While Cavell is well known for his reinterpretation of the later Wittgenstein, he has never really engaged himself with post-Investigations writings like On Certainty. This collection may, however, seem to undermine the profoundly anti-dogmatic reading of Wittgenstein that Cavell has developed. In addition to apparently arguing against what Cavell calls ‘the truth of skepticism’ – a phrase contested by other Wittgensteinians – On Certainty may seem to justify the rejection of whoever dares to question one’s basic presuppositions. According to On (...) Certainty, or so it seems, the only right response to someone with different certainties is a reproach like ‘Fool!’ or ‘Heretic!’. This article aims to show that On Certainty need not be taken to prove Cavell wrong. It explains that Wittgenstein, in line with the first two parts of The Claim of Reason, does not reject scepticism out of hand but rather questions the sceptic’s self-understanding. Using arguments from Part Three of The Claim, the article moreover argues that a confrontation with divergence calls for self-examination rather than self-righteousness. Precisely because Wittgenstein acknowledges ‘the groundlessness of our believing’ or, in Cavellian terms, ‘the truth of skepticism’, he is not the authoritarian thinker that some have taken him to be. (shrink)

In this article I argue that Levinas can be read as a critic, not just of Heideggerian being, but also of being-with. After pointing out that the publication of the Black Notebooks only makes this criticism more interesting to revisit, I first of all discuss passages from both earlier and later writings in which Levinas explicitly takes issue with Heidegger’s claim that there is no self outside of a specific socio-historical community. I then explain how these criticisms are reflected in (...) Levinas’s own account, arguing that Levinasian subjectivity and alterity are precisely defined by their not belonging to a larger unity; to the extent that they partake in a multi-personal collectivity, this does not take the form of a traditional community. In the final section, I look into a different and seemingly opposing argument Levinas makes against Heidegger: on the basis of the latter’s reflections on death, he argues that Dasein is anti-social rather than overly immersed in the socio-historical. Arguing that this rests on a misreading of Being and Time, I use this opportunity to raise questions about Levinas’s interpretation of Heidegger and his “otherwise than being-with” more generally, for Levinas’s account runs into several problems as well. Yet as I will conclude, this in fact offers a valuable insight, not just for the present-day reception of Heidegger, but also for thinking community today. It indicates that a radical break with human situatedness does not automatically fare better than a firmly enrooted account of existence. (shrink)

This volume explores the issues at the center of many historical and contemporary reflections on community and sociality in Continental philosophy. The essays reflect on the thought of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, Arendt, Derrida, Badiou, Fanon, Baldwin, Nancy, Agamben and Laruelle. Continental Perspectives on Community brings the different approaches of these thinkers into conversation with each other. It discusses the possibility of how the concept of community can extend beyond the one and beyond any sense of unity and totality. Additionally, the (...) book shows how notion of community in plurality is at the heart of ethical and political reflections on alterity and race, of political philosophical reflections on the exception, and of ontological reflections on what it means for humans to be social. In this way, it offers an important contribution to the examination of how a community can be thought today. This book will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working on social, political, and cultural issues in Continental philosophy. (shrink)

Although Wittgenstein is often held co-responsible for the so-called death of man as it was pronounced in the course of the previous century, no detailed description of his alternative to the traditional or Cartesian account of human being has so far been available. By consulting several parts of Wittgenstein's later oeuvre, Subjectivity after Wittgenstein aims to fill this gap. However, it also contributes to the debate about the Cartesian subject and its demise by discussing the criticism that the rethinking of (...) subjectivity received, for it has been argued that the anti-Cartesian turn in continental philosophy has lead to a loss of a centre for both ethics and politics. By further exploring the implications of the Wittgensteinian account of human being, this book makes it clear that a non-Cartesian view on the subject is not necessarily ethically and politically inert. Moreover, it argues that ethical and political arguments should not automatically take precedence in a debate about the nature of man. (shrink)

This article describes my VENI project on the reconceptualization of community. It argues that the idea of a socially situated subject has not become obsolete in times of globalization, but that a rethinking of the concept of community is now required: how to account for the simultaneous transience and persistence of belonging? It then explains that by staging a conversation between Jean-Luc Nancy and Stanley Cavell, an account can be developed that meets both criteria for thinking community today.

A significant part of Wittgenstein's later writings deal with psychological phenomena. Again and again he tries to show that thoughts, feelings, etc., cannot be understoodas objects or processes in some private inner realm. According to Wittgenstein the souldoes not reside inside of us, but should rather be located in between of us. Thus offering a new way of portraying several dichotomies (such as those between the inner and the outer, the public and the private, and the self and the other), (...) Wittgenstein can be said to rethink our concept of the subject. Or should we rather say that he proposes to reduce the soul to the body, the personal to the communal — in other words, that he in fact tries to 'unthink' subjectivity? To answer this question, this article confronts Wittgenstein's 'psychology' with his 'theology'. For contrary to what he writes on the psyche, Wittgenstein stresses in his writings on religion the individual instead of the collective and the private instead of the public. By showing that Wittgenstein's theology is actually compatible with his psychology, it is argued that Wittgenstein cannot besaid to proclaim the 'death' of the subject. (shrink)

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

Although Wittgenstein is famously skeptical about the possibility of making substantial philosophical claims, he can be said to offer significant insights into the difference between inner and outer as well as the difference between self and other.1 He consistently reminds us that inner and outer are intimately connected instead of only causally related, as well as that the self—far from being a wholly independent entity—always already finds itself constituted by its relationships with others. In thus contesting the Cartesian view on (...) subjectivity, however, Wittgenstein may appear to simply reduce the inner to the outer and the self to the other.. (shrink)

In philosophy, or in philosophy of the continental kind, “1968” has come to represent a specific type of thinking. Or, rather, it has come to mark the decline of one type of theorizing in favor of another, namely, the kind that is suspicious of all-embracing theories.1 Though the philosophers associated with the Paris upheavals are figures like Jean-Paul Sartre and Herbert Marcuse, around the same time several thinkers entered onto the stage (such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard) (...) who were to make an entire career out of undermining the theoretical constructions of their predecessors. These then up-and-coming…. (shrink)