La vie de Nicolas d'Autrecourt (1298-1369) connait un tournant decisif en 1346. Il est en effet contraint d'abjurer certaines de ses theses et de renoncer a tout droit a l'enseignement. Celui qui fut vers 1330-1340 l'une des principales figures de la faculte des Arts, aux cotes de Buridan, doit mettre un terme a une oeuvre philosophique deja riche de promesses. On propose ici la premiere traduction francaise de la Correspondance que Nicolas d'Autrecourt a entretenue avec le franciscain Bernard (...) d'Arezzon et le maitre es arts Gilles du Foin. Il esquisse la certains des themes importants de son epistemologie, exposant notamment les criteres de la connaissance evidente et developpant une theorie des inferences originale. On trouvera egalement une traduction des theses que Nicolas d'Autrecourt dut abjurer. On pourra ainsi se faire une idee de certaines de ses preoccupations intellectuelles qui n'apparaissent pas dans la correspondance et essayer de comprendre pourquoi la carriere d'un intellectuel prometteur fut ainsi brisee. (shrink)

J. M. M. H. Thijssen - Nicolas d'Autrécourt et la Faculté des Arts de Paris - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 46.1 172-173 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Reviewed by Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen Radboud University Nijmegen Stefano Caroti and Christophe Grellard, editors. Nicolas d'Autrécourt et la Faculté des Arts de Paris . Quaderni di Paideia, 4. Cesena: Stilgraf Editrice, 2006. Pp. 329. e32.00. This book is a coherent (...) set of papers resulting from a conference organized by its editors, Stefano Caroti and Christophe Grellard. In the opening paper, William Courtenay rightly observes that the 1330s are an understudied period in the intellectual history of the University of Paris, especially with respect to its.. (shrink)

Nicolas d’Autrécourt (c. 1298-1369) est l’un des penseurs les plus audacieux de l’histoire de la philosophie, et Zénon Kaluza, qui lui a consacré près de trente ans d’études, nous le fait découvrir par ses sources, ses doctrines et ses manuscrits. Ce livre propose notamment des analyses sur des thèmes importants (tels que la perception, la causalité finale, les catégories ou l’éternité du monde) ainsi qu’une nouvelle édition des Prologues de l’Exigit ordo, enrichie d’un commentaire suivi. Les études—dont certaines sont (...) parues mais difficiles d’accès et d’autres sont inédites—dévoilent la figure d’un philosophe désirant de libérer la philosophie des contraintes institutionnelles et de critiquer la métaphysique d’Aristote, au risque de bouleverser les traditions, de contredire les dogmes de la foi et se voir condamner par les autorités théologiques de son temps. Nicolas d'Autrécourt (c. 1298-1369) is one of the most daring thinkers in the history of philosophy, and Zénon Kaluza, who has devoted to him nearly thirty years of study, presents him to us through his sources, his doctrines and his manuscripts. The reader will find studies on some of the most relevant philosophical doctrines (such as perception, the final causality, the categories and the eternity of the world) as well as a new edition of the Prologues of the _Exigit ordo_, enriched with a running commentary. The texts gathered here—some of which have been published previously but are difficult to access and others which have been unpublished until now—reveal a philosopher who wished to free philosophy from institutional constraints and dared to criticize Aristotle's metaphysics, at the risk of upsetting traditions and contradicting the dogmas of the faith, and who was condemned by the theological authorities of his time. (shrink)

Dallas G. Denery - Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d'Autrecourt - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1 119-120 Christophe Grellard. Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d'Autrécourt. Paris: J. Vrin, 2005. Pp. 313. Paper, €38,00. Nicholas of Autrecourt has often seemed to be one of those philosophers doomed to be best known for everything but their own ideas. Famously, if inaccurately, dubbed (...) "the Medieval Hume" by one of his first modern critics, the threat or fear of skepticism has in one way or another shaped most subsequent studies of Nicholas's work. While understandable, this really is unfortunate. Nicholas himself clearly states that his philosophical goal was to avoid the skeptical consequences that he believed were latent in the writings of his scholastic peers. In this excellent new work, the first monograph-length study devoted to Nicholas's thought in nearly 60 years, Christophe Grellard goes a... (shrink)

