In Pascal’s Pensées, at the very end of the so-called “wager” fragment, we find this intriguing remark intended to win once and for all the whole conviction of the “libertine” the apologist is addressing to : “I will tell you that you will win thereby in this life”. This article endeavours to reconsider this remark seriously, as it has been somewhat neglected by the canonical commentaries on the “wager”. We begin by determining the reasons that lead the apologist to this (...) final remark, then we attempt to define its meaning and scope in Pascal’s apologetic project. Next we seek to identify the “gain in this life” that is promised to the libertine who adopts a Christian lifestyle. This leads to study how Pascal analyses joy. To conclude we propose some more general thoughts about the strategies this fragment of Les Pensées suggests to today’s Christian apologetics. (shrink)

Le jugement qu'on portera sur ce livre dépendra en grande partie de la façon dont on évaluera son contenu en fonction des attentes créées par son titre. Si l'on espère une mise au jour—qui, de fait, serait novatrice—d'une pensée précise, développée et systématique de Malebranche sur les thèmes cardinaux de la philosophie politique classique, on sera déçu: ce livre ne contient rien de tel, sinon, dans une certaine mesure, en sa troisième partie. Si l'on compte lire une monographie informée offrant (...) une synthèse sur des thèmes centraux du malebranchisme en relation avec la sphère du politique prise en un sens large (nature des... (shrink)

Nicolas Malebranche fut le principal représentant du cartésianisme en France. Sa pensée se présente comme une audacieuse tentative de synthèse entre la philosophie « moderne » de Descartes et certains thèmes fondamentaux de l’augustinisme. Malebranche est donc un représentant majeur de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler le « rationalisme chrétien ».Ce livre expose et analyse une série de thèmes qui fournissent des axes directeurs pour la lecture de l’abondante œuvre de Malebranche. Il fait apparaître l’intérêt philosophique des principales problématiques malebranchistes (...) : la théorie de la connaissance et de l’idée; la question de la connaissance de soi; les rapports entre philosophie et religion; la théorie de la causalité appelée « occasionalisme »; la théodicée. Il tente aussi de suggérer les multiples postérités du malebranchisme, qui exerça une influence considérable sur l’ensemble des penseurs européens du XVIIIe siècle. (shrink)

Deux des derniers textes philosophiques d'Antoine Arnauld (Dissertatio bipartita…, 1692; Règles du bon sens…, 1693) sont dirigés contre les défenseurs de la « vision en Dieu » des idées ou vérités éternelles. En commentant les textes de Thomas d'Aquin consacrés à la notion de vérité, Arnauld critique Platon, saint Augustin et Jansénius, puis semble adopter une position proche de Descartes sur le statut des vérités éternelles. D'autres textes confirment qu'Arnauld est sans doute le seul des grands post-cartésiens à avoir accepté (...) la thèse dite de la « création des vérités éternelles », et à avoir refusé à la fois l'univocité de la connaissance entre l'homme et Dieu et l'univocité de l'être. Cette fidélité à Descartes donne une place particulière à Arnauld dans l'histoire du cartésianisme, et amène à une question: ne peut-on chercher dans son œuvre une authentique « théologie cartésienne »? Two of Antoine Arnauld's last philosophical texts (Dissertatio bipartita…, 1692; Règles du bon sens…, 1693) are directed against the defenders of the « vision in God » of ideas or eternal truths. Commenting upon Thomas Aquinas' texts about thruth, Arnauld criticizes Platon, Augustine and Jansenius, and seems to adopt a position close to Descartes' about the status of eternal truths. Other texts confirm that Arnauld is probably the only one among the great post-cartesians to accept the thesis called « creation of eternal truths », and to refuse both the univocity of knowledge between God and man, and the univocity of being. This loyalty to Descartes places Arnauld in very specific position in the history of cartesianism, and leads to the following query: can we not find in his work an authentic « cartesian theology »? (shrink)

