What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern French Philosophy: From Existentialism to Postmodernism
This handy guide provides detailed coverage of all the key movements of the last 100 years of French though and gives short but readable accounts of the life, works and influence of famous philosophers and eccentric personalities.
352 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2003
18 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
About the author
Robert Wicks
7 books9 followersAssociate Professor Robert Lawrence Wicks
There is more than one author with this name. See also: Robert Wicks & Robert J. Wicks
There is more than one author with this name. See also: Robert Wicks & Robert J. Wicks
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 14, 2022
CRITIQUE:
Lucid Rundown
This is the most lucid, informative and enjoyable survey and critique of twentieth century French philosophy that I've yet read.
To find fault in it, you'd have to criticise it for what it doesn't do or seek to do, and, perhaps, what some would argue it needn't or shouldn't do.
For example, if you start with the scope of the summary, it necessarily concludes with the state of philosophy as it was before its date of publication (2003). It should go without saying, but it would have been impossible to go beyond this date without imagining or speculating about what hadn't yet occurred. Other studies that deal with this later period tend to use the expression "contemporary" French Philosophy in contrast to "modern".
Secondly, presumably in the interests of brevity, Wicks omits some French philosophers and areas of philosophy that could or should have been included, e.g., Louis Althusser, Alain Badiou, Georges Bataille, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Helene Cixous, Guy Debord, Julia Kristeva, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paul Ricoeur and Simone Weil. (As far as feminism is concerned, the only representative is Luce Irigaray.)
Thirdly, because of its focus on French philosophy, it doesn't contain chapters devoted wholly to the German philosophers, Nietzsche, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. However, because of their influence on French philosophy, there are substantive sections on their work in the chapters on those philosophers or thinkers who were most influenced by them.
Beyond Philosophers
My last comment in this context could be both an item of criticism and an item of praise.
Wicks doesn't regard himself as confined to specialist academic philosophers. Instead, he considers "the ideas of psychoanalysts, artists, novelists, linguists, essayists, literary critics, anthropologists, sociologists, and political activists, in addition to those who worked in academic philosophy departments."
He recognises that "a remarkable feature of French philosophical thought during this period, is that its representatives come from every intellectual avenue, influencing the entire scholarly scene, and much of the popular intellectual scene."
As a result, it would have been quite legitimate to label the book "Modern French Philosophical Thought" or, to paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal, "Modern French Philosophisers".
Wicks aims to "highlight underappreciated continuities, as well as recall familiar discontinuities, between the various segments and strata of twentieth century French philosophical thought", in the hope of "revealing a greater coherence to this intellectually vibrant time period than is usually noted."
A Coherent Story of Twentieth Century (French) Philosophy
Wicks detects this coherence in the approach to science, reason, objectivity and progress. Indeed, his book operates as a narrative of the disillusionment with, and movement away from, the defectiveness or inadequacy of reason (reason alone is not enough to tell the whole story):
Dadaism and Surrealism
The first substantive chapter of the book deals with Dadaists and Surrealists who opposed "an alienation-generating almalgam of rationalistic thinking, science, and technology that adhered to the preservation of order, systematicity, and methodicality."
The Dada movement was conceived of as a form of "active-and-antagonistic skepticism, as a form of playful contrariness, and also as a form of intellectual violence, rather than as a kind of hopeless and indifferent nihilism..."
Surrealism built on the foundation of ego, super-ego and id created by Sigmund Freud:
Wicks speculates:
This would become the tacit theme of his survey. Revolution is necessary to combat artificiality, especially if it's [i.e., artificiality is] oppressive. Oppression can't be overcome by solipsism or self-indulgence.
Being, Language and Freedom
Wicks believes that contemporary hyperrealistic modes of being have become permeated with a feeling of meaninglessness that the existentialists had first identified.
