Par le biais d'un glossaire "de nos fiertés et de nos insatisfactions", Edgard Pisani fait l'inventaire des causes que sa génération a défendues, des combats qu'elle a menés, mais aussi des innombrables questions laissées sans réponse par imprévoyance, insuffisance, repli sur soi, hésitation. A un impossible récit chronologique, Edgard Pisani a préféré l'énumération alphabétique "des idées que nous avons taquinées". Trois générations, à qui tout semblait possible et dont les survivants d'aujourd'hui craignent les lendemains, se succèdent dans cet (...) ouvrage. Une sorte de testament politique qui redonne confiance. (shrink)

It is puzzling to notice that in his 1784 essay on Enlightenment, Kant addresses every human being with his watchword « Have the courage to use your own understanding! », while at the same time he seems to restrict the access to the public discussion of matters of common interest to the learned persons. This begs the question: Is the participation in the public debate part and parcel of Kant’s conception of Aufklärung? A positive answer to this question is given (...) by Katerina Deligiorgi in her Kant and the Culture of Enlightenment. A critical assessment of this book will lead us however to consider that Kant has a differentiated approach to enlightenment depending on whether someone is educated or uneducated. Following Rousseau, Kant has come to recognize as a matter of fact this inequality toward the products of culture. Now the two-level conception of enlightenment entailed by this inequality becomes explicit in the 1790s, especially in the very last work Kant has published: The Conflict of the Faculties. (shrink)

Resumo Este estudo desenvolve uma análise do desenvolvimento do papel dos sonhos e das visões na literatura bíblica. Busca apontar as diferentes abordagens do tema segundo os diversos redatores bíblicos e seus os momentos históricos específicos. Pondo em relevo, principalmente, o papel da literatura profética e das ações do Estado como introdutores de uma relativização do caráter dos sonhos como elementos justificadores teológicos. Discutimos, a seguir, a recepção desse material pelos rabinos, autores do Talmude. Apontamos que a discussão rabínica sobre (...) o tema segue a perspectiva literária mais ampla, mas aprofunda as preocupações gerais com o império das visões sobre o olhar religioso. Provavelmente por conta das trágicas experiências políticas derivadas do pensamento apocalíptico e sua inclinação geral às revelações oníricas. De uma forma geral os rabinos do Talmude procuram resolver o problema do papel instabilizador dos sonhos através do simultâneo reconhecimento de sua importância e redução ou delimitação de sua relevância enquanto experiência de revelação religiosa. Palavras-chave: Judaísmo; Teologia judaica; Talmude; Sonhos na Bíblia; Sonhos no Talmude.This paper focuses on the development of the role of dreams and visions in biblical literature, presenting different approaches to the theme according to the various biblical authors and their specific historical moments. It emphasizes the influence of prophetic literature and State actions in the relativization of the nature of dreams as theological justifications. It then analyzes the reception of this material by the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. We sustain that the rabbis follow the wider literary mainstream but express a general concern for the empire of visions within the religious scope. That is maybe due to tragic political experiences derived from their apocalyptic thought and to their natural tendency to oniric revelation. We conclude that the Talmud rabbis tried to solve the problem of the destabilizing role of dreams by simultaneously recognizing their importance and reducing or limiting their relevance as a religious revelation experience. Key words: Judaism; Jewish theology; Talmud; Dreams in the Bible; Dreams in the Talmud. (shrink)

»Als dies geschrieben wurde, war das Verständnis für Fichtes Bedeutung noch geringer als heute. Ganz allmählich bricht sich die Einsicht Bahn, wieviel von diesem großen Denker gerade für die Transzendentalphilosophie zu lernen ist., S. 95.«.

ABSTRACT : The scientific character of theology was hotly debated among theologians of the 13th and 14th century. In what follows I expound the singular views of Hervaeus Natalis, a thinker who lived in the first quarter of the 14th century. According to him, the solution to this problem lies in the notion of abstraction. I offer a historical and philosophical analysis of his position based on the first French translation of a significative portion of one of his Quodlibets. I (...) made the translation from my own edition of its Latin text. (shrink)

Schelling fait remarquer que la théorie kantienne du mal radical repose fondamentalement sur un acte de liberté, ce qui n’est pas le cas chez Fichte. Dans cet article, nous voulons examiner le bien-fondé de la thèse de Schelling selon laquelle les conceptions kantienne et fichtéenne du mal moral présentent d’importantes divergences. Pour I’essentiel, en effet, la position de Fichte s’éloigne de celle de Kanten ce qu’elle réhabilite une certaine forme d’humanisme en réduisant le mal à l’inertie de l’être raisonnable fini (...) et à l’ignorance dans laquelle il a tendance à se maintenir. Contrairement à Kant donc, jamais Fichte ne pourra admettre que la pleine conscience de la loi morale laisse encore. ouverte la possibilité de choisir délibérément le mal.Shelling contends that Kant’s theory of radical evil, unlike Fichte’s, is fundamentally based on liberty. In this article, we wish to examine the relevance of Schelling’s thesis according to which the Kantian and Fichtean conceptions of moral evil bear important differences. Essentially, in deed, Fichte’s position differs from that of Kant in that it restores a certain form of humanism by reducing evil to the inertia of a finite rational being and to the ignorance in which it tends to persist. Thus, unlike Kant, Fichte could never admit that full consciousness of the moral law allows the possibility to choose evil deliberately. (shrink)

