsistencies should sometimes (...) be protected by institutional structures and procedures in order for research universities to best serve their purpose as knowledge institutions. The quality control for the knowledge produced stems from knowledge fields, clusters of knowledge and research that exist beyond the confines of individual organisations. The diversity of epistemic contributions is therefore kept in check by the order imposed by the internal logic of science as a social practice. Our argument provides a new defence for the autonomy of research conducted at universities. (shrink)

Henry Shue’s latest book, The Pivotal Generation: Why We Have a Moral Responsibility to Slow Climate Change Right Now, is an excellent read, both clear and comprehensive. It is written in a way that makes it accessible to philosophers and non-philosophers alike. The book argues persuasively that the people alive today must take immediate and drastic action to tackle climate change, as the current decade will be crucial for determining how severe the impacts will become. Shue warns how a sharp (...) division into past, present, and future is misleading when it comes to climate change and can obfuscate the extent of the responsibility that the current generations bear. For us to acknowledge our responsibility, we must recognise how deeply intertwined our lives are with both the past and the future. One of these innate deep connections between generations is the extensive time period that carbon emissions can continue to contribute to climate change, for dozens of centuries. -/- The current generations have been bequeathed an energy system that relies on fossil fuels and that continues to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. For over two centuries now, the planet has been getting warmer as an unintended side effect of industrialisation. We are the first humans to understand the dynamics of the Earth’s climate and how human actions cause anthropogenic climate change. With the rapidly advanced scientific knowledge, it has become apparent that there is a need to quickly transition to a different energy regime. Shue points out that this knowledge has made us the first humans to recognise that action is required, but the urgency of the problem also makes us possibly the last to still be able to act before certain major threats are aggravated. With many irreversible climate change impacts, the date-of-last-opportunity to take action to prevent them might be very soon. According to Shue (2021, p. 6), “This gives us an awesome responsibility. Humans have accidentally set our own house on fire, and if we do not douse the flames while they are no more extensive than they are now, it may not be possible ever to extinguish them”. That is why we alive now are the pivotal generation. -/- Although a sense of urgency runs through the book and the seriousness of the situation is made very clear, Shue steers away from fearmongering. He does not think that human extinction is around the corner, but underlines that we cannot rule out such threats until we stop feeding the beast. Unless we cap emissions at a relatively safe level and transform our infrastructure to net zero, we will keep on increasing risks to future people by “adding continuously to the mushrooming danger” (p. 23). The book stresses that the possibility of passing several tipping points adds to the urgency and the risks because when positive feedback mechanisms are triggered, climate change accelerates. These positive feedbacks can feed into each other, such as when warming seawater melts even more ice, with the possibility of a cascade of feedbacks if enough tipping points are passed. Such changes are irreversible and could themselves become further positive feedbacks. Shue (pp. 24–25) warns that it is “likely that the near future is the last chance to avoid passing significant tipping points and entirely possible that the near future is the last chance to avoid provoking a cascade of tipping points” (emphasis in original). -/- While I applaud the general message of Shue’s book, I find that the brushstrokes he uses when identifying those responsible are a little too broad. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, it is questionable as to how many of us really know enough about the risks we are leaving future generations with. Secondly, discussion in terms of generations underplays the big differences between the responsibility of different groups of actors within them. In what follows, I will elaborate on these points. I should note from the outset, however, that although I think that these are important issues, I find them to be points of clarification in an impressive and ambitious book on why our actions have such significance and why objections to urgent, large-scale climate action are misplaced. (shrink)

