No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Vers la fin du 19ème siècle, le moine et réformateur hindou Swami Vivekananda affirma que la science moderne convergeait vers l'Advaita Vedanta, un important courant philosophique et religieux de l'hindouisme. Au cours des décennies suivantes, suite aux apports scientifiques révolutionnaires de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et de la physique quantique, un nombre croissant d'auteurs soutenaient que d'importants "parallèles" pouvaient être tracés entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Encore aujourd'hui, de tels rapprochements sont faits, particulièrement en relation avec la physique quantique. Cette thèse examine de manière critique ces rapprochements à travers l'étude comparative détaillée de deux concepts: le concept d'akasa dans l'Advaita Vedanta et celui de vide en physique quantique. L'énoncé examiné est celui selon lequel ces deux concepts pointeraient vers une même réalité: un substratum omniprésent et subtil duquel émergent et auquel retournent ultimement les divers constituants de l'univers. Sur la base de cette étude comparative, la thèse argumente que des comparaisons de nature conceptuelle favorisent rarement la mise en place d'un véritable dialogue entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Une autre voie d'approche serait de prendre en considération les limites épistémologiques respectivement rencontrées par ces disciplines dans leur approche du "réel-en-soi" ou de la "réalité ultime." Une attention particulière sera portée sur l'épistémologie et le problème de la nature de la réalité dans l'Advaita Vedanta, ainsi que sur le réalisme scientifique et les implications philosophiques de la non-séparabilité en physique quantique. / Toward the end of the 19th century, the Hindu monk and reformer Swami Vivekananda claimed that modern science was inevitably converging towards Advaita Vedanta, an important philosophico-religious system in Hinduism. In the decades that followed, in the midst of the revolution occasioned by the emergence of Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, a growing number of authors claimed to discover striking "parallels" between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Such claims of convergence have continued to the present day, especially in relation to quantum physics. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to critically examine such claims by engaging a detailed comparative analysis of two concepts: akasa in Advaita Vedanta and vacuum in quantum physics. What is examined is the claim that both concepts would refer to the same reality — an enduring, subtle and all-pervading physical substratum out of which the constituents of the world come into existence and to which they ultimately return. Based on this study, the dissertation argues that comparisons relying on conceptual affinities alone generally fall short of establishing a productive dialogue between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Another approach is to bring into focus the epistemological limits respectively encountered by these systems when attempting to define the content of "reality-in-itself" or "ultimate reality." Emphasis is given to epistemology and the problem of reality in Advaita Vedanta, and scientific realism and philosophical implications of nonseparability in quantum physics.

Henry Corbin a écrit qu’« un Maître Eckhart et un Jacob Boehme eussent parfaitement compris Ibn ʿArabî, et réciproquement. » Mais comment assurer ce dialogue et cette compréhension réciproque pressentie par Henry Corbin? Cette recherche porte essentiellement sur les conditions de possibilités de ce dialogue, puisque la comparaison entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme n’est encore qu’à ses balbutiements. En choisissant le prisme de l’imagination, le but est double : pouvoir traiter de manière non réductrice les phénomènes spirituels en parcourant et analysant la logique spécifique de l’imagination ; et, sous l’égide de la hiérohistoire, explorer le rôle de l’imagination dans la métaphysique et l’éthique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī et de Böhme. Il s’agit donc d’essayer de lire Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme comme ils lisaient eux-mêmes le Livre révélé de leur tradition respective. Au final, il appert que le théophanisme caractéristique tant de la métaphysique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī que de celle de Böhme est une riche terre d’accueil de l’imagination et de l’imaginal. Et que, si la comparaison strictu sensu entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme est impossible, l’esprit comparatif et transdisciplinaire de cette recherche, ainsi que la méthode phénoménologico-herméneutique, offrent de nouvelles avenues de réappropriation pour l’ensemble des phénomènes spirituels. / Henry Corbin wrote that a “Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme would fully understand Ibn ʿArabî, and vice versa.” But how can we ensure this dialogue and mutual understanding anticipated by Henry Corbin? This research is essentially on the conditions of possibilities of this dialogue, especially because the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is still in its infancy. By choosing the prism of the imagination, the goal is twofold: approach spiritual phenomena in a non-reductive way by browsing and analyzing the specific logic of imagination; and, under the auspices of the concept of hierohistory, explore the role of imagination in the metaphysics and ethics of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme. It is therefore an effort to read Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme as they read themselves the revealed book of their respective tradition. Finally, it appears that the theophanism characteristic of the metaphysics of both Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is a rich haven for imagination and imaginal. If the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is stricto sensu impossible, the comparative and transdisciplinary spirit of this research, as well as its the phenomenological-hermeneutic method, opens up new avenues of re-appropriation for all spirituals phenomena.

