Barry Stocker

The paper is an exploration ofhow Pascal and Derrida are both concerned with the consequences of not being able to find a transcendental centre for concepts. Both establish this through a discussion of the origin of geometry, and the contradictions of establishing a discourse for the pure principles of geometry. Pascal and Derrida both refer to the anxiety produced by the infinite possibilities of system and the impossibility of finding a foundation in a limited set of principles. For Pascal the question emerges in his general philosophical work Pensées and ‘On the Spirit of Geometry’. Similarly for Derrida, what appears in his general philosophical work, also appears in a work referring to the possibility of transcendental foundations for geometry, ‘Introduction to Husserl’s Origin of Geometry’. For both philosophers questions arise of the contradictions of establishing basic concepts. Circularity inevitably appears, particularly with regard to ‘is’ and ‘being’; the concepts themselves are necessarily divided between their pure existence and their empirical applications. The essential difference suggested between Pascal and Derrida is that for Pascal, basic principles can be given an explanation in ‘reasons of the heart’, while for Derrida contradiction is necessary, present everywhere and is irreducible to any basic principle of any kind.L’article consiste en une exploration de la façon dont Pascal et Derrida se préoccupent des conséquences de ne pas pouvoir trouver un centre transcendantal pour les concepts. Tous deux en arrivent à ce constat suite à une discussion de l’origine de la géométrie, et des contradictions inhérentes au discours sur les principes purs de la géométrie. Pascal et Derrida renvoient tous deux à l’anxiété induite par les possibilités infinies du système et l’impossibilité d’une fondation se résumant à une suite limitée de principes. Pour Pascal, la question émerge dans ses Pensées et dans «De l’esprit géométrique». De façon similaire chez Derrida, la question se pose, comme dans son oeuvre générale, dans un ouvrage portant sur la possibilité de fondations transcendantales de la géométrie, Introduction à L’origine de la géométrie de E. Husserl. Pour les deux philosophes, la question se pose quant aux contradictions découlant de l’établissement de concepts fondamentaux. Une circularité est inévitable, en particulierautour du concept d’«etre»; les concepts eux-mêmes sont nécessairement divisés entre une existence pure et leur applications empiriques. La différence essentielle entre les deux penseurs, c’est que pour Pascal, les principes fondamentaux peuvent être expliqués par des «raisons du coeur», alors que pour Derrida, la contradiction est nécessaire, partout présente, et irréductible à un quelconque principe.

Keith Ansell-Pearson, An Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) hb: 0-521-41722-8. pb: 0-521-42721-5. Paul Patton, ed., Nietzsche, Feminism and Political Theory (London: Routledge. 1993) 0-4150-8256-0. Lester M. Hunt, Nietzsche and the Origin of Virtue (London: Routledge, 1993) 0-4150-9580-8. David Owen, Maturity and Modernity. Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault and the Ambivalence of Reason (London: Routledge, 1994) 0-4150-5398-6. Peter Lassmann and Ronald Spiers, eds., Weber: Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994) hb: 0-521 -39312-4. pb: 0-521 -39719-7. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality and Other Writings, ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson, tr. Carol Diethe (Cambridge University Press, 1994) hb: 0-521-40459-2. pb: 0-521-40610-2.

The later Wittgenstein claimed to resolve philosophical problems through returning words to their 'ordinary' use. The paradox arises that Wittgenstein's own philosophy must be written in a philosophical language and, therefore, in an extra-ordinary language. The paradox is discussed with particular reference to rules. Rules constitute language, but the account of the 'rule' itself leads to paradox and contradiction. A rule is followed and following a rule requires an interpretation. The interpretation of the rule requires a decision. The decision precedes the rule, so it justifies following a rule but there cannot be a rule for the decision itself

