When Aristotle introduces the perfect moods, he refers back to the dictum de omni et nullo, a semantic condition for universal affirmations and negations. There recently has been renewed interest in the question whether the dictum validates the assertoric syllogistic. I rehearse evidence that Aristotle provides a mereological semantics for universal affirmations and negations, and note that this semantics entails a nonstandard reading of the dictum, under which the dictum, in the presence of a (...) minimal logical apparatus, indeed validates the assertoric syllogistic. I argue that this mereological validation offers advantages over recent discussions in Morison, Malink, Ebert and Vlasits. (shrink)

L’article explore les raisons pour lesquelles Łukasiewicz dans son exposé refuse de prendre en compte le dictum de omni et de nullo en qualité d’axiome de la syllogistique aristotélicienne. Après avoir établi la faiblesse de l’argumentation textuelle de Łukasiewicz, il est montré que les réserves de Łukasiewicz à l’égard du dictum doivent être recherchées dans un anti-essentialisme qui lui interdit de suivre Aristote jusqu’au bout de sa logique.

Aristotle's explanation of what is said ‘of every’ and ‘of none’ has been interpreted either as involving individuals, or as regarding exclusively universal terms. I claim that Alexander of Aphrodisias endorsed this latter interpretation of the dictum de omni et de nullo. This interpretation affects our understanding of Alexander's syllogistic: as a matter of fact, Alexander maintained that the dictum de omni et de nullo is one of the core principles of syllogistic.

In an earlier article (s. J Gen Philos Sci 40:341-355, 2009), I have rejected an interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic which (since Patzig) is predominant in the literature on Aristotle, but wrong in my view. According to this interpretation, the distinguishing feature of perfect syllogisms is their being evident. Theodor Ebert has attempted to defend this interpretation by means of objections (s. J Gen Philos Sci 40:357-365, 2009) which I will try to refute in part [1] of the following article. I (...) want to show that (1) according to Aristotle's Prior Analytics perfect and imperfect syllogisms do not differ by their being evident, but by the reason for their being evident, (2) Aristotle uses the same words to denote proofs of the validity of perfect and imperfect syllogisms („apodeixis”, "deiknusthai" etc.), (3) accordingly, Aristotle defines perfect syllogisms not as being evident, but as "requiring nothing beyond the things taken in order to make the necessity evident", i.e. as not "requiring one or more things that are necessary because of the terms assumed, but that have not been taken among the propositions" (APr. I. 1), (4) the proofs by which the validity of perfect assertoric syllogisms can be shown according to APr. I. 4 are based on the Dictum de omni et nullo, (5) the fact that Aristotle describes these proofs only in rough outlines corresponds to the fact that his proofs of the validity of other fundamental rules are likewise produced in rough outlines, e.g. his proof of the validity of conversio simplex in APr. I. 2, which usually has been misunderstood (also by Ebert): (6) Aristotle does not prove the convertibility of E-sentences by presupposing the convertibility of I-sentences; only the reverse is true. (shrink)

In this article, I shall consider medieval discussions of the principles of Aristotelian syllogistic which were called the dictum de omni et nullo and the expository syllogism. I am particularly interested in how theological questions contributed to the introduction of some influential new medieval ideas, such as the extensional sameness of the subject as the basis of predication, the interpretation of the expository syllogism from this point of view, and the explication of the logical subject of universal (...) and particular syllogistic premises with the phrase `Anything/something which is A. . .'. I end with some remarks about the increasing medieval awareness that these developments were beyond Aristotle's purview. (shrink)

This paper (1) criticizes Patzig's explanation of Aristotle's reason for calling his first figure syllogisms perfect syllogisms, i.e. the transitivity relation: it can only be used for Barbara, not for the other three moods. The paper offers (2) an alternative interpretation: It is only in the case of the (perfect) first figure moods that we can move from the subject term of the minor premiss, taken to be a predicate of an individual, to the predicate term of the major premiss. (...) This contention is supported (i) by Aristotle's wording of the dictum de omni et nullo and (ii) by Aristotle's use of a formula which puts the minor term in the first position when he first states Barbara and Celarent. (shrink)

