Parmenides warns against inquiring on the dead–end way of non–being (ouk esti): it is impossible to know and speak of what–is–not (to mē eon). At DK 28 B 8.6–9, he denies that not–being can be treated as real, and that it can be considered in any reliable reasoning.

Melissus, in contrast, at DK 30 B 1 treats non– being as a possible state of affairs, as a possibility worth considering as a part of argumentation, though one from which generation remains impossible. This paper focuses on this radical shift regarding non–being between these two Eleatic thinkers, resulting in very different ways of seeing the world.

A real fascination with Greece arose in Germany at the end of the 18th century with the works of Winckelmann, the founder of scientific archeology. The subject of this text is the German nostalgia for Greece which developed at that time in the circle of the first romanticists and among the thinkers of German  idealism. The emphasis will be put on three of the most important figures of German poetry and philosophy of this period: Schiller, Hegel and Hölderlin. But it will be shown that it is only with Hölderlin that for this idealized image of Greece a new image of Greece as profoundly divided between Occident and Orient was substituted.

This article intends to analyse the idea of prehistoric war in French anthropology during the 1914–1939 period. This work consists firstly in understanding how the First World War impacts the main periodical scientific publications concerning the subject of war itself and more precisely our object of study, prehistoric war. Next, the research is pursued in the scientific literature to find the structuring elements of the thought about warfare and identify the explanatory theories. In a third part, we analyse the comparative approach between prehistoric war and primitive war. The results emphasize a certain abandonment of the subject of prehistoric war, due mainly to the weakness of explanatory theories and the distance between the two different approaches, the one of prehistorians and the other of ethnologists.

Jesuit and palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin died suddenly on the 4th of April, 1955, leaving a large part of his work unpublished. Throughout the rest of the year, the press announced the imminent publication of The Phenomenon of Man, presented as the scientific side of his work. By fall, the book was published, accompanied by an impressive list of prestigious signatures. But over time, this tacit consensus loses its vigour and the question of the book’s scientific nature makes a strong comeback. The first interrogations arise in the early 1960s. These interrogations sometimes concern his scientific work, sometimes his philosophical–theological work, but almost never the man himself. To follow the reception of The Phenomenon of Man comes down to following the line drawn by Teilhardism. This ism is associated with Teilhard de Chardin’s thought, which takes its shape at the heart of the Glorious Thirty in France, before setting alight many other countries, and which seems to decline after crossing the threshold of 1965.