Vaikka suurin osa viimeaikaisesta ilmaston lämpenemisestä on ihmisten aiheuttamaa antropogeenista lämpenemistä, yksittäisten ihmisten kausaalinen vaikutus ilmastonmuutokseen on minimaalinen, jopa mitätön. Tämän takia jotkut väittävät, että on harhaanjohtavaa pitää yksilöitä vastuussa ilmastonmuutoksesta. Tällainen argumentointi perustuu perinteisiin vastuutulkintoihin ja -käsitteisiin, joissa vastuun perustana painotetaan toimijan näkökulmaa ja hänen kausaalista rooliaan: jos toimijan teot tai tekemättä jättämiset eivät vaikuta lopputulokseen, hän ei ole vastuussa siitä. Ilmastonmuutoksessa on toinenkin vastuukäsitysten kannalta ongelmallinen seikka, intentionaalisuus eli tahallisuus: ihmiskunta tai yksittäiset ihmiset eivät ole tietoisesti lähteneet muuttamaan (...) ilmastoa. Päinvastoin ilmastonmuutos on syntynyt teollistumisen ja nykyisen elämäntyylimme tahattomana – ja pitkään myös tiedostamattomana – sivuvaikutuksena. Koska omien tekojemme kausaalinen vaikutus sekä niiden tahallisuus tai tahattomuus on luonnollisesti keskiössä arvioidessamme omaa vastuutamme, mahdollinen osallisuutemme vahingon tuottamiseen jää helposti vähemmälle huomiolle. -/- Keskityn tässä artikkelissa osallisuusvastuun (complicity) käsitteeseen ja argumentoin samalla liian yksilökeskeistä ajattelua vastaan. Kollektiivinen toimijuus on otettava huomioon siinä missä yksilökeskeinenkin. Vastuunkantaja ja vastuun peruste ovat analyyttisesti erillisiä käsitteitä, ja niiden tarkastelu voi valottaa vastuukeskustelua ilmastonmuutoksesta. Vastuun peruste voi olla yksilöllinen silloinkin, kun vastuunkantaja on kollektiivinen. Lisäksi argumentoin, että vastuusta puhuttaessa ei riitä katsoa asiaa vain toimijan itsensä kannalta, vaan myös uhrin ja sivustakatsojan näkökulmat on otettava huomioon. Vasta kun vastuukäytäntöjä tarkastellaan ihmisten keskinäisten (usein monimutkaisten) verkostojen ja linkitysten kautta, voidaan saada tasapainoinen kuva vastuumme määrästä ja sen rajoista. -/- Yksilön vastuu ei poista vastuuta kollektiiveilta, kuten valtioilta, ja voimme tehokkaimmin hillitä ilmastonmuutosta esimerkiksi lainsäädännön kautta. Ennen kuin kollektiiviset ratkaisut ilmastonmuutoksen hillitsemiseksi saadaan toimimaan, vastuu palautuu kuitenkin yksilöille. Vastuun peruste on aina yksilötasolla ja sitä voidaan ainoastaan delegoida kollektiiveille. Ilmastonmuutoksen kohdalla delegointi ei ole vielä toiminut. (shrink)

We attribute knowledge to institutions on a daily basis, saying things like "the government knew about the threat" or "the university did not act upon the knowledge it had about the harassment". Institutions can also attribute knowledge to themselves, like when Maybank Global Banking claims that it offers its customers "deep expertise and vast knowledge" of the Southeast Asia region, or when the United States Geological Survey states that it understands complex natural science phenomena like the probability of earthquakes occurring (...) along a given fault line. This article aims to discover when we can correctly attribute knowledge to an institution. I find this an interesting question, especially because when something does go wrong, all too often the official line of response from institutions is that they were unaware of the situation: in other words, they did not have enough information at their disposal. I will argue that institutions have fewer excuses for being ignorant than individuals do, and that many admissions of institutional knowledge are too modest. I begin by discussing a real-life example of the latter, before turning my attention to the usually fragmented nature of institutional knowledge. I also discuss the robustness of this knowledge, offering a distinction between two types of institutional knowledge. I then discuss knowledge parameters and why institutions have fewer excuses for not knowing about something than individuals do. I round off the chapter by examining institutional knowledge on climate change. (shrink)

