Contemporary biologists generally agree with E. O. Wilson’s claim that “reduction is the traditional instrument of scientific analysis.” This is certainly true of Michael Ruse, who has attempted to provide a Darwinian account of human scientific knowledge in terms of epigenetic rules. Such an account depends on the characterization of natural objects as the chance concatenations of material elements, making natural form an effect rather than a cause of the object. This characterization, however, can be shown to be false in (...) that it is self-refuting in its exclusion of formal cause. The retorsive argument for formal cause dialectically shows that any attempt to explain a natural object depends on the identification of form as the cause of the intelligibility of the object. It follows that Darwinian explanations of the products of human culture, such as science, cannot consistently treat form as an effect rather than a cause. (shrink)

Full-text of this article is not available in this e-prints service. This article was originally published [following peer-review] in Southern Journal of Philosophy, published by and copyright University of Memphis.

I first explain the scholastic (Scotist) thesis on the independence of essences Bayle alludes to in the passage of the Continuation des Pensée Diverses where he presents the Stratonicians' and the Chinese philosophers' retorsion. Then, I show that this retorsion applies to the argument of the existence of God based on "aseity", but not to the occasionalist argument based on the "quod nescis" principle. I conclude that materialism (the "Stratonician hypothesis") cannot be, for Bayle, a satisfying system.

I) La metafísica de la evidencia, cuya más conspicua expresión es la mathesis universalis cartesiana, busca lo apremiante y necesario, el fundamento o fondo de las cosas, el cual se entiende independiente de la forma y alcanzable por un pensamiento sin supuestos: la retórica es la prescindible qualitas de la filosofía. II) La de Vico, por contra, puede considerarse como una retorsión de esa postura filosófica: al contribuir a desvelar sus supuestos ocultos, los niega. III) La tropología viquiana, al proponer (...) la univocidad de los tropos, hace de la filosofía retórica y de la retórica filosofía: la retórica es la imprescindible quidditas de la filosofía. (shrink)

This paper considers the proper location and function of critique in establishing a Thomist realism. The author begins by providing a brief explanation of Étienne Gilson’s understanding of critique and why he thinks a “critical realism” is incoherent. Next, the author considers the criticisms made by John Knasas who, from a Gilsonian perspective, argues that Jacques Maritain employs a version of the transcendental method of retorsion in order to justify his realism. Finally, the author offers a Maritainian response to (...) Knasas in which it is argued that Maritain’s account provides a via media between the Transcendental Thomists, on the one hand, and the strict Aristotelian or a posteriori Thomists, on the other. (shrink)

Dire toute la vérité et rien que la vérité. Vivre dans la transparence et la franchise. Ces préceptes, les chantres du vrai ont voulu les appliquer de force à ce que tout nous désigne comme une forme retorse du mensonge : la littérature. Quelle est la légitimité de cette posture? N'est-on pas amené à la suspecter, à en reconnaître la fragilité et les impasses? Car, examinant l'inlassable guerre qui a opposé les tenants de la sincérité (Rousseau, Leiris, Sartre) à leurs (...) détracteurs (Molière, Laclos, Dostoïevski, Gary, Perec), on aperçoit se profiler une autre définition de ce qu'est la littérature. En toute mauvaise foi : ne serait-ce donc pas ainsi que les oeuvres se présentent à nous et se jouent de nous? C'est-à-dire en s'inscrivant dans une structure qui n'est ni le mensonge ni la vérité, mais leur mélange incertain. Qui affirme en niant et qui dément en proclamant. Sommes-nous pourtant prêts à accepter que tout discours échappe à ce qu'il est tout en continuant de l'être, à admettre que la littérature ne produise qu'une vérité, parfois contradictoire, et non la vérité? Percevoir la manière dont l'oeuvre pose la mauvaise foi, la suscite et la défie, c'est approcher ce qui constitue sa matière même, tant le moteur de ses intrigues que sa métaphysique implicite ou explicite. Mais c'est aussi repenser son rapport au lecteur, au réel et au savoir. Car il y a un paradoxe commun au menteur et au sincère que seule la mauvaise foi permet de décrire en s'arrachant à nos routines intellectuelles. (shrink)

