Ainsi donc parlaient les anciens philosophes. Leurs paroles ne sont point perdues dans les vestiges de temples morts, d'Athènes, d'Ephèse ou de Rome: recueillies, trancrites, commentées, elles ont engendré d'autres paroles qui elles-même en ont nourri d'autres. Ainsi d'âge en âge aura-t-on puisé dans ce trésor de mots, venu de si loin, où les siècles à venir trouveront de quoi se faire l'idée d'un bonheur et d'une sagesse. De ce cercle de penseurs disparus, Jean-Paul Dumont connaissait tout, et mieux (...) que personne: les premiers rôles et les comparses, les figures et les figurants. Il avait tout surpris, tout retenu de leurs conversations, de leurs empoignades, de leurs rognes et de leurs rires. Pour honorer sa mémoire et poursuivre ce dialogue ininterrompu avec les penseurs de l'aurore de la philosophie, vingt-trois de ses élèves, collègues et amis ont, à leur tour, voulu faire parler les Anciens, en particulier Platon et les philosophes du monde hellénistique. De Zénon d'Elée à Philodème, de Diogène de Babylone à Sextus Empiricus, de Platon à Saint Augustin, tous témoignent du bonheur du discours et de la fécondité d'une temps qui ne songeait pas à séparer la vie et la pensée. Outre une étude inédite sur "Le modèle parménidien de l'assimilation: pensée, sensation et vie", le volume comprend aussi la réédition de deux articles devenus introuvables de Jean-Paul Dumont "Diogène de Babylone et la preuve onthologique" et "L'âme et la main, signification du geste de Zénon", ainsi que la bibliographie complète de ses oeuvres. (shrink)

I take up three puzzles about our emotional and evaluative responses to fiction. First, how can we even have emotional responses to characters and events that we know not to exist, if emotions are as intimately connected to belief and action as they seem to be? One solution to this puzzle claims that we merely imagine having such emotional responses. But this raises the puzzle of why we would ever refuse to follow an author’s instructions to imagine such responses, since (...) we happily imagine many other implausible things. A natural response to this second puzzle is that our responses to fiction are real, and so can’t just be conjured up in response to an author’s demands. However, this simple response is inadequate, because we often respond differently to people and events in fiction than we would if we encountered them in real life. Solving these three puzzles in a consistent way requires the notion of a “perspective” on a fictional world. I sketch an account of this intuitive but frustratingly amorphous notion: perspectives are tools for organizing our thinking, which can in turn alter our emotional and evaluative responses. Cultivating a perspective can be illuminating, entertaining, or corrupting — or all three at once. (shrink)

Traditional theories of sarcasm treat it as a case of a speaker's meaning the opposite of what she says. Recently, 'expressivists' have argued that sarcasm is not a type of speaker meaning at all, but merely the expression of a dissociative attitude toward an evoked thought or perspective. I argue that we should analyze sarcasm in terms of meaning inversion, as the traditional theory does; but that we need to construe 'meaning' more broadly, to include illocutionary force and evaluative attitudes (...) as well as propositional content. I distinguish four subclasses of sarcasm, individuated in terms of the target of inversion. Three of these classes raise serious challenges for a standard implicature analysis. (shrink)

Philosophers have traditionally inclined toward one of two opposite extremes when it comes to metaphor. On the one hand, partisans of metaphor have tended to believe that metaphors do something different in kind from literal utterances; it is a ‘heresy’, they think, either to deny that what metaphors do is genuinely cognitive, or to assume that it can be translated into literal terms. On the other hand, analytic philosophers have typically denied just this: they tend to assume that if metaphors (...) express any genuine content at all, then that content can in principle be paraphrased into literal terms. They often conclude on this basis that metaphor is theoretically dispensable, and so that it poses no special challenges and affords no distinctive insights for the philosophy of language and mind. (shrink)

Theorists often associate certain “poetic” qualities with metaphor – most especially, producing an open-ended, holistic perspective which is evocative, imagistic and affectively-laden. I argue that, on the one hand, non-cognitivists are wrong to claim that metaphors only produce such perspectives: like ordinary literal speech, they also serve to undertake claims and other speech acts with propositional content. On the other hand, contextualists are wrong to assimilate metaphor to literal loose talk: metaphors depend on using one thing as a perspective for (...) thinking about something else. I bring out the distinctive way that metaphor works by contrasting it with two other poetic uses of language, juxtapositions and “telling details,” that do fit the accounts of metaphor offered by non-cognitivists and contextualists, respectively. (shrink)

