Introduction Pour le lecteur de la Phénoménologie de l’Esprit de Hegel, il y a quelque chose d’étrange à entendre parler de « raison théorique » et de « raison pratique » dans la mesure où Hegel n’utilise jamais ces termes ni ne les définit explicitement dans sa première grande œuvre systématique. Il peut sembler ainsi a priori difficile d’évoquer voire de déterminer, sans plus de précautions, une raison théorique et une raison pratique dans la Phénoménologie de l’Esprit , à tel (...) point que nous pourrions être tentés de renoncer tout simplement à une telle détermination. Toutefois, nous vou­drions montrer dans le présent article que Hegel identifie bien, de façon précise, une dimension théorique et une dimension pratique de la raison dans la Phénoménologie de l’Esprit , dimensions qu’il s’emploie à caractériser et à articuler tout au long de la section Raison. Pour ce faire, nous procéderons en trois temps. Dans un premier temps, nous tenterons de mettre en évidence la genèse de la raison théorique et de la raison pratique à partir de l’introduction à la section Raison. Ce faisant, nous voudrions souligner le caractère institué de la raison. Dans un deuxième temps, nous examinerons la structure et l’agir de la raison théorique et de la raison pratique dans ses différentes figures, respectivement comme raison observante puis légisprobatoire, d’une part, et comme raison effectuante puis. (shrink)

Since Saul Kripke’s influential work in the 1970s, the revisionary approach to semantic paradox—the idea that semantic paradoxes must be solved by weakening classical logic—has been increasingly popular. In this paper, we present a new revenge argument to the effect that the main revisionary approaches breed new paradoxes that they are unable to block.

Analyse de l'herméneutique du mouvement, ainsi que de son imprégnation dans la philosophie occidentale moderne, notamment en utilisant les figures centrales de Bachelard et de Merleau-Ponty. Les contributions tentent de mettre au jour les rapports qu'entretiennent imagination et mouvement, images dynamiques et schèmes moteurs.

On peut dire sans exagération que la vie est chez Husserl le concept à la fois le plus surdéterminé et le plus indéterminé. Il est bien connu, en effet, que la terminologie husserlienne fait place, au cours de son développement, à une prolifération des concepts impliquant une référence à la vie alors même que, pour sa part, « le concept de vie ne fait jamais l’objet d’une thématisation explicite ». C’est pourquoi, on pourrait être tenté de recourir à la distinction, (...) proposée par Eugen Fink et... (shrink)

Qu'elles soient considérées comme une tentative de légitimation hypocrite ou comme une attestation de foi sincère, les parties III et IV du Léviathan ont souvent été délaissées par les commentateurs. Cet ouvrage propose de réaffirmer l'importance de ces parties théologiques en leur conférant un sens nouveau. Dépassant l'opposition entre lecture séculière et lecture religieuse, il présente une interprétation de la théologie hobbesienne qui s'attache moins à déterminer les croyances personnelles de Hobbes qu'à déceler les effets pratiques de son discours. Selon (...) l'auteur, c'est un projet politique annonciateur des Lumières qui oriente l'ensemble du Léviathan : émanciper la multitude d'un imaginaire théologico-politique corrompu et des craintes aliénantes qu'il produit. Dans cette perspective, la critique de la superstition et la réforme de l'imaginaire religieux, objets des deux dernières parties du traité, s'avèrent un préalable indispensable à la révolution intellectuelle que constitue la théorie de l'Etat. Dès lors, le Léviathan ne peut plus se voir réduit à une simple théorie de la souveraineté, mais doit aussi être considéré comme un ouvrage de réflexion critique sur l'imaginaire politico-religieux de son époque : il dispense un savoir iconoclaste et émancipateur dont la diffusion est en soi un acte politique. (shrink)

On a widespread naturalist view, the meanings of mathematical terms are determined, and can only be determined, by the way we use mathematical language—in particular, by the basic mathematical principles we’re disposed to accept. But it’s mysterious how this can be so, since, as is well known, minimally strong first-order theories are non-categorical and so are compatible with countless non-isomorphic interpretations. As for second-order theories: though they typically enjoy categoricity results—for instance, Dedekind’s categoricity theorem for second-order and Zermelo’s quasi-categoricity theorem (...) for second-order —these results require full second-order logic. So appealing to these results seems only to push the problem back, since the principles of second-order logic are themselves non-categorical: those principles are compatible with restricted interpretations of the second-order quantifiers on which Dedekind’s and Zermelo’s results are no longer available. In this paper, we provide a naturalist-friendly, non-revisionary solution to an analogous but seemingly more basic problem—Carnap’s Categoricity Problem for propositional and first-order logic—and show that our solution generalizes, giving us full second-order logic and thereby securing the categoricity or quasi-categoricity of second-order mathematical theories. Briefly, the first-order quantifiers have their intended interpretation, we claim, because we’re disposed to follow the quantifier rules in an open-ended way. As we show, given this open-endedness, the interpretation of the quantifiers must be permutation-invariant and so, by a theorem recently proved by Bonnay and Westerståhl, must be the standard interpretation. Analogously for the second-order case: we prove, by generalizing Bonnay and Westerståhl’s theorem, that the permutation invariance of the interpretation of the second-order quantifiers, guaranteed once again by the open-endedness of our inferential dispositions, suffices to yield full second-order logic. (shrink)

