Joseph Ben-David (1920-1986) fut un des sociologues des sciences les plus innovateurs et les plus en vue des années soixante et soixante-dix. Travaillant dans le cadre des théories sociologiques de Max Weber, Talcott Parsons et Robert Kmerton, il élabora dans ses ouvrages et nombreux articles une théorie sociologique originale du développement scientifique. Par sa démarche diachronique, il se démarque des sociologues des sciences de l'école fonctionnaliste ; par sa perspective sociologique, il définit des nouvelles problématiques qui viennent s'ajouter à (...) celles des historiens des sciences travaillant dans une optique " internaliste ". Dans le présent ouvrage ont été réunis et traduits les articles les plus importants de Ben-David, qui, ensemble, dessinent les contours d'une sociologie historique des sciences. Par son pouvoir explicatif, cette théorie est à même d'enrichir la pratique de l'historien des sciences, tandis que, par sa réaffirmation des vertus éthiques des rôles sociaux du savant et de l'Université, elle est d'une grande actualité pour les débats sur l'enseignement supérieur en France. (shrink)

Nous proposons dans cet article de rechercher chez les prédécesseurs de Frank Knight un peu de lumière pour éclairer sa distinction entrerisque etincertitude. D'une part, la lecture des économistes qui l'ont précédé permet de comprendre sa situation dans lapolémique sur la répartition. D'autre part, l'examen des sources philosophiques qui informent sa théorie de la connaissance conduit à analyser l'opposition risque/incertitude comme une opposition théorie de la probabilité/théorie de la connaissance (imparfaite). Le recours à l'épistémologie de Knight fait saisir en quoi (...) sa démarche philosophique le mène à conclure par l'absurde la polémique sur la répartition, et l'autorise alors à proposer une reconstruction de la théorie économique comme science des choix rationnels. (shrink)

David Miller est un intellectuel de gauche britannique bien connu pour ses nombreuses et importantes publications en philosophie politique et son dernier ouvrage, Principles of Social Justice, était attendu avec impatienceDans cet ouvrage, Miller propose des principes généraux de justice sociale devant guider l’organisation des principales institutions de la société ainsi qu’une justification élaborée de ces principes. C’est ce qu’on peut appeler, à l’instar de Miller, une théorie de la justice sociale. La théorie est ambitieuse, traite des principaux aspects (...) de l’organisation de la société et contient des remarques intéressantes sur les difficultés du maintien des services sociaux et des paiements de transfert dans le contexte de la mondialisation et du multiculturalisme. L’auteur prétend que ce qui caractérise sa théorie est un plus grand souci du contexte d’application de la justice ainsi qu’une considération plus systématique des opinions des gens ordinaires. (shrink)

El libro E-physicalism - A Physicalist Theory of PhenomenalConsciousness presenta una teoría en el área de la metafísica de laconciencia fenomenal. Está basada en las convicciones de que la experienciasubjetiva -en el sentido de Nagel - es un fenómeno real,y de que alguna variante del fisicalismo debe ser verdadera.

El libro "E-physicalism - A Physicalist Theory of Phenomenal Consciousness" presenta una teoría en el área de la metafísica de la conciencia fenomenal. Está basada en las convicciones de que la experiencia subjetiva -en el sentido de Nagel - es un fenómeno real, y de que alguna variante del fisicalismo debe ser verdadera.

Cet article commence par examiner trois justifications épistémiques de la démocratie, proposées par José Luis Martí, David Estlund et Hélène Landemore. Tous trois cherchent à montrer en quoi la démocratie possède une tendance à engendrer des décisions correctes, mais font face au risque de légitimer une organisation technocratique du politique, en contradiction avec le principe d’égalité politique. Ils estiment donc que l’argument épistémique ne peut pas suffire à justifier des institutions démocratiques. Cependant, si l’on comprend la valeur «épistémique» d’une (...) décision politique à la fois d’un point de vue factuel et normatif, c’est-à-dire qu’on considère à la fois sa rationalité et son impartialité, une justification épistémique de la démocratie beaucoup plus robuste émerge. C’est cette dernière qui est explorée et défendue dans la seconde partie de cet article. (shrink)