Most of us create and use a panoply of non-sentential representations throughout our ordinary lives: we regularly use maps to navigate, charts to keep track of complex patterns of data, and diagrams to visualize logical and causal relations among states of affairs. But philosophers typically pay little attention to such representations, focusing almost exclusively on language instead. In particular, when theorizing about the mind, many philosophers assume that there is a very tight mapping between language and thought. Some analyze utterances (...) as the outer vocalizations of inner thoughts (e.g. Grice 1957, Devitt 2005), while others treat thought as a form of inner speech (e.g. Sellars 1956/1997, Carruthers 2002). But even philosophers who take no stand on the relative priority of language and thought still tend to individuate mental states in terms of the sentences we use to ascribe them. Indeed, Dummett (1993) claims that it is constitutive of analytic philosophy that it approaches the mind by way of language. In many ways, this linguistic model is salutary. Our thoughts are often intimately intertwined with their linguistic expression, and public language does provide a comparatively tractable proxy for, and a window into, the messier realm of thought. However, an exclusive focus on thought as it is expressed in language threatens to leave other sorts of thought unexplained, or even to blind us to their possibility. In particular, many cognitive ethologists and psychologists find it useful to talk about humans, chimpanzees, birds, rats, and even bees as employing cognitive maps. We need to make sense of this way of talking about minds as well as more familiar sentential descriptions. In what follows, I investigate the theoretical and practical possibility of non-sentential thought. Ultimately, I am most interested in the contours of distinctively human thought: what forms does human thought take, and how do those different forms interact? How does human thought compare with that of other animals? In this essay, however, I focus on a narrower and more basic theoretical question: could thought occur in maps? Many philosophers are convinced that in some important sense, thought per se must be language-like.. (shrink)

Does thought precede language, or the other way around? How does having a language affect our thoughts? Who has a language, and who can think? These questions have traditionally been addressed by philosophers, especially by rationalists concerned to identify the essential difference between humans and other animals. More recently, theorists in cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and developmental psychology have been asking these questions in more empirically grounded ways. At its best, this confluence of philosophy and science promises to blend the (...) respective strengths of each discipline, bringing abstract theory to bear on reality in a principled and focused way. At its worst, it risks degenerating into a war of words, with each side employing key expressions in its own idiosyncratic way – or worse, contaminating empirical research with a priori dogmas inherited from outmoded philosophical worldviews. In Baboon Metaphysics (2007), Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth offer an analysis of baboon cognition that promises to exemplify the very best interaction of philosophical theory and empirical research. They argue that baboons have a language of thought: a language-like representational medium, which supports the sophisticated cognitive abilities required to negotiate their complex social environment. This claim is intended to be surprising in its own right, and also to shed light on the evolution of spoken language. Because our own ancestors likely lived in a similarly complex social environment, Cheney and Seyfarth propose that the earliest humans also developed language first as a cognitive medium, and that spoken language evolved as a means to express those thoughts. There are two potential difficulties here. First, ‘Language of Thought’ (LOT) is a term of art, with much associated theoretical baggage and often comparatively little careful exposition. Thus, evaluating the claim requires getting clearer about just what LOT implies in this context.. (shrink)

La relation entre la métaphysique et le christianisme a fait l’objet, tout au long du XXe siècle jusqu’à aujourd’hui, de nombreux et puissants conflits d’interprétations, les unes tendant à régionaliser le christianisme dans les thèmes et les concepts de la métaphysique grecque, d’autres plaçant le discours théologique en position de science récapitulative de la quête métaphysique, d’autres encore estimant pouvoir déclarer l’hétérogénéité des deux traditions philosophique et théologique. Etienne Gilson avait certes montré tôt la part que le christianisme a effectivement (...) prise dès avant le Moyen Age dans le destin de la métaphysique et relevé les modalités par lesquelles la métaphysique avait pu favoriser l’auto-intelligibilité du christianisme. Sans doute ne suffit-il plus aujourd’hui de discuter les thèses contrastées d’une métaphysique «postchrétienne» ou d’un christianisme «postmétaphysique» ; il convient, en amont, de poser la question des conditions par lesquelles la métaphysique, surmontant ses apories théoriques et redéfinissant ses attendus, peut renouveler son interlocution avec le christianisme et réciproquement. (shrink)

