In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Sources of MemoryJeffrey Andrew Barash“What does it mean to remember?” This question might seem commonplace when it is confined to the domain of events recalled in past individual experience; but even in this restricted sense, when memory recalls, for example, a first personal encounter with birth or with death, the singularity of the remembered image places the deeper possibilities of human understanding in relief. Such experiences punctuating (...) everyday life highlight the central place of memory as a source of human identity.With a few notable exceptions, such as Henri Bergson or Maurice Halb-wachs, this central role of memory was rarely a topic of interest in the theoretical orientations of our century. It played only a peripheral role in the different philosophical orientations and in the human sciences of this century until, very recently, new attempts have been made to comprehend the significance of memory, above all in the fields of intellectual history and philosophy. Without dealing exhaustively with the bibliography of works on memory, I will mention what seem to me to be the signs of a recent renewal of questioning in this area of interest to historians and philosophers alike. This will lead me to the specific problem I will address in the pages that follow.One of the chief sources of the historian’s recent interest in memory has been the historians’ conflict (Historikerstreit) of the 1980s concerning the interpretation of the German and European past since the rise to power of Nazism and in the aftermath of World War II. As the generations who lived through and—from a given perspective—remembered these events increasingly disappear, the question concerning their precise historical meaning has reemerged with a new urgency. In this vein, for example, as the relatively new periodical History and Memory: Studies in the Representation of the Past and the collection of essays Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution,” edited by Saul Friedlander, amply attest, the relation of memory to historical narrative is as important as it is problematic: to the extent that eyewitness memory claims a status of objectivity beyond the fictional sphere of [End Page 707] the imagination, its role in informing historical narrative involves the very issue of objectivity itself. 1Independently of this query concerning the relation of memory and history in recent scholarship focusing on the twentieth century, a number of studies have attempted to place the idea of memory in historical perspective during premodern periods. In this regard, we may cite Janet Coleman’s recently published work, Ancient and Medieval Memories: Studies in the Reconstruction of the Past and Mary Carruthers’s treatment of the subject of memory in the medieval period in The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. 2 A number of other recent works in the field of intellectual history have attempted to grapple with the intriguing problem of the historicity of the phenomenon of memory in the West. This idea of the historicity of memory has been inspired at least in part by Pierre Nora’s essay, “Between Memory and History,” which introduced the multi-volume series he directed, Les Lieux de mémoire. In this vein, Patrick H. Hutton’s History as an Art of Memory, Matt K. Matsuda’s The Memory of the Modern, and Richard Terdiman’s Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis all center on the historical transforma-tions to which, according to the different perspectives of their works, “memory” has been subject. 3 Like Nora, they link this historicity of the social and cultural role of memory to the radical transformations that Western civilization has undergone in the modern period.In a philosophical perspective David Farrell Krell’s work, Of Memory, Reminiscence, and Writing: On the Verge, presents a very different idea of the phenomenon of memory. 4 Where the intellectual historians of modernity stress the mutations in the role of memory, Krell, following in the footsteps of Jacques Derrida, emphasizes one essential line of continuity that, to his mind, has tied [End Page 708] together the tradition of philosophical reflection on memory from Plato and Aristotle up until Freud: the metaphoric reference to memory as the faculty... (shrink)

Le travail théorique du juriste et philosophe Hermann Heller reste très peu connu en France. Alors que les ouvrages de son principal adversaire de cette époque, Carl Schmitt, sont traduits partout dans le monde, la grande majorité des écrits constituant les trois tomes de l’œuvre complète de Heller, rééditée en 1992 à Tübingen par la maison d’édition Mohr,..

There is one critical way we honor great tragedies: by never forgetting. Collective remembrance is as old as human society itself, serving as an important source of social cohesion, yet as Jeffrey Andrew Barash shows in this book, it has served novel roles in a modern era otherwise characterized by discontinuity and dislocation. Drawing on recent theoretical explorations of collective memory, he elaborates an important new philosophical basis for it, one that unveils profound limitations to its scope in (...) relation to the historical past. Crucial to Barash’s analysis is a look at the radical transformations that symbolic configurations of collective memory have undergone with the rise of new technologies of mass communication. He provocatively demonstrates how such technologies’ capacity to simulate direct experience—especially via the image—actually makes more palpable collective memory’s limitations and the opacity of the historical past, which always lies beyond the reach of living memory. Thwarting skepticism, however, he eventually looks to literature—specifically writers such as Walter Scott, Marcel Proust, and W. G. Sebald—to uncover subtle nuances of temporality that might offer inconspicuous emblems of a past historical reality. (shrink)

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’intérêt pour le phénomène de la mémoire, concernant la sphère immédiate de la vie personnelle ou étendu à l’expérience collective, a pris une importance croissante. Dans ce second cas, l’effervescence autour de la question n’en a que peu éclairé les véritables enjeux. On se contente trop souvent d’affirmer que la mémoire collective de.

