Litowitz, Douglas. Review of Peter Goodrich, et al., eds. DERRIDA AND LEGAL PHILOSOPHY. NDPR (February 2009).

Goodrich, Peter, Florian Hoffmann, Michel Rosenfeld, and Cornelia Vismann, eds. Derrida and Legal Philosophy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. This book brings together fifteen essays on Jacques Derrida's approach to justice, law, and politics. It succeeds in demonstrating that Derrida, who died from pancreatic cancer in October of 2004, was not a political nihilist. In fact, he spent much of the last two decades of his life writing about law and justice, and he was deeply concerned about persons who were disempowered and marginalized. This concern was evidenced in his theoretical writings and in his personal commitment to progressive causes. Derrida is not widely considered a major figure in the philosophy of law, but he has definitely impacted the field in two ways. First, during the 1980s, his "deconstructive" strategy for textual analysis was picked up by scholars associated with the critical legal studies movement. Second, a small but devoted group of scholars was profoundly influenced by his 1989 lecture at Cardozo Law School entitled "Force of Law," as well as subsequent books on Marxism, forgiveness, friendship, gifts, and international politics. Therefore a compendium of essays on Derrida's legal philosophy is a laudable project, and this book will be useful for those who are interested in, or already committed to, Derrida's position. . . . Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15145.

Cfp: "Derrida and America," School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, June 12-13, 2009.

Keynote Speakers – Prof. Christina Howells (Oxford University), Prof. Julian Wolfreys (Loughborough University) In a collection of essays in memory of Jacques Derrida published by Routledge in 2008, Michael Naas and Peggy Kamuf both addressed the topic of “Derrida’s America,” examining the reciprocal influence of Derrida on America and of America on Derrida. Our interdisciplinary conference aims to build upon the work begun in these two pieces, and will address the importance of Derrida’s work for American literature, American philosophy, American Studies, and for understanding the meaning of America in historical, political and conceptual terms. We will also explore the role of “America” as a signifier in Derrida’s own work, and the ways in which he associates it with other concepts, such as sovereignty, religion, and the democracy-to-come. As this will be an interdisciplinary conference, we particularly welcome contributions that consider issues pertaining to the constitution of the various university disciplines related to Derrida’s work. Derrida’s thought was influential in the permeation of disciplinary boundaries that took place from the 1970s onwards, particularly in the United States, and one of the aims of this conference will be to re-examine Derrida’s claim “Deconstruction is America” in light of events inside and outside the university both before and since. The increasingly central role of borders and boundaries in disciplines such as American Studies intersects with Derrida’s thinking of marginality and limits; therefore, the notion of interdisciplinarity itself, and its recent history in the US and elsewhere, will be a subtheme of the conference. We suggest below a series of panel topics, and some questions that might be examined within those panels. These are indicative only; we will gladly receive submissions on all aspects of the conference theme, and would warmly welcome suggestions of alternative panels. 1. Derrida and American Literature- How can Derrida’s emphasis on the structural haunting of the centre by marginality help us to understand the massive expansion of the American canon in the last 40 years?- What role do Derrida’s readings of classic American authors such as Melville and Poe have in his work? Can his readings aid our understanding of these authors’ continued influence?- Can the literature of young American writers of today, many of whom studied theory at the height of its popularity within the US university system, be usefully read through ideas drawn from deconstruction? 2. Derrida and American Philosophy- In light of Richard Rorty’s sustained engagement with the work of Derrida, what does deconstruction have to say to American pragmatism?- Various efforts have been made to bridge the analytic-continental divide in philosophy through reading Derrida’s work alongside that of American philosophers such as Quine and Davidson. How successful have these efforts been, and how might they be built upon? 3. Derrida and American Studies- How does Derrida’s reading of “9/11” and the work of Carl Schmitt challenge or abet the “state of exception” thesis that has been so influential in American Studies?- How does Derrida’s “age of writing” and particular understanding of “mondialisation” intersect historically with the concept of “the American century”? - From a methodological perspective, can American Studies’ constitution of itself through historical-political critique be usefully challenged by perspectives associated with deconstruction? 4. America in the Work of Derrida- What status does Derrida’s (in)famous claim “l’Amerique, mais c’est la deconstruction” have in his thought?- What is the relationship between “a certain American hegemony” and a “that strange Europe” in Derrida’s work?- What affects did his prolonged exposure to America and its institutions have on Derrida’s thought over time? 5. The Reception of Derrida in the United States- What role has the deconstruction “primer” played in the reception of Derrida’s work in the US? How did the emphasis on critical and reading methodologies limit aspects of his thought?- What role did Derrida’s work have in the changes in the US university system that took place from the 1970s onwards?- What is the influence of Derrida’s thought in US academic life today? What is likely to be its legacy in the US? 6. Derrida and 21st Century America- Michael Naas has suggested that Derrida would not have put forward the hypothesis “deconstruction is America” under the Bush administration. Does the “event” of Barack Obama’s election change this?- What light can Derrida’s late work, particularly Specters of Marx, shed on the global financial crisis and the US bailout of Wall Street?- Can the continued influence of religious discourse in US culture be approached through Derrida’s late work on messianism without Messiah? Abstracts of 200-300 words should be submitted by e-mail as an MS Word attachment to Derrida.America@gmail.com by 30th March 2009. Submissions should also include name, affiliation, email address, title of paper, and, if possible, the panel the applicant feels their paper will best contribute to. We also welcome joint proposals for panels of three papers on themes other than those stated above. Applicants will be informed by mid-April as to their inclusion in the conference program. Please also note that we intend to pursue publication avenues stemming from the conference theme. Further information is here: http://www.ucd.ie/philosophy/derridaamerica/cfp.html.

