Arnold Burms: Professor Williams has said that he is willing to answer some of our questions about his work. Given the amount of work he has to do here in a few days, this was a generous decision for which we are genuinely grateful. Professor Van de Putte will start the discussion with some questions about the relation between theory and practice.André Van de Putte: In Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy you situate ethical thought in the context of a (...) movement of reflection. To quote from page 112: “It is too late at this stage to raise the prior question: `Why reflection?' — too late in terms of this inquiry, and always too late in terms of the question itself, since one could answer it without prejudice only by not considering it.” And just before that quotation you also said that “the drive to theory has roots in ethical thought itself” and a little bit further you say: “The important question at this point is why reflection should be taken to require theory.” Now I would like to elaborate a little bit on these remarks and ask you to comment on what I'm going to say.Three things should be stressed concerning ethical reflection which are important for moral philosophy and for our understanding of moral philosophy. The first one is this: the person who is reflecting is already part of a concrete society when he or she starts reflecting. That means that he or she has been socialized in a concrete ethos and has already an experience of a substantive ethical life. In this sense he or she does not need to invent ethical life.The second remark is this: ethical reflection is in itself already the expression of an ethical intention. By asking the question `How should one live?', one shows that one is interested in living an ethical life. In this sense I can agree with what I think you say in Ethics, namely that the question `Why should I be moral?' is not meaningful for a moral thinker. The answer to the moral question, the results of his reflection are not meant to convince him or his readers to be moral. On the contrary, he starts precisely from this interest in morality and tries to understand what it means to be moral, what his wish to be moral implies.My third point is the most important. In starting his reflection the thinker has as it were decided that his answer will only be acceptable if it is valid for all, if it can be justified for all. In the moral question itself, a norm of universality is implied. And given the fact that the moral question is itself the expression of an ethical intention, this is important. If he would not assume this norm, he would in my view not really be posing the question. We can immediately understand this if we consider the alternative.Suppose a moral thinker who assumes that an answer to the moral question will be valid only when it suits him. Would we say in this case that this person is really asking the moral question? I do not think so. To put this another way, my thesis is that in the reflection the person who reflects is subjecting himself to the law of thinking itself, to the law of reason, in other words, to the law of universality, of non-contradiction. In the question he discovers this law as a norm for himself asking the moral question and thus as a norm inherent in moral intention. I think that this is precisely what Kant discovered and why for so many there is an important link between ethics and reason and why we are, as you say, driven to theory: since we want a universal answer, since a moral norm implies universality, we are looking for a theory, for a universal justification. But this is not yet the full story. All that I have said only becomes visible on the reflective level. It is only visible, as it were, once one starts reflecting.This means that the norm of universality cannot and must not be understood as a concrete norm which can and should replace the norms of the concrete ethos we all already live in when we start reflecting. I think rationalism in ethics is precisely that: the belief that this norm and what one hopes to deduce from it can and should replace the concrete ethos. I think it must be clear that this cannot be done. As we all know the Kantian imperative is formal and negative and does not produce any content. If we need content — and of course we need it — it should come from our historical ethos. (shrink)