Ultimately, he paints a picture of the French thinkers engaged in a negative quest to win freedom from oppressive social and political forces:
* the Dadaists wanted freedom from the science, rationality, and mechanistic-style of thinking that they believed was largely responsible for the First World War;
* the Surrealists wanted freedom from the same kinds of rationalistic forces, and also wanted freedom from tired ways of creating art;
* Jean-Paul Sartre wanted freedom from ossified, essentialistic, rigid, and unchanging conceptions of the self and the world;
* Roland Barthes, during his structuralist period, wanted freedom from the same kinds of essentialistic conceptions, which he conceived of as superficial 'myths' or as misleading stereotypes;
* Barthes, during his poststructuralist period, also wanted freedom from authorial dictates, and eventually, from language itself, which he eventually conceived of as 'fascist';
* Derrida wanted freedom from any systems that laid a claim to absolute comprehensiveness and a finality of interpretation;
* Irigaray wanted freedom from male, sexist, terrorising language;
* Lyotard wanted freedom from the domination of a model of knowledge defined exclusively in terms of computability;
* Foucault wanted freedom from social stereotypes and from dominating, manipulative political regimes;
* Deleuze and Guattari wanted freedom from instinctually restrictive Freudian and Oedipal family constellations, and from too tightly, fascistically terrorising social structures.
"Wrapped Tightly in a Blanket of Textuality"
Wicks argues that many other post-structuralists and post-modernists (potentially maximalists and mere acolytes, whom he doesn't name) isolated themselves from (the meaninglessness of) the world, by wrapping themselves tightly in "the blanket of textuality", where "they swam in the endless field of meanings, forever resonating, that language itself afforded":
The Need for Political Reality-Orientation
Wicks concludes that, in contrast, a healthy and "reality-oriented" Surrealism had influenced the twentieth century, because it tapped into our instinctive energies for the purposes of exposing social ills (in association with communistic and socialistic movements), as opposed to a more imagination-centered and "pleasure-principle-oriented" surrealism (which tends to obscure, not to mention deny the reality of, actual states of affairs, and which tacitly forbids us to determine what is happening as a matter of fact).
Wicks' political activist side maintains that there should be a revival of pre-poststructuralist and pre-postmodernist thinkers who sought to speak and discover the truth for its own sake.
This is necessary if philosophers are to act on the advice of Karl Marx that the point of philosophy is to change the world, rather than to just interpret it.
SOUNDTRACK:
Lucid Rundown
This is the most lucid, informative and enjoyable survey and critique of twentieth century French philosophy that I've yet read.
To find fault in it, you'd have to criticise it for what it doesn't do or seek to do, and, perhaps, what some would argue it needn't or shouldn't do.
For example, if you start with the scope of the summary, it necessarily concludes with the state of philosophy as it was before its date of publication (2003). It should go without saying, but it would have been impossible to go beyond this date without imagining or speculating about what hadn't yet occurred. Other studies that deal with this later period tend to use the expression "contemporary" French Philosophy in contrast to "modern".
Secondly, presumably in the interests of brevity, Wicks omits some French philosophers and areas of philosophy that could or should have been included, e.g., Louis Althusser, Alain Badiou, Georges Bataille, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, Helene Cixous, Guy Debord, Julia Kristeva, Emmanuel Levinas, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Paul Ricoeur and Simone Weil. (As far as feminism is concerned, the only representative is Luce Irigaray.)
Thirdly, because of its focus on French philosophy, it doesn't contain chapters devoted wholly to the German philosophers, Nietzsche, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger. However, because of their influence on French philosophy, there are substantive sections on their work in the chapters on those philosophers or thinkers who were most influenced by them.
Beyond Philosophers
My last comment in this context could be both an item of criticism and an item of praise.
Wicks doesn't regard himself as confined to specialist academic philosophers. Instead, he considers "the ideas of psychoanalysts, artists, novelists, linguists, essayists, literary critics, anthropologists, sociologists, and political activists, in addition to those who worked in academic philosophy departments."
He recognises that "a remarkable feature of French philosophical thought during this period, is that its representatives come from every intellectual avenue, influencing the entire scholarly scene, and much of the popular intellectual scene."
As a result, it would have been quite legitimate to label the book "Modern French Philosophical Thought" or, to paraphrase Shaquille O'Neal, "Modern French Philosophisers".
Wicks aims to "highlight underappreciated continuities, as well as recall familiar discontinuities, between the various segments and strata of twentieth century French philosophical thought", in the hope of "revealing a greater coherence to this intellectually vibrant time period than is usually noted."
A Coherent Story of Twentieth Century (French) Philosophy
Wicks detects this coherence in the approach to science, reason, objectivity and progress. Indeed, his book operates as a narrative of the disillusionment with, and movement away from, the defectiveness or inadequacy of reason (reason alone is not enough to tell the whole story):
"The wider themes of twentieth-century French philosophy reveal how the nineteenth-century faith in progress became tempered, if not close to undermined, by the tragic experience of two World Wars, and by the grim realisation that dehumanisation and authoritarianism can also follow in the wake of technological progress.
