The social, educational and political writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau have become enormously influential in the 200 years since his death. But the breadth as well as the depth of Rousseau's achievement - he was amongst other things a creative writer and musical composer as well as a philosopher - is not always appreciated. In around 100 articles, alphabetically arranged and fully cross-referenced, N. J. H. Dent explores all facets of Rousseau's work and thoughts, while his subject's remarkable life is summarized (...) in a biographical introduction. Details of works by and about Rousseau are listed in an extensive bibliography. For students or general readers seeking an introduction to Rousseau's work, and for those already familiar with the material who require a convenient reference source, this dictionary is essential reading. (shrink)

Since Heidegger’s reformulation of the task of philosophy, the ontological significance of texts and interpretation has risen to the foreground of philosophical discourse, with widespread repercussions in the humanities at large. Today the two most influential and suggestive approaches to derive from Heidegger in seeing the philosophical enterprise as a relentless examination of a text are those named in the title of Jean Greisch’s book. Relations between the two camps are strained, however, and simultaneous assessment of both has been sadly (...) lacking. In such a climate Greisch’s book is a welcome contribution, for it presents carefully and contrastingly the thought of the two leading spokesmen of these rival positions: Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jacques Derrida. Though well aware that a presentation cannot be balanced and impartial where no simple bipolarity, but rather a "chiasme," exists between the two parties, Greisch nonetheless devotes roughly equal space to both viewpoints. In comparing them he frequently juxtaposes terms used within each system to denote the same problematic: the presence of history in the text, for instance, is seen as Wirkungsgeschichte by Gadamer, as trace by Derrida. More often, however, this symmetry cannot be carried out, and Derrida’s self-styled "parasitical," "subversive" stance toward the premises of hermeneutics often gives him the last word. Greisch’s intention, however, is not to prove the superiority of one over the other. To him, they are representatives of two separate cultural universes, and he announces his aim as "entrer dans leur ‘pensée'". (shrink)

This work is haunted by an imminent contradiction. Starting from a declaration of Nietzsche’s political innocence, it nonetheless undertakes progressively and always more insistently to reveal the clarity of Nietzsche’s political wisdom. An entire emphasis is placed upon Nietzsche’s notion of the "philosopher as the doctor of civilization." This argument attains a dramatic if not historic pitch at p. 116, where Nietzsche’s immense superiority to other radicals is affirmed: "Ainsi, ni le révolutionnaire, ni le socialiste, ni l'anarchiste ne peuvent être (...) médecins de la civilisation…" Conceded: Goyard-Fabre distinguishes Nietzsche’s metaphysical politics from genuine pratique. Accordingly, "La pensée nietzschéenne ne se developpe nullement en politologie; elle n'est pas une philosophie pratique; ce n'est meme qu'en la transposant dans un registre qui n'est pas le sien que l'on croit lire en elle les thèmes d’une philosophie opérative." Nevertheless, one may remind the author that medicine is not a theoretical science. To proceed from diagnosis is to be politologiste by necessity. (shrink)