Leonard Lawlor

The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon is a reference tool that provides clear and incisive definitions and descriptions of all of Foucault's major terms and influences, including history, knowledge, language, philosophy and power. It also includes entries on philosophers about whom Foucault wrote and who influenced Foucault's thinking, such as Deleuze, Heidegger, Nietzsche and Canguilhem. The entries are written by scholars of Foucault from a variety of disciplines such as philosophy, gender studies, political science and history. Together, they shed light on concepts key to Foucault and to ongoing discussions of his work today.

As the subtitle indicates, this article examines Russell Ford's new book on Deleuze's 1953 Empiricism and Subjectivity. Ford's book especially illuminates Deleuze's book on Hume in two ways. First, he shows how Deleuze's first book intervenes in an ongoing debate in French philosophy between transcendence and immanence. Second, Ford provides an intense reading of Deleuze's first book. The question, however, that Ford's book aims to answer is the nature of empiricism itself. My article reconstructs the precise definition of empiricism found in Experience and Empiricism. But also, because Ford stresses the priority of the practical in Deleuze's interpretation of Hume, my article, near the end, shows how Deleuze's view of the practical in his 1968 Difference and Repetition contests the view of the practical presented in Deleuze's Empiricism and Subjectivity.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy by Andreas VrahimisLeonard LawlorAndreas Vrahimis. Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy. History of Analytic Philosophy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. Pp. xix + 395. Hardback, $139.99.Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy is a great achievement in the history of ideas in general. The wealth of historical details that Andreas Vrahimis musters indicates that he has a profound understanding of twentieth-century philosophy. More importantly, this book overflows with philosophical insights. The wealth of insights indicates that Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy is also a great achievement in philosophy as such. Andreas Vrahimis has written a remarkable book.Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy presents the origins of the division between analytic philosophy and continental philosophy. This story is familiar, with analytic philosophy siding with science and continental with poetry; with analytic philosophy being a kind of rationalism and continental a kind of irrationalism; with analytic philosophy using a writing style of dry, logical argumentation and continental using a writing style of images and emotions; and finally, with analytic philosophy writing only of what can be expressed and continental writing of the ineffable. Yet, Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy tells a story that is unfamiliar and even novel. The genealogy Vrahimis lays out is not of the rift between analytic philosophy and phenomenology (although this rift appears in the book's final chapters) but between analytic philosophy and Bergson. As Vrahimis clearly shows, the popularity of Bergson's thought at the beginning of the twentieth century caused the split, and even the hostility, between analytic and continental [End Page 332] philosophy. Therefore, Vrahimis does not title his book Bergson and the History of Analytic Philosophy, but Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy (2). Bergsonism is the popular view of Bergson's thought. It turned Bergson's thought into a "fad" (263). But Bergsonism contained many misunderstandings of Bergson. In the early twentieth century, Bergson was, in short, "a misunderstood celebrity." Unfortunately for Bergson's legacy, Bergson himself allowed Bergsonism to flourish as a cultural movement. Until The Creative Mind (published in 1934 in France as La pensée et le mouvant, after "the demise of Bergsonism"), Bergson never attempted to correct the misinterpretations of his thought that Bergsonism presented. Chapter by chapter, Vrahimis shows how the analytic philosophy criticisms leveled against Bergson are based in Bergsonism's distortions of Bergson's thought. The founding members of analytic philosophy aimed their attacks at a strawman Bergson.Bergsonism and the History of Analytic Philosophy's first three chapters set the stage for the analytic philosophers' attacks on Bergson. In fact, chapter 3 contains one of the clearest summaries of Bergson's thought I have ever read. Then, the book is arranged chronologically, starting with William James's 1905 "The Experience of Activity" in chapter 4 and ending with Ryle's 1958 "Phenomenology versus The Concept of Mind" in chapter 12. William James is not one of Bergson's critics. Chapter 4 shows how James praised Bergson's thought because of its similarity with pragmatism. This praise popularized Bergson's thought and thus led to Bergsonism. Chapters 4 through 12 (there is also a chapter 13 that serves as the book's conclusion) concern specific philosophers' criticisms of Bergson and then, in the final chapters, specific philosophers' criticisms of Lebensphilosophie and continental philosophy. There are chapters on Russell, Karin Costelloe-Stephen, L. Susan Stebbing, Neurath and the Vienna Circle (against Lebensphilosophie), Schlick (against Bergson as the originator of Lebensphilosophie), Carnap and Ayer (against Heidegger and Sartre), and Ryle (against Husserl). Most of the chapters concern the criticisms that resulted from Bergson's valorization of intuition as a source of knowledge. Bergson's definitions of intuition contribute to the belief that he is antiscience and an anti-intellectualist. Because intuition is introspection, it even suggests that Bergson's own philosophy is a kind of individualism. Because intuition is inexpressible, it also raises the problem that Bergson's own intuition of time as duration cannot be verified; rather, it can be challenged only by someone else's own intuition. Chapter 11 then shows how Heideggerian Angst challenges...

Examines Bergson’s work from the perspectives of critical philosophy of race and decolonial theory, placing it in conversation with theorists from Africa, the African Diaspora, and Latin America. Building upon recent interest in Henri Bergson’s social and political philosophy, this volume offers a series of fresh and novel perspectives on Bergson’s writings through the lenses of critical philosophy of race and decolonial theory. Contributors place Bergson’s work in conversation with theorists from Africa, the African Diaspora, and Latin America to examine Bergson’s influence on literature, science studies, aesthetics, metaphysics, and social and political philosophy within these geopolitical contexts. The volume pays particular attention to both theoretical and practical forms of critical resistance work, including historical analyses of anti-racist, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist movements that have engaged with Bergson’s writings—for example, the Négritude movement, the Indigenismo movement, and the Peruvian Socialist Party. These historical and theoretical intersections provide a timely and innovative contribution to the existing scholarship on Bergson, and demonstrate the importance of his thought for contemporary social and political issues. Andrea J. Pitts is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. Mark William Westmoreland is a doctoral candidate and instructor of ethics and philosophy at Villanova University.

