Cet article s'interroge sur l'origine des quatre causes d'Aristote (formelle, matérielle, efficiente, finale), c'est-à-dire sur le coeur de la métaphysique. En effet pourquoi y a-t-il quatre causes? Qu'est-ce qui fait leur communauté et leur « systématicité »? Dans un premier temps, l'auteur montre que le système des quatre causes est articulé par deux couples d'opposition formant deux schèmes de la causalité : d'une part le couple cause formelle/cause matérielle, statique, qui renvoie à une causalité analytique (schème rationnel) ; (...) d'autre part le couple cause finale/cause efficiente, dynamique, qui renvoie à une causalité synthétique (schème causal). Dans un deuxième temps, l'A. montre que ce « système étiologique tétrapolaire » est déjà présent dans l'oeuvre de Platon : plus particulièrement dans le Timée, avec les couples d'opposition démiurge/milieu matériel (chôra) et formes intelligibles/monde sensible, mais aussi dans le Philèbe et le Sophiste, où une double opposition systématique analogique à la précédente est à l'oeuvre. Une fois mises en évidence ces « deux souches de la métaphysique », l'auteur montre que le schème rationnel l'emporte sur le schème causal, aussi bien dans l'oeuvre d'Aristote que dans celle Platon. (shrink)

La théologie trinitaire contemporaine s’est emparée d’un « analogon » qui s’est imposé dans la période moderne comme un étalon rationnel pour penser, à partir du Père, la distinction des processions du Verbe et de l’Esprit, l’une selon le mode qui revient à l’acte d’intelliger par production d’un Verbe, l’autre selon le mode qui revient à l’acte d’aimer par inclination volontaire. Hans Urs von Balthasar, soucieux de ne pas faire tort à la « taxis » trinitaire, cherche néanmoins à (...) se délester d’un schème métaphysique trop contraignant, ne laissant à la source scripturaire qu’une place infirme compromettant ses virtualités expressives. D’une certaine manière, le théologien reprend la main sur les usages conceptuels jugés défectueux au regard de la règle de foi. (shrink)

This article is the product of a critical engagement that I have orchestrated between Husserl’s phenomenology and Stoic epistemology. I argue that the Stoic theory of knowledge, which is based upon the idea that the individual human being is a logos spermatikos, or “rational seed” of God, precludes any authentic doctrine of freedom, insofar as it enslaves the individual to a constant reference back toward God, as the source of “fundanlent” of all knowledge. However, the similarities between the Stoic theory (...) and the phenomenology of Husserl call us toward a deeper reading, and an asking of the important question: what constitutes freedom? This question can only be answered by thinking beyond both Stoic epistemological schemas and Husserlian intentionality, toward a doctrine of freedom that is best described as demiurgic.Cet article est le produit d’une enterprise critique organisée autour de la phénoménologie husserlienne et de I’épistémologie stoïcienne. Je soutiens que la théorie stoïcienne de la connaissance, fondée sur I’idée qui veut que I’être humain individuel soit un logos spermatikos, un “germe rationnel” de Dieu, exclut toute doctrine authentique de la liberté, dans la mesure où elle contrait I’individu à référer constamment à Dieu en tant que source ou “fondement” de toute connaissance. Toutefois, les similarités entre la théorie stoïcienne et la phénoménologie husserlienne nous poussent à une interprétation plus profonde et à poser I’importante question: qu’est la liberté? Cette question ne peut être répondue qu’en dépassant et les schémes épistémologiques stoïciens, et I’intentionalité husserlienne, vers une doctrine de la liberté qui pourrait être qualtfiée de démiurgique. (shrink)