"Twentieth-century French thinkers became keenly aware of how both rationalistic and irrational styles of thought can be disfigured to undermine human dignity, even though these thinkers frequently retained enough optimism to look back upon the nineteenth century in an effort to find inspiration for social improvement and liberation from what they perceived to be increasingly oppressive authoritarian regimes and doctrines.
"With such hopes, French thinkers often cited the works of German-speaking theorists such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud..."
Dadaism and Surrealism
The first substantive chapter of the book deals with Dadaists and Surrealists who opposed "an alienation-generating almalgam of rationalistic thinking, science, and technology that adhered to the preservation of order, systematicity, and methodicality."
The Dada movement was conceived of as a form of "active-and-antagonistic skepticism, as a form of playful contrariness, and also as a form of intellectual violence, rather than as a kind of hopeless and indifferent nihilism..."
Surrealism built on the foundation of ego, super-ego and id created by Sigmund Freud:
"By locating the source of authentic and liberating thought in the unconscious, and by understanding dreams to be expressions of the same, the Surrealists aspired to integrate these unconscious energies into the social scene at large to illuminate, and also change, the standing social condition...[It signified] a resolution and blend between dream and reality into what was hoped to be a truer, more liberated, daily condition."
Wicks speculates:
"By wondering about the degree to which mainstream Western society has become surrealistic, we can begin to discern the degree of artificiality, and thereby, the degree of potentiality for revolutionary reform that characterises our present [twenty-first century] cultural situation."
This would become the tacit theme of his survey. Revolution is necessary to combat artificiality, especially if it's [i.e., artificiality is] oppressive. Oppression can't be overcome by solipsism or self-indulgence.
Being, Language and Freedom
Wicks believes that contemporary hyperrealistic modes of being have become permeated with a feeling of meaninglessness that the existentialists had first identified.
Ultimately, he paints a picture of the French thinkers engaged in a negative quest to win freedom from oppressive social and political forces:
* the Dadaists wanted freedom from the science, rationality, and mechanistic-style of thinking that they believed was largely responsible for the First World War;
* the Surrealists wanted freedom from the same kinds of rationalistic forces, and also wanted freedom from tired ways of creating art;
* Jean-Paul Sartre wanted freedom from ossified, essentialistic, rigid, and unchanging conceptions of the self and the world;
* Roland Barthes, during his structuralist period, wanted freedom from the same kinds of essentialistic conceptions, which he conceived of as superficial 'myths' or as misleading stereotypes;
* Barthes, during his poststructuralist period, also wanted freedom from authorial dictates, and eventually, from language itself, which he eventually conceived of as 'fascist';
* Derrida wanted freedom from any systems that laid a claim to absolute comprehensiveness and a finality of interpretation;
* Irigaray wanted freedom from male, sexist, terrorising language;
* Lyotard wanted freedom from the domination of a model of knowledge defined exclusively in terms of computability;
* Foucault wanted freedom from social stereotypes and from dominating, manipulative political regimes;
* Deleuze and Guattari wanted freedom from instinctually restrictive Freudian and Oedipal family constellations, and from too tightly, fascistically terrorising social structures.
"Wrapped Tightly in a Blanket of Textuality"
Wicks argues that many other post-structuralists and post-modernists (potentially maximalists and mere acolytes, whom he doesn't name) isolated themselves from (the meaninglessness of) the world, by wrapping themselves tightly in "the blanket of textuality", where "they swam in the endless field of meanings, forever resonating, that language itself afforded":
"The meaninglessness of the raw perceptual field was covered over, and the idea of multiple-interpretability was extended into the sphere of daily life, recalling the hermeneutic implications of God's death as the cosmic author and interpreter, and introducing an imaginary and fictive quality into the natural world at large."
The Need for Political Reality-Orientation
Wicks concludes that, in contrast, a healthy and "reality-oriented" Surrealism had influenced the twentieth century, because it tapped into our instinctive energies for the purposes of exposing social ills (in association with communistic and socialistic movements), as opposed to a more imagination-centered and "pleasure-principle-oriented" surrealism (which tends to obscure, not to mention deny the reality of, actual states of affairs, and which tacitly forbids us to determine what is happening as a matter of fact).
