Dans sa précognition de toutes choses, le Créateur avait pris grand plaisir à lire les philosophes présocratiques. C'est ainsi qu'Il avait appris que, même en sa toute-puissance, Il ne disposerait que de deux modèles fondamentaux pour créer son univers. Alors Il se dit : "Je pourrais me laisser guider par la pure rationalité de Parménide, toute de clarté et de rigueur. C'est un système remarquablement simple. Une fois que j'aurais allumé la mèche du big-bang, je n'aurais plus à m'occuper de (...) rien. Qu'est-ce qui pourrait changer dans les lois que j'aurais établies? Et comment les entités que j'aurais créées pourraient-elles ne pas leur obéir? Je n'aurais plus qu'à assister au merveilleux spectacle dont j'aurais été le créateur et le régisseur. Oui, mais voilà, je connaîtrais d'avance et jusque dans ses moindres détails le spectacle qui se déroulerait ainsi devant mes yeux. Que vaut un spectacle dont la mise en scène, chaque tableau, chaque épisode sont connus du spectateur, pour finalement se confondre en l'instantanéité d'un moment? Quelle triste perspective d'un éternel ennui! Et dans ce monde parfaitement déterminé, même le serpent le plus malin ne saurait exercer son pouvoir tentateur sur ce premier couple, qui jamais ne connaîtrait la liberté de pécher. Du coup, l'autre voie qui m'est offerte paraît infiniment plus attrayante, cette voie qu'avait explorée Héraclite, voie hésitante, toute en contradiction, où être et n'être pas, c'est et ce n'est pas la même chose. Mais cette incertitude se mue en une infinité de possibles, où tout peut être, où rien n'est jamais donné d'avance. A chaque coup de dés de cet enfant toujours jeune qu'est le Temps, de nouvelles possibilités surgissent. Assister à la naissance d'un monde inachevé et toujours en gésine, voilà qui peut être captivant!" Et c'est ainsi que, se laissant guider par Héraclite, Dieu inventa la mécanique quantique, avec ce qui, en elle, dépend du hasard le plus authentique. Du coup le spectacle du monde devient fascinant et toujours inattendu. Depuis ce jour, Dieu se promène de planète en planète, de galaxie en galaxie, sûr d'y découvrir chaque fois quelque nouveauté à laquelle lui-même n'avait pas songé... (shrink)

Sous une limpidité apparente, le livre de J. Monod cache une profonde ambiguïté, à tel point que cet ouvrage peut donner lieu à des interprétations trés divergentes, parfois même contradictoires.

L'auteur part du postulat d'objectivité de la méthode scientifique dans son affirmation d'une distinction radicale entre le sujet qui observe et l'objet observé. Il montre en quoi ce dualisme du sujet et de l'objet a été remis en question dans la physique quantique de Heisenberg et dans la psychologie behavioriste de Watson. Cependant, l'auteur soutient que le dépassement de ce dualisme cartésien par le monisme objectiviste ou par le monisme subjectiviste est impossible pour la raison très simple que le monisme (...) est impensable. De fait, le monisme a été pensé, mais dans un langage dualiste.The author begins with the postulate of the objectivity of the scientific method in its affirmation of a radical distinction between the subject who observes and the object which is observed. It is shown how this dualism of subject and object was put into question in Heisenberg's quantum physics and in Watson's be-haviorist psychology. Nevertheless, the author holds that the overcoming of cartesian dualism by objectivist monism or by subjectivist monism is impossible. The very simple reason for this claim is that monism is unthinkable. Actually, monism has been thought, but it has been thought in a dualist language. (shrink)

Ce qu'on appelle l'Histoire de la Philosophie couvre un domaine très vaste et ambigu. On entend habituellement par ce terme la description critique des différentes étapes de la pensée philosophique, pour autant que cette pensée soit devenue consciente d'elle-même. En ce sens, on exposera la pensée de tel ou tel philosophe, on discutera de tel ou tel système philosophique.

On aura lu dans le présent numéro de Dialogue une longue étude critique, où Claude Panaccio analyse la traduction, par Roland Galibois, du Commentaire d'Occam sur le Livre des Prédicables de Porphyre, ainsi que mon introduction à ce texte.On nous permettra sans doute d'y répondre, et on trouvera ci-après l'excellente justification que R. Galibois donne de sa traduction.