It is sometimes held that rules of inference determine the meaning of the logical constants: the meaning of, say, conjunction is fully determined by either its introduction or its elimination rules, or both; similarly for the other connectives. In a recent paper, Panu Raatikainen (2008) argues that this view - call it logical inferentialism - is undermined by some "very little known" considerations by Carnap (1943) to the effect that "in a definite sense, it is not true that the standard (...) rules of inference" themselves suffice to "determine the meanings of [the] logical constants" (p. 2). In a nutshell, Carnap showed that the rules allow for non-normal interpretations of negation and disjunction. Raatikainen concludes that "no ordinary formalization of logic ... is sufficient to `fully formalize' all the essential properties of the logical constants" (ibid.). We suggest that this is a mistake. Pace Raatikainen, intuitionists like Dummett and Prawitz need not worry about Carnap's problem. And although bilateral solutions for classical inferentialists - as proposed by Timothy Smiley and Ian Rumfitt - seem inadequate, it is not excluded that classical inferentialists may be in a position to address the problem too. (shrink)

Julien Tricard tackles the abductive solution to the problem of induction. In order to best explain the regularities that can be observed in nature, should one assume that they necessarily result from natural laws, without which they would be improbable cosmic coincidences? By examining David Armstrong's and John Foster's versions of this inference, Julien Tricard shows that it is based on the confusion of two incompatible concepts of “regularity”. From this he derives a conception of induction that is (...) neither the empiricists’ factual generalization, nor the abduction of nomic necessities from observed regularities, but the operation of constituting particular facts as regular instances of laws. (shrink)

"Le présent ouvrage est né de l'examen d'un dictat dont on peut dire qu'il constitue aujourd'hui un véritable article de foi, en ce sens qu'on ne le discute même pas, auprès du monde moderne, philosophique comme séculier ; à savoir que 'tout est dans le devenir'. Il est apparu à l'auteur que, contrairement à ce dogme, il existe dans l'esprit humain certains comportements qui, derrière l'infinie diversité de leurs manifestations, demeurent les mêmes depuis que nous avons des documents sur cet (...) esprit, c'est-à-dire depuis trois mille ans, et continuent de demeurer tels ; qu'en d'autres termes il existe certaines constantes de l'esprit humain ou encore que tout dans cet esprit n'est pas 'dynamisme', mais qu'il s'y montre des statismes. Le présent livre pourrait s'appeler : 'Pour le statisme'." Julien Benda. (shrink)

Tarski's Undefinability of Truth Theorem comes in two versions: that no consistent theory which interprets Robinson's Arithmetic (Q) can prove all instances of the T-Scheme and hence define truth; and that no such theory, if sound, can even express truth. In this note, I prove corresponding limitative results for validity. While Peano Arithmetic already has the resources to define a predicate expressing logical validity, as Jeff Ketland has recently pointed out (2012, Validity as a primitive. Analysis 72: 421-30), no theory (...) which interprets Q closed under the standard structural rules can define nor express validity, on pain of triviality. The results put pressure on the widespread view that there is an asymmetry between truth and validity, viz. that while the former cannot be defined within the language, the latter can. I argue that Vann McGee's and Hartry Field's arguments for the asymmetry view are problematic. (shrink)

One puzzle concerning highly idealized models is whether they explain. Some suggest they provide so-called ‘how-possibly explanations’. However, this raises an important question about the nature of how-possibly explanations, namely what distinguishes them from ‘normal’, or how-actually, explanations? I provide an account of how-possibly explanations that clarifies their nature in the context of solving the puzzle of model-based explanation. I argue that the modal notions of actuality and possibility provide the relevant dividing lines between how-possibly and how-actually explanations. Whereas how-possibly (...) explanations establish claims of possible explanations, how-actually explanations establish claims of actual ones. Models, in turn, simply provide evidence for these claims. (shrink)

