People’s affective experiences can be influenced by multiple informational inputs. It remains unclear however how this occurs? In this paper, we investigate the construction of affective experience...

How do affective feelings arise? Most theories consider that affective feelings result from the appraisals of an event, these appraisals being the consequences of automatic evaluations processes th...

This article presents a meta-analysis of the impact of minimal exposure to affective stimuli on the emergence of enduring conscious affective feelings. Theories often assume that such affective feelings are linked to automatic appraisals of events (i.e. in the absence of an evaluative processing goal). However, few studies have tested this hypothesis. Moreover, they have provided divergent results. We propose a meta-analysis of these studies to get a clearer picture on this issue. The meta-analysis includes 22 studies (37 effect sizes; (...) combined N = 2159) in which participants were repeatedly exposed to affective stimuli in the absence of an evaluative processing goal before their mood was measured. In this analysis, we focused on the type of stimulus presentation (i.e. visible vs. masked) as well as on the type of stimulus (i.e. faces, pictures, words). The results indicate that the effect of a stimulus is moderated by the visibility of the stimuli. Repeated exposure to visible stimuli leads to congruency effects (i.e. positive stimuli lead to positive feelings), whereas exposure to masked stimuli leads to contrast effects (i.e. positive stimuli lead to negative feelings). Moreover, these effects seem to be restricted to some types of stimuli, with no detectable effects of emotional faces. (shrink)

The author probes Jullien on the problem of time, which is at the heart of European philosophy, while allowing himself to embrace an intelligibility of the ‘infra-philosophical’ leading to a ‘living in philosophy’. The question is both intriguing and rewarding: ‘what the Chinese have thought because they have not thought time’. Yet the author wonders: does Jullien pay more attention to the Greeks than to the Hebrews vis-à-vis China with regard to the concept of time? Jullien’s text on time of (...) course is a piece in a much larger set of texts that bring to the fore questions of life; the author offers, with generosity, much broader thoughts on the possibility of Jullien speaking French while thinking Chinese, and the enigma of living (say in Augustine and Montaigne) within a philosophy of transcendence in the West as opposed to the immanence of philosophy of living in China. (shrink)

La question se pose de savoir si la Justice est capable de réparer le tragique de l’histoire. François Dosse situe son analyse sur l’axe pragmatique de la préoccupation citoyenne exprimée par Ricœur, dès les premières lignes de La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, lorsqu’il se dit troublé par le trop de mémoire ici et le trop d’oubli ailleurs. On assiste en effet à une judiciarisation progressive de la discipline historique. Elle se traduit par une inquiétante inflation mémorielle depuis la loi Gayssot (...) de 1990. La fonction du juge et de l’historien a certes des points communs, comme l’a montré Marc Bloch dans Apologie pour l’histoire ou Carlo Ginzburg dans Le juge et l’historien. Le juge d’instruction peut s’apparenter à l’historien, mais pas celui du siège qui doit rendre un jugement. Cette emprise progressive de la justice sur le passé a pour effet pervers une tentative de sanctuarisation des questions historiques. Ricœur nous aide à repenser les relations entre justice, histoire et mémoire en distinguant et en articulant ces diverses dimensions par un travail de clarification des concepts. Il permet de mieux articuler la fonction judiciaire, le travail de mémoire et l’opération historiographique en respectant la validité de chacune de ces dimensions. (shrink)

La question se pose de savoir si la Justice est capable de réparer le tragique de l’histoire. François Dosse situe son analyse sur l’axe pragmatique de la préoccupation citoyenne exprimée par Ricœur, dès les premières lignes de La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, lorsqu’il se dit troublé par le trop de mémoire ici et le trop d’oubli ailleurs. On assiste en effet à une judiciarisation progressive de la discipline historique. Elle se traduit par une inquiétante inflation mémorielle depuis la loi Gayssot (...) de 1990. La fonction du juge et de l’historien a certes des points communs, comme l’a montré Marc Bloch dans Apologie pour l’histoire ou Carlo Ginzburg dans Le juge et l’historien. Le juge d’instruction peut s’apparenter à l’historien, mais pas celui du siège qui doit rendre un jugement. Cette emprise progressive de la justice sur le passé a pour effet pervers une tentative de sanctuarisation des questions historiques. Ricœur nous aide à repenser les relations entre justice, histoire et mémoire en distinguant et en articulant ces diverses dimensions par un travail de clarification des concepts. Il permet de mieux articuler la fonction judiciaire, le travail de mémoire et l’opération historiographique en respectant la validité de chacune de ces dimensions. (shrink)