De 1683 a 1694, Antoine Arnauld et Nicolas Malebranche, anciens amis et pretres que leur interet pour Descartes, leur reverence pour Augustin et leur commune inquietude face au libertinage semblaient pourtant destiner a s'entendre, polemiquerent violemment. En insistant sur l'aspect philosophique de ces debats, cet ouvrage propose la premiere interpretation d'ensemble de cette celebre confrontation. Y a-t-il de serieuses raisons philosophiques au desaccord entre Arnauld et Malebranche? Leur determination permet-elle d'eclairer certains aspects du malebranchisme? Existe-t-il une philosophie d'Antoine Arnauld et (...) peut-on en preciser les contenus? Ces trois questions centrales conduisent au point de fuite de ce travail: l'impuissance theologique du cartesianisme est-elle congenitale, ou bien peut-on tirer des dividendes theologiques de la philosophie cartesienne sans en faire jouer les structures et en modifier les concepts fondamentaux? (shrink)

In this paper, I develop a philosophical clarification of the statement "faith in the resurrection of Christ saves men from sin", using some of the main arguments and hypotheses of my recent book, ’The Ways of Salvation (Les Voies du salut’, Paris 2010). I begin with some remarks on the theme of salvation in contemporary language and philosophy. I then sketch a conceptual analysis of the concept of salvation, first in its general sense, then in its specifically Christian one. Finally, (...) I offer a hypothesis on the ’modus operandi’ of salvation, or at least of one aspect of salvation as understood by Christianity. (shrink)

L’ouvrage de Denis Moreau est passionnant et nous tient en haleine du commencement à la fin. Il sera très bien accueilli par le nombre croissant de spécialistes d’Arnauld, par les dix-septiémistes en général, ainsi que par les historiens de la pensée.