Après avoir connu des amours romanesques, Pic de la Mirandole étudia les traditions intellectuelles les plus variées et connut la célébrité en proposant à Rome en 1486 le fameux débat portant sur ses 900 thèses philosophiques et théologiques. Etabli à Florence, aux côtés de Marsile Ficin et de Policien, il mourut sans avoir réalisé son rêve d'unification des écoles philosophiques.

Le Traité des prédicables, aussi appelé Isagogè, fut rédigé par Porphyre, vers la fin du IIIe siècle, pour servir d'introduction à la logique et en particulier au Traité des categories d'Aristote. L'auteur y traite des cinq universaux – le genre, l'espèce, la différence, le propre et l'accident – qui sont, si l'on veut, cinq sortes de prédicats généraux qu'un sujet quelconque est susceptible de se voir attribuer. Traduit du grec au latin par Boèce, sans doute au début du VIe siècle, (...) l'ouvrage fut intégré par le Moyen Age au corpus de la logique aristotélicienne et devint, à ce titre, l'un des manuels de base de l'enseignement de la logique. Lorsque, vers 1320, le Franciscain Guillaume d'Occam entreprend d'expliquer «les divers livres de la logique», c'est en premier lieu vers l'Isagogè qu'il se tourne, pour le commenter à sa façon: ce fut là le tout premier ouvrage de logique de celui qui allait devenir l'un des plus grands logiciens de tous les temps. Occam y prend occasion du texte de Porphyre pour réitérer, sous le couvert d'une interprétation parfois audacieuse, sa célèbre critique du réalisme des universaux, qui le conduit à voir dans les cinq prédicables cinq sortes de signes généraux. (shrink)

LeTraité des prédicables, aussi appeléIsagogè, fut rédigé par Porphyre, vers la fin du IIIe siècle, pour servir d'introduction à la logique et en particulier auTraité des categoriesd'Aristote. L'auteur y traite des cinq universaux – le genre, l'espèce, la différence, le propre et l'accident – qui sont, si l'on veut, cinq sortes de prédicats généraux qu'un sujet quelconque est susceptible de se voir attribuer. Traduit du grec au latin par Boèce, sans doute au début du VIe siècle, l'ouvrage fut intégré par (...) le Moyen Age au corpus de la logique aristotélicienne et devint, à ce titre, l'un des manuels de base de l'enseignement de la logique. Lorsque, vers 1320, le Franciscain Guillaume d'Occam entreprend d'expliquer «les divers livres de la logique», c'est en premier lieu vers l'Isagogèqu'il se tourne, pour le commenter à sa façon: ce fut là le tout premier ouvrage de logique de celui qui allait devenir l'un des plus grands logiciens de tous les temps. Occam y prend occasion du texte de Porphyre pour réitérer, sous le couvert d'une interprétation parfois audacieuse, sa célèbre critique du réalisme des universaux, qui le conduit à voir dans les cinq prédicables cinq sortes designesgénéraux. (shrink)

This article reports the findings of AI4People, an Atomium—EISMD initiative designed to lay the foundations for a “Good AI Society”. We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations—to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI—which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led by other (...) stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society. (shrink)

David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature is famous for its extreme skepticism. Louis Loeb argues that Hume's destructive conclusions have in fact obscured a constructive stage that Hume abandons prematurely. Working within a philosophical tradition that values tranquillity, Hume favors an epistemology that links justification with settled belief. Hume appeals to psychological stability to support his own epistemological assessments, both favorable regarding causal inference, and unfavorable regarding imaginative propensities. The theory's success in explaining Hume's epistemic distinctions gives way (...) to pessimism, since Hume contends that reflection on beliefs is deeply destabilizing. So much the worse, Hume concludes, for placing a premium on reflection. Hume endorses and defends the position that stable beliefs of unreflective persons are justified, though they would not survive reflection. At the same time, Hume relishes the paradox that unreflective beliefs enjoy a preferred epistemic status and strains to establish it. Loeb introduces a series of amendments to the Treatise that secures a more positive result for justified belief while maintaining Hume's fundamental principles. In his review of Hume's applications of his epistemology, Loeb uncovers a stratum of psychological doctrine beyond associationism, a theory of conditions in which beliefs are felt to conflict and of the resolution of this uneasiness or dissonance. This theory of mental conflict is also essential to Hume's strategy for integrating empiricism about meaning with his naturalism. However, Hume fails to provide a general account of the conditions in which conflicting beliefs lead to persisting instability, so his theory is incomplete. Loeb explores Hume's concern with stability in reference to his discussions of belief, education, the probability of causes, unphilosophical probability, the belief in body, sympathy and moral judgment, and the passions, among other topics. (shrink)

Introduction: Between Crisis and Closure One of the truisms of the history of French philosophy is that it was the importation of German philosophy, ...