This book proposes that it is not only states and international bodies that have a responsibility to take action toward mitigating climate change. Other collective agents, such as corporations, need to also come onboard. Additionally, the book argues that climate change is not solely a problem for collective agents, but also for individuals, as they are members of collectives and groups of several kinds. Therefore, framing climate change responsibility exclusively from either the collective or the individual perspective leaves out something (...) crucial: how we all are influenced by the collectives we belong to and how, in turn, collectives are influenced by individuals. -/- The focus of the book is on areas of climate change responsibility that are often left out of the picture or get too little attention in climate ethics, such as carbon inequality within countries. But why should any theoretical arguments about normative issues matter when we have a real-life climate crisis on our hands? Säde Hormio argues that ethical arguments have an important role in setting climate policy: they can highlight what values are at stake and help ground normative arguments in public deliberations. (shrink)

Climate change policy decisions are inescapably intertwined with future generations. Even if all carbon dioxide emissions were to be stopped today, most aspects of climate change would persist for hundreds of years, thus inevitably raising questions of intergenerational justice and sustainability. -/- The chapter begins with a short overview of discount rate debate in climate economics, followed by the observation that discounting implicitly makes the assumption that natural capital is always substitutable with man-made capital. The chapter explains why non-substitutability matters (...) if we are to take intergenerational justice seriously and invest aptly in mitigation. Non-substitutability simply implies that there are some forms of capital that cannot be substituted by another, and so consumption of one cannot be compensated with additional stocks of the other. The non-substitutability of critical natural capital can be defended without empirical data about preferences or the need to view the environment as a superior good, and the argument is presented through the language of keeping options open. -/- Those alive today make decisions about what natural capital to use and what to save for future. These choices are often represented as different points in a continuum of sustainability: weak sustainability is associated with a high degree of substitutability and therefore a lot of flexibility over what capital to consume, whereas strong sustainability is more stringent on substitutability. While it may be that in economical understanding weak and strong sustainability collapse into one another, philosophically the emphasis is slightly different. The chapter discusses how normative sustainability can be supported without ignoring opportunity costs and trade-offs. (shrink)

Lectio praecursoria 16.12.2017: Väitöskirjani tarkastelee yksilövastuun ja kollektiivisen vastuun suhdetta ja kysyy, mitä voimme oppia niistä tarkastelemalla ilmastonmuutosta. Käsittelen ilmastonmuutosta esimerkkitapauksena systemaattisesta vahingosta, joka on syntynyt kollektiivisen toiminnan tahattomana sivuvaikutuksena. Tällaisten vahinkojen ja haittojen kohdalla kausaalinen yhteys yksittäisen toimijan ja lopputuloksen välillä on usein epäselvä tai mahdoton osoittaa tarkasti. Osallisuusvastuu on osallistumista, osallisuutta tai yhteyttä väärään tekoon tai kollektiivisesti aiheutettuun haittaan. Ilmastonmuutos ei ole ongelma vain kollektiivisille toimijoille, vaan myös yksilöille pääosin sen takia, että olemme erilaisten kollektiivien jäseniä ja osia. (...) Esitän, että yksilöiden moraaliselle vastuulle ilmastonmuutoksesta on kolme mahdollista lähdettä: suora vastuu, osallisuusvastuu kollektiivisten toimijoiden jäseninä ja osallisuusvastuu järjestymättömien kollektiivien osana. Kukaan yksilö ei ole vastuussa ilmastonmuutoksesta sinänsä, mutta yksilö voi olla vastuussa esimerkiksi vakavan haitan riskin kasvattamisesta. Mitä siis voimme oppia yksilöiden ja kollektiivien vastuusta tarkastelemalla ilmastonmuutosta? Voimme nähdä, että yksilöiden ja kollektiivien vastuut kietoutuvat yhteen, ja että nykymaailmassa emme voi päästä pakottavien ja ajankohtaisten ongelmien ytimeen keskustelematta niistä yhdessä. Olemme yhä riippuvaisempia toisistamme ja etiikan teorioiden tulisi kuvastaa tätä tilannetta. Kirjoitus on käytännöllisen filosofian väitöskirjani lectio praecursoria, joka esitettiin Helsingin yliopistossa 16. joulukuuta 2017. (shrink)