Comment survivre à la vie? Car la vie finit mal, se passe mal aussi parfois, avec ruptures, chagrins, deuils, maladies, et mort. Comment traverser ces catastrophes? Avec l'aide de la foi, qui donne sens à ce qui n'est que souffrance? Mais qu'en est-il de l'athée? S'il veut être cohérent, il ne doit pas chercher à donner un sens à ces souffrances, à leur trouver une justification mais il ne peut faire fond que sur l'absurdité de la vie. Quelle fécondité trouver (...) aux vies abîmées? Comment penser la mort et la douleur? Comme ce qui est étranger à la vie, comme ce qui ne la concerne pas. Sans pour autant faire comme si cela n'était rien. Il faudrait donc tenir ensemble la réalité terrifiante du malheur et la valeur absolue de la vie, qui seule importe.Un essai de philosophie athée rigoureuse, qui pose la question essentielle : à quoi bon vivre? Introduction. Vivre au dehors. Idées pour la constitution d'une éthique athée Chapitre premier. Le pendule équivoque. Tomber malade, vivre debout Chapitre II. Expérience et misère de la mort Chapitre III. Vivre sans, vivre avec - après la mort Chapitre IV. Quelle tuile! Sur l'événement amoureux Chapitre V. Heureux qui comme David (Se faire son petit bonheur juif) Chapitre VI. Des petits et des grandsbouleversements La fin du pire? Remerciements. (shrink)

Richard Popkin’s meticulous translation--the most complete since the eighteenth century--contains selections from thirty-nine articles, as well as from Bayle’s four Clarifications. The bulk of the major articles of philosophical and theological interest--those that influenced Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, and Voltaire and formed the basis for so many eighteenth-century discussions--are present, including David, Manicheans, Paulicians, Pyrrho, Rorarius, Simonides, Spinoza, and Zeno of Elea.

" Tous les hommes désirent être heureux " et " nul ne saurait être heureux sans être vertueux " ; tels sont les principes de départ de l'éthique aristotélicienne. Mais comment les articuler? Et qu'entend exactement Aristote par " bonheur "? Les vertus sont des modes de comportement, comme le courage, la justice et l'amitié, et des activités de la raison, telles la prudence et la contemplation. Mais quel est précisément leur statut par rapport au bonheur? Ces questions correspondent aux (...) problématiques centrales de l'éthique d'Aristote ainsi qu'aux multiples interprétations et débats qu'elles suscitent depuis l'Antiquité. Les contributions de ce recueil se proposent d'en thématiser les enjeux. Contributions de Richard Bodéüs, Pierre Destrée, Jean-Louis Labarrière, David Lefebvre, Pierre Rodrigo, Gerd Van Riel, Marco Zingano. (shrink)

La philosophie de David Hume entend rompre avec une théorie classique des facultés, redessinant la place que l'imagination joue dans notre vie psychique et déployant ainsi une géographie mentale inédite. Instrument privilégié de son scepticisme philosophique, cette théorie de l'imagination pose cependant autant de questions qu'elle n'en résout, du fait même qu'associant imagination et conception, elle se voit chargée de rendre compte de tendances contradictoires au sein de l'esprit humain. Une clarification terminologique et conceptuelle permet alors, faute de résoudre (...) ces tensions, d'éclairer les nouveaux enjeux proposés par une telle approche. (shrink)