In this paper, I focus on some intuitionistic solutions to the Paradox of Knowability. I first consider the relatively little discussed idea that, on an intuitionistic interpretation of the conditional, there is no paradox to start with. I show that this proposal only works if proofs are thought of as tokens, and suggest that anti-realists themselves have good reasons for thinking of proofs as types. In then turn to more standard intuitionistic treatments, as proposed by Timothy Williamson and, most recently, (...) Michael Dummett. Intuitionists can either point out the intuitionistc invalidity of the inference from the claim that all truths are knowable to the insane conclusion that all truths are known, or they can outright demur from asserting the existence of forever-unknown truths, perhaps questioning—as Dummett now suggests—the applicability of the Principle of Bivalence to a certain class of empirical statements. I argue that if intuitionists reject strict finitism—the view that all truths are knowable by beings just like us—the prospects for either proposal look bleak. (shrink)

Les jeunes « radicalisés » sont confrontés à des mouvements de questionnements internes et externes, comme grand nombre d’adolescents, sur leur filiation, leur identité. Leur engagement dans cet horizon guerrier s’inscrit autour de menaces psychiques inexorables face à des impensés dans leur histoire individuelle et collective. Appuyé par une méthodologie complémentariste, l’article analyse la situation de deux jeunes hommes confrontés à des reviviscences traumatiques de non-dits familiaux et la réactivation de mouvements internes et externes non maîtrisables. Malgré la tentative de (...) maîtriser ces menaces, la radicalité semble renvoyer à une violence sociale et politique menaçante. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage interroge l'expérience de pensée, rapportée aux textes de philosophie et d'histoire naturelle du xviiie siècle. À travers un corpus étendu mais représentatif, il s'agit de questionner les procédés qui légitiment ou non le recours à ce procédé, en spécifiant les textes par une typologie nouvelle.

Les organisations du tiers secteur, notamment celles spécialisées dans les services solidaires, sont souvent considérées comme des organisations capables de promouvoir de nouvelles formes de participation politique et d'engagement dans l'espace public. En effet, en créant des espaces intermédiaires entre l'espace domestique et l'espace public, elles permettraient de mobiliser les exclus et redessineraient les frontières entre le public et le privé. Cependant, ce texte défend l'idée que pour évaluer ce rôle politique potentiel, il est tout d'abord nécessaire de s'intéresser à (...) leurs modes d'organisation, à leur mode effectif de prise de décision et à leur capacité à construire leur légitimité vis-à-vis des autres types d'organisations politiques. La sociologie politique offre les outils théoriques permettant d'évaluer ces trois éléments.Third-sector organizations - and especially those specialized in solidarity services - are often considered capable of promoting new forms of political participation and involvement in the public sphere. Indeed, by mobilizing marginalized social groups on the borderline between domestic issues, registers of proximity and political action, they re-shape the boundaries between what is considered as being « public » and « private ». Nevertheless, this article argues that in order to evaluate their potential political role, it is first necessary to focus on their modes of organization and leadership and their ability to construct their legitimacy against other forms of political organizations. And political sociology provides the tools required to obtain a realistic view of these organizations. (shrink)

The emotions are at the centre of our lives and, for better or worse, imbue them with much of their significance. The philosophical problems stirred up by the existence of the emotions, over which many great philosophers of the past have laboured, revolve around attempts to understand what this significance amounts to. Are emotions feelings, thoughts, or experiences? If they are experiences, what are they experiences of? Are emotions rational? In what sense do emotions give meaning to what surrounds us? (...) -/- The Emotions: A Philosophical Introduction introduces and explores these questions in a clear and accessible way. The authors discuss the following key topics: -/- the diversity and unity of the emotions the relations between emotion, belief and desire the nature of values the relations between emotions and perceptions emotions viewed as evaluative attitudes the link between emotions and evaluative knowledge the nature of moods, sentiments, and character traits. -/- Including chapter summaries and guides to further reading, The Emotions: A Philosophical Introduction is an ideal starting point for any philosopher or student studying the emotions. It will also be of interest to those in related disciplines such as psychology and the social sciences. (shrink)

To what extent are women obliged to be child-bearers? If reproductive technology could offer some form of ectogenesis, would feminists regard it as a liberating reproductive option? Three lines of reproductive rights arguments currently used by feminists are applied to ectogenesis. Each fails to provide strong grounds for prohibiting it. Yet, there are several ways in which ectogenesis could contribute to women's oppression, in particular, if it were used to undermine abortion rights, reinforce traditional views of fertility, increase fetal rights (...) in pregnancy, and perpetuate the unequal distribution of scarce medical resources. A re-thinking of women's relationship to pregnancy is needed in order to challenge ectogenetic research. (shrink)