This book was born out of two interdisciplinary seminars held in 2014. The first one was the Climate Ethics and Climate Economics workshop in April adjoined as part of the European Consortium for Political Research Joint Sessions 2014 in Salamanca. Spurred on by the invigorating discussions, the participants decided to put together more workshops, with Ethical Underpinnings of Climate Economics following in Helsinki in November that same year. Without the organisers of these workshops the collaborators of this book would not (...) have come together: Matthew Rendall, Dominic Roser, Sade Hormio, Simo Kyllonen, Aaron Maltais and Joanna Burch-Brown. We would also like to thank all the participants at the workshops for making them so enjoyable and worthwhile. The Helsinki workshop that this book was named after was organized as part of the Climate Ethics and Economics project, led by Aki Lehtinen and funded by the University of Helsinki. The three-year project is based at the Social and Moral Philosophy discipline in the Department of Political and Economic Studies. The workshop itself was made possible by funding from the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, which also helped to host the event. (shrink)

This study takes up the discussion held by Philippe Sabot in Foucault, Sade and the Enlightenment when it came the Marquis de Sade's work uses in studies conducted by Michel Foucault from Madness and Civilization to The Will to Knowledge. What interests us know of this relationship? This is the main question that guided our study.

Sade's personal fate has too long encouraged critics to concentrate on his personal isolation and personal revolt. Extraordinary as his life was, the light that it throws on his work casts into shade the intellectual context that was much more important to its generation than his actual experience. This book is about how Sade took a pure version of eighteenth-century materialism and rendered it into an even purer form of pornography. The eternal yet unequal clashing of atomic bodies (...) became the endless torture of human ones. It traces the intellectual genealogy that links Sade to his materialist forebears (d'Holbach, Condillac, Buffon, Diderot, La Mettrie, Robinet, Delisle de Sales) and shows how the germs of cruel pleasure were already present in elements of their work, as much in their rhetoric and stylistics as in their arguments. Sade, aided by his grounding in the interpretative techniques of illicit clandestine and libertine literature, read them attentively and developed their presentation as well as their content into a flawlessly logical and self-referential system. Thus the arrogant philosopher (the author / the libertine) did not just mouth his cruel positions but enacted them, proving the behaviour of matter as he/she did so. This reading of Sade's work refers its principal elements - shape, style and contents - back to the hardcore of materialism, offering an account which, while not making it more tolerable, renders it at once more accessible and more comprehensible. (shrink)

Dans les romans de Sade, on n’accomplit que des crimes qui sont longuement expliqués, commentés et surtout légitimés. Ces dissertations ont conduit les critiques à rapprocher le marquis des philosophes du XVIII e siècle et parfois même à l’assimiler à ces derniers. Le présent article indique que cerapprochement n’est pas fondé et prouve que Sade n’a pas cautionné mais a au contraire stigmatisé les raisonnements des philosophes et de leurs épigones qui tendaient à instiller chez les Français du (...) XVIII e siècle l’illusion que tout était légitime et que tout était permis. ENGLISH: The characters of Sade’s novels use to comment crimes which they at length explained, commented on and above all legitimated. These views led the critics to establish a connection between the marquis and the philosophers of the Eighteenth Century and even to liken him to them. This article shows that there is no grounds for this connection and proves that Sade didn’t support but – quite the reverse – condemned the arguments of the philosophers and of their epigones, which instilled into French people of the Eighteenth Century the illusion that all is justifiable and permitted. (shrink)

This first English-language translation captures the excitement of the original text-already a contemporary classic, and will likely become a standard reference in the history of eighteenth-century thought, politics, and society, and in the ...