Pub: DERRIDA TODAY 1.2 (2008).

• "Touching Derrida Touching Nancy: the Main Traits of Derrida's Hand" by J. Hillis Miller
• "Handshake" by Geoffrey Bennington
• "Notes about On Touching - Jean-Luc Nancy by Jacques Derrida" by Christine Irizarry
• "Toucher I: (The Problem with Self-Touching)" by Martin McQuillan
• "A Palintropic Genealogy of the Diaphanous Exactitude of Pe(n)ser" by Sean Gaston
• "Running On" by Lucy Niall
• "Lessons to Live (1): Posthumous Fragments, for Jacques Derrida" by Zsuzsa Baross
• "Justice's Last Word: Derrida's Post-Scriptum to Force of Law" by Elina Staikou

The above issue is now available online from Edinburgh University Press at: www.eupjournals.com/drt.

Pub: DELEUZE STUDIES 2.2 (2008).

Articles:

• "Passions and Actions: Deleuze's Cinematographic Cogito" by Richard Rushton
• "Painting as Hysteria: Deleuze on Bacon" by Tomas Geyskens
• "The Determination of Sense via Deleuze and Blanchot: Paradoxes of the Habitual, the Immemorial, and the Eternal Return" by Eugene Brently Young
• "Deleuze, Bakhtin, and the `Clamour of Voices'" by Fred Evans
• "Expression, Immanence and Constructivism: 'Spinozism' and Gilles Deleuze" by Thomas Nail

Review Essay:

• "The Full Body: Micro-Politics and Macro-Entities" by Jason Read

The above issue is now available online (subscription required) from Edinburgh University Press at: www.eupjournals.com/dls.

Pub: KRITIKE 2.2 (2008).