La question se pose de savoir si la Justice est capable de réparer le tragique de l’histoire. François Dosse situe son analyse sur l’axe pragmatique de la préoccupation citoyenne exprimée par Ricœur, dès les premières lignes de La mémoire, l’histoire, l’oubli, lorsqu’il se dit troublé par le trop de mémoire ici et le trop d’oubli ailleurs. On assiste en effet à une judiciarisation progressive de la discipline historique. Elle se traduit par une inquiétante inflation mémorielle depuis la loi Gayssot (...) de 1990. La fonction du juge et de l’historien a certes des points communs, comme l’a montré Marc Bloch dans Apologie pour l’histoire ou Carlo Ginzburg dans Le juge et l’historien. Le juge d’instruction peut s’apparenter à l’historien, mais pas celui du siège qui doit rendre un jugement. Cette emprise progressive de la justice sur le passé a pour effet pervers une tentative de sanctuarisation des questions historiques. Ricœur nous aide à repenser les relations entre justice, histoire et mémoire en distinguant et en articulant ces diverses dimensions par un travail de clarification des concepts. Il permet de mieux articuler la fonction judiciaire, le travail de mémoire et l’opération historiographique en respectant la validité de chacune de ces dimensions. (shrink)

Le 20 mai 2005, Paul Ricœur nous quittait à l'âge de quatre-vingt-douze ans, après une traversée du siècle qu'il a fortement marqué. Il nous laisse une œuvre immense, véritable incitation/invitation au travail dont l'une des originalités aura été de conduire un dialogue constant de la philosophie avec son autre, notamment avec les sciences humaines. À l'heure des replis disciplinaires et des crispations institutionnelles, sa manière de faire dialoguer les savoirs semble plus nécessaire que jamais à. Le souci dont a fait (...) preuve Paul Ricœur pour éviter toute forme de rabattement, d'appauvrissement, est une leçon de méthode qui mérite d'être réfléchie. Par-delà le choc provoqué par sa disparition, les auteurs de ce livre montrent à quel point sa pensée est actuelle. Parvenant à vaincre les résistances disciplinaires, Ricœur a largement contribué à la réalisation du basculement interprétatif général que connaissent les sciences humaines. Cette ouverture vers un nouvel espace dialogique assurant une véritable humanisation des sciences humaines. Elle rend possible, au-delà des problèmes méthodologiques, le questionnement récent de celles-ci sur l'énigme jamais résolue de l'« être-ensemble ». (shrink)

Les etudes ici rassemblees interrogent les articulations et desarticulations que Jean-Francois Lyotard place au principe du langage. Le volume dessine ainsi les lignes de force et les deplacements de sa pensee, ses presupposes et ses apories. Il montre les malentendus et les polemiques suscites par sa reecriture radicale de la rationalite. Pas de langage en general, dit Lyotard, mais des langages multiples, des types de discours heterogenes que la politique brasse sans pacifier leurs conflits. La recherche du consensus, dont l' (...) ethique de la discussion a souligne l'importance, tend a occulter les differends qui divisent les fins respectives des genres de discours. On ne peut pas etre pacifiste en matiere de phrases, et pas indifferent. Car tout enchainement discursif signe la victoire d'un genre et porte tort aux autres. Sans compter que la parole, quel qu'en soit le registre, eclipse par principe ce qui echappe aux contraintes linguistiques, ce champ de la sensation et du sentiment que Discours, figure explorait, des 1971, en inventant le figural. Apres 1983, apres l' ontologie des phrases du Differend, Lyotard cherche a cerner ce que les mots laissent en souffrance et dont ils doivent pourtant temoigner. Phrase-affect, infantia, donation sensible, Chose sont quelques-uns des noms sous lesquels il pense alors ce qui resiste au langage, le travaille de l'interieur et signe la difficulte de l'ecriture.Ont participe a ce volume Isabelle Aubert, Geoffrey Bennington, Gaelle Bernard, Corinne Enaudeau, Frederic Fruteau de Laclos, Alberto Gualandi, Laurence Kahn, Charlotte Murgier, Andreas Niederberger, Sophie Nordmann, Michel Olivier, Claire Pages, Ronit Peleg, Gerard Raulet, Jean-Francois Rey, Jean-Michel Salanskis, Francois-David Sebbah, Gerald Sfez, Rieke Trimcev. (shrink)

