According to Donald Davidson, language is social in that only a person who has interacted linguistically with another could have a language. This paper is a discussion of Davidson’s argument in defence of that claim. I argue that he has not succeeded in establishing it, but that he has provided many of the materials out of which a successful argument could be built. Chief among these are the claims that some version of externalism about meaning is true, that possession of (...) a language requires possession of the concept of objectivity, and hence that the issue here concerns the identity of the external event that makes possible possession of the concept of objectivity. I end by presenting some reasons for thinking that only interpersonal linguistic interaction could play this role. (shrink)

After recalling the progress made in the diagnosis of the post-truth phenomenon, thanks to recent experimental findings (from cognitive and social psychology) and theoretical work (post-truth versus half-lies and propaganda, degrees in epistemic vice and scale of responsibility), we indicate four other ways to improve our awareness of the scope and mechanisms of post-truth: we introduce some qualifications so as to distinguish between a post-truth world and an Orwellian universe, the negative and positive sides of emotions, an utter contempt for (...) facts, and the sharp dichotomy between facts and values, and between science denialism and blind scientism. Finally, objective truth being taken for granted, we make some suggestions for a “way out”: we should be aware of our cognitive biases and of possible sources of manipulation, cultivate our epistemic virtues, and keep evidence as a prior demand. We should also work in a “scientific spirit,” i.e., refuse any compromise with society, morality, or practice so as to ensure freedom of conscience within an academic and democratic “space of reasons.” But even more urgently, we should avoid some still too frequent misunderstandings about truth itself and about knowledge (which we identify), and remember that post-truth is serious because it is a threat to reality itself: hence we should also take care of our metaphysical prejudices and work to find better ways of ensuring metaphysical knowledge. (shrink)

Neben der Sprache spielt das Bild in Wittgensteins Philosophie eine wesentliche Rolle. Wittgenstein denkt in Bildern und mit Bildern, wie die über 1000 Handzeichnungen des Nachlasses eindrucksvoll bezeugen. Dabei nimmt das Bildliche ebenso einen eigenen Status ein, wie es gleichzeitig immer wieder als Modell oder Vergleichsfolie für die Sprachuntersuchungen fungiert. Im Vordergrund steht aber von Anfang an die Analyse der Struktur und des Gebrauchs von Plänen, Karten, Diagrammen, geometrischen Figuren oder Graphen, so dass epistemische Fragen dominieren.Der vorliegende Beitrag vertritt die (...) Thesen, dass erstens die Bildtheorie des „Tractatus“ sich dem Paradigma des Diagramms beziehungsweise des mathematischen Graphen verdankt und damit von vornherein „notationale Bilder“ privilegiert, zweitens dass diese Bildtheorie umgekehrt für eine noch ausstehende Theorie des Diagrammatischen fruchtbar gemacht werden kann, drittens dass in der Spätphilosophie zwar der Kreis des Bildlichen ausgeweitet und nunmehr auch Portraits, Photographien und sogar Filme als Beispiele herangezogen werden, dass gleichwohl jedoch weiterhin das Epistemische und Fragen der „Grammatik“ von Bildern maßgeblich bleiben, schließlich viertens dass die zahlreichen Aspekte, die Wittgenstein diskutiert, wichtige Hinweise für eine allgemeine Theorie des Ikonischen und seiner besonderen „Logik“ geben, insbesondere die Frage nach „kleinsten bildlichen Einheiten“, nach der Hypothetizität in Bildern, nach dem Unterschied zwischen „konträren“ und „kontradiktorischen“ Negationen sowie der Struktur der Farbgebung und vieles mehr. (shrink)

Wittgenstein and Davidson are two of the most influential and controversial figures of twentieth-century philosophy. However, whereas Wittgenstein is often regarded as a deflationary philosopher, Davidson is considered to be a theory builder and systematic philosopher par excellence. Consequently, little work has been devoted to comparing their philosophies with each other. In this volume of new essays, leading scholars show that in fact there is much that the two share. By focusing on the similarities between Wittgenstein and Davidson, their essays (...) present compelling defences of their views and develop more coherent and convincing approaches than either philosopher was able to propose on his own. They show how philosophically fruitful and constructive reflection on Wittgenstein and Davidson continues to be, and how relevant the writings of both philosophers are to current debates in philosophy of mind, language, and action. (shrink)

Pour lire ce livre avec passion, point n'est besoin d'être féru de belles illustrations et de connaissances sur les trente millénaires qui ont précédé l'histoire, même s'il apporte tout cela. La documentation photographique est particulièrement esthétique. L'oeil ravi va d'images en images et a, par exemple, le plaisir de découvrir (p. 12), dans la partie la plus reculée de la grotte Chauvet, une représentation du centre du monde qui précède de 30 000 ans celle de G. Courbet! La transmission...

Two readings of Wittgenstein's rule-following paradox dominate the literature: either his arguments lead to skepticism, and thus to the view that only a deflated account of meaning is available, or they lead to quietism, and thus to the view that no philosophical account of meaning is called for. I argue, against both these positions, that a proper diagnosis of the paradox points the way towards a constructive, non-sceptical account of meaning.