L'oeuvre de Jean-Luc Marion de l'Académie française, s'est progressivement imposée sur la scène philosophique française et internationale depuis plus de trois décennies. Successeur d'Emmanuel Levinas à la chaire de métaphysique de Paris-IV Sorbonne (1995-2011) et successeur de Paul Ricoeur à l'University of Chicago (2003-2011), il occupe aujourd'hui, succédant à David Tracy, la chaire de théologie fondamentale de cette même université américaine, ainsi que la Chaire Domi- nique Dubarle : "Philosophie et théologie" de l'Institut catholique de Paris. Lorsqu'il récapitule son itinéraire (...) de recherche, J-L Marion distingue trois "moments " : les études cartésiennes, la phénoménologie et la théologie. De nombreux travaux, plusieurs thèses de doctorat lui ont été déjà consacrés dans ces différents champs où elle continue cependant de s'élaborer, suscitant l'admiration, mais aussi, le plus souvent en raison de sa haute technicité conceptuelle, de lourdes incompréhensions. Le présent ouvrage, issu d'une séance publique de débats et intégrant les "réponses" du principal intéressé, n'a pas pour seule ambition de lever celles-ci ; en ouvrant les trois volets de l'oeuvre, il engage un dialogue direct avec l'auteur, interrogeant l'une des pensées philosophiques les plus fécondes de notre temps. (shrink)

La relation entre la philosophie et la théologie est coexistensive au mouvement du penser de Martin Heidegger. Elle n'a pas seulement fait l'objet d'une Conférence en 1927. Elle ne saurait constituer non plus un simple thème de relecture de son œuvre. Après la publication, ces deux dernières décennies, de plusieurs textes majeurs de l'auteur, restés longtemps inconnus, à l'heure du renouvellement des recherches sur ses origines sociales et intellectuelles, la question appelait un nouvel examen. Philippe Capelle met en relief les (...) trois topiques fondamentales de cette relation philosophie et théologie scripturaire, philosophie et ontothéologie, pensée de l'être et attente du dieu, ainsi que les différentes étapes de leur thématisation. Il analyse le rapport de Heidegger à la tradition théologique en faisant valoir un triple point de vue l'enracinement dans la culture catholique ; la dette vis-à-vis des schèmes fondamentaux des théologies catholique et (surtout) protestante, ainsi que de leurs principaux fondateurs : saint Paul, saint Augustin, la scolastique médiévale, Luther, Bultmann ; la provenance qui autorise paradoxalement la sortie jamais achevée de la théologie chrétienne. Rejetant toute interprétation théologique de la pensée heideggerienne, il interroge enfin le thème du " retrait " comme motif herméneutique central et comme pivot d'une approche renouvelée des rapports entre la philosophie et la théologie. (shrink)

Gerechtigkeit ist ein ebenso bedeutsames wie umstrittenes Ideal menschlichen Umgangs.

Deux penseurs entrent en dialogue. Pour relever ensemble un même pari. Afin de dire symphoniquement le pourquoi et le comment de l'embrasement de la violence religieuse à l'échelle planétaire. Qu'en est-il du christianisme et de l'islam, de leurs théologies et de leurs histoires au regard de la philosophie, née en Grèce? La rencontre, nouée au Moyen Âge, est-elle devenue impossible aujourd'hui? Comment peut-on et doit-on philosopher en islam et en christianisme pour le bénéfice d'une mutuelle compréhension? Une religion sans philosophie (...) ne risque-t-elle pas l'irrationalisme jusqu'au fanatisme? Une philosophie sans religion ne risque-t-elle pas le rationalisme jusqu'à l'aveuglement? Pour lutter contre ces deux écueils et transcender l'affrontement des croyances, ces deux philosophes de renom et de la même génération, l'un catholique, l'autre musulman, Philippe Capelle-Dumont et Souleymane Bachir Diagne, nous font partager ici leur science, leur passion et leur appel à la paix, sous la houlette de Damien Le Guay, lui-même philosophe, attentif aux signes du temps présent. Un livre pour apprendre et enfin savoir. Un vibrant plaidoyer contre la tentation identitaire et conflictuelle. Un ouvrage salutaire à lire, à méditer et à transmettre."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Friedrich Nietzsches Philosophie des europäischen Nihilismus" verfügbar.