In this short paper, I argue with the help of Paul Ricœur's work that human freedom depends in part on the anonymity of political institutions. First, I explain why institutions are essential to the realization of freedom. Second, I show that institutions are anonymous in two distinct ways. While the first way expresses the corruption of certain institutions, the second pertains to the essence of all of them. I conclude by suggesting that all critiques of the anonymity of institutions should (...) take this distinction into account. (shrink)

La publication presque simultanée de L'Ordre biologique d'André Lwoff (1969), de La Logique du vivant de François Jacob (1970), du Hasard et la nécessité de Jacques Monod (1970) et les débats qui s'ensuivirent, ont constitué un moment fort de la vie intellectuelle française. Comme il serait difficile aujourd'hui d'imaginer des débats analogues, réunissant philosophes et scientifiques autour de questions aussi fondamentales que la nature de l'objectivité scientifique et l'explication des phénomènes vivants! Le contexte scientifique et culturel explique la genèse (...) de ces trois ouvrages et les réactions qui suivirent leur publication. Dès 1971, un bel article de Georges Canguilhem en soulignait les convergences. Ce livre montre qu'ils sont le fruit des avancées rapides survenues dans la description moléculaire des organismes vivants. L'impact de ces découvertes est d'autant plus important en France que les transformations précédentes des sciences du vivant, l'essor de la génétique et de la synthèse moderne dans les années1930 - nouvelle version de la théorie de l'évolution -, y étaient passées inaperçues. Ce recueil vise à rappeler, mais surtout à faire mieux comprendre, ce moment si riche - avec l'espoir secret d'y trouver des recettes pour réanimer une vie intellectuelle devenue aujourd'hui bien fade. (shrink)

Gilles Deleuze et Jean-François Lyotard sont deux figures centrales de la pensée française contemporaine. Leur connivence, née dans les années 1970 alors qu'ils enseignent à l'Université expérimentale de Vincennes, procède d'une critique partagée de l'humanisme classique, d'une distance comparable à l'égard du structuralisme, enfin d'une thématisation commune du désir et de la sensibilité. La publication, à deux ans d'intervalle, de L'Anti-Oedipe et d'Economie libidinale confirme cette proximité : les auteurs y soutiennent des positions éthiques et politiques tout aussi intempestives. (...) On aurait pourtant tort de croire que leurs idées relèvent d'une même «philosophie de la différence», expression qui caractérise la seule entreprise de Deleuze. Dès les années 1980, Lyotard et Deleuze ont en effet divergé sur le sens à accorder à la psychanalyse, à l'oeuvre de Wittgenstein ou encore à l'obligation morale. Le propos du présent volume est de mettre à profit quarante années de recul pour confronter à nouveaux frais ces deux représentants de la philosophie française, en restituant l'héritage, l'évolution et le prolongement de leurs pensées respectives. Les contributions ici réunies déploient le large éventail des disciplines que Deleuze et Lyotard ont explorées et discutées. Elles s'intéressent aussi bien à la période de leur plus grande proximité théorique qu'à l'apparition des différends les opposant, au moment même de l'avènement, chez Lyotard, du concept de «différend». (shrink)

George Steiner famously declared that, after Babel, all understanding is translating. Poetry and philosophy turn out to pose the challenge of untranslatability. In my paper, I map out the complex intertwining of translation and hermeneutics, including the interplay of interpretation. Moving from Steiner’s fidelity cycle to Ricœurs linguistic hospitality, a shift of accent from the concepts of difference, identity and universality towards distance and encounter can be observed. With regard to translation as metaphor, understanding metaphor, the necessity of reflecting upon (...) one’s own language is taken into account. To challenge untranslatabilities and rethink the ‘living’ aspect of translation Jullien’s divergence into the possible polarity of reliability and sincerity proposes an opening. (shrink)

