Gathering an international team of scholars, The Companion to Freedom and Nature is the first book devoted exclusively to Paul Ricoeur’s Freedom and Nature. Covering important influences on Ricoeur’s early thought and connecting it to current issues in embodied cognition and the philosophy of will, the companion promotes a renewed appreciation of the contemporary relevance of this groundbreaking work.
Combining rigor and originality, Ricoeur's Fallible Man locates the possibility of evil in a self that is fundamentally in conflict with itself. The contributors to this volume shed light on an impressive range of themes from the most accessible of Ricoeur’s early writings that resonate with contemporary debates in philosophy and religion.
Paul Ricoeur’s most widely read book, The Symbolism of Evil, examines the structure of a will that has succumbed to evil and discloses its meaning through a study of symbols and myths. This edited collection explores a wide range of themes that resonate with topics in contemporary philosophy and religion.
A correction has been made to: Bar, Roi. The Forgotten Phenomenology: “Enactive Perception” in the Eyes of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy, v. 28, n. 1, p. 53-72, june 2020.The incorrect abstract was included with the original publication of DOI 10.5195/jffp.2020.928The original article has been updated to reflect this change.
More than fifteen years have now passed since the publication of Dominique Janicaud’s book Phenomenology “Wide Open” —the sequel to his controversial essay published in Phenomenology and the “Theological Turn.”1 There, as is widely known, Janicaud raised the question of whether the phenomenological enterprises of figures such as Emmanuel Levinas, Michel Henry, and Jean-Luc Marion were marked by a “theological turn” and, if so, whether such a turn was phenomenologically warranted. At this point, a voluminous literature over this debate exists, (...) much of it defending the accused against those charges.2 Perhaps as an indirect result of that focus, there has been relatively little discussion of .. (shrink)
McShea asks what current value theories "authorize us to say, or do, against the child abuser, the racist, the terrorist, the oppressor and the exploiter, the liar and the cheat?" and finds that they provide insufficient grounds for ordinary moral judgments and for social and political criticism. He rejects the standard, "superficial" bifurcated schemes for classifying available positions--deontological versus teleological, Gemeinschaft versus Gesellschaft, classical versus modern, and so on--and claims that "all possible bases for value thinking" fall under one or (...) more of the following five headings: skepticism, individualism, transcendentalism, culturalism, or human nature theory. He rejects skepticism, individualism, transcendentalism, and culturalism, and asserts that "our feelings are the only basis on which we can make value judgments.... There is no conceivable good for us but the maximum satisfaction of our strongest and most enduring feelings". He maintains that our "common genetic feeling pattern" authorizes values and that value theory should "begin with human feelings, with the study of the feelings, with the understanding of feelings not as words but as experiences had similarly by all, or almost all, of us". He defends "traditional human nature theory" as the only account that can ground the prescriptivity of value judgments and provide "an unsentimental, transcultural basis for human solidarity and interpersonal sympathy". (shrink)
In his published work, Levinas only mentions metaphor for the sake of dismissing its relevance to his ethics of transcendence. Metaphor is aligned with the poetic imagery and the rhetorical devices that weave together an ontology of immanence, whereas transcendence is said to occur through an immediate encounter with the other. But Levinas's unpublished lecture “La Métaphore” is of interest precisely because it troubles this distinction through the notion of a “metaphorical transcendence.” Although Levinas abandons this terminology after his lecture, (...) this article suggests that an implicit, but unavowed, operation of metaphor persists in the guise of his ethics of substitution. (shrink)
In this book, a world-leading Ricoeur scholar examines Ricoeur's philosophy in relation to other major figures in contemporary French philosophy including Bourdieu, Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, and Castoriadis.
"Essays by 14 Levinas scholars provide a fresh acount of the argument and purpose of Emmanuel Levinas's major work, Totality and Infinity, drawing parallels between Levinas and other thinkers; considering Levinas's relationship to other disciplines such as nursing, psychotherapy, and law; and bringing this seminal text to bear on specific, concrete issues of present-day concern"--Provided by publisher.
The legacy of Husserlian phenomenology in France, as Paul Ricœur observes, has inspired a series of “ Husserlian heresies.” This paper seeks to shedlight on the Husserl heretics through a study of two influential thinkers who introduced Husserl’s to French readers: Levinas and Ricoeur. Their introductionsgave rise to the “standard picture” of Husserl as an Idealist. Their criticism of Husserl’s Idealism then provides the springboard into their own originalthought. What ultimately emerges from this, however, are two different visions of how (...) phenomenology should relate to its own limits. (shrink)