Article Patristique -- Patristique latine -- Article Littérature latine chrétienne -- De lectis non lecta componere (Marius Victorinus, Adversus Arium II 7) : raisonnement théologique et raisonnement juridique -- Comptes rendus des conférences données à l'École Pratique des Hautes Études de 1964 à 1980 -- L'entretien d'Origène avec Héraclide et le commentaire de Saint Ambroise sur l'Évangile de Saint Luc -- Une source de l'Apologia David d'Ambroise : les commentaires de Didyme et d'Origène sur le psaume 50 -- Citations (...) de Porphyre chez Augustin : a propos d'un ouvrage récent -- La présentation du Platonisme par Augustin -- L'image de la Trinité dans l'âme chez Victorinus et chez saint Augustin -- Quelques thèmes fondamentaux des Confessions de saint Augustin -- Un fragment du commentaire perdu de Boèce sur les Catégories d'Aristote dans le Codex bernensis 363 -- Typus, stoïcisme et monarchianisme au IVe siècle d'après Candide l'Arien et Marius Victorinus -- Cancellatus respectus : l'usage du chiasme en logique -- La notion d'infini chez saint Augustin -- De Tertullien à Boèce : développement de la notion de personne dans les controverses théologiques. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’David PichéLuca Bianchi. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris: Vrin, 2008. Pp. 192. Paper, €18.00.Since the publication of the work of the Belgian medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen, a solid consensus seems to have emerged in the community of historians of medieval philosophy: no scholar in the Middle Ages defended the so-called “doctrine of the double (...) truth” that the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, had denounced in the prologue of his 1277 Condemnation. Moreover, how could a professional philosopher or theologian seriously contend that two contradictory statements are simultaneously true, one due to natural reason, and the other through the authority of faith? Therefore, the matter seemed settled and the file definitely closed: the double truth is nothing more than a “legend.” Yet the Italian medievalist Luca Bianchi’s in-depth critical analysis of the pseudo-historical evidence has now changed this. Without wanting to propose an entirely new interpretation of the historical ins and outs of this famous doctrine, Bianchi carries out a re-examination of the subject through a meticulous study of certain key texts that he has read in the light of a three-fold question: What impact did passages from Tempier’s decree on the “double truth” have on the medieval scholars themselves? Does the expression itself, ‘duplex veritas’, appear in some medieval documents? What were medieval thinkers’ attitudes in the face of philosophical arguments leading to conclusions contradicting the teachings of the Catholic faith?Due to space constraints, I will limit my discussion to Bianchi’s most crucial results. The answer to the first question (ch. 1) leads us in a surprising fashion to the famous Disputatio of Luther (1539). In this text, the father of the Reformation opposes the principle according to which what is true in theology must also be true in philosophy—a thesis whose paternity he attributes to Parisian theologians. Wanting to ensure the pre-eminence of faith-based teachings over all forms of human rationalization, Luther came to subscribe to a certain form of the double truth, since he claimed that what is absolutely true according to faith can be false and impossible from the perspective of philosophy. This explains his radical opposition to the “Parisian” principle that Bianchi calls “the principle of the oneness of truth.” We learn that some theologians in fifteenth- century Paris, notably Jean Gerson and Guillaume Baudin, were actually inspired by Tempier’s decree to defend some form of this principle.To respond to the second question (ch. 2), Bianchi first researched the electronic database Library of Latin Texts (CLCLT-6), and came up with “disappointing results”: no author uses the expression ‘duplex veritas’ in the relevant sense. Nevertheless, as imposing as it is, this database is not exhaustive, and Bianchi, well aware of this, extended his research by consulting other documents on paper, allowing him ultimately to reach a positive conclusion: the expression ‘duplex veritas’ appears in the course of a debate that took place around [End Page 99] 1470 on the subject of the truth-value of statements about future contingents. This debate involved a master of arts from Louvain, Pierre de Rivo, who considered it essential to distinguish between the truth of philosophers and the “popular” truth upheld by the churchmen, and a Parisian theologian whom we have already encountered, Guillaume Baudin, who invoked the “principle of the oneness of truth” to denounce the “double truth” that his adversary was promoting.From Bianchi’s multifaceted response to the third question (chs. 3–4), I can only present the groundswell. From the statutes promulgated by the Parisian Arts Faculty in 1272 up to the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, including the constitution Apostolici regiminis issued by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), a significant evolution may be observed in the requirements academic and religious authorities imposed on professors of philosophy (as well as on scientists) in the western Christian world. Indeed, we may observe that these requirements correspond, first, to the obligation to counter, as far as possible, arguments that contradict faith, and then transform into the duty to commit to a strong... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’David PichéLuca Bianchi. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris: Vrin, 2008. Pp. 192. Paper, €18.00.Since the publication of the work of the Belgian medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen, a solid consensus seems to have emerged in the community of historians of medieval philosophy: no scholar in the Middle Ages defended the so-called “doctrine of the double (...) truth” that the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, had denounced in the prologue of his 1277 Condemnation. Moreover, how could a professional philosopher or theologian seriously contend that two contradictory statements are simultaneously true, one due to natural reason, and the other through the authority of faith? Therefore, the matter seemed settled and the file definitely closed: the double truth is nothing more than a “legend.” Yet the Italian medievalist Luca Bianchi’s in-depth critical analysis of the pseudo-historical evidence has now changed this. Without wanting to propose an entirely new interpretation of the historical ins and outs of this famous doctrine, Bianchi carries out a re-examination of the subject through a meticulous study of certain key texts that he has read in the light of a three-fold question: What impact did passages from Tempier’s decree on the “double truth” have on the medieval scholars themselves? Does the expression itself, ‘duplex veritas’, appear in some medieval documents? What were medieval thinkers’ attitudes in the