Starting from the current trend to digitise the university, this thesis aims to clarify the specific relation between university thinking and its use of media. This thesis is an investigation concerning the sensorial and medial conditions which enable the event of thinking to emerge at the university, i.e. conditions which do not make thinking necessary, but possible. Thinking is approached as an event which can happen while studying at the university, not as an outcome, nor a disposition or skill. The (...) ambition of this thesis is theory development and of making a contribution in the field of philosophy of education. The theoretical framework discussed in chapters one and two will allow first, an analysis of the university sensorium inspired by the work of Ivan Illich who, through a history of the senses, pioneered this kind of research applied to medieval reading practices. Secondly, the work of media philosopher Vilém Flusser is used to operationalize the analysis of media at the university; this thesis will use the Flusserian concepts of code, modes of consciousness, transcoding, gestures, intellectual field, dialogue and apparatus. The methodology consists of a novel approach inspired by Flusser’s phenomenology of gestures: in order to find traces of thinking, this investigation looks for gestures (with media) occurring in university practices, gestures which seem to imply some form of coding or transcoding. The first chapter critically discusses Ivan Illich’s historical hypothesis of the mediatic specificity of the university thinking. Illich works with a particular conception of the history of the senses through which he shows how the invention of the optical text and its way of reading gave rise to a new way of thinking which was later fostered by the university. The text emerges as an instrumental way of using the book for studying and thinking, a profanation and suspension of the book. This move is taken to be the signature move of the university which enables a particular way of thinking: abstract and non-visual thinking, which is made present through the event of reading. The second chapter introduces the media-theoretical framework of Flusser by discussing his particular take on codes and the modes of consciousness enabled by the dominant codes. Provisionally, transcoding is taken to be an indication of the event of thinking. The threshold introduces the approach of a phenomenology of gestures which will be used in the following two chapters. The third chapter examines the practice of university lecturing from a sensorial and gestural perspective by using several direct observations of lectures and historical reports of lectures. It was found that the lecture does not promote any particular sense, hence no particular mode of consciousness, and that the media in the lecture suffers a continuous transcoding. Thinking in the lecture was described as a thinking which suddenly makes itself present for all those attending the lecture. The fourth chapter examines MOOCs which are taken to be the digital counterpart of the university course. The specific media usage enabled by MOOCs is described starting from two case studies: an xMOOC and the bMOOC (designed by KU Leuven and LUCA researchers). Using interviews and an autoethnographic account, this chapter finds indications of what could be digital gestures in the MOOC and concludes that thinking in the MOOC occurs as a collective construction of a techno-image. The fifth and final chapter outlines the theoretical contributions of this thesis. The kind of thinking made possible by university practices is described as a form of collective thinking, non-productive and anti-apparatus. The ways in which this thinking is made possible are theorised by introducing the notion of mediatic displacement, a specific event in which the particular logic of media is suspended in such a way as to make room for a thinking which is not determined by any mediality. The notion of intellectual askesis is proposed for the collective enactment of attention, as the sensorial condition which makes possible the mediatic displacement. In light of these findings, the thesis proposes to understand the promise of the digital university as still a utopian project to come, because it cannot yet enable the sensorial and collective attention techniques which the classical university managed to enact through its study practices. (shrink)

© 2015 by Centre for Ethics, KU Leuven. All rights reserved. Claude Lefort's extensive oeuvre includes a short and often overlooked passage describing 'Invisible Ideology', a form of ideology of which he contends that it dominates Western Europe. This passage is important, first, because it repairs a deficit within Lefort's theoretical framework; and second, because the text in question provides us with the conceptual tools to identify threats to contemporary democracy. More specifically, the present article tries to disentangle Lefort's (...) account of Invisible Ideology by singling out three concepts: the entre-nous, which mostly consists in the semblance of reciprocity between politicians and citizens due to mass media; the idea of objectivity, which amounts to the predominance of the social sciences in political debates; and finally, the fixation on newness. It will be argued that these concepts are tantamount to a specific experience of time, one in which social progress seems to take place effortlessly and automatically because of the unhindered circulation of news, opinions and facts. In this way, Invisible Ideology provides an important addition to Lefort's limited and outmoded typology of modern experiences of time, which basically consists of the juxtaposition of a democratic experience and a totalitarian experience. As Invisible Ideology successfully creates the semblance of democracy, while halting the contestation and social change that are inherent to democracy, I argue that it gives rise to a sense of political impotence. This impotence is particularly noticeable in the transformations of social urban movements, and in contemporary political discourse on austerity measures. This article hence concludes with drawing out the threats entailed in these transformations and the political discourse, using Lefort's concepts - the entre-nous, the prevalence of objectivity and the fixation on newness. (shrink)

In "'Chinese Philosophy' at European Universities," Professor Defoort criticizes the institutional "place" of Chinese and "non-Western" studies at European universities. In order to demonstrate the problem, she describes the situation at the KU Leuven Department of History and its Institute of Philosophy. Regarding many of the important issues Defoort raises, I do not feel sufficiently competent to respond. For I am caught in Schwitzgebel's vicious circle : completely ignorant about non-Western philosophy and lacking the required language skills, I cannot (...) engage, as a philosopher, with non-Western texts. At the end of her article, however, Defoort... (shrink)

