In Memoriam

According to the historian of philosophy Kuno Fischer, Hegel toasted the fall of the Bastille with a glass of champagne every year on the 14th of July in Berlin, the capital of the Prussian monarchy. The French philosophers remained very grateful to him for this. France became the promised land for the innovative reception of Hegelian philosophy in the 20th century.
In the turbulent period of the 20th century, when Hegel’s philosophy was “exterminated with fire and sword” (H.-G. Gadamer) by the British universities after its fruitful reception in the 19th century, France became the promised land for the innovative reception of Hegel’s philosophy in the 20th century, despite the two World Wars. It was a peculiar mixture of philosophical weltanschauungs (“résonance existentielle” “l’approche phénoménologique”) with essayistic charm, whereby Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit was read as a “Bildungsroman” of the German late Enlightenment.
Jean Hyppolite (1907 – 1968), Jean André Wahl (1888 – 1974) and Alexandre Kojève (1902 –1968) have contributed to a Hegel renaissance, the largest in the world, after World War II, through various interpretative approaches. While in socialist countries, immediately after the end of the Second World War, Hegel was interpreted as a precursor to Marxism, and in Germany it took over a decade to free Hegel from Nazi ideological appropriation (Hans
Joachim Ritter & Gadamer), in France Hegel was primarily interpreted from the perspective of Heideggerian existentialism (Hyppolitte & Cojeve) and the philosophy of freedom (Bernard Bourgeois).
Hyppolite was appointed to a chair at the University of Sorbonne in 1949 following the publication of his book Genesis and Structure of the Phenomenology of Mind (1947). Bourgeois characterized Hegel as a liberal philosopher of freedom who argued for a rational state. This is why he rejected Kojève’s talk of the end of history and Fukuyama’s doctrine of
the “end of history” after the collapse of the communist totalitarian states in the peace revolution of 1989 because the evolution of humanity continues from the perspective of Hegelian freedom.

Bourgeois took the idea of progress in the consciousness of freedom as the red thread of his interpretation of Hegel: “It is significant for education [Bildung], for thought as consciousness of the individual in the form of generality, that the ‘I’ is understood as person in general, according to which all are equal in worth. The human being has this specific character, because he is a person, not because he is a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, German,
Italian and so on” (Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right, § 209). Bourgeois interpreted Hegel’s conception of freedom as a moral life-form (Sittlichkeit) in state institutions that enable the individual to realize his rights as a citizen, of which the right to property is the most important: the concept of person and state fit together, each requires the other and neither stands alone. Bourgeois interprets the Hegelian rational state (Vernunftsstaat) as a
domestic environment in which the concrete freedom of man is realized in an absolute way in the element of the objective spirit. In Hegel’s philosophy of law, the free will of the individual develops into the concrete freedom of the citizen, which also implies the concrete good of the individual. Let us recall the famous criticism of the poet Chateaubriand, who accused the protagonists of the French Revolution of violating human rights by confiscating property: Si le droit de propriété n’est pas sacré, la liberté est violée, car c’est la propriété qui est le rempart de la liberté.
Bourgeois’ enormous merit lies in the fact that he completely freed Hegel’s interpretation from ideological, above all Marxist, flavor: Hegel’s philosophy was presented in his works as progress in the historical realization of freedom and humanity. In this respect, there is no end to history, which Kojève and Fukuyama have advocated in different ways. There can be
no status of the absolute, of the perfect telos in the course of history, it can only serve as a corrective for the reconciliation of history and reason. In this context, Hegel’s talk of truth is also particularly relevant because there must be no slippage and derailment towards various forms of relativism (postmodernism, post-structuralism, post-truth).
French academic institutions have duly honored Bourgeios’ philosophical achievements. He was a member of the French UNESCO Commission; as Professor Emeritus at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, he was elected to the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences in the philosophy section on the 2 nd of December 2002 and was President of the
Academy in 2014. From 2007 to 2017, Bourgeois was General Secretary of the Institut International de Philosophie and has been resolutely committed to the promotion of academic values of honesty and humanity within the framework of the activities of the IIP. As a Hegelian, I had an excellent collaboration with him, especially as president of the committee for the co-optation of new members. At the time when Heidegger was only talked about in Germany from the point of view of his involvement in Nazi ideology (Schwarze Hefte), Bourgeois quoted Heidegger in his welcoming speech at the 2015 annual meeting of the IIP in Beijing. In times of crisis, we should, as Heidegger said in the Letter on Humanism, think deeper than humanism. After Bourgeois was harshly criticized by his German colleagues for mentioning Heidegger in the context of humanism, which is not allowed because he was a Nazi, I took Bourgeois’ side in the discussion and explained more precisely the context in which Heidegger’s quotation
stands: namely, when humanism has become a mere flatus vocis, we must think deeper than humanism.
At the same IIP conference in Beijing, we heard a harrowing presentation by a Tunisian colleague on the miserable situation of philosophy in Arab countries after the Spring Revolution, where philosophy teachers in schools were replaced overnight by Koran teachers. Bourgeois took the word and paraphrased Hegel that philosophy should be seen as the realization of humanism; man is free as a person and not because of his religious
The Dubrovnik meeting of the IIP 2017 was Bourgeios’ Swan Song at the IIP. After we were received by the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Prof Dragan Čović, in the coastal town of Neum, the President of the state welcomed members of the IIP with a speech on Hegel’s State of Reason, mentioning Hegel’s peculiar definition of philosophy: philosophy is the
science of freedom. During the dinner in Dubrovnik on the same day, a representative of analytical philosophy criticized President Čović for his peculiar conception of philosophy. My wife was sitting next to Bourgeois and translated everything in detail into French. Bourgeois suddenly stood up and praised the president for Hegel’s definition of philosophy as the science of freedom. Pascal Engel jokingly said to me that he would be very happy if we could swap presidents: Čović should come to Paris, and Emmanuel Macron should go to Sarajevo.