Contents: 1. Editorial: In this Issue of KRITIKE: an Online Journal of Philosophy – The Editor Featured Essay: 2. To Build or to Destroy? The Philippine Experience with Walls and a Southeast Asian Perspective – Ranhilio Callangan Aquino Articles: 3. Some Useful Lessons from Richard Rorty’s Political Philosophy for Philippine Postcolonialism – F. P. A. Demeterio 4. Adorno, Obama, and Empire: Reflections on the U.S. Presidential Election and the Next President – Lukas Kaelin 5. Heidegger, Hegel, Marx: Marcuse and the Theory of Historicity – Jeffry V. Ocay 6. Derrida’s Turn to Franciscan Philosophy – Marko Zlomislic 7. Deconstruction and the Transformation of Husserlian Phenomenology – Chung Chin-Yi 8. Toward a Return to Plurality in Arendtian Judgment – Jack E. Marsh Jr. 9. Mistaking Judgments of the Agreeable and Judgments of Taste – Francis Raven 10. The Limits of Misogyny: Schopenhauer, “On Women” – Thomas Grimwood 11. Haecceitas and the Question of Being: Heidegger and Duns Scotus – Philip Tonner 12. Kong Zi on Good Governance – Moses Aaron T. Angeles 13. The Problem of the Inefficacy of Knowledge in Early Buddhist Soteriology – Ryan Showler Book Reviews: 14. Calcagno, Antonio, The Philosophy of Edith Stein – Robert C. Cheeks 15. Derrida, Jacques, La Hospitalidad – Maximiliano Korstanje Visit the journal homepage here: http://www.kritike.org/Home.html.

Powell, Jeffrey. Review of Clive Cazeaux's METAPHOR AND CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY. NDPR (February 2009).

Cazeaux, Clive. Metaphor and Continental Philosophy from Kant to Derrida. London: Routledge, 2007. Clive Cazeaux's Metaphor and Continental Philosophy: From Kant to Derrida is an ambitious book. It seeks to treat metaphor in a number of selected figures from the historical tradition indicated in the title, but especially in Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and Derrida. This is no easy matter, for little is said of metaphor in Kant, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger, which leaves one with the task of creating what might be said from out of what has been said. This is an especially difficult task in the case of metaphor, for one is forever tempted to address metaphor as the absence of metaphor, which is to say that one is tempted into providing an account of metaphor in a conceptual, literal discourse. Cazeaux is certainly aware of this difficulty even if he frequently gives in to the temptation. It also seeks, or I assume that it does, to exhibit the relevance of continental philosophy as an historical continuation of the philosophical tradition. What is more, Cazeaux attempts to show that the continental tradition is not only tied to its historical constitution, but that it has also been concerned with the development of strategies for transforming that tradition, strategies that he collects under the name of metaphor. Additionally, Cazeaux wants his study of metaphor to gain some traction with the analytic tradition. One of his theses is that the continental treatment of metaphor can provide the analytic tradition with some much needed tools, especially those in the analytic tradition open to the consequences of the study of metaphor for ontology (in particular, Max Black). In my opinion, it is the attempt to serve so many masters that makes the book a rather unsatisfying read. While it is true that in the end Cazeaux argues for a Heideggerian-Derridean view of metaphor as the interweaving of metaphor and metaphysics (metaphor-as-metaphysics, metaphysics-as-metaphor), it is also true that the Heideggerian discourse gets woven into a metaphorical system to which it became increasingly foreign. That is to say, Cazeaux too frequently resorts to a traditional metaphysical language (e.g., perception, sensation, empiricism, realism, subject-object, theory of knowledge, etc.) for the expression of Heideggerian themes, as if we have now moved beyond Heidegger's concern with the language he found to be inadequate, or even counter-productive, for what was developed in Being and Time. Cazeaux seems far too comfortable expressing Heideggerian themes and concerns in the language of conceptuality, as if Heidegger might be grouped in with a certain epistemological school. It is as if it is possible to distillate the thought of Heidegger into a few pearls of wisdom and translate that wisdom into the current language of the metaphysical tradition, the analytic tradition, or cognitive psychology. While it might well be problematic that the thought of Heidegger seems to be embedded in the language of Heidegger, it should also be noted that this is a problem, not just for Heidegger, but for any thinking deemed to be historical. . . . Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15187.