Wicks' political activist side maintains that there should be a revival of pre-poststructuralist and pre-postmodernist thinkers who sought to speak and discover the truth for its own sake.
This is necessary if philosophers are to act on the advice of Karl Marx that the point of philosophy is to change the world, rather than to just interpret it.
SOUNDTRACK:
December 30, 2020
فرانسهی قرن بیستم با نام اندیشمندانی تداعی میشود که شور و شوق آدمی به دانستن را دوچندان میکنند؛ فوکو، لکان، بودریار، دلوز، بارت، استروس، دریدا و...
رابرت ویکس هر فصل این کتاب را به یک اندیشمند اختصاص داده و سعی داشته است نظریات هریک را تا اندازهای در بافتی که شکل گرفتهاند شرح دهد.
فکر میکنم به ترتیب خواندن فصلها بهتر از نامنظم خواندنشان باشد؛ چرا که برای مثال، فهمیدنِ اندیشههای فلاسفه ساختارگرا بدون مطالعهی نظریات سوسور شاید آسان نباشد. علاوه بر این، به ترتیب خواندن فصلها در شکل دادن به یک ذهنیت کلی دربارهی موضوع به شما کمک میکند.
نقطه ضعف کتاب در نظر من، اطناب نویسنده در پرداختن به نظریات کامو و سارتر، نسبت به حجم کتاب، بود؛ زیرا در سوی دیگر، تنها چهارده صفحه را به ژیل دلوز اختصاص داده که به هیچ وجه برا آشنا شدن با دلوز کافی نیست.
ممنون از جناب پیروز ایزدی که ترجمهی خوبی را از این کتاب ارائه کردهاند.
رابرت ویکس هر فصل این کتاب را به یک اندیشمند اختصاص داده و سعی داشته است نظریات هریک را تا اندازهای در بافتی که شکل گرفتهاند شرح دهد.
فکر میکنم به ترتیب خواندن فصلها بهتر از نامنظم خواندنشان باشد؛ چرا که برای مثال، فهمیدنِ اندیشههای فلاسفه ساختارگرا بدون مطالعهی نظریات سوسور شاید آسان نباشد. علاوه بر این، به ترتیب خواندن فصلها در شکل دادن به یک ذهنیت کلی دربارهی موضوع به شما کمک میکند.
نقطه ضعف کتاب در نظر من، اطناب نویسنده در پرداختن به نظریات کامو و سارتر، نسبت به حجم کتاب، بود؛ زیرا در سوی دیگر، تنها چهارده صفحه را به ژیل دلوز اختصاص داده که به هیچ وجه برا آشنا شدن با دلوز کافی نیست.
ممنون از جناب پیروز ایزدی که ترجمهی خوبی را از این کتاب ارائه کردهاند.
March 21, 2017
Solid analysis of my favorite school of Philosophy. This book deserves an extra star alone for the inclusion of E.M. Cioran.
July 19, 2018
This is probably the best survey I've read on 20th century French philosophy. Wicks performs a (quasi-?)genealogical approach, starting with the Dadaists and Surrealists and follows this thread all the way to post-structuralism/modernism. The chapters on even the most abstruse thinkers (Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard) are made cogent, and he takes a critical yet sympathetic view to each thinker he discusses. Towards the end he starts to compare and contrast certain thinkers' concepts with others': he ends up weaving a dazzling intellectual tapestry.
Of course, Wicks has his own opinions, but this is not expressed until literally the last page of the book, and Wicks himself says it is "implicit": the implicit opinion being that we should return to/build upon the socialistic/communistic "pre-poststructuralist, pre-postmodernist, and non-instrumentalist thinkers" who adopted the concept of "speak[ing] and discover[ing] the truth primarily for its own sake." The last sentences refer to an openness of dialogue and ideal speech situations - heavily implying that at least two of the thinkers we should build upon are Gadamer and Habermas. Despite this, he shows no hostility to any thinker and often times he defends thinkers from common critiques, then offers his own, then suggests a more fruitful way of interpreting the said thinker. This is about as balanced as a book as you can get on this subject, I feel.