Bourgeois was a consistent Hegelian who tried to give his judgment on the time in which he lived. His books (Éternité et historicité de l’Esprit selon Hegel, Paris, Vrin, 1991; Études hégéliennes. Raison et décision, Paris, PUF, 1992; La philosophie allemande classique, Paris, PUF, 1995; Hegel, Paris, Ellipses, 1998; Penser l’histoire du présent avec Hegel, Paris, Vrin, 2017; Sur l’histoire ou la politique, Paris, Vrin, 2018; Pour Hegel, Paris, Vrin, 2019) have since become standard works on Hegel’s philosophy. And he did so successfully in his philosophical works and as general secretary of the IIP.

Conquiescat in pace!
Jure Zovko

Within three years, three experts, the best connoisseurs of Aristotle’s
philosophy, Pierre Aubenque (2020), Enrico Berti (2022), and Tomás Calvo Martínez (2023), have passed away. All three held high positions in the
prestigious international association Institut International de Philosophie
(IIP Paris-Nancy): Pierre Aubenque was Secretary General of the IIP for
many years, Enrico Berti and Tomás Calvo Martínez were Presidents of the
IIP. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet Aubenque, as
he was not able to come to the IIP conference in Zadar (2007), which I
organized with Daniel Kolak, where he was supposed to be a speaker. He
handed over his position as IIP Secretary General to the Hegelian Bernard
Bourgeois, with whom I was friends. My sincere friends were also Tomás
Calvo Martínez and Enrico Berti (2022) whom I dearly wanted to interview for our journal Disctinctio, but unfortunately, the death of both of
these prominent philosophers hindered the realization of this idea. Calvo
Martínez generously accepted my proposal to be a member of the Advisory
Board of our journal Distinctio.