Argues that outdated institutional structures and higher educational philosophies are negatively contrasting with significant changes in today's faculties and student bodies with a result that higher education is more competitive and less ...

The European Medical Information Framework project, funded through the IMI programme, has designed and implemented a federated platform to connect health data from a variety of sources across Europe, to facilitate large scale clinical and life sciences research. It enables approved users to analyse securely multiple, diverse, data via a single portal, thereby mediating research opportunities across a large quantity of research data. EMIF developed a code of practice to ensure the privacy protection of data subjects, protect the interests of (...) data sharing parties, comply with legislation and various organisational policies on data protection, uphold best practices in the protection of personal privacy and information governance, and eventually promote these best practices more widely. EMIF convened an Ethics Advisory Board, to provide feedback on its approach, platform, and the EcoP. The most important challenges the ECoP team faced were: how to define, control and monitor the purposes for which federated health data are used; the kinds of organisation that should be permitted to conduct permitted research; and how to monitor this. This manuscript explores those issues, offering the combined insights of the EAB and EMIF core ECoP team. For some issues, a consensus on how to approach them is proposed. For other issues, a singular approach may be premature but the challenges are summarised to help the community to debate the topic further. Arguably, the issues and their analyses have application beyond EMIF, to many research infrastructures connected to health data sources. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 11.1 (2004) 71-80 [Access article in PDF] Some Reflections on the (Analytic) Philosophical Approach to Delusion Louis A. Sass There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." —Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5 The peculiar, often problematic phenome na of psychopathology have been attract ing the attention of analytic philosophers in recent years. The topic of delusion (...) has been a particular draw, with a number of analytic philosophers attempting to use their conceptual tools, usually combined with ideas from cognitive neuroscience, to criticize the traditional understanding and to clarify the nature of this central psychiatric topic. It is useful to have this kind of interdisciplinary dialogue. Indeed, there is good reason to hope that concepts honed in the philosophy of mind and other philosophical subfields will help to sort out our understanding of a phenomenon (or set of phenomena) for which contemporary psychiatric definitions and conceptualizations are clearly inadequate and, in some respects, downright misleading (see Parnas and Sass 2001; Spitzer 1990).1Here, however, I would like to call attention to some weaknesses that, it seems to me, are rather common (I do not say universal) in many analytic philosophical approaches to psychopathology. In my opinion, there is a tendency to formulate issues and arguments in overly polarized, even dichotomous terms, and then to rely too uncritically on these essentialistic formulations in exploring the domain of inquiry. Although this polarizing tendency sometimes has the salutary effect of clarifying conceptual domains, it can, when taken too far, actually hamper our understanding of phenomena that are often fraught with ambiguities and complexities that defy many standard conceptualizations.The relationship between philosophy and psychopathology is obviously a two-way street—we are familiar, for example, with disorders that challenge deep philosophical assumptions about self and mind (e.g., blindsight, split-brain phenomena, perhaps also Dissociative Identity Disorder, and the first rank symptoms of schizophrenia). I am suggesting that, in their work on delusions, philosophers may need to put more emphasis on moving from the natural phenomena [End Page 71] of psychopathology and to the domain of philosophical analysis.I believe that a greater sensitivity to the modes of knowing associated with the phenomenological tradition, and to the forms of conceptual self-critique fostered by Ludwig Wittgenstein, are crucial ingredients for any adequate approach to delusion as well as many other topics in psychopathology. In my opinion, the work of many analytic philosophers interested in psychopathology would be enriched if they spent more time trying to discover and imagine what it might be like to experience certain kinds of abnormal psychiatric conditions, and also speculating about what implications such experiential modalities might have for action and verbal expression. I believe they would also be wise to spend more time questioning, and attempting to transcend, the philosophically derived conceptual distinctions and dichotomies that appear to organize their conceptual universes. Phenomenological imagination and Wittgensteinian critique can show how to move outside the conceptual capsule and into the rich and strange realms of actual experience, both normal and abnormal.So far I have offered only slogans. Let me use the articles by Tim Bayne and Elisabeth Pacherie (2004) and Robert Klee (2004) to flesh out the criticisms I have offered. There is much that is intelligent and much that is worthwhile in both their articles. (For example, I was largely convinced by the criticisms of John Campbell and of Donald Davidson that are central to the articles by Bayne and Pacherie and by Klee, respectively.) Here, however, I will focus only on issues that illustrate the above-mentioned tendencies—tendencies that, in my view, tend to infect even the best writings on the (analytic) philosophy of psychiatry. I will also make some remarks about the works of Campbell and Davidson, the two philosophers criticized in the articles by Bayne and Pacherie and by Klee. Because the article by Eugenie Georgaca (2004) is in a different tradition, I will say only a few words about it at the end. Bayne and Pacherie on the Preservation-Of-meaning... (shrink)

