The history of philosophy : from Thales to Comte /

Includes bibliographical references.

Critical essays on a few subjects connected with the history and present condition of speculative philosophy /

Locke and the transcendentalists -- Kant and his philosophy -- Fichte's exposition of Kant : philosophy applied to theology -- The philosophy of Cousin -- Paley : the argument for the being of a God -- Subject continued : the union of theology and metaphysics -- Berkeley and his philosophy -- Elements of moral science -- Political ethics.

A history of philosophy,

Vols. 1 and 3, 3d edition; v. 2, 4th edition.

A history of philosophy : from Thales to the present time /

Vol. II has title: History of Philosophy ... With additions by the translator, an appendix on English and American philosophy, by Noah Porter ... on Italian philosophy, by Vincenzo Botta ...

The biographical history of philosophy : from its origin in Greece down to the present day /

Two volumes in one.

An historical and critical view of the speculative philosophy of Europe in the nineteenth century /

Edition statement, [2nd ed.] from p. vii.

History of philosophy, from Thales to the present time.

Vol II. has title: History of modern philosophy. With additions by the translator, an appendix on the English and American philosophy, by Noah Porter...and an appendix on Italian philosophy, by Vincenzo Botta.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Northern Ireland, America and the emerging church movement: Exploring the significance of Peter Rollins and the Ikon collective

The Emerging Church Movement (ECM) is a primarily Western religious phenomenon, identifiable by its critical ‘deconstruction’ of ‘modern’ religion. While most prominent in North America, especially the United States, some of the most significant contributors to the ECM ‘conversation’ have been the Belfast-based Ikon Collective and one of its founders, philosopher Peter Rollins. Their rootedness in the unique religious, political and social landscape of Northern Ireland in part explains their position on the ‘margins’ of the ECM, and provides many of the resources for their contributions. Ikon’s development of ‘transformance art’ and its ‘leaderless’ structure raise questions about the institutional viability of the wider ECM. Rollins’ ‘Pyrotheology’ project, grounded in his reading of post-modern philosophy, introduces more radical ideas to the ECM conversation. Northern Ireland’s ‘Troubles’ and ‘marginal’ location provides the ground from which Rollins and Ikon have been able to expose the boundaries of the ECM and raise questions about just how far the ECM may go in its efforts to transform Western Christianity.

Northern Ireland, America and the Emerging Church Movement: Exploring the Significance of Peter Rollins andthe Ikon Collective

The Emerging Church Movement (ECM) is a primarily Western religious phenomenon, identifiable by its critical ‘deconstruction’ of ‘modern’ religion. While most prominent in North America, especially the United States, some of the most significant contributors to the ECM ‘conversation’ have been the Belfast-based Ikon Collective and one of its founders, philosopher Peter Rollins. Their rootedness in the unique religious, political and social landscape of Northern Ireland in part explains their position on the ‘margins’ of the ECM, and provides many of the resources for their contributions. Ikon’s development of ‘transformance art’ and its ‘leaderless’ structure raise questions about the institutional viability of the wider ECM. Rollins’ ‘Pyrotheology’ project, grounded in his reading of post-modern philosophy, introduces more radical ideas to the ECM conversation. Northern Ireland’s ‘Troubles’ and ‘marginal’ location provides the ground from which Rollins and Ikon have been able to expose the boundaries of the ECM and raise questions about just how far the ECM may go in its efforts to transform Western Christianity.

Kierkegaardian intersubjectivity and the question of ethics and responsibility

Kierkegaardian Intersubjectivity and the Question of Ethics and Responsibility By Kevin Krumrei. Kierkegaard's contributions to philosophy are generally admitted and recognized as valuable in the history of Western philosophy, both as one of the great anti-Hegelians, as the founder (arguably) of existentialism, and as a religious thinker. However valid this may be, there is similarly a generally admitted critique of Kierkegaard in the Western tradition, that Kierkegaard's philosophy of the development of the self leads the individual into an isolated encounter with God, to the abandonment of the social context. In other words, a Kierkegaardian theory of intersubjectivity is a contradiction in terms. This is voiced eloquently by Emmanuel Levinas, among others. However, Levinas' own intersubjective ethics bears a striking resemblance to Kierkegaard's, with respect to the description and formulation of the basic problem for ethics: the problem of aesthetic egoism. Further, both Kierkegaard and Levinas follow similar paths in responding to the problem, from Kierkegaard's reduplication in Works of Love, to Levinas' notion of substitution in Otherwise than Being. In this comparison, it becomes evident that Levinas' reading of Kierkegaard is mistaken, for Kierkegaard's intersubjective ethics postulates, in fact, the inseparability and necessity of the self s responsible relation to others in the self s relation to God, found in the command, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

La place de Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans la philosophie kantienne de l'éducation