Metaphors are powerful communicative tools because they produce ”framing effects’. These effects are especially palpable when the metaphor is an insult that denigrates the hearer or someone he cares about. In such cases, just comprehending the metaphor produces a kind of ”complicity’ that cannot easily be undone by denying the speaker’s claim. Several theorists have taken this to show that metaphors are engaged in a different line of work from ordinary communication. Against this, I argue that metaphorical insults are rhetorically (...) powerful because they combine perspectives, presupposition, and pragmatics in the service of speech acts with assertoric force. (shrink)

Recently, philosophers have discovered that they have a lot to learn from, or at least to ponder about, fiction. Many metaphysicians are attracted to fiction as a model for our talk about purported objects and properties, such as numbers, morality, and possible worlds, without embracing a robust Platonist ontology. In addition, a growing group of philosophers of mind are interested in the implications of our engagement with fiction for our understanding of the mind and emotions: If I don’t believe that (...) Anna Karenina exists, can I really pity her, or hope or desire that she extricate herself from her tragic situation? And why is there no “morality fiction,” analogous to science fiction? I suspect that philosophers have been especially comfortable thinking about fiction because it seems, at least prima facie, to employ the imagination in a way that conforms to a standard model of the mind. Specifically, contemporary philosophers tend to think of imagination as a form of mental pretense. Mental pretense can take two main forms: a cognitive attitude of supposing a set of propositions to be true (make-believe) or else an experiential state of imaging a scenario as if it were before one (imaging). Much of our pretense intertwines the cognitive and experiential modalities, of course. But both share a crucial common feature: all of one’s imaginative effort is invested in pretending that certain contents obtain. In this sense, we can understand imagination as the “offline” simulation of actual beliefs and perceptions (and perhaps other attitudes as well), where we analyze these in the normal way, as states individuated by their attitude and representational content. While I share the burgeoning interest in fiction, I want to suggest that we also have a lot to learn from poetry, and in particular from poetic metaphor. I will argue.. (shrink)

Mobsters and others engaged in risky forms of social coordination and coercion often communicate by saying something that is overtly innocuous but transmits another message ‘off record’. In both ordinary conversation and political discourse, insinuation and other forms of indirection, like joking, offer significant protection from liability. However, they do not confer blanket immunity: speakers can be held to account for an ‘off record’ message, if the only reasonable interpreta- tions of their utterance involve a commitment to it. Legal liability (...) for speech in the service of criminal behavior displays a similar profile of significant protection from indirection along with potential liability for reasonable interpretations. Specifically, in both ordinary and legal contexts, liability depends on how a reasonable speaker would expect a reasonable hearer to interpret their utterance in the context of utter- ance, rather than on the actual speaker’s claimed communicative intentions. (shrink)

We should not admit categorial restrictions on the significance of syntactically well formed strings. Syntactically well formed but semantically absurd strings, such as ‘Life’s but a walking shadow’ and ‘Caesar is a prime number’, can express thoughts; and competent thinkers both are able to grasp these and ought to be able to. Gareth Evans’ generality constraint, though Evans himself restricted it, should be viewed as a fully general constraint on concept possession and propositional thought. For (a) even well formed but (...) semantically cross-categorial strings often do possess substantive inferential roles; (b) hearers exploit these inferential roles in interpreting such strings metaphorically; (c) there is no good reason to deny truth-conditions to strings with inferential roles. (shrink)

Metaphor is a pervasive and significant feature of language. We use metaphor to talk about the world in familiar and innovative ways, and in contexts ranging from everyday conversation to literature and scientific theorizing. However, metaphor poses serious challenges for standard philosophical theories of meaning, because it straddles so many important boundaries: between language and thought, between semantics and pragmatics, between rational communication and mere causal association. ;In this dissertation, I develop a pragmatic theory of metaphorical utterances which reconciles two (...) apparently incompatible intuitions. The first is that metaphors are vehicles for undertaking speech acts with a propositional content distinct from their conventional sentence meaning. The second is that metaphors are tools for inducing the essentially non-propositional effect of 'seeing things in a new light' or under a new aspect. These intuitions seem to be incompatible because it is assumed that only one can capture the essential function of metaphor. I propose instead that non-propositional 'seeing-as' or aspectual thought serves as the means by which speakers intend to accomplish their end of communicating content. This does not imply that speakers are not interested in and even committed to the effects of aspectual thought as well, only that it is not their sole, ultimate intention. ;In order to substantiate this proposal about how metaphor works, I develop an account of the psychological structures on which aspectual thought operates and the changes it engenders; I then show how the content of the speaker's intended speech act is determined by the aspect the sentence generates. By bringing propositional content and non-propositional aspectual thought together in this way, my account can treat the full range of metaphors, from 'ordinary' to 'poetic', within a unified theory. Armed with this account, we have the explanatory resources necessary to acknowledge both that ordinary conversational metaphors are efficient and sometimes essential vehicles for communicating determinate propositional contents, and also that rich, poetic metaphors are invitations to an open-ended contemplation of the subject under discussion. These apparently very different effects turn out to be manifestations of the same basic process of comprehension. (shrink)