In this paper, I present different ways in which transcendental argumentation has been used in contemporary debates in moral philosophy to justify the normative authority of morality. My aim is to defend strong “retorsive” transcendental argumentation as a way to ground a sort of critical realism in metaethics, comparing transcendental arguments proposed by Karl-Otto Apel, Christine Korsgaard and Alan Gewirth – which are sometimes referred to as “constitutivist” arguments. In particular, I endorse an argumentative strategy that considers the merits of (...) the respective positions while overcoming the limits of each. Such a strategy aims at grounding transcendentally the metaphysical fact of human value, making explicit the ontological implications of transcendental argumentation, and showing that a justification of fundamental values alone can ultimately make it possible to ground basic moral principles. (shrink)

I) Metaphysics of evidence, which most conspicuous expression is the Cartesian mathesis universalis, looks for the urgent and necessary, the fundament or foundation of things, which is regarded as independent of the form and accesible whithout asumptions to knowledge: rhetoric is the dispensable qualitas of philosophy. II) Vico¿s way of thinking, in opposition to that view, could be considered as its retorsion: by reveling its hidden presuppositions, refuses them. III) Vico¿s tropology, by proposing the tropical univocity, makes a rhetoric (...) philosophy and a philosophical rhetoric: rhetoric is the indispensable quidditas of philosophy. I) La metafísica de la evidencia, cuya más conspicua expresión es la mathesis universalis cartesiana, busca lo apremiante y necesario, el fundamento o fondo de las cosas, el cual se entiende independiente de la forma y alcanzable por un pensamiento sin supuestos: la retórica es la prescindible qualitas de la filosofía. II) La de Vico, por contra, puede considerarse como una retorsión de esa postura filosófica: al contribuir a desvelar sus supuestos ocultos, los niega. III) La tropología viquiana, al proponer la univocidad de los tropos, hace de la filosofía retórica y de la retórica filosofía: la retórica es la imprescindible quidditas de la filosofía . (shrink)

God's necessary existence makes sense. Attempt at a transcendental modal proof. - In this essay I outline a novel three-stage proof of God's necessary existence using transcendental and deductive methods. In the first step of the proof, by retorsion, it is proved that there is at least one sentence that is necessary and inescapable. In the second step, the inescapability of the modal logic supposed in the proof is shown. This step also contains a new argument in favour of (...) epistemic anti-realism. The third step finally proves the necessary existence of the person who proves. The proof thus refers to the subject, the object, and the method of this proof itself. (shrink)