Tomás Calvo Martínez matured academically through the study of
ancient philosophy, namely the pre-Socratics and Plato. He received his
doctorate from the Universidad Complutense (Madrid) in 1969 with the
dissertation “Parmenides Against the Popular Wisdom of His Time” (Parménides contra la sabiduría popular de su tiempo). One of the greatest honors for university professors is to end their academic career at the university
where they started. This was also the case for T. Calvo Martínez. He became
a professor at the Universidad Complutense Madrid in 1995, where he received his doctorate in philosophy. The thorough analysis of Plato’s works
earned Tomás Calvo Martínez a reputation in Platonic circles. He was elected President of the International Plato Society (1992-1995). Together with
Luc Brisson, he published an anthology of contributions to the symposium
of the International Plato Society: Interpreting the Timaeus and the Critias
(Selected Papers from the IV Symposium Platonicum). Sankt Augustin,
Academia Verlag, 1997.
Calvo Martínez advocated for a dialogue between hermeneutic and analytic philosophy, which is confirmed, among other things, by the fact
that he organized international symposia in Granada with important living philosophers: Willard Van Orman Quine and Paul Ricoeur (Calvo
Martínez, T. – Acero, J. eds., Symposium Quine. Granada, University of
Granada, 1987) (Calvo Martínez, T. – Avila Crespo, R. eds. Paul Ricoeur:
The Paths of Interpretation.
He also gained a reputation for his translations and commentaries on the
philosophy of Aristotle. His translations into Spanish with detailed commentaries on Aristotle’s works “On the Soul” (Aristóteles. Acerca del alma.
Introducción general, Introducción, Traducción y Notas por T. Calvo
Martínez. Madrid, Gredos, 1978 (ISBN: 84-249-3518-7) and “Metaphysics” (Aristóteles. Metafísica, Introducción, Traducción y Notas por T. Calvo Martínez. Madrid, Gredos, 1994 – ISBN: 84-249-1666-2) gained respect
and recognition not only among Spanish academic scholars but also among
experts in ancient philosophy around the world. For his academic work,
Calvo Martínez was elected President of the prestigious International Institute of Philosophy (2008-2011).
The interpretations of Aristotle presented by Calvo Martínez do not have
the characteristic of excessive innovation, as is often the case with German
experts on Aristotle’s philosophy (Werner Jaeger; Franz Dirlmeier, Wolfgang Wieland). The approach to Aristotle’s writings that Calvo Martínez
has practiced is hermeneutically correct, in the spirit of Aristotle’s philosophy and without attempting to adapt it to modern trends. Calvo Martínez
rightly interprets one of the most controversial passages in the interpretation of Aristotle’s ontology, to on hei on, henologically (pros hen) in the sense
of the search for a common identity or ousia. Although Calvo Martínez is
rather conservative in his approach to Aristotle, he opposes an identification of the Metaphysica generalis with ontotheological interpretations, as
practiced by Hegel, Heidegger, and the scholastic tradition. Calvo Martínez
has plausibly shown that Aristotle, unlike Parmenides and Plato, recognizes
the polysemy of the verb “to be” in its various uses and applications (to on
legetai pollachos; 1033a33). Aristotle never abandoned this thesis. Rather,
any reflection on language and reality must necessarily start from the recognition and acknowledgment of this fact. Aristotle’s aporia consists in recognizing and acknowledging this indisputable fact. Calvo Martínez also tends, like P. Aubenque, to characterize Aristotle as a philosopher of aporias; the key to understanding and interpreting Aristotle remains the aporeticity of
his work: being will always remain aporetic: aei zêtoumenon kai aei aporoumenon, ti to on (Met. Z 1028 b2). The hallmark of any good commentary
on the classics of philosophy is to help the reader out of the labyrinth of aporetism. Calvo Martínez does this skillfully and successfully. The first
prerequisite is a correct translation in the sense of the author of the text. The
burden of Aristotelian ontology is certainly the term ousia, which in the
Latin tradition is translated as substantia, which is continued by excellent
English translators (W. D. Ross, David Bostock, Hugh Lawson-Tancred,
Fred D. Miller) and also applies to German translators (Eugen Rolfes, Horst
Seidel, Christoph Rapp). Ousia, as a term, implies a broader meaning than
the Latin word substantia suggests. Ingemar Dühring translates ousia as “existence”, as does Calvo Martínez, who uses the word “entidad” as a possible
equivalent for Aristotle’s ousia. With regard to the difficulty of translating
the Aristotelian ousia, Julia Annas claims that the term ousia is cognate with
einai, and raises corresponding problems. Traditionally, translation with
substance in serious cases obscures the meaning in Metaphysics rather than
illuminating it. Therefore, Julia Anna translates ousia as “reality” or “real
object”. Similar to Dühring’s interpretation of the central concept of Book
IV of the Metaphysics (1003 a 31) “Being qua Being” (ὂν ᾗ ὄν; on hei on) as
a question about what ousia is, i.e. what a being is in relation to its essence
and existence, Calvo Martínez also understands the central question of first
philosophy as a question about ousiai, entities that exist and compose the
universe (las entidades que hay y componen el Universo). A particularly important pillar for understanding Aristotle’s metaphysics, according to Calvo
Martínez, is the principle of contradiction, because it serves as a link to the
first ousia (protê ousia), which excludes all possibilities and contradictions.
The editors of the journal Distinctio bid farewell to Calvo Martínez, an
excellent expert on ancient philosophy, and thank him for his willingness to
cooperate with our journal. Requiescat in pace.
Jure Zovko

Pierre Aubenque (1929-2020) a été secrétaire général de l’Institut International de philosophie de 1988 à 2010, et a grandement contribué, à la suite de Raymond Klibansky et Henri Dumery , au développement de l’IIP. On trouvera ici un hommage à ce maître par Antonio Martins ( Coimbra) . et i-dessous Revista Filosófica de Coimbra — n.o 59 (2021)


