Suchergebnisse

On the occasion of the publication of the translation of Pierre Raymond's text on Althusser's materialism, we attempt an introduction to his theoretical trajectory. We begin with his conception of the conflict between materialism and idealism inLe passage au matérialismein 1973 and his thinking on the question of the history of sciences inL'histoire & les sciences(1975), before turning our attention to his elaboration on the question of a history of mathematics and in particular of the emergence of probabilistic reasoning. Then we examine his confrontation with the question of the relation between materialism and dialectics inMatérialisme dialectique et logique. After that, we proceed to his conception of the need to break with any form of teleology and finalism as the starting point for a new conception of causality (La résistible fatalité de l'histoireof 1982), before looking atDissiper la terreur et les ténèbresof 1992 and his attempt to rethink the question of practical reason. It is in light of the above presentation that we insist on the importance of Raymond's text on Althusser.

The aim of this article is to analyze the meaning of the concept of empire during the first years of the Francoist regime and try to clarify the different meanings that the various political and ideological groups that were part of the dictatorship gave to this concept. As will be explained, it is possible to find two main meanings for the concept of empire. The first one was linked to the notion of Hispanidad and was developed by the Catholic and counter-revolutionary groups; in this case, empire was defined through the Catholic religion and the missionary role that Spain had played in the discovery of America, the moment that marked the beginning of the Spanish Empire. The second meaning was developed inside the Falangist party. It contained fascist values and was linked to an ideal of expansionism that would support specific policies. The aim here is to differentiate these meanings by paying attention to the different contexts in which they were produced.

Critiques technological advance. An ontological discussion assesses modernity's progress, drawing on Heidegger & arguing that scientific knowledge, ambiguous though its practical results may be, & the concomitant revolution results in the increasing pace of modernity & a cycle of technologically bred crises. Genetic engineering is examined as an example of this endless proliferation of crises as well as a demonstration of the relations among science, technology, & capital. Further, the 20th-century Enlightenment idea that scientific progress equates to moral progress is seen to lead to servitude of a nature that, in its bipartite turn, results in war. The scientificity of war has replaced notions of courage & bravery with industrial ideas pushing the need for continued advances in military technology. It is contended that technoscientific progress requires the expunging of its own development, ie, a planned obsolescence of its use value & the domination of an operational value continually revitalized & converted to exchange value. In modernity, supply determines demand, viewed as an ontological nihilism. It is then argued that all revolutions have appealed to progress while also hiding their agenda beneath old mythologies; thus, they only intensify modernity without escaping their essence. A radical shift in the fate of modernity is thus impossible "because the self-referentiality of its potentials transcendence has not been exhausted." Hence, a transformation of modernity's orientation requires a new meaning for "revolution" & a collective will that would embrace it without radicalizing its previous potentials. The idea of a new revolution is expounded on in conclusion. J. Zendejas

It is 10 years since Ayatollah Khomeini died and he might not recognise his revolution today. But as recent events have shown, it is the Iranian people who will decide its future