New Book: Kant and Skepticism Now in Paperback


Michael N. Foster’s Kant and Skepticism just came out in paperback – could be of interested to anyone concerned with Kant’s response to Hume and other forms of skepticism (it doesn’t, as far as I remember, deal with Maimon, which is rather strange).

Continue reading

New Book: Time For Aristotle (Ursula Coope)


This might be interesting to those following the discussions about “mind imposing space and time” – it’s certainly going into my list of things to read:

 

bookshot
Description
What is the relation between time and change? Does time depend on the mind? Is the present always the same or is it always different? Aristotle tackles these questions in the Physics , and Time for Aristotle is the first book in English devoted to this discussion.  

Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent on change; he defines it as a kind of “number of change.” Ursula Coope argues that what this means is that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, a kind of measure). It is universal order within which all changes are related to each other. This interpretation enables Coope to explain two puzzling claims that Aristotle makes: that the now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence on the mind. Brilliantly lucid in its explanation of this challenging section of the Physics, Time for Aristotle shows his discussion to be of enduring philosophical interest.

About the Author

Ursula Coope is a Tutorial Fellow in Ancient Philosophy at Corpus Christi College, Oxford

New Book: Derrida, la tradition de la philosophie (Galilée, 2008)


Traditions de Derrida

par Jean-Philippe Milet

Derrida a lu, avec passion et admiration, la tradition philosophique. Mais sa lecture est transformation et réinvention — déconstruction. C’est ce que montrent, dans leur diversité, les contributions rassemblées dans ce volume dirigé par M. Crépon et F. Worms.

Recensé : Derrida, la tradition de la philosophie, sous la direction de Marc Crépon et de Frédéric Worms, Galilée, 2008, 217 p., 30 €.

L’apposition du nom de « Derrida » à « la tradition de la philosophie » peut signifier qu’à travers un style de lecture auquel renvoie le nom de « déconstruction », Jacques Derrida aura annoncé une autre manière de penser, une autre écriture ; mais aussi, que cette annonce est lisible à travers les philosophes qu’il aura lus ou « déconstruits » en tant que figures de la « métaphysique de la présence ». Dans leur diversité, les contributions rassemblées dans ce volume (et issues d’un colloque organisé à l’ENS Paris en octobre 2005) évitent l’alternative trop simple entre rupture et continuité, pour mettre l’accent sur la manière dont Derrida s’est installé dans la structure des oppositions hiérarchisées de la métaphysique (sensible/intelligible, matériel/spirituel, vivant/non vivant, parole/écriture, etc..) en vue de les subvertir en laissant apparaître le travail du sens, une production implicite ou inconsciente d’effets de sens qui déstabilise de l’intérieur tous les systèmes conceptuels. Suivant le fil directeur de ce rapport, sont abordés les principaux thèmes de la pensée derridienne : la trace, la différance, le messianisme, la spectralité, la responsabilité, le désert. Deux repères permettent d’éclairer le rapport de Derrida à la tradition : la nécessité où il se trouve de présupposer l’identité et l’unité archéo-téléologique de la tradition philosophique pour la déployer en un récit (D. Kambouchner) ; la possibilité d’une invention d’idiomes, reposant sur le lien entre déconstruction et traduction (M. Crépon). Si Derrida identifie la tradition, il ne la laisse pas intacte, il la transforme, la réinvente, et ce, à chaque lecture. Peut-être y a-t-il plus d’une tradition philosophique ? Peut-être, en chaque acte de réinvention, Derrida est-il, chaque fois, « la » tradition » ? C’est une des pistes de réflexion suggérée par un colloque dont les analyses, dans leur richesse et leur minutie, ne se laissent pas résumer. On se contentera d’esquisser une topographie des différentes stratégies de lecture.

Read the rest of the review here.

For the information about the conference, go here.

New Book: Kant and the Early Moderns


Sorry about all these “new book” posts but there’s just so many good ones that came to my attention and I feel affected enough to share – this new collection of essays on Kant and the early moderns looks like a good read: 

 

bookjacket

Kant and the Early Moderns
Edited by Daniel Garber & Béatrice Longuenesse

 

 

Paper | 2008 | $29.95 / £17.95
Cloth | 2008 | $65.00 / £38.95
276 pp. | 6 x 9

 

Shopping Cart | Endorsements | Table of Contents
Introduction [HTML] or [PDF]

Allen Speight, Philosophy of Hegel


New book on Hegel – another introduction, you say? Mark Alznauer thinks it’s worth the read:

The Philosophy of Hegel

Allen Speight, The Philosophy of Hegel, Acumen, 2008, 166pp., $22.95 (pbk), ISBN 9781844650699.

Reviewed by Mark Alznauer, Sweet Briar College

With so much of quality already to choose from, one might suspect that another introduction to Hegel would be superfluous. But Speight’s book sets itself apart in an ingenious way by proceeding with an unusually self-conscious attention to its own place within the existing literature on Hegel. Rather than offering a standard overview of the basics of Hegelian thought, or giving a controversial interpretation of Hegel that would need more defense than the space a short book would allow, Speight focuses on those passages and themes which have loomed large in the reception history of Hegelian philosophy, deftly identifying rival interpretations and occasionally pointing to possible directions for future scholarship. Instead of providing a didactic summary, he has chosen to introduce the reader to the vigorous, ongoing conversation about Hegel that has continued, almost without interruption, since his death in 1831.

Read the whole review here.

Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic (Ingrid Rowland)


A new book on Giordano Bruno coming out in a couple of days, here’s a long and interesting review from New Yorker:

At seventeen, [Bruno] entered the Dominican monastery of San Domenico Maggiore, in Naples, a learned institution staffed with sons of the nobility. That didn’t mean that they behaved any better than other priests—or noblemen—of the period. During Bruno’s time, friars of San Domenico were involved in cases of assault, theft, and forgery, not to mention the chronic problem of fornication. But this rich monastery was useful to Bruno. There, Rowland writes, he learned to move among the ruling class. He also acquired intellectual rigor. San Domenico was a conservative institution. It taught Scholastic philosophy—the world of Aristotle, revived and Catholicized by St. Thomas Aquinas and other scholars of the Middle Ages—as if no other philosophies existed. They did exist. From the early Renaissance onward, that world picture—limited, tidy, and comforting—had been challenged by a rebirth of the ideas of Plato, who had a very different slant on things: visionary, poetic. After Bruno’s Scholastic training at San Domenico, Rowland says, he encountered Neoplatonism, and it transformed his thinking.