face of philosophical arguments leading to conclusions contradicting the teachings of the Catholic faith?Due to space constraints, I will limit my discussion to Bianchi’s most crucial results. The answer to the first question (ch. 1) leads us in a surprising fashion to the famous Disputatio of Luther (1539). In this text, the father of the Reformation opposes the principle according to which what is true in theology must also be true in philosophy—a thesis whose paternity he attributes to Parisian theologians. Wanting to ensure the pre-eminence of faith-based teachings over all forms of human rationalization, Luther came to subscribe to a certain form of the double truth, since he claimed that what is absolutely true according to faith can be false and impossible from the perspective of philosophy. This explains his radical opposition to the “Parisian” principle that Bianchi calls “the principle of the oneness of truth.” We learn that some theologians in fifteenth- century Paris, notably Jean Gerson and Guillaume Baudin, were actually inspired by Tempier’s decree to defend some form of this principle.To respond to the second question (ch. 2), Bianchi first researched the electronic database Library of Latin Texts (CLCLT-6), and came up with “disappointing results”: no author uses the expression ‘duplex veritas’ in the relevant sense. Nevertheless, as imposing as it is, this database is not exhaustive, and Bianchi, well aware of this, extended his research by consulting other documents on paper, allowing him ultimately to reach a positive conclusion: the expression ‘duplex veritas’ appears in the course of a debate that took place around [End Page 99] 1470 on the subject of the truth-value of statements about future contingents. This debate involved a master of arts from Louvain, Pierre de Rivo, who considered it essential to distinguish between the truth of philosophers and the “popular” truth upheld by the churchmen, and a Parisian theologian whom we have already encountered, Guillaume Baudin, who invoked the “principle of the oneness of truth” to denounce the “double truth” that his adversary was promoting.From Bianchi’s multifaceted response to the third question (chs. 3–4), I can only present the groundswell. From the statutes promulgated by the Parisian Arts Faculty in 1272 up to the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, including the constitution Apostolici regiminis issued by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), a significant evolution may be observed in the requirements academic and religious authorities imposed on professors of philosophy (as well as on scientists) in the western Christian world. Indeed, we may observe that these requirements correspond, first, to the obligation to counter, as far as possible, arguments that contradict faith, and then transform into the duty to commit to a strong... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Leibniz and Bayle: Manicheism and Dialectic DAVID NORTON LEIBNIZ' CLAIM that this is the "best of all possible worlds" has seemed so prima facie absurd that his critics have often considered the assertion adequately refuted by their pointing to things which are clearly "bad" and which might conceivably be "better." The paradigm case is Voltaire's Candide, which is certainly an effective refutation of Leibniz' claim at this level. (...) We can, however, by taking another point of view find what appear to be other absurdities in Leibniz' metaphysics. The point of view I wish to take, or attempt to take, is that of Pierre Bayle. I wish to suggest some objections to Leibniz which Bayle may have felt, but which he did not make explicit. Such an undertaking will, hopefully, add to our understanding of both Leibniz and Bayle. I What I propose to do is unorthodox, or at least unusual, and for that reason it is extremely important that the reader have from the very outset a clear idea of what is being undertaken. I can best clarify my aims, I think, by first attending briefly to some historical matters. Between 1695 and 1699 Bayle and Leibniz carried on a lively controversy over the latter's metaphysical views, though the debate was limited almost entirely to the notion of pre-established harmony. This controversy is well enough known that we need not stop over its details; in summary, Bayle first admits delight at what appears to be a new metaphysical explanation of the union of mind and body, but then goes on to argue that, after all, Leibniz' system is either no more than a reformulation of occasionalism, or impossible, since it violates clear and accepted metaphysical canons? Now, so far as we know, Bayle did not comment further on Leibniz' metaphysics, though the latter was * I wish to thank Prof. Harry M. Bracken, Arizona State University, and Prof. Richard H. Popkin, University of California, San Diego, for the suggestions and criticisms which they made of an earlier form of this paper. Their suggestions were all enlightening, if not all adopted-meaning, of course, that they would probably not agree with all that I here suggest. x Pierre Bayle, Dictionaire historique et critique, 5=. 6dition, revue, corrig6e, et augment6e, avec la vie de l'auteur, par Mr. Des Maizeaux, 4 tomes (Amsterdam, Leide. La Haye, Utrecht: 1740), article "Rorarius," reins. H. and L. For a fuller account of the Bayle-Leibniz controversy, see Austin Farrer, "Editor's Introduction," in G. W. Leibniz, Theodicy, ed. Austin Farrer, trans. E. M. Huggard (London: 1951), pp. 7-47, esp. pp. 33-47. 24 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY eager to continue the controversy, and did so, his final effort being a gigantic one, the Essais de Thdodicde. Unfortunately, Bayle died before the Thdodicde was published and was deprived accordingly of any opportunity to reply to it. Bayle did, however, leave in the Dictionaire historique et critique a number of arguments against various metaphysical positions. The point of my paper is to show that certain of these arguments are applicable to Leibniz' system, and that applied to that system they reveal features of it which we might otherwise have overlooked. Bayle adduces arguments which seem with only slight modification to point directly at Leibniz--though without indicating that he has Leibniz in mind. I hope first of all to show what these arguments are and in what sense they refute Leibniz. I have said that Bayle gives no indication that these arguments of his apply to Leibniz; strictly speaking, this is correct. This does not mean, however, that I am understaking an unjustified wild goose chase through the Dictionaire : Bayle himself offers the motivation which has led to this study when he says in "Rorarius" (rem. L) that he has withheld some objections to Leibniz' opinions on the ground that these are no more objections to Leibniz than to certain other philosophers: "Je m'abstiens aussi de toutes les Objections qui ne sont pas plus contraires ~t son sentiment qu'~t celui de quelques autres Philosophes." In one sense then this paper can be thought of as my speculations of what these waived objections are... (shrink)

« Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée. » Il n’est pas rare de voir dans l’incipit du Discours de la méthode un de ces énoncés cartésiens qui, par leur simplicité et leur transparence, marquèrent une rupture avec la technicité de la philosophie scolastique des siècles précédents. Pourtant, à se pencher sur les commentaires qui ont été produits de ce texte, dès sa publication, il apparaît que pour un certain nombre de contemporains de Descartes, il y (...) avait là une référence à la théorie dite de l’intensio et remissio formarum – ou latitude des formes – qui, de Pierre Lombard à Nicolas d’Oresme en passant par Richard de Middleton, fit l’objet de discussions soutenues pendant plus de six siècles. Cette théorie énonce que seules les qualités accidentelles sont susceptibles de variations intensives dans une substance, contrairement aux propriétés essentielles qui, elles, sont invariables. L’énoncé de Descartes, aux atours de simple proverbe, cacherait en réalité un tour de force argumentatif : tenant pour acquis que la pensée constitue l’attribut essentiel de l’âme, Descartes mobiliserait la théorie de l’intensio et remissio formarum pour affirmer qu’en chaque âme, cette pensée n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins. Il devient alors possible de définir certaines opérations épistémiques élémentaires qui s’observent à part égale en chacun de nous, et ne sont pas soumises à la variabilité des compétences individuelles.Mais ce point d’interprétation du texte de Descartes ne conserverait qu’un intérêt herméneutique s’il ne trouvait, outre-Manche et quelques dizaines d’années plus tard, un remarquable rebondissement : En 1690, John Locke, dans L’Essai sur l’entendement humain, identifie parfaitement la référence médiévale sous-jacente à cet énoncé canonique du cartésianisme, et la discute avec la plus grande rigueur. En indexant la pensée sur l’attention, et en remarquant que cette attention est susceptible de variations d’intensités au cours du temps, Locke en vient à se demander s’il ne faut pas renoncer au postulat cartésien selon lequel la pensée constituerait l’essence de l’âme, et lui préférer l’hypothèse selon laquelle cette pensée ne serait pour l’âme qu’une activité. (shrink)