This article is the product of a critical engagement that I have orchestrated between Husserl’s phenomenology and Stoic epistemology. I argue that the Stoic theory of knowledge, which is based upon the idea that the individual human being is a logos spermatikos, or “rational seed” of God, precludes any authentic doctrine of freedom, insofar as it enslaves the individual to a constant reference back toward God, as the source of “fundanlent” of all knowledge. However, the similarities between the Stoic theory (...) and the phenomenology of Husserl call us toward a deeper reading, and an asking of the important question: what constitutes freedom? This question can only be answered by thinking beyond both Stoic epistemological schemas and Husserlian intentionality, toward a doctrine of freedom that is best described as demiurgic.Cet article est le produit d’une enterprise critique organisée autour de la phénoménologie husserlienne et de I’épistémologie stoïcienne. Je soutiens que la théorie stoïcienne de la connaissance, fondée sur I’idée qui veut que I’être humain individuel soit un logos spermatikos, un “germe rationnel” de Dieu, exclut toute doctrine authentique de la liberté, dans la mesure où elle contrait I’individu à référer constamment à Dieu en tant que source ou “fondement” de toute connaissance. Toutefois, les similarités entre la théorie stoïcienne et la phénoménologie husserlienne nous poussent à une interprétation plus profonde et à poser I’importante question: qu’est la liberté? Cette question ne peut être répondue qu’en dépassant et les schémes épistémologiques stoïciens, et I’intentionalité husserlienne, vers une doctrine de la liberté qui pourrait être qualtfiée de démiurgique. (shrink)

Nous pouvons tous, je crois, reconnaître la justesse de la thèse d'Aristote à l'effet que le véritable raisonnement pratique a pour résultat non pas une simple croyance à propos du caractère désirable, ou même du caractère obligatoire, d'un acte, mais plutôt l'initiation effective d'une action. Cette thèse donne lieu à une énigme : comment la délibération, archétypiquement une inférence propositionnelle rationnelle , peut-elle logiquement aboutir à un acte ? L'action présuppose la motivation, mais la motivation est une force appétitive active, (...) et non pas une proposition concernant le désir ou le caractère désirable d'un acte . La raison pratique n'est pas similaire aux substances qui peuvent manifestement être mélangées les unes aux autres, mais elle est censée constituer une fusion normative régie par des principes — le choix est un appétit délibéré , comme le dit Aristote. Comment ceci est-il possible ? Les premiers pas vers une réponse peuvent être trouvés à un endroit surprenant : chez Kant. Dans la Métaphysique des Moeurs , Kant présente une théorie du désir comme appétit pour un objet par le biais d'une idée non-sensorielle de cet objet, et ce, par opposition à une inclination , un appétit direct basé sur la sensation. Kant emploie cette notion du désir pour expliquer à la fois la volonté et la possibilité d'une action accomplie par devoir : la volonté appartient à la faculté de désirer, et le devoir est l'action motivée par un désir pour un acte par le biais d'une idée appropriée de cet acte. Kant nomme notre susceptibilité à ce type de désir laquelle constitue une condition nécessaire à la moralité le sentiment moral . Ce sentiment rend compte du caractère pratique de la délibération morale et de son rapport au plaisir et à la douleur pratiques d'une façon qui aurait, je crois, plu à Aristote. Le devoir est donc un exemple d'un appétit délibératif . Ce schème kantien n'est pas simplement intéressant d'un point de vue historique : il s'accorde remarquablement bien avec certains travaux récents en psychologie motivationnelle et hédonique.We all can, I think, appreciate the justness of Aristotle's view that genuine practical reasoning ends not in a mere belief about the desirability, or even obligatoriness, of an act, but in the actual initiation of action. This yields a puzzle: how can deliberation, archetypically a rational, propositional inference , logically terminate in an act? Action presupposes motivation, yet motivation is an active appetitive force, not a proposition about desire or desirability . Unlike substances can obviously be mixed together, but practical reason is supposed to a principled, normative fusing — choice is deliberated appetite , as Aristotle puts it. How is this possible? The beginnings of an answer can be found in a surprising place: Kant. In The Metaphysics of Morals Kant gives a theory of desire as appetite for an object through a non-sensory idea of it, in contrast to inclination , a sensation-based direct appetite. Kant uses this notion of desire to explain both will and the possibility of action from duty : will belongs to the faculty of desire, and duty is action motivated by a desire for an act through an appropriate idea. Kant terms our susceptibility to this sort of desire moral feeling , a necessary condition for morality. It accounts for the practicality of moral deliberation, and its linkage to practical pleasure and pain, in a way Aristotle would, I think, have found congenial. Duty, then, is an example of deliberated appetite . The Kantian scheme is not merely of historical interest: it fits surprisingly well with recent work in motivational and hedonic psychology. (shrink)

This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...) in the last chapter. It provides a systematic and comprehensive account, with notation suitable for computational applications that increasingly make use of argumentation schemes. (shrink)

This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each.