This research aims to examine access to medical treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic for people living with disabilities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the practical and ethical problems of allocating limited medical resources such as intensive care unit beds and ventilators became critical. Although different countries have proposed different guidelines to manage this emergency, these proposed criteria do not sufficiently consider people living with disabilities. People living with disabilities are therefore at a higher risk of exclusion from medical treatments as physicians (...) tend to assume they have poor quality of life, whereas access to medical treatment should be based on several parameters, including clinical data and prognosis. However, the COVID-19 pandemic shifts the medical paradigm from person-centred medicine to community-centred medicine, challenging the main ethical theories. We reviewed the main guidelines and recommendations for resources allocation and examined their position toward persons with disabilities. Based on our findings, we propose criteria for not discriminating against people with disabilities in allocating resources. The shift from person-centred to community-centred medicine offers opportunities but also risks sacrificing the most vulnerable people. The principle of reasonable accommodation must always be considered to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d’AutrécourtDallas G. Denery IIChristophe Grellard. Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d’Autrécourt. Paris: J. Vrin, 2005. Pp. 313. Paper, €38,00.Nicholas of Autrecourt has often seemed to be one of those philosophers doomed to be best known for everything but their own ideas. Famously, if inaccurately, dubbed "the Medieval Hume" by one of (...) his first modern critics, the threat or fear of skepticism has in one way or another shaped most subsequent studies of Nicholas's work. While understandable, this really is unfortunate. Nicholas himself clearly states that his philosophical goal was to avoid the skeptical consequences that he believed were latent in the writings of his scholastic peers. In this excellent new work, the first monograph-length study devoted to Nicholas's thought in nearly 60 years, Christophe Grellard goes a long way towards recovering Nicholas's very real contributions to fourteenth-century intellectual life.Any attempt to interpret Nicholas's thought runs up against one significant problem—few of his works survive. All that remains are a fascinating and lengthy (not to mention, confusing and unfinished) work of natural philosophy, Exigit ordo, and several letters touching on issues in epistemology, cognition, and logic. As a result, even situating Nicholas's thought within the proper intellectual currents of the first decades of the fourteenth century has proven difficult. Whose work influenced him? Who were the objects of his criticism? What were his motives? Until recently, most scholars have attempted to trace the influence of William Ockham on Nicholas's thought. Drawing from recent work on the University of Paris during the fourteenth century, Grellard not only downplays Ockham's influence on Nicholas, but also Nicholas's membership in the faculty of theology. Rather, he stresses Nicholas's ongoing involvement in the arts faculty, where he continued to teach even as he studied for his degree in theology. This has two significant consequences. First, it allows Grellard to treat all of Nicholas's writings as contributions to the practice of natural philosophy. Indeed, in his compelling first chapter, Grellard contends that the initial sections of the Exigit, in which Nicholas famously condemns scholastic Aristotelianism as nothing more than an institutionalized pedagogy of error and untruth, must be read as a plea for a distinction between philosophy and theology, between speculation and faith. Even if Nicholas was not alone at the time in pushing for these distinctions (Ockham and John Buridan had argued along similar lines), Grellard demonstrates that Nicholas's approach was certainly the more radical and extreme. Second, the shift in focus from theology to arts brings with it a shift in Nicholas's most important interlocutors. To begin, Aristotle and Averroes become constant background forces in Nicholas's thought. Moreover, as the final section of Grellard's work makes clear, many of Nicholas's ideas are most usefully understood in light of writings of two other arts masters, John Buridan and Nicole Oresme, rather than in the context of debates among his contemporaries in the theology faculty. [End Page 119]These initial interpretive decisions shape the overall structure of Grellard's book, which moves, in three parts, from a deft analysis of Nicholas's theory of evidence and probability to his account of the objects of cognition and, finally, to a comparison of Nicholas's and Buridan's epistemological theories. Unlike so many prior studies that begin with Nicholas's famous critique of a fellow theologian's cognitive theories, thereby framing Nicholas's project in terms of theological debates concerning the intuitive cognition of non-existents and God's ability to cause false visions, Grellard begins with Nicholas's positive theory of knowledge. This effectively sidesteps the entire question of Nicholas's skepticism, a question Nicholas himself explicitly tried to avoid. Nicholas comes across as a philosopher keenly aware of the limits of human cognition, yet eager to develop a viable and wholly rational epistemology within those limits. Those limits, Grellard makes clear, have everything to do with appearances, with what we can rationally and legitimately infer about the world based upon what we see... (shrink)

Dans les grandes histoires de l’épicurisme, seul Nicolas d’Autrécourt est parfois mentionné pour le Moyen Âge en raison de son atomisme. Bien qu’il ne se dise jamais épicurien et qu’il refuserait probablement cette étiquette, il défend une thèse longtemps associée à Épicure : tout ce qui apparaît est vrai. Bien qu’il ait pu savoir qu’il s’agissait d’une thèse épicurienne, nous faisons l’hypothèse qu’il arrive à ce résultat parce que leur ambition était la même : sauver Démocrite sans tomber dans (...) le scepticisme qui lui est attribué par Aristote. Cet article compare de manière systématique Épicure et Nicolas d’Autrécourt dans le but d’éclairer leurs théories de la connaissance. (shrink)

The distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions, and with that the distinction between a priori and a posteriori truth, is being abandoned in much of analytic philosophy and the philosophy of most of the sciences. These distinctions should also be abandoned in the philosophy of mathematics. In particular, we must recognize the strong empirical component in our mathematical knowledge. The traditional distinction between logic and mathematics, on the one hand, and the natural sciences, on the other, should be dropped. Abstract (...) mathematical objects, like transcendental numbers or Hilbert spaces, are theoretical entities on a par with electromagnetic fields or quarks. Mathematical theories are not primarily logical deductions from axioms obtained by reflection on concepts but, rather, are constructions chosen to solve some collection of problems while fitting smoothly into the other theoretical commitments of the mathematician who formulates them. In other words, a mathematical theory is a scientific theory like any other, no more certain but also no more devoid of content. (shrink)

