Kant Without Kantianism

A new book out and a nice review article is accompanying it – looks very interesting:

20091027_kant2-ff309Recensé : Gérard Lebrun, Kant sans kantisme, préfaces de Paul Clavier et Francis Wolff. Paris, Fayard, 2009, 341 p., 22 euros.

Gérard Lebrun n’a jamais autant publié que depuis sa mort, survenue en 1999. Les deux seuls livres qu’il fit paraître en français, ouvrages de référence, ont été réédités en 2003. Ils furent ainsi rendus à ceux qui, désireux de saisir la radicalité de l’intervention kantienne dans l’histoire de la métaphysique (Kant et la fin de la métaphysique, Armand Colin, 1970, rééd. Le Livre de Poche), ou la singularité du régime de discours hégélien (La Patience du concept, Paris, Gallimard, 1972, rééd. 2003), ne pouvaient faire l’économie, non pas seulement d’une lecture, mais bien d’une authentique méditation de ces livres qui ne quittent jamais totalement ceux qui les ont rencontrés. La rareté francophone de Lebrun ne s’explique pas seulement par le souci de perfection de quelqu’un qui écrivait en esthète, ni par cette intégrité qui interdit de publier pour ne rien dire. Il faut ajouter qu’il vécut longtemps au Brésil, où il jouit encore d’une aura particulière. C’est grâce à deux de ses anciens élèves, Paul Clavier et Francis Wolff, que le lecteur non lusophone a pu découvrir L’envers de la dialectique (Paris, Seuil, 2004), d’abord paru en portugais. C’est grâce à eux encore qu’il dispose désormais d’un recueil d’articles parus en français, en portugais, ou encore inédits, jalonnant 25 ans de travail (le plus ancien date de 1974, le plus récent de 1999) : Kant sans kantisme.

18 thoughts on “Kant Without Kantianism

  1. Wow, I just read the review article you linked to, and this sounds like an incredible book. Thanks for the heads up. Now I just need to find a copy that won’t cost me an arm and a leg…. Any suggestions?

    • Actually all of his books seem to have cool titles, I was just looking at one called L’envers de la dialectique (how would you translate that? Maybe: the Other/wrong Side/inside of Dialectics). Anyway, he definitely warrants checking out I think. my Librarians are going to love me!

      • I think there’s also a sense of upside-down (Marx’s head to feet Hegel reference?) or back to front (backwards) as in à l’envers – I know it’s probably off, but I would buy a book if it was called something like The Upside-Down Dialectic…

      • I think it’s a reference to Lacan’s Seminar XVII: “L’envers de la psychanalyse” (The English translators chose to go with “The Other Side of Psychoanalysis,” though I think I prefer “The Reverse Side of Psychoanalysis”) Still, clever title.

      • The brazilian first edition, published under the supervision of Lebrun himself, the title reads: o avesso da dialéctica. Putting it In a rough translation, “avesso” (in french enviers) means the other side, the obverse, or the dark hidden side of dialectics. In a literal translation is good enough the other side, as in a coin.

  2. That book does look interesting, although it actually might not be all that “well-written”. However, Mikhail, I really do want to tell you that egalitarianism is, um, not all that perverse.

      • With all the French and German and Russian and opera posts, I think the sense is “elitist egalitarianism” . . .

      • Actually, yeah, it kind of is, since *I wrote that* and *if you have received a promotional copy of it* it was at my behest and *it’s your thing now*, sort of, in a way, perhaps, *at my expense*. I also wrote *La femme patiente*, an essay at “the worst French novel ever”, although you knows some people may handle “furores” better than oth-ahs.

  3. Well, I think what Jeff is saying is this: “If you wanted a copy of Kant without ‘Kantianism’, *you* could probably have one for free, but that’s because *somebody* would like you to have one and that’s because you’re even a little “too much”. Sometimes the “order” of the day is “less about less”, though, in these United States, so “peel slowly and see”, eh?

      • Mikhail, since Bryan has been a fairly “astute” and “erudite” commentator on PE for lo, these many “months,” I think it would be wise to heed his “words” when he asserts that Jeff=Panda Bear is notorious for his “loaded” posts with inscrutably “obscure” arguments and “gen”eral s”illine”ss.

      • Mikhail is confused about Bryan’s comments about Jeff/Noah/Panda Bear comments – all the third persons are throwing Mikhail, who likes his chicken spicy, for a loop…

      • Fantab., Mikhail: the point is that Ira Kaplan would be *the guy you would go see* about “authorization” re: singing with one’s self. “Auto-affection”, dig it? A French philosophical work *would be* perhaps “of more moment”, but less impeachable by our “peach” Bryan, and so on.

    • B., “Panda Bear” is an allusion obscure to Ira Kaplan, guarantor of the flame of George M. Cohan and singing-with-oneself (allowed in most precincts of the U.S. of A.) Let’s go kill him, okay?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s