Book Reviews Joël Boudreault, Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue canadienne de philosophie, FirstView Article.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Deux cartésiens: La polémique Arnauld MalebrancheSteven NadlerDenis Moreau. Deux cartésiens: La polémique Arnauld Malebranche. Paris: J. Vrin, 1999. Pp. 353. NP.The Arnauld-Malebranche debate is one of the great intellectual events of the seventeenth-century. Taking place over an eleven-year time span, and brought to a conclusion only by Arnauld's death, the debate ranged over a wide variety of philosophical and theological issues. At stake were some of the (...) most important questions faced by early modern thinkers: the nature of human knowledge and its relationship to the divine understanding; the appropriate conception of human and divine freedom; the problem of causality; the ontology of evil and the possibility of engaging in theodicean speculation; even the nature of God itself. It is thus very surprising that there has not been, until now, a full-scale (but by no means exhaustive) study of the debate, especially its rich philosophical dimensions.Many readers approaching the documents of the affaire are, of course, put off by the unpleasant personal invective that characterizes many of the principals' exchanges, as well as by what appears to be the repetitive nature of much of the dialogue. Philosophers, as well, have probably been deterred by the debate's theological dimensions, especially the wrangling over questions of grace. More importantly, contemporary philosophers in the Anglo-American tradition have been led to believe that the philosophical side of the debate is fairly one-dimensional, centered only on the nature of representational ideas and the problems surrounding our perception of the external [End Page 595] world. In fact, as Denis Moreau shows in this learned, highly-readable and illuminating study of the debate, the controversy over ideas was only the opening round, Arnauld's point of entry into Malebranche's complex, systematic, but (to Arnauld's mind) highly objectionable philosophical theology.The title of this book is important. Part of Moreau's thesis is that much of the passion of the debate, especially on Arnauld's side, has its origin in the familial context. What is at stake, at least in Arnauld's mind, is the legacy of Cartesianism. Arnauld, Moreau argues convincingly (and contrary to a good deal of scholarly opinion), was a sincere and committed (but not uncritical) disciple of Descartes' (177). His attack on Malebranche was motivated, in part, by a desire to prevent "la philosophie cartésienne" from being transformed for posterity into "la philosophie malebranchiste." It was also motivated, of course and perhaps more importantly, by his desire to defend what he took to be the true Christian conception of God.Part One of the book is devoted to showing how Arnauld's polemical persistence was the result not just of a pugnacious character or personal animus towards his opponent, but rather of a principled approach to philosophical inquiry. His beliefs on the nature and validity of evidence, the proper method to be used in the search after truth, and especially philosophy as a social enterprise all demanded a personal and dialectical confrontation with a heavy dose of rhetoric. Malebranche, on the other hand, preferred a more solitary and meditative mode of inquiry, and was thus unprepared for Arnauld's agonistic onslaught. Thus, Moreau insists with great originality, "on peut ainsi lire cette polémique comme le conflit de deux théories de l'acquisition et de la constitution du savoir."The occasional cause of Arnauld's attack on Malebranche's theory of ideas and his doctrine of vision in God (in Des vraies et des fausses idées) was the publication of the Traité de la nature et de la grace (1680). The epistemological and ontological objections raised in the initial discussion over "êtres représentatifs" was meant ultimately to undermine Malebranche's theodicy by attacking the foundational principles upon which it rested. In Part Two of the book, Moreau looks at what, in Arnauld's eyes, was the essential flow in Malebranche's account: the assertion of the reality of evil. Evil, Malebranche insisted, was not to be explained away as merely illusory, or as forming an essential contributing ingredient of a larger, more perfect whole. Evil is irreducibly real; there is imperfection... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.1 (2002) 123-124 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Textes philosophiques: conclusions philosophiques. Dissertation en deux parties sur la vision des vérités en Dieu et l'amour de la vertu. Régle du bon sens. De la liberté de l'homme Antoine Arnauld. Textes philosophiques: conclusions philosophiques. Dissertation en deux parties sur la vision des vérités en Dieu et l'amour de la vertu. Régle du bon (...) sens. De la liberté de l'homme. Épiméthée. Translated by Denis Moreau. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001. Pp. xi + 333. Cloth, FF 198.00. This collection should prove useful to anyone doing research on Antoine Arnauld, or more generally on philosophical theology in seventeenth-century France. The collection contains excellent French translations of three Latin texts, and a scholarly, if not critical, edition of a fourth text that appeared originally in French. They are accompanied by helpful [End Page 123] introductions and copious scholarly notes. A bibliography of 533 secondary works on Arnauld is provided.Studies of Arnauld's philosophy have concentrated on his polemics with Malebranche and Leibniz. Moreau suggests that Arnauld's philosophy is worth studying in its own right, and the texts he has selected provide a start for such a study. The first text, Conclusiones Philosophicae, is a set of theses composed by Arnauld for defense by one of his students in 1641, when Arnauld himself was twenty-nine years old. It is our only record of Arnauld's early philosophical thought. Moreau points out that Conclusiones anticipates themes developed by Arnauld during the rest of his long career, and that the text is also valuable as an indicator of the sort of philosophical questions being discussed in Paris at the time that Descartes wrote the Meditations. The original Latin and Moreau's French translation are given on facing pages.The second and third texts in the collection, Dissertatio Bipartita and Régles du Bon Sens, were parts of a debate within Jansenist circles near the end of Arnauld's life. Arnauld's friend, and his collaborator in the Port-Royal Logic, Pierre Nicole, had introduced into Port-Royal the speculation that every human being receives a "grace générale" that makes it possible for her to perform morally good actions. Arnauld attacked this theory in the late 1680s. Given the Augustinian assumption that an action is morally good only if it is directed to God as the agent's final end, and given that some people have never thought about God, the theory of a grace générale raised a philosophical question: How could someone who has no knowledge of God act out of the love of God? Nicole's answer was that the grace générale given to every human being brings with it a sort of implicit, confused, and imperceptible knowledge and love of God. In defense of this answer, Nicole refers to a thesis written by the Louvain theologian Gommaire Huygens, also a friend of Arnauld's, and defended by one of Huygens's students in 1688. Huygens says that anyone who has knowledge of a necessary and immutable truth sees that truth "in the first and uncreated truth, which is God," and that anyone who loves chastity or any other moral virtue, by that very fact loves "the eternal reason of chastity, which is in God." These positions seemed to support the notion that everyone might have an implicit knowledge and love of God even if some have never consciously thought about God. Arnauld attacked these claims in 1692 in his Latin Dissertatio bipartita, of which Moreau provides a French translation. Nicole was impressed and disturbed by the Dissertatio, confessing that he did not know how to respond. He asked another mutual friend of his and Arnauld's, the Benedictine François Lamy, to answer Arnauld. In reply to Lamy, Arnauld wrote... (shrink)

