Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy最新文献_第10页

Créoliser Marx avec Ngugi Wa Thiong’o 与Ngugi wa Thiong'o一起克里奥尔化马克思

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.827

Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun

引用次数: 0

The Creolization of Political Theory and the Dialectic of Emancipatory Thought: A Plea for Synthesis 政治理论的异化与解放思想的辩证统一

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.821

M. Neocosmos

引用次数: 0

Creolizing Political Institutions 克里奥尔化的政治制度

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.825

J. Gordon

引用次数: 1

La France contemporaine face au défi de la créolisation

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.823

Nathalie Etoké

引用次数: 0

Creolizing Collective Memory: Refusing the Settler Memory of the Reconstruction Era 集体记忆的异化：拒绝重建时代的定居者记忆

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.822

Kevin Bruyneel

引用次数: 9

Introduction: Forum on Creolizing Theory 简介：火葬理论论坛

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.824

L. Gordon

引用次数: 0

Book Review: Richard Kearney and Jens Zimmerman, eds., Reimagining the Sacred: Richard Kearney Debates God (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015), viii + 286 pages. 书评:理查德·卡尼和延斯·齐默尔曼编。，《重新想象神圣:理查德·科尔尼与上帝辩论》(纽约:哥伦比亚大学出版社，2015年)，8 + 286页。

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.826

T. Sheehan

引用次数: 0

The Persistence of Utopia: Plasticity and Difference from Roland Barthes to Catherine Malabou 乌托邦的坚持：从罗兰·巴特到凯瑟琳·马拉布的可塑性与差异

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-12-07 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.804

J. Wagner-lawlor

{"title":"The Persistence of Utopia: Plasticity and Difference from Roland Barthes to Catherine Malabou","authors":"J. Wagner-lawlor","doi":"10.5195/JFFP.2017.804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JFFP.2017.804","url":null,"abstract":"The theorizing of utopia is a persistent theme throughout several generations of the French continental tradition, and alongside the process theory of Alfred North Whitehead to a large degree recuperates the concept of utopia from its supposed dismissal by Marx and his intellectual descendants. Most recently, attention to the notion of plasticity, popularized (relatively speaking) by Catherine Malabou, extends speculation on utopian possibility. Compelled to answer to Marx’s denigration of utopia as fantasy, the tendency was (still is, for many) to compensate for the absence of a programmatic politics by stressing what is “useful” about utopian dreaming, and therefore where or how exactly a utopian text reveals or creates political drive, or motivates political action. In this essay, I argue that theorists have overlooked the use of utopia as not only the reproduction of difference, or what Malabou calls positive plasticity, but also as, therefore , a disruption; Malabou might prefer the term accident here. Tracing the concept of plasticity from Roland Barthes to Malabou, with a nod at Miguel Abensour, this essay teases out the links between a contemporary notion of plasticity to argue, simply put, that utopia is plastic . This plasticity of the concept ensures its political force. These links, obscured in the essay “Plastic,” Barthes makes only later in his writing. But for Malabou, plasticity underlies a principle of futurity and/as generativity, such that new forms, new meanings, new concepts emerge through difference. Utopia’s horizons of potentiality depend on difference, and on non-achievement. Finally, I argue that the persistence of utopia (Abensour) as a form of thinking is the most important, and political, effect of utopian plasticity.","PeriodicalId":41846,"journal":{"name":"Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy","volume":"25 1","pages":"67-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48785225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies 居住在天启:资本主义现代性，反现代主义，僵尸

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-09-15 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.812

H. Tutek

{"title":"Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies","authors":"H. Tutek","doi":"10.5195/JFFP.2017.812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JFFP.2017.812","url":null,"abstract":"The Heideggerian question posed here as “what does it mean to dwell in a global age” leaves open, invites even, the possibility of committing two conceptual mistakes from which, depending on the theoretical universe we inhabit, two separate sets of problems arise. On the one hand, if the adverbial “in a global age” is taken to denote a radical historical caesura between “our age” and the age in which the concept was first deployed, one has to prove that the caesura is indeed not only historically operative but legitimate on an ontological level. This would, however, be a futile attempt: there hardly exists an essential, qualitative difference between the ontological regime of “our global age” and the one sketched in Heidegger's 1954 essay “Building Dwelling Thinking.” We have not been blessed by any epochal turns, despite important switches – to move for a second to a different register—in regimes of accumulation. Thus, it may be concluded, the ontological question about the state of “dwelling in a precarious age” has already been posed and answered by Heidegger himself—from an ontological perspective, he is our contemporary. And of course, to such question there can in fact be only one answer: it is the same “metaphysics” that has precluded the possibility of “dwelling” (initiated a “denial of dwelling” as it is put here) throughout modernity that gave rise to our age as global. But then to avoid the mistake sketched out above and the repetition of an already accomplished analysis, the question as it is posed for us here (“what does it mean to dwell in a global age”) should be taken as a politicization of the original concept, foreign to a puritanically ontological Heideggerian diagnostics, although building on its foundations: what is to be done historically at this moment to enter “dwelling”?","PeriodicalId":41846,"journal":{"name":"Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy","volume":"25 1","pages":"27-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42540503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Husserl and Ricoeur: The Influence of Phenomenology on the Formation of Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics of the ‘Capable Human’ 胡塞尔与利科:现象学对利科“有能力的人”解释学形成的影响

IF 0.2

Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Pub Date : 2017-09-15 DOI: 10.5195/JFFP.2017.800

D. Moran

引用次数: 1