La questione animale, secondo il Derrida insignito del premio Adorno, è la questione filosofica centrale del xxi secolo – punto di snodo, per la sua particolare interdisciplinarità che incrocia l’etica, l’estetica, l’ontologia e la filosofia della scienza. Indagare l’animalità, infatti, non significa – come molti credono pensando all’etica animale – chiedersi “semplicemente” se gli animali abbiano diritti; significa piuttosto, ragionare sulla vita e sulla comune base esistenziale che ci lega...

La philosophie de l’animalité chez Heidegger et Merleau-PontyLe présent essai est une tentative de réflexion à partir de l’oeuvre de Merleau-Ponty sur le problème anthropologique: comment penser l’humain dans son rapport ontologique avec l’animal sans retomber dans les dichotomies traditionnelles du spiritualisme et du naturalisme ou de la philosophie et de la non-philosophie, dans lesquelles la pensée contemporaine, en particulier la pensée heideggerienne, est restée à notre avis enfermée. L’originalité théorique de l’approche merleau-pontienne à l’égard de la thématique de la (...) différence anthropologique consiste dans le fait de vouloir repenser la vie, humaine et non humaine, au-delà des dichotomies classiques anthropologico-métaphysiques de la matière et de l’esprit, de l’instinct et de la raison, de la nature et de l’histoire, et ainsi de suite. Par conséquent, ce que nous proposons ici est de repenser la philosophie de l’animalité capable de rendre compte de la spécificité de l’humain sur la base d’une proximité ontologique inédite avec l’animal, comprise comme élément central de l’ontologie de la nature que Merleau-Ponty tentait d’élaborer dans les dernières années de sa vie. Une tâche qui, sans doute, plus qu’un aboutissement théoriques, pourrait être l’indice d’une série de problèmes que la philosophie, grâce avant tout à la contribution fondamentale de Merleau-Ponty, pourrait enfin affronter de manière radicale.The Philosophy of Animality in Heidegger and Merleau-PontyBased on Merleau-Ponty’s work, the present essay attempts to reflect on the anthropological problem: how to conceive the human in its ontological relation withthe animal – without falling back into the traditional dichotomies of spiritualism and naturalism or philosophy and non-philosophy, in which contemporary thought, in particular Heidegger’s thought, has remained, in our opinion, confined. The theoretical originality of Merleau-Ponty’s approach in regard to the thematic of anthropological difference consists in the fact of wanting to rethink life – both human and non-human life – beyond the classic anthropologico-metaphysical dichotomies of matter and spirit, of instinct and reason, nature and history, and so forth. As a result, what we propose here is to rethink the philosophy of animality in a way that is capable of accounting for the specificity of the human on the basis of a new ontological proximity with the animal. We understand this new ontological proximity as the central element of the ontology of nature that Merleau-Ponty attempts to elaborate in the last years of his life. No doubt, this is a task which, being more than a theoretical result, could be the index of a series of problems that philosophy, thanks above all to Merleau-Ponty’s fundamental contribution, can finally confront in a radical manner. (shrink)

La philosophie de l’animalité chez Heidegger et Merleau-PontyLe présent essai est une tentative de réflexion à partir de l’oeuvre de Merleau-Ponty sur le problème anthropologique: comment penser l’humain dans son rapport ontologique avec l’animal sans retomber dans les dichotomies traditionnelles du spiritualisme et du naturalisme ou de la philosophie et de la non-philosophie, dans lesquelles la pensée contemporaine, en particulier la pensée heideggerienne, est restée à notre avis enfermée. L’originalité théorique de l’approche merleau-pontienne à l’égard de la thématique de la (...) différence anthropologique consiste dans le fait de vouloir repenser la vie, humaine et non humaine, au-delà des dichotomies classiques anthropologico-métaphysiques de la matière et de l’esprit, de l’instinct et de la raison, de la nature et de l’histoire, et ainsi de suite. Par conséquent, ce que nous proposons ici est de repenser la philosophie de l’animalité capable de rendre compte de la spécificité de l’humain sur la base d’une proximité ontologique inédite avec l’animal, comprise comme élément central de l’ontologie de la nature que Merleau-Ponty tentait d’élaborer dans les dernières années de sa vie. Une tâche qui, sans doute, plus qu’un aboutissement théoriques, pourrait être l’indice d’une série de problèmes que la philosophie, grâce avant tout à la contribution fondamentale de Merleau-Ponty, pourrait enfin affronter de manière radicale.The Philosophy of Animality in Heidegger and Merleau-PontyBased on Merleau-Ponty’s work, the present essay attempts to reflect on the anthropological problem: how to conceive the human in its ontological relation withthe animal – without falling back into the traditional dichotomies of spiritualism and naturalism or philosophy and non-philosophy, in which contemporary thought, in particular Heidegger’s thought, has remained, in our opinion, confined. The theoretical originality of Merleau-Ponty’s approach in regard to the thematic of anthropological difference consists in the fact of wanting to rethink life – both human and non-human life – beyond the classic anthropologico-metaphysical dichotomies of matter and spirit, of instinct and reason, nature and history, and so forth. As a result, what we propose here is to rethink the philosophy of animality in a way that is capable of accounting for the specificity of the human on the basis of a new ontological proximity with the animal. We understand this new ontological proximity as the central element of the ontology of nature that Merleau-Ponty attempts to elaborate in the last years of his life. No doubt, this is a task which, being more than a theoretical result, could be the index of a series of problems that philosophy, thanks above all to Merleau-Ponty’s fundamental contribution, can finally confront in a radical manner. (shrink)

