Laboratoire CRISES

This book examines the concepts of “difference” and “mixing” in Montaigne’s Essais and Journal de voyage and traces the interconnections between them. Difference, for the Bordeaux philosopher, is the most universal quality of things, but he avoids the differentialist temptation to compartmentalize differences, in the name of purity, within a mosaic of individuals and cultures: he thereby calls into question belief in the stable identity of things, individuals, ideas, customs and peoples. Indeed, the individual entities – variable and multicoloured – that differ one from the other, clash and collide, mixing and transforming incessantly. A thread of interpretation thereby takes shape which, on the basis of a lexical exploration of notions such as différence, étrangeté, mélange, métis, monstrueux in Montaigne’s writings, connects the question of the variety of customs and cultures with the difference that emerges in nature and with the problem of multiplicity, dissimilarity and monstrosity that the individual discovers within himself, in his mind and in his body.

In the book Infini et science de l’homme. L’horizon et les paysages de l’anthropologie chez Malebranche, I examined the question of science of the man in Malebranche beginning from its link with the concept of the infinite, that is a metaphysical structure that legitimates every knowledge. I analysed the different kinds of infinite and their relations with the finite and so I investigated the metaphysical basis of Malebranchean science of man. The Malebranchean project on science of man intends to investigate the mind in himself, the mind-body relation, the relationship between the mind and God. I stressed that the science of man is a special knowledge which takes her place between evidence and likelihood, metaphysics and experience. The science of man requiers many knowledge, and it considers in particular the basic structure of mind and the nature and the characteristics of body. These enquiries, according to Malebranche, are good if we consider the theological and historical background of present man: the man is poised between the primary perfection of Adam and his perfect condition in the celestial Jerusalem. In short, we can understand the structure of the mind and the mind-body relationship, therefore the perceptions and affections mechanism, only in the light of the historical horizon of the degenerate state of humanity. In other words, the possibility of man’s science consists in her capacity to play on the psychological and empirical data without clinging to them. Then, I examined the structuring of the human universe into its cognitive and affective expressions (sensation, imagination, intellect, passions). I considered the Malebranchean particular interest to phenomena of human world, in particular the relationship between mind and body, the mechanisms of sensation, the nature of consciousness, the role of imagination in the society and the contagious communication of strong imaginations. Finally I stressed that at the core of Malebranchean science of man there are the Dignitas hominis conceived as from its metaphysical origin and in a planning dimension.

If the (debated) role of the imagination in the theory of knowledge has been the subject of much comment, the empire of the imagination in the political sphere and in the constitution of the customs and manners has been somewhat less thoroughly explored. The authors of the essays included in this volume demonstrate the wealth of thought devoted to the relationship between imagination and moral-political power in the early modern era (from Castiglione, Montaigne, Bruno to Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Malebranche). It offers a unique journey through the history of thought of the Renaissance and the Classical Age, a historical and philosophical course that shows how the statutes of habit and imagination fluctuate and links these human contingencies with political power. Reading anew certain writers of the modern era, the book presents current issues, open questions that affect us in the present: how does adherence of an individual to the customs of his country or his nation check into practice? According to what psychic and material processes does it perform? What is the relationship between the force of the imagination, the spread of the imaginative nature of phenomena and the introduction of fashions and customs, particularly those that affect the balance of power?

Malebranche affronta il problema del rapporto finito-infinito articolandolo su tre livelli: ontologico, gnoseologico-scientifico e teologico-religioso. L'indagine condotta sul primo livello mette in luce l'impossibilità di un rapporto tra l'infinito e il finito, il che estrinseca quella che possiamo denotare come differenza onto-assiologica tra i due poli. Sul secondo piano, gnoseologico-scientifico, Malebranche sembra distinguere, da una parte, la tensione del conoscere umano all'infinito divino incomprensibile e, dall'altra, la possibilità d'accesso del nostro sapere ad una pluralità di infiniti che emergono nella matematica e in generale nell'indagine scientifica. Il terzo livello, teologico-religioso, schiude la possibilità, per il finito, di ricongiungersi all'infinito e si rivela evidentemente come la sfera della ricomposizione della scissione, per quanto gli aspetti più interessanti della concezione malebranchiana si situino, a nostro avviso, al secondo livello, dove il rapporto tra l'infinito e il finito assume una configurazione particolare nella conoscenza, in sede scientifica, dei molteplici infiniti.

