Search

The interpretation is the actualization of one or more of the possible interpretations of the interpretative text. Vincent Descombes' inquiry into the interpretative text is not an ontology of the text in general, nor is it an epistemology of the text as an intelligible object. The understanding of the interpretative text in terms of interpretation necessarily involves understanding and the understanding is an understanding in terms of meaning. Reading a text in a particular way, with a particular interpretation (and understanding particular meanings) does not guarantee the truth or falsity of the interpretation itself, nor even of the meaning(s) themselves. If the interpreting text does not diminish the difficulties that were in the interpretative text, then the virtues of the interpreting text as a substitute or exchange for the interpretative text are diminished. Restricting the domain to that of texts, however, Descombes points out that any particular interpretative text participates in a canon.

Just Friends… Is it possible to be just friends? Who are just friends and who are not? Are just friends only friends if there is something more to it? The friends who are only friends are they friends because they have decided that they shall be nothing more – no love relation, no special interest, no intrigue – just friends? Or are they just friends because if there were anything more, then their relation might not be the kind of trust that would arise were they “really true friends?” Or are they just friends because there is a justice to their friendship – and hence a kind of friendship that resides elsewhere than in some decision effected by two or more persons. In this article I will discuss: I. Justice without Friendship; II. Friendship without Justice; III. The Justice of Friendship (a. Modern Friends – With Justice and Liberty for All; b. The Justice of Postmodern Friendships)

Despite a variety of expositions, interpretations, and critiques of Jean-Paul Sartre's Critique of Dialetical Reason (1960) and even more studies devoted to Being and Nothingness (1943), what has been lacking to date is a clear demon? stration of how Sartre's philosophy might operate if applied to the theoretical practice of other disciplines. Applications of Being and Nothingness have become popular over the past few decades ? especially in the areas of existential psy? chology, psychoanalysis, and literary criticism. As to the Critique of Dialectical Reason, some commentators have sought to extend its general perspective to political and legal theory. However, with the exception of a few studies, such as Raymond Aron's analysis of the Critique and Michael and Deena Weinstein's essay comparing Sartre with Barrington Moore and C. Wright Mills in Mary Warnock's collection, Existentialism and Sociology: A Study of Jean-Paul Sartre by Ian Craib occupies a rather unique place for the English reader in elaborating Sartre's relationship with sociology. Written by a sociologist, Craib's study is addressed primarily to sociologists. The summaries of Sartre's two major philosophical books reiterate accounts which have been made available by others in a wide variety of contexts. Some? times these other discussions have integrated both works into a treatment of Sartre's literary and political writings; sometimes they have indicated two opposing accounts of human experience with the notion of a "radical conversion" as the moment of transition; and sometimes they have articulated a continuity between the early and later Sartre. Unlike the others, Ian Craib presents and assesses Being and Nothingness and the Critique of Dialectical Reason separately. At the same time, he applies these two very different versions of Sartre's position to sociological theory and practice. In order to accomplish his task of translating

(1979). Merleau-Ponty's Human Ambiguity. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology: Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 23-38.