" Tous les hommes désirent être heureux " et " nul ne saurait être heureux sans être vertueux " ; tels sont les principes de départ de l'éthique aristotélicienne. Mais comment les articuler? Et qu'entend exactement Aristote par " bonheur "? Les vertus sont des modes de comportement, comme le courage, la justice et l'amitié, et des activités de la raison, telles la prudence et la contemplation. Mais quel est précisément leur statut par rapport au bonheur? Ces questions correspondent aux (...) problématiques centrales de l'éthique d'Aristote ainsi qu'aux multiples interprétations et débats qu'elles suscitent depuis l'Antiquité. Les contributions de ce recueil se proposent d'en thématiser les enjeux. Contributions de Richard Bodéüs, Pierre Destrée, Jean-Louis Labarrière, David Lefebvre, Pierre Rodrigo, Gerd Van Riel, Marco Zingano. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage trouve son point de départ dans un séminaire intitulé « Puissance, Mouvement, Acte » organisé, en 2001-2004, par les éditeurs de ce volume qui rassemble donc les principales contributions consacrées à la notion de puissance. Comme l’indique le titre, le volume comporte néanmoins un point focal, à savoir la philosophie d’Aristote en laquelle la notion de dynamis se trouve, avec l’energeia, mise au principe d’une ontologie qui s’efforce d’articuler substantialité et mobilité, déterm...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:53. AN INDEX OF HUME'S REFERENCES IN A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE The index below of Hume's references in the Treatise te the works of other authors excludes those which are accurate and full in his text (of which there are few) and those which are so general, e.g., to Spinoza's atheism, that no passage is specifiable. Hume mentions other writings, for which this index is compiled, in several (...) different ways. Occasionally he mentions the author's name, the title of his book and gives a reference which is less specific than it could be. These have been identified. Often he mentions an author's name only, e.g., de Retz, and in such cases the fullest possible reference has been given. One of Hume's notable intellectual gifts was his ability to distil several pages of a book into one or two sentences of crisp and accurate synthesis. (This skill is most apparent in his summaries of articles in Bayle' s Dictionary in his "Notes on Philosophy", of which the manuscript is in the Royal Society of Edinburgh Library.) In these instances, page references are impossible and the closest indication one can give is a section or chapter. Some of his references are anonymous, e.g., as an 'elegant writer' says, and so are some quotations. These have been identified with one exception. One anonymous reference (number 24 below) requires explanation because it is both anachronistic and interesting. Hume refers to an observation by "a late eminent philosopher". It is anachronistic because the book to which he refers was published after the Treatise; it is interesting because it provides further evidence of Hutcheson's influence on Hume and the latter' s regard for him. The explanation, for Hutcheson was still alive when Vol.11 of the Treatise appeared in 1739, is that 'late' is here being used in the sense of 'recent' - Hutcheson himself uses the word in the same way in referring to Mandeville when the latter was 54. alive. (An enquiry concerning moral good and evil. Section 1, VI.) Further, the System circulated widely among Hutcheson's friends in Scotland and over so many years that it finally appeared posthumously. That Hume could not cite a published work also accounts for the anonymity of the reference to someone he admired. It is often impossible to determine in which language or in which edition Hume read a particular author. Where there is evidence as to which language he used, the title has been given in that language. There are now so many extant editions of the Treatise that Volume, Part, Chapter and Section references are given, as well as the pagination of Selby-Bigge' s edition, so that readers of other editions may be able to use the index. 1.Vol. 1. Title-page. Tacitus, The Histories, Bk. I. 1. 2.Part 1, Sect. 1, p. 2, n. John Locke, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, Bk. I, Chap. I, 8. 3.Sect. VII, p. 17, n. George Berkeley, A Treatise concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, Introductixi, Sect. 7, e_t seq. 4.Part II, Sect. II, p. 30, n. Nicolas de Malezieu, Elementa Geometrica. 5.Sect. Ill, p. 35, n. John Locke, Essay, Bk. II, Chap. XIV. 6.Sect. IV, p. 43, n. Antoine Arnauld, La logique ou l'art de penser. Part I, Chap. 5. (In some editions Pierre Nicole is named as co-author. The book is also known as the Port Royal Logic). 7.Sect. IV, p. 46, n. Isaac Barrow, Mathematical Lectures. 8.Part III, Sect. Ill, p. 80, n. Thomas Hobbes, Elements of Philosophy, Part Second, Chap. 9. And Tripos : in Three Discourse. Ill, of Liberty and Necessity. 55. Sect. Ill, p. 80, n. e.g., Samuel Clarke, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, Props. I-III, et. seq. 10.Sect. Ill, p. 81, n. John Locke, Essay, Bk. IV, Chap. X. 11.Sect. VIII, p. 100 and appendix Vol. Ill, p. 630. Cicero, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, Bk. V. 1.2. 12.Sect. XIII, p. 153. Jean Francois Paul de Gondi, Cardinal de Retz, Mémoires, Bk. III. The second 'observation' is from Book... (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ Cet article offre la première édition du début des Communia logic e, une substantielle compilation didascalique issue de la Faculté des arts de l’Université de Paris au milieu du xiiie siècle et contenue dans un manuscrit légué par maître Pierre de Limoges à l’ancienne bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Après une présentation générale et avant des précisions sur la Ratio edendi, l’étude doctrinale qui précède cette édition montre comment l’auteur-compilateur des Communia logic e répond — en le reformulant — (...) au célèbre questionnaire porphyrien relatif aux universaux. ABSTRACT This article offers the first edition of the beginning of the Communia logic e, a substantial didascalical compilation emanating from the Arts faculty of the University of Paris during the first half of the thirteenth century and preserved in a manuscript bequeathed by master Peter of Limoges to the old library of the Sorbonne. After a general presentation and before some clarifications on the Ratio edendi, the doctrinal study which precedes this edition shows how the author-compiler of the Communia logic e answers — while reformulating it — to the well known porphyrian set of questions about the universals. (shrink)