Negli studi sul pensiero medievale la questione delle filosofie francescane si presenta come controversa a proposito della definizione di una essenza del pensiero francescano – in relazione alla figura di Francesco d’Assisi –, di temi di riflessione specifici e del rapporto con le tradizioni filosofiche precedenti.Si tratta di un francescanesimo controverso pure all’interno di una stessa tradizione storiografica, come quella Neoscolastica, in cui studiosi come Gilson, Vignaux e Boehner ne hanno sottolineato il carattere prevalentemente agostiniano o aristotelico.Partendo dalla consapevolezza della (...) problematicità della questione, il saggio si sofferma sui possibili caratteri comuni delle teorie della conoscenza in alcuni pensatori francescani tra XIII e XIV secolo, come Pietro Giovanni Olivi e Pietro Aureolo, a partire dai concetti di conversio, intentio e reflexio e dal loro rapporto con la tradizione agostiniana.Si delineano così teorie della conoscenza che privilegiano l’attività e l’immediatezza del conoscere, sia per la conoscenza diretta sia per quella riflessa.Infine, tali caratteri si possono cogliere pure in un autore non francescano ma secolare come Nicola di Autrecourt, la cui teoria della conoscenza ha fatto parlare di un internalismo vicino a quello delle correnti francescane del XIV secolo. In conclusione, se da una parte non si può ipostatizzare l’idea di caratteri comuni del pensiero francescano, dall’altra si può forse parlare di un comune universo discorsivo in cui la figura di Francesco d’Assisi mostra la propria portata filosofica nella storia. In the History of Medieval Philosophy’s studies, the question of Franciscan philosophies has been the subject of controversy concerning the definition of an essence of Franciscan thought, about the relationship with Francesco d’Assisi, of specific topics of reflection and relationship with the previous philosophical traditions.It is a controversial Franciscanism even within the same historiographical tradition, such as the Neo-Scholastic one, in which scholars such as Gilson, Vignaux and Boehner have emphasised its predominantly Augustinian or Aristotelian character.Starting from the awareness of the problematic nature of the issue, the essay focuses on the possible common peculiarities of the theories of knowledge in some Franciscan thinkers between the 13th and 14th centuries, such as Pietro Giovanni Olivi and Pietro Aureolo, starting from the concepts of conversio, intentio, reflexio and their relationship with the Augustinian tradition.Thus the theories of knowledge are delineated which privilege the activity and the immediacy of knowing, both for direct and reflected knowledge.Finally, these features can also be grasped in a non-Franciscan but secular author like Nicola di Autrecourt, whose theory of knowledge has made mention of a type of internalism close to that of the 14th century Franciscan movement. Therefore, in conclusion, while on the one hand the idea of common particularities of Franciscan thought can not be hypostatised, on the other hand we can perhaps speak of a common discursive universe in which the figure of Francesco d’Assisi shows his philosophical significance in history. (shrink)

A view of the sources of mathematical knowledge is sketched which emphasizes the close connections between mathematical and empirical knowledge. A platonistic interpretation of mathematical discourse is adopted throughout. Two skeptical views are discussed and rejected. One of these, due to Maturana, is supposed to be based on biological considerations. The other, due to Dummett, is derived from a Wittgensteinian position in the philosophy of language. The paper ends with an elaboration of Gödel's analogy between the mathematician and the physicist.

There is widespread agreement in neuroscience and psychology that the visual system identifies objects and faces based on a pattern of activation over many neurons, each neuron being involved in representing many different categories. The hypothesis that the visual system includes finely tuned neurons for specific objects or faces for the sake of identification, so‐called “grandmother cells”, is widely rejected. Here it is argued that the rejection of grandmother cells is premature. Grandmother cells constitute a hypothesis of how familiar visual (...) categories are identified, but the primary evidence against this hypothesis comes from studies that have failed to observe neurons that selectively respond to unfamiliar stimuli. These findings are reviewed and it is shown that they are irrelevant. Neuroscientists need to better understand existing models of face and object identification that include grandmother cells and then compare the selectivity of these units with single neurons responding to stimuli that can be identified. (shrink)

01. Athènes, Attique, Mégaride (Despina Chatzivasiliou) Généralités 01.01 – Ces dernières années, nombreuses sont les études qui parcourent l’histoire d’Athènes et de l’Attique, proposent de nouvelles interprétations des trouvailles anciennes et remanient les théories existantes dans la bibliographie. Une attention particulière est portée à la géographie et à l’organisation topographique des espaces, et le besoin d’un éclaircissement dans la bibliographie en croissance constante est évident....