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)

Coherent, well organized text familiarizes readers with complete theory of logical inference and its applications to math and the empirical sciences. Part I deals with formal principles of inference and definition; Part II explores elementary intuitive set theory, with separate chapters on sets, relations, and functions. Last section introduces numerous examples of axiomatically formulated theories in both discussion and exercises. Ideal for undergraduates; no background in math or philosophy required.

At least since Aristotle’s famous 'sea-battle' passages in On Interpretation 9, some substantial minority of philosophers has been attracted to the doctrine of the open future--the doctrine that future contingent statements are not true. But, prima facie, such views seem inconsistent with the following intuition: if something has happened, then (looking back) it was the case that it would happen. How can it be that, looking forwards, it isn’t true that there will be a sea battle, while also being true (...) that, looking backwards, it was the case that there would be a sea battle? This tension forms, in large part, what might be called the problem of future contingents. A dominant trend in temporal logic and semantic theorizing about future contingents seeks to validate both intuitions. Theorists in this tradition--including some interpretations of Aristotle, but paradigmatically, Thomason (1970), as well as more recent developments in Belnap, et. al (2001) and MacFarlane (2003, 2014)--have argued that the apparent tension between the intuitions is in fact merely apparent. In short, such theorists seek to maintain both of the following two theses: (i) the open future: Future contingents are not true, and (ii) retro-closure: From the fact that something is true, it follows that it was the case that it would be true. It is well-known that reflection on the problem of future contingents has in many ways been inspired by importantly parallel issues regarding divine foreknowledge and indeterminism. In this paper, we take up this perspective, and ask what accepting both the open future and retro-closure predicts about omniscience. When we theorize about a perfect knower, we are theorizing about what an ideal agent ought to believe. Our contention is that there isn’t an acceptable view of ideally rational belief given the assumptions of the open future and retro-closure, and thus this casts doubt on the conjunction of those assumptions. (shrink)

This book launches a sustained defense of a radical interpretation of the doctrine of the open future. Patrick Todd argues that all claims about undetermined aspects of the future are simply false.

It is widely accepted that there is what has been called a non-hypocrisy norm on the appropriateness of moral blame; roughly, one has standing to blame only if one is not guilty of the very offence one seeks to criticize. Our acceptance of this norm is embodied in the common retort to criticism, “Who are you to blame me?”. But there is a paradox lurking behind this commonplace norm. If it is always inappropriate for x to blame y for a (...) wrong that x has committed, then all cases in which x blames x (i.e. cases of self-blame) are rendered inappropriate. But it seems to be ethical common-sense that we are often, sadly, in position (indeed, excellent, privileged position) to blame ourselves for our own moral failings. And thus we have a paradox: a conflict between the inappropriateness of hypocritical blame, and the appropriateness of self-blame. We consider several ways of resolving the paradox, and contend none is as defensible as a position that simply accepts it: we should never blame ourselves. In defending this startling position, we defend a crucial distinction between self-blame and guilt. (shrink)

This paper offers a new approach to an old debate about superaddition in Locke. Did Locke claim that some objects have powers that are unrelated to their natures or real essences? The question has split commentators. Some (Wilson, Stuart, Langton) claim the answer is yes and others (Ayers, Downing, Ott) claim the answer is no. This paper argues that both of these positions may be mistaken. I show that Locke embraced a robust epistemic humility. This epistemic humility includes ignorance of (...) the real essences of bodies, of the causal processes underlying the production of natural phenomena, and of God’s method of creation. I show how this epistemic humility offers strong support for an agnostic response to the question of superaddition. Locke did not intend to claim that bodies either do or do not have properties unrelated to their real essences. Instead, his primary goal in discussing the topic was to emphasize the strict limits to human knowledge. (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)