Examinarei aqui dois textos políticos de Sade que propõem um procedimento a ser instituído na elaboração das leis de tal modo que se possa efetivamente fazer da lei a expressão da soberania popular, como queria a constituição republicana francesa de 1793. Os textos em questão são a Adresse au roi des français, de 1791, antes da proclamação da constituição daquele mesmo ano, e Idée sur le mode de la sanction des lois, de novembro de 1792, e que, portanto, precede (...) a constituição republicana de 1793. (shrink)

Résumé Le problème complexe de la réception tardive de tout l’œuvre du marquis de Sade doit être considéré dans le contexte de l’histoire de la censure en Hongrie au cours de plusieurs siècles. Mon article se nourrit de mon expérience de traductrice, en particulier de ma traduction de La Philosophie dans le boudoir (1989). L’aperçu historique sur l’absence de réception de ses textes avant 1989 puis sur la période suivante qui a commencé avec le changement de régime et une (...) grande liberté dans le domaine éditorial, illustre bien les limites et les avatars de la censure en Europe Centrale et Orientale. (shrink)

Pour autant que nous lisions Sade dans la perspective de la métaphysique platonicienne, il nous apparaít comme un scélérat psychopathe, dont l'oeuvre est digne de bûcher. Car si ses romans sont le reflet de la réalité, il n'у a pas de justification pour lui. Mais le monde sadique, prétend-il, en effet, à être une copie du monde réel, dont l'existence n'est encore que potentielle? Faut-il alors craindre Sade et le prendre pour un fou en le mettant sous le (...) boisseau? L'analyse de la conscience sadique enlève des doutes et des hésitations qui naissent en nous. Sade n'est pas aliené dans le sens que nous voulions imputer. D'un coté la perversion, de l'autre coté l'experience à laquelle il soumet, sous la pression des forces obscures, sa propre conscience, excluent les raisons de nos accusations. L'oeuvre de Sade est, en vérité, une manifestation de ce que G. Deleuze a nommé "renversement du platonisme". En tant que telle elle se développe en dehors de la distinction platonicienne fondamentale: Originel - Copie, en devenant une évocation du troisiéme "élément platonicien" - "faux prétendant", soit du Simulacre. С'ést en "faux" ou "simulé" qu elle retrouve sa vérité. Ce contexte permet de traiter Sade comme un grand precurseur de Nietzsche et de voir en lui un penseur anticipant beaucoup de problibnes actuels de la philosophie contemporaine, comme par exemple le problème du nihilisme. Le systeme sadique c'ést une singuliére synthése qui se compose, en outre de "motifs nietzschéennes", d'un mécanisme du siécle des lumiéres et d'une philosophie kantienne de volonté, alors de deux conceptions antinomiques de la pensée du XVIIIе siécle. Done on ne peut pas exagérer en disant que Sade est un penseur traversant son époque et ouvrant des horisons nouveaux devant la "philosophie de l'homme". II est très significatif que le dévoilement de ces horizons n'est pas pour Sade un effort exclusivemant théorique, mais qu'il est une tentative d'une dimension pratique. Ses solutions philosophiques, Sade les paye de la géhenne de sa propre conscience, qui, tourmenté par la nécessité d'une négation, culmine en anéantir un proche ainsi que soi-méme. (shrink)

Sade e Schopenhauer são filósofos que pensaram a matéria ao mesmo tempo em que descartaram o criacionismo. Schopenhauer pensa a matéria e suas formas no interior de sua metafísica da vontade, enquanto Sade é um materialista propriamente dito, que parte da física e leva a sua concepção de matéria às últimas consequências. Em ambos os autores, o que é inerente ao mundo material é o conflito e o desgaste, o horror e a banalidade do mal, bem como a (...) indiferença cósmica inerente aos fenômenos que constituem o mundo. O presente artigo analisa as peculiaridades do materialismo em ambos os autores e interpreta a concepção de Sade à luz do ponto de vista schopenhaueriano. (shrink)