Resumen En esta contribución ofrecemos una interpretación del pons asinorum que se basa en una lógica de términos contemporánea. Esto nos permite revitalizar la idea del pons asinorum para generar el -políticamente correcto- pons scholasticorum, una versión terminística del pons asinorum que conecta la inventio medii con el dictum de omni et nullo.In this contribution we offer an interpretation of the pons asinorum by using a contemporary term logic. This interpretation allows us to revitalize the concept of (...) the pons asinorum in order to produce the -politically correct- pons scholasticorum, a terministic version of the pons asinorum that relates the inventio medii with the dictum de omni et nullo. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the relation between Kant’s views on the foundations of syllogistic inference in ‘The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures’, the views of eighteenth-century German authors who wrote on syllogism, and the conception of metaphysics that Kant developed in 1762-1764. Kant’s positions are, on the whole, rather original, even though they are not as independent from the intellectual context as Kant’s later, Critical philosophy. Despite Kant’s polemical tone, his views on syllogism are not primarily motivated by polemical (...) purposes. They are strongly influenced by his views on the method of metaphysics. (shrink)

In an earlier article (see J Gen Philos Sei (2010) 41: 341-355) I have compared Aristotle's syllogistic with Kant's theory of "pure ratiocination". "Ratiocinia pura" („reine Vernunftschlüsse") is Kant's designation for assertoric syllogisms Aristotle has called 'perfect'. In Kant's view they differ from non-pure ratiocinia precisely in that their validity rests only on the validity of the Dictum de omni et nullo (which, however, in Kant's view can be further reduced to more fundamental principles) whereas the validity (...) of non-pure ratiocinia additionally presupposes the validity of inferences which Kant calls consequentiae immediatae. I have argued that Kant's view is in some (not in all) essential features in accordance with Aristotle's view concerning perfect syllogisms and certainly leading to a tenable and interesting logical theory. As a result I have rejected not only the interpretation of Aristotle adopted by Theodor Ebert, but also the objections he has raised against Kant's logical theory. As far as Aristotle is concerned, Ebert has attempted to defend his position in the first part of his reply to my article published in J Gen Philos Sei (2009) 40: 357-365, and I have argued against this defence in issue 1 of the J Gen Philos Sei (2010) 41: 199-213 (cf. Ebert's answer in the same issue pp. 215-231). In the following discussion I deal with Eberts defence of his criticism of Kant published in the second part of his reply to my article (see J Gen Philos Sei (2009) 40: 365-372). I shall argue, that Kant's principle 'nota notae est nota rei ipsius' and his use of technical vocabulary stand up to the objections raised by Ebert. His attempts to prove that Kant's logical theory is defective are based on several misinterpretations. (shrink)

Neste artigo é defendida a tese de que a noção aristotélica de perfeição silogística não é completamente arbitrária e reflete características lógicas, apesar de alguns aspectos não lógicos. Em consonância com a sugestão de alguns intérpretes de que a validade dos silogismos em primeira figura se fundamenta no dictum de omni et nullo, será apontado como essa fundamentação se desdobra em procedimentos dedutivos encontrados nos textos de Aristóteles. Tomando definições ou explicitações das proposições categóricas como parâmetro, a (...) perfeição ou imperfeição de um silogismo, independentemente das relações de prova que se adote entre as figuras silogísticas, não se mostra arbitrária. (shrink)

