Henri Lelevel’s La philosophie moderne par demandes et réponses is a very interesting as well as pretty neglected attempt to disseminate the new philosophy among a larger audience, including the non specialists. Either the style of presentation or the oversimplification of the topics discussed is clearly intended to reach people interested to a smattering of philosophy. More than the comparisons between the traditional and the new philosophy and the compendia, this work vouches for the great interest toward the new philosophy. (...) In this particular case the model is the philosophy of Malebranche, whose interpretation of Descartes thought is preferred by Lelevel, worried by the excessive twist given toward empiricism in P.-S. Régis rendering of Cartesian philosophical system. Lelevel’s logic is directed to eliminate the confusion between sense data and knowledge, echoing also Malebranche’s notion of éténdue idéale, one of the major contribution to the reconsideration of Descartes’ thought. This paper aims to sketch the mains topics discussed in the four sections of Lelevel’s work, with some cross-references to Malebranche’s writings. (shrink)

v. 1. pt. 1. Rationalisme, empirisme et crise des croyances au XVIIe siècle -- v. 1. pt. 2. Le procès du Christianisme dans la pensée du XVIIIe siècle -- v. 1. pt. 3. La philosophie de la religion chrétienne chez Kant et les postkantiens -- v. 1. pt. 4. La critique du Christianisme au XIXe siècle -- v. 2. pt 5. Philosophie chrétienne, philosophie du Christianisme au XIXe siècle -- v. 2. pt. 6. Vingtième XVIIe siècle. Index.

A fundamental way in which human thought has developed has been constantly to explain the earliest "classics" that are the source of that thought. All in all, the number of such classics is not very high, their explanations are past counting. Moreover, they are constantly increasing, giving rise to an explanatory chain deriving from the classics. In the development of Chinese philosophy, this aspect is particularly noticeable, so that one can describe Chinese philosophy as a continual explanation of the classics. (...) This holds for both Confucianism and Daoism. The main classics of Daoism are the Laozi and the Zhuangzi. These two works have been constantly reread and reinterpreted throughout history. From the late nineteenth century onward, Chinese philosophy came into closer contact with Western philosophy. Foreign concepts were brought in to provide philosophers with new "insight." Some thinkers applied this new insight or these foreign concepts to the Daoist classics. In this way, they brought a new explanation of the Daoist classics and enriched the ways of interpreting the texts.1 Paving the way in this direction were Yan Fu (1853-1921). Zhang Taiyan (1869-1936), Liang Qichao (1873-1929), Wang Guowei (1877-1927), and Hu Shi (1891-1962). (shrink)

A fundamental way in which human thought has developed has been constantly to explain the earliest "classics" that are the source of that thought. All in all, the number of such classics is not very high, their explanations are past counting. Moreover, they are constantly increasing, giving rise to an explanatory chain deriving from the classics. In the development of Chinese philosophy, this aspect is particularly noticeable, so that one can describe Chinese philosophy as a continual explanation of the classics. (...) This holds for both Confucianism and Daoism. The main classics of Daoism are the Laozi and the Zhuangzi. These two works have been constantly reread and reinterpreted throughout history. From the late nineteenth century onward, Chinese philosophy came into closer contact with Western philosophy. Foreign concepts were brought in to provide philosophers with new "insight." Some thinkers applied this new insight or these foreign concepts to the Daoist classics. In this way, they brought a new explanation of the Daoist classics and enriched the ways of interpreting the texts.1 Paving the way in this direction were Yan Fu. Zhang Taiyan, Liang Qichao, Wang Guowei, and Hu Shi. (shrink)

"Caroline Williams marks what is distinctive about 20th Century French philosophy's interrogation of the subject and demonstrates its historical continuity in a ...

A fundamental way in which human thought has developed has been constantly to explain the earliest "classics" that are the source of that thought. All in all, the number of such classics is not very high, their explanations are past counting. Moreover, they are constantly increasing, giving rise to an explanatory chain deriving from the classics. In the development of Chinese philosophy, this aspect is particularly noticeable, so that one can describe Chinese philosophy as a continual explanation of the classics. (...) This holds for both Confucianism and Daoism. The main classics of Daoism are the Laozi and the Zhuangzi. These two works have been constantly reread and reinterpreted throughout history. From the late nineteenth century onward, Chinese philosophy came into closer contact with Western philosophy. Foreign concepts were brought in to provide philosophers with new "insight." Some thinkers applied this new insight or these foreign concepts to the Daoist classics. In this way, they brought a new explanation of the Daoist classics and enriched the ways of interpreting the texts.1 Paving the way in this direction were Yan Fu . Zhang Taiyan , Liang Qichao , Wang Guowei , and Hu Shi. (shrink)

The first major reassessment of the Western Enlightenment for a generation. Continuing the story he began in Radical Enlightenment, Jonathan Israel now focuses on the first half of the eighteenth century. He traces to their roots the core principles of Western modernity: the primacy of reason, democracy, racial equality, feminism, religious toleration, sexual emancipation, and freedom of expression.

