A l'instar de ses confrères des années 1250-1260 à l'Université de Paris, Siger de Brabant prit activement part à un mouvement de prise de conscience et de revendication intellectuelle, d'émancipation de la raison contre l'autorité du dogme et le dogmatisme en général, et joua un rôle essentiel dans l'émergence d'un nouveau style, d'une nouvelle morale, d'une nouvelle forme d'existence : en un mot, à la vie philosophique. Il proposa une nouvelle éthique, établie à partir de la lecture d'Aristote, mais une (...) lecture essentiellement rationaliste qui, aux yeux des autorités, s'écartait en tous points de la sagesse chrétienne - affirmant notamment que c'est en cette vie que l'on peut trouver le. bonheur, et non dans l'autre. Siger de Brabant contribua ainsi à une renaissance de la philosophie, qui commence par la Logique qui ordonne la pensée et le discours du philosophe, lui donne aussi son style, au sens littéraire du terme - ce dont le Traité de l'éternité du monde est une bonne illustration. (shrink)

We offer a new outlook on the vexed question of the reference of natural-kind terms. Since Kripke and Putnam, there is a widespread assumption that natural-kind terms function just like proper names: they designate their referents directly and they are rigid designators: their reference is unchanged even in worlds in which the referent lacks some or all the properties associated with it in the actual world, and which are useful to us in identifying that referent. There have, however, been heated (...) debates about what should be taken as a natural-kind term. Some challenge the very existence of a separate category of natural-kind terms ; some their being directly referential ; some raise the possibility that direct reference extends to terms beyond those usually assumed to fall under the category, e.g. to ‘polemical’ terms. When these debates turn on the question of what natural kinds are, they take on a strong epistemological or metaphysical dimension. We think the issues can be clarified within the limits of the philosophy of language: by looking into what ranges of general terms are perceived by speakers as rigid designators of natural kinds. The first step to take is to ground the various kinds of semantic externalism in distinct brands of semantic deference. This we define as speakers’ being disposed to use words in line with the norms of their linguistic community and as consenting to being corrected when it is manifest that their use and understanding of a word does not match common practice. When those dispositions are present, speakers defer semantically to something beyond themselves. Here, our focus is on spotting the words for which speakers would defer not to the current usage of the word in the linguistic community, nor to the current experts of the field to which the word pertains, but ultimately to the very nature of the referent of the term. When speakers’ deference conforms to that pattern, we argue, that is evidence that indexical externalism provides the right metasemantic account of how the meaning of the word is determined. In other words, one can say that the word is treated like a natural-kind term. But how can patterns of deference be measured? In an ongoing survey, participants are confronted with conditions that may prompt them to revise certain classificatory statements, e.g. An emu is a bird. Each condition makes salient one of the targets we have identified for deference: the community usage, the experts, the ‘world as it is’. In the condition that seeks to tap into the latter kind of deference, participants are presented with a scenario in which future scientific discoveries result in excluding from the extension of a term certain members currently thought to fall under that extension, e.g. discoveries that require excluding certain species now thought to be birds from the Aves class. The scenario is such that it is clear that the ‘discoveries’ bring us closer to the actual essence, if there is one, of birds. Our reasoning is that, if participants significantly modify their statements in the light of that scenario, they can be taken to ‘defer’ to the nature of the referent, thus vindicating indexical externalism. We test if words not normally assumed to be natural-kind terms – for instance summer, contract or rape – exhibit patterns of deference similar to those for bird. If so, then there’s a case for an extension of indexical externalism beyond the usual set of terms. What would be shown in this way is that speakers have something like realist intuitions with respect to words whose meaning is usually taken to be purely conventional or polemical. We are at the pre-test stage for the survey. We cannot yet report on our results. We should, however, have initial results by March, which, we believe, will enrich the observations made by previous empirical studies. References: Braisby, N., Franks, B. & Hampton, J. 1996. Essentialism, word use, and concepts. Cognition 59, 247-74./Genone, J. & Lombrozo, T. 2012. Concept possession, experimental semantics, and hybrid theories of reference. Philosophical Psychology 25, 717-742./Häggqvist, S. & Wikforss, Å. 2015. Experimental semantics: the case of natural kind terms, in J. Haukioja, Experimental Philosophy of Language, London, Bloomsbury./Jylkkä, J., Railo, H. & Haukioja, J. 2009. Psychological essentialism and semantic externalism: Evidence for externalism in lay speakers’ language use. Philosophical Psychology 22, 37-60./Mallon, R., Machery, E., Nichols, S. & Stich, S. 2009. Against arguments from reference, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79, 332-356./ Marconi, D. 1997. Language, Speech, and Communication. Lexical Competence. Cambridge : MIT Press./Moravcsik, J. 2016. Meaning, Creativity, and the Partial Inscrutability of the Human Mind, 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI./Schroeter, L. & Schroeter, F. 2014. Normative concepts: a connectedness model, Philosophers’ Imprint 14, 1-26./ Wikforss, Å. 2010. Are natural kind terms special?, in H. Beebee and N. Sabbarton-Leary, The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds, New York, Routledge, 64-83. (shrink)