In media philosophy since Benjamin, the concept of medium is conceived in terms of »translation« or »transport«. In a similar vein, Christoph Tholen has brought the literal sense of »metaphor« as »meta-pherein« into focus. In my paper I argue that Tholen’s approach misses the »meta« of »metaphor«, corresponding to the Latin »trans«. This is contrasted with the greek »dia« that allows the development of a performative notion of medium, which orients itself at material practices of transition.

A critique of algorithmic rationalisation offers at best some initial reasons and preliminary ideas. Critique is understood as a reflection on validity. It is limited to an “epistemological investigation” of the limits of the calculable or of what appears “knowable” in the mode of the algorithmic. The argumentation aims at the mathematical foundations of computer science and goes back to the so-called “foundational crisis of mathematics” at the beginning of the 20th century with the attempt to formalise concepts such as (...) calculability, decidability and provability. The Gödel theorems and Turing’s halting problem prove to be essential for any critical approach to “algorithmic rationalisation”. Both, however, do not provide unambiguous results, at best they run towards what later became known as “Gödel’s disjunction”. The chosen path here, however, suggests the opposite way, insofar as, on the one hand, the topos of creativity appear constitutive for what can be regarded as cognitive “algorithmic rationalisation” and which encounters systematic difficulties in the evaluation of non-trivial results. On the other hand, the investigations lead to a comparison between the “mediality” of formally generated structures, which have to distinguish between object-and metalanguages, and the “volatile” differentiality of human thought, which calls for syntactically non-simulatable sense structures. (shrink)

The chapter first provides a detailed exposition of Davidson's triangulation argument to the effect that only someone who has interacted simultaneously with another person and the world they share could have a language and thoughts. It then examines the core objections that have been made to the argument, namely, that triangulation is not needed either to fix the propositional contents of one's thoughts and utterances or to have the concept of objective truth; that one need not have the concept of (...) objective truth in order to be a thinker and speaker; and that the account the argument gives of what makes thought and language possible is circular. (shrink)

I distinguish among three senses in which meaning may be said to be normative, one trivial, the other two more robust. According to the trivial sense, meaningful expressions have conditions of correct application. According to the first robust sense, these conditions are determined by norms. According to the second robust sense, statements about these conditions have normative implications. Normativity in one or the other of the robust senses, but not in the trivial sense, is commonly thought to pose a threat (...) to naturalism. I argue that, given its trivial normativity, meaning cannot be normative in the first robust sense but it is normative in the sense that statements about the meaning of terms have hypothetical normative implications that are essential to meaning. I further argue that this normativity itself poses no threat to naturalism. Rather, this normativity follows from the fact that the trivial normativity of meaning precludes its naturalization. (shrink)

While Peirce presented himself as a "scholastic realist of a somewhat extreme stripe", merely adapting the virtues involved in Scotism to the requirements of modern science to erect a plain scientific realistic metaphysics, he was also eager to emphasize that "everybody ought to be a nominalist at first" because such an hypothesis is "simpler than realism" and because "the economy of research prescribes to try the simpler one first, and to continue in that opinion", until one "is driven out of (...) it by the force majeure of irreconciliable facts". Even if, at first, he had been "blinded by nominalistic preconceptions", he also confessed that he had "never been able to think differently on that question of realism" and... (shrink)

On examine dans cette étude les effets des flux sensoriels et informationnels continus et accélérés sur la conscience, sur les capacités de penser et de réfléchir. Ces flux conduisent – au-delà de l’inachèvement intrinsèque à toute science dont parlait Weber – à des formes instables, changeantes et illimitées, perçues comme telles par le sujet, et tendant dès lors à provoquer un état de crise de la conscience, d’insécurité psychique profonde dans la fluidité contemporaine.We deal here with the effects caused by (...) continuous, accelerated sensory and information flows on consciousness, on thinking. Quite beyond Weber’s conclusion on the intrinsically boundless character of science, those flows lead to unstable, changing and unlimited forms of knowledge, perceived as such by the individual, and tend from now on to induce a permanent state of crisis in consciousness, a strong psychological insecurity in contemporary fluidity. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage, dont le titre est emprunté à Eschyle (Sept contre Thèbes : la septième porte est celle où s’affrontent Etéocle et Polynice), est la publication d’une thèse d’histoire grecque, dirigée par Pauline Schmitt Pantel et soutenue en 2010 à l’Université de Paris I. L’objet de l’enquête est très large : la présentation des conflits dans la cité des Athéniens (Ve-IVe s.) exige une « démarche concentrique » qui part de l’espace domestique et déborde jusqu’à la cité, son agora, son (...) théâtre e... (shrink)

Il s'agit certes d'un dossier de passion et de combat destiné à soutenir la cause de la reconnaissance officielle des « unions du même sexe » dans les sociétés d'aujourd'hui, mais d'un dossier constitué par un historien de grande notoriété et très érudit : 293 p. de thèse, 77 p. de documents à l'appui et 128 p. de notes! D'une écriture pressée et émue, parfois douloureuse et toujours vibrante, le plaidoyer est volontairement provocant : considérée comme inhérente au judéo-christianism...

