This is a critical introduction to modern French philosophy, commissioned from one of the liveliest contemporary practitioners and intended for an English-speaking readership. The dominant 'Anglo-Saxon' reaction to philosophical development in France has for some decades been one of suspicion, occasionally tempered by curiosity but more often hardening into dismissive rejection. But there are signs now of a more sympathetic interest and an increasing readiness to admit and explore shared concerns, even if these are still expressed in a very different (...) idiom and intellectual context. Vincent Descombes offers here a personal guide to the main movements and figures of the last forty-five years. He traces over this period the evolution of thought from a generation preoccupied with the 'three H's' - Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger, to a generation influenced since about 1960 by the 'three masters of suspicion' - Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. In this framework he deals in turn with the thought of Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, the early structuralists, Foucault, Althusser, Serres, Derrida, and finally Deleuze and Lyotard. The 'internal' intellectual history of the period is related to its institutional setting and the wider cultural and political context which has given French philosophy so much of its distinctive character. (shrink)

The mental and the social are ‘two sides of the same coin’. In other words, ‘social relations are internal relations’. In showing how this was the point of Wittgenstein’s discussion of the practice of ‘following a rule’, Peter Winch has made an important contribution to social philosophy.

Philosophers are often asked for their views on the "meaning of the times." But how should philosophy deal with world events? And what makes a philosopher more qualified than anyone else to editorialize in the daily paper? In this book, Descombes's intention is not to offer his own reading of the signs of the times, but to interrogate modern philosophers about how they come up with the barometers they use to tell us about modern reason and the spirit of the (...) times. For Descombes, a "philosophical discourse of modernity" should be rejected, for the true subject of modernity belongs not to philosophers, but to writers, moralists, and sociologists of individualism. (shrink)

Through the voice of the narrator of Remembrance of Things Past, Proust observes of the painter Elstir that the paintings are bolder than the artist; Elstir the painter is bolder than Elstir the theorist. This book applies the same distinction to Proust; the Proustian novel is bolder than Proust the theorist. By this the author means that the novel is philosophically bolder, that it pursues further The task Proust identifies as the writer's work: to explain life, to elucidate what has (...) been lived in obscurity and confusion. In this, the novelist and the philosopher share a common goal: to clarify the obscure in order to arrive at the truth. It follows that Proust's real philosophy of the novel is to be found not in the speculative passages of Remembrance, which merely echo the philosophical commonplaces of his time, but in the truly novelistic or narrative portions of his text. In Against Sainte-Beuve, Proust sets forth his ideas about literature in the form of a critique of the method of Sainte-Beuve. Scholars who have studied Proust's notebooks describe the way in which this essay was taken over by bits of narrative originally intended as illustrations supporting its theses. The philosophical portions of Remembrance were not added to the narrative as an afterthought, designed to bring out its meaning. What happened was the reverse: the novel was born of a desire to illustrate the propositions of the essay. Why then should we not find the novel more philosophically advanced than the essay? Reversing the usual order following by literary critics, the author interprets the novel as an elucidation, and not as a simple transposition, of the essay. The book is not only a general interpretation of Proust's novel and its construction; it includes detailed discussions of such topics as literature and philosophy, the nature of literary genres, the poetics of the novel, the definition of art, modernity and postmodernity, and the sociology of literature. (shrink)

Selon Peter Winch,, le mental et le social sont comme les deux côtés d'une même pièce de monnaie. Autrement dit, “ les relations sociales sont des relations internes ”. En montrant que c'était là le point traité par Wittgenstein dans sa discussion sur les pratiques guidées par des règles, Winch a fait faire un pas décisif à la philosophie sociale.