Il pensiero filosofico di Malebranche si sviluppa a stretto contatto con i suoi peculiari interessi scientifici, con le scoperte e gli esperimenti compiuti dai ricercatori del suo tempo. Questa osmosi tra ricerca scientifica e riflessione speculativa si percepisce nitidamente nella concezione dell'infinito, che si arricchisce e si sviluppa nella misura in cui l'Oratoriano progredisce nei suoi studi matematici e s'inoltra nei sentieri del calcolo infinitesimale 1 . L'infinito matematico rinvia all'infinito metafisico in quanto orizzonte ontologico e gnoseologico del nostro conoscere 2 nonché ai nessi che sussistono 1 ) Se nel corso della sua prima formazione (1660-1664) Malebranche apprende le lingue antiche, la storia ecclesiastica e l'erudizione biblica, nella seconda fase dei suoi studi (1670-1680) scopre il cartesianesimo in tutta la sua portata, metodologica, filosofica e scientifica. Infine, dal 1690 al 1699, l'Oratoriano riprende i suoi studi scientifici affrancandosi, con uno sforzo dispendioso e notevole, dalle sedimentazioni della formazione cartesiana, ormai datata, e mettendosi al corrente dei lavori e delle ricerche più recenti. Questa nuova iniziazione scientifica è caratterizzata dall'intenso studio del calcolo dell'infinito e dalla scoperta della grande portata della sperimentazione. Cfr. a riguardo A. Robinet, La vocation académicienne de Malebranche, «Revue d'histoire des sciences et de leurs applications» 1 (1952), pp. 1-18, in part. 1-3. Sulla formazione malebranchiana vd. anche il classico lavoro di H. Gouhier, La vocation de Malebranche, Paris, Vrin, 1926. 2 ) Se in Descartes l'infinito non è connesso alla natura e al meccanismo della conoscenza, Malebranche, pur conservando la sua realtà teologico-metafisica, gli attribuisce una funzionalità gnoseologica nella misura in cui teorizza l'infinito -l'infinito della Ragione universale -come la sfera in cui la mente coglie le idee e come la direzione epistemica e regolativa che orienta il processo della nostra conoscenza. Nella Ricerca della verità ad esempio Malebranche scrive che «[…] l'esprit n'apperçoit aucune chose que dans l'idée qu'il a de l'infini» e poco più avanti che «[…] toutes ces idées particulières ne sont que des participations de l'idée générale de l'infini […]» (N. Malebranche, Recherche de la vérité, III, II, VI, in Id., OEuvres complètes, publiées sous la direction d'A. Robinet, tt. I-XXIII,

Ce texte est une version revue et corrigée de l'article « Orientation, sociétés, différences. Une perspective sur l'histoire entre Vico et Labriola », L'art du comprendre, 17, Récits du monde, récits de l'homme, 2008, p. 155-171. Orientation, sociétés, différences : une perspective sur l'histoire entre Vico et Labriola par Raffaele Carbone

The Malebranchean project on science of man intends to investigate the mind in itself, the mind-body relation, the relationship between the mind and God. We emphasize that the science of man is a special knowledge which takes its place between evidence and likelihood, metaphysics and experience. The science of man needs a large knowledge and in particular it concerns the basic structure of mind and the nature of body. According to Malebranche these enquiries are good if we consider the theological and historical background of man: man is placed between the primary perfection of Adam and his own perfect condition in the celestial Jerusalem. In short, we can understand the structure of the mind and the mind-body relationship, therefore the perceptions and affections mechanism, only in light of the historical background of the degenerate state of mankind. In other words, the possibility of a science of man consists of its capacity to deal with the psychological and empirical data without clinging to them.

In this article we examine the physhiological mechanisms of imagination’s operations and we consider the status of imagination as a function which stays between the mind and the body. We stress the fact that in Malebranche there is a notion of imagination’s activity and that this idea produces some problem in his philosophical system. On this point of view we compare the Malebranchean perspective and the conceptions on imagination of some thinkers of Renaissance (Ficinus, Pero Mexia, Montaigne) to show the peculiarity of Malebranchean paradigm. Moreover we explain that the Malebranche’s theory of imagination must be kept quite separate from Aristotle’s theory of imagination (many Renaissance’s thinkers inherited this model).
Then we focus the relationships between bodily manifestations of imagination, contagious communication of strong imaginations and power relationships into the family (father/mother, father/children) and into the political society (sovereigns/subjects). In the Recherche de la vérité Malebranche explains the phenomenon of imaginations’ transmission by an example: in an evening a shepherd tell his family that he takes part in a Sabbath: his “excited” imagination expresses itself by the rhetorical ability and the bodily movements which attract his family’s attention. In the Traité de morale Malebranche stress that the strong influence of governors over the people is strengthened by their posturing, their gestures, their behaviour, their court rituals and owes much to custom that leads to veneration, fear and respect for political authorities. It should not surprise us, then, that princes influence the imagination of other men so heavily: blessed with lively, powerful imaginations, they enchant and subject those of rationally weak mind and malleable imagination, using their body-language, their attitude and bearing.
We assert that Malebranche has provided valuable analysis of the mechanisms by which superiors, thanks to the force of their imagination expressed through the body, can subjugate their subordinates and strengthen their position to the detriment of the latter. In this regard, Malebranche mentions the tradition at the court of Ancient Ethiopia, passed down to us by Diodorus Siculus: Ethiopian courtiers crippled or mutilated themselves in order to resemble their mutilated or deformed princes, thereby demonstrating their affection and generosity. Under a pretext of devotion, therefore, this bizarre trend became custom and law. This example, which illustrates a danger that hangs over every era and every society, shows how the pressure of the power and imagination of governors over those they govern, can lead to autosuggestive phenomena which then spread and finally become custom and then law. In this way Malebranche demonstrates that the imagination’s power of somebody can produce modifications into body of another people, and this phenomenon happens in particular into the power relations system. Besides the imagination power contribute to consolidate the suggestion’s aspects of political power.

