Using the philosophy of Jean-Luc Nancy as an anchoring point, Jacques Derrida in this book conducts a profound review of the philosophy of the sense of touch, from Plato and Aristotle to Jean-Luc Nancy, whose ground-breaking book Corpus he discusses in detail. Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edmund Husserl, Didier Franck, Martin Heidegger, Francoise Dastur, and Jean-Louis Chre;tien are discussed, as are Rene; Descartes, Diderot, Maine de Biran, Fe;lix Ravaisson, Immanuel Kant, Sigmund Freud, and others. The scope of (...) class='Hi'>Derrida’s deliberations makes this book a virtual encyclopedia of the philosophy of touch (and the body). Derrida gives special consideration to the thinking of touch in Christianity and, in discussing Jean-Luc Nancy’s essay “Deconstruction of Christianity,” devotes a section of the book to the sense of touch in the Gospels. Another section concentrates on “the flesh,” as treated by Merleau-Ponty and others in his wake. Derrida’s critique of intuitionism, notably in the phenomenological tradition, is one of the guiding threads of the book. On Touching includes a wealth of notes that provide an extremely useful bibliographical resource. Personal and detached all at once, this book, one of the first published in English translation after Jacques Derrida’s death, serves as a useful and poignant retrospective on the work of the philosopher. A tribute by Jean-Luc Nancy, written a day after Jacques Derrida’s death, is an added feature. (shrink)

"In this densely imbricated volume Derrida pursues his devoted, relentless dismantling of the philosophical tradition, the tradition of Plato, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger--each dealt with in one or more of the essays. There are essays too on linguistics (Saussure, Benveniste, Austin) and on the nature of metaphor ("White Mythology"), the latter with important implications for literary theory. Derrida is fully in control of a dazzling stylistic register in this book--a source of true illumination for those prepared (...) to follow his arduous path. Bass is a superb translator and annotator. His notes on the multilingual allusions and puns are a great service."--Alexander Gelley, Library Journal. (shrink)

"The four essays in this volume constitute Derrida's most explicit and sustained reflection on the art work as pictorial artifact, a reflection partly by way of philosophical aesthetics (Kant, Heidegger), partly by way of a commentary on art works and art scholarship (Van Gogh, Adami, Titus-Carmel). The illustrations are excellent, and the translators, who clearly see their work as both a rendering and a transformation, add yet another dimension to this richly layered composition. Indispensable to collections emphasizing art (...) criticism and aesthetics."--Alexander Gelley, Library Journal. (shrink)

Cette communication proposee a un colloque franco-Americain est l'analyse de la situation philosophique francaise actuelle. Apres quelques considerations sur la signification politique et historique d'un colloque international de philosophie, L'auteur pose la question de l'homme et de ses fins (au sens a bigu de mort et de finalite), Telle qu'elle fascine la philosophie francaise aujourd'hui. Pour comprendre en quels termes se pose aujourd'hui cette question en france, Il faut tenir compte de la lecture qui a ete faite par les deux (...) dernieres generations de kant, Hegel, Husserl et heidegger. A un premier niveau, Cette lecture a meconnu, De maniere tres significative, La critique de l'anthropologisme, Sinon de l'humanisme, Qui est a l'oeuvre chez ces quatre philosophes. Les principaux arguments de cette critique sont reconstitues au cours d'une premiere etape. Mais a un deuxieme niveau, Il apparait qu'un humanisme profond soutient cette critique. Demonstration en est faite, Avec une attention particuliere en ce qui concerne heidegger, Dont la situation est plus difficile et plus decisive. C'est cette dermiere analyse qui est presupposee par toute la critique de l'humanisme qui domine aujourd'hui en france. (shrink)

A rich exploration of the idea of friendship and its political consequences, past and future, by the most influential of contemporary philosophers. Until relatively recently, Jacques Derrida was seen by many as nothing more than the high priest of Deconstruction, by turns stimulating and fascinating, yet always somewhat disengaged from the central political questions of our time. Or so it seemed. Derrida's "political turn," marked especially by the appearance of Specters of Marx, has surprised some and delighted others. (...) In The Politics of Friendship Derrida renews and enriches this orientation through an examination of the political history of the idea of friendship pursued down the ages. Derrida's thoughts are haunted throughout the book by the strange and provocative address attributed to Aristotle, "my friends, there is no friend" and its inversions by later philosophers such as Montaigne, Kant, Nietzsche, Schmitt and Blanchot. The exploration allows Derrida to recall and restage the ways in which all the oppositional couples of Western philosophy and political thought—friendship and enmity, private and public life—have become madly and dangerously unstable. At the same time he dissects genealogy itself, the familiar and male-centered notion of fraternity and the virile virtue whose authority has gone unquestioned in our culture of friendship and our models of democracy The future of the political, for Derrida, becomes the future of friends, the invention of a radically new friendship, of a deeper and more inclusive democracy. This remarkable book, his most profoundly important for many years, offers a challenging and inspiring vision of that future. (shrink)

In this essay Derrida reflects, for the first time at length, on secularization as a historical process. Whereas his earlier writings on religion focus on Jewish and Christian authors who blur the boundaries of religious belonging, this essay directly questions the categories of religion and secularization. Against this background, Derrida revisits the work of Kant, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, and he reflects on his own engagement with messianism, negative theology, and the khôra.