This book collects essays from the 2006 and 2007 International Philosophy Colloquia Evian, centred around a central problem in the philosophy of mind: the relationship between the human faculty of sensory experience and the faculty of conceptual reflection, that is self-consciousness. Containing articles by philosophers of eight nationalities, in three languages (English, French, German), and of "analytical" as well as "continental" provenance, it beautifully represents the spirit of the colloquia. Authors include Joshua Andresen (AU Beirut), Valérie Aucouturier (Kent U / (...) U Paris I), Karin de Boer (KU Leuven), Santiago Echeverri (U Genève), Roberto Farneti (LU Bolzano), Tim Henning (JLU Giessen), Felix Koch (Columbia U), Christophe Laudou (Madrid), David Lauer (FU Berlin), Jason Leddington (Bucknell U), Nicolas Monseu (UC Louvain), Soraya Nour (HU Berlin), Hans Bernhard Schmid (U Wien), Henning Tegtmeyer (U Leipzig). (shrink)

In the commentaries on Wittgenstein's Tractatus, due attention has always been paid to the philosophy of logic contained in this work. In particular the statement that a picture and reality must have their form in common has attracted the attention of the commentators. This statement has been explained now in an extreme realistic way, now in the sense of a linguistic kantianism. Both of the interpretations have this in common that they tend to give a kind of metaphysical status to (...) this 'logical form', considered either as THE form of reality on its own or as THE objective form of language as such. In our article, we try to show that there is no place for this kind of 'hypostases' or reifications in the philosophy of the Tractatus. We point out some important arguments available in the text, to show that Wittgenstein didn't found logic on what can be termed as the objective and given structural form either of language or of reality. The point of his philosophy of logic, we argue, was not a metaphysical, but rather a pragmatical and operational one. Our argumentation is built upon what we consider to be the two basic texts of Wittgenstein's philosophy of logic, namely that we can „postulate” the truths of logic in so far as we can postulate an „adequate notation”(6.1233), and that the so called „logical constants” are not representatives : that there can be no „representatives” (in German : „vertreten”) of the logic of facts (4.0312). We first try to show that logic is not really distinct from the grammar (syntax, form) of a language which is capable to express reality in a complete and determinate way (4.123; 3.14; 3.251; 4.023; 4A66 ; 6.124; 4.002a). And to the extent that there is no meaningfull language without a signified reality related with it, there is no logic either which is not apriori and at the same time a logic applied to reality, i.e. the logic of the world. Consequently, we try to develop an interpretation of 2.16-2.18 of the Tractatus which can account for its a-metaphysical, operational conception of logic. Finally, we attempt a clarification of 5.552, a text which we consider as basic for Wittgenstein's philosophy of the „mystical”. (shrink)

1. Yuhak sasang kwa in'gan simni ŭi kibon kusŏngch'e.

The issue of philosophy’s contribution to theology is an old and much disputed one. This article posits philosophy as the 'conscience' of theology. It takes 'conscience' in the heideggerian sense of existential 'being-aware-of' and applies this to our finitude and the ultimate meaning of being. A living theology has therefore to be based on a successful encounter between our understanding of the issue of our existence and the Word of 'revelation' — as Western tradition calls it —, spoken to us (...) 'from elsewhere'. This position is considered with reference to the theological thinking of Thomas Aquinas, and more specifically to his doctrine of human happiness and bliss, and the natural desire to see God. Attention is drawn to the fact that Thomas’ view on the supernatural is based on both a philosophical and a theological component. To further illustrate the point, three statements are developed. The first concerns a possible abuse of Heidegger’s deconstruction of metaphysics in order to support a 'pluralistic' approach of religious truth. Here the objection is raised that this conception disowns the proper nature of religious and theological truth as distinguished from metaphysical truth. The second statement is about any possible coalescence of philosophyand theology: whereas metaphysical truths show a 'representative' character, the properof religious and biblical truth appears to be 'a way of liberation'. Between both a 'mediation' needs to be found. The author claims that such may surface in man's inner belonging to 'another dimension', i.e., in an 'immanent transcendence'. The third statementproposes to update the synthesis of philosophy and theology as presented by Aquinas. A dialectical elucidation of man's craving for infinity still points to a possible way byrevealing an essential aspect of human 'conscienceawareness'. (shrink)

The text is a rejoinder to critical remarks which Zdzislawa Piatek aimed at the paper of the author of „Cats, demon, spells and ... naturalisation”. It appears that the differences between the standpoints of both polemicists are not as great as it might seem. In the author's opinion, one of the sources of the impression that those differences are substantial has been an overfree style of the essay, and in particular a little irresponsible use of the term „magic strategy”. The (...) author tries presently to expose his views in a more accurate way. In particular, he stresses that he did not mean to reduce the phenomenon of ethnic language to magic behaviour, but rather to look for the origins of this language in such a behaviour. (shrink)