The first reader to offer a comprehensive view of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s (1908-1961) work, this selection collects in one volume the foundational essays necessary for understanding the core of this critical twentieth-century philosopher’s thought. Arranged chronologically, the essays are grouped in three sections corresponding to the major periods of Merleau-Ponty’s work: First, the years prior to his appointment to the Sorbonne in 1949, the early, existentialist period during which he wrote important works on the phenomenology of perception and the primacy of perception; second, the years of his work as professor of child psychology and pedagogy at the Sorbonne, a period especially concerned with language; and finally, his years as chair of modern philosophy at the Collège de France, a time devoted to the articulation of a new ontology and philosophy of nature. The editors, who provide an interpretive introduction, also include previously unpublished working notes found in Merleau-Ponty’s papers after his death. Translations of all selections have been updated and several appear here in English for the first time. By contextualizing Merleau-Ponty’s writings on the philosophy of art and politics within the overall development of his thought, this volume allows readers to see both the breadth of his contribution to twentieth-century philosophy and the convergence of the various strands of his reflection.

Deconstructive critique targets the illusion of presence, that is, the idea that being is simply present and available before our eyes. For Derrida, the idea of presence implies self‐givenness, simplicity, purity, identity, and stasis. Therefore, deconstruction aims to demonstrate that presence is never given as such, never simple, never pure, never self‐identical, and never static; it is always given as something other, complex, impure, differentiated, and generated. The aim of deconstruction is essentially political and ethical in the sense of making us question who we are. In one of the first of many engagements with Heidegger, Derrida asked this simple question: “But who, we?” This “who are we?” is still the primary deconstructive question.

Recently, questions have been raised about the imagery of violence that one finds in certain kinds of contemporary philosophical discourses that are commonly called “poststructuralist,” “postmodernist,” or “deconstructive,” that is, discourses in which Jacques Derrida was directly involved or which he inspired. The questions raised seem to consist in three types. This chapter aims to respond to each of these three questions. It takes up the second kind of question concerning the need for vigilance. The chapter begins with Plato for the obvious reason that his dialogues are the first truly philosophical discourse on the soul, but also a discourse with imagery of violence. Nietzsche is saying that violence is irreducible in life. As in Plato, in Nietzsche, life is fundamentally polemos; the opposing forces are brought together, or, so to speak, “synthesized,” on a battlefield.

In the 1970's Paul Ricoeur and Jacques Derrida participated in a published debate over the nature of philosophical discourse. The question of the possibility of univocal discourse in philosophy drives the published debate. I provide a commentary on this debate and situate it in a broader confrontation over the nature of language in general. Ricoeur sees language as the discursive event which aims at the communication of univocal meaning. I show that the discursive event, for Ricoeur, happens in the present, and that presentness implies singularity and wholeness. In contrast, Derrida holds that the unavoidable use of iterable forms of phonemes and graphemes, what Derrida calls traces or traits, can always threaten communication by producing an irreducible metaphoricity. I show that the primary characteristic of iterability is absence or nonpresence and that nonpresence implies plurality and differentiality . ;Yet, the confrontation between Ricoeur and Derrida is not a simple opposition between event and iterability, between univocity and metaphoricity. Ricoeur always asserts that language possesses a type of iterability or repeatability and a type of metaphoricity or plurivocity. I show, however, that, for Ricoeur, repeatability designates repeatability of meaning and it always functions teleologically. It always aims at unity, identity and univocity. For Derrida, iterability designates not simply repeatability of meaning but repeatability of linguistic forms, from which meaning is inseparable. Iterability never functions teleologically. It is the essential possibility of deviation from any normative precedent, from any unity, from any identity, from any univocity. ;I conclude by taking up two points which Derrida makes throughout his writings. First, Derrida shows the absolute necessity of the externalization of meaning in iterable linguistic forms. Second, a linguistic form is not strictly or identically repeatable. I argue that these two points are undeniable. Thus I conclude that Ricoeur's attempt to assure a certain type of philosophical univocity, his attempt to revitalize metaphysics, the very project which animates perhaps all of Ricoeur's hermeneutical philosophy, cannot succeed

As is well known, Deleuze says in Difference and Repetition that ‘the task of contemporary philosophy has been defined: to reverse Platonism’. This task is then continued in Logic of Sense, through its discussion of Stoic logic. Deleuze says there that ‘the Stoics are the first to reverse Platonism’. And, at the same time, in the big Spinoza book, we see Deleuze present Spinoza's ‘anti-Cartesian reaction’. This anti-Cartesian reaction is equivalent to the reversal of Platonism. We can say then that the task of the reversal of Platonism unifies the three books Deleuze published at the end of the Sixties. The thesis of this essay will consist in arguing that ethics we find in Logic of Sense – which we can call ‘the ethics of the univocity of being’ – completes, in a constructive way, Deleuze's early project of the reversal of Platonism. The ethics centres on the idea of counter-actualisation. We shall argue that there are four senses of counter-actualisation. Here is a summary of the four senses of counter-actualisation: (1) beatitude against resentment (against presentist modes of measurement); (2) caring for the sense against neglecting the sense (denouncing any one determinate answer); (3) the embodiment of plural hopings and rememberings against the embodiment of one hope and one memory (against the character); and (4) ‘just enough’ against ‘too much’ (against suicide). Yet, as we shall see, there is a fifth meaning of counter-actualisation, the ultimate meaning. The ultimate sense of counter-actualisation is universal freedom. This is where my essay will end.