La présente étude se consacre à un examen du concept de la mémoire collective en s'interrogeant sur l'interprétation que Paul Ricœur propose de ce concept dans son ouvrage La mémoire, l'histoire, l'oubli. L'auteur présente une lecture critique de l'interprétation de la mémoire collective chez Ricœur là ou Ricœur tente de comprendre ce phénomène par analogie avec la mémoire personnelle et risque, selon cette lecture, d'occulter les dimensions de la mémoire collective qui échappent à un tel rapport analogique. L'auteur tente alors (...) de dépasser le cadre de cette analogie par une analyse des sources symboliques et métapersonnelles de la mémoire collective. This study examines the concept of collective memory through an investigation of Paul Ricœur's interpretation of this concept in his work, La mémoire, l'histoire, l'oubli. In presenting a critical reading of the analogy Ricoeur establishes between collective and personal memory, the author argues that this analogy risks excluding those dimensions of collective memory which cannot be comprehended through such an analogy. The attempt is then made to surmount this difficulty through an analysis of collective memory in relation to its symbolic and metapersonal sources. (shrink)

Now in paperback, this important book explores the central role of historical thought in the full range of Heidegger’s thought, both the early writings leading up to Being and Time, and after the “reversal” or Kehre that inaugurated his later work. Barash examines Heidegger’s views on history in a richly developed context of debates that transpired in the early 20th-century German philosophy of history. He addresses a key unifying theme—the problem of historical meaning and the search for coherent criteria (...) of truth in an era of historical relativism—as he traces the engagement with historicity throughout all major epochs and works. Barash revises this edition to explore new material, including Heidegger’s lecture course texts from 1910 to 1923, and adds an expanded, updated bibliography. (shrink)

Günther Anders, Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas, Karl Làwith, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Strauss, Eric Weil... Non sans quelque paradoxe, la philosophie sociale, politique, métaphysique de l'après-guerre a été largement représentée par des penseurs allemands ou formés en Allemagne, qui avaient la particularité d'avoir été des étudiants de Martin Heidegger et d'être en même temps d'origine juive. Ce volume, issu d'un colloque international tenu à Paris en 2012, a voulu les penser ensemble pour la première fois et étudier sur quel (...) fond historique et intellectuel cette double spécificité a été possible. Quelle dette chacun d'entre eux a-t-il pu contracter à l'égard de ce maître commun et quelle distance ont-ils pu prendre (ou ne pas prendre) par rapport à lui après la Seconde Guerre mondiale? Un double questionnement qui permettra d'écrire une nouvelle page de la philosophie allemande, qui pourrait bien être aussi une page de la philosophie juive au XXe siècle. (shrink)

Written during the period of his emigration to the United States, during and just after World War II, the originality of Karl Löwith's book Meaning in History lies in its resolute critique of all forms of philosophy of history. This critique is based on the now famous idea that modern philosophies of history have only extended and deepened an illusion fabricated by a long tradition of Christian historical reflection: the illusion that history itself has an intrinsic goal. This modern extension (...) and deepening of the chimera propagated by Christian historical reflection is what Löwith terms "secularization." Drawing on the arguments in Meaning in History as well as those proposed in other contemporaneous and earlier writings, including Löwith's heretofore unpublished correspondence with Leo Strauss, this article attempts to set in relief the frequently neglected, yet eminently political implications of Löwith's idea of secularization. Among the problems implicitly considered in relation to the theory of secularization in Meaning in History is a theme frequently addressed in earlier writings: the motives that led German intellectuals like Friedrich Gogarten, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt to adhere to the Nazi movement. (shrink)

Following this work, Cassirer extended his insights to encompass a broad spectrum of philosophical themes: from investigations into Western epistemological and ...

ABSTRACTIn 1929 Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger participated in a momentous debate in Davos, Switzerland, which is widely held to have marked an important division in twentieth‐century European thought. Peter E. Gordon's recent book, Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, centers on this debate between these two philosophical adversaries. In his book Gordon examines the background of the debate, the issues that distinguished the respective positions of Cassirer and Heidegger, and the legacy of the debate for later decades. Throughout the work, (...) Gordon concisely portrays the source of disagreement between the two adversaries in terms of a difference between Cassirer's philosophy of spontaneity and Heidegger's philosophy of receptivity, or of “thrownness” , into a situation that finite human beings can never hope to master. Although it recognizes that this work provides an important contribution to our understanding of the Davos debate and to twentieth‐century European thought, this review essay subjects Gordon's manner of interpreting the distinction between Cassirer and Heidegger to critical scrutiny. Its purpose is to examine the possibility that important aspects of the debate, which do not conform to the grid imposed by Gordon's interpretation, might have been set aside in the context of his analysis. (shrink)

One of principal tasks of Paul Ricoeur’s Memory, History, Forgetting is to analyze the phenomenon of social cohesion, understood not as a uniform bond, but in terms of human plurality that arises from a diversity of perspectives of remembering groups rooted in complex stratifications and concatenations. This paper focuses on the role of remembrance and of its historical inscription as a source of social cohesion, which is subject to rupture and dissolution over time. It first identifies the way in which, (...) according to Ricœur, memory and history function as essential preconditions of social cohesion; following this, it examines the significance and scope of temporal rupture and discontinuity to which this cohesion is subject. In examining Ricœur’s reflection on social cohesion and on the discontinuity to which it is subject over time, I aim to place his thought in a critical light in order to set in relief what I take to be an important aporia it encounters. (shrink)

While the recent publication of the Hannah Arendt-Martin Heidegger correspondence confirms that there existed a close personal tie between these two thinkers, the relation between their philosophies is far more problematic. This article argues that Arendt's originality presents itself in its full light in her two major theoretical works of the 1950s, Between Past and Future and The Human Condition , when these works are considered to present a thinly veiled, implicit critique of Heidegger's philosophy. Arendt's critique becomes especially visible (...) in the 'existential' role that she attributed to natality in its relation to political action and to remembrance, placing in question the central orientation of Heidegger's existential ontology in terms of being-toward-death. (shrink)

JEFFREY ANDREW BARASH. — Ce qui m’a beaucoup intéressé dans vos écrits récents et notamment dans votre livre Le siècle de Sartre, c’est la manière dont vous abordez le phénomène du totalitarisme, phénomène central pour comprendre le XXe siècle. Or, s’agissant du phénomène totalitaire, nous avons assisté à l’émergence d’un nouveau..

My analysis in the following paper will focus on a subtle develop­ment in Heidegger’s interpretation of the theme of memory, from the period of his early Freiburg lectures to Being and Time and then in the works of the late 1920s. There is in this period an apparent shift in Heidegger’s understanding of this theme, which comes to light above all in his way of examining memory in the 1921 Freiburg course lectures Augustine and Neo-Platonism, then in Being and Time (...) (1927) and finally in the 1928 lectures on the metaphysical foundations of logic (Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Logik im Ausgang von Leibniz) and Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics (1929). This shift is of interest, as I will argue, not only in indicating an internal development of Heidegger’s thinking, but above all in regard to the problem of the finitude of memory which Heidegger brings into focus and which I will interpret in my concluding remarks. (shrink)

Collective memory is thought to be something “more” than a conglomeration of personal memories which compose it. Yet, each of us, each individual in every society, remembers from a personal point of view. And if there is memory beyond personal experience through which collective identities are configured, in what “place” might one legitimately situate it? In addressing this question, this article examines the political significance of the distinction between two levels of what are often lumped together under the term of (...) “collective memory”: memories that are retained through the direct experience of groups or associations of a limited size and those that are rarely the object of direct experience constituting the events marking the identities of mass societies. (shrink)

Este artigo enfoca a originalidade da tentativa de Wilhelm Windelband, o fundador da escola de neokantismo de Baden, de fornecer uma base teórica para a história como disciplina científica. Enquanto Kant, na Crítica da Razão Pura, tomou como modelo para toda a ciência a certeza das leis gerais da ciência da natureza, Windelband pretendia romper com os estreitos limites deste modelo kantiano para fornecer uma teoria de inteligibilidade científica que nenhuma busca por leis gerais poderia enfocar. No lugar dos conceitos (...) gerais, a teoria de Windelband empregou valores historicamente mutáveis que permitem ao historiador colocar em relevo a qualidade singular dos contextos passados e dos indivíduos que neles interagem. Neste estudo, defendo que a vontade de Windelband de reconhecer a historicidade radical dos valores que estão por trás de todas as preocupações culturais, incluindo a continuidade e coerência da própria teoria, trouxe o ideal neokantiano da ciência histórica perante um dilema que ela não poderia resolver. Esta dificuldade, entretanto, não desqualifica de forma alguma a busca original de Windelband, mas exige uma reformulação de seu escopo e propósito fundamental. (shrink)

Im Jahre 1959 erschien die berühmte Schrift „Kritik und Krise' im Verlag Karl Alber. 62 Jahre später setzt sich dieser interdisziplinäre Sammelband das Ziel, die Rezeption des Koselleck‘schen Denkens auf internationaler Ebene zu studieren und das Spektrum der Themen und Perspektiven, in denen es angegangen wird, zu erweitern. Er bringt Spezialisten seines Werkes (Geschichtstheoretiker, Germanisten, Historiker, Philosophen usw.) zusammen, die ihre unterschiedlichen Lese- und Interpretationsweisen von Koselleck vorstellen und diskutieren sowie dabei seinen Beitrag und seine Originalität untersuchen.

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’intérêt pour le phénomène de la mémoire, concernant la sphère immédiate de la vie personnelle ou étendu à l’expérience collective, a pris une importance croissante. Dans ce second cas, l’effervescence autour de la question n’en a que peu éclairé les véritables enjeux. On se contente trop souvent d’affirmer que la mémoire collective de..

Paul Ricœur prononça cette allocution en Allemagne en janvier 1990, à l’occasion de la remise du prix Karl-Jaspers que l’Université de Heidelberg lui avait décerné pour l’année 19891.Ce prix a été créé à l’initiative de cette Université en 1983 pour commémorer le centenaire de la naissance du philosophe Karl Jaspers, qui y enseigna dès avant la Première...

I The intellectual relations between Heidegger and Arendt The publication of the correspondence between Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt in Germany in 1998 contributed new insight into the relations between these two 20th century thinkers. Arendt was Heidegger's student in Marburg in the mid-1920s and the correspondence has confirmed the intimate character of their relationship during this period. Subsequently, Arendt moved to Heidelberg to work with Karl Jaspers. Following Heidegger's support of the Hitler regime as rector of Freiburg University in (...) 1933–1934, communication ceased between Arendt and Heidegger and, during these years, Arendt emigrated, first to France and then to the United States. After the Second World War, the silence between them continued for a period of five years. During this period Arendt published an article highly critical of Heidegger's writings, entitled “What is Existenz-philosophy?”, in which she argued that Heidegger's thought belonged to the contemplative metaphysical tradition inaugurated by Plato that she saw it as her task to overcome. The Hannah Arendt – Martin Heidegger Briefwechsel has also documented the fact that in February 1950 Arendt and Heidegger once again resumed their friendship, which lasted for the remainder of their lives. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis essay explores the different interpretations proposed by Ernst Cassirer and Hans Blumenberg of the relation between Platonic philosophy and myth as a means of bringing to light a fundamental divergence in their respective conceptions of what precisely myth is. It attempts to show that their conceptions of myth are closely related to their respective assumptions concerning the historical significance of myth and regarding the sense of history more generally. Their divergent conceptions of myth and of history, I argue, are (...) at the same time not simply matters of abstract speculation, but spring from fundamental presuppositions concerning myth's political significance. The present elucidation aims not only to set in relief one or another of the ways in which Cassirer or Blumenberg understood myth, nor even to present Blumenberg's critical reception of Cassirer's theories, but above all to contribute to the interpretation of the political implications of myth and of its historical potency in our contemporary epoch. (shrink)

L’année 2005 marque le centenaire de la naissance de Jean-Paul Sartre. Conçu à l’occasion de cet anniversaire, le présent numéro est consacré à l’étude de l’œuvre de Sartre dans les différents champs où elle s’est aventurée, de la philosophie à la littérature, de la psychologie à la politique. Loin d’avoir l’ambition de mesurer précisément la..

Ce numéro de Cités, tout entier dédié à la pensée de Paul Ricœur, vise à apporter un nouvel éclairage sur son contenu, les problèmes qu’elle aborde et sa réception. À la différence des nombreux colloques qui se sont tenus en son honneur depuis sa disparition en mai 2005, il s’agit moins de produire un nouveau volume d’hommages que de jeter...

Dans le propos qui suit, j’examinerai le thème du relativisme dans la perspective de Leo Strauss. Je tenterai de situer l’originalité de la conception straussienne, sans pour autant négliger son caractère problématique, afin de souligner son importance pour la pensée contemporaine.Mettre en relief la signification des réflexions straussiennes sur le relativisme exige de se confronter..

In 1929 Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger participated in a momentous debate in Davos, Switzerland, which is widely held to have marked an important division in twentieth-century European thought. Peter E. Gordon’s recent book, Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos, centers on this debate between these two philosophical adversaries. In his book Gordon examines the background of the debate, the issues that distinguished the respective positions of Cassirer and Heidegger, and the legacy of the debate for later decades. Throughout the work, (...) Gordon concisely portrays the source of disagreement between the two adversaries in terms of a difference between Cassirer’s philosophy of spontaneity and Heidegger’s philosophy of receptivity, or of “thrownness” , into a situation that finite human beings can never hope to master. Although it recognizes that this work provides an important contribution to our understanding of the Davos debate and to twentieth-century European thought, this review essay subjects Gordon’s manner of interpreting the distinction between Cassirer and Heidegger to critical scrutiny. Its purpose is to examine the possibility that important aspects of the debate, which do not conform to the grid imposed by Gordon’s interpretation, might have been set aside in the context of his analysis. (shrink)