Will Britt

Three years after John Haugeland’s passing, we are privileged to take up the manuscript he labored over but was not granted the time to finish. That manuscript, from which this book as a whole gets its title, has been carefully edited for continuity by Joseph Rouse, who also provides us with plenty of context for making sense of it. Rouse’s lengthy Editor’s Introduction outlines the central peculiarities of Haugeland’s reading of Martin Heidegger and argues for the relevance of that reading for contemporary philosophical thought, broadly construed. Rouse’s editorial footnotes, in addition to their usual role of clarifying textual matters, extend the work of his introduction by tracking substantive changes in Haugeland’s thinking across 30 years of work, and by flagging for the reader Haugeland’s more unusual interpretations. Furthermore, Rouse has included nine other texts of Haugeland’s that either directly or indirectly elucidate Heidegger’s work in the late 1920s, the last of which ..

In the long line of French Sade studies, Deleuze's essay Coldness and Cruelty marks out a special place. By discussing Masoch both in addition to and in contrast to Sade, Deleuze reveals the stakes of his book: he wants to unmask the concept of sadomasochism as a clinical nonentity. In their paper, the authors explain the arguments supporting this project and show their relation to Deleuze's reading of Bergson. They then argue that there is a second, similarly Bergsonian criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis operating in the background of Coldness and Cruelty. This more wide-ranging criticism takes Freud to task for conceiving perversion, like neurosis, in Oedipal terms. This conception, Deleuze holds, forgets that perversion and neurosis represent two different worlds that essentially have nothing to do with each other despite crossing in clinical experience.

In his discussions of justice and of friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle appeals frequently—without much explanation—to temporal considerations. I take these indications as a key for sorting out the systematic significance of Aristotle’s claim that “when people are friends, there is no need for justice” (NE VIII.1.1155a26). Anaximander’s fragmentary claim that coming-to-be is itself an injustice serves as a touchstone for the analysis; I ask whether and how Aristotle might agree with such a claim. I first isolate some problems, especially those involving time, that underlie Aristotle’s various dialectical articulations of justice in NE V and show that friendship addresses them more beautifully than does justice. Then I try to establish that the ultimate work of friendship is to alter human temporality, interweaving multiple particular lives into a whole that both imitates and fits into the cosmic whole.

Translation from German of a lit review (summarizing and evaluating) in the psychology of thinking. Focuses on experimental psychology and addresses problems of self-observation (Lipps, Ach, Judd, Gibson, Wm. James, Kiesow), reproduction (Semon, Forel, Detto), the influence of an assigned task and capacities for concentration (Ach, Bleuler, Heilbronner), perseveration (Heilbronner, Stransky, Kiesow), a few miscellaneous issues Watt couldn't fit into these categories (Aliotta, Lobsien, Ranschburg, C. Jung), diagnosing a state of affairs (Wertheimer and Klein, C. Jung), and psychopathology (Heilbronner, Stransky, Reich).

The paper works out an account of the piety proper to philosophical thought. The investigation proceeds as a critical interpretation of three enigmatic claims made by Martin Heidegger about ‘the piety of thinking,’ but the paper is not simply exegetical; the interpretive work is constantly in service of an attempt to think through the phenomenon independently. Plato’s Euthyphro and Nietzsche’s critique of scientific piety both hover in the background of Heidegger’s pronouncements, and they are given special attention here. Through the investigation, philosophical piety is shown to be a virtuous capacity to respond with fitting submission to the truth as what is insurmountably prior to us. To respond fittingly is, at least, to deal well with sameness and difference, which in the case of piety means to recognize two features of our situation: that philosophical questioning necessarily arises out of a fundamental listening, or affirmation, and that we always belong to being but only ever across a gap.