The Logic of Port-Royal, first published in 1662 by the Jansenists Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, is a work that underlines the inadequacies of the traditional logic. Traditional logic, which included the texts of Aristotle's Organon and the works of the scholastics, was experiencing a mild renaissance in the seventeenth century following its outright and brutal discrediting by the humanists of the previous two centuries. Arnauld and Nicole introduce a fairly original system of logic that attempts to remedy the shortcomings (...) of the revived tradition; they dismiss the Aristotelian "Categories", "Predicables", and "Topics", ignore the scholastic "Doctrine of Terms and Consequence", and suggest a single "General Principle" by means of which the validity of all arguments can be decided. The Principle is based on a notion of containment, divided into entendue and comprehension , which applies to all terms. Because the notion of containment is linked to the objective reality of Cartesian ideas, the authors can claim that their system of logic properly describes reality. The General Principle also suggests that terminist logic is logically and epistemologically prior to sentential logic because, Arnauld and Nicole claim, it governs the Dictum de Omni et Nullo and the Nota Notae. The self-evidence of the two dicta confirmed the validity of all syllogisms of the first figure; furthermore, all syllogisms of other figures could be reduced to one of the first figure. With the General Principle, however, there is no need for such reduction to the first figure. This additional result makes the theorem of sentential logic, "$\supset$r)$\approx$$\supset$-q)", which was needed for the reductions of Baroco and Bocardo, unnecessary. The fact that no theorem of sentential logic is needed to underline term logic guarantees the autonomy of the latter. (shrink)

In this paper, we provide a detailed critical review of current approaches to ecthesis in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, with a view to motivate a new approach, which builds upon previous work by Marion & Rückert (2016) on the dictum de omni. This approach sets Aristotle’s work within the context of dialectic and uses Lorenzen’s dialogical logic, hereby reframed with use of Martin-Löf's constructive type theory as ‘immanent reasoning’. We then provide rules of syllogistic for the latter, and provide (...) proofs of e-conversion, Darapti and Bocardo and e-subalternation, while showing how close to Aristotle’s text these proofs remain. (shrink)