This research project investigates Confucian thinker Dai Zhen (1724-1777) and Jewish thinker Emmanuel Levinas’s (1906-1995) philosophical discourses on desire from a comparative perspective. First, I look at Dai Zhen and Levinas individually each in their own philosophical contexts, while framing my readings with parallel structure that pivots on a hermeneutic strategy to examine their ideas of desire within the larger prospect of the human relation with transcendence. Then, my inquiry leads to a critical analysis of several interesting issues yielded in my interpretive readings of the two thinkers as regards transcendence and immanence and the self-other relationship. Methodologically, my study combines careful textual analysis, philosophical reflection, and historical sensitivity. We might want to say that there is in fact no correlative of the Levinasian desire in Dai Zhen’s philosophy. Dai Zhen’s notion of desire perhaps comes closer to Levinas’s concept of need. However, the disparity of their conceptual formulations does not keep us from discerning their shared ethical concern for the other, the weak, marginalized, and underprivileged group of society, which provides me the very ground for a dialogical comparison between the two thinkers. Henceforth, my writing is hinged on a comprehension of their conception of desire as an articulation of human striving for what is lying beyond themselves, as a redefinition of the being or essence of humankind in relation to the transcendent which in both philosophers’ ethical thinking is translated into a sympathetic understanding of and care for the other, particularly the stranger, the widow, the orphan, the young, the weak and the like. Through the comparative study of the two thinkers’ ideas of desire, I want to argue that “desire,” which is most readily directed to human egoism and instinctive propensity in both Confucian and Western philosophical traditions, can be at once the very driving force to open us to the other beyond ourselves and an actual moral creativity to produce ethical being out of material existence.

Vers la fin du 19ème siècle, le moine et réformateur hindou Swami Vivekananda affirma que la science moderne convergeait vers l'Advaita Vedanta, un important courant philosophique et religieux de l'hindouisme. Au cours des décennies suivantes, suite aux apports scientifiques révolutionnaires de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein et de la physique quantique, un nombre croissant d'auteurs soutenaient que d'importants "parallèles" pouvaient être tracés entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Encore aujourd'hui, de tels rapprochements sont faits, particulièrement en relation avec la physique quantique. Cette thèse examine de manière critique ces rapprochements à travers l'étude comparative détaillée de deux concepts: le concept d'akasa dans l'Advaita Vedanta et celui de vide en physique quantique. L'énoncé examiné est celui selon lequel ces deux concepts pointeraient vers une même réalité: un substratum omniprésent et subtil duquel émergent et auquel retournent ultimement les divers constituants de l'univers. Sur la base de cette étude comparative, la thèse argumente que des comparaisons de nature conceptuelle favorisent rarement la mise en place d'un véritable dialogue entre l'Advaita Vedanta et la physique moderne. Une autre voie d'approche serait de prendre en considération les limites épistémologiques respectivement rencontrées par ces disciplines dans leur approche du "réel-en-soi" ou de la "réalité ultime." Une attention particulière sera portée sur l'épistémologie et le problème de la nature de la réalité dans l'Advaita Vedanta, ainsi que sur le réalisme scientifique et les implications philosophiques de la non-séparabilité en physique quantique. / Toward the end of the 19th century, the Hindu monk and reformer Swami Vivekananda claimed that modern science was inevitably converging towards Advaita Vedanta, an important philosophico-religious system in Hinduism. In the decades that followed, in the midst of the revolution occasioned by the emergence of Einstein's relativity and quantum physics, a growing number of authors claimed to discover striking "parallels" between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Such claims of convergence have continued to the present day, especially in relation to quantum physics. In this dissertation, an attempt is made to critically examine such claims by engaging a detailed comparative analysis of two concepts: akasa in Advaita Vedanta and vacuum in quantum physics. What is examined is the claim that both concepts would refer to the same reality — an enduring, subtle and all-pervading physical substratum out of which the constituents of the world come into existence and to which they ultimately return. Based on this study, the dissertation argues that comparisons relying on conceptual affinities alone generally fall short of establishing a productive dialogue between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. Another approach is to bring into focus the epistemological limits respectively encountered by these systems when attempting to define the content of "reality-in-itself" or "ultimate reality." Emphasis is given to epistemology and the problem of reality in Advaita Vedanta, and scientific realism and philosophical implications of nonseparability in quantum physics.