On peut comprendre l'idée hégélienne d'un esprit objectif comme celle d'une conception sociologique du langage et de l'esprit. Elle consiste à fonder le fait de la vie mentale sur la participation à des pratiques communes gouvernées par des règles sociales et par des institutions. Taylor, lorsqu'il montre comment la communication suppose des significations communes, propose une philosophie de l'esprit objectif. Une telle philosophie semble incompatible avec une autre idée défendue par Taylor: la définition herméneutique de l'homme comme l'animal qui s'interprète (...) lui-même. Dans sa réponse, Taylor souligne la différence entre une simple convergence dans le comportement des individus et une action effectivement commune. Il admet qu'on ne saurait confondre, par exemple, le fait de « devenir un ermite » et celui de « s'interpréter soi-même comme si l'on était un ermite ». Néanmoins, il maintient qu'on doit pouvoir parler d'une capacité humaine à se comprendre soi-même dans des termes correspondant aux possibilités fondamentales d'une existence humaine. The Hegelian idea of there being an objective spirit can be construed as a social theory of language and mind. According to this theory, to have a mental life requires participating into common practices governed by social rules and institutions. Taylor holds such a view when he points out that there would be no communication whitout common meanings (i.e. without an « objective spirit »). However, this social conception of mind seems to conflict with another of Taylor's views: the hermeneutic definition of men as « self-interpreting animals ». In his reply, Taylor stresses the difference between a mere convergence in behaviour and the commonality of common action. He agrees that one should not reduce e.g. « becoming a hermit » to « interpreting oneself as a hermit ». There is, however, such a thing as defining oneself or understanding oneself in terms of human nodal potentialities. (shrink)

L'intérêt considérable de la théorie de la culture défendue par Dan Sperber, dans son livre La contagion des idées, est d'expliciter plus fermement que de coutume les présupposés ontologiques d'une approche atomiste dans ce domaine. L'ethnographe présuppose qu'il y a dans le monde, non seulement des personnes, mais des idées. Comment les idées sont-elles dans le monde ? Le 'monisme ontologique' de Sperber consiste à refuser de multiplier les genres d'entités. Les idées sont donc, selon lui, des entités matérielles au (...) même titre que les personnes. Pourtant, le véritable problème ontologique qui se pose au sujet des idées n'est pas de décider si elles sont des objets matériels ou plutôt des objets immatériels, mais de savoir si leur mode d'être est celui des objets ou s'il est d'une autre catégorie que celle des objets. (shrink)

Schopenhauer disait : « Prêcher la morale est facile, fonder la morale est difficile » 1. Wittgenstein a repris cette opposition du discours moral et de la philosophie, mais il l’a présentée ainsi : « Prêcher la morale est difficile, fonder la morale est impossible » 2...

Je traiterai du principe de charité sous l'angle d'une réflexion sur la philosophie du sens commun. J'expliquerai d'abord ce que signifie : poser la question d'un sens commun. J'en viendrai ensuite aux diverses raisons qui ont été données d'adopter un “ principe de charité ” à l'égard des propos qui nous sont tenus par un interlocuteur.

This text is a translation of two extracts from Vincent Descombes' 2014 book Le parler de soi. The majority of the translation consists of the chapter that Descombes dedicates to discussing Descartes extensively. In this text, Descombes analyzes “egotistical sentences,” or I-statements, beginning with the infamous example from Descartes. From here, he develops a substantial meditation on the nature of the self and its inherent philosophical paradoxes. The “radical question” guiding Descombes is whether or not an egotistical sentence has or (...) implies a subject in the metaphysical sense. The conclusion, ultimately supported in part by Anscombe’s work on “I-thoughts,” explains how it could be that a subject is not implied by an egotistical sentence. (shrink)

Ricœur, in his Philosophy of the Will , is already turning eidetic descriptions into linguistic descriptions. Therefore what is at stake between phenomenologists and analytic philosophers is not the linguistic turn as such. Rather, it is the question whether all psychological verbs are experiential verbs. The contribution of Vincent Descombes is presented as a response to the communication of Jean-Luc Petit delivered in Paris in November 2013 for the International Congress "Ricœur and Contemporary Philosophy in the English Language." A written (...) version of Jean-Luc Petit’s paper can be found in this issue. NDE Résumé Dès sa Philosophie de la volonté , Ricœur donne un tour linguistique à ses descriptions eidétiques. Ce n'est donc pas le tournant linguistique qui sépare la phénoménologie de l'action d'une grammaire philosophique, mais plutôt la question de savoir si tous les verbes psychologiques sont des verbes d'expérience. La contribution de Vincent Descombes se présente comme une réponse à la communication de Jean-Luc Petit prononcée à Paris en novembre 2013 pour le congrès international “Ricœur et la philosophie contemporaine de langue anglaise.” On trouvera dans ce numéro la version écrite de la communication de Jean-Luc Petit. NDE. (shrink)