Bragues, George. "Richard Rorty's Postmodern Case for Liberal Democracy a Critique." HUMANITAS 19.1-2 (2006).

Liberal democracy was originally founded on the Enlightenment notion that there are principles, accessible to unassisted reason, demonstrating that political life should be dedicated to the protection of rights common to all human beings. These were thought to include the right to life, property, free speech, equal standing before the law, due process in criminal proceedings, along with the right to practice the religion of one’s choice. Not to mention the right to choose one’s political leaders, and pursue one’s own conception of happiness so long as the choices made are consistent with the rights of others and the common good. Our Enlightenment ancestors may have given different justificationsfor these rights—some grounding them on a deistic conception of God or nature, others on the rational dignity of human beings, and still others on social utility considerations—but they generally agreed that they were best secured by one variant or another of liberal democracy: which is to say, the combination of a politics free from the scheming of religious sects, representative institutions with separated powers regulated by checks and balances, and a commercial economic order, all of it operating within the framework of the rule of law. Today, however, it is widely held that no objective framework exists to decide normative and factual judgments. All such judgments are said to reflect the political, cultural, and socio-economic imperatives of the particular time and place in which they are made. This view has been christened postmodernism. . . . Download the paper here: http://www.nhinet.org/bragues19-1.pdf.

Pub: Overskeid, Geir. "Looking for Skinner and Finding Freud." AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST (September 2007).

Abstract: Sigmund Freud and B. F. Skinner are often seen as psychology’s polar opposites. It seems this view is fallacious. Indeed, Freud and Skinner had many things in common, including basic assumptions shaped by positivism and determinism. More important, Skinner took a clear interest in psychoanalysis and wanted to be analyzed but was turned down. His views were influenced by Freud in many areas, such as dream symbolism, metaphor use, and defense mechanisms. Skinner drew direct parallels to Freud in his analyses of conscious versus unconscious control of behavior and of selection by consequences. He agreed with Freud regarding aspects of methodology and analyses of civilization. In his writings on human behavior, Skinner cited Freud more than any other author, and there is much clear evidence of Freud’s impact on Skinner’s thinking. Read the rest here: http://inside.bard.edu/~luka/documents/SkinnerandFreud.pdf.

Too, Yun Lee. Review of Tim Whitmarsh's ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE. BMCR (January 2009).

Whitmarsh, Tim. Ancient Greek Literature. Cambridge: Polity, 2004. I suggest that the book is indeed cutting edge or on the forefront of Greek literature studies and, as such, it is representative of the classics tripos at Cambridge University (where incidentally TW and I both studied and had research fellowships in the 1990s). In his preface TW denies a chronological structure to his work in favour of themes and topics that cluster around literary texts, albeit chapters 1 to 9 proceed rather chronologically around the various genres. This is what I describe as the diachronic approach in the book. Chapters 10 to 13 read Greek literature synchronically, ordering the discussion around very current topics that seek to demonstrate that the literature we are calling 'Greek' was always in contest in a way that we might find very relevant and engaging today. . . . Read the whole review here: http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/01/20090133.html.

Gottlieb, Anthony. "The Descent of Taste." NEW YORK TIMES January 29, 2009.

Dutton, Dennis. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution. London: Bloomsbury, 2008. Dutton is a professor of the philosophy of art at the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand, and the founder and editor of a popular Web site, Arts & Letters Daily. The ideas that are his starting point come from a form of evolutionary psychology that began to catch on in the 1990s. When you hear it claimed that some bit of human behavior is explained by the fact that we are genetically hard-wired to succeed and breed in a Stone Age environment, that — in its crudest, popularized form — is evolutionary psychology. Its terrain is full of pitfalls, and I suspect that Darwin would have been skeptical of it. We know so little about the environment of our Pleistocene ancestors, what they were like, and how they lived, that almost any hypothesis about which strategies might have helped them to reproduce, and thus let their characteristics ripple through the gene pool, is bound to be highly speculative. In addition, the story told by mainstream evolutionary psychology may both start too late and stop too early. When Darwin himself ventured into psychology, with his study of the expression of emotions, he cast his net far wider and looked at the distant common ancestors that humans share with other species. If he was right to do so, the origins of some human psychology may be older than the Stone Age. And evolution is now reckoned to be capable of working faster than was thought in the 1990s: it may well be that the wiring of our minds continues to develop. . . . Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/books/review/Gottlieb-t.html?_r=1&ref=review.