In this paper we reflect on the effectiveness of cognitive mapping as a method to study farm functioning in its complexity and its diverse forms in the framework of our own experiment with a diverse group of Flemish beef farmers. With a structured direct elicitation method we gathered 30 CMs. We analyzed the content of these maps both qualitatively and quantitatively. The central role of the concept “Income” in most maps indicated a shared concern for economic security. Further, the CMs (...) indicated that farmers dealt with this shared social reality differently, as the relationships included in their maps referred to different functional processes relating to revenue streams, marketing strategies, investment decisions, dependence on production inputs, on-farm resource management, and personal well-being. With a clustering algorithm we grouped farmers based on the relationships in their maps, which allowed us to trace some of the broader patterns within the data, such as the existence of more business- and investment-minded farmers, in contrast to farmers focused on their quality of life, and animal production-oriented in contrast to marketing-oriented farmers. Taking into account farmers’ comments, we find that the applied methods had limited capability to classify farmers based on their perspectives on farming. Still, the system presentations proved useful to study what aspects farmers were working on or towards, and how these aspects may actually fit together as a whole. CMing was therefore mostly effective in exploring farm functioning in its complexity, and less so in exploring farm functioning in its diversity. (shrink)

This paper is addressed to recent theoretical discussions of the Anthropocene, in particular Bernard Stiegler’s Neganthropocene (Open Universities Press, 2018), which argues: “As we drift past tipping points that put future biota at risk, while a post-truth regime institutes the denial of ‘climate change’ (as fake news), and as Silicon Valley assistants snatch decision and memory, and as gene-editing and a financially-engineered bifurcation advances over the rising hum of extinction events and the innumerable toxins and conceptual opiates that Anthropocene Talk (...) fascinated itself with—in short, as ‘the Anthropocene’ discloses itself as a dead-end trap…”. The objective of this paper is therefore twofold: (1) to discuss how the Anthropocene is appropriated to certain ideological discourses (paradoxically) to maintain the hegemony of precisely those systems of production that have most accelerated climate change etc.; (2) to consider how the factography of the Anthropocene is exploited in this process to mask the ideological character of industry-aligned “technocratic” environmental management. The paper is not concerned with specific case studies in terms of government and industry policy, or climate science, but rather with the ways in which the discourse of the Anthropocene has been inflected within the humanities and the broader cultural field—that is to say, ideologically, as a system or logic of meaning. How the Anthropocene “means” is, in this respect, a question of some importance. This paper does not attempt to address all the facets of this question, but focuses upon a central “apocalyptic” strain in the discourse of the Anthropocene drawn particularly from Francis Fukuyama’s millennial posthumanism and centred in the question of “sustainability” as catastrophe management—with the risk that real environmental degradation will become an alibi for a revived neoliberalism. In other words, that the critical Earth system transformations that characterise the Anthropocene are themselves commodities, and that the project of their amelioration is in process of defining a future (opportunistic) “crisis” rhetoric with a global political franchise. The ideological import of the Anthropocene stems precisely from the fact that it is planetary and, while catalysed by human agency, independent in its specific behaviour from it. The Anthropocene objectively presents as the contemporary counterpart of the Cold War doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction and the most compelling argument for a new kind of technological “arms race.” But it also presents as the condition of an emerging ideological discourse which will determine how this race is run. From the discourse on “energy security” to the widespread “security crackdown” on environmental activists across the so-called developed & developing world, the Anthropocene has come to represent the co-option of a scientific factography for the thinly disguised resurgence of “ideological science” of the Fukuyamaesque variety (post-history, post-human). For Fukuyama, the true meaning of “posthuman” is thus the accomplishment of humanity’s historical mission. As the “End of History” designates an end of ideological struggle, so too the dénouement of the Anthropocene and the “ends of man” represent the accomplished purpose of species warfare: dominion, not simply over the world, but over all possible worlds. According to this narrative, science—like technology—must be uniquely at the service of the maintenance of the global order, organised around a universal appeal to “crisis management.” It is precisely for this reason that what calls itself post-human masks the return of an ever-more-apocalyptic Humanism. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 10.2 (2003) 125-132 [Access article in PDF] Incomprehensibility and Understanding:On the Interpretation of Severe Mental Illness Louis A. Sass Keywords hermeneutics, psychopathology, paradox, Wittgenstein, solipsism, delusion, principle of charity, phenomenological psychopathology. I would like to begin by thanking Rupert Read for the care he has put into reading my work, and into thinking through its implications in the context of the "new-Wittgensteinian" interpretation of (...) the thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein. This interpretation derives from an influential reading of this philosopher's early book, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1961), that is not explicitly discussed in Read's article, yet that lies behind much of his argument. Read does allude to this reading of the Tractatus when he refers to the concept of "logically alien thought" (see Conant [1992]), and by citing, in his endnotes, the Diamond, Conant, and Cerbone articles that appear in Crary and Read's edited collection, The New Wittgenstein (2000). In an earlier paper that also addresses my work, "On approaching schizophrenia through Wittgenstein," Read (2001) explicitly discusses the relevance of the new-Wittgensteinian interpretation of the Tractatus.According to this new-Wittgensteinian interpretation of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein took absolutely seriously his own realization (explicitly stated at the end of the Tractatus) that his book was internally self-contradictory, and he therefore realized that all or nearly all the sentences of the Tractatus must be totally devoid of any meaning or semantic reference. According to this austere view, the vast bulk of the Tractatus only pretends to be making meaningful statements about the nature of logic and semantics; its real purpose is to give the reader the illusion of meaning, and this it does in order to lead the reader to the eventual realization that there can in fact be no meaningful statements or thoughts at the level of self-referential abstraction at which the Tractatus pretends to be operating. Further, when Wittgenstein (1961) writes (in the famous last line of the book), "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (p. 189), this statement should, supposedly, not be taken as any kind of mystical pointing toward some ineffable realm or truth, but, rather, as an austere recognition that there just are no ineffable truths—that, so to speak, there just is no mystical there there. [End Page 125]Rupert Read sees an analogy between, on the one hand, the (supposedly mistaken) readers of Wittgenstein's Tractatus who think that Wittgenstein is exploiting self-contradiction to allude to some higher, ineffable truth (i.e., something that can be pointed at even if it cannot be said), and, on the other hand, my own elucidation of Schreber's contradictions (see especially Chapter 2 of Paradoxes of Delusion [1994]) to argue that Schreber can be said to be having particular kinds of experiences, which I refer to as solipsistic or quasi-solipsistic in nature. Just as Wittgenstein's self-contradictions can (supposedly) point nowhere other than to their own failure to mean, so Schreber's self-contradictory and other nonstandard statements cannot (according to Read) be used to illuminate in any meaningful way the form of experience that supposedly lies behind them—as I, for example, have tried to do by offering a phenomenological account of Schreber and schizophrenia. Patients like Schreber and Renée cannot really be understood, just as we cannot really understand logically alien thought—which, in fact, is not really thought at all; in both cases, there is only the illusion of meaning, only the mirage of an alternative mode of thinking or of living. This, at least, is Read's new-Wittgensteinian claim.Few readers of Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology will, I suspect, be familiar with these discussions centering on Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which were introduced largely by the philosophers Cora Diamond and James Conant (see Crary and Read [2000]). (I myself have found their writings fascinating and inspiring in many ways, despite my ultimate disagreement on fundamental issues.) 1 Most readers of Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology will have no way of assessing the validity of this austere reading of the Tractatus... (shrink)

This study examines steroid production in fathers watching their children compete, extending previous research of vicarious success or failure on men’s hormone levels. Salivary testosterone and cortisol levels were measured in 18 fathers watching their children play in a soccer tournament. Participants completed a survey about the game and provided demographic information. Fathers with higher pregame testosterone levels were more likely to report that referees were biased against their children’s teams, and pre- to postgame testosterone elevation was predicted by watching (...) sons compete rather than daughters as well as perceptions of unfair officiating. Pregame cortisol was not associated with pregame testosterone or with perceived officiating bias, but cortisol did fluctuate synergistically with testosterone during spectator competition. Although fathers showed no consistent testosterone change in response to winning or losing, pregame testosterone may mediate steroid hormone reactivity to other aspects of their children’s competition. (shrink)