Paul Van Tongeren

The paper offers a counter- reading to Derrida's “utopian” reading of Nietzsche, focussing instead on Nietzsche's cynical view of friendship, based on the impossibility of being a friend to oneself. Unlike Aristotle, who sees the basis of human political nature in their shared rationality and mutual friendship, Nietzsche sees not only politics, but human beings themselves as being constituted by a violent act of submission, and characterised by an ongoing struggle for power. The paper further examines two intellectual traditions about friendship and politics, one according to which the two are positively related and no real tension could exist between them. Another tradition holds friendship to be irreconcilable with politics. Elements of both traditions can be recognised in Nietzsche who, finding the radical deceptive nature of friendship unacceptable, moves to a solitude which is equally unbearable. For it is precisely the hermit that knows that his solitude makes him into an other to himself, which turns out to be a motive for real friendship, the third element which prevents the lonely hermit from sinking into the depth of self- interrogation. The paper concludes with the recognition that friendship, for Nietzsche, can only have an intermediary function on the way to full realisation of friendship, which will be a friendship of an inner difference or plurality, i.e. on our way to what is ultimately beyond the human condition, to the “over man”.

In the general introduction to the first part of his Philosophie de la Volonté, Le volontaire et l’involontaire Paul Ricoeur writes that the phenomenological or ‘pure description […] of the Voluntary and the Involuntary’ is ‘constituted by bracketing’ two things: first the fault, which is essentially a perversion of the pure nature or the essence of human willing; and second ‘Transcendence which hides within it the ultimate origin of subjectivity’. Evil, the condition of brokenness or the reality of the fault, asks for an empirical description of concrete myths and symbols. He will remove this first bracketing in the second part of his Philosophy of the Will and in the long ‘series of detours’ of his hermeneutical writings. The second bracketing, however, will turn out to be much more difficult to remove. It demands a ‘poetics’, which would threaten Ricoeur’s effort to separate his Christian faith from his ‘autonomous’ philosophizing. In this article I argue that Ricoeur eventually did present his poetics, though only in the epilogue to his penultimate book on ‘Difficult Forgiveness’. The article indicates why this epilogue might fulfil the promise of a poetics, explains why this could only be done in an epilogue and gives at least one possible reason why Ricoeur could write at the end of his oeuvre, what he could not at its beginning.

The article offers an extensive interpretation of Human All Too Human I, 114: “The non-Greek element in Christianity”. The origin of this section goes back to 1875 when Nietzsche was preparing a course on “The Religion of the Greek”. It is pointed out that for Nietzsche the opposition as such and in general is much more important than this specific opposition between Greek and Christian religion or culture. Christianity is in Nietzsche's writings almost always presented in some sort of opposition, but there are many different oppositions in which it appears. The nature of the opposition which is so highly valued by Nietzsche, is described as agon, and is shown to be very different from the metaphysical opposition as criticized by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil § 2. Nietzsche attempts to put Christianity back into an agonistic relation with Greek culture. But whereas Greek culture recognizes the principle of the agon, it is denied and condemned in Christianity. Greek culture shows the agon to be a principle of measure. Christianity turns out to be a religion of excessiveness

Can theological virtues be integrated in a secular moral philosophy?In the early days of the revival of virtue ethics (in Germany and France since the beginning of the 20th century, in the Anglophone world since the 19-fifties) the ‘theological’ or ‘Christian virtues’ (faith, hope and charity) played an important role. In contemporary virtue ethics they seem to almost be forgotten outside of theology. The question is asked whether (and if: how) these virtues can be integrated in a secular moral philosophy. This seems at first hand to be very problematic, because of their definition, which states among other things that these virtues are God-given and orientated towards God. However: hypothesizing that religious conceptions are related to general human experiences, it may be worth the effort to try and also interpret these theological virtues in a philosophical theory about what makes a human life flourishing. The suggestion is made that these virtues remind us of the importance of a certain passivity or receptivity and of an transcendental openness of our conceptions of happiness.

Today the problem of responsible parenthood is frequently reduced to the question of whether or not a couple actually desires to have a child. In medical circles the same question is reduced even further to a choice between the various forms of medical assistance available to a couple who might desire to have a child, but who have been unsuccessful in their own efforts. As a counterbalance to this narrowing process, it would seem appropriate to ask a number of questions which in fact ought to precede it: Why do we want children in the first place? What are we really looking for in our desire to have children? What does it actually mean to have children?In attempting to answer these questions, our course will be a philosophical one, focusing on the meaning of our actions and the reality which surrounds us. Philosophy is unlikely to uncover new facts in such an investigation; its task is simply to examine the presuppositions present prior to our interpretation of the data that emerge from this. Our answers to the questions surrounding our desire for children and the meaning of parenthood must come prior to the available facts on the matter for the simple reason that it will define the significance that these facts will have for us.The questions frequently raised in ethical, pedagogical and juridical literature concerning the rights of parents and children with respect to one another must also precede our examination of the facts. Rights and obligations always pertain to a specific relationship. Knowledge of such relationships is presumed, therefore, when we go about discussing the rights and obligations of the parties involved. By exploring the presuppositions which make our questioning and understanding of the facts possible, philosophy endeavours to create a space wherein we can look at things differently, a space where new and different possibilities are opened up. While we admit that philosophy is not going to uncover new facts, it will, if it works, produce new possibilities for understanding the facts and give them meaning.In this paper, I would like to begin by offering a description of the love parents feel for their children. In the second section I will attempt to draw some conclusions from this description concerning our desire to have the children we do not yet have. In the final section I will endeavour to situate these conclusions in a somewhat broader context