One of the most influential and controversial thinkers of the twentieth-century, Jacques Derrida’s ideas on deconstruction have had a lasting impact on philosophy, literature and cultural studies. Jacques Derrida: Basic Writings is the first anthology to present his most important philosophical writings and is an indispensable resource for all students and readers of his work. Barry Stocker’s clear and helpful introductions set each reading in context, making the volume an ideal companion for those coming to Derrida’s writings for the first time. The selections themselves range from his most infamous works including Speech and Phenomena and Writing and Difference to lesser known discussion on aesthetics, ethics and politics

Hegel's philosophy of literature, in the Aesthetics and other texts, gives no extended discussion of the novel. Hegel's predecessor Friedrich Schlegel had produced a philosophy of literature with a central position for the novel. Schlegel's discussion of the novel is based on a view of Irony which allows the novel to be the fusion of poetry and philosophy. Hegel retained a place for art, including poetry, below that of philosophy. The Ironic conception of the novel has themes, which also appear in Hegel, of the unity of opposites. However, for Hegel Irony does not allow the unity of artistic form and does not allow art to be guided by law and science. Therefore Hegel's philosophy of literature owes much to Schlegel but needs to attack Irony and minimise the role of the novel. Irony is criticised as a purely negative position of a 'beautiful soul', which cannot act and in its absolutely subjective resistance to evil in the world becomes evil itself. Hegel gives great importance to Epic which foreshadows the emergence of philosophy in its unity, but it is a unity based on conflicting individuality and lawlessness. In the modern world Heroic lawlessness can only be approached as nostalgia, the novel cannot integrate individuality and law, only religion and philosophy above aesthetics, including the novel.

The paper is an exploration ofhow Pascal and Derrida are both concerned with the consequences of not being able to find a transcendental centre for concepts. Both establish this through a discussion of the origin of geometry, and the contradictions of establishing a discourse for the pure principles of geometry. Pascal and Derrida both refer to the anxiety produced by the infinite possibilities of system and the impossibility of finding a foundation in a limited set of principles. For Pascal the question emerges in his general philosophical work Pensées and ‘On the Spirit of Geometry’. Similarly for Derrida, what appears in his general philosophical work, also appears in a work referring to the possibility of transcendental foundations for geometry, ‘Introduction to Husserl’s Origin of Geometry’. For both philosophers questions arise of the contradictions of establishing basic concepts. Circularity inevitably appears, particularly with regard to ‘is’ and ‘being’; the concepts themselves are necessarily divided between their pure existence and their empirical applications. The essential difference suggested between Pascal and Derrida is that for Pascal, basic principles can be given an explanation in ‘reasons of the heart’, while for Derrida contradiction is necessary, present everywhere and is irreducible to any basic principle of any kind.L’article consiste en une exploration de la façon dont Pascal et Derrida se préoccupent des conséquences de ne pas pouvoir trouver un centre transcendantal pour les concepts. Tous deux en arrivent à ce constat suite à une discussion de l’origine de la géométrie, et des contradictions inhérentes au discours sur les principes purs de la géométrie. Pascal et Derrida renvoient tous deux à l’anxiété induite par les possibilités infinies du système et l’impossibilité d’une fondation se résumant à une suite limitée de principes. Pour Pascal, la question émerge dans ses Pensées et dans «De l’esprit géométrique». De façon similaire chez Derrida, la question se pose, comme dans son oeuvre générale, dans un ouvrage portant sur la possibilité de fondations transcendantales de la géométrie, Introduction à L’origine de la géométrie de E. Husserl. Pour les deux philosophes, la question se pose quant aux contradictions découlant de l’établissement de concepts fondamentaux. Une circularité est inévitable, en particulierautour du concept d’«etre»; les concepts eux-mêmes sont nécessairement divisés entre une existence pure et leur applications empiriques. La différence essentielle entre les deux penseurs, c’est que pour Pascal, les principes fondamentaux peuvent être expliqués par des «raisons du coeur», alors que pour Derrida, la contradiction est nécessaire, partout présente, et irréductible à un quelconque principe