This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined (...) in the last chapter. It provides a systematic and comprehensive account, with notation suitable for computational applications that increasingly make use of argumentation schemes. (shrink)

Argumentation schemes can be described as abstract structures representing the most generic types of argument, constituting the building blocks of the ones used in everyday reasoning. This paper investigates the structure, classification, and uses of such schemes. Three goals are pursued: 1) to describe the schemes, showing how they evolved and how they have been classified in the traditional and the modern theories; 2) to propose a method for classifying them based on ancient and modern developments; and 3) to outline (...) and show how schemes can be used to describe and analyze or produce real arguments. To this purpose, we will build on the traditional distinctions for building a dichotomic classification of schemes, and we will advance a modular approach to argument analysis, in which different argumentation schemes are combined together in order to represent each step of reasoning on which a complex argument relies. Finally, we will show how schemes are applied to formal systems, focusing on their applications to Artificial Intelligence, AI & Law, argument mining, and formal ontologies. (shrink)

Mathematics appears to play a genuine explanatory role in science. But how do mathematical explanations work? Recently, a counterfactual approach to mathematical explanation has been suggested. I argue that such a view fails to differentiate the explanatory uses of mathematics within science from the non-explanatory uses. I go on to offer a solution to this problem by combining elements of the counterfactual theory of explanation with elements of a unification theory of explanation. The result is a theory according to which (...) a counterfactual is explanatory when it is an instance of a generalized counterfactual scheme. (shrink)

The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epis-temological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of argu-ments. These kinds may be brought into a system of basic irreducible types, which rely on different parts of epistemology: deductive logic, probability theory, utility theory. The system reduces a huge mass of differ-ent argument schemes to basic types and gives them an epistemological foundation.

The current discussions of conceptual schemes and related topics are misguided; for they are based on a tacit assumption that the difference between two schemes consists in the different distributions in truth-values. I argue that what should concern us, in the discussions of conceptual schemes and related issues, is not truth-values of assertions, but rather the truth-value-status of the sentences used to make the assertions. This is because the genuine conceptual innovation between alternative theories or languages does not lie in (...) differences in determining truth-values of their sentences, but turns on whether these sentences have truth-values when considered within the context of a competing one. This new interpretation of the notion of conceptual schemes, which I refer to as presuppositional languages, is not only good in itself—for establishing the intelligibility and tenability of the notion—but quite beneficial in its effect on other related issues. (shrink)

This article critically discusses the concept of economic rationality, arguing that it is too narrow and specific to encompass the full concept of practical rationality. Economic rationality is identified here with the use of the optimizing model of decision, as well as of expected utility apparatus to deal with uncertainty. To argue that practical rationality is broader than economic rationality, the article claims that practical rationality includes bounded rationality as a particular case, and that bounded rationality cannot be reduced to (...) economic rationality as defined here. (shrink)

This paper demonstrates how argumentation schemes can be used in decision support systems that help clinicians in making treatment decisions. The work builds on the use of computational argumentation, a rigorous approach to reasoning with complex data that places strong emphasis on being able to justify and explain the decisions that are recommended. The main contribution of the paper is to present a novel set of specialised argumentation schemes that can be used in the context of a clinical decision support (...) system to assist in reasoning about what treatments to offer. These schemes provide a mechanism for capturing clinical reasoning in such a way that it can be handled by the formal reasoning mechanisms of formal argumentation. The paper describes how the integration between argumentation schemes and formal argumentation may be carried out, sketches how this is achieved by an implementation that we have created and illustrates the overall process on a small set of case studies. (shrink)