Il s’agira ici de faire apparaître la régressivité — possibilité perpétuelle d’adjoindre un degré supplémentaire à l’énoncé — comme le principe même de l’ironie, ce qui conduit à la concevoir non comme une grille sémiotique et axiologique, mais comme une dynamique.La réflexion part de la cellule de base qu’est le signe ironique en tant que structure hiérarchisée à deux degrés, selon la conception traditionnelle. Cette dualité est d’abord analysée du point de vue sémantique, dans le cadre tropologique, puis sur les (...) plans axiologique, actantiel et énonciatif, ce qui aboutit à l’hypothèse de l’ironie comme trope métadiscursif, cumulant l’usage et la mention . Dans ce cadre, l’ironie se conçoit comme une représentation de représentation, comme un processus d’auto-duplication agissant par réflexivité critique et comique, et donc capable de se perpétuer virtuellement à l’infini puisque, s’appliquant à lui-même, il peut toujours ajouter un degré au précédent, sans pour autant l’annuler : le signe à deux niveaux ne constitue que la réalisation minimale de l’ironie, dont le second degré peut lui-même être réfléchi par un troisième, etc. Le « pouvoir réfléchissant » de l’ironie fait ainsi sa « force ascensionnelle » régressive, selon deux expressions empruntées à Proust.Interne au signe, ce dynamisme permet aussi, à l’échelle d’une oeuvre, de greffer différentes sortes d’ironie les unes sur les autres : la puissance créatrice du processus régressif conduit à envisager son rôle dans l’oeuvre d’art, en l’occurrence À la recherche du temps perdu, dont le texte multiplie de façon exemplaire et retorse les strates d’ironie. La Recherche, qui aura préalablement servi de support à toutes les analyses, permettra, par l’intermédiaire de Bergotte — écrivain ironiste dont le génie consiste dans le « pouvoir réfléchissant » et l’énergie créatrice dans la « force ascensionnelle » —, de poser la question de l’actualisation de la régressivité ironique dans l’oeuvre littéraire.Regressivity, as the perpetual possibility of adding a further degree to an utterance is the very principle of irony, which is thus conceived not under a semiotic and axiological grid, but as a dynamics.Reflection starts from the ironic sign as the basic cell and as a two tiered hierarchical structure, according to the traditional conception. This duality is first analysed from a semantical point of view, within the tropological framework, then on the axiological, actancial and utterance theoretic levels. This leads us to the hypothesis that irony is a metadiscursive trope, bringing together use and mention . Within this framework, irony is a representation of representation, an auto-duplicative process which acts through critical and comical reflectivity, and which is liable to perpetuate itself indefinitely, since, being auto-applicative, a new degree can always be added to the previous one, without cancelling itself : the two tiered sign being only the minimal realisation of irony, whose second degree can itself be reflected through a third, and so on. The “reflective power” of irony thus produces its “ascending force”.This mechanism internal to the sign allows also, at the level of the work, to plug different kinds of ironies onto each other : the creative power of the regressive process allows us to envisage its role in the work of art, in the case at hand in Remembrance of Things Past, whose text multiplies the various layers of irony. Proust’s work, which is here the basis of all our analyses, allows Bergotte — the ironist writer whose genius consists in the “reflective power” and in the “ascending force” — to raise the question of the actualisation of the ironical regressivity of the literary work. (shrink)

Lindbeck's difficulties with Lonergan's account of religion stem from his radical methodological option in which he draws on Wittgenstein. I revisit ‘the dialectic of methods,’ by examining children's mistakes. I use Lonergan's distinction between ordinary and originary meaningfulness to argue that in Wittgenstein's account of rule-following such mistakes highlight the publicity of norms in ordinary meaningfulness, but I show how alternatives can be cited in which originary meaningfulness is not obscured. I explain the core of Lonergan's foundational methodology and show (...) how for Lonergan the desire to understand is an exigence which, as retorsion indicates, is difficult to deny. I conclude that in his account of religion Lonergan has an answer to a question posed by Wittgenstein on the purpose of thinking. (shrink)

Lindbeck's difficulties with Lonergan's account of religion stem from his radical methodological option in which he draws on Wittgenstein. I revisit ‘the dialectic of methods,’ by examining children's mistakes. I use Lonergan's distinction between ordinary and originary meaningfulness to argue that in Wittgenstein's account of rule-following such mistakes highlight the publicity of norms in ordinary meaningfulness, but I show how alternatives can be cited in which originary meaningfulness is not obscured. I explain the core of Lonergan's foundational methodology and show (...) how for Lonergan the desire to understand is an exigence which, as retorsion indicates, is difficult to deny. I conclude that in his account of religion Lonergan has an answer to a question posed by Wittgenstein on the purpose of thinking. (shrink)

This article shows the unity of hume's "a treatise" as a problem; green and smith; contemplation and action; the roles of the author; the ambiguities of nature and fiction; scarcity and vanity. "a treatise" as an experiment in autonomy unmixed with heteronomy ; vindication of the ordinary through flight to the extraordinary; mention and use, Retorsion; arguments from silence and violence against hyperbolic evidence and unruly desire; is discourse compatible with dissolution of its author into free-Floating impressions or with (...) representation of his character as avaricious and vain? aristotle, Hobbes, And kant as foils for interpreting hume. (shrink)