The way in which early followers of St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted or misinterpreted his metaphysical doctrines and works still needs much exploration, so a text edition and editor’s commentary of this kind is a most welcomed project, especially since Conrad of Prussia has possibly left us the earliest commentary on Aquinas’ De ente et essentia. The editing task is a precarious work, however, since Conrad’s commentary survives in only one known manuscript, located in the monastery library at Admont, Austria. The (...) editors’ printed result thus has a number of flaws, but without a copy of the codex it is impossible to say which derive from the manuscript and which from the editors. Without a text a reviewer cannot legitimately correct, but can only suggest alternatives to evident mistakes. In the first lectio there is a very humorous flaw. Conrad is trying to prove that little mistakes can sometimes lead to big ones. The edited text illustrates: "omnis canis creditur, celeste sydus est canis, ergo celeste sidus creditur. Interum: quidquid creditur, habet pedes; celeste sydus, ut dictum est, creditur; ergo habet pedes. Ecce quot inconvenientia sequuntur ex uno modico errore." Creditur makes no sense: "Every dog is believed."? Currit does make sense: "Every dog runs." Unwittingly the editors prove the point the author wanted to make. By misreading or failing to correct the fundamental word currit so frequently it grew into a big error. It grew into an even bigger one later because Professor Bobik’s commentary on this text is an explanation based on this faulty text. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:[Quaestio prima: quomodo est anima omnia]“Anima quodammodo est omnia.”2Verbum Philosophi est et abbreviatum; non autem omnibus satis manifestum. Quid me, Vir Dei,3 iam sollicitas in isto? Scis enim quod imperitussum scientia, et iste sermo profunda forte indiget exquisitione. Quaeris ergo specificari tibi illud quod dico ‘quodammodo’; quomodo enim erit anima omnia? Istum modum velles tibi specificari: autin summa dictione una, aut secundum singula entia singulos modos explicare.Videtur ergo ipse (...) Philosophus declarare istam propositionem inductive sic:‘sensus est quodammodo sensibilia, intellectus est quodammodo intelligibilia’,4igitur etc.[Obiectiones]Hic statim duo obicis:Primum quod cum anima tres partes habeat – vegetativam, sensitivam,intellectivam – in hac ostensione Philosophi ipsum vegetativum nulli entium attribuitur per quodammodo essendi idem, ergo videtur quod non debeatdicere: anima simpliciter quodammodo est omnia, sed secundum aliquas parteseius solum.Item, videtur quod debeat dici quod solum intellectivum sit quodammmodo omnia; nam omnia omnino sunt intelligibilia: universalia, singularia. Omnes naturae vere et simpliciter intelligibiles sunt quantum in ipsis est, licet prima et remotissima principia a nobis non intelligantur. Defectus enim in nobis est sicut in oculis vespertilionis, quibus non videt solem.[2] Item, quomodo est sensus ipsa sensibilia et intellectus ipsa intelligibilia?Aeque enim ignotae sunt hae assumptiones sicut et conclusio. Nam sensitivum res vivens est et substantia; sensibilia, res non-viventes et accidentia, qualitates de tertia specie qualitatis.5 Quomodo ergo est haec illa? Iam enim patet quod non conveniunt nisi in esse et ente tantum; in nullo enim genereomnino. Igitur videtur quod nihil sit dictu ‘sensus est quodammodo sensibilia’.Nam multo magis proprie et vere dictum videretur si diceret quis ‘homoquodammodo est asinus’, nam haec conveniunt in genere et generibus.Similiter, quaeris ex parte intellectus et intelligibilium. Intelligibilia enimsunt et substantiae et accidentia, et res viventes et non-viventes; ipsum autem intellectivum, solum substantia et res vivens.[Prima responsio Philosophi ad obiectionem secundam: Sensus est in potentia tale quale sensibile in actu]6Vir Dei, dices mihi, colligendo ex ipso eodem auctore, et respondebis |A 281vb| mihi cum quaero: sensus quomodo est ipsum sensibile? Respondebis cum Philosopho, quia hoc modo, scilicet quod ‘sensus est in potentia tale quale est ipsum sensibile in actu’,7 et illud pertractabis ad singulos sensus et sensibilia. Sic visus est in potentia tale quale est ipsum visibile in actu, et ita de aliis.Sed ego contra: Vir Dei, si ‘sensus est in potentia tale etc.’, ergo aliquando erit in actu tale, etc.Ad idem: sentire quoddam pati est et quaedam alteratio. Est enim sensus de genere virtutum passivarum secundum eundem Philosophum.8 Agens autem et patiens in principio sunt dissimilia; in fine vero, cum passum est, sunt similia.Igitur sensitivum ex quo sentiendo quodammodo patitur et passivum est. Infine cum passum est, simile erit ipsi activo, scilicet sensibili. Tunc igitur erit‘sensus tale in actu quale est etiam ipsum sensibile in actu’.Sed nunc quaero quid hoc sit dictu, scilicet quod aliquando ipsum sensitivum in actu sit tale quale ipsum sensibile. Quid dicis ‘tale quale’? Numquid si actu video colorem, est virtus visiva oculi mei actu color? Aut non dicis talis estcolor? Quaero, si in qualitate assimilabitur illa virtus visiva actu colori, nihil videtur huiusmodi expositio. |E 107vb| Sicut enim superius dictum est, non videntur convenire nisi in solo ente et esse.9Confiteor, Vir Dei, quia haec ultimo obiecta tentativa sunt, sed necessaria tamen ad propositum si recte dissolvantur, per gratiam ergo Dei et per orationes tuas, Vir Dei, spero ad haec quandoque redire.[Secunda responsio Philosophi ad obiectionem secundam: homo ut mundus minor]Sed nec illud quod legimus videtur sufficere ad propositum problema, Vir Dei: ‘homo est quodammodo omnis creatura et mundus’, minor scilicet,10 et communicans cum omnibus creaturis, hoc modo: “esse cum lapidibus, vivere cum plantis, sentire cum brutis, intelligere cum angelis,” et tandem cum Deo.11Si secundum hunc modum velim praedictum sermonem exponere, non erit.. (shrink)

Many fourteenth-century logicians took affirmative propositions to maintain that the subject term and the predicate term stand or supposit for the same. This is called the identity theory of predication by historians and praedicatio identica by Paul of Venice and others. The identity theory of predication was an important part of early fourteenth-century Trinitarian discussions as well, but what was called praedicatio identica by Duns Scotus and his followers in this context was something different. After some remarks on Scotus’s view (...) and its background, I shall analyse Adam Wodeham’s explanation of Scotus’s praedicatio identica and how he understood the assumptions pertaining to supposition in the Scotist approach. I also describe Wodeham’s own solution to Trinitarian sophisms, which did not deviate from the identity theory of predication. (shrink)