La philosophie est aujourd'hui de retour pour éclairer les grands enjeux de cette fin de siècle. La quête du sens qu'exprime ce retour ne peut que rencontrer la figure et le parcours de Paul Ricœur : depuis les années trente, il a toujours conçu sa réflexion comme une forme d'engagement dans la Cité. Sa présence constante dans ce siècle ne sera jamais démentie. Maître à penser plus que maître penseur, ses travaux sont devenus une source majeure d'inspiration dans les domaines (...) les plus divers. François Dosse a mesuré, avec son Histoire du structuralisme, à quel point cette pensée a été ignorée dans les années soixante et soixante-dix. En historien, il réalise ici une biographie intellectuelle qui entend rendre justice à ce grand penseur dont l'œuvre se situe à la croisée de la tradition réflexive française, de la philosophie dite continentale et de la philosophie analytique, dans un constant souci d'articulation de leurs apports respectifs. Grâce à une vaste enquête auprès de 170 témoins et une étude fouillée des travaux de Paul Ricœur, l'auteur retrace la cohérence du parcours de sa pensée et ses rebondissements multiples, au gré des sollicitations de l'actualité. Outre l'œuvre elle-même, c'est dans la succession des lieux de mémoire - les camps de Poméranie orientale, le Chambon-sur-Lignon, Strasbourg, la Sorbonne, les Murs Blancs, Nanterre, Chicago... - et de ceux de ses groupes d'appartenance - le cercle de Gabriel Marcel, Christianisme social, Esprit, le laboratoire de phénoménologie... - que se dessine une identité à la fois plurielle du fait des appropriations multiples qu'elle suscite, et unitaire par la cohérence toujours préservée d'une vie de recherches. La passion qui anime cette mise en intrigue ne vise pas à ériger une nouvelle statue de commandeur. L'auteur entend simplement faire partager le don de soi de Paul Ricœur, source d'une sagesse communicative. Ce parcours est une invitation à ne pas céder au scepticisme et au cynisme, et à retrouver les voies de l'espérance par une mémoire toujours retravaillée. (shrink)

_Criticism and Conviction_ offers a rare opportunity to share personally in the intellectual life and journey of the eminent philosopher Paul Ricoeur. Internationally known for his influential works in hermeneutics, theology, psychoanalysis, and aesthetics, until now, Ricoeur has been conspicuously silent on the subject of himself. In this book--a conversation about his life and work with François Azouvi and Marc de Launay--Ricoeur reflects on a variety of philosophical, social, religious, and cultural topics, from the paradoxes of political power to (...) the relationship between life and art, and life and death. In the first of eight conversations, Ricoeur traces the trajectory of his life, recounting the origins of his convictions and the development of his intellect against the tragic events of the twentieth century. Declaring himself the "son of a victim of the First World War," Ricoeur, an orphan, sketches his early years in the house of stern but loving grandparents, and the molding of his intellect under the tutelage of Roland Dalbiez, Gabriel Marcel, and André Philip. Ricoeur tells the intriguing story of his capture and five-year imprisonment by the Germans during World War II, where he and his compatriots fashioned an intellectual life complete with a library and lectures, and where he, amazingly, was able to continue his dissertation research. Elegantly interweaving anecdotal with philosophical meditations, Ricoeur recounts his relationships with some of the twentieth century's greatest figures, such as Heidegger, Jaspers, and Eliade. He also shares his views on French philosophers and explains his tumultuous relationship with Jacques Lacan. And while expressing his deepest respect for the works of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Michel Foucault, Ricoeur reserves his greatest admiration for the narratologist Algirdas Julien Greimas. Ricoeur also explores the relationship between the philosophical and religious domains, attempting to reconcile the two poles in his thought. And readers who have struggled with Ricoeur's work will be grateful for these illuminating discussions that provide an invaluable key to his writings on language and narrative, especially those on metaphor and time. Spontaneous and lively, _Criticism and Conviction_ is a passionate confirmation of Ricoeur's eloquence, lucidity, and intellectual rigor, and affirms his position as one of this century's greatest thinkers. It is an essential book for anyone interested in philosophy and literary criticism. (shrink)

In May 1968, Gilles Deleuze was an established philosopher teaching at the innovative Vincennes University, just outside of Paris. Félix Guattari was a political militant and the director of an unusual psychiatric clinic at La Borde. Their meeting was quite unlikely, yet the two were introduced in an arranged encounter of epic consequence. From that moment on, Deleuze and Guattari engaged in a surprising, productive partnership, collaborating on several groundbreaking works, including _Anti-Oedipus_, _What Is Philosophy?_ and _A Thousand Plateaus_. (...) class='Hi'>François Dosse, a prominent French intellectual known for his work on the Annales School, structuralism, and biographies of the pivotal intellectuals Paul Ricoeur, Pierre Chaunu, and Michel de Certeau, examines the prolific if improbable relationship between two men of distinct and differing sensibilities. Drawing on unpublished archives and hundreds of personal interviews, Dosse elucidates a collaboration that lasted more than two decades, underscoring the role that family and history—particularly the turbulent time of May 1968—play in their monumental work. He also takes the measure of Deleuze and Guattari's posthumous fortunes and the impact of their thought on intellectual, academic, and professional circles. (shrink)