Die Arbeit ist ein Versuch, die Paradoxie der Wißbarkeit aufzulösen, indem gezeigt wird, daß zumindest Anti-Realisten, die zum logischen Revisionismus tendieren, die scheinbar absurde Konklusion ... akzeptieren sollten. Dazu wird zunächst in Abschnitt 1 gezeigt, daß die prima facie unproblematische These ... insofern sonderbar ist, als alle möglichen Instanzen normale oder performative Widersprüche darstellen. Auf dieser Grundlage wird in Abschnitt 3 ein retorsives Argument für das Prinzip ... entwickelt. Um den Einwand zu entkräften, daß im Zweifelsfall nicht die These ... (...) aufzugeben ist, sondern die Prinzipien zu verwerfen sind, auf denen das retorsive Argument basiert, wird in Abschnitt 4 auf die unterschiedlichen Optionen, die in der Argumentation auftretenden Formeln zu interpretieren, eingegangen: Wenn logische Operatoren gemäß der „BHK-Interpretation“ gedeutet werden, erweist sich selbst die These ... als auch für den Realisten akzeptable begriffliche Wahrheit. In Abschnitt 5 wird schließlich diskutiert, in welcher Weise ein Intuitionist Thesen formalisieren kann, die eine bestimmte Art von epistemischer Bescheidenheit artikulieren. (shrink)

Saint Anselm’s ontological argument is usually interpreted either (1) as an attempt to deductively prove God’s existence or (2) as a form of prayer, which is not intended to “prove” God’s existence, but rather to deepen the devotion of those who already believe. In this paper I attempt to find a mean between these two interpretations, showing that while Anselm’s argument is not a deductive proof, it is nevertheless a proof of God’s existence. I argue that Anselm’s ontological argument is (...) analogous to Aristotle’s to elegktikōs apodeixai (retorsive argument) for the truth of the principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics IV: an argument that does not move from premises to conclusion, but rather demonstrates the truth of its conclusion by showing that its conclusion is always presupposed. I argue that interpreting Anselm’s ontological argument in this way exempts it from the most common objections against it. (shrink)