Édition du troisième sophisma « Omnis homo de necessitate est animal » du ms. Paris, BnF Lat. 16135. Le texte anonyme, contenu aux f. 99rb-103vb, appartient à la seconde collection de sophismata transmis dans ce codex légué à l’Université de Paris par Étienne de Genève socius du Collège de Sorbonne, après avoir été maître ès arts à Paris dans les années 1270. Il offre un panorama des principales positions soutenues au xiiie siècle par les Antiqui et les Moderni sur la (...) sémantique des termes vides, la distinction entre l’esse essentiae et l’esse existentiae, l’être effectif et l’être logique, le temps et la modalité. (shrink)

Penser la guerre, c'est se placer dans l'effort philosophique qui se conçoit comme élucidation et affirmation rationnelles des différentes manières dont l'option humaine pour la raison et contre la violence se réalise dans l'histoire. Cette thèse fournit le point de vue à partir duquel l'auteur épouse la pensée de Kant, von Clausewitz et Hegel, en essayant ensuite d'en tirer des leçons possibles en vue des discussions actuelles dans la philosophie politique en tant que réflexion sur la guerre et la paix. (...) Von Clausewitz, penseur de la guerre après la « révolution » militaire depuis Napoléon, n'est pas seulement le « militariste » s'appliquant à la rationalité qui se déploie dans la violence guerrière elle-même, mais a surtout montré comment la guerre doit emprunter sa rationalité spécifique à la rationalité supérieure et englobante qui est celle de la politique , selon sa célèbre formule: la guerre est la continuation de la politique avec d'autres moyens. Mais il s'agit de bien comprenre cette formule. Dans la philosophie politique hégélienne, qui veut «saisir en pensée» le système d'une pluralité d'États indépendants et également souverains, la guerre a le caractère d'une «nécessité» rationnelle. Dans la philosophie du droit de Kant, la paix stable est l'objet d'un devoir impératif de la pure raison pratique, mais la guerre semble, de fait, inévitable, et ceci encore pour longtemps. C'est dans son projet philosophique intitulé Vers la paix perpétuelle que Kant essaie de penser les conditions politiques nécessaires pour établir une paix durable et juste entre les nations. L'auteur montre que ce projet est moins irréaliste qu'on ne le pense le plus souvent, si on veut l'interpréter à la lumière de la philosophie de l'histoire de Kant. On peut se demander néanmoins si Hegel ne continue pas à avoir raison contre Kant. Mais pour Hegel aussi l'histoire est un apprentissage. Au philosophe qui la comprend elle prouve, dit-il, la perfectibilité de l'éducation du genre humain. Il est possible de trouver, de ce point de vue, une convergence de la philosophie de l'histoire de Hegel avec celle de Kant. Une importance spécifique est donnée ici à l'interprétation du dictum de Hegel, que dans la guerre elle-même la guerre est déterminée comme devant être passagère . S'il est vrai que l'histoire de la dialectique de guerre et de paix peut nous rendre plus „sages”, qu'est-ce qu'elle nous a appris ? L'auteur souligne plus spécialement deux éléments: nous comprenons peut-être mieux la signification de la liberté et de ce qu'implique „libération”; nous voyons plus clairement l'importance à donner aux droits de l'homme comme expression de la justice. Il conclut que la philosophie comme „pensée de guerre” peut éclairer la politique dans son effort tendant à définir la justice qui peut établir la paix, afin de rendre superflue la guerre qui doit établir la justice. (shrink)

We reconstruct as much as we can the part of al-Fārābī's treatment of modal logic that is missing from the surviving pages of his Long Commentary on the Prior Analytics. We use as a basis the quotations from this work in Ibn Sīnā, Ibn Rushd and Maimonides, together with relevant material from al-Fārābī's other writings. We present a case that al-Fārābī's treatment of the dictum de omni had a decisive effect on the development and presentation of Ibn Sīnā's (...) modal logic. We give further evidence that the Harmonisation of the Opinions of Plato and Aristotle was not written by al-Fārābī. (shrink)