Management and Morality provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the moral and ethical dimension to organizational and individual behavior, while adding an original, developmental perceptive. Management and Morality combines organizational theory and behavior with approaches to organizational and individual development. The first two sections of the book, Ethical Thinking and Management Practice, and Moral Issues in Organizations, provide a clear and thorough coverage of these areas relevant to ethical behavior in and of organizations. On this basis, the third section, (...) A Developmental Perspective, develops a new approach to ethical development of organizations and individuals concerned with the improvement of organizational structures, processes, and practices so as to allow for individual morality and individual moral behavior. Rich in its coverage of the field and variety of ideas, Management and Morality will be essential reading to students and academics in management, business and organizational ethics, organizational behavior and development, and organizational sociology. (shrink)

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)

The Polymath Project is an online collaborative enterprise that was initiated in 2009, when Timothy Gowers asked whether and how groups could work together to solve mathematical problems that “do not naturally split up into a vast number of subtasks.” Gowers proposed to answer this question himself by actually trying to set up such a collaboration, based on interactions taking place in the comment-threads of a series of posts on a WordPress blog. Hence, the first project officially started in early (...) 2009, to be proclaimed successful only 6 weeks later (Gowers and Nielsen 2009). From its inception until April 2018, 15 more Polymath problems (and a handful of smaller or related ones) have been launched. These projects have attracted attention from different scholarly communities, including the philosophy of mathematical practices, from the perspective of which the Polymath Project can be seen as a vast repository of mathematics in action. This chapter continues previous work by its authors on the topic in question and topics related. More specifically, for the purposes of this volume, it is our aim to both summarize and expand upon these earlier contributions. The starting point is the above observation that in the past decade, the issue of “massively collaborative mathematics” (to be qualified below) has drawn quite some attention. However, does it also warrant intensive philosophical attention in particular? For, as exciting as these developments might be from mathematical and other points of view, the enhanced possibilities that have come with it do not per se give rise to any philosophical import. In Van Bendegem (2011), one of us has indeed tentatively argued for the philosophical relevance of these new dynamics of proof construction flowing from the wide availability and efficiency of Internet technology. We shall below briefly rehearse and update the argument given there. (shrink)

Incompatibilism about responsibility and determinism is sometimes directly construed as the thesis that if we found out that determinism is true, we would have to give up the reactive attitudes. Call this "the consequence". I argue that this is a mistake: the strict modal thesis does not entail the consequence. First, some incompatibilists (who are also libertarians) may be what we might call *resolute responsibility theorists* (or "flip-floppers"). On this view, if we found out that determinism is true, this would (...) not be to find out that no one is responsible; instead, what this would suggest is that incompatibilism is after all false. Second, some incompatibilists may instead deny the claim that if we found out that no one deserves the reactiveattitudes, we would have to give up the reactive attitudes. Call this position *innocent incompatibilism*. I explore several different reasons why the fact that no one deserves the reactive attitudes likely does not translate into a requirement for us to give up the reactive attitudes. The upshot: incompatibilism may be practically irrelevant, even if true. (shrink)

Locke famously claimed that morality was capable of demonstration. But he also refused to provide a system of demonstrative morality. This paper addresses the mismatch between Locke’s stated views and his actual philosophical practice. While Locke’s claims about demonstrative morality have received a lot of attention it is rare to see them discussed in the context of his general theory of demonstration and his specific discussions of particular demonstrations. This paper explores Locke’s general remarks about demonstration as well as his (...) claims about demonstration in natural philosophy, mathematics, and morality. Careful attention to these detailed discussions motivates a reevaluation of Locke’s views on demonstrative knowledge of morality. Specifically, while Locke did believe that some demonstrative moral knowledge might be in-principle available to us he also believed that facts about the difficulty of demonstration meant that this knowledge would in-practice be largely unattainable. (shrink)

The text includes fragments of his work that have never before been translated.