Cfp: "After Freud Left: Centennial Reflections on his 1909 Visit to the United States," New York Academy of Medicine, October 3-4, 2009.

Leading scholars in the history of psychoanalysis and American intellectual history will reflect on what happened to Sigmund Freud’s ideas in the United States in the century after he left New York following his only visit to the New World, a visit that became an iconic event in American history. The eight main speakers will be: Ernst Falzeder, Universität Innsbruck and Philemon Foundation Elizabeth Lunbeck, Vanderbilt University George Makari, Weill Medical College of Cornell University Louis Menand, Harvard UniversityDorothy Ross, Johns Hopkins University Sonu Shamdasani, Wellcome History of Medicine Unit, University College, London Richard Skues, London Metropolitan University Hale Usak, Universität Innsbruck Invited commentators include: Jean-Christophe Agnew, Yale University James Anderson, Northwestern University Raymond Fancher, York University James Gilbert, University of Maryland More details, including instructions for registration and for reserving a luncheon on Saturday, will be available in the coming months at http://www.nyam.org/events/?id=448&clickk=. Or contact the outside coordinator, John Burnham, at Ohio State University, burnham.2@osu.edu.

9th Annual Meeting, Foucault Circle, DePaul University, March 6-8, 2009.

The programme is here: http://www.siu.edu/~foucault/meeting.htm. Logistical information may be found here: http://www.siu.edu/~foucault/meeting_info.htm.

Cfp: "Ricoeur: On Memory, Politics and Forgiveness," Faculty of Philosophy and Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford, March 20-21, 2009.

Since Ricoeur's death in 2005 there has been a constant stream of interest in his Memory, History, Forgetting (2004), as well as Reflections on The Just (2007); these richly challenging works on some of the most timely and deeply human concerns being debated by philosophers today are ripe for discussion not only by philosophers, but also by theologians, political theorists and all those thinking about life, loss, evil and the need for justice alongside of ‘a difficult forgiveness’. Speakers to include: Dr Pamela Sue Anderson (Oxford), Professor David Klemm (Iowa-Glasgow) and Professor William Schweiker (Chicago); Chairs: Professor Paul Fiddes (Oxford) and Professor Morny Joy (Calgary). For more information, email: Roxana.Baiasu@philosophy.ox.ac.uk or Daniel.Whistler@worc.ox.ac.uk.

Speight, Allen. Review of John Gibson, et al., eds. A SENSE OF THE WORLD. NDPR (January 2009).

