Faire nôtres les gestes de l’œuvre, au delà du parallélisme analytique entre musique et langage

Publication d’un article en français, « Faire nôtres les gestes de l’oeuvre, au delà du parallélisme analytique entre musique et langage »
RIFL,  volume 14, number 1, 2020,  numéro consacré à  « Music and Language Revisited » (eds. C. Stover, S. Oliva)

> Visit RIFL’s website: www.rifl.unical.it.
> RIFL archive: http://www.rifl.unical.it/index.php/rifl/issue/view/37

Why Wittgenstein’s use of the word « praxis » is not articulated to a social conception of the role of critique of language in society

Conférence le 11  décembre à l’Università del Salento à Lecce (Italie).

> Le programme

Abstract : “When words are not just, then the works of art are excluded, and then if works are ruled out, then morals and art are ill. Which means that “justice is not rightly applied and the nation does not know where to stand up safe” (K. Kraus).
Not only Wittgenstein has his own view on fetichization  (of “objects”)  as regards the relation of designation of objects (as ontologically  given) by names and developed an interesting  critique of the “epistemological ritual”  of naming « objects » that has a strong political dimension (Aldo Gargani’s point)  but there is much to say as regards the benefit of a Marxist reading in parallel to a linguistic approach to objects. The role of  the economist Sraffa’s conception (close to Gramsci) and his influence on Wittgenstein’s radical turn to his so-called “second philosophy” are to be mentioned in so far as they contribute to shed light on the social-political importance of the concept of “praxis” in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Yet far from me the idea that language and politics match. The point is rather to establish criterions of efficiency different in kind rather than intrinsically opposed.There are indeed good reasons for comparing the two critical diagnosis of semantic reification with social reification, given the existence of (austro) marxism in the social-political context of “Vienna the red” in the 1920’s as well as in the Marxist environment Wittgenstein was acquainted with in the 1935’s in Cambridge. Yet there is more to say in order to justify the use by Wittgenstein of the concept of “praxis”. Does “Praxis” as a key-word in Wittgenstein’s conception of “philosophy as an activity” in his second philosophy of “forms of life” contain a programme of application of symbols  in life that really witnesses the search for a socio-political efficacy beyond  a linguistic kind of praxis ? »

« Formes de vie et praxis » Académie des sciences de Moscou, le 25 octobre 2018

Title: WITTGENSTEIN VERSUS THE PLATONISM OF SIGNIFICANCE: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL TURNING POINT TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF PRAXIS
Abstract: This paper is intended to elicit Wittgenstein’s position regarding platonism reformulated into 1 – the analytical investigation of the conditions for a meaningful language, and 2 the deepening of a problem generated by the illusory conception that it is possible to capture the ultimate atomic elements of the meaning of a linguistic complex. That’s the way one can indeed understand that Wittgenstein has presented a critique of the tradition of ontology. The fact that he endorsed a « quasi-realism » approach to « objects » (Br. McGuinness) contrasts with the future Vienna Circle at a time the latter was still under the spell of the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, close to a Russellian kind of logical atomism. It is not surprising that later on, Wittgenstein’s own « platonism » in its Fregean version became a target in the anthropological framework of a broader self-criticism for the belief in referential entities, or « objectual fetichism » (in A. Gargani’s terms). This anthropological turn nonetheless did not conquer the harder epistemological public of readers looking for logical truth. Yet, it presents some interesting features articulated to a « philosophy of praxis » that make « forms of life » the core of a possible critical grammar adjusted to a political engagement. Such an articulation that has been so much put into question among a number of theoreticians of social theory in Frankfurt and even later in France (e.g. Alain Badiou’s critique of Wittgenstein), seems to be on the contrary the opening of a new and fruitful way to consider contradictions between Frankfurt and Vienna in connection with social praxis.

in Journal of Philosophy

Samedi débat autour d’un livre, Détrôner l’Être, Paris, 9 juin 2018

Le 8 juin 2018 la rencontre « Samedi débat autour d’un livre » organisée à Paris par le CIPh et l’UPL est consacrée à l’essai d’Antonia Soulez Détrôner l’Être, Wittgenstein antiphilosophe ? (En réponse à Badiou) avec Gillot, Marc Pavlopoulos, Patrice Loraux

Détrôner l'ÊtreLe samedi 9 juin 2018, la rencontre Samedi débat autour d’un livre organisée par le Collège international de philosophie (CIPh) et l’Université Paris Lumières (UPL) est consacrée à l’essai d’Antonia Soulez Détrôner l’Être, Wittgenstein antiphilosophe ? (En réponse à Badiou).

Elle réunit, autour d’Antonia Soulez, Pascale Gillot, maître de conférences en philosophie à l’Université de Tours, Marc Pavlopoulos, du CIPh et Patrice Loraux, maître de conférences en philosophie à l’Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Informations pratiques

  • Date : samedi 9 juin 2018 de 10 heures à 13 heures
  • Lieu : Union sociale d’ingénieurs, cadres et dirigeants chrétiens (USIC) Salle Jean XXIII, 18 rue de Varenne, Paris 7e
Dernière mise à jour le 3 juin 2018