Those who have read me, in particular those who have read “Paul de Man’s War,” know very well that I would have quite easily accepted a genuine critique, the expression of an argued disagreement with my reading of de Man, with my evaluation of these articles from 1940-42, and so on. After all, what I wrote on this subject was complicated enough, divided, tormented, most often hazarded as hypothesis, open enough to discussion, itself discussing itself enough in advance for (...) me to be able to welcome questions, suggestions, and objections. Provided this was done so as to demonstrate and not to intimidate or inflict wounds, to help the analysis progress and not to score points, to read and to reason and not to pronounce massive, magical, and immediately executor verdicts. Five of the six “responses” that I reread last night are written, as one used to say, with a pen dipped in venom. Less against the de Man of 1940-42, perhaps, then against me . Less against me, in truth, than against “Deconstruction” . How can the reader tell that these five “critical responses” are not “responses,” critical texts or discussions, but rather the documents of a blinded compulsion? First of all, the fact that they are all monolithic. They take into account none of the complications of which my text, this is the very least one can say, is not at all sparing. They never seek to measure the possibility, the degree, or the form, as always happens in an honest discussion, of a partial agreement on this or that point. No, everything is rejected as a block; everything is a block and a block of hatred. Even when, here or there, someone makes a show of being moved by my sadness or my friendship for de Man, it is in order to get the better of me and suggest that I am inspired only by friendship, which will appear ridiculous to all those who have read me. Inspired by friendship means for those people misled by friendship. How foreign this experience must be to them! Jacques Derrida is Directeur d’Études at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales as well as professor at the University of California, Irvine, and visiting professor at the Graduate School of the City University of New York. His most recent publication in English is the collection Limited Inc , which includes a new afterword, “Toward an Ethic of Discussion.” Peggy Kamuf is professor of French at the University of Southern California. Her most recent book is Signature Pieces: On the Institution of Authorship . She has also contributed essays to Reading de Man Reading and Responses: On Paul de Man’s Wartime Journalism , and is currently editing A Derrida Reader. (shrink)

Psyche: Inventions of the Other is the first publication in English of the twenty-eight essay collection Jacques Derrida published in two volumes in 1998 and 2003. Advancing his reflection on many issues, such as sexual difference, architecture, negative theology, politics, war, nationalism, and religion, Volume II also carries on Derrida's engagement with a number of key thinkers and writers: De Certeau, Heidegger, Kant, Lacoue-Labarthe, Mandela, Rosenszweig, and Shakespeare, among others. Included in this volume are new or revised (...) translations of seminal essays (for example, "Geschlecht I: Sexual Difference, Ontological Difference," "Geschlecht II: Heidegger's Hand," "How to Avoid Speaking: Denials," and " Interpretations at War : Kant, the Jew, the German"). (shrink)

In this series of dialogues, Derrida discusses and elaborates on some of the central themes of his work, such as the problems of genesis, justice, authorship and death. Combining autobiographical reflection with philosophical enquiry, Derrida illuminates the ideas that have characterized his thought from its beginning to the present day. If there is one feature that links these contributions, it is the theme of singularity - the uniqueness of the individual, the resistance of existence to philosophy, the temporality (...) of the singular and exceptional moment, and the problem of exemplarity. The second half of this book contains an essay by Maurizio Ferraris, in which he explores the questions of indication, time and the inscription of the transcendental in the empirical. A work of outstanding philosophy and scholarship, the essay is developed in close proximity to Derrida and in dialogue with figures such as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger. It thereby provides a useful introduction to the philosophy of one of Italy's most prominent philosophers as well as an excellent complement to Derrida's own ideas. A Taste for the Secret consists of material that has never before appeared in English. It will be of interest to second-year undergraduates, graduate students and academics in philosophy, modern languages, literature, literary theory and the humanities generally. (shrink)

Stel dat een inbreker bij jou thuis alleen de lijsten van de kunstwerken zou wegnemen, en niet de werken zelf. Wat zou er veranderen in je omgang met de kunst? Met dat gedachte-experiment opent de Franse filosoof Jacques Derrida het essay Parergon. Parergon betekent bijzaak in het Grieks. Zoals bijvoorbeeld de lijst van het schilderij, of het kader van een opgehangen foto. Ze behoren niet tot het kunstwerk. En toch zijn ze van groot belang voor hoe het werk bekeken (...) wordt. De belangwekkende tekst van Derrida uit 1974 geeft een centrale rol aan de bijzaak van het kader. Met filosofische acrobatie maneuvreert de denker tussen de grote klassiekers van de kunstfilosofie: Plato, Kant, Hegel en Heidegger. Hij gaat op een speelse manier met hun erfenis om. Woorden worden omgedraaid. Passages die op het eerste gezicht bijzaak lijken, maakt hij tot hoofdrolspelers van zijn betoog. Dit boek presenteert Derridas belangrijkste tekst over beeldende kunst voor de eerste keer in Nederlandse vertaling. Het boek is vormgegeven door de spraakmakende ontwerpster Ines Cox. Vertaler Ben Overlaet schreef een nawoord dat de tekst van de nodige filosofische en historische context voorziet. (shrink)

Taking as its point of departure Edmund Husserl's 1935-36 text The Crisis of European Sciences, this essay attempts to develop a new conception of reason by means of a thoroughgoing critique of some ideas often used to support and define it. Because the notion of "enlightenment" has been tied since the time of Kant to a certain coming of age of reason or rationality, the "enlightenment" to come must at once draw upon the resources of this reason and open (...) reason to some of the aporias it has traditionally rejected. Reducible neither to a simple irrationalism nor to a mere mode of calculative thought, such reason must ultimately challenge, it is argued, not only the sovereignty and identity of the subject but the very concepts of sovereignty and identity. Only such a renewed thinking of reason or of what is reasonable, the essay suggests, can help us diagnose, analyze, and help treat some of the aporias posed by a whole host of contemporary issues, from cloning to the erosion of the nation-state to globalization and terrorism. Only in this way can we at once "save the honor of reason" - to use a phrase that runs throughout the essay - and help reorient the reason of politics, of the sciences, and, indeed, of philosophy along the lines of a more fundamental and urgent ethical imperative. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that Derrida cannot pursue the question of being/following unless he thinks through the question of sexual difference posed by figures of little girls in philosophical texts and in literature, specifically as posed by Lewis Carroll's Alice whom Derrida references in L'animal que donc je suis. At stake in thinking being after animals after Alice is the thought of an other than fraternal following, a way of being-with and inheriting from (other than (...) human) others that calls for an account of development that is not dictated by a normative autotelic and sacrificial logic. I argue that Derrida's dissociation of himself and his cat from Alice and her cat(s) in L'animal que donc je suis causes him to risk repeating the closed, teleological gestures philosophers like Kant and Hegel perpetuate in their accounts of human development. The more sweeping conclusion towards which this essay points is the claim that the domestication of girls and their subjection to familial fates in narratives and the reduction of development to teleology more generally, require the sacrifice and forgetting of ‘nature’, including animals, so that the fates of girls and ‘nature’ are intertwined in the context of projects of human world-building and home-making. (shrink)