My only complaints are rather superficial: the inclusion of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was strange, if only because the chapter was so short and I had never heard of him (meaning I'd like a longer chapter...like I said, superficial complaint). From what was given in this text, his "solution" to the problem of evil was weak and seemed like a regurgitation of Leibniz. Wicks justifies the inclusion of Teilhard de Chardin (and Cioran) to contrast the extreme positivity and negativity of the era, respectively. I also felt like the chapter on Cioran was rather disappointing but I'm not sure if he could have said much else about him.
The chapter on Deleuze (and Guattari, really, since he only really discusses Anti-Oedipus) contains less than 10 pages of exposition of his thought, but it is done in a very clear manner. This chapter seemed especially simplified. I am sure the entire book is an (over?)simplification, but honestly I just wanted to read more of his explications on thinkers I am interested in but find intimidating.
The (two) chapters on Barthes, Derrida, Lyotard, Saussure, Sartre and Baudrillard were especially good. Would recommend to any philosophy student.
Of course, Wicks has his own opinions, but this is not expressed until literally the last page of the book, and Wicks himself says it is "implicit": the implicit opinion being that we should return to/build upon the socialistic/communistic "pre-poststructuralist, pre-postmodernist, and non-instrumentalist thinkers" who adopted the concept of "speak[ing] and discover[ing] the truth primarily for its own sake." The last sentences refer to an openness of dialogue and ideal speech situations - heavily implying that at least two of the thinkers we should build upon are Gadamer and Habermas. Despite this, he shows no hostility to any thinker and often times he defends thinkers from common critiques, then offers his own, then suggests a more fruitful way of interpreting the said thinker. This is about as balanced as a book as you can get on this subject, I feel.
My only complaints are rather superficial: the inclusion of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was strange, if only because the chapter was so short and I had never heard of him (meaning I'd like a longer chapter...like I said, superficial complaint). From what was given in this text, his "solution" to the problem of evil was weak and seemed like a regurgitation of Leibniz. Wicks justifies the inclusion of Teilhard de Chardin (and Cioran) to contrast the extreme positivity and negativity of the era, respectively. I also felt like the chapter on Cioran was rather disappointing but I'm not sure if he could have said much else about him.
The chapter on Deleuze (and Guattari, really, since he only really discusses Anti-Oedipus) contains less than 10 pages of exposition of his thought, but it is done in a very clear manner. This chapter seemed especially simplified. I am sure the entire book is an (over?)simplification, but honestly I just wanted to read more of his explications on thinkers I am interested in but find intimidating.
The (two) chapters on Barthes, Derrida, Lyotard, Saussure, Sartre and Baudrillard were especially good. Would recommend to any philosophy student.
January 21, 2014
Despite in the introduction calling attention to the arbitrary stature of the century as a demarcation of time, there is a forced quality to the narrative of freedom in which Wicks tries to situate some very disparate traditions of French thought. The constant references to Sartre in chapters on structuralism and poststructuralism tell me that, A) Either Wicks actually thinks Sartre was a thinker worth taking seriously, or B) This is a means to rationalize the juxtaposition of existentialism with those later trends, constructing a close identity where one does not really exist. Let's forget the prefatory remarks on dada and surrealism, which are largely abandoned as lenses through which we can understand the world in which this French thought emerged.
The selection also at times leads something to be desired. Sartre's inclusion, I'm ok with; while I love Camus is a writer (far more than Sartre), there is a bit of a redundancy in including him, at least in the manner Wicks chose to (a summary of, and only of, the Myth of Sisyphus). This is especially egregious when we consider that Wicks left out Simone de Beauvoir; it's hard to tell whether he thinks Iragaray (included later) is actually a more significant thinker than de Beauvoir, or whether he just felt a need to include a token woman. Nonetheless, a discussion of de Beauvoir might've occasioned a more serious engagement with feminism as a tendency of French thought in the 20th century.
Nonetheless, when Wicks is on, he is on. The chapters on Derrida and Foucault in particular were excellent syntheses of very large corpuses. Were I to someday teach a course on French thought, I'd definitely consider xeroxing (simulacra-ing?) these chapters for my class. Wicks' "critical discussions" that end some of the chapters also occasionally contain more insight than a survey book like this has any right to contain; his take on Deleuze (+poor forgotten Guattari, who always seems to get mentioned then abandoned whenever anyone talks about Capitalism and Schizophrenia) is particularly compelling (and harsh).