Gibson, John, Wolfgang Huemer, and Luca Pocci, eds. A Sense of the World: Essays on Fiction, Narrative, and Knowledge. London: Routledge, 2007. Much has been written about the "ancient quarrel" between philosophy and poetry – as has, by extension, the broader "quarrel" between philosophy and literature. Neither is, of course, in any sense a single-issue quarrel: from Plato alone stem epistemological and ontological debates about the status of images and the activity of mimēsis, ethical and political concerns over the emotional appeal of particular literary genres, as well as theological and philosophical arguments about the nature of good, evil and the gods as represented by literary works. The editors of this welcome volume have taken as their particular focus the question of literature's cognitive potential: whether and in what sense there is knowledge to be gained from our encounter with works of literary fiction. Stated in these terms, as Noël Carroll acknowledges in the second of this volume's essays, the question may strike non-philosophers as having an entirely obvious answer: of course we learn from literature, of course novelists, dramatists and poets expand our understanding of ourselves and the world. But there are many ways of expressing that immediate conviction about literature's cognitive potential that have given pause to philosophers -- both those who would be delighted to have poetry and literary artists in their city and those who wouldn't. Is there, for example, something which deserves to be called artistic truth? Is the knowledge involved propositional knowledge or not? And, if there is knowledge or truth of some sort "in" literary works, does it result from essential features of those works and is it the product of the intentional aims of their authors? The editors have wisely avoided an overly narrow construal of the cognitive issues that literature raises: in the widest sense, as John Gibson puts it in the volume's introduction, the concern is with "the relationship between life and literature itself" or "the worldly interest we take in the literary work of art." The twenty-two essays in the volume (only three of which appear to have been published previously) do have a wide and healthy variety of perspectives on how literature confronts, creates or appropriates the world. The volume's four-part organizational structure -- "Knowledge through Literary Fiction," "Narrating Worlds and Selves," "The Poetic, the Dramatic and the Real," and "Imagination, Objectivity and Culture" -- allows for some of the related issues involved here to be grouped together, but there is actually a much deeper cross-connection among many of the essays than this structure may first make apparent. Many of the essays address in some way, for example, the issue of fictionality and truth, in particular what has been called the "paradox of fiction": how can we respond (emotionally, intelligently) to literary characters and situations if what we are encountering are simply objects of make-believe? . . . Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15125.

Cfp: "Deconstruction and Science," DERRIDA TODAY (forthcoming).

In this special issue of Derrida Today, the editors wish to address thequestion of the meeting of deconstruction and science, the latter broadly defined. Since the 1960s and ‘70s, poststructuralist thought has garnered a reputation for being at odds with science and the Enlightenment worldview upon which modern science is based. This is understandable if for no other reason than the fact that the last four decades can historically testify to this tension. From the Sokal debate to the general sense within the scientific community that deconstruction is basically just a form of relativism that attacks science’s empirical method and the basic assumption that reason can have access to the world, there has been little attempt to find ways in which a positive dialogue can be had. One of the goals of this special issue is to allow the voices that might contribute to such a dialogue to come to the fore. Although any and all approaches to the topic will be considered, including essays dealing with the ways in which deconstruction calls the general project of science into question, the editors are especially interested in investigating what can be positively said rather than what can be criticized. That is, how might the insights of deconstruction change theway in which science is practiced? How might individual science practices (e.g., chemistry, physics, biology) be affected by an encounter with deconstruction? And, indeed, how is deconstruction altered by its encounter with science? Essays that are of a theoretical as well as a practical nature are thus welcome, and authors from any discipline are encouraged to submit. Deadline for submission of 300-word abstract: 30 June 2009 Deadline for submission of paper (no more than 6000 words): 30 November 2009 Co-edited by:

• Nicole Anderson, Critical and Cultural Studies Department, Macquarie University, Australia, General Editor, Derrida Today
• H. Peter Steeves, Professor of Philosophy, DePaul University, Chicago

All submissions should be prepared for blind review and emailed to DTJEditors@scmp.mq.edu.au with the title “Deconstruction and Science” as the subject title of the email.

Cfp: "Charles Darwin's ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES after 150 Years," Virginia Tech University, November 4, 2009.

There will be three concurrent sections of papers organized around:

• Issues about the interpretation and reception of the Origin;
• Issues about the social and political influence of the Origin and its relevance to the current century; and,
• Continuing scientific debates related to issues raised or addressed in the Origin.

Six papers will be accepted for each of the concurrent sessions, with speaking time limited to one-half hour. The conference is strongly interdisciplinary: we encourage submission of papers that will be intelligible to a general university audience. Submissions by individuals from diverse backgrounds, including groups underrepresented in the sciences, are particularly encouraged. We anticipate arranging for publication of some or all of the papers derived from the conference presentations.

Please submit your abstract, with a maximum length of 500 words. Your abstract must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 15. The submissions will be refereed and notification of the panel's decision will be sent by Friday, June 19.