A central question that arises when interpreting the U.S. Constitution is which theory of interpretation is the best? In his recent book, “How to Interpret the Constitution,” Cass Sunstein reviews various theories of constitutional interpretation currently in vogue and then offers what he believes would be the best approach going forward. In this Article, I want to take up a more basic question presupposed by the very idea of a theory of interpretation. That is, whether it is even possible to (...) arrive at more than a provisional understanding of what would be the best interpretation in any given area of study, including constitutional law. That said, I do believe some of the interpretations suggested by Cass Sunstein and elsewhere by myself and others to be more persuasive than most others, even if only partially so. For, as Sunstein himself points out, no theory seems perfect to figure out the Constitution’s meaning in every possible world in which we could imagine it to exist. So, we best just focus on our own world or what we take to matter in our world. In keeping with this idea, I plan to begin by looking first at how we might interpret the world around us based on our past experiences by considering a somewhat imaginative recent experience of my own. Next, I consider some recent studies in the neurosciences and a previous but highly influential article by the philosopher Donald Davidson concerning conceptual schemes and whether we could ever hope to make any sense of a scheme radically different from our own. Here it should be pointed out that I will use the word “scheme” when referring to a very broad system of thought for which there may not be much outside, versus when I use the word “framework,” as referencing something far narrower than a whole system of thought, even if what is referenced might purport to be a significant part of a still larger system. My goal is to eventually adopt John Rawls’ public reason method to separate out non-workable systems of thought as might be part of a particular religious or philosophical tradition that cannot be easily tied to any other system of thought easily imagined within a pluralistic society. I plan to do this by relating how Rawls’ public reason might allow for the creation of a moral interpretation of the Constitution adopting the moral theory of Alan Gewirth. The latter I adopt because its grounding does not presuppose any prior moral or religious framework. I then apply that interpretative method to five cases Sunstein believes are fixed points in our current constitutional understanding. In short, I plan to isolate out an area of human rights where even very different understandings of the world might be able to meet, while acknowledging that there will still be other areas that simply evade any common connection. I hope what I offer here to be of help for a theory of constitutional interpretation that focuses on morality, without having to compete with various religious frameworks going forward. (shrink)

J’arguerai ici que tout en repoussant d’une main une conception du changement social basé sur la sélection naturelle des pratiques sociales et des individus qui y participent, les théories normatives qui font appel à des modélisations des choix sociaux, qu’ils soient de nature économique, politique ou morale, en entretiennent potentiellement les conséquences. Plus précisément, j’arguerai que les modèles que l’on utilise encore le plus volontiers dans les sciences sociales, c’est-à-dire ceux de la théorie des jeux, de la théorie de la (...) décision ou de la négociation rationnelle, contribuent à répercuter, au plan normatif, les deux aspects — social et individuel — de la sélection naturelle. L’argument s’appuie sur une analyse de la théorie standard de l’utilité et montre que la conception de la rationalité maximisante définie dans ce cadre formel incorpore les exigences de la sélection à celles de la rationalité.I shall argue that though most theoreticians of social change firmly refuse normatively to endorse the natural selection of practices and individuals, they sometimes tacitly validate the consequences of such a conception of social change. More precisely, I shall argue that the formal apparatus still often used in social sciences — such as game theory, bargaining theory or decision theory — contribute to carrying on, at the normative level the social and individual aspects of natural selection. The argument rests on an analysis of what has come to be regarded the standard theory of utility and attempts to show that maximising rationality defined in that framework incorporates the requirement of the selection to those of rationality. (shrink)

I draw attention to how one of Donald Davidson’s arguments against the claim that others have an alternative conceptual scheme does not look compatible with his rejection of analytic truths – how his rejection of the third dogma of empiricism depends on accepting the first. The appendix contests Davidson’s approach to organizing the Pacific Ocean.

Douglas Walton’s multitudinous contributions to the study of argumentation seldom, if ever, directly engage with argumentation in mathematics. Nonetheless, several of the innovations with which he is most closely associated lend themselves to improving our understanding of mathematical arguments. I concentrate on two such innovations: dialogue types (§1) and argumentation schemes (§2). I argue that both devices are much more applicable to mathematical reasoning than may be commonly supposed.

L’optimum constitue un lieu théorique où convergent, au XVIIIe siècle, les trois concepts de naturel, de rationnel et d’utile. Dans cet article, il s’agit de montrer que différents discours utopiques des Lumières françaises se caractérisent par leurs manières distinctes d’articuler ces concepts. En prenant pour illustrer notre propos les utopies de Morelly et de Grivel, nous montrons que ces articulations distinctes permettent de rendre compte des tensions qui travaillent la pensée des Lumières, tout particulièrement en ce qui a trait (...) à la question du « progrès ». Le progrès est ce par quoi l’optimum est censé se réaliser dans l’histoire, et l’utopie une prétendue préfiguration de cette réalisation et l’énonciation des moyens de son actualisation. Dans cette mesure, c’est évidemment dans le problème de son caractère nécessaire, contingent ou impossible, et du rôle qu’y joue l’agentivité humaine que se pense à nouveaux frais la question du meilleur des mondes possibles. On verra, pour finir, que le discours utopique des Lumières n’est pas aussi empreint de l’optimisme que l’on a tendance à lui prêter. (shrink)