In this paper we provide an interpretation of Aristotle's rule for the universal quantifier in Topics Θ 157a34–37 and 160b1–6 in terms of Paul Lorenzen's dialogical logic. This is meant as a contribution to the rehabilitation of the role of dialectic within the Organon. After a review of earlier views of Aristotle on quantification, we argue that this rule is related to the dictum de omni in Prior Analytics A 24b28–29. This would be an indication of the (...) class='Hi'>dictum’s origin in the context of dialectical games. One consequence of our approach is a novel explanation of the doctrine of the existential import of the quantifiers in dialectical terms. After a brief survey of Lorenzen's dialogical logic, we offer a set of rules for dialectical games based on previous work by Castelnérac and Marion, to which we add here the rule for the universal quantifier, as interpreted in terms of its counterpart in dialogical logic. We then give textual evidence of the use of that rule in Plato's dialogues, thus showing that Aris... (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'existential fallacy'. This fallacy occurs when we erroneously suppose some class or group has members. In other words, statements may be true about classes or groups even if no members of the class or group exist. In terms of syllogistic argumentation, this is a formal fallacy in that it results when the premises are universal in quantification and the conclusion is particular. In the history of logic, the existential (...) fallacy may be traced to dictum de omni, which refers to the principle in Aristotelian logic that whatever is said universally of a subject is said of everything that is contained under such a subject. In order to avoid this fallacy, one should look for empirical verification of the existence of whatever entity may be in question. (shrink)

La culture moderne n'en a jamais fini de dissiper le mystère qu'elle constitue pour elle-même. Deux schémas principaux inspirent aujourd'hui cette autoréflexion de la modernité. Dans la mouvance de Heidegger, les Temps modernes assurent le règne sans partage du sujet au sein d'un univers réduit à être objet de maîtrise et de possession. Selon une inspiration tocquevillienne comme celle, en particulier, de Louis Dumont, c'est l'individualisme qui, rompant avec la domination traditionnelle du collectif, sert de fil conducteur omni-interprétatif. Ces (...) lectures ont pour point commun de rendre la modernité homogène, assimilée au 'tout-sujet' ou au 'tout-individu'. Et surtout, elles occultent la césure qui brise l'histoire du sujet moderne en infléchissant l'humanisme vers l'une de ses figures possible, problématique et évanouissante - l'individualisme. L'archéologie de cet énigmatique déplacement conduit Alain Renaut jusqu'à Leibniz. Là s'est décidée une profonde mutation - l'affirmation de l'individualité devient soudain compatible, au prix d'un dispositif intellectuel inédit, avec celle d'une rationalité du réel. Une culture de l'indépendance où chaque être, ne se souciant que d'accomplir sa nature, contribue à manifester l'ordre du monde, se greffe sur la valorisation de la raison. Ainsi débarrassée des fausses linéarités, la logique de la modernité apparaît sous un jour neuf - loin d'avoir sans cesse consolidé le pouvoir de la subjectivité, elle a été aussi le lieu de son éclipse... (shrink)

Cette contribution examine l’apport original de Philon d’Alexandrie à la transmission d’une tradition de paradoxes décrivant la condition du sage, attestés dans des sources stoïciennes et repris dans le Quod omnis probus liber sit philonien. Deux questions relatives à la condition paradoxale du sage sont analysées : sa divinisation et le modèle de science qui la caractérise. Philon montre en effet une interprétation complémentaire, qu’il désigne comme « disjonctive », de la perfection du sage : il reprend les paradoxes stoïciens, (...) mais change substantiellement le « paradigme conjonctif », qui, selon la célèbre analyse de Jacques Brunschwig, les sous-tend. Ce changement a lieu grâce à l’intervention d’une clé non seulement médio-platonicienne, mais aussi biblique : celle de la transcendance de la perfection divine. (shrink)

