The notion of dynamis [power or potential] is crucial to both Plato and Aristotle; but between these two philosophers, its meaning and its status as a philosophical principle seem to change. For Plato, dynamis defines being in a primary way and also characterizes the most fundamental power of soul. For Aristotle, dynamis can be defined as being only in a secondary sense; we shall see that here being in the primary sense is defined as “actuality” energeia, a notion with no antecedent in Plato. Furthermore, for Aristotle, dynamis defines a “power” of the soul only as a precondition to its higher operation; and again Plato and Aristotle are at odds: for Plato soul is self-moving motion and for Aristotle soul is unmoved. In this course, we shall examine both the metaphysics and psychology associated with dynamis and consider the shift in its meaning between Plato and Aristotle, including how that shift signals important differences between these philosophers. We shall read several late dialogues of Plato, including the Sophist and an important passage from the Phaedrus, and treatises from Aristotle's Metaphysics and de Anima. 

Restrictions: Must be enrolled in one of the following Levels:     
      Graduate Arts and Sciences
 

 
Comment: TOP:Eros & Interiority:Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Descartes 
Restrictions: Must be enrolled in one of the following Levels:     
      Graduate Arts and Sciences

In class we will look at some of the most important parts, with the following emphases:  First, simply trying to make sense of what Hegel is saying and what he intends. This means letting Hegel speak on his own terms.  Second, understanding as clearly as possible the development in specific parts, in themselves, as well as in relation to the movement of the work as a whole. Third, formulating some of the main questions that arise in relation to Hegel’ s thinking in this work. This may mean making connections with other of his works, as well as raising questions in terms other than Hegel’s own.

 Restrictions: Must be enrolled in one of the following Levels:     
      Graduate Arts and Sciences

It has been claimed that at least two important revolutionary political projects occupied the French intellectual scene in the years leading up to May 1968. On the one hand, there was the anti-humanist version of Marxism elaborated by Louis Althusser. As a charismatic lecturer in the haut lieu of French academic life, the Ecole normale supérieure, Althusser occupied a prime position from which to influence a vast array of aspiring young thinkers, including Michel Foucault, Etienne Balibar, Pierre Macherey, Jacques Rancière, and Alain Badiou. On the fringes of French academia, the second important group was formed around Cornelius Castoriadis, Claude Lefort and Jean-François Lyotard. In direct contrast to the Althusserians’ attempt to reread Marx against the grain of history, the group assembled around the journal Socialisme ou barbarie proposed a more or less radical break with Marxism in order to develop a new form of revolutionary politics.

The primary goal of this seminar will be to investigate these two political projects and the variegated forms they have taken over time. The use of the lens of “French materialism” for this investigation should not therefore suggest that all of the authors to be studied can easily be united under a single heading. As we will see, in fact, all of them are not even necessarily self-declared materialists. However, they are all interested in diverse ways in concrete political praxis and provide important insights into the themes that will guide the seminar: historical materialism, economic determinism, revolutionary praxis, ideology (including representational, functionalist and materialist forms), political imaginaries, subjectivity and the logic of “differends” and “disagreement.” The authors to be studied include: Marx, Castoriadis, Althusser, Foucault, Lyotard and Rancière.

Restrictions: Must be enrolled in one of the following Levels:     
      Graduate Arts and Sciences