En vue de saisir la pensée kantienne dans toute sa virulence, on ne peut jamais faire abstraction de la place éminente de Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans cette philosophie qui ne cesse pas à marquer, à définir et à poser des jalons de la pensée moderne. À cet égard, si le Genevois communique les grandes leçons de sa théorie de l’homme sous la guise d’une éducation, il s’agit ici non pas d’une philosophie de l’éducation mais bien plus d’une philosophie comme éducation. C’est effectivement cette thèse que Kant reprend, suit et enrichie d’une manière sui generis pour renverser l’ordre théorique mais surtout pratique de religion-moralité-devoir et libérer une fois pour toutes la morale des dogmes théologiques et finalement pour édifier une philosophie pratique comme l’éducation de l’espèce humaine. Le but de cette étude est de jeter quelques lumières sur la place sans pareille de Jean-Jacques Rousseau dans la philosophie kantienne de l’éducation.

Scénarios d’aveuglement dans la littérature d’Orhan Pamuk, d’Ernesto Sábato, et de José Saramago

Scénarios d’aveuglement dans la littérature d’Orhan Pamuk, d’Ernesto Sábato, et de José Saramago analyse trois œuvres importantes de trois auteurs contemporains : Mon nom est Rouge d’Orhan Pamuk ; « Rapport sur les aveugles » du roman Héros et tombes d’Ernesto Sábato ; et L’aveuglement de José Saramago. Malgré leurs différences, ces romans ont des points communs évidents, synthétisés dans la figure de l’aveuglement. Cette figure signale l’avènement, dans les textes, d’un régime de connaissance alternatif, centré moins sur le primat de la raison et du visuel que sur une nouvelle capacité cognitive, basée sur une logique spéciale du destin. L’aveuglement s’ouvre également sur une nouvelle compréhension de l’histoire, grâce à une capacité du récit de fiction qui passe par le point de fuite de la cécité. Pour Pamuk, l’aveuglement est le couronnement paradoxal d’une vision du monde, gravement mise en crise à la fin du XVIe siècle par le perspectivisme et le réalisme de la Renaissance, la voie d’entrée vers un monde imaginal qui n’est plus accessible à l’imaginaire occidental. Pour Sábato, il représente la variante renversée d’une quête de l’absolu qui passe par les antres de l’inceste, de l’enfer et du crime, tandis que le monde décrit par Saramago est un monde qui sombre sur la pente de la déchéance, en suivant une logique implacable. Il est l’équivalent de plusieurs formes de cécité qui menacent le monde contemporain, comme le fondamentalisme religieux, l’homogénéité préconisée par la société de masse, l’exclusion raciale, l’oppression idéologique. La thèse se divise en trois parties, La violente beauté du monde, Un mythe hérétique de la caverne et Une épidémie à cause inconnue, chacune d’entre elles analysant l’œuvre d’un auteur, mais établissant également des liens avec les autres chapitres. L’approche adoptée est interdisciplinaire, un croisement entre études littéraires, philosophie et histoire de l’art. Dans leur quête de nouveaux concepts et de nouvelles formes de pensée qui s’écartent du modèle rationnel dominant de la modernité, les trois auteurs partent de la présupposition que regarder les choses n’est pas du tout l’équivalent de voir les choses. Ils tentent d’articuler une logique du voir qui ressemble plutôt à la vision et à la clairvoyance qu’à la conformité logique. La figure de l’aveuglement sert de tremplin vers le monde imaginal (Pamuk), la pensée magique (Sábato) et la vision dystopique (Saramago) – des espaces ontologiquement différents où les auteurs mènent leurs attaques contre la rationnalité à tout prix. C’est précisément ces espaces que nous avons choisi d’explorer dans les trois romans. Nous soutenons également que ces trois textes proposent un nouveau régime de « connaissance » qui met en question les règles de pensée héritées de la Renaissance et surtout des Lumières, qui constituent un discours dominant dans la culture visuelle et philosophique moderne.

La réflexion phénoménologique au crible de la grammaire : la question de l’expression de la vie intérieure de la conscience chez Husserl et Wittgenstein

Cotutelle avec l'Université Panthéon Sorbonne - Paris I

Conquista, dominación y legitimidad en la Obra de Francisco de Vitoria

Francisco de Vitoria es un filósofo que ha sido generalmente estudiado y reconocido como jurista. Sin embargo, el análisis de su obra comprende múltiples aspectos que lo hacen un filósofo político. Su estudio arroja un concepto de legitimidad, que a pesar de ser dado dentro de un método propio de la escolástica medieval, da la entrada al estudio de la filosofía política moderna. Así, el concepto de legitimidad vitoriano, al ser analizado bajo el marco conceptual de Max Weber en su estudio sobre la dominación, convierte la filosofía política vitoriana en una especie de bisagra que se soporta tanto en la filosofía medieval como la moderna, y convierte al pensador burgalés en un visionario de la filosofía política moderna.