This essay draws some consequences affecting juridical rationality, particularly its normative theory, from the discussion of Ricoeur’s philosophy of law by Alain Papaux and François Ost. It emphasizes in particular the ambiguities of Papaux’s position regarding the notion of abduction and stresses the irreducibility of the hermeneutic dimension of legal argument.

With his writings on phenomenology, psychoanalysis, Marxism, ideology, and religion, Paul Ricoeur has single-handedly redefined and revitalized the hermeneutic tradition. From Text to Action is an essential companion to the now classic The Conflict of Interpretations. Here, Ricoeur continues and extends his project of constructing a general theory of interpretation, positioning his work in relation to its own philosophical background: Hegel, Husserl, Gadamer, and Weber. He also responds to contemporary figures like K.O. Apel and Jürgen Habermas, connecting his own theorization (...) of ideology to their version of ideology critique. (shrink)

Texte d'une conférence prononcée à la Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Lausanne en 1985, dans lequel le philosophe reprend la question du mal, du défi qu'il représente, dans une perspective augustinienne.

A huge bestseller in Europe, Frederic Lenoir’s Happiness is an exciting journey that examines how history’s greatest philosophers and religious figures have answered life’s most fundamental question: What is happiness and how do I achieve it? From the ancient Greeks on—from Aristotle, Plato, and Chuang Tzu to the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad; from Voltaire, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer to Kant, Freud, and even modern neuroscientists—Lenoir considers the idea that true and lasting happiness is indeed possible. In clear language, Lenoir concisely surveys (...) what the greatest thinkers of all time have had to say on the subject, and, with charming prose, raises provocative questions: · Do we have a duty to be happy? · Is there a connection between individual and collective happiness? · Is happiness contagious? · Is there a difference between pleasure and happiness? · Can unhappiness and happiness coexist? · Does our happiness depend on our luck? Understanding how civilization’s best minds have answered those questions, Lenoir suggests, not only makes for a fascinating reading experience, but also provides a way for us to see us how happiness, that most elusive of feelings, is attainable in our own lives. (shrink)

Tolerance cannot not be concerned with the law, once it takes up in its concept the relationship between truth and justice. And there are several reasons for this. To begin with, the word right enters into many definitions of tolerance: the right to difference, to liberty, to those fundamental public freedoms that constitute human rights. Moreover, law, as opposed to morality, is the public instance where obligation is coupled with legitimate coercion. Finally, juridical institutions offer an excellent vantage point from (...) which to observe the transformations of the idea of tolerance and scan the history of the struggles carried out in its name. (shrink)

A defence of the 'pragmatic' theory of anaphora (which stresses the analogy between anaphora and deixis) against an argument put forward by Gareth Evans.

Il est assez rare qu’un concept philosophique s’échappe de l’arène académique. C’est pourtant le cas du concept de spécisme, qui a fait une entrée remarquée dans la sphère publique au cours de la dernière décennie. Il est désormais au cœur du débat de société sur nos devoirs envers les animaux non humains. Hélas, ce concept et les enjeux qu’il soulève sont souvent mal compris. Nombreux sont les auteurs qui contestent sa légitimité alors qu’ils le maitrisent mal. D’autres l’utilisent plus volontiers (...) sans toutefois mieux le comprendre. Les confusions qui entourent cette notion l’empêche de contribuer à la discussion autant qu’elle le pourrait. Le présent ouvrage entend remédier à cet état de faits en donnant de la notion de spécisme une présentation à la fois assez précise pour rendre justice aux discussions philosophiques dont elle fait l’objet et suffisamment claire pour être accessible à quiconque s’intéresse au statut moral des animaux. Il se divise en deux parties. La première aborde des questions ontologiques : Qu’est-ce exactement que le spécisme ? À quelles conditions existe-t-il ? Ces conditions sont-elles remplies dans les faits ? Quant à la seconde, elle porte sur des questions éthiques : Le spécisme peut-il être justifié ? Faut-il au contraire le condamner au même titre que le racisme et le sexisme ? (shrink)

