Dans cet article, je propose une interprétation de la philosophie de Wilhelm Dilthey qui repose sur trois idées directrices. La première idée identifie l'objet de sa philosophie : la vie. La deuxième idée établit sa méthode, soit l'autoréflexion. La troisième idée clarifie ce qui est révélé par l'autoréflexion, à savoir l'universalité et la variabilité de la vie. Dans un premier temps, je défends que la lecture épistémologique de la philosophie de Dilthey doit être abandonnée. Dans un deuxième temps, je présente mon interprétation de la philosophie de Dilthey.

Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology reveals two attitudes regarding the classification of phenomena. On the one hand, they are classified by type. On the other, the “banality of saturation” reduces these types to possible interpretations, in which case saturation isn’t a qualitative rupture anymore, but a possible hermeneutic attitude to any phenomenon. Hence, there is, in Marion’s phenomenology, a tension between a metaphysical attitude that maintains categorial discontinuities, and a hermeneutic temptation driven by the recovery of quantitative continuities between all phenomena. Yet, Marion does not push this quantitative temptation to its limits; he steps back in front of a specifically saturated phenomenon: the icon.

The letter to the Colossians—most probably a deuteropauline document—reflects a theology of memory. Far from having the ambition of saying something new, the author aims at offering the addressed community a re-reading—paradoxically highly original in its form and content—of its own religious tradition so that the addressees will be able to interpret in a persuasive way their present situation, a situation that became more and more opaque and conflictual. The explicit confrontation with the ‘Colossian philosophy’ seems to be secondary at first sight, but a multiple reading of the letter allows one to discover strong ties between the non-polemical and the polemical parts of the letter. Read in this perspective, Col 2 reveals between the lines a conflict of interpretation about some central notions, such as ‘humility’, ‘intelligence’, ‘wisdom’, among others.