Until relatively recently, Jacques Derrida was seen by many as nothing more than the high priest of Deconstruction, by turns stimulating and fascinating, yet always somewhat disengaged from the central political questions of our time. Or so it seemed. Derrida's "political turn," marked especially by the appearance of Specters of Marx, has surprised some and delighted others. In The Politics of Friendship Derrida renews and enriches this orientation through an examination of the political history of the idea (...) of friendship pursued down the ages. Derrida's thoughts are haunted throughout the book by the strange and provocative address attributed to Aristotle, "my friends, there is no friend" and its inversions by later philosophers such as Montaigne, Kant, Nietzsche, Schmitt and Blanchot. The exploration allows Derrida to recall and restage the ways in which all the oppositional couples of Western philosophy and political thought--friendship and enmity, private and public life--have become madly and dangerously unstable. At the same time he dissects genealogy itself, the familiar and male-centered notion of fraternity and the virile virtue whose authority has gone unquestioned in our culture of friendship and our models of democracy. The future of the political, for Derrida, becomes the future of friends, the invention of a radically new friendship, of a deeper and more inclusive democracy. This remarkable book, his most profoundly important for many years, offers a challenging and inspiring vision of that future. (shrink)

Completing the translation of Derrida’s monumental work Right to Philosophy (the first part of which has already appeared under the title of Who’s Afraid of Philosophy?), Eyes of the University brings together many of the philosopher’s most important texts on the university and, more broadly, on the languages and institutions of philosophy. In addition to considerations of the implications for literature and philosophy of French becoming a state language, of Descartes’ writing of the Discourse on Method in French, and (...) of Kant’s and Schelling’s philosophies of the university, the volume reflects on the current state of research and teaching in philosophy and on the question of what Derrida calls a “university responsibility.” Examining the political and institutional conditions of philosophy, the essays collected here question the growing tendency to orient research and teaching towards a programmable and profitable end. The volume is therefore invaluable for the light it throws upon an underappreciated aspect of Derrida’s own engagement, both philosophical and political, in struggles against the stifling of philosophical research and teaching. As a founding member of the Research Group on the Teaching of Philosophy and as one of the conveners of the Estates General of Philosophy, Derrida was at the forefront of the struggle to preserve and extend the teaching of philosophy as a distinct discipline, in secondary education and beyond, in the face of conservative government education reforms in France. As one of the founders of the Collège International de Philosophie, he worked to provide a space for research in and around philosophy that was not accepted or legitimated in other institutions. Documenting and reflecting upon these engagements, Eyes of the University brings together some of the most important and incisive of Derrida’s works. (shrink)

Tyrannie, ce vieux mot qui nous vient de Grèce, comment l'entendre encore, et d'une autre oreille? Que serait aujourd'hui la tyrannie? Cet essai traite des rapports entre le droit et la justice mais aussi entre le pouvoir, l'autorité et la violence. La justice n'est jamais épuisée par les représentations et par les institutions juridiques qu'on tente d'y ajuster. Le juste transcende à jamais le juridique, certes, mais il n'est pas de justice qui ne doive s'inscrire dans un droit, dans un (...) système et dans une histoire de la légalité, dans la politique et dans l'Etat. Même si à son tour le droit prime la force, si c'est là son devoir, il n'est pas de droit qui n'implique en lui-même le pouvoir de sa mise en œuvre, une technique, donc, et la possibilité de la guerre. Point de devoir sans contrainte, rappelle Kant. Ce qui prétend avoir force de loi inscrit alors l'appel à la force dans le concept même de son autorité. Le risque de tyrannie n'attend plus, il guette à l'origine de la loi. Il veille sur sa conséquence, sur ce que Pascal nomme, dans sa pensée si connue mais si énigmatique, la " suite " : " Justice, force. - Il est juste que ce qui est juste soit suivi, il est nécessaire que ce qui est le plus fort soit suivi. La justice sans la force est impuissante ; la force sans la justice est tyrannique [...] Il faut donc mettre ensemble la justice et la force... " Reprenant un mot de Montaigne, Pascal parle aussi, " d'un fondement mystique " de " l'autorité " : " Qui la ramène à son principe, l'anéantit. " Un tel anéantissement peut s'engager selon des voies multiples. Il s'agirait ici d'analyser en somme cette multiplicité même. En revenant sur la tradition de Montaigne et de Pascal, puis en s'expliquant avec un texte troublant de Walter Benjamin, Pour une critique de la violence (1921), cet essai situe la déconstruction devant la loi, plus précisément au regard de la justice à laquelle elle se doit. Car la justice n'est pas devant la déconstruction, elle l'engage et lui donne d'abord son mouvement. A quelles conditions peut-on alors penser les axiomes suivants : " La justice est un des noms de l'indéconstructible " ou encore " la déconstruction est justice "? (shrink)

