Philosophy and Anti-Philosophy in Modern Thought

History 71600/CL 85000 Prof. Wolin

Fall 2012 rwolin@gc.cuny.edu
Mon. 4:15-6:15 x8446
Room: TBA

We know what philosophy is: the search for timeless and eternal precepts about
the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. But in postwar Europe, in Nietzsche’s wake, a
rival intellectual tradition – “anti-philosophy” – emerged to radically call into question
the orientation and desiderata of what used to be called prima philosophia or “first
philosophy.” Under the auspices of anti-philosophy, we have witnessed a reversal of the
traditional philosophical assumption concerning the integral relationship between
knowledge and the good life, insight and emancipation. Socrates famously proclaimed in
the Apology that “virtue is knowledge.” But for contemporary anti-philosophy,
knowledge does not set us free but instead threatens to inscribe us more thoroughly
within networks of social power – as Foucault’s genealogies demonstrate well. The rise
of anti-philosophy (Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault) is intimately tied to the enthusiastic
reception of German thought (Nietzsche and Heidegger) in postwar France. But it is also
linked to the rejection of the “philosophy of the subject” (Kant, Husserl, Sartre), one of
the linchpins of post-Cartesian thought.

Our approach to anti-philosophy will not be merely celebratory or uncritical. Instead,

it will be “genealogical,” analyzing both its conditions of emergence in the postwar
France and related anti-foundationalist approaches (American pragmatism). We will also
lend a fair hearing to some of the leading critics of anti-philosophy: thinkers such as
Jürgen Habermas, Jacques Bouvresse, Luc Ferry, and Alain Renaut.

Weekly Assignments

1. August 27: Introduction

2. Sept. 3: Labor Day; Class Will Not Meet

3. Sept. 10: Hegel and Philosophy

Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit (Miller translation)
Prefaces and Introduction to the Science of Logic

4. Sept. 17: Nietzsche and the Critique of Metaphysics I

Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy
Nietzsche, “Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense”
 2

5. Sept. 24: Nietzsche and the Critique of Metaphysics II

Nietzsche, The Will to Power (selections)

6. Oct. 1: Philosophy as “Micrology”

Benjamin, “One-Way Street”
Benjamin, “Surrealism”
G. Simmel, “Metropolis and Mental Life”
E. Bloch, Review of Benjamin, “One-Way Street” (in Reflections)

7. Oct. 10: N.B.: Class Will Meet on Wednesday this Week

A Cinematic Interlude:

8. Oct. 15: Heidegger and the Critique of Metaphysics

Being and Time (Robinson translation; selections)

9. Oct. 22: Heidegger and Antihumanism

Heidegger, “The Age of the World Picture”
Heidegger, “Overcoming Metaphysics”
Heidegger, “Plato’s Doctrine of Truth”

10. Oct. 29: Derrida: Deconstructing Metaphysics

“Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences” (Writing and
Difference)
“Signature, Event, Context” (Margins of Philosophy)
“Violence and Metaphysics” (Writing and Difference)
R. Bernstein, “Serious Play”

11. Nov. 5: Emmanuel Levinas and the Critique of Metaphysics as First Philosophy
Levinas, Totality and Infinity (selections)
Levinas, “Metaphysics as First Philosophy”
Moyn, Levinas: the Origins of the Other (selections)

12. Nov. 12: Derrida: From Deconstruction to Ethics

“The Force of Law”
“On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness”
Lilla, “Derrida and Politics” (in The Reckless Mind)

13. Nov. 19: Foucault and the Sciences of “Man”

Foucault, The Order of Things (selections)
The Foucault Reader (selections)

14. Nov. 26: Adorno: Thinking in Constellations

“Metacritique of Epistemology”
“Cultural Criticism and Society” (Prisms)
 3

15. Dec. 3: Work on Papers

16. Dec. 10: Papers Due

Other Recommended Texts

Groys, Introduction to Antiphilosophy

Habermas, Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
Descombes, Modern French Philosophy
M. Frank, What is Neostructuralism?
Janicaud, Heidegger en France
Lukacs, The Destruction of Reason
Menke, The Sovereignty of Art

Written Assignment: Final papers are due on December 16. You are to choose a syllabus-
related topic (in consultation with yours truly) and write a 12-15 page essay. The
assignment is meant to be an “interpretive essay” rather than a full-blown “research
paper.” By the same token, the essay should demonstrate extensive familiarity with the
relevant secondary literature as well as the relevant conflict of interpretations. What
matters is your capacity to discern and reconstruct the major interpretive standpoints, to
evaluate the stronger and weaker arguments and positions, and to arrive at fresh
conclusions that, ideally, will advance our understanding of the material.