On a familiar and prima facie plausible view of metaphor, speakers who speak metaphorically say one thing in order to mean another. A variety of theorists have recently challenged this view; they offer criteria for distinguishing what is said from what is merely meant, and argue that these support classifying metaphor within 'what is said'. I consider four such criteria, and argue that when properly understood, they support the traditional classification instead. I conclude by sketching how we might extract a (...) workable notion of 'what is said' from ordinary intuitions about saying. (shrink)

I argue that we can reconcile two seemingly incompatible traditions for thinking about concepts. On the one hand, many cognitive scientists assume that the systematic redeployment of representational abilities suffices for having concepts. On the other hand, a long philosophical tradition maintains that language is necessary for genuinely conceptual thought. I argue that on a theoretically useful and empirically plausible concept of 'concept', it is necessary and sufficient for conceptual thought that a thinker be able to entertain many of the (...) potential thoughts produced by recombining her representational abilities apart from a direct confrontation with the states of affairs being represented. Such representational abilities support a cognitive engagement with the world that is flexible, abstract, and active. (shrink)

L'installation de la Réforme à Millau. Bergon. Laurence4070.

Why do some people still choose psychoanalysis-Freud's so-called talking cure-when numerous medications are available that treat the symptoms of psychic distress so much faster? Elisabeth Roudinesco tackles this difficult question, exploring what she sees as a "depressive society": an epidemic of distress addressed only by an increasing reliance on prescription drugs. Far from contesting the efficacy of new medications like Prozac, Zoloft, and Viagra in alleviating the symptoms of any number of mental or nervous conditions, Roudinesco argues that the (...) use of such drugs fails to solve patients' real problems. In the man who takes Viagra without ever wondering why he is suffering from impotence and the woman who is given antidepressants to deal with the loss of a loved one, Roudinesco sees a society obsessed with efficiency and desperate for the quick fix. She argues that "the talking cure" and pharmacology represent not just different approaches to psychiatry, but different worldviews. The rush to treat symptoms is itself symptomatic of an antiseptic and depressive culture in which thought is reduced to the firing of neurons and desire is just a chemical secretion. In contrast, psychoanalysis testifies to human freedom and the power of language. (shrink)

The present article critically examines three aspects of Graham Priest's dialetheic analysis of very important kinds of limitations (the limit of what can be expressed, described, conceived, known, or the limit of some operation or other). First, it is shown that Priest's considerations focusing on Hegel's account of the infinite cannot be sustained, mainly because Priest seems to rely on a too restrictive notion of object. Second, we discuss Priest's treatment of the paradoxes in Cantorian set-theory. It is shown that (...) Priest does not address the issue in full generality; rather, he relies on a reading of Cantor which implicitly attributes a very strong principle concerning quantification over arbitrary domains to Cantor. Third, the main piece of Priest's work, the so-called “inclosure schema”, is investigated. This schema is supposed to formalize the core of many well-known paradoxes. We claim, however, that formally the schema is not sound. (shrink)

L’alliance est la grammaire principale du monde. Phénomène commun, local et universel, le plus pauvre et le plus noble. Elle se trouve cependant aujourd’hui plus que jamais contrariée. Le monde est en dés-alliance sur le plan social, politique, anthropologique, écologique, techno-scientifique, métaphysique. Les demandes répétées de « recréer du lien » en corroborent le fait plus qu’elles n’en dessinent une alternative : affranchies de tout « principe », elles échouent à leur tour sur les rives du nihilisme. C’est que le (...) principe est tombé dans l’oubli. Ses titres ont été, dès la fin du xixe siècle et tout au long du xxe siècle, durement contestés et ses droits confisqués. Nombre de succédanés se sont imposés, avec leurs antinomies et leurs tragédies humaines : Raison suffisante, Progrès, Destin, Cause, État. Le principe ainsi reclassé, déclassé, fut biffé derechef au titre de ce qui lui fut imputé : voracité de l’Un, maîtrise formelle de l’universalité, logique de sécurisation historique. Reconsidérer le principe autrement, i.e. comme alliance, tel est l’enjeu phénoménologique du présent ouvrage : loin de tout Deus ex machina, elle est le jeu de la différence initiatrice, de la pluralité unitaire, de la donation herméneutique. Ainsi, au principe, l’alliance fait être et fait temps. Elle est notre première promesse. (shrink)