L�entrée de la Métaphysique d�Aristote en Europe occidentale a provoqué fascination et embarras. Les lectures nouvelles d�Aristote entrèrent souvent en confrontation avec les exégèses bibliques ; des problématiques spécifiquement médiévales, comme celle de l�être et de l�essence, sont alors apparues. Nous proposons ici la traduction d�une Question appartenant à un cours sur la Métaphysique donné à la fin du XIIIe siècle par Siger de Brabant, maître à la Faculté des arts de l�Université de Paris. La Question 7 propose une solution (...) originale au problème de l�être et de l�essence : le débat est détourné de sa perspective ontologico-théologique et resitué dans le contexte linguistique. (shrink)

Siger conçoit sa critique à l’encontre de la théorie thomasienne de l’intellect en s’appuyant sur les adages tels que « agere sequitur formam » et « potentia non potest esse simplicior aut immaterialior quam eius substantia ». Structurant son argumentation autour de ces deux principes, il tente de démontrer que la position de Thomas d’Aquin se réduit finalement à une position matérialiste ou, se révèle encore être philosophiquement intenable lorsque ce dernier soutientces deux thèses qui, pour Siger, sont contradictoires, à (...) savoir que l’intellect est, d’une part, une des parties de l’âme humaine et d’autre part une puissance indépendante et séparée du corps. Or, Siger semble faire l’économie de l’une de ses arguments les plus puissants qui peut, a priori saper le fondement même de la théorie de l’intellect chez Thomas, à savoir le problème de se séparation du corps. Cependant, une analyse détaillée de la terminologie thomasienne nousrévèle la raison qui a poussé Siger à ne pas utiliser cette critique majeure ; en effet, il était conscient que cet argument qui semblait indiquer un possible incompatibilité entre l’intellect et le corps ne se réduisait en réalité qu’à un problème unsinnig. Cette retenue et cette maîtrise témoignent de de la perspicacité de Siger qui a su précisément demeurer à l’intérieur de la limite conceptuelle où il lui est possible de se présenter non pas comme un critique manqué deThomas d’Aquin, mais comme un véritable philosophe capable de mettre sa position en parallèl avec celle thomasienne concernant l’homme pensant ou « cet homme-ci qui pense ». (shrink)

Peut-on prouver que l’âme raisonnable est par elle-même et essentiellement forme du corps? C’est pour résoudre cette question que des générations de lecteurs d’Averroès recourent à la distinction entre forme inhérente et forme assistante. On examine l’histoire de cette distinction dans l’après-coup du concile de Vienne (1312) et du concile de Latran V (1513), dans sa triple dimension noétique, ontologique et anthropologique. On présente les sources et les divers aspects de la théorie averroïste de la forme assistante, de Siger de (...) Brabant à la scolastique tardive et à la première modernité, selon laquelle l’intellect n’est ni forme inhérente ni moteur séparé, mais forme séparée. (shrink)