"In this newest installment in Chicagos series of Jacques Derridas seminars, the renowned philosopher attempts one of his most ambitious goals: the first truly philosophical argument against the death penalty. While much has been written against the death penalty, Derrida contends that Western philosophy is massively, if not always overtly, complicit with a logic in which a sovereign state has the right to take a life. Haunted by this notion, he turns to the key places where such logic has (...) been established - and to the place it has been most effectively challenged: literature. With his signature genius and patient yet dazzling readings of an impressive breadth of texts, Derrida examines everything from the Bible to Plato to Camus to Jean Genet, with special attention to Kant and postWorld War II juridical texts, to draw the landscape of death penalty discourses. Keeping clearly in view the death rows and execution chambers of the United States, he shows how arguments surrounding cruel and unusual punishment depend on what he calls an 'anesthesial logic, ' which has also driven the development of death penalty technology from the French guillotine to lethal injection. Confronting a demand for philosophical rigor, he pursues provocative analyses of the shortcomings of abolitionist discourse. Above all, he argues that the death penalty and its attendant technologies are products of a desire to put an end to one of the most fundamental qualities of our finite existence: the radical uncertainty of when we will die. Arriving at a critical juncture in history - especially in the United States, one of the last Christian-inspired democracies to resist abolition - The Death Penalty is both a timely response to an important ethical debate and a timeless addition to Derridas esteemed body of work"--Unedited summary from book jacket. (shrink)

In 1996 Jacques Derrida gave a lecture at the Museum of Modern Art in New York on the occasion of Antonin Artaud: Works on Paper, one of the first major international exhibitions to present the avant-garde dramatist and poet's paintings and drawings. Derrida's original title, "Artaud the Moma," is a characteristic play on words. It alludes to Artaud's calling himself Mômo, Marseilles slang for "fool," upon his return to Paris in 1946 after nine years in various asylums, (...) while playing off of the museum's nickname, MoMA. But the title was not deemed "presentable or decent," in Derrida's words, by the very institution that chose to exhibit Artaud's work. Instead, the lecture was advertised as "Jacques Derrida... will present a lecture about Artaud's drawings." For Derrida, what was at stake was what it meant for the museum to exhibit Artaud's drawings and for him to lecture on Artaud in that institutional context. Thinking over the performative force of Artaud's work and the relation between writing and drawing, Derrida addresses the multiplicity of Artaud's identities to confront the modernist museum's valorizing of originality. He channels Artaud's specter, speech, and struggle against representation to attempt to hold the museum accountable for trying to confine Artaud within its categories. Artaud the Moma, as lecture and text, reveals the challenge that Artaud posed to Derrida—and to art and its institutional history. A powerful interjection into the museum halls, this work is a crucial moment in Derrida's thought and an insightful, unsparing reading of a challenging writer and artist. (shrink)

The purpose of the Cambridge edition is to offer translations of the best modern German edition of Kant's work in a uniform format suitable for Kant scholars. This volume is the first to assemble in historical sequence the writings that Kant published between 1783 and 1796 to popularize, summarize, amplify and defend the doctrines of his masterpiece, the Critique of Pure Reason of 1781. The best known of them, the Prolegomena, is often recommended to beginning students, but (...) the other texts are also vintage Kant and are important sources for a fully-rounded picture of Kant's intellectual development. As with other volumes in the series there are copious linguistic notes and a glossary of key terms. The editorial introductions and explanatory notes shed light on the critical reception accorded Kant by the metaphysicians of his day and on Kant's own efforts to derail his opponents. (shrink)

Kant’s 1795 essay on perpetual peace has been lauded as one of his most important and influential political texts as well as one of the most important texts on peace. Kant’s text was largely forgotten until the 1980s and 1990s, with numerous commentaries appearing around the time of its 200 years existence. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s interest in Kant’s text appears to have arisen around the same time, and his analyses of this text continued (...) class='Hi'>after the turn of the century. The references to Kant’s essay in Derrida’s texts appear mostly in the context of a discussion of the concept of hospitality. The latter concept is understood by Derrida as including both a demand for absolute hospitality, that is, hospitality without the imposition of any limitations, as well as a demand, in the interests of survival, for such limitations or conditions. A negotiation between these dimensions of hospitality is ultimately required. The aim of this article is to elucidate Derrida’s analysis of Kant’s essay, specifically his recasting of the concept of peace as absolute hospitality, as well as to briefly outline its implications for international and cosmopolitan law. (shrink)

An inquiry into the problematic of perjury, or lying, and forgiveness from one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. “One only ever asks forgiveness for what is unforgivable.” From this contradiction begins Perjury and Pardon, a two-year series of seminars given by Jacques Derrida at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris in the late 1990s. In these sessions, Derrida focuses on the philosophical, ethical, juridical, and political stakes of the concept of (...) responsibility. His primary goal is to develop what he calls a “problematic of lying” by studying diverse forms of betrayal: infidelity, denial, false testimony, perjury, unkept promises, desecration, sacrilege, and blasphemy. Although forgiveness is a notion inherited from multiple traditions, the process of forgiveness eludes those traditions, disturbing the categories of knowledge, sense, history, and law that attempt to circumscribe it. Derrida insists on the unconditionality of forgiveness and shows how its complex temporality destabilizes all ideas of presence and even of subjecthood. For Derrida, forgiveness cannot be reduced to repentance, punishment, retribution, or salvation, and it is inseparable from, and haunted by, the notion of perjury. Through close readings of Kant, Kierkegaard, Shakespeare, Plato, Jankélévitch, Baudelaire, and Kafka, as well as biblical texts, Derrida explores diverse notions of the “evil” or malignancy of lying while developing a complex account of forgiveness across different traditions. (shrink)

Psyche: Inventions of the Other brings together for the first time twenty-eight essays by Jacques Derrida that both advance his reflection on many issues, such as psychoanalysis, architecture, negative theology, theater, translation, politics, war, nationalism, and religion and carry on his engagement with a number of key thinkers and writers: Kant, Heidegger, Levinas, Lacoue-Labarthe, Freud, Flaubert, Barthes, and de Certeau, among others.

