Face aux tentatives des logiciens de démontrer la validité ou l'invalidité du Maître-argument de Diodore Kronos en s'empressant de déclarer un gagnant à l'argumentaire opposant le philosophe de Mégare à Aristote, nous esquissons par ce présent article une analyse globale du dogme diodoréen qui considère l'ensemble des témoignages antiques répertoriés sur sa pensée, permettant de dresser un portait cohérent d'une pensée positive qui le plus souvent n'est considérée que de façon éristique. Cette approche permet de mettre en lumière les assises (...) dogmatiques du Maître-argument, notamment en relation avec les arguments sur les corps sans parties ; si le monde physique est composé d'ultimes corps indivisibles et sans parties, ces unités ne peuvent être dans le même lieu et dans un autre lieu au même instant, alors « rien ne se meut » . Si Diodore reprend la thèse éléatique de l'impossibilité d'appréhender logiquement le mouvement, il renouvèle toutefois la tradition mégarique en affirmant l'existence du mouvement achevé, car l'on constate bien qu'un corps est passé d'un lieu à l'autre, et donc qu'il s'est mû! Or nous démontrons que l'affirmation singulière d'un mouvement exclusivement conjugué au passé, et donc jamais soumis au devenir, a vraisemblablement des origines aristotéliciennes. En effet, Diodore semble soumettre certains développements de La Physique à une analyse strictement logique en fondant sa conception du temps dans son unité , là où Aristote privilégiait l'analyse empirique dans une conception continue du temps et du mouvement. C'est donc à partir de cette divergence fondamentale d'approche épistémologique qu'il faut comprendre le débat sur le possible. En définissant le mouvement comme « l'acte de l'étant en puissance » , Aristote pense le possible à partir des possibilités ontiques de la substance , tandis que Diodore, en identifiant le possible à l'acte, évite le danger de spéculer sur des possibles qui ne se réalisent pas et ainsi de confondre être et non-être; or en distinguant le possible et le nécessaire, il dément la tradition qui lui attribuait un simple nécessitarisme et renouvèle véritablement l'ontologie éléate. À partir de développements préliminaires de Robert Muller, ce présent article démontre ainsi la pertinence d'interpréter la pensée diodoréenne comme une ontologie du dévoilement rendue possible par une critique et une appropriation mégarique de la pensée aristotélicienne. (shrink)

In Volume I of Works of Love, Kierkegaard condemns preferential, “earthly” love and extols the virtues of impartial, “Christian” love. Yet he claims that his vision of Christianity leaves room for earthly relationships in their full richness. Controversy over this claim is longstanding, but a number of contemporary scholars have come to Kierkegaard’s defense. In what follows, I attempt to counter this trend. I do so by criticizing a scholar who I take to be one of Kierkegaard’s most persuasive apologists (...) – Jamie Ferreira. Drawing on recent work by Harry Frankfurt, I argue that essential to human love-relationships is their generation of preferential moral commitments. Ferreira’s defense of Kierkegaard is therefore inadequate; it shows only how Kierkegaardian Christianity leaves room for attention to distinct individuals, not how such distinctness can become morally relevant. Indeed, Kierkegaard’s ethic of selflessness specifically precludes this possibility, since partiality, he claims, is necessarily selfish. This claim I also dispute. If my argument succeeds, then, I will have shown not only that Kierkegaardian Christianity eliminates the possibility of loving earthly relationships, but also that it does so on inadequate grounds. I will conclude by briefly discussing the possibility of revising Kierkegaard’s account, taking as my example the amendments recently proposed by Sharon Krishek. (shrink)

In his recent book, The Idea of Human Rights, Charles Beitz claims that we should reject the human right to democracy in favour of the less demanding right to collective self-determination. On this account, citizens are entitled to basic civil and political rights, and their interests are represented by a hierarchical regime that defers to a conception of the common good in decision-making processes. However, this claim undermines his subsequent defense of the human right to nondiscrimination, because systematically enforced political (...) inequalities are fundamentally discriminatory. In this paper, I explore and defend two claims: first, Beitz's rejection of the right to equal political participation is inconsistent with his defense of the human right to nondiscrimination; second, we should reconcile this inconsistency by maintaining that there ought to be a right to both nondiscrimination and political equality. In defending the second claim, I argue that equal political rights may protect a fundamental human interest and thus merit the status of a human right. I then argue that democratic institutions can be instrumentally linked to the effective protection of human rights. Further, without a constitution and political accountability mechanisms, disenfranchised citizens are dependent on the contingent benevolence of the ruling elite for the assurance that their basic liberties will be protected over time. Ultimately, even if hierarchical regimes protect basic liberties in practice, nondemocratic regimes violate the human right to nondiscrimination by systematically denying certain groups equal political rights. (shrink)

This article aims to introduce the reader to the aesthetics of Jacques Rancière. By examining his latest publications and papers – Le Partage du sensible, L’Inconscient esthétique and Le Spectateur émancipé – we shall shed light on some key concepts of his thought, such as “Le Partage du sensible” and “Dissensus”, and explain how they are linked to the different regimes of artistic expression that Rancière identifies in his work as the ethic regime, the representational regime and the aesthetic regime (...) of art. In so doing, we shall show how Rancière rightfully demonstrates that political and pedagogical implications are always present and felt within artistic expression. (shrink)

This article aims to introduce the reader to the aesthetics of Jacques Rancière . By examining his latest publications and papers – Le Partage du sensible , L’Inconscient esthétique and Le Spectateur émancipé – we shall shed light on some key concepts of his thought, such as “Le Partage du sensible” and “Dissensus”, and explain how they are linked to the different regimes of artistic expression that Rancière identifies in his work as the ethic regime, the representational regime and the (...) aesthetic regime of art. In so doing, we shall show how Rancière rightfully demonstrates that political and pedagogical implications are always present and felt within artistic expression. (shrink)

I argue that the coincidence of statue and matter is a special case of a common linguistic phenomenon: the use of partitive terms to individuate uses of non-count nouns (NCNs). By marking partitives and NCNs, we can easily account for the intuition that a statue and its matter are identical.