Também em relação à política Sade foi um enigma, particularmente porque nunca foi sincero sobre ela. Além disso, considerações imprecisas de biógrafos e comentadores contribuem. Esclarecê-lo demanda uma investigação atenta, que espero ter realizado nas obras Sade contre l’Être Suprême e La philosophie dans le boudoir, redigidas durante o período de instalação da primeira República francesa. Por meio delas revelo Sade tão pouco monarquista quanto republicano. Em acréscimo, em La nouvelle Justine e Histoire de Juliette, revelo sua (...) filosofia política construída pela condução do materialismo francês levado às últimas consequências, que ilustro pela noção de Orgia. (shrink)

The Marquis de Sade’s work can be considered as one of the inaugural instances of a technique that, within both the philosophical and literary realm, is typical of the nineteenth century: emotional restraint. His disapproval of the rhetoric of empathy and moral sentimentalism assumes particular relevance in that it is an “internal” critique. Availing himself of certain characteristic premises of the sentimentalist philosophy—which are primarily attributable to the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau—Sade completely changes their conclusions, to the point (...) of reaching a conscious form of immoralism. This immoralism can be interpreted as a systematic overturning of the morale larmoyante, exalted in late eighteenth-century... (shrink)

Enlightenment ideals of a society rooted in liberationist reason and morality were trampled in the wake of the savagery of the Second World War. That era's union of cold technology and ancient hatreds gave rise to a dark, alternative reason--an ethic that was value-free and indifferent with regard to virtue and vice, freedom, and slavery. In a world where "the unthinkable" had become reality, it is small wonder that theorists would turn to the writings of a man whose eighteenth-century imagination (...) preceded twentieth-century history in its unbridled exploration of viciousness, perversion, and monstrosity: the Marquis de Sade. Klossowski was one of the first philosophers in postwar Europe to ask whether Sade's reason, although aberrant and perverted to evil passions, could be taken seriously. Klossowski's seminal work inspired virtually all subsequent study of Sadean thought, including that of de Beauvoir, Deleuze, Derrida, Bataille, Blanchot, Paulhan, and Lacan. (shrink)

The present study will introduce us into a new world of Chinese imagology in the 18th century in France. Different from the negative side of the “sinophobes” such as Montesquieu and François Melon, Sade built a universe of a perfect China in which all crimes were justified. Nevertheless, as a libertine, his point of view was also different from the famous “sinophiles”, La Mothe Le Vayer, Pierre Bayle, Leibniz or Voltaire, for example. China as imagined by Sade was (...) full of infanticide, murder and incest. The pictorial description he uses was largely drawn from the Jesuit literature of that time and some famous travelers’ “relation”, time of the famous theological quarrels about the ritual, easily interested Sade. But, was Sade faithful to these sources or not? Could a libertine moralize about public denunciation? By this foreign image as a mirror, what did he want to explain, taking China as an example, for his own culture? We will give the answers in this article. (shrink)