Pierre Aubenque morreu em 23 de fevereiro de 2020, em Versailles, com a idade de 90 anos. Nasceu em julho de 1929, em Isle‑ Jourdain, 35 km a oeste de Toulouse.Entra na École Normale Supérieure, da rue d’Ulm, que frequentou entre 1947 e 1950. No mesmo ano de 1950, ficou em primeiro lugar no concurso para a “agrégation” de filosofia. Entre 1951 e 1955, inicia a sua carreira de investigação como bolseiro da Fundação Thiers. Em 1956 começa o seu percurso académico na universidade francesa: em Montpellier (1955‑1960), Besançon (1960‑1964), e Aix‑en‑Provence (1964‑1966). Em 1962 obtém o Doutoramento em Letras com as duas monografias que o vão tornar conhecido em todo o mundo como um eminente especialista em Aristóteles (Le Problème de l’Être chez Aristote. Essai sur la problématique aristotélicienne e La Prudence chez Aristote). Entre 1966 e 1969 ensinou na Universidade de Hamburgo onde desempenhou cargos de direção na secção de filosofia (1968‑1969). Em 1969 toma posse de uma cátedra de filosofia na Sorbonne, Paris‑IV, lugar que ocupa até 1990, ano em que se retira da universidade francesa. Depois da reunificação da Alemanha, ensinou na Universidade de Leipzig (1992‑1997) que o agraciou com um doutoramento honoris causa em junho de 1998. No ano académico de 1997‑1998 ocupou a cátedra de metafísica Étienne Gilson (com o tema Será preciso desconstruir a metafísica? publicado em 2009 na editora PUF). Lecionou ainda na European Graduate School (Saas‑Fee, Suíça) em 2002. Sinal do prestígio e reconhecimento da comunidade científica internacional são os 17 ciclos de lições que proferiu, como professor visitante, em todos os continentes (com a exceção da Austrália) e os doutoramentos honoris causa das Universidades de Laval, Canadá (2000) e de Santiago de Compostela (1998) além do já referido da Universidade de Leipzig.

Para além das suas responsabilidades como professor de filosofia antiga na Universidade de Paris‑ Sorbonne desde 1970 até 1990, destaca se também a importante ação como diretor do Centro Léon Robin (1973‑1992), cargo anteriormente ocupado por Pierre‑Maxime Schuhl. A qualidade e o prestigio da sua direção muito contribuíram para o desenvolvimento e aprofundamento da investigação no campo da filosofia antiga e da história da filosofia em geral como o atestam as publicações por ele editadas que correspondem aos principais seminários de investigação sobre Aristóteles, sobre o que resta do Poema de Parménides, o Sofista de Platão, os tratados de Plotino sobre as categorias. Foi ainda diretor da revista Les Études philosophiques desde 1970 até 1999 e membro do Institut International de Philosophie do qual foi secretário geral (1988 a 2010). Foi nesta qualidade que colaborou ativamente na preparação dos Entretiens do IIP que se realizaram na Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra a 9‑ -14 de setembro de 2009 sobre o tema Cause, Knowledge and Responsibility. Colaborou ainda com o Instituto de Estudos Filosóficos da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra no seminário internacional que o IEF organizou, por ocasião do 4º centenário da publicação das Disputationes Metaphysicae, em colaboração com o Departamento de Filosofia da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa, em março de 1998, com uma conferência sobre “Suarez et l’avénement du concept d´être”. As suas publicações mais influentes foram as suas duas teses adquirindo um destaque especial a monografia sobre a metafísica de Aristóteles, publicada em 1962 e traduzida para várias línguas1. A segunda tese, sobre a phronesis aristotélica foi a que teve mais lenta receção a nível internacional, mas a primeira a ser traduzida para língua portuguesa2. Pierre Aubenque apresentou, pela primeira vez, as grandes linhas da sua nova interpretação da metafísica de Aristóteles numa conferência que proferiu num encontro da Sociedade Kantiana de Berlim, em 5 de junho de 1959, na Universidade Técnica (TU) de Berlim, com o título “Aristoteles und das Problem der Metaphysik” e cujo texto foi publicado pela revista Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, no seu número de julho‑ -setembro de 1961, escassos meses antes da publicação de Le problème de l’être chez Aristote3. Curiosamente, no mesmo ano, a revista Philosophy Today publica uma tradução desse artigo de Pierre Aubenque: “Aristotle and the Problem of Metaphysics”4.