Dans les quelques paragraphes qu’il consacre à la comparaison entre la théologie révélée et la théologie philosophique, Siger de Brabant procède à de nombreux écarts par rapport au texte de Thomas d’Aquin qui lui sert de modèle. Cet article a pour but de montrer comment dans le même mouvement par lequel Siger reconnaît la supériorité de la théologie révélée sur plusieurs points, il en limite pourtant aussitôt, et assez strictement, le champ aussi bien du point de vue de la méthode (...) que du champ d’application. Ainsi, au-delà de l’accord de surface entre Siger et Thomas, il faut voir dans ce texte autant une défense de l’autonomie de la philosophie qu’une affirmation de sa supériorité pour tout ce qui peut être investigué par la raison humaine, un rejet donc, profond, du projet thomasien d’une théologie toute-puissante à laquelle sont subordonnées toutes les autres sciences.In the few paragraphs he dedicates to comparing revealed theology and philosophical theology, Siger of Brabant distances himself from the text of Thomas Aquinas which he uses as a model. This article aims to show how, in the same movement by which Siger acknowledges on many points the superiority of revealed theology, he nevertheless immediately limits its field, and this rather strictly, both from a methodological as well as a practical perspective. Thus, beyond the apparent agreement between Siger and Thomas, this text must be understood to be as much a defence of philosophy’s autonomy as an affirmation of its superiority with regard to everything which can be investigated by human reason; it is a deep rejection therefore of Thomas’ project of an all-powerful theology to which the other sciences are subordinated. (shrink)

Le de Coelo vient immediatement apres la Physique. Son objet est l'etude du mouvement de translation (mouvement local) dans son application aux etres formant la totalite de l'Univers. La methode est, en principe, deductive, et le raisonnement y tient une place preponderante, sans qu'Aristote dedaigne pour autant le secours de l'experience. Nous avons fait suivre le de Coelo de la traduction du traite pseudo-aristotelicien du Monde, qui est une sorte de resume populaire des doctrines contenues dans le de Coelo et (...) les Meteorologiques. L'ouvrage se rattacherait au cercle du Moyen Stoicisme, et a l'activite de Posidonius dont deux ouvrages perdus auraient servi de base a la redaction. Ce qui est indeniable, c'est l'allure franchement pantheiste du traite et sa parentee avec les theses de la theologie stoicienne, laquelle n'est pas sans alterer profondement la conception aristotelicienne du cosmos que l'auteur entend reproduire. Mais a la lecture de ce traite, nous pouvons nous rendre compte la facon dont un Grec du premier siecle se representait l'Univers. (shrink)

Ce livre part à la recherche des origines de la controverse sur l'unité de l'intellect humain, qui a opposé les penseurs les plus célèbres du XIIIe siècle. Parmi eux, Thomas d'Aquin, Albert le Grand, Siger de Brabant, Gilles de Rome, sans compter bien des maîtres inconnus de la Sorbonne. Qui a imaginé, le premier, l'existence d'un intellect unique pour tous les hommes? Pourquoi les théologiens de l'époque y ont-ils vu une grave hérésie? Comment les maîtres et les étudiants ont-ils continué (...) à en débattre, malgré deux condamnations prononcées par l'évêque de Paris à la demande du pape? Ce livre est le premier à proposer une histoire des textes qui en témoignent, tant à la Sorbonne qu'à Oxford, depuis les débuts de l'Université médiévale jusqu'à l'apaisement de la controverse. On y verra les ruses que les universitaires ont opposées à la censure, en conquérant une liberté de pensée dont le XXIe siècle peut s'inspirer, face aux menaces sur l'autonomie de la Raison. (shrink)

L’abbaye du Mont-César a célébré lors de diverses manifestations religieuses et culturelles le premier centenaire de sa fondation. C’est le 13 avril 1899 que des moines, venus de l’abbaye de Maredsous, prenaient possession de la première aile d’un nouveau monastère bénédictin, édifié sur une butte historique, au nord de la ville de Louvain. Autrefois s’y était dressé, face à la ville, un château des ducs de Brabant. Nul doute que la proximité de l’université de Louvain avec ses multiples facultés n’ait (...) largement contribué à cette fondation bénédictine. (shrink)

