In the few years after his retirement from public life and before he was sentenced to suicide, the Roman philosopher Seneca wrote the majority of his texts, which included over one hundred letters of wisdom (espistulae morales) sent to his friend Lucilius. These letters are considered the first appearance of literary letters in Roman prose. The letters are philosophical essays written by a very wise and witty old man concluding his life, an autobiography of our spiritual world. The issues that interested Seneca are eternally relevant.

The question of theodicy has preoccupied philosophers and theologians throughout generations. Roughly: If God is moral, how can there be evil in the world? Or: Is the existence of evil not evidence against the existence of a righteous God? This question became the greatest philosophical challenge for the believer, and the main device in the hands of atheists. The question of theodicy also raises a second-order discussion, about the nature of the challenge: Is there a logical contradiction between a moral God and the existence of evil? If not, what sort of tension is this? Can the attributes of God be thought of in a coherent manner? Does the very existence of evil give rise to the challenge, or only the existence of unnecessary evil? The present research addresses Kant’s take on theodicy. It focuses mainly on two Kantian assertions that seem to disaccord with Kant’s theory of freedom: 1. That evil is entrenched in mankind, and 2. That if all-inclusive moral-order is impossible, the moral-law is erroneous. The conclusion, based on close examination of Kant’s argumentation, is that Kant did not exclude theodicy from rational discourse, but rather redefined the challenge enclosed in the question of theodicy.

In his article entitled “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”, David Chalmers divides the study of consciousness into two parts: the easy problems and the hard problems. The easy problems are those related to neurological/functional/cognitive processes. In contrast, the hard problem is the study of consciousness which is related to the subjective experience. In recent decades brain researchers have joined the race to understand consciousness. Most of them adopt an approach according to which any advance made in the study of neurological activity is also an advance in the study of consciousness. I contend that the gap between brain activities and the subjective experience cannot be bridged, among other things because consciousness is not confined within the brain. This book hence proposes that consciousness extends from the brain to the body and from only from there does it burst forth into the world. One of the book’s main arguments is that the world itself serves as our best model, without any need for representation or a central control system within our brains. Therefore, to better understand the subjective experience we must examine how human beings are present and act within the world.

The philosophy of Levinas has developed over nearly sixty years. Its evolution can be subdivided into three main stages: Following the pre-war writings, the period 1945-1961 lead to the book Totalité et Infini , in which the ethical thought of Levinas takes a first accomplished form. During the last stage, whose central opus is Autrement qu’être (Otherwise than Being), his thought both radicalized and opened up to multiple horizons. Indeed, Levinas is not merely an academic philosopher ignorant of other movements of thought that mark his century. This book aims to show how the stages of Levinas’s strictly philosophical thought is expressed with regard to politics, Judaism, and Christianity.

The words seduction and ethics, which at first sight seem mutually exclusive, are at the heart of the analytic perspective. Vivian Chetrit-Vatine takes as her starting-point an encounter, which is not necessarily consensual, between Emmanuel Levinas's thought and his conception of philosophy as ethics - ethics understood as responsibility for the other - and that of the psychoanalyst Jean Laplanche, who posits the first adult other as a seducer of the young psyche from the outset, due to the transmission of enigmatic messages compromised by his or her unconscious. The analyst's ethical position is re-examined and with it the feminine/maternal origins of the human capacity for responsibility for the other.

Un véritable courant de vie parcourt ces pages que Perspectives consacre au cinéaste Marcel Ophuls. La vie, le vivant dominent. Il n’est pas étonnant qu’une des contributions de ce numéro s’intitule “Liberté, vitalité, spectacle” (Sophie Brunet). Dès lors, la division du volume s’est faite d’elle-même: 1-Un homme vivant; 2-Une oeuvre vivante. Au départ, le portrait d’un homme se dessine. Dans une “interview imaginaire.” On savoure son franc-parler, non que l’on adhère à toutes ses idées – en particulier en ce qui concerne Israël – mais on admire l’aisance et la liberté totale qui anime ses propos. Le comportement professionnel du cinéaste, son comportement tout court, trouvent leur place dans cette première partie. Parfois même, l’homme est saisi dans le feu de l’action. Les grands problèmes qui occupent le coeur et la pensée d’un homme de notre temps se retrouvent dans la seconde partie du volume. Là encore, au plus près de la vie . Le cinéaste interpelle les spectateurs lorsqu’il traite de la Shoah, de l’Occuption, ou de la Résistance, de la place que ces sujets tiennent dans la mémoire d’un Français ou d’un Allemand. On s’interroge avec le cinéaste : se doit-il d’être objectif? Mais “dès le début de sa carrière, remarque Pierre Beylot, un style documentaire original fondé sur la parole de témoignage et le montage des sources dont il assume de plus en plus ostensiblement le caractère subjectif” marque son oeuvre. C’est dire aussi que souvent le regard s’attarde sur le traitement esthétique des sujets abordés. Ecoutons François Niney:“Cette remise en question de nos manières de voir et de nos dilemmes, à la fois politiques et personnels, par le jeu et le poids des mots, différencie radicalement le documentaire selon Marcel, du panel d’opinions tel que l’expose en permanence l’étal médiatique”. L’important est que son public réfléchisse. Il s’agit, selon Valérie Carré, de “mettre en mouvement la réflexion du spectateur”. Qu’attendre de l’avenir? Encore une oeuvre surprenante? Vincent Lowy, à l’écoute, note: “Boulimique de projets virtuels, l’infatigable MO junior annonce déjà les quatre titres d’ […] improbables best-sellers…” [futurs romans policiers }. Il convient enfin de souligner le rôle déterminant qu’a joué Stéphane Kerber dans l’élaboration de ce numéro de Perspectives. Nos vifs remerciements vont à lui. Laissons-lui maintenant la parole.