One brilliant observation came in the concluding chapter, and this will somewhat modify my criticism of the hamfisted inclusion of existentialism in what is really a book about post/structuralism:
"...a structuralist outlook also softens the pain of perceiving the meaninglessness of things by rendering them meaningful through the rich lens of language and established cultural significations. It is remarkable to see how after 1950 there is very little complaint among French theorists about how meaningless the world happens to be. They seem to either ignore this upsetting existenialist apprehension or not be bothered by this."
By this account, the "retreat" into language, the finding of pleasure (as well as power and frustration) and meaning in the play of a language that constitutes the horizon of our subjectivity and our experience, is something of an antidote to a Sartrean "nausea" in the face of the brutal facticity of things-in-themselves. Only Lacan among the later theorists made a sincere attempt to somehow theorize "the real" (and the Lacan chapter is among the weaker ones; it is perhaps telling that while Wicks is unafraid to provide copious quotations of Derrida, he does not quote Lacan once! I suspect Wicks doesn't understand Lacan, which is hardly a criticism; who does?). Unfortunately, this "retreat" is not woven throughout the narrative; I suspect Wicks discovered it himself in the process of writing, which explains its ad hoc, appended appearance. It does not bestow a retroactive coherence to the work (which, for all my criticisms, remains a good survey! Go for it, by all means), but it is provocative enough to make one want to remix the data, coming up with one's own story about French thought of the last century.
The selection also at times leads something to be desired. Sartre's inclusion, I'm ok with; while I love Camus is a writer (far more than Sartre), there is a bit of a redundancy in including him, at least in the manner Wicks chose to (a summary of, and only of, the Myth of Sisyphus). This is especially egregious when we consider that Wicks left out Simone de Beauvoir; it's hard to tell whether he thinks Iragaray (included later) is actually a more significant thinker than de Beauvoir, or whether he just felt a need to include a token woman. Nonetheless, a discussion of de Beauvoir might've occasioned a more serious engagement with feminism as a tendency of French thought in the 20th century.
Nonetheless, when Wicks is on, he is on. The chapters on Derrida and Foucault in particular were excellent syntheses of very large corpuses. Were I to someday teach a course on French thought, I'd definitely consider xeroxing (simulacra-ing?) these chapters for my class. Wicks' "critical discussions" that end some of the chapters also occasionally contain more insight than a survey book like this has any right to contain; his take on Deleuze (+poor forgotten Guattari, who always seems to get mentioned then abandoned whenever anyone talks about Capitalism and Schizophrenia) is particularly compelling (and harsh).
One brilliant observation came in the concluding chapter, and this will somewhat modify my criticism of the hamfisted inclusion of existentialism in what is really a book about post/structuralism:
"...a structuralist outlook also softens the pain of perceiving the meaninglessness of things by rendering them meaningful through the rich lens of language and established cultural significations. It is remarkable to see how after 1950 there is very little complaint among French theorists about how meaningless the world happens to be. They seem to either ignore this upsetting existenialist apprehension or not be bothered by this."
By this account, the "retreat" into language, the finding of pleasure (as well as power and frustration) and meaning in the play of a language that constitutes the horizon of our subjectivity and our experience, is something of an antidote to a Sartrean "nausea" in the face of the brutal facticity of things-in-themselves. Only Lacan among the later theorists made a sincere attempt to somehow theorize "the real" (and the Lacan chapter is among the weaker ones; it is perhaps telling that while Wicks is unafraid to provide copious quotations of Derrida, he does not quote Lacan once! I suspect Wicks doesn't understand Lacan, which is hardly a criticism; who does?). Unfortunately, this "retreat" is not woven throughout the narrative; I suspect Wicks discovered it himself in the process of writing, which explains its ad hoc, appended appearance. It does not bestow a retroactive coherence to the work (which, for all my criticisms, remains a good survey! Go for it, by all means), but it is provocative enough to make one want to remix the data, coming up with one's own story about French thought of the last century.