We argue for an intimate relation between semantic externalism and semantic deference and propose a typology of speakers’ metasemantic views as revealed by their deferential attitudes. Building on this typology, we then offer a classification of metasemantic disagreements understood as verbal disputes between speakers who (consciously or unconsciously) hold divergent metasemantic views about the same word. In particular, we distinguish lower-order metasemantic disagreements between speakers who disagree on the exact source of meaning determination for a word yet agree on the (...) kind of deferential attitude this word is liable to, from higher-order metasemantic disagreements between speakers who do not even agree on the suitable kind of deferential attitude. We demonstrate the fruitfulness of our classification through the concrete implications it has for conceptual engineering. (shrink)

This paper deals with the reference of quotations. Several positions can be discerned in the literature: 1. Quotations do not refer; 2. Quotations only refer to types or classes; 3. Quotations can refer to a variety of objects. Although I believe the third position to be the most sensible one, I show that it cannot be taken for granted and that arguments proving it to be correct are hard to come by.

Most writers working on simultaneous use and mention assume a distinction between mixed quotation and scare quoting. The consensus is that MQ affects truth-conditions. Hence, many writers regard MQ as a semantic phenomenon. There is no such consensus about ScQ. On the face of it, there is a clear difference between: Alice said that life “is difficult to understand”. Several ‘groupies' followed the band on their tour. The words quoted in are attributed to Alice, and would seem false if Alice (...) had not uttered them. No such intuition is available for. This induces Cappelen & Lepore, leading writers in the field, to regard as a blend of Direct and Indirect Discourse and to propose the following semantic analysis : there is an utterance u such that Alice said u and u samesays “Life is difficult to understand” and u sametokens “is difficult to understand”. As for, they regard the impact of the quotation in it as being entirely pragmatic. I show, however, that there is no principled distinction between MQ and ScQ. The main points are: speech attribution to Alice in is defeasible; there are cases of simultaneous use and mention without “say” which are semantically relevant ; there is apparent MQ with reporting verbs that pose a problem because they cannot govern Direct Speech reports. Hence, it is illegitimate to appeal to the sametokening predicate in logical form. These examples that ‘refuse' to fall neatly under MQ or ScQ seal the fate of Cappelen & Lepore's account. To conclude, I discuss Benbaji's fully semantic theory. Benbaji adopts Cappelen & Lepore's views on MQ. But he also proposes a semantic account of ScQ. One option for him is to give up the Cappelen & Lepore story and extend his views on ScQ to all instances of simultaneous use and mention. I show, however, that this too fails. Therefore, in the end, only a pragmatic account of simultaneous use and mention remains as a viable option. (shrink)

As of Volume 9 (1994/95) John Benjamins Publishing Company is the official publisher of the Belgian Journal of Linguistics, the annual publication of the Linguistic Society of Belgium. Each volume is topical and includes selected papers from the international meetings organised by the LSB.

Human communication is multi-modal. It is an empirical fact that many of our acts of communication exploit a variety of means to make our communicative intentions recognisable. Scholars readily distinguish between verbal and non-verbal means of communication, and very often they deal with them separately. So it is that a great number of semanticists and pragmaticists give verbal communication preferential treatment. The non-verbal aspects of an act of communication are treated as if they were not underlain by communicative intentions. They (...) are “relegated” to mere aspects of the context. However, several schools of thoughts have a different take on the issue. Thus psychologists or semioticians of gesture have shown how intricately gestures and speech are related in utterances. And, in a different area of the theoretical landscape, so-called “Relevance Theorists” have made the same point. Thus, Robyn Carston writes that “the domain of pragmatics is a natural class of environmental phenomena, that of ostensive stimuli; verbal utterances are the central case, but not the only one, and they themselves are frequently accompanied by other ostensive gestures of the face, hands, voice etc, all of which have to be interpreted together if one is to correctly infer what is being communicated”. This position rests on the assumption that there is a single “pragmatic system” or module at work in the interpretation of “ostensive stimuli”. When it comes to interpreting verbal stimuli, the same mechanisms and resources are used as when it comes to processing non-verbal ones. If there is no distinct “linguistic pragmatic system”, then the scholar who studies communication should not favour the verbal at the expense of the non-verbal. In this paper, I want to make a contribution to the study of multi-modal messages by considering a type of utterances that mix the verbal with the non-verbal in such a way that a piece of non-linguistic communication seems to stand in for a linguistic constituent which remains unrealised. Here is a real-life example : I didn't see the [IMITATION OF FRIGHTENING GRUMPINESS] woman today; will she be back this week? The square-bracketed string in small capitals is meant to capture the facial expressions and gestures performed in the conversational setting. What is intriguing here is that this instance of ostensive mimicry does not come as a mere complement to some linguistic stimulus; it appears to take the place of that stimulus. I shall try to show that a linguistic analysis can indeed be offered for cases like – though, I believe, without succumbing to the pro-linguistic bias that Carston warns against. I will, however, argue against an ellipsis-based account : the structure of sentence does not contain an unrealised adjective phrase. Instead, I shall defend a ‘syntactic-recruitment' account. (shrink)