This volume collects for the first time in a single volume all of Kant's writings on religion and rational theology. These works were written during a period of conflict between Kant and the Prussian authorities over his religious teachings. His final statement of religion was made after the death of King Frederick William II in 1797. The historical context and progression of this conflict are charted in the general introduction to the volume and in the translators' introductions (...) to particular texts. All the translations are new with the exception of The Conflict of the Faculties, where the translation has been revised and re-edited to conform to the guidelines of the Cambridge Edition. As is standard with all the volumes in this edition, there are copious linguistic and explanatory notes, and a glossary of key terms. (shrink)

« "...le mot qu'Aristote avoit tres-familier : 'O mes amis, il n'y a nul amy'." (Montaigne, De l'amitié.)Dernier mot, dernière volonté, cette sentence testamentaire nous vient du fond des temps. Sourdement soupirée, transmise et traduite, transférée aussi en tant de langues. Mais l'apostrophe appelle peut-être une science nouvelle, comme si elle ne consentait à se laisser aimer, au prix d'une philologie singulière, que pour une philosophie encore à venir.À méditer inlassablement l'aporie d'une telle adresse, on s'enfonce dans le labyrinthe de (...) sa provenance mais aussi de son avenir.Par provision, voici un fil d'Ariane, justement, un seul fil, tenu de main de femme, de fille, de sœur : où chemine la politique de ce "mot"? Ouvertement ou en secret, une architecture de la cité ou de l'État n'aurait-elle pas orienté cette provocation? Une généalogie du politique ne s'est-elle pas liée, dans notre tradition, au couple ami/ennemi et, en lui, au concept canonique et dominant de l'amitié?L'analyse ici proposée serait aussi une contre-généalogie. Elle inquiète en effet le motif généalogique lui-même, un certain ordre de la filiation, à savoir le schème familial et phallocentrique de la fraternité, la figure du frère (plutôt que de la sœur), la virilité de la vertu dont l'autorité reste si souvent incontestée dans notre culture de l'amitié et dans les modèles accrédités de la démocratie.À l'horizon de toutes ces questions, celle de la vertu, donc, dans une démocratie à venir. La vertu, est-ce une chose du passé? Oui et non.Le mot ainsi prêté à Aristote, qui ne l'a pas cité? Une fois infléchi ou orchestré, jusque dans sa grammaire, par un concert d'interprètes somnambules, vigilants et automatiques, voici qu'il traverse en rêvant, récitation psalmodiée d'une immense rumeur, le grand jour de notre mémoire : de Montaigne à Kant, par exemple, de Nietzsche à Blanchot, oui, Blanchot, l'ami de Bataille et des penseurs de ce temps, le penseur de L'Amitié ("...tandis que je me remémore la parole attribuée par Diogène Laërce à Aristote : 'O mes amis, il n'y a pas d'ami'", ce sont aussi les derniers mots d'un autre livre de Blanchot, Foucault tel que je l'imagine).Mais l'avenir de "ce mot qu'Aristote avoit tres-familier" vient encore sur nous. Déjà là, c'est comme s'il ne nous était pas encore arrivé, tenant en réserve, dans l'un de ses plis, une promesse de démocratie encore impensée, encore impossible, toujours à venir : la promesse même. »J. D.SOMMAIRE : Avant-proposOligarchies : nommer, énumérer, dénombrerAimer d'amitié : peut-être - le nom et l'adverbeCette « vérité » folle : le juste nom d'amitiéL'ami revenant (au nom de la « démocratie »)De l'hostilité absolue. La cause de la philosophie et le spectre du politiqueSerment, conjuration, fraternisation - ou la question « armée »Celui qui m'accompagneReplis« En langue d'homme, la fraternité »« Pour la première fois dans l'histoire de l'humanité »L'Oreille de HeideggerPhilopolémologie (Geschlecht IV)Portées de voix. Rhétorique de l'amitiéL'avoir, l'être et l'autre : tendre l'oreille, accorder ce qu'on n'a pasQuelques-uns (Le mariage du ciel et de l'enfer)Tautologie, monologie, otologie. Le sacrifice de Heidegger. (shrink)

This book combines loosely "autobiographical" texts by two of the most influential French intellectuals of our time. "Savoir," by Hélène Cixous is an account of her experience of recovered sight after a lifetime of severe myopia; Jacques Derrida's "A Silkworm of One's Own" muses on a host of motifs, including his varied responses to "Savoir.".

Juger, c'est trouver l'exemple qui atteste la loi. Et, inversement, quand on n'a pas la loi d'abord, c'est imaginer la règle que recèle et qu'exige le cas. Le juge dispose d'un code, le cas à juger y est traité. L'arrêt se termine alors, en principe, par application de l'un à l'autre. Mais en fait le juge doit encore juger que le cas est bien tel cas prévu par le code. Ou pire, si le cas n'y est pas traité, le juge (...) doit en juger sans règle préétablie, et son jugement peut faire jurisprudence. Cette "prudence" est la vertu de se bien guider sans boussole. Avant l'institution. Déboussolés autant et plus que nous le sommes, six philosophes examinent ici comment juger quand la loi manque. L'occasion leur en est donnée par les écrits de l'un deux, Lyotard, lors d'un colloque à Cerisy en 1982. Le présent titre fait allusion à Kant. La force de juger ne fait pas seulement l'objet de la critique, elle est ce qui tend son ressort. Elle s'exerce et se réfléchit dans l'éthique et la politique, dans l'évaluation pratique ou esthétique, dans l'invention littéraire, scientifique, artistique. Elle est peut-être toute l'énergie du philosophe, sa faiblesse invincible. (shrink)