Ne serait-ce que par son titre, dont l’oxymore est d’emblée assumée (p.11) et dont les protagonistes sont associés d’une manière qui ne laisse de surprendre, l’ouvrage de Julien Boudon publié dans la collection « Les sens du droit » des éditions Dalloz, mériterait de retenir l’attention.Dans ce court opus, l’auteur entend, à travers un examen qui puise tout à la fois aux sources de l’histoire, de la philosophie, du droit, de la science politique, et qui emprunte à la fois (...) au style de la monog.. (shrink)

Models typically have actual, existing targets. However, some models are viewed as having non-actual targets. I argue that this interpretation comes at various costs and propose an alternative that fares better along two dimensions: (1) agreement with practice and (2) ontological and epistemological parsimony. My proposal is that many of these models actually have actual targets.

Julien Tricard criticizes the traditional formulation of the Problem of Induction, and offers to simplify it. Since Hume, he oughts to demonstrate that “the same causes always produce the same effects”, or that “the laws of nature cannot change over time” (uniformity of nature). First, an historical analysis shows, however, that the notion of causality is not needed to set the problem out. Second, the concept of “laws of nature” is analyzed, proving that laws cannot change over time: either (...) there are unchanging laws in nature, or there is none. Therefore, it is necessary and plainly sufficient, in order to solve the Problem of Induction, to prove that laws of nature, governing natural phenomena, do exist. (shrink)

"À son décès, Julien Freund laissait parmi ses papiers un recueil de textes inédits, sous forme épistolaire, adressés à ses amis et collègues : les Lettres de la vallée. Dans ces méditations, rédigées en sa retraite vosgienne - qui n'est pas sans évoquer la Hütte de Heidegger, de l'autre côté du Rhin - et loin des servitudes propres aux écrits universitaires, l'auteur de L'Essence du politique s'exprime en toute liberté, à bâtons rompus, sur ses sujets de prédilection (le politique, (...) l'idéologie, la guerre, les totalitarismes, l'utopie, la décadence), mais également l'enseignement, le journalisme, la connaissance, le droit, la morale, la métaphysique, les limites... Ce livre forme la clef de voûte où se rejoignent les grands thèmes de sa pensée."--Page 4 de la couverture. (shrink)

Is shame social? Is it superficial? Is it a morally problematic emotion? Researchers in disciplines as different as psychology, philosophy, and anthropology have thought so. But what is the nature of shame and why are claims regarding its social nature and moral standing interesting and important? Do they tell us anything worthwhile about the value of shame and its potential legal and political applications? -/- In this book, Julien Deonna, Raffaele Rodogno, and Fabrice Teroni propose an original philosophical account (...) of shame aimed at answering these questions. The book begins with a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments that are taken to support what they call the two dogmas about shame: its alleged social nature and its morally dubious character. Their analysis is conducted against the backdrop of a novel account of shame and ultimately leads to the rejection of these two dogmas. On this account, shame involves a specific form of negative evaluation that the subject takes towards herself: a verdict of incapacity with regard to values to which she is attached. One central virtue of the account resides in the subtle manner it clarifies the ways in which the subject's identity is at stake in shame, thus shedding light on many aspects of this complex emotion and allowing for a sophisticated understanding of its moral significance. -/- This philosophical account of shame engages with all the current debates on shame as they are conducted within disciplines as varied as ethics, moral, experimental, developmental and evolutionary psychology, anthropology, legal studies, feminist studies, politics and public polic. (shrink)

We cast doubts on the suggestion, recently made by Graham Priest, that glut theorists may express disagreement with the assertion of A by denying A. We show that, if denial is to serve as a means to express disagreement, it must be exclusive, in the sense of being correct only if what is denied is false only. Hence, it can’t be expressed in the glut theorist’s language, essentially for the same reasons why Boolean negation can’t be expressed in such a (...) language either. We then turn to an alternative proposal, recently defended by Beall (in Analysis 73(3):438–445, 2013; Rev Symb Log, 2014), for expressing truth and falsity only, and hence disagreement. According to this, the exclusive semantic status of A, that A is either true or false only, can be conveyed by adding to one’s theory a shrieking rule of the form A & ~A |- \bot, where \bot entails triviality. We argue, however, that the proposal doesn’t work either. The upshot is that glut theorists face a dilemma: they can either express denial, or disagreement, but not both. Along the way, we offer a bilateral logic of exclusive denial for glut theorists—an extension of the logic commonly called LP. (shrink)