This book, "Utterance Interpretation and Cognitive Models", is a collection of papers that stems from the conference of the same name held at the Free University of Brussels in June 2006. Our main objective is to reconcile armchair theorising about the semantics-pragmatics interface with hypotheses about cognitive architecture. For that reason, the papers in the collection place some of the hottest questions in contemporary philosophy of language within the scope of a psychologically plausible theory of human communication. The collection is (...) articulated into three parts. The first concerns the cognitive counterparts of lexical meanings. The second explores the links between moods and forces. The third looks at the epistemological status of semantic theory from the point of view of human psychology. (shrink)

We sketch several variants of so-called “semantic externalism”, which we take to be prototypically embodied by Wittgenstein, Kripke and Burge respectively. Then, drawing inspiration from Putnam, we show how aspects of these different kinds of semantic externalism can be articulated with each other in the case of natural kind terms, and we suggest that this analysis could be extended to a larger set of words. When that is done, we turn to the core part of the paper, which consists in (...) a thorough discussion of the forms of “semantic deference” that can plausibly be associated with each brand of externalism. We suggest that the debates over the kinds of semantic externalism characteristic of different kinds of words can be clarified by investigating the kind of semantic deference they call for. (shrink)

La Universidad de París en la Europa de finales del siglo XIII fue centro de acaloradas discusiones acerca del alma del hombre. La cuestión del alma es el punto doctrinal central y se muestra decisivo porque en la resolución de este único punto puede verse el trasfondo antropológico y metafísico de toda una cosmovisión filosófica e incluso teológica del universo. Una de las más problemáticas cuestiones que se plantearon acerca del alma es el problema de la unidad del intelecto para (...) todos los hombres. Parecería contradictorio pensar que todos los hombres piensan con un único intelecto, pero a su vez suena absurdo afirmar que un principio espiritual, inmaterial, se una a un cuerpo por un tiempo determinado para luego separarse. Ambas posiciones surgen de la consideración de nuevos textos llegados a las manos de los pensadores parisinos a través de autores árabes: los textos del De anima de Aristóteles. (shrink)

Are there “social kinds” the way there are “natural kinds”? Are social sciences likely to hit upon “essences” the way natural sciences do? Or are all social phenomena purely theoretical constructs? Questions about whether there are natural kinds, what exactly they are and which kinds of phenomena they cover have been the object of heated epistemological and metaphysical debates. We think the issues can be clarified within the limits of the philosophy of language: by looking into what ranges of general (...) terms are perceived by speakers as rigid designators of natural kinds. The first step to take is to ground the various kinds of semantic externalism in distinct brands of semantic deference. Our focus is on spotting the words for which speakers would defer not to the current usage of the word in the linguistic community, nor to the current experts of the field to which the word pertains, but ultimately to the very nature of the referent of the term. When speakers’ deference conforms to that pattern, we argue, that is evidence that indexical externalism provides the right metasemantic account of how the meaning of the word is determined; the word is treated like a natural-kind term. But how can patterns of deference be measured? In an ongoing survey, which shows a kinship with work by Braisby et al., Jylkkä et al., and Genone & Lombrozo, we confront participants with conditions that may prompt them to revise certain classificatory statements. Each condition makes salient one of the targets we have identified for deference: the community usage, the experts, the ‘world as it is’. In the condition that seeks to tap into the latter kind of deference, participants are presented with a scenario in which future scientific discoveries result in excluding from the extension of a term certain members currently thought to fall under that extension. Our reasoning is that, if participants significantly modify their statements in the light of that scenario, they can be taken to ‘defer’ to the nature of the referent, thus vindicating indexical externalism. We test if words not normally assumed to be natural-kind terms, including terms for social phenomena, exhibit patterns of deference similar to those for natural-kind terms. If so, speakers have something like realist intuitions with respect to words whose meaning is usually taken to be purely conventional or polemical, and there’s therefore a case for an extension of indexical externalism beyond its usual boundaries. Braisby, N., Franks, B. & Hampton, J. 1996. Essentialism, word use, and concepts. Cognition 59, 247-74./Genone, J. & Lombrozo, T. 2012. Concept possession, experimental semantics, and hybrid theories of reference. Philosophical Psychology 25, 717-742./Jylkkä, J., Railo, H. & Haukioja, J. 2009. Psychological essentialism and semantic externalism: Evidence for externalism in lay speakers’ language use. Philosophical Psychology 22, 37-60./Schwarz, S. 1983. Reply to Kornblith and Nelson. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 21, 475-481. (shrink)