The main proposal of this paper is that boundary objects and the trading zones in which they occur are the analogue of pheromone trails in the foraging of a termite colony. The colony can be construed as a _stigmergic_ system where the traces of the actions of individual termites coordinate their further actions without the existence of any central control or planning structures. The coordinated systems approach proposed by this paper lends support to the idea that such a system is (...) minimally cognitive in the sense that it is responsible for goal-directed behaviour. Boundary objects and trading zones in scientific practice play a similar functional role to pheromone traces because they are responsible for the same kind of coordination. This approach therefore provides a cognitive account of the social notions of boundary object and trading zone without making representationalist or computationalist assumptions. Moreover, it is scale-invariant—the same analytical technique can be applied at multiple scales simultaneously. It therefore provides a framework for an understanding of the complementarity of cognitive and social approaches to scientific investigation and points to areas for further ethnographic research. (shrink)

Cumulative technological culture (CTC) refers to the increase in the efficiency and complexity of tools and techniques in human populations over generations. A fascinating question is to understand the cognitive origins of this phenomenon. Because CTC is definitely a social phenomenon, most accounts have suggested a series of cognitive mechanisms oriented toward the social dimension (e.g., teaching, imitation, theory of mind, and metacognition), thereby minimizing the technical dimension and the potential influence of non-social, cognitive skills. What if we have failed (...) to see the elephant in the room? What if social cognitive mechanisms were only catalyzing factors and not thesufficient and necessaryconditions for the emergence of CTC? In this article, we offer an alternative, unified cognitive approach to this phenomenon by assuming that CTC originates in non-social cognitive skills, namely technical-reasoning skills which enable humans to develop the technical potential necessary to constantly acquire and improve technical information. This leads us to discuss how theory of mind and metacognition, in concert with technical reasoning, can help boost CTC. The cognitive approach developed here opens up promising new avenues for reinterpreting classical issues (e.g., innovation, emulation vs. imitation, social vs. asocial learning, cooperation, teaching, and overimitation) in a field that has so far been largely dominated by other disciplines, such as evolutionary biology, mathematics, anthropology, archeology, economics, and philosophy. (shrink)

On May 11th a round table discussion was held on the subject "The Interactions of Science and Art under the Conditions of the Revolution in Science and Technology ," organized by the editorial boards of the journals Voprosy filosofii and Voprosy literatury.

An inquiry into the rhetorical aspects of history may seem paradoxical, given that historical discourse is not typically included among those types which, since Aristotle, have been understood to be governed by rhetoric; these types being the deliberative council, the tribunal and the commemorative assembly. It was to these specific audiences that the three kinds of discourse—the deliberative, judiciary, and panegyric—were addressed. However, are the boundaries of the historian's audience sufficiently delineated in order to allow us to identify it as (...) a specific addressee? This first objection, which regards the very legitimacy of the subject of these remarks, can be met by noting a common trait that links history to the above-mentioned three types of discourse; that is, competition between opposed discourses requiring a choice. In each case the aim is to structure a debate that calls for a clear-cut decision. Yet a major problem of the discipline of history is that it allows both for widely varying descriptions of the same series of events, and sanctions the use of a variety of equally acceptable rules or preferences for interpreting a given slice of the past. (shrink)

Tolerance cannot not be concerned with the law, once it takes up in its concept the relationship between truth and justice. And there are several reasons for this. To begin with, the word right enters into many definitions of tolerance: the right to difference, to liberty, to those fundamental public freedoms that constitute human rights. Moreover, law, as opposed to morality, is the public instance where obligation is coupled with legitimate coercion. Finally, juridical institutions offer an excellent vantage point from (...) which to observe the transformations of the idea of tolerance and scan the history of the struggles carried out in its name. (shrink)

Tolerance has its arguments, both in morality and in law. It also has its sources, not only in the sense of the origins from which it springs, but also in the sense of that which actuates it and gives it life, that which encourages it and sanctions it - profoundly. Religions take part of these sources, but also take part of this reflexive aspect of ethics that puts into play the final legitimation, the ultimate justification of the norms of our (...) public and private actions. It is with respect to this recourse to the ultimate that religion and ethics intersect without becoming one. Yet it is also in this recourse to the ultimate that one and the other greatly face the danger of temptation. This is particularly the case with religion. It is indeed not enough to simply say that it is the political use of religion that is to blame, and not religion as such, in the long and unfinished history of religious intolerance. We must trace the source of the temptation of intolerance to the very heart of the certainty of religious faith. Any belief, as soon as it defines itself in relation - a relation of any kind, whether of distance or proximity, of alterity or fusion - to an absolute, must be on guard against its own penchant for intolerance. It is not enough, in an opposite sense of the preceding warning, to rely on the critical resources borrowed from sources outside of religion: it is at that same heart of certainty of all religious faith that we must seek the reason for the conviction that it is unjust to look to impose on adherents of other religions, on agnostics and atheists, the truth as it is admitted in good faith by the community of believers of one or another religious confession. (shrink)