Essay on the nature and responsibility of human being to look after the world from philosophical and Islamic viewpoint.

Riassunto : L’obiettivo di questo lavoro è di analizzare le prime riflessioni di Merleau-Ponty sul tema dell'animalità, in riferimento particolare alla sua prima opera, La struttura del comportamento. L'articolo – attraverso un’ampia introduzione sulla rielaborazione merleau-pontyana delle nozioni di “comportamento” e di “gestalt”, seguita da un’analisi specifica della tripartizione delle forme di comportamento animale – farà emergere la ricchezza e insieme l’ambiguità del primo lavoro di Merleau-Ponty: se da una parte il fenomenologo francese rintraccia fin da subito una continuità (...) ontologica tra animale e umano, d'altra parte essa rimane ancorata in una visione “privativa” dell’animalità. Parole chiave : Maurice Merleau-Ponty; Animalità; Comportamento; Gestalt; Relazioni uomo/animale Une signification nouvelle. Merleau-Ponty's Early Analysis on Animality: The purpose of this article is to examine Merleau-Ponty’s early analysis on animality, particularly referring to his first work The Structure of Behaviour. The article focuses on the review of notions like “behaviour” and “gestalt” and on the analysis of the tripartition of the forms of animal behaviour. It will be underlined both the richness and the ambiguity of Merleau-Ponty’s first reflection. Indeed on the one hand, the French philosopher immediately discovers an ontological continuity between animals and humans but, on the other hand, his point of view on animality is still “privative”. Keywords : Maurice Merleau-Ponty; Animality; Behaviour; Gestalt; Human/Animal Relationships. (shrink)

Anno dopo anno miliardi di animali non umani vengono uccisi per diversi scopi: nutrimento, abbigliamento, ricerca e divertimento. Una situazione analoga, ma con gli umani per oggetto, non sarebbe ovviamente tollerata; ma perché tolleriamo - e anzi giustifichiamo - una pratica e non l'altra? La risposta non è per nulla banale e ci spinge a guardare oltre il vivere quotidiano attraverso un percorso filosofico e politico.

In questo articolo, a partire dal pensiero filosofico di Maurizio Ferraris considerato nelle sue tre linee argomentative principali (ermeneutica, estetica, ontologia), analizzo i presupposti e le implicazioni teoriche del postumano e del pensiero dell’animalità (di matrice continentale) per una metafisica radicalmente realista. La mia tesi è che tutta la produzione di Ferraris, come del resto quella del suo riferimento filosofico principale (che qui individuo in Jacques Derrida), sia descrivibile alla luce dell’animalità come entità teorica privilegiata per dimostrare l’esistenza (...) di un mondo esterno al soggetto umano mettendo in crisi le filosofie antropocentriche senza fare nessun riferimento al piano etico, come avviene nella letteratura tradizionale sul tema, ma rimanendo ancorati a un piano ontologico. (shrink)

Essere è resistere, secondo Maurizio Ferraris: e di resistenza, effettivamente, l’uomo Ferraris ne ha mostrata parecchia. Dal 1978, anno del suo primo articolo pubblicato in francese su Littérature, la sua produzione si è fatta sterminata e si fatica, senza retorica alcuna, a pensare che un uomo di sessant’anni possa davvero aver scritto così tanto, su così tanti argomenti e con tanta continuità. Ma, d’altronde, per Maurizio la scrittura è un’attività filosofica fondamentale – tanto come prat...