Our aim in this paper is to clarify the distinctions and the relationships among several phenomena, each of which has certain characteristics of what is generally called “deference”. We distinguish linguistic deference, which concerns the use of language and the meaning of the words we use, from epistemic deference, which concerns our reasons and evidence for making the claims we make. In our in-depth study of linguistic deference, we distinguish two subcategories: default deference, and deliberate deference. We also discuss the (...) phenomenon of im-perfect mastery, often associated with deference, and which we show to be independent both of linguistic deference and of epistemic deference. If our analysis is correct, then some recent debates on deference can be shown to result from a failure to appreciate all the distinctions that we draw here. (shrink)

This is the pdf of a talk we gave at the Linguistics & Epistemology conference at Aberdeen University, on May 13, 2007.

Over the last decade, research in semantics and pragmatics has started to increasingly incorporate new experimental methods from cognitive psychology. That this empirical stance on utterance interpretation has now reached maturity is revealed by two unmistakable symptoms: an increased reflection on the contextual methods used to elicit experimental data, and a continuous expansion of the linguistic phenomena and themes being investigated through these methods. The articles gathered in this volume testify to this very recent evolution of the field: a first (...) set of papers questions the interpretation or interpretability of data collected in non-naturalistic settings, while a second set reflects the extension of experimental methods to new topics. The volume offers an up-to-date overview of contemporary issues arising within the thriving field of Empirical Pragmatics. (shrink)

Lex necessitatis vel contingentiae Cet article se propose de reconsidérer de manière critique deux présupposés spécifiques à l’interprétation gilsonienne de Thomas d’Aquin : (i) le fait que, dans l’univers thomasien, tous les étants différents de Dieu soient marqués par une « contingence radicale » ; (ii) l’idée qu’en dernière analyse cette contingence est fondée sur la distinction entre être et essence – et, plus généralement, (iii) la conviction que la conception thomiste de la providence se présente comme une alternative radicale (...) au déterminisme et au nécessitarisme de la tradition gréco-arabe. À cette fin, nous examinerons successivement les points suivants : les significations les plus communes que Thomas confère aux notions de nécessité et de contingence ; le rapport entre fortune, sort et providence ; la réfutation conditionnée du déterminisme astral ; le mode sur lequel la providence dispose les événements nécessaires aussi bien que les événements contingents ; les réactions opposées de Siger de Brabant et de Jean Duns Scot au modèle par lequel Thomas tente de sauver la contingence au sein de l’ordre providentiel ; l’affirmation par Thomas de l’existence de créatures formellement nécessaires. En conclusion, on suggère que Thomas affaiblit certains présupposés fondamentaux de la stratégie anti-déterministe mise en œuvre par Aristote dans le livre VI de la Métaphysique, que l’alternative entre nécessité et contingence ne représente pas chez Thomas le véritable départ entre le créateur et la créature, et que, pour cette raison, la distinction entre être et essence n’a pas pour premier et principal objectif de rendre compte de la contingence de tous les étants créés. (shrink)