In the paper is analyzing the process of the institutionalization of Islamic Studies in Ukraine on the period of independence (1991–2013). The centers of Islamic Studies, its histories, particularities of the activity and publications are studied. The author argues about the existence of three centers of Islamic Studies in Ukraine: 1) as the substructure of the Institutes of Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; 2) as the substructure inside the universities; 3) inside the non-government organizations. Three main spheres of the activity (...) of Islamic Studies centers are specified: research, organizational and educational. The main problems, which appear in the process of institutionalization of Islamic Studies in Ukraine are formulated. (shrink)

In recent years "British" Idealism has been subject to sweeping re-evaluation and rehabilitation. The essays collected here by Will Sweet compare Bernard Bosanquet's ideas and arguments with those of Idealists and non-Idealists alike, and establish that Bosanquet was far more clear-headed and insightful than denunciations of the "Idealist school" by Moore, Russell, C. D. Broad, Harold Prichard, and A. J. Ayer suggest. Sweet observes in his introduction that Bosanquet has long remained in the shadows of T. H. Green and F. (...) H. Bradley, that Bosanquet was a prolific writer who shaped philosophical debates across the English-speaking world for decades, and that estimations of his social theory and political philosophy, and to a lesser extent his metaphysics, have diverted attention from his contributions to logic and aesthetics.Essays by Sandra M. den Otter, Peter Nicholson, and Kevin Sullivan deal directly with Bosanquet's social philosophy. Bosanquet was engaged from the 1880s in work with the Charity Organisation Society, an association that set the tone of late Victorian and Edwardian debates over British poverty. He and his wife served on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws , against whose majority statement—cautioning against such direct assistance to the poor as. (shrink)

Human suicide presents a fundamental problem for the scientific analysis of behavior. This problem has been neither appreciated nor confronted by research and theory. Almost all other behavior exhibited by humans and nonhumans can be viewed as supporting the behaving organism's biological fitness and advancing the welfare of its genes. Yet suicide acts against these ends, and does so more directly and unequivocally than any other form of maladaptive behavior. Four heuristic models are presented here to account for suicide in (...) an evolutionary and sociobiological framework. The first model attributes suicide to the extraordinary development of learning and cultural evolution in the human species. Learning may make human behavior so independent of biological constraints that it can occasionally assume a form entirely contrary to the principles of biological evolution. The second model attributes suicide to a breakdown of adaptive mechanisms in extremely stressful novel environments. The third model involves kin and group selection, arguing that in limited circumstances suicide may occur because of beneficial effects it has on other, surviving individuals who share the suicidal individual's genes. The last model suggests that suicide should be tolerated by evolution when it has no effect on the gene pool. This model holds particular promise in accounting for aspects of suicide not attributable to culture. The evidence indicates that suicide is most common in individuals who are unlikely to reproduce and unable to engage in productive activity; such individuals are least capable of promoting their genes. A complete explanation of suicide may derive only from an analysis of its biological significance. (shrink)

A closely argued book about what the negative tradition in Western theology involves.

Since the 1970s, scholars have begun to pay special attention to the questions of whether democracy guarantees peace, whether freedom should be sacrificed in the name of security during war, how sustainable peace is possible, and what threats war poses to democracy. In the same period, influenced by the legacy of Immanuel Kant and David Hume, the democratic peace hypothesis began to be developed. This article discusses the theoretical debate concerning this hypothesis, as well as the question of whether the (...) type of political regime affects the state's success in war. An examining of the theoretical debates has shown that the proponents of the democratic peace hypothesis have not been able to provide convincing evidence of a direct link between the type of political regime and the willingness to initiate war or maintain peace. At the same time, the debate disproves another common belief, that of the military weakness of democracies. The article notes that the prevalent theoretical approach to studying the issue of war and democracy is based on an eschatological idea of the future democratic world. In contrast to this view, Gunther Anders’ idea of an “apocalypse without a Kingdom” opens up a new perspective for understanding war and democracy, which is that the destruction that war brings is not followed by the construction of a new world. In this case, the main task is not to achieve democracy as a result of war, but to preserve democracy during war. (shrink)