The charm of Agnon’s work lies in an inebriating combination of the funny and the serious, in his famous irony that knocks down every unquestionable certainty and even its very self. Agnon’s humor eludes rhetoric borderlines, does not tolerate confines of a genre and disobeys simple interpretative solutions. In his new book, Roman Katsman suggests a new literary-anthropological method to break down Agnon’s complicated ‘laughter code’—a method based upon the cultural and semiotic interpretation of symbols. His reading of a wide selection of Agnon’s works, including his four major novels, reveals an entire world of his laughter symbols—a world of violence and sacredness, tragic bewilderment and eruption of new possibilities. In this world, arks fly, princes disappear, serpents eat their own tails, angels and demons dance, illusion turns into reality, and other foolish and cruel miracles occur. The research looks for a solution to the riddle: should Agnon's stories be considered serious or ironic, religious or secular, scornful or emphatic, archaic or modernist; or perhaps the reader is intended to swell with pathos or burst into laughter—and how come Agnon always has the last laugh?

In this book, written in the aftermath of the Second World War, Heidegger deals mainly with the question of the meaning of human existence. He rejects the humanist traditional thinking on the essence of the human, and instead reinterprets human existence in terms of directedness toward Being. By doing so, he also introduces his opinions on language, history and ethics.

Kierkegaard: Between Authentic Faith and Self-Deception approaches Kierkegaard through a refreshing combination of Jewish and non-Jewish philosophies. It deals with Kierkegaard/Hegel's debate and offers valuable insights into questions of self-deception, grace, and Kierkegaard's relation to Judaism and to Jews.

The struggle between philosophy and theology in the middle ages has been a central topic for historians of ideas. The Clash of Paradigms claims that this struggle can be fully explained by scientific paradigms. Aristotelian and Neoplatonic paradigms in the Jewish world confronted the kalam paradigm at their early stage, and magic and experimental science in the following stage.

Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant Reformation, presents the principles of his theological and political theory in the four treatises before us. In the first essay from 1917, also known as Ninety-Five Theses , Luther condemns the Catholic custom of selling plenary indulgences, already expressing insinuated criticism against the Catholic Church and Pope for their pretentions attempts to mediate between the believer and God. In the three essays he wrote in 1520, Luther undermines the foundations of the Catholic Church and its medieval development. This approach had a tremendous influence on all countries that later became Protestant.

Un véritable courant de vie parcourt ces pages que Perspectives consacre au cinéaste Marcel Ophuls. La vie, le vivant dominent. Il n’est pas étonnant qu’une des contributions de ce numéro s’intitule “Liberté, vitalité, spectacle” (Sophie Brunet). Dès lors, la division du volume s’est faite d’elle-même: 1-Un homme vivant; 2-Une oeuvre vivante. Au départ, le portrait d’un homme se dessine. Dans une “interview imaginaire.” On savoure son franc-parler, non que l’on adhère à toutes ses idées – en particulier en ce qui concerne Israël – mais on admire l’aisance et la liberté totale qui anime ses propos. Le comportement professionnel du cinéaste, son comportement tout court, trouvent leur place dans cette première partie. Parfois même, l’homme est saisi dans le feu de l’action. Les grands problèmes qui occupent le coeur et la pensée d’un homme de notre temps se retrouvent dans la seconde partie du volume. Là encore, au plus près de la vie . Le cinéaste interpelle les spectateurs lorsqu’il traite de la Shoah, de l’Occuption, ou de la Résistance, de la place que ces sujets tiennent dans la mémoire d’un Français ou d’un Allemand. On s’interroge avec le cinéaste : se doit-il d’être objectif? Mais “dès le début de sa carrière, remarque Pierre Beylot, un style documentaire original fondé sur la parole de témoignage et le montage des sources dont il assume de plus en plus ostensiblement le caractère subjectif” marque son oeuvre. C’est dire aussi que souvent le regard s’attarde sur le traitement esthétique des sujets abordés. Ecoutons François Niney:“Cette remise en question de nos manières de voir et de nos dilemmes, à la fois politiques et personnels, par le jeu et le poids des mots, différencie radicalement le documentaire selon Marcel, du panel d’opinions tel que l’expose en permanence l’étal médiatique”. L’important est que son public réfléchisse. Il s’agit, selon Valérie Carré, de “mettre en mouvement la réflexion du spectateur”. Qu’attendre de l’avenir? Encore une oeuvre surprenante? Vincent Lowy, à l’écoute, note: “Boulimique de projets virtuels, l’infatigable MO junior annonce déjà les quatre titres d’ […] improbables best-sellers…” [futurs romans policiers }. Il convient enfin de souligner le rôle déterminant qu’a joué Stéphane Kerber dans l’élaboration de ce numéro de Perspectives. Nos vifs remerciements vont à lui. Laissons-lui maintenant la parole.