A fundamentação filosófica permeada na obra literária do Marquês de Sade está intimamente ligada às teses materialistas, em especial, às obras dos filósofos E. de Condillac e La Mettrie que exerceram tamanha influência sob o Marquês. Nos diálogos dos personagens de Sade, encontramos o desmembramento radical das teses propostas por La Metrrie, em principal, quando adere a uma fisiologia muscular, na qual está relacionada a noções de irritabilidade muscular e de sensibilidade nervosa, bem como a tese central de (...) Condillac, quando explica a natureza humana a partir do prazer e do desprazer, principalmente no que tange ao detalhamento das sensações como responsáveis pela composição de faculdades como a atenção, a memória, a imaginação e o juízo. Ao radicalizar, Sade transita por um caminho obscuro da natureza humana guiado unicamente por um prazer sexual egoísta. Sade se apropria do conceito de Estado de Natureza proposto por Thomas Hobbes para justificar a conduta libertina, porém diferente de Hobbes que reconhece no Estado de Natureza a necessidade da constituição do Estado representado por um soberano para coordenar a ordem em favor da vida de cada indivíduo, Sade, por sua vez, ao reconhecer o Estado de Natureza, onde perdura a guerra de todos contra todos, identifica a predominância da lei do mais forte. A figura do soberano libertino se apresenta para constituir a organização social denominada Orgia, cujos indivíduos adeptos reconhecem-no como o mais forte, e assim, submetem-se ao seu domínio por possuírem algo em comum: a busca de um grau elevado de prazer. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 26.2 (2002) 397-404 [Access article in PDF] The Sexist Sublime in Sade and Lyotard Caroline Weber In this case the masculine returns to haunt the place of the feminine like a ghost...., bloody and inhuman, in order to manifest and to root unforgettably in us the idea of a perpetual conflict and a spasm in which life is constantly being cut short. Antonin Artaud, The (...) Theater and Its Double"VIOLENCE," JEAN-FRANÇOIS LYOTARD ASSERTS in a recent article on Kantian aesthetics, "is necessary to the sublime." 1 More precisely, the sublime, held to transport an individual beyond his or her "ordinary" register of aesthetic responses, may do violence to a person's faculty of imagination, by shattering the accepted limits of sensory experience. Lyotard explains: In the sublime, the imagination must be subjected to violence, because it is by way of its suffering, the mediation of its violation, that the joy of seeing—or almost seeing—the law can be obtained.... This "joy" [here Lyotard cites The Critique of Judgment] "is only possible by the mediation of pain." 2Indeed, students of Kant's work have long been familiar with the exclusion of sentiment, pathos, and personal interest that he posits as a requirement for exalted status in the aesthetic and the moral sphere. For Kant, the law is precisely about the painful suppression of pleasure-seeking impulses for the sake of a disinterested, higher good. To achieve the transcendental perfection of the law, typically understood to be the domain of God alone, one must, godlike, overcome the [End Page 397] limitations of human nature and human feeling. And this effort—of which the Passion is just one vivid example—can be extraordinarily painful. In this context, Lyotard's formulation of the problem may not strike us as particularly startling. In contending that the Kantian experience of the sublime requires the mediation of pain, the French poststructuralist appears simply to be reminding us that the law, whether aesthetic or moral in nature, always demands some sort of discomfort, some kind of sacrifice.We might be more inclined to accept this last statement if Lyotard's own work hadn't already taught us to think otherwise. For as he demonstrates admirably in The Differend, his 1983 meditation on testimony and the Holocaust, there is always a winner and a loser under the law; its attendant pains are always selectively applied. From a discursive point of view, this asymmetrical relationship manifests itself in a differend, a situation where two parties find themselves in dispute, and "the 'regulation' of the conflict that opposes them is done in the idiom of one of the parties, while the wrong suffered by the other is not signified in that idiom." 3 According to Lyotard, the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis exemplifies this pattern. In a strict juridical sense, any attempted protests by concentration camp prisoners had no meaning, and no right to mean anything, in Third Reich Germany: In the differend, something "asks" to be put into phrases, and suffers from the wrong (tort) of not being able to be put into phrases right away. This is when the human beings who thought they could use language as an instrument of communication learn through the feeling of pain... to recognize that what remains to be phrased exceeds what they can presently phrase.... 4Here Lyotard reveals that an encounter with the law, mediated by pain, inevitably creates injustices and wronged parties. In this paper, I will draw on this insight from The Differend to point up the ethical deficiencies or torts inherent in his own ruminations on the Kantian sublime—and in those of another philosopher whose thinking closely resembles Lyotard's on the subject, the notorious Marquis de Sade. To limit the scope of my inquiry, I shall focus in this brief essay on the differend to which each thinker's writings subject the figure of the mother.For Lyotard and Sade alike, the mother represents first and foremost the capacity to reproduce. With this capacity... (shrink)