Tolerance has its arguments, both in morality and in law. It also has its sources, not only in the sense of the origins from which it springs, but also in the sense of that which actuates it and gives it life, that which encourages it and sanctions it - profoundly. Religions take part of these sources, but also take part of this reflexive aspect of ethics that puts into play the final legitimation, the ultimate justification of the norms of our (...) public and private actions. It is with respect to this recourse to the ultimate that religion and ethics intersect without becoming one. Yet it is also in this recourse to the ultimate that one and the other greatly face the danger of temptation. This is particularly the case with religion. It is indeed not enough to simply say that it is the political use of religion that is to blame, and not religion as such, in the long and unfinished history of religious intolerance. We must trace the source of the temptation of intolerance to the very heart of the certainty of religious faith. Any belief, as soon as it defines itself in relation - a relation of any kind, whether of distance or proximity, of alterity or fusion - to an absolute, must be on guard against its own penchant for intolerance. It is not enough, in an opposite sense of the preceding warning, to rely on the critical resources borrowed from sources outside of religion: it is at that same heart of certainty of all religious faith that we must seek the reason for the conviction that it is unjust to look to impose on adherents of other religions, on agnostics and atheists, the truth as it is admitted in good faith by the community of believers of one or another religious confession. (shrink)

Tolerance has its arguments, both in morality and in law. It also has its sources, not only in the sense of the origins from which it springs, but also in the sense of that which actuates it and gives it life, that which encourages it and sanctions it - profoundly. Religions take part of these sources, but also take part of this reflexive aspect of ethics that puts into play the final legitimation, the ultimate justification of the norms of our (...) public and private actions. It is with respect to this recourse to the ultimate that religion and ethics intersect without becoming one. Yet it is also in this recourse to the ultimate that one and the other greatly face the danger of temptation. This is particularly the case with religion. It is indeed not enough to simply say that it is the political use of religion that is to blame, and not religion as such, in the long and unfinished history of religious intolerance. We must trace the source of the temptation of intolerance to the very heart of the certainty of religious faith. Any belief, as soon as it defines itself in relation - a relation of any kind, whether of distance or proximity, of alterity or fusion - to an absolute, must be on guard against its own penchant for intolerance. It is not enough, in an opposite sense of the preceding warning, to rely on the critical resources borrowed from sources outside of religion: it is at that same heart of certainty of all religious faith that we must seek the reason for the conviction that it is unjust to look to impose on adherents of other religions, on agnostics and atheists, the truth as it is admitted in good faith by the community of believers of one or another religious confession. (shrink)

This essay analyzes the nature of social relations when individual identity is conceived as both autonomous and socially constructed. Viewing identity as autonomous and socially constructed makes it necessary both to conceive individuals as socially related to others in the present and past, and to incorporate individuals into multiple systems of social relations. I argue that George Herbert Mead’s theory of social systems provides a basis for performing these tasks. By adding a concept of “contemporaneous consciousness” to Mead’s notion of (...) temporal systems, it is possible to view individuals as autonomous within a multiplicity of temporal systems. (shrink)

Originally published in Italian in 1976, this book describes the methods scientists use to investigate the physical world. It is ideal for students and teachers of science and the philosophy of science. It is both a high-level popularization and a critical appraisal of these methods, describing important advances in physics and analyzing the historical development, value, reliability and philosophical implications of the way physicists approach the problems confronting them. The introductory chapter on the meaning of physical theories and the mathematical (...) tools used to develop them is followed by a general discussion on the foundations of physics under four major headings: the physics of the reversible, the physics of the irreversible, microphysics, and cosmology. Throughout, the subject matter of physical theories is linked to discussion of the attendant philosophical and epistemological implications, such as the validity of the theories, inductive inference, causal explanation, probability, the role of observation and the reality of physical objects. (shrink)