Summary The correspondence in this issue of History of European Ideas has not previously been published. It is the surviving part of the epistolary exchange between Dugald Stewart and the Genevan professor and man of letters Pierre Prevost (1751?1839) from the 1790s to the 1820s. To this are added several closely connected letters to and from their associates. This correspondence is striking evidence of the republic of letters continuing to flourish in the aftermath of the French Revolution, illustrating the (...) transmission of works, the role of go-betweens, the provision of letters of introduction and the formation of intellectual and personal alliances. Not least, the letters tell us much about the ideas of those involved, and about the formation, development, and relation of these ideas to published works. This is particularly significant for Stewart, most of whose letters and papers are lost. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es revisar las posturas de Pierre Bayle y David Hume en torno al problema del mal, para determinar si la postura de Hume se reduce a la de su predecesor o si existen diferencias más profundas entre ambos. Bayle propone una solución fideísta, declarando que se trata de un misterio que está por encima de la razón al que debemos adherir a partir de la creencia, mientras que Hume se limita a suspender el (...) juicio al respecto. En primer lugar, se reconstruye el planteo del problema del mal y sus consecuencias sobre la moral en los dos autores. Luego, se revisan sus críticas a la teología racional y el papel que juega el escepticismo respecto de la religión. Se concluye que la influencia de Bayle sobre Hume está centrada en mostrar las limitaciones de la razón humana para abordar el problema, y que el aporte original de este último se vincula con la defensa de la filosofía como un tipo de especulación autónoma. (shrink)