I want to suggest that it would be bad if compatibilism were true, and that this gives us good reason to think that it isn't. This is, you might think, an outlandish argument, and the considerable burden of this paper is to convince you otherwise. There are two key elements at stake in this argument. The first is that it would be ‐ in a distinctive sense to be explained ‐ bad if compatibilism were true. The thought here is that (...) compatibilism ultimately presents us with a picture on which, in principle, powerful manipulators can effectively guarantee that finite moral agents should become blameworthy. To my mind, this isn't just false ‐ though I think that it is ‐ it is also such that it would be bad (unfortunate, undesirable…) if it were true. The second is that the fact that it would be ‐ in this sense ‐ bad if true gives us reason to think that it isn't. It may be bad that there is no afterlife. But that, in itself, hardly gives us reason to think that there is an afterlife. That is true, but ‐ as others before me have suggested ‐ when the object of the relevant badness is morality itself, the inference seems secure. A more general aim of the paper is to investigate the nature of this very form of argument in itself, and I compare my argument (inter alia) to a recent argument from Sayre–McCord against the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. (shrink)

In this paper back-and-forth structures are applied to the semantics of natural language. Back-and-forth structures consist of an event structure and an interval structure communicating via a relational link; transitions in the one structure correspond to transitions in the other. Such entities enable us to view temporal constructions (such as tense, aspect, and temporal connectives) as methods of moving systematically between information sources. We illustrate this with a treatment of the English present perfect, and progressive aspect, that draws on ideas (...) developed in Moens & Steedman (1988), and discuss the role of rich ontologies in formal semantics. (shrink)

Principles of legislation.--Principles of the civil code.--Principles of the penal code.

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)

In this paper, we clarify, unpack, and ultimately resist what is perhaps the most prominent argument for the compatibility of free will and determinism: the epistemic argument for compatibilism. We focus on one such argument as articulated by David Lewis: (i) we know we are free, (ii) for all we know everything is predetermined, (iii) if we know we are free but for all we know everything is predetermined, then for all we know we are free but everything is predetermined, (...) (iv) if for all we know we are free but predetermined, then it is really possible that we are, so (v) compatibilism. We uncover how the crucial epistemic modality underlying (iv) must be understood, and contend that, understood this way, the libertarian can resist (iv). Importantly, however, resisting the argument does commit the libertarian to what has been called “flip-flopping”—but we argue that this is perfectly coherent. We conclude by articulating two crucially ways the libertarian can resist the argument, by saying that we can know that determinism is false "from the armchair". (shrink)

A small consortium of philosophers has begun work on the implications of epistemic networks (Zollman 2008 and forthcoming; Grim 2006, 2007; Weisberg and Muldoon forthcoming), building on theoretical work in economics, computer science, and engineering (Bala and Goyal 1998, Kleinberg 2001; Amaral et. al., 2004) and on some experimental work in social psychology (Mason, Jones, and Goldstone, 2008). This paper outlines core philosophical results and extends those results to the specific question of thresholds. Epistemic maximization of certain types does show (...) clear threshold effects. Intriguingly, however, those effects appear to be importantly independent from more familiar threshold effects in networks. (shrink)

This short essay analyzes an unusual typographical feature in the Epistle to the Reader that precedes Locke’s Essay. Specifically, it asks why there is a line prior to Christiaan Huygens’ name in the famous Underlaborer Passage. The paper provides a thorough look at the line’s longevity through early editions of the Essay and considers a number of possible explanations for the line’s presence. It is argued that the line may well have held some meaning for early readers; contemporary scholars should (...) be motivated to investigate the issue further. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.2 (2001) 292-294 [Access article in PDF] Secada, Jorge. Cartesian Metaphysics: The Scholastic Origins of Modern Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Pp. xii + 333. Cloth, $59.95. Descartes scholars can welcome this book. Secada supports trends in scholarship that criticize seeing Descartes as merely an anti-skeptical foundationalist, and he challenges many prominent interpretations of Descartes's metaphysics. In addition, Secada helpfully references (...) Scholastic sources to provide context for Descartes's views. This book is also valuable for philosophers in contemporary metaphysics and epistemology. Secada uses the tools and idiom of analytic philosophy to explain and defend Descartes, and he is sympathetic to Descartes's project, even if he grants that aspects of it "are difficult to articulate clearly and convincingly" (174).The book's central theme is the contrast between Descartes's "essentialism" and the "existentialism" of Scholastics. Secada explains the distinction as follows: "Essentialism (existentialism) is the doctrine, first, that one cannot know the existence (essence) of any substance without first knowing its essence (existence), and, secondly, that one can know the essence (existence) of some substance without knowing its existence (essence)" (8). Cartesian Metaphysics interprets Descartes's corpus as a defense of essentialism in the light of Scholastic existentialism.The first three chapters set the stage. Chapter One distinguishes essentialism from existentialism. Chapter Two provides historical background necessary to understand the role of Scholasticism in Descartes's thought. Chapter Three discusses the role of Christian Platonism in both Descartes and the Scholastics, especially their shared Augustinian presupposition that knowledge of essences is of "how things are in themselves" (56).The next three chapters discuss the metaphysical status of ideas. In Chapter Four, Secada contrasts Descartes's "immanent" theory according to which "the immediate objects of ideas must exist in the mind" (85) with the "realist Scholastic" theory that "takes mental acts to be immediately directed towards things" (83). In Chapter Five, this account is applied to an interpretation of the Second Meditation as a defense of intellectualist essentialism against Scholastics and empiricists. "Contrary to the Scholastics and other empiricists, Descartes attributed to the intellect and not to the senses the power to reach the world of substances existing outside of the inner theatre of the mind" (116). Through comparing Descartes with Suarez and Gassendi, Secada argues that all the proofs of existence in the Meditations, including for the cogito, argue from [End Page 292] knowledge of essence to knowledge of existence. Chapter Six turns to Descartes's proofs for the existence of God. According to Secada, even for a posteriori proofs, knowledge of God's existence depends on knowledge of his essence.The last three chapters examine Descartes's theory of substance. Chapter Seven reconstructs Descartes's distinction between substances and properties. A substance is something that "exists without inhering" and "exists uncaused" (185). Secada discusses the nature of substance, how substances other than God can be "uncaused," and the plausibility of Descartes's sharp distinction between substances and properties. The chapter ends by arguing that Descartes's doctrine about the relationship between substances and properties inadvertently "heralds Spinoza's pantheism" (185). Chapter Eight examines real and essential properties in Cartesian metaphysics in contrast to Suarez and Fonseca, and ends with a partial defense of Descartes's ontological argument. Chapter Nine offers a detailed discussion of two fundamental substances in Descartes's metaphysics: body and mind. Secada argues that Descartes offers no satisfactory explanations of body, mind, or the relationship between the two.As is clear from this brief summary, Cartesian Metaphysics is a rich book. It presents important historical details without endless irrelevant details (see especially the sketch of Descartes's Scholastic background on 27-33). The exegetical arguments make strong cases for new interpretations of Descartes. Secada effectively shows that Descartes is more concerned with metaphysics than with refuting skepticism. Comparisons with Suarez and Fonseca shed new light on Cartesian arguments. Reconstructions of Cartesian arguments even tempt one to take Descartes seriously in contemporary metaphysics. And the criticisms of Descartes are thought-provoking.Unfortunately, the... (shrink)

Primeaux and Stieber clearly articulate that good ethics maximize profits. The authors show that in the long run business must operate within the value systems of a society.

Les auteurs, à partir de rencontres entre historiens et spécialistes de littérature ou de cinéma, se penchent sur la récurrence du thème de la défaite. Vercingétorix, Jeanne d'Arc, Waterloo, Sedan, juin 1940 : la France exalte volontiers vaincus et pertes. La défaite permet de refonder une nation, un peuple, une communauté, elle est l'occasion d'un sursaut.