Further information may be found here: http://www.cpe.vt.edu/darwin.

Arthur, Richard. Review of Andrew Janiak's NEWTON AS PHILOSOPHER. NDPR (January 2009).

Janiak, Andrew. Newton as Philosopher. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. There has been a long tradition of hostility on the part of Newton scholars to attempts to situate Newton's philosophy in relation to his predecessors' and peers'. To claim any philosophical ancestry for Newtonian doctrines, from this point of view, is just to miss the point that Newton initiated a whole new style of doing philosophy, where quantitative reasoning and a careful subjection of nature to experimental interrogation (one is permitted here to allow a debt to Bacon) replaces the traditional argumentative approach of the Schools as the correct methodology for natural philosophy. Newton, on this view, was a natural philosopher, but one who changed the terms of the debate, and refused to get embroiled in fruitless controversies over metaphysics. Of course, this broadly positivist conception -- encouraged as it is by Newton's own remarks on method -- has not been without its detractors. In particular, Edwin A. Burtt (1925) showed how Newton's conceptions of space and time were deeply indebted to Henry More's notion of extension as a category of spirit, to Barrow's teachings regarding space and time as absolute quantums, and to contemporary controversies about the nature of God's relation to the natural world. Interest in Newton as a philosopher was rekindled, as evidenced by H. S. Thayer's publication in 1953 of Newton's Philosophy of Nature, which, like Janiak's own recent compilation (Newton 2004), contained excerpts from Newton's Principia, Cotes' 1713 preface, from his correspondence with Bentley, Cotes and others, and from the Queries to the Opticks, although not the important essay De gravitatione. Following in Burtt's footsteps, Alexandre Koyré and others also drew attention to the full metaphysical context in which Newton developed his ideas, and in the 1960s this trend of thought was built upon and developed by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos into a full-blown critique of positivism, calling into question the very idea that a scientific theory could be developed or justified independently of the constellation of specific commitments concerning ontology, scientific method, and so on, that constituted the framework for its gestation, birth and acceptance. In this milieu, Newton studies grew hugely more expansive, and in addition to the many fine specialist works on Newton by I. Bernard Cohen, R. S. Westfall, John Herivel, Ernan McMullin, A. I. Sabra, François De Gandt, George Smith, Nico Bertoloni Meli and others, studies of the broader aspects of Newton's natural philosophy were made by J. E. McGuire on Newton's Neoplatonism and connection with the Corpus Hermeticum, Betty-Jo Dobbs on Newton's Herculean labours in the non-mathematical tradition of alchemy/­chemistry, and Frank Manuel on Newton's natural theology. So it is somewhat surprising to be confronted with a book on Newton's philosophy that begins with a chapter, "Newton as philosopher, the very idea." . . . Read the rest here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15088.

Cfp: "Levinas and Rhetoric." JAC (forthcoming).

Emmanuel Levinas's work has gained widespread attention in the years since his death in 1995, though it has been taken up only recently by theorists of rhetoric. This is, in many ways, surprising, since the indissoluble link of language and ethics in his work—not to mention his focus on how individuals are defined through utterance — would seem to be fertile ground for those working in the field. Of course, there are facets of Levinas's work that complicate matters: it is rooted in a Jewish, rather than a Greco-Roman, tradition; it is hostile to systems of any kind, rhetoric included; and it is wedded to theology perhaps more than it is to philosophy, among other issues. Suffice it to say, then, that while Levinas's work has been and will continue to be taken up by rhetoricians, it is fraught terrain. This special issue of JAC will include essays that take up the complicated relationship between the work of Emmanuel Levinas and rhetoric, the rhetorical tradition, and writing. Essays are invited on any facet of Levinas's work and its relation to rhetoric, cultural studies, and writing studies. Essay topics might include:

• the relation of language, ethics, politics;
• the connection between rhetoric and Judaism; the relation between Levinas's work and that of other rhetorical theorists;
• Levinas's notions of trauma, suffering and/or otherness as foundational for rhetoric and writing;
• the performative dimension of Levinas's idea of utterance;
• other topics welcome.