Jonathan Israel presents the first major reassessment of the Western Enlightenment for a generation. Continuing the story he began in the best-selling Radical Enlightenment, and now focusing his attention on the first half of the eighteenth century, he returns to the original sources to offer a groundbreaking new perspective on the nature and development of the most important currents in modern thought. Israel traces many of the core principles of Western modernity to their roots in the social, political, and (...) philosophical ferment of this period: the primacy of reason, democracy, racial equality, feminism, religious toleration, sexual emancipation, and freedom of expression. He emphasizes the dual character of the Enlightenment, and the bitter struggle between on the one hand a generally dominant, anti-democratic mainstream, supporting the monarchy, aristocracy, and ecclesiastical authority, and on the other a largely repressed democratic, republican, and 'materialist' radical fringe. He also contends that the supposedly separate French, British, German, Dutch, and Italian enlightenments interacted to such a degree that their study in isolation gives a hopelessly distorted picture.A work of dazzling and highly accessible scholarship, Enlightenment Contested will be the definitive reference point for historians, philosophers, and anyone engaged with this fascinating period of human development. (shrink)

On considère souvent Lévinas comme philosophe de l’Autre. Mais on sait également que son premier concept emblématique est l’il y a. Comment peut-on expliquer l’absence de l’Autre dans la première pensée de Levinas? Notre étude propose de mettre en relation celle-ci et sa critique de la philosophie moderne y inclut la phénoménologie.Face à la faille virtuelle de la phénoménologie, le jeune Lévinas était déjà conscient de la limite de la philosophie moderne supposant toujours un sujet pensant inébranlable. Les thématiques que (...) le jeune Levinas a choisi d’analyser comme nausée, honte, etc étaient en effet les vécus ignorés par la tradition philosophique de la conscience lucide. En réduisant le sujet pensant à l’état d’il y a, Lévinas tente de montrer la nécessité de l’Autre. La réduction du sujet pensant par le concept d’il y a est la première étape pour arriver à cette nécessité.Se suele considerar a Lévinas como el filósofo del “Otro”. Pero es sabido igualmente que su primer concepto emblemático es el “hay”. ¿Cómo se puede explicar la ausencia del “Otro” en la primera etapa del pensamiento de Levinas? Nuestro estudio pro-pone ponerlo en relación con su crítica de la filosofía moderna incluyendo la fenomenología.Frente al virtual fallo de la fenomenología, el joven Levinas era ya consciente del límite de la filosofía moderna, que suponía siempre un sujeto pensante inquebrantable. Las temáticas que el joven Levinas decide analizar, como la náusea, la vergüenza, etc., constituían en efec-to vivencias ignoradas por la tradición filosófica de la conciencia lúcida. Al reducir el sujeto pensante al estado de “hay”, Lévinas intenta mostrar la necesidad del “Otro”. La reducción del sujeto pensante por el concepto de “hay” es la primera etapa para llegar a esta necesidad. (shrink)

(2010). Enlightenment Contested. Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670–1752. Intellectual History Review: Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 285-287. doi: 10.1080/17496971003783864.

In this magisterial survey of the Enlightenment, Jonathan Israel returns to the primary texts to offer a major new reinterpretation of the nature and development of the important currents in philosophical thinking, arguing that supposed national enlightenments are of less significance than the rift between conservative and radical thought.

It is a good while since French intellectual life has seen the publication of a one-volume history of modern philosophy. The author of the present book is young. He has previously written on Tocqueville, Schopenhauer and Bataille, and has also proposed a renewed version of humanism, based upon a combination of science, ecologism, and the traditional values of literary culture. The present volume is interesting both in its structure and in its overall intentions. Up to a point Besnier accepts (...) the postmodernist thesis on the demise of "grand narratives," of all-encompassing and all-explaining theoretical systems. Nevertheless, he seems to think that on pragmatic grounds we can continue to treat the history of philosophy as a valid and coherent object of research. The secret is, Besnier suggests, to look back upon the historical unfolding of philosophical conversation from the vantage point of topics and thematics important to our contemporary curiosity and urges. (shrink)