Au début du XXe siècle, si la Chine demeure encore largement une terre vierge pour les explorateurs occidentaux, elle fascine également les chercheurs. Qu'ils soient géographes, géologues, paléontologues ou préhistoriens, tous savent que de formidables découvertes restent à y faire. Suédois et Américains font rapidement le voyage vers l'Empire du Milieu, mais ce sont des Français qui, sur le terrain, vont écrire les plus belles pages de la découverte du Paléolithique de Chine, des premières industries lithiques à l'étude du gisement (...) de l'Homme de Pékin. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin est l'un d'entre eux, qui durant près de vingt ans va parcourir des milliers de kilomètres dans les campagnes et les déserts de Chine et de Mongolie, à la recherche des premiers hommes. Entre 1923 et 1940, il maintient une relation épistolaire avec son port d'attache à Paris, le Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, en la personne de son professeur de paléontologie, Marcellin Boule. Au fil de quatre-vingt-neuf lettres, interrompues par seulement une dizaine de retours vers l'Occident et par sa participation à la fameuse Croisière Jaune Citroën, il décrit, sur fond de rumeurs révolutionnaires évoquées ici et là, ses explorations et ses découvertes à son " Maître et ami ", de vingt ans son aîné, et à qui il voue une dévotion reconnaissante et quasi filiale - " [...] celui à qui je dois tout dans ma carrière scientifique [...] ". Au-delà de sa valeur scientifique, chacune de ces lettres - qu'elle soit écrite du désert de Gobi, des rives du Fleuve Jaune ou à bord d'un véhicule de la Croisière Jaune - est le reflet d'une formidable épopée. Véritable " Journal de bord " d'un savant, cette correspondance se révèle, tout autant que l'écho d'une extraordinaire aventure humaine, la découverte d'un pays prodigieux. (shrink)

Erich Przywara admits to have developed his idea of a “metaphysics of creature” in confrontation with M. Heidegger’s thinking. We will show how the Jesuit reading of the latter is based on the roots of Heideggerian thought in the discussions of the 1920s around the nature of Kantism. Przywara tries to account for these debates from the tensions existing in the very approach of the philosopher of Königsberg. These will give rise to two ways of interpretation, that Przywara schematises under (...) the traits of a “metaphysics of finitude,” as represented by M. Heidegger, and a “metaphysics of infinity,” in particular with E. Herrigel. According to Przywara, it is from the dialectic between these two paths that the perspective of the analogia entis as metaphysics of creature must arise. (shrink)

Les textes de la troisième "Critique" d'Emmanuel Kant révèlent le paradoxe de sa philosophie du droit illustré par la contrainte du droit et l'enthousiasme pour la Révolution de 1789. Pour le philosophe, ce signe d'histoire annonce la question d'un progrès irréversible pour l'humanité.

La philosophie des sciences d’Émile Meyerson suscite aujourd’hui un regain d’intérêt. Proche de Bergson, de Brunschvicg et de De Broglie, Meyerson apparaît comme un membre éminent, quoique négligé, de la tradition épistémologique française. Antipositiviste, fin connaisseur de la science classique et de la thermodynamique, il propose de pénétrantes interprétations de la relativité et des quanta. Nourri de métaphysique allemande, il est également curieux des avancées théoriques de son temps, comme en témoignent ses riches correspondances avec Einstein, Husserl, Cassirer, ou encore (...) Dewey et MacTaggart. L’œuvre foisonnante et complexe de Meyerson, critiquée par Bachelard, n’a cessé d’être lue et appréciée de penseurs tels que Popper, Kuhn et Quine.Cette étude, s’appuyant sur les grands ouvrages publiés du vivant de l’auteur, mais aussi sur des archives inédites, montre que l’épistémologie meyersonienne représente une très originale et très actuelle anthropologie de la connaissance. (shrink)

La réflexion sur l’interprétation peut être l’objet de deux historiographies parallèles et parfois concurrentes : l’une – dite longue – s'étend jusqu’à l’Antiquité, aux premières sources de la tradition juive d’études sur « le Livre » et au Peri Hermêneias d’Aristote ; l’autre – dite courte – remonte au XVIIIe siècle, quand l’École de Göttingen (Heyne, Wolf, Schlegel, parmi d’autres) construit les bases philologiques, historiques et linguistiques de la réflexion philosophique de Schleiermache...