In this newest installment in Chicago’s series of Jacques Derrida’s seminars, the renowned philosopher attempts one of his most ambitious goals: the first truly philosophical argument against the death penalty. While much has been written against the death penalty, Derrida contends that Western philosophy is massively, if not always overtly, complicit with a logic in which a sovereign state has the right to take a life. Haunted by this notion, he turns to the key places where such logic (...) has been established—and to the place it has been most effectively challenged: literature. With his signature genius and patient yet dazzling readings of an impressive breadth of texts, Derrida examines everything from the Bible to Plato to Camus to Jean Genet, with special attention to Kant and post–World War II juridical texts, to draw the landscape of death penalty discourses. Keeping clearly in view the death rows and execution chambers of the United States, he shows how arguments surrounding cruel and unusual punishment depend on what he calls an “anesthesial logic,” which has also driven the development of death penalty technology from the French guillotine to lethal injection. Confronting a demand for philosophical rigor, he pursues provocative analyses of the shortcomings of abolitionist discourse. Above all, he argues that the death penalty and its attendant technologies are products of a desire to put an end to one of the most fundamental qualities of our finite existence: the radical uncertainty of when we will die. Arriving at a critical juncture in history—especially in the United States, one of the last Christian-inspired democracies to resist abolition—The Death Penalty is both a timely response to an important ethical debate and a timeless addition to Derrida’s esteemed body of work. (shrink)

During the seminar 'Time and Death penalty', which took place on November 14th 2000 in Triest's Department of Philosophy, Jacques Derrida presented a summary of his lectures of Paris and Irvine: 'Responsibility Problems. Forgiveness, Perjury and Death Penalty'. In Derrida's opinion the philosophical thought has never been - historically - against death penalty. Philosophy has either shown agreement towards its principle or it has remained silent. The aim of deconstruction is to confute the philosophical principles in favour of (...) death penalty , therefore producing a philosophically relevant thought capable of facing such a complex and delicate ethical-political situation. For this purpose Derrida relates the issue of reason to the issue of a 'supernatural world', in which the philosophical responsibility of a different form of reasoning is located. The obvious and immediate comparison is with Kant's position, whose inner contradictions are closely analysed by Derrida. The second reference is the psychoanalytical tradition, which Derrida profusely uses in order to show the equivocal nature of concepts such as 'cruelty' and 'exception' that characterise the juridical and political discourse on death penalty; opaque concepts which constitute its hidden foundation. (shrink)

Two hundred years after his death, Kant remains one of the most important modern philosopher. The Prolegomena are the ideal introduction to Kant's unique account of the nature of human knowledge, according to which we actively shape the world as we know it. This new edition of Kant's own summary of his philosophy is designed specially for students.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Christopher Norris HOME THOUGHTS FROM ABROAD: DERRIDA, AUSTIN, AND THE OXFORD CONNECTION THERE IS NO philosophical school or tradition that does not carry along with it a background narrative linking up present and past concerns. Most often this selective prehistory entails not only an approving account of ideas that fit in with the current picture but also an effort to repress or marginalize anytíiing that fails so to (...) fit. Bertrand Russell's History Of Western Philosophy is one fairly blatant example of mis strategy at work.1 The story it tells is a Whiggish account of how drinkers managed — against all the odds of metaphysical delusion — to come out at last (with Russell and his peers) on the high plateau oflogical consistency and truth. On the way to this dénouement Russell avails himself ofvarious techniques for pointing up die narrative drift. His coverage takes in all the accredited "major" thinkers, some of whose opinions Russell is hard put to summarize without remarking how nonsensical they appear from a modern (logical) point of view. Elsewhere — as with Leibniz or Kant — he takes the more accommodating line of winnowing out the structures of valid argument and consigning what remains to the history of dead metaphysical abstractions. It is this latter technique that has characterized the approach of analytical philosophers to the history of their discipline. The question is not so much, what did these drinkers mean or knowingly hope to achieve by posing the issues as they did? Rather it is to ask what techniques exist for translating their concerns into an up-to-date idiom based upon certain (mainly linguistic) terms of analytical enquiry. P. F. Strawson's revisionist reading of Kant is probably the best-known example of how such techniques can be used to achieve a distinctively modern understanding of otherwise recalcitrant texts.2 What remains of Kant after this cleaning-up 2 Philosophy and Literature operation is still "metaphysics" of a kind, but relieved of its excess conceptual baggage and couched (as Strawson would claim) in a "descriptive" rather than a "prescriptive" idiom. Thus philosophy comes to terms with its own errant precursors by explaining what they would presumably have said if equipped with die latest analytical tools. The result of such meuiods is to rewrite intellectual history from a standpoint of self-assured logical grasp where present concerns decide what shall count as the relevant or useful aspects ofpast tradition. And the same selective process goes to construct that typecast narrative which treats the "British" and die "Continental" styles of philosophizing as two completely separate, indeed antagonistic lines of descent. Thus it is taken for granted that the two sides are so far apart, with so little in the way of shared methods and assumptions, mat any kind of dialogue is certain to produce mere bafflement or cross-purpose talk. British philosophers with an interest in "Continental" theory feel themselves forced into a marginal role by the highly professionalized ethos that prevails within their discipline. This feeling is only strengthened by their more or less accepting the background mythology that explains how the two "traditions" grew up in a state of hostility often amounting to downright mutual contempt. There are several different versions of this story at present, but they all serve equally to reinforce the sense of incommensurable aims and languages. One (the "ordinary language" version) takes its lead from the later Wittgenstein in arguing that most of the problems that have long vexed philosophers — and continue to vex those "Continental" thinkers — result from dieir use ofa poindess metaphysicaljargon which puts them at odds with the commonsense wisdom of everyday usage. On this account, such thinkers have failed to learn the lesson bequeaüied by a long tradition of misguided speculative thought. They have persisted in errors and delusions of their own creating, hooked on a kind of malign verbal magic — "bewitchment by language," as Wittgenstein described it — which prevents them from seeing the plain sense ofthings. The other exemplary narrative is Uiat which takes not "ordinary language" but logic (or the modern refinements oflogic introduced by philosophers like Frege) as its reference point for deciding which episodes ofprevious or subsequent diought are to... (shrink)