Deadline for completed papers is 1 May 2009; papers should be between 6000 and 8000 words in length. Questions and completed tss. (as attachments) should be sent to Professor Michael Bernard-Donals (mfbernarddon@wisc.edu). Tss. can also be sent by mail to Professor Bernard-Donals at the Department of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Helen C. White Hall, 600 North Park Street, Madison WI 53706.

Cfp: "Philosophy and its Others," 4th Annual Conference, North American Levinas Society, University of Toronto, June 28-30, 2009.

The North American Levinas Society invites submissions of individual paper proposals and panel proposals for the fourth annual meeting and conference. While we will organize the conference around the broad theme of “Philosophy and Its Others,” we will consider proposals for paper and panels on any topic related to Levinas in an effort to draw the widest array of interests. Especially in the Continental traditions, Levinas’ work is integral to a serious and sober examination of the history of philosophy and its priorities, blindnesses, insights, inner tensions, and possibilities. We pose this broad theme at a time when certain modes of rationality continue to prop up structures of economic inequality, perpetual war, and uncertainty. Given the current state of global economic and political relations, how must philosophy orient itself to help effect a healing and mending of the world? What is the relationship between philosophy and hope, activism, and reconciliation? We might begin by asking questions about Levinas’ difficult relationship with philosophy:

• How has the discipline and history of philosophy affected Levinas’ thought, and how has Levinas impacted the discipline and history of philosophy?
• How has Levinas’ philosophical critique of ‘the tradition’ been received and appropriated by other domains of inquiry, such as religious studies, Jewish studies, political science, women’s studies, gender studies, sociology, history, performance and media studies, race theory, legal studies and jurisprudence, literature, cultural studies, disability studies, environmental and ecology studies, medicine, and others?
• How has Levinas’ reception and application in these various fields in turn affected the discipline of philosophy?

Certainly, these are only a few questions regarding “Philosophy and Its Others” broadly posed, but it is clear that such questions open our own work to a more difficult, and perhaps edifying, scrutiny. We are also interested in receiving panels that address the relation between philosophy, the ethical, community, justice, and pedagogy. Submissions: ● Individual paper proposals: Individual abstracts, prepared for blind review, should be 500 words outlining a 20-minute presentation. Accepted papers will be organized into panels of two or three presentations. ● Panel proposal: Panel proposals, consisting of 2-3 speakers, should be 1000 words for a 75-minute session. Please include the session title, name of organizer, institutional affiliations, discipline or department, along with the chair’s name and participants’ names in addition to 250 word abstracts detailing the focus of each paper. Prepare panel proposals for blind review as well. Please send materials via email attachment (preferably Microsoft Word) to: submissions@levinas-society.org. If you have questions regarding the Society or the conference, please send inquiries to secretary@levinas-society.org.

Leiter, Brian. Review of Tamsin Shaw's NIETZSCHE'S POLITICAL SKEPTICISM. NDPR (January 2009).

Shaw, Tamsin. Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007. Nietzsche's Political Skepticism (hereafter NPS) is a serious, learned, and novel contribution to the literature on Nietzsche's relevance to political theory. Against the two dominant strands in the secondary literature -- one attributing to Nietzsche a kind of flat-footed commitment to aristocratic forms of social ordering, the other denying that Nietzsche has any political philosophy at all -- Shaw stakes out a new and surprising position: namely, that Nietzsche was very much concerned with the familiar question of the moral or normative legitimacy of state power, but was skeptical that with the demise of religion, it would be possible to achieve a practically effective normative consensus about such legitimacy that was untainted by the exercise of state power itself. Although, as I will argue below, there are reasons to be quite skeptical that Nietzsche was interested in anything like these questions, Shaw has laid down a clear and invigorating challenge to existing scholarship on Nietzsche's politics, and it is one worth meeting. . . . Read the whole review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=15105.