What kind of relationship do we have with artificial beings (avatars, puppets, robots, etc.)? What does it mean to mirror ourselves in them, to perform them or to play trial identity games with them? Actor & Avatar addresses these questions from artistic and scholarly angles. Contributions on the making of »technical others« and philosophical reflections on artificial alterity are flanked by neuroscientific studies on different ways of perceiving living persons and artificial counterparts. The contributors have achieved a successful artistic-scientific collaboration (...) with extensive visual material. (shrink)

Theodor Adorno's famous aesthetic theory was not merely a theory of the aesthetic; it also made a wider claim about the aesthetic implications of all theory. At the same time we have to deal with aesthetic objects and events in which an aesthetic theory is inherent, which show themselves as art. From both sides--theory and aesthetics--a link can be made to the etymological meaning of theōria, which understands the theoretical as a seeing or perspective. Featuring lucid essays by major thinkers, (...) the book examines this link, focusing equally on the aesthetic implications of theory and the theoretical implications of aesthetic events. (shrink)

Après avoir dégagé quelques incarnations du rationalisme dont Bouveresse se démarque, j’indique quelques aspects qui ancrent son œuvre dans la tradition de l’Aufklärung (mais en la renouvelant), avant d’insister sur ce qui me semble plus distinctif de ce rationalisme dans lequel parviennent miraculeusement à cohabiter des sources philosophiques, littéraires et scientifiques : Cournot, Vuillemin, Carnap, Peirce, Wittgenstein, Russell, Frege, Sellars, Bolzano, Boltzmann ou Helmholtz, mais aussi Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Husserl, Cavaillès, Canguilhem, les pragmatistes James, Putnam, ou encore des écrivains (...) comme Valéry, T.S. Eliot, et, plus que tout peut-être, Lichtenberg, Kraus et Musil. Puis je me concentre particulièrement sur l’examen de ce rationalisme à l’aune des liens de Bouveresse avec la tradition « analytique », et avec Wittgenstein en particulier. (shrink)

The aim of the text is not so much to stress the importance of Peirce's formal contributions to the semantic view in formal logic as to argue that Peirce's semantic trend is part and parcel of his semiotic treatment of a general theory of meaning, understanding, and interpretation, a theory of how signs function which enables him to classify different sorts of signs in a natural way.

According to Davidson, 'triangulation' is necessary both to fix the meanings of one's thoughts and utterances and to have the concept of objectivity, both of which are necessary for thinking and talking at all. Against these claims, it has been objected that neither meaning-determination nor possession of the concept of objectivity requires triangulation; nor does the ability to think and talk require possession of the concept of objectivity. But this overlooks the important connection between the tasks that triangulation is meant (...) to perform. One cannot fix concepts or meanings, which one must do for there to be any concepts or meanings at all, without having the concept of objectivity. (shrink)

According to Barry Stroud, Wittgenstein thought that language is social only in this minimal way: we cannot make sense of the idea of someone having a language unless we can describe her as using signs in conformity with the linguistic practices of some community. Since a solitary person could meet this condition, Stroud concludes that, for Wittgenstein, solitary languages are possible. I argue that Wittgenstein in fact thought that language is social in a much more robust way. Solitary languages are (...) not possible because we cannot make sense of the idea of someone having a language unless we can think of her as actively participating in the linguistic practices that fix the standards governing the applications of her words. (shrink)

The papers collected in this issue were solicited to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of Donald Davidson’s birth. Four of them discuss the implications of Davidson’s views—in particular, his later views on triangulation—for questions that are still very much at the centre of current debates. These are, first, the question whether Saul Kripke’s doubts about meaning and rule-following can be answered without making concessions to the sceptic or to the quietist; second, the question whether a way can be found to answer (...) Davidson’s own doubts about the continuity of non-propositional thought and language; third, the question whether normative properties can be at once causal and prescriptive; fourth, the question whether folk psychological explanations can be at once illuminating and autonomous. The fifth paper reexamines Davidson’s take on the principle of compositionality, which always was at the centre of his theorizing about language. (shrink)

For most early pragmatists, including the founder C.S. Peirce and L. Wittgenstein, vagueness was a real and universal principle and not a mere defect of our knowledge or thought. This volume begins by exploring this pragmatist notion of vagueness and the way it was tied to their basic opposition to various kinds of reductionism and nominalism. It then develops towards an analysis of Peirce's original and wide views on vagueness, as seen through the angles of logic, semiotics, epistemology and metaphysics. (...) In the final part of this book, the reader is presented with a case for the contemporary relevance of such a realistic pragmaticism for the ongoing debate on semantic, epistemic and ontic vagueness. (shrink)