After Enlightenment: Hamann as Post-Secular Visionary is a comprehensive introduction to the life and works of eighteenth-century German philosopher, J. G. Hamann, the founding father of what has come to be known as Radical Orthodoxy. Provides a long-overdue, comprehensive introduction to Haman's fascinating life and controversial works, including his role as a friend and critic of Kant and some of the most renowned German intellectuals of the age Features substantial new translations of the most important passages from across (...) Hamann's writings, some of which have never been translated into English Examines Hamann's highly original views on a range of topics, including faith, reason, revelation, Christianity, biblical exegesis, Socrates, theological aesthetics, language, sexuality, religion, politics, and the relationship between Judaism and Christianity Presents Hamann as the 'founding father' of a distinctly post-modern, post-secular theology and, as such, as an alternative to the 'postmodern triumvirate' of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida Considers Hamann's work as a touchtone of modern Jewish-Christian dialogue, in view of debates with his friend Moses Mendelssohn Explores Hamann's role as the visionary founder of a 'metacritical' movement that radically calls into question the basic principles of modern secular reason, and thus reprises the debate between those defending Hamann's views and those labeling him the bête noir of the Enlightenment. (shrink)

In _Thinking After Heidegger_, David Wood takes up the challenge posed by Heidegger - that after the end of philosophy we need to learn to _think_. But what if we read Heidegger with the same respectful irreverence that he brought to reading the Greeks, Kant, Hegel, Husserl and the others? For Wood, it is Derrida's engagements with Heidegger that set the standard here – enacting a repetition through transformation and displacement. But Wood is not content to (...) crown the new king. Instead he sets up a many-sided conversation between Heidegger, Hegel, Adorno, Nietzsche, Blanchot, Kierkegaard, Derrida and others. Derrida and deconstruction are first critically addressed and then drawn into the fundamental project of philosophical renewal, or renewal _as_ philosophy. The book begins by rewriting Heidegger's inaugural lecture, 'What is Metaphysics?' and ends with an extended analysis of the performativity of his extraordinary _Beitrage_. _Thinking after Heidegger_ will be a valuable text for scholars and students of contemporary philosophy, literature and cultural studies. (shrink)

Gerhard Richter's groundbreaking study argues that the concept of "afterness" is a key figure in the thought and aesthetics of modernity. It pursues questions such as: What does it mean for something to "follow" something else? Does that which follows mark a clear break with what came before it, or does it in fact tacitly perpetuate its predecessor as a consequence of its inevitable indebtedness to the terms and conditions of that from which it claims to have departed? Indeed, is (...) not the very act of breaking with, and then following upon, a way of retroactively constructing and fortifying that from which the break that set the movement of following into motion had occurred? The book explores the concept and movement of afterness as a privileged yet uncanny category through close readings of writers such as Kant, Kafka, Heidegger, Bloch, Benjamin, Brecht, Adorno, Arendt, Lyotard, and Derrida. It shows how the vexed concepts of afterness, following, and coming after shed new light on a constellation of modern preoccupations, including personal and cultural memory, translation, photography, hope, and the historical and conceptual specificity of what has been termed "after Auschwitz." The study's various analyses—across a heterogeneous collection of modern writers and thinkers, diverse historical moments of articulation, and a range of media—conspire to illuminate Lyotard's apodictic statement that "after philosophy comes philosophy. But it has been altered by the 'after.'" As Richter's intricate study demonstrates, much hinges on our interpretation of the "after." After all, our most fundamental assumptions concerning modern aesthetic representation, conceptual discourse, community, subjectivity, and politics are at stake. (shrink)

In this paper I consider Derrida’s anathematization during the 1992 "Cambridge affair" in the light of the 1270 and 1277 condemnations of unorthodox philosophical theses by the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, the inventor of double truth. In particular, I compare these two occurrences through a reading of modernities as a re-centring on the new orthodoxy of naturalistic ontology, which began to take place in the 17th century. After the Humean attack, Kant recast such a naïve naturalistic (...) objectivity into a more defendable shape, by internalizing the supposed universal spatio-temporal structure of Newtonian physics as transcendental conditions of possibility. Though the Kantian ontological and theological legacy is still detectable in Derrida's quasi-concept of iterability, Derrida's theoretical contributions well exceed metaphysical discourse. More generally, I argue that during the last fifty years these contributions, together with contemporary reconsiderations of modernities, produced an emerging theoretical region. Within this region, the metaphysical chain of substitution of centre for centre is displaced, so that we can evaluate practices of exclusion without having to rely on alternative injunctions. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.4 (2002) 547-548 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Kant, Art and Art History: Moments of Discipline Mark A. Cheetham. Kant, Art and Art History: Moments of Discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. x + 222. Cloth, $55.00. Mark Cheetham's thorough and insightful new work investigates Kant's continuing influence on the visual arts, both in practice and as (...) defined by the academic discipline of art history. Cheetham argues that until now the art world and art history proper have suppressed the importance of Kant, treating him as an intrusive outsider. He explains that this marginalization may have come about as a consequence of tendencies within Kant's own [End Page 547] work that threaten either to abolish disciplinary boundaries or reestablish them under the protective umbrella of philosophy. His close readings of Kant, therefore, address the way the Kantian system is based on the maintenance of boundaries between the pure and the impure, and how Kant's work continues to restructure institutional boundaries for precisely these reasons. With regard to both art and art history, Cheetham writes, "Kant is a perpetual boarder and the architect of borders" (22). Cheetham builds his study on such insights, drawn from Kant's own discussion of the parergon, or the boundaries between the essential and the inessential. From beginning to end, the work is well-considered and thoughtful, not only as an exploration of disciplinary boundaries, but as a book that brings out a number of still under-researched themes in Kant's oeuvre.The work's first close readings examine Kant's reception among a circle of German-speaking artists and writers in Rome shortly after 1800, including the painter Jakob Asmus Carstens and the artist-turned-critic Carl Ludwig Fernow. This chapter calls attention to connections between abstract and specifically political freedoms in Kant's system, casting light on Napoleon's effect on Europe. Those principally interested in aesthetic questions, however, may find this part of the text to be somewhat less dynamic than its subsequent sections. The following chapter is more engaging, exploring some well-known moments in Kant's twentieth-century reception. Cheetham brings out the ways that Erwin Panofsky shared affinities with Kant insofar as one might take humanism to have been the latent driving force in their work. Cheetham's most interesting insights come from his contention that the writings of Paul Crowther attempted to preserve and protect a "pure" Kant for disciplinary reasons, and that he therefore strictly controlled Kant's influence in the area of art history. The work here points in the direction of a social-historical exploration of the University, and he could certainly have expanded this section to develop a more overarching critique of contemporary disciplinary boundaries. Cheetham's attempt to review Clement Greenberg's relationship to Kant's work is also stimulating, particularly the section in which he reads Greenberg's efforts to combat kitsch in relation to Kant's "What is Enlightenment?"In his most engaging chapter, Cheetham deals with the contemporary discourse around sublimity, analyzing the way both Derrida and Kant are obsessed with the legislation of borders. He makes a brief, though studied comparison between Kant and Derrida on the role and function of limits, and here makes it clear that he takes substantial distance from Derrida's own project. The book's high point is Cheetham's study of a landscape painting by Joseph Anton Koch. It may indeed leave some readers wishing that Cheetham had done more close readings of Romantic art. He then looks at some sublime tendencies in art today, and the means by which contemporary artists obscure both the standpoint of the observer and the boundaries surrounding art itself. In one section, he looks at the work of the collective known as General Idea and that of the artist Sheila Ayearst. This is fascinating material, although some may find his definition of the sublime to have been too broad. It is made to hold the bulk of contemporary art. Cheetham might have done... (shrink)