We intend to shed light on the points that the Malebranchian conception of language has in common with the perspective of Vico, as well as those that differ. Malebranche alludes to the historical depth of words, throwing light on the consolidation of language through practice and grasping the popular origin of terms used ordinarily; he does not, however, fully investigate the historicity of language as Vico does. Vico, while sharing some of the French philosopher’s metaphysical premises, understands words and all things human in the fullness of their meaning and gives a reconstruction of their genesis. Malebranche, in reality, questions the use that men make of language. This criticism, combined with an x-ray of the decadence of the society of the time, was born of a need to safeguard the rational ‘instrumentality’ of the word, which ought to be the means by which man is able to communicate metaphysical, scientific and moral truths.

I put forward a reflection on the modulations and uses offered by the imagination according to Montaigne. I want to stress both the rooting of imagination in nature and its function in care of the self and in society. Montaigne suggests, through analogies and metaphors, that this can resemble other natural activities such as farming and copulation. He observes that the imagination is a power. It is a dynamic function of man over which he has no control. It produces alterations in our body, thereby modifying our social relations. The imagination is, in fact, a faculty which puts us in touch with others. It is by means of imagination that beliefs spread until they became customs which take root in the fabric of society. All the more does Montaigne therefore envisage a form of self-care capable of moderating the flow of mind fantasies.

In the light of a number of studies published in Italy over recent months, we recall the importance of Montaigne’s thoughts on the understanding of certain phenomena occurring in the early modern period. In particular, as has been pointed out in a recent book by Carlo Montaleone, the writer from Bordeaux was probably the first to understand the disruptive impact of the discovery of America on old Europe. But Montaigne is also the writer who, rather than idealizing others (the cannibals), relates the events of the conquest, i.e. the depredations, the torture, the genocide. At the same time, while describing the New World and relativizing the alleged barbarism of the customs of Native Americans, Montaigne looks to Europe, and France in particular. Casting the eye of the cannibal over the Europeans, the thinker from Bordeaux observes that his country is ravaged by rivalries of all kinds: on the one hand, it is barbarized by the conflicts between the Catholics and the Huguenots, while on the other hand, it is characterized by an increasing inequality in social order.

This article contributes to bring out the concepts of reason and custom in Montaigne and Descartes and the common elements of their thought on this theme. They highlight a sort of practical reason which regulates communal life within various communities. Nevertheless, the area of coutume remains a complex reality: within it, one flits between reason and experience and neither can be done away with entirely in life.

This essay is focused on Stuart Hall’s 1950s seminal research on the meaning, and uses of culture. After reworking Gramsci’s key concepts, Hall found fertile research ground in post-colonial contexts, with particular reference to marginal and diasporic relationship structures. Through the study of marginalized people integration processes, and of the modifications they brought about in particular socio-economic contexts, Hall built a theory of the political significance of new cultural identities.

The article examines the Malebranchian conception of practical judgement behind human activities, which is formulated with regard to those actions that incline individuals towards external objects. Firstly, through a comparison with the positions adopted by Descartes, Malebranchian distinctions between intellect and will, and between will and freedom are brought to the fore; there follows a discussion of Malebranchian theories on the drive towards good in general, as well as the desire for happiness as essential components of human existence. Finally, comes an analysis of the particular comparative examination directing human activities, to which Malebranche refers in some of his works, such as the Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce, that is to say, the operation which involves examining and comparing things that are considered to be good and which allow man to understand which ones are genuinely beneficial: in this regard, Malebranche emphasizes man’s ability to suspend his consent, meaning that he can look at a captivating object from a different perspective, and thereby become aware that inclination towards an object that captivates the soul for a certain period of time, is merely one of the possible modulations of his relationship with that object.

Taking, as its starting point, a fortuitous little volume by Antoine Compagnon, entitled Un été avec Montaigne, this article ponders some of the key points in the thinking of Michel de Montaigne, around which his vision of philosophy is constructed. The article highlights the fact that philosophy, in the light of Montaigne’s Essais, develops not as theoretical-abstract knowledge, but rather on the ethico-practical plane. It must shape the intellect and the customs and, thus, the moral and intellectual autonomy of the individual, as an exercise performed throughout one’s entire existence. In this way, we can, perhaps, perceive in the Essais another incarnation of the souci de soi explored by Michel Foucault, to be understood not as a theoretical-abstract rule, but as a concrete, repeated activity, a set of commitments and exercises, as it were, that the individual must perform, one of which is to make notes about oneself to the extent that the act of writing intensifies the experience of the self.