He does not subordinate images to thoughts, but he builds indeed a place where thoughts and images work in mutual correlation. Especially through his first essay, the one about the movement-image, he builds a tool that all along the present article we will call pragmatistic cinema. So the pragmatistic argument that the meaning of a linguistic proposition can identify with a set of practical consequences coming from its acceptance, can work at the same time on the meaning of a cinematographic image: as well as the first, the latter represents the truth so to offer it to the experience and the existential activity of a subject.
It is the audience: not the passive subject who contemplates a preordained reality or just a percipient subject who feels external sensitive objects.
In front of a pragmatistic cinema, audience becomes an active subject that works on a process of active intervention in reality. Open Journal Systems. Proust and Signs: The Complete Text. Translated by Richard Howard.
London: Continuum, What is Philosophy? Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchill. Frege, Gottlob. Translated by Max Black and Peter Geach, New York.
The Insistence of Possibles: Towards a Speculative Pragmatism
Blackwell, Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, New York: Harper Collins, James, William. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allan W. Lambert, Gregg. The Non-Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. Translated by R.
Hollingdale and Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Penguin Classics, Russell, Bertrand. Skirke, Christian. Smith, Daniel W. Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. New York: Picador, Somers-Hall, Henry. Stengers, Isabelle. Tugendhat, Ernst. Voss, Daniela. The work of Lapoujade asks the question of the method of comparison between two heterogeneous works, one psychological and philosophical and the other literary.
One could empirically establish the comparison of the works on the real relationships of the authors.
But Lapoujade voluntarily leaves aside any biographical consideration in explaining their similarities and differences. He does not feel the need to situate their works in New England nor to mention the influence of their father, Henry Sr. His study intends to compare their works directly, as if fraternity was not a relationship from which it was necessary to depart empirically, but a relationship to investigate that it is necessary to construct conceptually.
A difficulty arises however at this level: how to compare directly the concepts and theses with characters and stories? A first way to do this would be to show that one applies in his domain what the other proposes in his. The characters Henry creates illustrate, for example, the conception of the stream of consciousness that William proposed in psychology: A resembles B. In fact, Lapoujade sets aside such a conception, which would no doubt lead one to reduce one work to be only a transformation of the other—the works therefore lacking in originality.
- Posthuman Ecologies: Complexity and Process after Deleuze - .
- Bringing It All Back Home;
- Deleuze, Gilles | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy!
- Uncle Johns Facts to Go Whered That Come From?.
- Freshwater Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment (World Wildlife Fund Ecoregion Assessments).
Nonetheless, the general framework of the confrontation is given by the work of William James: this is what provides the axes of comparison. The work of Henry James is thus entirely set out along these three axes, psychology, epistemology and practical philosophy, which are all integral to the system of his brother. Structural analysis represents a second method of comparison between heterogeneous sets.danardono.com.or.id/libraries/2020-09-03/rizaq-mi-mix.php
In the psychology of William James, every consciousness is in a relationship with objects that it perceives from its point of view, according to its own interests, and one of the tasks of psychology is to describe this focused relationship. We are therefore in the presence of three elements in relation to one another: the consciousness of the psychologist observes, from the exterior, the consciousness of his object of study who is, in turn, focused on his own objects.
The same goes for the short stories and novels of the writer of a given perspective: what the subject of study is to the psychologist, the main character is to the narrator. Thus we find two types of descriptions in Henry James: the descriptions of the subjective focusing of a character upon a privileged object Daisy Miller seen by a young man in love and the objective descriptions of the narrator of the subject in the first relationship.
These structural analyses are refined and convincing.
And yet, Lapoujade could not stop there. While different in nature, these two terms are in an inseparable correlation, forming a kind of circuit where they exchange or capture the determinations of the other, like the sea that becomes earth and the earth that metamorphoses into sea in the paintings of Elstir.
- How to Price: A Guide to Pricing Techniques and Yield Management.
- Navigation menu.
- Talk by Dr Sean Bowden hosted by Contemporary Political Theory Research Group?
- The Insistence of Possibles: Towards a Speculative Pragmatism?
- France - France for young travellers.
- Reader Interactions.
One makes philosophy a kind of adventure novel while the other makes novels a reflective form, the narrative of the mental and its ways of reasoning. One makes action the new centre of gravity for philosophy; the other makes thought the new subject of the novel; as if each one stole from the other what came to him in his right. It is of this theft or exchange that is the subject of making a conceptual account. One could wonder at the idea that action is the object of the novel and thought is that of philosophy and put into question the reality of these statements.
One could also wonder about the Bergsonism of analyses, which in the end make William the philosopher of image-movement in direct practical relation with the world and Henry the novelist of image-time in indirect, contemplative relation , which is another way to justify the back and forth from one to the other.