Critically engaging the work of Immanuel Kant, Hannah Arendt, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida together with her own observations on contemporary politics, environmental degradation, and the pursuit of a just and sustainable world, Kelly Oliver lays the groundwork for a politics and ethics that embraces otherness without exploiting difference. Rooted firmly in human beings' relationship to the planet and to each other, Oliver shows peace is possible only if we maintain our ties to earth and world. Oliver begins (...) with Immanuel Kant and his vision of politics grounded on earth as a finite surface shared by humans. She then incorporates Hannah Arendt's belief in plural worlds constituted through human relationships; Martin Heidegger's warning that alienation from the Earth endangers not only politics but also the very essence of being human; and Jacques Derrida's meditations on the singular worlds individuals, human and otherwise, create and how they inform the reality we inhabit. Each of these theorists, Oliver argues, resists the easy idealism of world citizenship and globalism, yet they all think about the earth against the globe to advance a grounded ethics. They contribute to a philosophy that avoids globalization's totalizing and homogenizing impulses and instead help build a framework for living within and among the world's rich biodiversity. (shrink)

The deconstructionist return to Kant was celebrated April 24-26, 1986 at the University of Minnesota, in a conference titled “In the Wake of Kant: Philosophy after the Third Critique.” Among those present were Lyotard and Derrida, along with a host of literary critics and some scattered philosophers. The “wake” did not turn out to be either the smooth path left by a mighty ocean liner nor the well-oiled Irish kind known to lovers of Studs Lonigan. It (...) was an exhausting talk-fest. The results however were banal, perhaps because the organizers' original idea of informality and short presentations were checked by the large size of the audience (and the corresponding size of the egos of some speakers). (shrink)

Putting God First: Jewish Humanism after Heidegger tackles the challenge of maintaining Jewish identity in a world dominated by Western humanism. It argues that the Holocaust reflects more broadly on contemporary humanism than the Jewish world has ever dared to acknowledge. It advances the view that the establishment of the State of Israel presents a profound historical opportunity to disentangle Jewish thought from elements of the Western humanist tradition that threaten Jewish survival and conceal from view the plausibility of (...) core Jewish ideas and values. The work proposes that a healthy and peaceful relationship between Westernism and a robust Jewish identity can be achieved only by unraveling the two, and it presents a philosophical path for achieving this. Following a precise analysis of modern and postmodern thought that includes discussions of Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Ludwig Wittgenstein, George Steiner, Bruno Latour, Hannah Arendt, Jonathan Haidt, Daniel Kahneman, and others, the centerpiece of the book offers a close reading of the masterwork Being and Time, which Martin Heidegger composed in the period when his thought was gravitating toward his endorsement of Hitler and Nazism. This deep dive into Heidegger's ontological understanding of how the individual (Dasein) interacts with others in space and time yields a method for articulating the onto-theological meanings of key Jewish concepts such as the Nefesh (psyche), the Neshamah (soul), Tzelem Elohim (human being in God's image), Am Segulah, (Jewish chosenness), Shabbat, the Land of Israel, and more in texts such as the Tanya, the Sefat Emet, the Nefesh HaChayim, the Kedushat Levi, and in the writings of Rav Kook and the Maharal of Prague. Ultimately the book proposes a disentangled spiritual/political vision for a Jewish state that is characterized by the politics of Tikun Olam" -- From the publisher. (shrink)

_Hegel After Derrida_ provides a much needed insight not only into the importance of Hegel and the importance of Derrida's work on Hegel, but also the very foundations of postmodern and deconstructionist thought. It will be essential reading for all those engaging with the work of Derrida and Hegel today and anyone seeking insight into some of the basic but neglected themes of deconstruction.

This book provides a much needed insight not only into the importance of Hegel and the importance of Derrida's work on Hegel, but also the very foundations of postmodern and deconstructionist thought. Eleven essays by key contributors in the field present a comprehensive picture of Hegel's place in deconstruction today. Contributors: Stuart Barnett, Robert Bernasconi, Simon Critchley, Suzanne Gearhart, Werner Hamacher, Heinz Kimmerle, Jean-Luc Nancy, John H. Smith, Kevin Thompson, Andrzej Warminski.

Contributed articles previously published in several journals on the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, 1930-2004.

Thinking after Derrida and Deconstruction.