Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

In a fresh reading of Montaigne's Essais, David Quint portrays the great Renaissance writer as both a literary man and a deeply engaged political thinker concerned with the ethical basis of society and civil discourse. From the first essay, Montaigne places the reader in a world of violent political conflict reminiscent of the French Wars of Religion through which he lived and wrote. Quint shows how a group of interrelated essays, including the famous one on the cannibals of Brazil, explores the confrontation between warring adversaries: a clement or vindictive victor and his suppliant or defiant captive. How can the two be reconciled? In a climate of hatred and obstinacy, Montaigne argues not only for the political necessity but also for the moral imperative of trusting and submitting to others and of extending mercy to them.For Quint, this ethical message informs other topics of the Essais: Montaigne's criticism of stoic models of virtue, his project to reform the cruel behavior of his noble class, his self-portrait that depicts his relaxed and unstudied nature, and his measuring of his own behavior against the classical virtue of Socrates. Quint's reading, attentive to Montaigne's verbal artistry and to his historical and cultural context, shows the essayist always aware of the other side of the issue. The moral thought of the Essais emerges as startlingly modern, both in the perennial urgency of Montaigne's concerns and in the self-questioning open-endedness of his doctrine.Originally published in 1998.The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Montaigne, Michel de --- -Montaigne, Michel de --- -De Montaigne, Michel --- Ethics --- Political and social views --- Romance Literatures --- Languages & Literatures --- French Literature --- Montaigne, Michel de, --- Ethics. --- Political and social views. --- Montagne, Michel de, --- Montenʹ, Mishelʹ, --- Montanʹe, Mikhaĭlo, --- Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, --- Montaigne, --- Montēnyu, --- Montaini, Misel d̲e, --- דה־מונטן, מישל, --- די־מונטין, מיכאל, --- מונטין, מישל דה, --- Montenj, Mišel de, --- Montaigne, Michel de, - 1533-1592. - Essais. --- Montaigne, Michel de, - 1533-1592 - Ethics. --- Montaigne, Michel de, - 1533-1592 - Political and social views. --- HISTORY / Europe / France. --- de Montaigne, Michel Eyquem --- Eyquem, Michel --- Monten', Mišel' --- Thematology --- Montaigne, de, Michel

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"De tous les objets physiques, il n'y en a point de plus abstrus, ni de plus embarrassants que l'âme des bêtes. Les opinions extrêmes sur ce sujet sont, ou absurdes, ou très dangereuses ; le milieu que l'on veut y garder est insoutenable"; écrit Pierre Bayle dans l'article "Péreira" de son Dictionnaire. L'opinion "très dangereuse", c'est la thèse montaigniste de la supériorité des animaux sur les hommes, qui renverse le fondement même sur lequel est traditionnellement fondée la prérogative de l'homme. L'opinion "absurde", c'est la thèse cartésienne des animaux-machines, qui ne sauve la prérogative humaine qu'au prix d'un défaut radical de crédibilité. L'opinion moyenne rejetée par Bayle comme "insoutenable", c'est celle de la tradition aristotélicienne, qui accorde aux animaux vie et sentiment, tout en les privant des facultés noétiques propres à l'homme. Ce travail tente d'expliquer cette situation pour le moins inconfortable à travers ces questions : qu'est-ce qui interdit à la philosophie moderne la solution médiane d'Aristote ? Comment Montaigne et Descartes parviennent-ils à soutenir la confrontation de leur philosophie avec le paradoxe ? Et, si tant est que l'anthropologie est à l'horizon de la zoologie, qu'en est-il de l'homme dans ces déplacements de la définition de l'animalité ?

Animals --- Philosophical anthropology --- Montaigne, Michel de, --- Descartes, René, --- Anthropology, Philosophical --- Man (Philosophy) --- Civilization --- Life --- Ontology --- Humanism --- Persons --- Philosophy of mind --- Animal kingdom --- Beasts --- Fauna --- Native animals --- Native fauna --- Wild animals --- Wildlife --- Organisms --- Human-animal relationships --- Zoology --- Philosophy --- Descartes, René, --- Montagne, Michel de, --- Montenʹ, Mishelʹ, --- Montanʹe, Mikhaĭlo, --- Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, --- Montaigne, --- Montēnyu, --- Montaini, Misel d̲e, --- דה־מונטן, מישל, --- די־מונטין, מיכאל, --- מונטין, מישל דה, --- Montenj, Mišel de, --- Descartes, Renatus --- Cartesius, Renatus --- Descartes, René --- de Montaigne, Michel Eyquem --- Eyquem, Michel --- Monten', Mišel' --- Montaigne, Michel de, - 1533-1592 --- Descartes, René, - 1596-1650 --- Montaigne, Michel de, 1533-1592 --- Descartes, René, 1596-1650