August 26, 2019
Very clear and concise
August 29, 2025
کتاب مزبور، با عنوان فلسفه مدرن فرانسه، در خلال سیاحتهای تفحصی من در میان قفسههای پرمغز کتابخانه به دستم رسید و با توجه به گرایش مستمر ذهنم به فلسفه فرانسه، بهویژه شاخههای مدرن و معاصر آن، تصمیم به خرید آن گرفتم. اثری که با حجم نسبتاً گسترده و سازمانیافتهاش، نه تنها درآمدی تحلیلی بر متون فلسفی ارائه میدهد، بلکه در مقام واسطهای میان خواننده و پیچیدگیهای مفهومی جریانهای فکری مدرن فرانسه عمل میکند، جریانهایی که در دل تاریخ فکری قرن بیستم و بهویژه در بستر فرهنگی و ادبی سوررئالیسم، ساختارگرایی، پساساختارگرایی و پسامدرنیسم تنیده شدهاند و به شکل غیرقابل انکاری از تأثیرات عمیق سه متفکر قرن نوزدهم، یعنی مارکس، نیچه و فروید بهرهمند شدهاند.از منظر من، هنگامی که قرار است اندیشههای یک متفکر به زبان ساده ترجمه و منتقل شوند، غالباً این فرایند با نوعی تحریف یا خیانت به متن اصلی و نیت مؤلف همراه است. با این حال، این کتاب در عین حال که زبانش نسبتاً روان و قابل دسترس است، توانسته است پیچیدگیهای مفهومی را با دقتی شفاف و بیکم و کاست منتقل کند، و مترجم نیز بهنحو قابل قبولی در تحقق این هدف موفق عمل کرده است. با این حال، برخی نقیصهها قابل اشارهاند. نخست، فونت نسبتاً کوچک کتاب، هرچند مزاحمت چندانی ایجاد نمیکند، اما در خوانش ممتد اندکی دشواری میآفریند. دوم، حجم انبوه یادداشتهای حاشیهای نویسنده، "حدود چهارصد یادداشت" گاهی جریان مطالعه را مختل کرده و نیاز به مراجعه مکرر به صفحات پایانی کتاب ایجاد میکند. و سوم، تخصیص صفحات به متفکران مختلف نابرابر است. در حالی که بررسیهای مربوط به سارتر و دریدا از تفصیل و عمق کافی برخوردارند، دلوز تنها بهطور مختصر مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است، که میتواند درک جامع از ایدههای وی را محدود کند. با این وجود، این کاستیها در قیاس با غنای تحلیلی و قدرت انتقال مفهومی کتاب، در مقام نادیدهانگاری پذیرفتنیاند و تجربه مطالعه آن، برای من، نه تنها لذت شناختی بلکه نوعی غوطهوری در لایههای پیچیده تفکر فلسفی مدرن فرانسه به ارمغان آورد، تجربهای که فراتر از محدودیتهای جزئی اثر، ارزش فکری خود را آشکار میسازد.
April 4, 2025
سیر تحولات فلسفه مدرن فرانسه، از ایده «مرگ خداوند» نیچه شروع میشه و به اگزیستانسیالیسم، سوررئالیسم، پسامدرنیسم و «آزادی از...» منجر میشه. هرکدوم از فلاسفه معاصر فرانسوی، از رهگذری به مسأله آزادی نگاه میکنن، من جمله آزادی از حقیقت گرایی مطلق، آزادی از نظامهای سیاسی سرکوبگر، آزادی از نظامهای زبانی، آزادی از باورهای مذکرمحور و... .
در نهایت این که این کتاب به افرادی توصیه میشه که پیش زمینه های لازم رو داشته باشن، خصوصا درباره مباحث زبانشناسی، پدیدارشناسی و ساختارگرایی.
در نهایت این که این کتاب به افرادی توصیه میشه که پیش زمینه های لازم رو داشته باشن، خصوصا درباره مباحث زبانشناسی، پدیدارشناسی و ساختارگرایی.
May 14, 2023
یه کتاب خیلی عالی برای آشنایی با فلسفه قرن بیستم فرانسه. اغلب فیلسوف های مورد بحث، فیلسوفایی هستن که در فلسفه مدرن جهان مهم هستن. زبان حتی المقدور ساده و قابل فهم هست البته وارد مباحث تخصصی هم میشه و مقدمات خوبی فراهم میکنه در مجموع
August 7, 2021
برای آشنایی اولیه ، کتاب بسیار خوبیست
ترجمهی روان و خوشخوانی هم دارد
ترجمهی روان و خوشخوانی هم دارد
March 29, 2009
Way, way short on Deleuze, but ultimately a key reference book.
April 10, 2014
Very clear, and a very nice way into French Philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews