Tout au long des années 80, Derrida a exploré le thème de l’invention et étudié en particulier sa conception cartésienne. Derrida récuse avec force cette dernière pour montrer qu’elle dissimule une conception théologico-politique du sujet, accomplissant sur le plan politique la thèse métaphysique du logocentrisme. Mais, à partir de Psychè. Inventions de l’autre, cette vision est infléchie pour développer la signification positive de ce qu’il finit par appeler « l’invention du même » qui constitue l’un des courants majeurs de l’invention (...) techno-scientifique au sens moderne. Solidaire d’une certaine « politique de la recherche », Descartes voit l’une de ses inventions, la « langue universelle », être pour la première fois « contresignée » par Derrida. Cette reconnaissance ne doit pas toutefois cacher un désaccord où se révèle l’originalité de la pensée derridienne de l’invention : résolument anticartésienne, elle propose une inventio qui, en tant qu’elle confond avec le jeu même de la « différance », s’exclut de la cogitatio. Événement immanent à la res extensa qui, pour cette raison, ne saurait être entièrement rationalisé et qui, c’est significatif, en même temps qu’il s’ouvre à la chance, renvoie à une autre conception de l’être-ensemble. L’invention porte dans son excès, selon Derrida, l’annonce d’un temps nouveau. (shrink)

This essay argues a case for viewing Derrida's work in the context of recent French epistemology and philosophy of science; more specifically, the critical‐rationalist approach exemplified by thinkers such as Bachelard and Canguilhem. I trace this line of descent principally through Derrida's essay ‘White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy’. My conclusions are (1) that we get Derrida wrong if we read him as a fargone antirealist for whom there is nothing ‘outside the text'; (2) that he provides some (...) powerful counter‐arguments to this and other items of current postmodern wisdom; (3) that deconstruction is more aptly viewed as continuing the epistemo‐critical approach developed by thinkers like Bachelard; and (4) that it also holds important lessons for philosophy of science in the mainstream Anglo‐ American ‘analytic’ tradition. (shrink)

The paper seeks to outline the relationship between Geschlecht III and Derrida’s published texts devoted to the mark «Geschlecht» in order to detect the general strategy followed by Jacques Derrida into the construction of his archive during his lifetime. Indeed, we suppose that his archive has to be build in accordance with his deconstructive statements about the classical conception of the archive: a totalizing closure of a textual production able to trace it back to the unity of an ideal identity. (...) In particular, the paper aims to focus on a passage at the end of Jacques Derrida’s Geschlecht III, where the question of the animal in Heidegger comes in the foreground and in a way that is slightly different from what we already know through Derrida’s published Works and could impose a re-reading of its «entire» work. (shrink)

¿Cómo pensar hoy la naturaleza y el valor de la reflexión filosófica? La influencia omnipresente del modelo del conocimiento experto parece exigir una autocomprensión de la filosofía como una disciplina entre las disciplinas. Este artículo propone que la filosofía debe resistirse a esta tentación. Defenderé, por tanto, una especie de "excepcionalismo" para la filosofía basado en la idea de que no puede pretender ser una disciplina. Sea o no cierto que hoy en día las actividades filosóficas estén legitimadas institucionalmente por (...) los principios de un Canon, voy a sugerir una estrategia de transgresión del Canon al rechazar cualquier asimilación de la filosofía a una disciplina, aunque fuera "anómala". La filosofía debe contribuir a la comprensión de nuestros diversos modos de conceptualizar y de transformar el mundo y dar sentido a la experiencia humana. La filosofía debe reclamar para sí una "estado de excepción" y abrir un espacio para cuestionar todo aquello que parece obvio e incuestionable. How to think today about the nature and value of the philosophical reflection? The pervasive influence of the model of expert knowledge seems to require a selfunderstanding of philosophy as a discipline among the disciplines. This paper argues that philosophy should resist this move. So I will defend a kind of "exceptionalism" for philosophy based on the idea that philosophy cannot pretend to be a discipline. Be true or not that philosophical activities are nowadays institutionally legitimized by the principles of a Canon, I will suggest a strategy of transgression of the Canon by rejecting any assimilation of philosophy to a discipline, even if an "anomalous" one. Philosophy must contribute to the understanding of our different ways of conceptualizing and transforming the world and to make sense of human experience. The thesis of this paper is that philosophy must claim a "state of emergency" for itself a open a space for freely questioning what it appears as obvious and unchallengeable. (shrink)

En este trabajo se reflexiona sobre la propuesta de Jacques Derrida a propósito de la relación de la filosofía con su institución y enseñanza actuales. El objetivo de esta reflexión es exponer, analizar e interpretar las aporías que, según Derrida, se refieren a la escena escolar, finalidad, lugar, enseñanza, institución, magisterio, didáctica y tiempo de la filosofía. En el análisis y la interpretación se defiende que la propuesta de Derrida es compatible y puede completarse con las aportaciones de filósofos de (...) corrientes diversas: Martha Nussbaum, Gianni Vattimo, Max Horkheimer, Alain Badiou, Pierre Hadot, Dario Antiseri. El concepto de síntesis disyuntiva, concebido por Gilles Deleuze, posibilita la realización de esta tarea constructiva, afirmativa y reivindicativa. (shrink)

Resumo: Este texto parte da letra A, da sua importância e da sua centralidade na Desconstrução de Derrida. Em função dessa letra iniciática, indício da “ironia muda” da différance como sincategorema do pensamento de Derrida, tentar-se-á acompanhar o modo como se apresenta à Filosofia Contemporânea como uma espécie de sismo, de abalo e de nova propulsão. Sismografias tenta então reconhecer, na postura e no desenvolvimento dessa letra “A”, a forma como o trabalho de Derrida abala pela base o território dos (...) conceitos, convocando a urgência e a responsabilidade da filosofia, da escrita e do pensamento. Nesse sentido, trata-se aqui de acompanhar as linhas de desenvolvimento de uma letra motriz, que pontuou, do início ao fim e em todas as direções, o pensamento de Derrida como idioma, como revolução filosófica, como sismografia.: This text departs from the letter A, in its importance and its centrality in Derrida’s deconstruction. From this initiatic letter, a sign of différance’s “mute irony” as a syncategorem of Derrida’s thought, we will try to follow the way in which it presents itself to Contemporary Philosophy as a kind of earthquake, a quake and a new propulsion. Seismographies tries therefore to recognise, in the posture and development of this letter “A”, the way in which Derrida’s work shakes up at its base the domain of concepts,, summoning up the urgency and responsibility of philosophy, of writing and of thought. In this sense it is intended to follow the lines of development of a leading letter, which marked, from beginning to end and in all directions, Derrida’s thought as an idiom, as a philosophical revolution, as a seismographie. (shrink)

This paper explores what is apparently a non-topic for Luhmann. Luhmann is preoccupied with decision-making rather than with judgment. The paper argues that Luhmann, attempting to find a way out of the dilemma between the fundamentalism of positivistic legal theory and the relativism of anti-foundationalist post-modern thinking, presents the epistemological–ethical doublet of a “self-binding” of the law. In this bootstrapping manoeuvre decision plays the central part. The paper begins by examining judgment in its relation to decision as considered by non-system-theoretical (...) thinking. Against that background it unfolds the distinction between distinction, form and decision in systems theory and in the system-theoretical observation of the law. The article then discusses Luhmann’s description of the functioning of decision(-making) within the legal system. The hypothesis is that Luhmann blends here cognitive with ethical aspects. Finally, the article addresses Luhmann’s polemics against alternative approaches to his own. The suggestion is that ‘judgment’, in Luhmann’s systems theory, re-enters by the back door as an ethical–theoretical imperative that commands theory’s responsibility for society and law. (shrink)

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of Niklas Luhmann’s (1927–1998) magnum opus Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie [14]. On the occasion, this Special Issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law celebrates the contribution of Luhmann’s thinking to our understanding of law, justice, and society.Luhmann’s work is wide open for argument. Some consider it the grand unified theory able to completely grasp social reality. Others see nothing but a substantially void conglomeration of analytical constructs (...) and “behaviouristic” descriptions joined together with “pseudo-empirism” [24, pp. 310, 313] or a hermetic ensemble of “self-mystifying semantics” [7, p. 76] supported by sophisticated strategies of pure self-apology. It might seem that the “giant” [1] theorist of the social has encouraged such impressions with pretensions which were “grandiose” in more than one respect [9, 23]. Indeed, readers who encounter systems theory for the first ti. (shrink)

The idea that Derrida kept silent on Marx before the publication of Spectres de Marx, in 1993, has become a commonplace in Derrida studies and in the history of Marxism and French 20th century political thought. This idea has often been accompanied by a certain representation of the relationship between deconstruction and dialectical materialism, and fed the legend of deconstruction’s «apoliticism» – at least before what some have called Derrida’s «ethicopolitical turn», usually dated in the early 1990s. Against this narrative, (...) this essay analyzes Derrida’s notorious «silence on Marx» before Specters of Marx from the perspective of the archives. Archival research transforms the narrative: Derrida’s «silence on Marx» was only «relative». Beyond the scene of publications, archives reveal another scene: multiple engagements with Marx and Marxist thought, marked and remarked in many archival documents – more particularly in a series of early seminar notes from the 1960s and 1970s. How does this archival scene transform our interpretation of Derrida’s «silence»? (shrink)

My paper examines Derrida's attempts to resist, on the one hand, what he thought of as the increasing international hegemony of American English as the technolanguage of communication, and, on the other hand, forms of linguistic nationalism, when using the resources of the French language to deploy the syntagma: démocratie à venir. It does this by investigating what happens when claims about democracy are made in such a way as to be singularly idiomatic – made from a cosmopolitan point of (...) view that takes into account, rather than vitiates à la Kant, the singular poeticity of idioms. It contrasts Derrida's analysis of the relationship between the national, democracy and idiomaticity with Tocqueville's nationalistic claims; examining, in particular, the issue of how language supposedly binds people together, the role of singularity and generality in thinking about idioms, the divide between originary and techno-scientific idioms, and Derrida's practice of writing in plus d'une langue. It also outlines how, paradoxically, it is a form of idiomaticity and not linguistic instrumentality that disrupts the logic of appropriation, the logic inscribed in the neighbouring, though different, conceptual values of idion, proprius and le propre. (shrink)

The relationship between national languages and schooling is a recurring theme in Derrida’s writings on education, playing an important role in the challenge he mounts to traditional understandings of the French State’s involvement in the teaching of philosophy. In this essay, I follow this thread of thinking across several of Derrida’s texts, paying specific attention to his diagnoses of positions arguing for a universal philosophical language on the one hand, and those elevating French as the proper language of philosophy on (...) the other. I demonstrate how, against these positions, an alternative understanding of relation between language and philosophical education starts to emerge in Derrida’s work, one in which translation is a key element. (shrink)

One of the features of John Locke’s moral philosophy is the idea that morality is based on our beliefs concerning the future good. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding II, xxi, §70, Locke argues that we have to decide between the probability of afterlife and our present temptations. In itself, this kind of decision model is not rare in Early Modern philosophy. Blaise Pascal’s Wager is a famous example of a similar idea of balancing between available options which Marcelo Dascal (...) has discussed in his important 2005 article “The Balance of Reason”. -/- Leibniz, however, was not always satisfied with this kind of simple balancing. In his commentary to Locke’s Essay, Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain, II, xxi, §66, he presented an alternative model which is based on an idea of plural, mutually conflicting inclinations. This kind of model, called as vectorial theory of rational decision by Simo Knuuttila, fits well with Leibniz’s theory of the soul where volitions are formed as a kind of compromise between different inclinations to different goods. -/- I will present these two models and show how they illustrate the practical rationality of Locke and Leibniz and how their moral philosophies differ, although being similar in certain respects. The topics include Leibniz’s criticism of Lockean hedonism and the discussion of akratic behaviour in II, xxi of Essay and Nouveaux essais. (shrink)

This article examines Jacques Derrida’s work of self-reflection on his own teaching practice by using as a guiding thread the problematics of reproduction in the seminars of the 1970s. The first part of the article examines the sequence of seminars taught by Derrida at École normale supérieure from 1971 to 1977 to show how the concept of reproduction is deconstructed by Derrida across several seminars. Derrida systematically demonstrates, across several themes and fields (sociology and economy, biology and sexuality, art, technique, (...) ontology, and so on), that the critical recourse to the concept of reproduction (for instance, in its Marxist form) risks being complicit in the reproductive system it criticizes. The deconstructive motif of débordement is introduced to problematize this onto-logic of re-production. The second part of the article analyzes more specifically the unpublished seminar “GREPH, le concept de l’idéologie chez les idéologues français” (1974–75), in which Derrida examines the seminar function, his role as a teacher, and his own situation within the French educational system. In particular, Derrida offers a deconstructive critique of the reproductive effects of teaching, and of the institution of philosophy inasmuch as it functions as a reproductive machine. This work of deconstruction is done in the seminar notably through readings of Marx, Engels, and Althusser, with special attention to the concepts of ideology, reproduction, and sexual difference. (shrink)