The proposition that the existence of God is demonstrable by rational argument is doubted by nearly all philosophical opinion today and is thought by most Christian theologians to be incompatible with Christian faith. This book argues that, on the contrary, there are reasons of faith why in principle the existence of God should be thought rationally demonstrable and that it is worthwhile revisiting the theology of Thomas Aquinas to see why this is so. The book further suggests that philosophical objections (...) to proofs of God's existence rely upon an attenuated and impoverished conception of reason which theologians of all monotheistic traditions might wish to reject. Denys Turner proposes that on a broader and deeper conception of it, human rationality is open to the 'sacramental shape' of creation as such and in its exercise of rational proof of God it in some way participates in that sacramentality of all things. (shrink)

In their recent paper, Natalie Banner and Tim Thornton evaluate seven volumes of the Oxford University Press series “International Perspectives in Philosophy and Psychiatry,” an international book series begun in 2003 focusing on the emerging interdisciplinary field at the interface of philosophy and psychiatry. According to Natalie Banner and Tim Thornton, the series represents a clear indication that the interdisciplinary field of philosophy of psychiatry has been flourishing lately. Philosophers and psychiatrists face a “new philosophy of psychiatry”. However, the optimism (...) which the “new” philosophy of psychiatry celebrates is precisely the exiling of philosophy from the foundations of psychiatry. The 150 year old belief that psychopathology cannot do without philosophical reflection has virtually disappeared from common psychiatric education and daily clinical practice. Though the discipline of psychiatry is particularly suited to contributions from philosophy, the impact of philosophy on psychiatry nowadays remains limited. With some exceptions, philosophical papers are embedded in a philosophical context inscrutable to ordinary psychiatrists. Much current philosophical work is perceived by psychiatrists as negativistic. I would encourage the field of psychiatry to incorporate once again basic philosophical attitudes which render possible true dialogue with philosophy and enrich both disciplines. The views developed here should not discredit the value and importance of Natalie Banner and Tim Thornton’s paper and the excellent series “International Perspectives in Philosophy and Psychiatry.” As Jaspers said “Everybody inclined to disregard philosophy will be overwhelmed by philosophy in an unperceived way”. (shrink)

David Rapoport’s Wave theory of terrorism is one of the most oftencited theories in the literature on terrorist violence. Rapoport is praised for having provided researchers with a universal instrument which allows them to explain the origin and transformation of various historical types of terrorism by applying to them the concept of global waves of terrorist violence driven by universal political impulses. This article, testing the Wave theory against the recent phenomenon of homegrown jihadism in Europe, uncovers this theory’s fundamental (...) weaknesses and questions its real academic and practical value. (shrink)

As you know, the foundations of modern historiography of religion were laid by Hegel. "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion," which he read at the University of Berlin, represent not only a unique system of philosophy of religion, but, equally important, is also an example of a profound historiosophical study of the religious phenomenon. However, unfortunately, this part of the Hegelian heritage remains largely unexplored in the national philosophic and religious studies literature.

The study of the Hegelian understanding of religious consciousness has never been carried out in the domestic philosophy, although this topic is extremely important, as the philosopher shows the gradual formation of religious consciousness as a special gestalt of self-knowledge of a spirit that is different from other forms of consciousness, and therefore has its own, inherent only to him, specifics.

In the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge there is a papyrus fragment, hitherto unpublished, of Euripides' Medea. It was written early in the 2nd century A.D., or possibly at the end of the 1st century A.D. The hand is a good round medium upright, similar to that of P. Oxy. 1810, possibly a little older. The stop and apostrophe in Fr. 1 line 1174 were evidently added later. There are several smudges and blots. Elisions only. There were 35 lines to a (...) column. (shrink)

For most of the period during which 'Aqaba belonged to the Ottoman Empire, the precise nature of its frontier status needs to be nuanced, since, in theory at least, all of the provinces adjoining it formed part of the same political unit, and the Red Sea itself was a largely Ottoman lake. In practice, however, Ottoman political and military control in the Syrian and Arabian deserts was often tenuous and reliant on individual deals struck with Bedouin leaders, often within the (...) context of the sultan's fulfilment of his obligation to protect the pilgrimage to the Holy Places of Arabia. From this perspective, forts along the pilgrimage routes such as that at 'Aqaba, were none the less frontier places, mediating relations, whether peaceable or belligerent, between populations who regarded themselves as either belonging to or extraneous to the polity of the Ottoman state. (shrink)