Henry Corbin a écrit qu’« un Maître Eckhart et un Jacob Boehme eussent parfaitement compris Ibn ʿArabî, et réciproquement. » Mais comment assurer ce dialogue et cette compréhension réciproque pressentie par Henry Corbin? Cette recherche porte essentiellement sur les conditions de possibilités de ce dialogue, puisque la comparaison entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme n’est encore qu’à ses balbutiements. En choisissant le prisme de l’imagination, le but est double : pouvoir traiter de manière non réductrice les phénomènes spirituels en parcourant et analysant la logique spécifique de l’imagination ; et, sous l’égide de la hiérohistoire, explorer le rôle de l’imagination dans la métaphysique et l’éthique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī et de Böhme. Il s’agit donc d’essayer de lire Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme comme ils lisaient eux-mêmes le Livre révélé de leur tradition respective. Au final, il appert que le théophanisme caractéristique tant de la métaphysique d’Ibn al-ʿArabī que de celle de Böhme est une riche terre d’accueil de l’imagination et de l’imaginal. Et que, si la comparaison strictu sensu entre Ibn al-ʿArabī et Böhme est impossible, l’esprit comparatif et transdisciplinaire de cette recherche, ainsi que la méthode phénoménologico-herméneutique, offrent de nouvelles avenues de réappropriation pour l’ensemble des phénomènes spirituels. / Henry Corbin wrote that a “Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme would fully understand Ibn ʿArabî, and vice versa.” But how can we ensure this dialogue and mutual understanding anticipated by Henry Corbin? This research is essentially on the conditions of possibilities of this dialogue, especially because the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is still in its infancy. By choosing the prism of the imagination, the goal is twofold: approach spiritual phenomena in a non-reductive way by browsing and analyzing the specific logic of imagination; and, under the auspices of the concept of hierohistory, explore the role of imagination in the metaphysics and ethics of Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme. It is therefore an effort to read Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme as they read themselves the revealed book of their respective tradition. Finally, it appears that the theophanism characteristic of the metaphysics of both Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is a rich haven for imagination and imaginal. If the comparison between Ibn al-ʿArabī and Böhme is stricto sensu impossible, the comparative and transdisciplinary spirit of this research, as well as its the phenomenological-hermeneutic method, opens up new avenues of re-appropriation for all spirituals phenomena.

This research project investigates Confucian thinker Dai Zhen (1724-1777) and Jewish thinker Emmanuel Levinas’s (1906-1995) philosophical discourses on desire from a comparative perspective. First, I look at Dai Zhen and Levinas individually each in their own philosophical contexts, while framing my readings with parallel structure that pivots on a hermeneutic strategy to examine their ideas of desire within the larger prospect of the human relation with transcendence. Then, my inquiry leads to a critical analysis of several interesting issues yielded in my interpretive readings of the two thinkers as regards transcendence and immanence and the self-other relationship. Methodologically, my study combines careful textual analysis, philosophical reflection, and historical sensitivity. We might want to say that there is in fact no correlative of the Levinasian desire in Dai Zhen’s philosophy. Dai Zhen’s notion of desire perhaps comes closer to Levinas’s concept of need. However, the disparity of their conceptual formulations does not keep us from discerning their shared ethical concern for the other, the weak, marginalized, and underprivileged group of society, which provides me the very ground for a dialogical comparison between the two thinkers. Henceforth, my writing is hinged on a comprehension of their conception of desire as an articulation of human striving for what is lying beyond themselves, as a redefinition of the being or essence of humankind in relation to the transcendent which in both philosophers’ ethical thinking is translated into a sympathetic understanding of and care for the other, particularly the stranger, the widow, the orphan, the young, the weak and the like. Through the comparative study of the two thinkers’ ideas of desire, I want to argue that “desire,” which is most readily directed to human egoism and instinctive propensity in both Confucian and Western philosophical traditions, can be at once the very driving force to open us to the other beyond ourselves and an actual moral creativity to produce ethical being out of material existence.