This paper seeks to demonstrate that in Lyotard’s later works the sublime is posited as a response to nihilism. This demonstration is significantly complicated by the fact that while Lyotard frequently gave the sublime a positive valuation, he also identified it with nihilism. The paper charts Lyotard’s confrontation with nihilism throughout his career, showing how the themes with which he characterizes nihilism in his earlier works are repeated as characteristics of the sublime in his later works. It then argues that (...) for Lyotard the sublime acts as both a characterization of the nihilism of contemporary cultural conditions, and as a resource with which to respond to nihilism. Lyotard’s deployment of the sublime as such a response can be understood as an instance of his use of the sophistical strategy of retorsion, finding from within nihilism itself the potential for resistance. Moreover, this position may be understood as motivated by a rejection of revolutionary programmes for changing social conditions, and by the desire to preserve a space for justice – understood as respect for difference. For Lyotard, the abyss between meaning and existence which characterizes both nihilism and the sublime preserves this space better than any attempt to close or bridge it. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Lyotard and Greek Thought: SophistryJ. Britt HolbrookKeith Crome. Lyotard and Greek Thought: Sophistry. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Pp. x + 186. Cloth, $68.00.Caveat lector: this deceptively short work presents an exercise in genre-bending (the sophistical retorsion of the philosophical determination of sophistry) that may leave one's head spinning, particularly if one's acquaintance with the thought of Jean-François Lyotard is not quite up to snuff. One may (...) perhaps take the appearance of such a work—written by a Lyotard scholar for Lyotard scholars—as a sign that Lyotard has finally arrived. (Arrive-t-il? But, Lyotard has already arrived! Didn't you read Keith Crome's book?) Be forewarned: unless you "got" that parenthetical joke, wait to read this book until after you have read (or re-read) at the very least Lyotard's Just Gaming and The Differend.More "sophisticated" readers of Lyotard, however, will warmly welcome this book. Along with a helpful review of secondary literature on Lyotard, the Introduction offers a compelling case for the need for an extended treatment of Lyotard's relation to Greek thought—sophistry in particular. The work sets for itself two goals: (1) to show that Lyotard's engagement with sophistry plays a key role in the development of his notion of the differend; and (2) to show that Lyotard attempts to define the limits of philosophy qua philosophy in terms of its relation to sophistry.It is this second, larger, goal that presents the main problem for the work. Because the argument "attempts to show that Lyotard wrests sophistry from the traditional philosophical understanding it has enjoyed and that by way of this effects a delimitation of philosophy [End Page 676] itself" (10), Part I ("The Place of Sophistry in Philosophy") offers accounts of traditional philosophical interpretations of sophistry from Plato, Hegel, and Heidegger. Essential to the success of Crome's argument is the idea that what all traditional philosophical interpretations of sophistry share is both a refusal to allow sophistry to define itself and a tendency to define philosophy around and against sophistry (83). The "radicality" of Lyotard's interpretation of sophistry, according to Part II ("Lyotard and the Sophistication of Philosophy"), consists in Lyotard's refusal to allow philosophy to define sophistry and a retorsion—a turning against philosophy and for sophistry—of the philosophical tendency to define itself around and against sophistry. Crome's point exceeds the claim that, whereas traditional philosophical interpretations of sophistry have invariably given sophistry a bad rap, Lyotard attempts to redress the balance and to restore the reputation of sophistry. According to Crome, Lyotard's "restoration" of sophistry to itself also puts philosophy in its place, by showing that the traditional philosophical tendency to define philosophy around and against sophistry is merely reactive—in particular, insofar as Lyotard shows that the initial move in the traditional philosophical interpretation of sophistry is motivated by a reaction against Gorgias' nihilistic reading of Parmenides' Poem (129–45).Although some may wish to quibble over individual details, overall Crome's argument is quite successful in showing that Lyotard's engagement with sophistry plays a key role in the development of his notion of the differend. It is with his second, larger goal—to show that Lyotard attempts to define the limits of philosophy as philosophy in terms of its relation to sophistry—that most readers will find something of substance with which to quarrel. Crome's interpretation of Lyotard's analysis of the sophistical "technique" —one might prefer 'manner,' in the Kantian sense—of retorsion (95–100) and its role in the development of the notion of the differend borders on brilliant; yet the insertion into that interpretation of the "ontological significance" of Lyotard's analysis (8–9, 147, 161) seems forced. In order to "broaden the significance" of Lyotard's work amongst critics, is it really necessary to attribute an "ontological significance" to The Differend? Does one really "broaden the significance" of the differend by claiming that it is "the name for a sophistical logos" (162)? Is developing a strategy to bear witness to the differend in itself insignificant? Some will balk.Nevertheless, readers of Lyotard... (shrink)

The principle of performative contradiction. On the epistemological significance of the dialogue form in Plato's "Euthydemus". - In this study, an analysis of the section 285d-288a of Plato's "Euthydemus" shall show two things: (1) The sophistic model of a world in which there is no contradiction, in which every linguistic utterance is true and every action correct, has no semantic inconsistencies, but can only be rejected with the help of the principle of performative contradictions. (2) It is precisely these performative (...) contradictions that make it necessary for Plato to philosophize not in treatises but in dialogues; in other words, that the philosophical relevance of the Platonic form of dialogue can be seen, among other things, in the fact that - in contrast to philosophical forms of representation such as the treatise, the essay, and a henology as reconstructed and represented by the Tübingen School - it permits the representation of performative reflections and performative contradictions. (shrink)

À partir de sa clinique, l’auteur montre que le fantasme de Cupidon est un des fantasmes organisateurs du couple. Il précise ensuite trois configurations de ce fantasme qui organisent chacune une combinaison particulière du conjugal et du parental.