Este artículo es acerca del modo en que Henry David Thoreau concibe la filosofía, esto es, no como una cuestión meramente teórica sino como un asunto práctico y existencial, vinculado a una forma de vida. Sin embargo, a diferencia de la interpretación que hace Pierre Hadot de Walden, no entendemos esto como una reminiscencia a la manera de los antiguos de abordarla. Por el contrario, la presentamos como una inscripción del autor en una tradición inequívocamente moderna, aquella que (...) concibe la vida como un experimento y al filósofo como un experimentador. Esta lectura de la obra de Thoreau en clave experimental abre la filosofía a nuevas posibilidades, al situarla más allá de su carácter representacional y de la búsqueda de la verdad. Al mismo tiempo, permite matizar la imagen negativa de Thoreau que ha predominado desde los tiempos del autor, la de un moralista inflexible con frecuencia desdeñoso de la vida de los demás. (shrink)

En la atención prestada por algunos filósofos contemporáneos a la temática clásica de la filosofía como cuidado del alma y como forma de vida, se dan afinidades diversas. Pierre Hadot tiene preferencia por los estoicos; Michel Foucault, por los cínicos; Jan Patočka, por Sócrates y Platón, etc. En este artículo sostenemos que algunos de los puntos nucleares de la forma de vida franciscana de los primeros tiempos conectan estrechamente con los del cuidado del alma de los antiguos (transformándolos o (...) bien radicalizándolos), y pueden constituir una valiosa fuente de inspiración para la encrucijada en la que se mueve nuestro presente social, y nuestro horizonte filosófico. (shrink)

In response to an article by Acres and colleagues, “Credentialing the Clinical Ethics Consultant: An Academic Medical Center Affirms Professionalism and Practice,” the authors urge continued action for the credentialing and certification of clinical ethics consultants. They also promote a vigorous and engaged model for ethics consultation.

Much has been written about the role of hospital ethics committees. Ethics committees may have begun in Seattle in the early 1960s, but they were reified in. New Jersey by the Quinlan Court in the 1970s and thrived in the national bioethics movement of the 1980s.In this flurry of ethics activity, several new forms of ethics committees have evolved. New forms of ethics committees include patient care-oriented ethics committees. Many ethicists are familiar with mission-oriented ethics committees. Such committees have taken (...) on new roles, and Include PROs, IPCs, and HREAPs. In general, these committees are regulatory in nature and may often rely on rules and regulations to assess patient cases, research protocols, and health professional practices. (shrink)

This article challenges the view most recently expounded by Emily Jackson that ‘decisional privacy’ ought to be respected in the realm of artificial reproduction (AR). On this view, it is considered an unjust infringement of individual liberty for the state to interfere with individual or group freedom artificially to produce a child. It is our contention that a proper evaluation of AR and of the relevance of welfare will be sensitive not only to the rights of ‘commissioning parties’ to AR (...) but also to public policy considerations. We argue that AR has implications for the common good, by involving matters of human reproduction, kinship, race, parenthood and identity. In this paper we challenge presuppositions concerning decisional privacy. We examine the essential commodification of human life implicit in AR and the systematicity that makes this possible. We address the objection that it is an ethically neutral way of having children and consider the problem of ‘existential debt’. After examining objections to the thesis that AR is illegitimate for reasons of public policy and the common good, we return to the issue of decisional privacy in the light of considerations concerning the legitimate role of the state in matters affecting human reproduction. (shrink)

The current debate over systematicity concerns the formal conditions a scheme of mental representation must satisfy in order to explain the systematicity of thought.1 The systematicity of thought is assumed to be a pervasive property of minds, and can be characterized (roughly) as follows: anyone who can think T can think systematic variants of T, where the systematic variants of T are found by permuting T’s constituents. So, for example, it is an alleged fact that anyone who can think the (...) thought that John loves Mary can think the thought that Mary loves John, where the latter thought is a systematic variant of the former. (shrink)

Se recupera aquí para la discusión ética contemporánea la perspectiva universalista del logos presente en la Ética a Nicómaco de Aristóteles. En oposición a unas versiones comunitaristas de la ética aristotélica que dan lugar a posiciones particularistas o relativistas, el logos se liga a la naturaleza humana, y universal, del hombre.

Son compatibles la liberdad, la egualdad y la democracia? Si pero no bajo el capitalismo”[“Are Liberty, Equality and Democracy Compatible? Yes, But Not Under Capitalism”].