Cristian Ciocan

In this article, I will discuss the Husserlian phenomenology of animality, by focusing on several texts of the 1920s in which the animal is determined as an abnormal variation of the human being. My aim is to address the question of the abnormality of the animal by reintegrating it in its original context, which is Husserl’s theory of normality. I will sketch the general framework of this theory, its articulations and strata, in order to eventually raise some paradoxical issues, specifically in relation to how the question of animality is interpreted through the couple normality/abnormality.

The paper aims to clarify several key aspects of Alexandru Dragomir: his amazing “technique” of keeping his entire knowledge in perfect working condition, his exceptional precision of references and his continuous disregard concerning writing. The root of all these peculiarities is traced back to Plato’s cognitive and moral arguments against writing, as expressed in Phaedrus and Seventh Letter. Finally, the article brings to light what seems to be the lesson of Dragomir’s life as a thinker: to rely only on the living thought, that which is written “inside the soul”.

Après l’analyse du problème du corps dans les écrits levinassiens de jeunesse, problème que nous avons exposé dans un précédant numéro de la revue ( Les Études Philosophiques, vol. 113 (2013), n o 2, pp. 201-219), nous nous focalisons dans cet article sur la période moyenne de l’œuvre de Levinas, et notamment sur Totalité et Infini. La corporéité est ici caractérisée constamment par une sorte d’ambivalence, la dimension incarnée du sujet étant souvent placée dans une certaine ambiguïté. Nous essayerons de montrer comment la corporéité, toujours équivoque, fait intimement partie de la relation originaire du sujet avec le monde, avec soi-même et avec l’autre. Pour cela, nous étudierons plusieurs rapports essentiels où intervient le problème de la chair : entre le corps et la conscience, entre le corps et l’élément, entre le corps et l’habitation, entre le corps et le travail, et, finalement, entre le corps et l’autre.

In this paper, I will discuss the Heideggerian interpretation of death in relation with two fundamental structures of the existential analysis: understanding and state-of-mind. In the first part, I will highlight how the understanding opens the phenomenon of death as a possibility: this possibility will prove to be a specific imminence, in that it must be assumed by the Dasein in itself, as Dasein’s ownmost and non-relational possibility that cannot be outstripped. In the second part, I will analyse the relation between death and the affectivity, emphasizing the contrast between the traditional position on this subject – which involves the philosophical neutralization of a natural fear of death – and Heidegger’s position, suggesting a dynamic tension between the fear and anxiety, where anxiety is not an annihilation of fear, but its existential radicalization.