1. Untraceable identity and multiple universality
The philosophical characterisation of Europe in terms of universality was itself preceded by a political characterisation of Europe in terms of universality: this is the whole story of the Project for Perpetual Peace, which can legitimately be seen as the origin of the contemporary project for European unification.
From philosophical universality to the universality of freedom, via the universality of peace and the universality of salvation, the history of the notion of Europe leads us to encounter a multiplied universality. The notion of Europe and not Europe, precisely because Europe is plurivocal, polysemous and elusive. Universality multiplied because this universality, a vector of freedom, is anything but indifferent uniformity: the distinctive feature of the European universal is that the universal only has meaning through its recognition of differences. This theme can therefore be understood as research into the plurivocity of the universal.
2. Critical universalism, criticism of universalism
From the point of view of moral theory, we will verify the following hypothesis: if the question of universalism has always been so essential to the constitution of European identity (as can be seen in what is known as the universalism of human rights), it is because a prejudice indissolubly links practical judgement to universalism. This prejudice holds that we can only acquire a critical point of view on reality from the universal. It does not, of course, define a European identity, but rather a typically European attitude: one that consists, on the one hand, in making Europe the holder of the universal - the first prejudice - and, on the other, in making this universal the obligatory gateway to a critical point of view in general - the second prejudice. This line of research can therefore be understood as the development of a philosophical critique of universalism.
3. Condition humaine et monde(s) / Human condition and world(s)
Le sens de notre condition humaine sera interrogé d’un double point de vue, d’une part celui de son historicité, d’autre part celui de la spécificité de ses ancrages contextuels et de ses adhésions culturelles (chacun étant susceptible de « faire monde » selon des guises diverses). En quel sens la pensée et la civilisation européennes contribuent-elles à ces questions et à ces perspectives ? Par-delà les pratiques particulières d’ancrage, nous interrogerons aussi la visée d’un monde commun par les processus intégrateurs qui mettent en jeu le concept de monde dans la pluralité de ses acceptions : mondialisation économique, technologique, politique et les défis pour l’éducation qui y sont liés ; devenir-monde comme processus cosmologique de mondification interrogé à partir de la phénoménologie – Husserl, Heidegger, Fink, Patočka, Lévinas, Merleau-Ponty, Barbaras etc. – ou de la philosophie de la nature et de la technique – Jonas, Simondon –, la place de l’imaginaire dans la création des mondes – Arendt, Cassirer, Castoriadis, etc.
Des travaux en anthropologie philosophique, phénoménologie du corps, cosmologie phénoménologique, philosophie de la technique, philosophie et phénoménologie de la nature et de la vie, éthique de la responsabilité et de l’interculturalité seront mobilisés, afin de réfléchir à la question de la situation et du devenir de l’humanité contemporaine dans le monde.
The meaning of our human condition is to be reflected upon from a two-sided approach, on the one hand by taking into account the historicity of such a condition, on the other hand by asking what is specific about its contextual roots and its cultural affiliations, and how in each case it is possible to make a world emerge. In what sense did European thinking and the European civilization contribute to these topics and perspectives? Beyond cultural particularism, we shall also take up the question of how to aim at a shared world through processes of integration that all imply the concept of world in its various meanings: globalization (economical, technological, political, and their related educational challenges); world-becoming seen as a cosmological process of “worlding” (mondification, Welten) through phenomenological approaches (Husserl, Heidegger, Fink, Patočka, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, Barbaras, etc.) and philosophy of nature and technology (Jonas, Simondon, etc.), the place of the imagination in creating new worlds (Arendt, Cassirer, Castoriadis, etc.). Works in philosophical anthropology, phenomenology of the body, phenomenological cosmology, philosophy of technology, philosophy and phenomenology of nature and life, ethics of responsibility, multiculturality and interculturality shall be mobilized, with a view to reflect on the question of the situation and evolution of humanity in the contemporary world.
3. Human condition and world(s) / Condition humaine et monde(s)
The meaning of our human condition will be examined from two points of view: on the one hand, that of its historicity, and on the other, that of the specificity of its contextual roots and cultural affiliations (each of which is capable of ‘making the world’ in different ways). How do European thought and civilisation contribute to these questions and perspectives? Beyond the specific practices of anchoring, we will also examine the aim of a common world through the integrating processes that bring into play the concept of the world in the plurality of its meanings: economic, technological and political globalisation and the related challenges for education; becoming-world as a cosmological process of globalisation questioned from the point of view of phenomenology - Husserl, Heidegger, Fink, Patočka, Lévinas, Merleau-Ponty, Barbaras etc. - or the philosophy of nature and the environment. - or from the philosophy of nature and technology - Jonas, Simondon -, the place of the imaginary in the creation of worlds - Arendt, Cassirer, Castoriadis, etc.
Work in philosophical anthropology, phenomenology of the body, phenomenological cosmology, philosophy of technology, philosophy and phenomenology of nature and life, ethics of responsibility and interculturality will be used to reflect on the situation and future of contemporary humanity in the world.
4. Memory and shared history
By remembering its own history, Europe describes its shared history, its dialogues and its conflicts, but above all identifies its current and future moral and political challenges in a way that is faithful to its vocation as a multifocal link It thus identifies itself as a multiplicity, that is to say a synthesis of differentiation and distinction; and does not resolve itself in the identity of a unity which would itself be a synthesis of overlap or fusion. We see in this identity of differentiation a normative memory: we need to understand how Europe has been constructed and what logics make it turn against itself or amplify its identity. This axis is therefore dedicated to this diffracted memory, and to its effects on the moral identity of Europe today.
5. European bioethics
In order to think about the conditions of a normative discourse anchored in particular historical and philosophical contexts, it will be necessary to anticipate and reveal the axiological and epistemological dissensions that arise in the face of scientific advances. The Group's practical philosophy of bioethical reflection will put to the test the cultural, logical and normative conditions emerging from the plural ethical discourses inherent in our pluralist democracies. In concrete terms, we will be conducting a pragmatic and interdisciplinary reflection on the ethics of research in North-South relations, but also on the conditions of a social ethic with the international players in global bioethics, which forces us to think about the conditions of a concrete universal. Collaboration with the future ‘Centre de Biodroit et Bioéthique’ at the École de Santé Publique will provide the descriptive elements for these normative and reflexive analyses, which will in turn be compared with those of other European, Anglo-Saxon and African bioethics centres.
On insistera aussi sur l’intérêt de maintenir nos liens avec l’Association européenne des centres d’éthique médicale — association dont le Centre d’études bioéthiques de l’UCL fut l’un des cofondateurs il y a plus de 20 ans qui anime un réseau important de centres de recherches et qui organise chaque année une réunion internationale dans l’un des centres associés. Cet axe se comprend donc comme une recherche sur la contextualisation des principes de la bioéthique.