The article attempts to deal with the proposition that human being’s incapacity to imagine its own death, the state of non-being necessitates the thinking of the animal. A critical and close reading of specific Brāhmaṇa and Mahābhārata texts would spotlight that it is man’s rationalizing capacity that disavows and denies the question of intelligibility of the actions of the animal. The animal is the undisclosable which man keeps and brings to light as such. The article would further investigate if the (...) question of our forgetfulness toward the fact that we are born in debt to death has any linkage to the sacrificial logic of killing animals as elaborated in Brāhmaṇical hermeneutics. It examines how the ethical is thoroughly coextensive with the animal’s act of hospitality/hostility as an affective, purposive and reasoned response toward the other. In the course of the analysis of the jantu and pakshî upākhyāns in the Àraṇyak and Śanti Parvas of the Mahābhārata, the article tries to understand and explore if the experience of the animalitas is intrinsic to the structure of human reason, complicating the nature and notion of a priori. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 27.1 (2003) 40-61 [Access article in PDF] Montaigne, Skepticism and Immortality Zahi Zallou I IN THE LAST PAGES OF HIS ESSAY "Of Experience," Michel de Montaigne warns against the desire to "go outside ourselves." 1 While Montaigne apparently spares Christian mystics from his biting critique ("those venerable souls, exalted by ardent piety and religion to constant and conscientious meditation on divine things" [p. 856]), there is (...) no suggested criterion enabling one to discriminate between these "venerable souls" and those individuals dangerously engaging in similar practices, claiming to have similar mystical religious experiences. The latters' "care of the self" (cura sui) is a kind of caring that would paradoxically do violence to their human self (conceived by Montaigne as both mind and body): "That is madness: instead of changing into angels [in order to be closer to the divinitas of God], they change into beasts [a regression to the realm of animalitas]; instead of raising themselves, they lower themselves" (p. 856). With this conduplicatio, the repetition of the verb "to change," Montaigne emphasizes the role of agency, thus pointing out that they are to a large measure responsible for their condition, through their practices of self-care, or rather what Nietzsche has called their spiritual "incuria sui." 2 Neither the mind nor the body should be excluded from serious consideration, Montaigne stresses: "For it is indeed reasonable, as they say, that the body should not follow its appetites to the disadvantage of the mind; but why is it not also reasonable that the mind should not pursue its appetites to the disadvantage of the body?" (p. 681). Divorcing the mind from the body is, indeed, seen as an unwise, and potentially disastrous, practice: [End Page 40] Those who want to split up our two principal parts and sequester them from each other are wrong. (p. 484) To what purpose do we dismember by force a structure made up of such close and brotherly correspondence? On the contrary, let us bind it together again by mutual services. Let the mind arouse and quicken the heaviness of the body, and the body check and make fast the lightness of the mind. (p. 855) Montaigne's suspicion of claims pertaining to the transcendent realm is perhaps most forcefully expressed in his late additions to "Of Experience": "Between ourselves, these are two things that I have always observed to be in singular accord: supercelestial thoughts and subterranean conduct. [...] These transcendental humors frighten me, like lofty and inaccessible places" (p. 856). Not even Socrates, who is known to have engaged in excessive spiritual meditations, is spared from the essayist's critical reflections: "And nothing is so hard for me to stomach in the life of Socrates as his ecstasies and possessions by his daemon, nothing is so human in Plato as the qualities for which they say he is called divine" (p. 856). This should be seen as a qualification of his earlier discussion of Socrates's daimonion in "Of Prognostications": "The daemon of Socrates was perhaps a certain impulse of the will that came to him without awaiting the advice of his reason [discours]. In a well-purified soul such as his, prepared by a continual exercise of wisdom and virtue, it is likely that these inclinations, although instinctive and undigested, were always important and worth following" (pp. 29-30). What is at issue here is the contrast (yet without any tension) between reason's way and God's way, so to speak, between Socrates's "discours" (his reason, which dictates to him the appropriate and rational means of action) and his "demon" (Socrates's divine voice or "divine sign," 3 which informs him of what to do and, especially, not to do). 4 Due to Socrates's wise and virtuous character, the essayist speculates, the former never erred in acting on his impulses or undigested inclinations. Montaigne generalizes and is even tempted to translate some of his own past actions in terms of a Socratic-like divine inspiration: "Everyone feels within himself some likeness of such stirrings [...] And I have had some [...] by which I let myself... (shrink)