This highly original history of ideas considers the impact of Hegel on French philosophy from the 1920s to the present. As Baugh's lucid narrative makes clear, Hegel's influence on French philosophy has been profound, and can be traced through all the major intellectual movements and thinkers in France throughout the 20th Century from Jean Wahl, Sartre, and Bataille to Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida. Baugh focuses on Hegel's idea of the "unhappy consciousness," and provides a bold new account of Hegel's early (...) reception in French intellectual history. (shrink)

First published in 2003. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

I use Jonathan Bennett’s, Gilles Deleuze’s and Pierre Macherey’s interpretations of Spinoza to extract a theory of time and duration from Spinoza. I argue that although time can be considered a product of the imagination, duration is a real property of existing things and corresponds to their essence, taking essence (as Deleuze does) as a degree of power of existing. The article then explores the relations among time, duration, essence and eternity, arguing against the idea that Spinoza’s essences or Spinoza’s (...) eternity are atemporal. Essences and eternity both involve necessary references to time, but the time involved is not that of the “fortuitous sequence of events” apprehended through sensory experience. Rather, the “time” is that implicit in the necessity of God’s self-determination through God’s differentiation into natura naturans and natura naturata, which is involved in the production and differentiation of eternal essences. (shrink)

This engaging book takes us on philosophical tour, following in the footsteps and thoughts of some great philosophers and thinkers. A fresh and imaginative reading of great philosophers, offering a new way of understanding some of their major works and ideas.

It has gone largely unnoticed that when Deleuze opposes the “private thinker” to the “public professor,” he is invoking the existential thought of Lev Shestov. The public professor defends established values and preaches submission to the demands of reason and the State; the private thinker opposes thought to reason, “idiocy” to common sense, a people to come to what exists. Private thinkers are solitary, singular and untimely, forced to think against consensus and “the crowd.” Deleuze takes from Shestov and Kierkegaard (...) the idea that genuine thinking manifests itself in a thinking which rebels against rational necessity, a theme central to Shestov’s leading French interpreter, Benjamin Fondane. Although Deleuze at first expresses doubts as to whether Shestov’s critique of reason can overcome the legislative reason of Kant, or whether it is entirely free of ressentiment, I argue that Shestov and Fondane’s anti-rationalism is more radical than Deleuze sometimes admits, and show how Deleuze’s attitude toward Shestov became more unreservedly positive over the years. On the other hand, against Shestov and Fondane, I agree with Deleuze that the private thinker is in solidarity with the “strange powers” which can remake the world, and thus with “the people to come.” Nonetheless, I argue that Deleuze’s philosophy cannot form the basis of a politics of egalitarian consensus, but that “the people to come” can only be a “broken chain” of untimely and singular exceptions. (shrink)

Hegel’s philosophy won acceptance in France only through a narrowing down of the scope of the dialectic to the domain of historical action, and indeed, of human history, rather than that of a Spirit beyond humanity.

In Bergsonism, Deleuze refers to Bergson's concept of an ‘open society’, which would be a ‘society of creators’ who gain access to the ‘open creative totality’ through acting and creating. Deleuze and Guattari's political philosophy is oriented toward the goal of such an open society. This would be a democracy, but not in the sense of the rule of the actually existing people, but the rule of ‘the people to come,’ for in the actually existing situation, such a people is (...) ‘lacking’. When the people becomes a society of creators, the result is a society open to the future, creativity and the new. Their openness and creative freedom is the polar opposite of the conformism and ‘herd mentality’ condemned by Deleuze and Nietzsche, a mentality which is the basis of all narrow nationalisms. It is the freedom of creating and commanding, not the Kantian freedom to obey Reason and the State. This paper uses Bergson's The Two Sources of Morality and Religion, and Deleuze and Guattari's Kafka: For a Minor Literature, A Thousand Plateaus and What is Philosophy? to sketch Deleuze and Guattari's conception of the open society and of a democracy that remains ‘to come’. (shrink)

Marcuse and Sartre take up the problem of alienating otherness from a Marxist perspective, Marcuse in One-Dimensional Man and Sartre in his Critique of Dialectical Reason. For Sartre, the “series” is a social relation that places individuals in competition, mediated by the materialized result of past praxis. For Marcuse, the loss of agency results from the productive apparatus determining the needs and aspirations of individuals. The question is how to convert alienating negativity into a negation of the society that negates (...) individuals. For Sartre, this “negation of the whole” can come only from a mortal threat facing all members of the serialized group. For Marcuse, it comes from the individual becoming aware of her alienation, especially through works of art. For both, revolt must be a historically constituted, collective “living contradiction.”Marcuse et Sartre abordent le problème de l’altérité aliénante à partir d’une perspective marxiste, Marcuse dans L’homme unidimensionnel et Sartre dans sa Critique de la raison dialectique. Pour ce dernier, la « série » est une relation sociale qui met les individus en compétition, médiatisée par le résultat matérialisé de la praxis passée. Pour Marcuse, la perte de pouvoir est causée par le dispositif de production qui régule les besoins et les aspirations des individus. La question est ainsi comment transformer la négativité aliénante en une négation de la société qui nie les individus : d’après Sartre, cette « négation du tout » ne peut venir que d’une menace mortelle subie par tous les membres du groupe sérialisé ; si l’on en croit Marcuse, elle vient plutôt du fait qu’un individu prenne conscience de son aliénation, notamment à travers l’oeuvre d’art. Pour les deux, la révolte doit être, dans tous les cas, une « contradiction vivante » collective et historiquement constituée. (shrink)

Le dialogue entre Sartre et Aron a commencé lorsqu'ils étaient tous les deux à l'École normale superiéure dans les années 1920, et a continué, d'une manière souvent indirecte et intermittente, jusqu'à la parution du livre d'Aron, Histoire et dialectique de la violence, qui est une analyse de la Critique de la raison dialectique de Sartre.

La théorie de l'authenticité dans L'Être et le néant de Sartre aboutit à des apories. Dès les Cahiers pour une morale, pourtant, l'authenticité est traitée en tant que problème social impliquant une solution sociale. Cet article examine le passage de la première théorie à la deuxième, et explique la nouvelle théorie de l'authenticité qui en résulte.Sartre's early theory of authenticity is individualist and is vitiated by his theory of consciousness. From the Cahiers pour une morale onward, however, inauthenticity is a (...) social problem with a social solution. This paper examines the transition from the first theory of authenticity to the second, and the new theory of authenticity which results. (shrink)