Quelle est la portée significative du lien entre connaissance rationnelle et théorie du fondement des sciences dans l'épistémologie contemporaine? En reprenant à nouveaux frais le débat séculaire sur la théorie du fondement des sciences et en apportant de nouveaux éclairages, cet ouvrage définit le rôle de la critique philosophique et ses tâches nouvelles imposées par ce débat. Professeur d'épistémologie et de méthodologie de la recherche scientifique à l'Université de Kisangani et à l'Université catholique du Congo.

According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise; if premise, then conclusion; (...) so conclusion’, we forward a meta-level CQ-list that is arguably both complete and applicable. This list should inform ongoing theoretical efforts at generating appropriate object-level CQs for specific argument schemes. (shrink)

At the end of the 19th century, most professional historians – wherever they existed – deemed history to be a form of knowledge ruled by a method that bears no resemblance with those most commonly traceable in the natural sciences. The bulk of the historian’s task was then frequently regarded as being the application of procedures frequently referred to as ‘historical method’. In the context of such an emerging interest on historical methods and methodology, at least three textbooks stand out: (...) Johann Gustav Droysen’s Grundriss der Historik (Outline of the Theory of History), Ernst Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode (Handbook of Historical Method), and Charles Langlois and Charles Seignobos’s Introduction aux études historiques (Introduction to the Study of History). These books were quite influential in Germany, France, and elsewhere, and they very much helped promote a general idea of historical method that would become relatively consensual among historians of many nationalities by the early 20th century. Such a relative agreement on historical method sponsored both the communication and the development of a sense of disciplinary identity among historians trained within different and sometimes conflicting national traditions. It was then partially extended, partially challenged, and surely made more complex when, from the 1920s on, social and economic historians became a good part of the historiographical establishment in many countries. -/- The three books by Droysen, Bernheim, and Langlois and Seignobos were already pieced together by Rolf Torstendahl, who studied them as a group of texts that, despite their differences, contributed to shape the developments outlined above. However, Torstendahl’s primary aim was to show how Droysen, Bernheim, and Seignobos all resorted to ‘method’ as a way to circumvent skepticism against the possibility of historical knowledge, rather than investigate the internal interrelationships between the three texts. In this chapter I follow precisely this latter, not yet taken, road, focusing on crucial cross-references between the Grundriss, the Lehrbuch, and the Introduction. I intend to show that, at a general level, the schemes of historical method found in these texts are largely convergent, and that this convergence is due to Bernheim’s reading of Droysen and to Langlois and Seignobos’s reading of Bernheim. I will attempt to do it through a regressive approach that starts with an analysis of the Introduction. Aspects of the editorial history and circulation of the three texts will also be briefly addressed, as a way to illustrate their special importance within the framework of early 20th century historical theory. Because my argument calls for a focus on the most general lines of Droysen’s, Bernheim’s, and Langlois and Seignobos’s schemes of historical method, I will, for the sake of consistency, refrain from analysing in-depth the complex epistemological and ontological arguments in which those schemes are nested. (shrink)

Is it possible to distinguish communities of arguers by tracking the argumentation schemes they employ? There are many ways of relating schemes to communities, but not all are productive. Attention must be paid not only to the admissibility of schemes within a community of argumentational practice, but also to their comparative frequency. Two examples are discussed: informal mathematics, a convenient source of well-documented argumentational practice, and anthropological evidence of nonstandard reasoning.

My paper sets out to compare neuroaesthetics and transcendental philosophy, concerning the perception of schemes of imitation in aesthetic experience. The argument is structured in four steps: first, I will introduce the function of schemes in mirror-neuron-based processes and in general in the embodiment theory of Mark Johnson and George Lakoff; second, I will consider some analogical relations between a transcendental approach and neuroaesthetics concerning semantics; third, starting with the statement that one open question in neuroaesthetics is how creativity emerges, (...) I would like to propose a transcendental account about sensible schemes as a possible foundation of creativity. I will conclude my paper with some examples from visual arts and aesthetic practices in general. (shrink)

This paper pays tribute to the distinguished legal and political philosopher Joseph Raz, who recently passed away. I present a response to Donald Davidson on conceptual schemes which tries to imitate Raz’s writing style, which attracts me despite the difficulties it poses. The response includes a definition.