A monografia de Pierre Aubenque sobre O problema do ser em Aristóteles abriu novos caminhos, suscitou vivas discussões e contribuiu decisiva1

Pierre Aubenque, O problema do ser em Aristóteles (São Paulo: Paulus, 2012).

2 Pierre Aubenque, A Prudência em Aristóteles (São Paulo: Discurso Editorial, 2003).

3 Pierre Aubenque, Le problème de l’être chez Aristote, (Paris, PUF, 1962).

4 Pierre Aubenque, “Aristotle and the Problem of Metaphysics”, in Philosophy Today,

6 (2) (1962), 75‑84. DOI:



Revista Filosófica de Coimbra—n.o 59 (2021) pp. 187-190 mente para a renovação dos estudos aristotélicos e da filosofia em diálogo crítico com o texto do Estagirita. Para aqueles que pensam estar o seu texto demasiado condicionado pela influência de Heidegger e, por isso, menos interessante ou útil para leitores de outra idiossincrasia filosófica cito um passo do início de um artigo de Terence Irwin sobre “o carácter aporético da Metafísica de Aristóteles”:

Um dos numerosos méritos do livro de Pierre Aubenque sobre o problema do ser em Aristóteles é o de ter posto em relevo as questões que concernem às relações entre o método de Aristóteles e sua doutrina. Sobre esta questão, penso que as teses de Aubenque são mais estimulantes do que tudo o que pude conhecer em língua inglesa5.

Aubenque continuou a explorar os diversos caminhos que se entrecruzam na história do pensamento metafísico em numerosos trabalhos que tinham, de uma maneira ou outra, como referência Aristóteles. Desse labor de décadas dão testemunho os dois volumes de ensaios com o título Problèmes aristotéliciens. O primeiro dedicado à filosofia teórica6. O segundo reúne os textos mais importantes de Aubenque sobre a filosofia prática. A abertura de pontes e vias de diálogo da ética aristotélica com o presente, iniciada na sua segunda dissertação, é prolongada em numerosos textos que aprofundam a sua reflexão sobre a phronesis aristotélica bem como questões ligadas à coerência e articulação da ética aristotélica e sua relação (in)atual com a reflexão política e ética mais recente. Dos textos reunidos neste segundo volume7, citemos dois, a título meramente exemplificativo, do seu alcance: “Aristote et la conception délibérative de la démocratie” e “Un modèle aristotélicien pour l’éco‑éthique”.

Pierre Aubenque foi também importante para muitas gerações de estudantes de filosofia antiga que deram os primeiros passos na leitura de Aristóteles e das grandes correntes da filosofia do Helenismo lendo os textos introdutórios que publicou em duas Histórias da Filosofia que fizeram época nos anos 70 do século passado. O texto sobre “Aristote et le Lycée” na Encyclopédie de la Pléiade: Histoire de la Philosophie, vol. 1, (Paris: Gallimard, 1969): 720‑790. E sobre Epicuro, estoicismo, cepticismo e Plotino no

5 Original na RMM 95, 1990, 221; cito a partir da tradução do artigo de T. Irwin, publicada em M. Zingano, coord., Sobre a Metafísica de Aristóteles, São Paulo: Odysseus, 2005, 341.

6 Pierre Aubenque, Problèmes aristotéliciens, 1. Philosophie théorique ((Paris: Vrin, 2009).

7 Pierre Aubenque, Problèmes aristotéliciens, 2. Philosophie pratique (Paris: Vrin, 2011).

190 António Manuel Martins

Revista Filosófica de Coimbra pp. 187-190 — n.o 59 (2021)

primeiro volume da nova História da Filosofia, dirigida por F. Chatelet: La Philosophie Paienne : Du 6e Siècle Avant J.C Au 3e Siècle Après J.C8

Em sua homenagem foram publicadas três obras: sob a coordenação de Jean‑François Courtine e Rémi Brague, Herméneutique et ontologie (Paris: PUF, 1990); uma segunda, com mais de 700 páginas, coordenada por Ángel Álvarez e Rafael Martínez, En torno a Aristóteles. Homenaje al Profesor Pierre Aubenque (Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 1998) e a última coordenada por Néstor Luis Cordero, Ontologie et Dialogue (Paris: Vrin, 2000).

Com a morte de Pierre Aubenque perde a comunidade filosófica um mestre na arte de ler e repensar os textos da tradição e um modelo de diálogo exigente, crítico e tolerante. Permanece a possibilidade de continuar a aprender com a (re)leitura dos seus textos.

António Manuel Martins, Universidade de Coimbra, Faculdade de Letras, Unidade I&D IEF