Alphonse de Lamartine est entré en politique après les Trois Glorieuses. Dans Sur la politique rationnelle, il détaille son programme évangélique et libéral, et se présente comme un "Bonaparte de la parole" et un "Christophe Colomb de la liberté". Il invite les royalistes divisés à se rassembler au-dessus des partis.

Dans cet article, je montre que quatre normes de rationalité associées aux intentions peuvent être déduites de normes similaires s’appliquant aux acceptations en contextes délibératifs, un type d’état mental apparenté mais irréductible aux croyances par lequel un agent tient certains faits pour acquis lorsqu’il délibère. Je montre que cette approche, que je nomme le pragmatisme hybride, évite certaines limitations de l’approche la plus prisée dans la littérature, le cognitivisme, et qu’en comparaison avec les approches purement pragmatistes, principales rivales du cognitivisme, (...) le pragmatisme hybride rend mieux justice à nos intuitions relatives aux normes associées aux intentions. Je montre enfin que le pragmatisme hybride permet d’expliquer comment les intentions influencent le raisonnement pratique, et de ce fait, comblent un vide important dans les théories contemporaines.In this paper, I show that four normative requirements on rational intentions follow from similar requirements on acceptations in deliberative contexts, a type of mental state close but irreducible to beliefs by which agents take some facts for granted in deliberation. I show that this approach, which I call hybrid pragmatism, avoid shortcomings of cognitivism, one of the most prominent one in the literature. I show furthermore that in comparison with purely pragmatist approaches, the main rivals of cognitivism, an hybrid form of pragmatism makes better justice to our intuitions regarding the sources of the normative requirements on rational intentions, and that it allows for understanding how intentions influence practical reasoning. (shrink)

In this paper we describe the impact that Walton’s conception of argumentation schemes had on AI and Law research. We will discuss developments in argumentation in AI and Law before Walton’s schemes became known in that community, and the issues that were current in that work. We will then show how Walton’s schemes provided a means of addressing all of those issues, and so supplied a unifying perspective from which to view argumentation in AI and Law.

This paper uses the language of formal dialectics to explore how argumentation schemes and their critical questions can be characterized as an extension to traditional dialectical systems. The aim is to construct a dialectical system in which the set of locutions is extended to include scheme-based moves the set of structural rules describes the roles that critical questioning can play; and the set of commitment rules distinguishes between exceptions and assumptions.

L'histoire de la philosophie est marquée par de nombreuses tentatives pour soustraire la morale aux préceptes dictés par une croyance religieuse aveugle, l'arracher aux limbes des émotions, des intérêts égoïstes, des «nobles» sentiments ou des passions troubles de la volonté de puissance, la sortir du terrain où se disputent âprement les évidences intuitives, l'inscrire dans le règne de la raison. Il s'agit de tentatives en vue de fonder les obligations morales, l'éthique tout court, de manière rationnelle. Or, ces démarches peuvent (...) emprunter des chemins variables selon que la rationalité de l'action se trouve conceptualisée dans la perspective des intérêts et préférences raisonnés, ou qu'elle se comprend à partir de la raison pratique dans sa pureté. (shrink)

"Entre la connaissance commune et la connaissance scientifique, la rupture nous paraît si nette que ces deux types de connaissance ne sauraient avoir la même philosophie. L'empirisme est la philosophie qui convient à la connaissance commune. Au contraire, la connaissance scientifique est solidaire du rationalisme et, qu'on le veuille ou non, le rationalisme est lié à la science, le rationalisme réclame des buts scientifiques. Par l'activité scientifique, le rationalisme connaît une activité dialectique qui enjoint une extension constante des méthodes". Voici (...) un livre sur l'activité rationaliste du chimiste contemporain. On y voit à l'oeuvre une "phénoménotechnique" qui construit ses multiples substances en éliminant progressivement l'irrationnel. Souligner l'engagement de pensée qui se manifeste dans cette activité, telle est la volonté de Bachelard inscrite dans son projet général d'attirer "l'attention des philosophes sur le caractère spécifique de la pensée et du travail de la science moderne". (shrink)