In order to systematically explore the normative treatment of black slavery by Second Scholastic thinkers, who usually place the problem within the broad discussion of moral conscience and, more narrowly, the nature and justice of trade and contracts, I propose two stations of research that may be helpful for future studies, especially concerning the study of Scholastic ideas in colonial Latin America. Beginning with the analysis of just titles for slavery and slavery trade proposed by Luis de Molina S.J., I (...) show how his accounts were critically reviewed by Diego de Avendaño S.J., revealing basic features of Second Scholasticism’s normative thinking in Europe and the Americas. The normative knowledge provided by these two Scholastic intellectuals would be profoundly tested during the last decades of the 17th century, especially by authors who sharpened the systemic analysis and a rigorist moral assessment of every title of slavery and slaveholding, as well as the requirements of an ethics of restitution. (shrink)

In order to systematically explore the normative treatment of Black slavery by Second Scholastic thinkers, usually placing the problem within the broad discussion of moral conscience and, more narrowly, the nature and justice of trade and contracts, I propose two stations of research that may be helpful for future studies, especially in what concerns the study of Scholastic ideas in colonial Latin America. Beginning with the analysisof just titles for slavery and slavery trade proposed by Luis de Molina S.J., I (...) show how his accounts were critically reviewed by Diego de Avendaño S.J., revealing basic features of Second Scholastic normative thinking in Europe and the Americas. Normative knowledge provided by these two Scholastic intellectuals wouldbe deeply tested throughout the last decades of the 17th century, especially by authors who sharpened the systemic analysis and a rigorist moral assessment of every title of slavery and slaveholding, as well as the requirements of an ethics of restitution. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that aesthetics had its place in Fichte’s early system of the WL, and that due to contingent circumstances he did not have the chance to expound it. But we can reconstruct the main lines of what his aesthetics would have looked like if we pay attention to the article sent to Schiller in 1795 on the “spirit” and the “letter” in philosophy, completing it with the courses he gave in the preceding months (...) on that topic and with other sources. We discover not only that aesthetics is an important part of the philosophical system but that art stands close the act of philosophising itself. In fact, both the philosopher and the artist draw from the same original source: “spirit” as defined in Kant’s third Critique. For the philosopher as well as for the artist the central faculty is then “imagination”, an imagination that relies on “feeling”. In the end Fichte sketches an aesthetics based on the creative genius of the artist, leaving little room for the faculty of judgment and for taste, that is: the receptive attitude toward beauty, that play a prominent role in Kant’s aesthetics. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.

A proposta do presente artigo é discutir alguns apontamentos de Heidegger acerca da questão do cogito como sujeito em Descartes, tendo em vista a compreensão cartesiana do cogito interpretado como representação ou como presença, e as possíveis contribuições que a interpretação heideggeriana pode trazer acerca da questão da subjetividade no pensamento de Descartes.

Fournissant une nouvelle edition ainsi que la premiere traduction francaise integrale du celebre decret parisien de 1277, cet ouvrage comprend egalement un commentaire qui entend montrer que, par-dela l'opposition entre orthodoxie et heterodoxie, la condamnation de l'eveque Tempier implique des enjeux epistemologique et ethique d'une grande importance pour l'histoire de la pensee en Occident. Providing a new edition and the first complete French translation of the famous 1277 Parisian decree, this book also includes a commentary which intends to show that, (...) beyond the opposition between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, the condamnation promulgated by the bishop Tempier involves epistemological and ethical issues of great importance for the history of Western thought. (shrink)

David Piché | : Problème majeur dans l’histoire de l’ontologie, la question de la cause de l’individuation se pose, notamment, à tout lecteur de l’Isagoge de Porphyre. En dépit de son importance historique, aucune étude n’a été consacrée spécifiquement au traitement que ce problème a reçu de la part de ceux qui furent à l’avant-garde de la réception du péripatétisme gréco-arabe dans l’Occident latin, à savoir les philosophes qui oeuvrèrent à la Faculté des arts de l’Université de Paris entre 1230 (...) et 1260. Cet article entend remédier à cette lacune en offrant la première traduction en langue moderne — elle-même réalisée principalement à partir des manuscrits des originaux latins — d’extraits pertinents de Commentaires isagogiques émanant de figures significatives de ce milieu. Ces textes traduits et annotés sont précédés d’une étude qui en dégage les thèses essentielles après avoir posé les termes du problème de l’individuation tel qu’il se pose dans le cadre épistémique que dessine l’opuscule de Porphyre. | : A major problem in the history of ontology, the question of the cause of individuation comes across any reader of Porphyry’s Isagoge. Despite its historical importance, no study has been devoted specifically to the treatment that this problem has received on the part of those who were at the forefront of the reception of the Graeco-Arabic Peripatetic Corpus in the Latin West, namely the philosophers who taught at the Parisian Faculty of arts between 1230 and 1260. This article intends to fill this gap by offering the first translation into French — translation made mainly from manuscripts of the original Latin texts — of relevant excerpts from Isagoge Commentaries written by significant masters belonging to that milieu. These translated and annotated texts are preceded by a study that expounds their essential theses after having spelled out the terms of the problem of individuation as it arises within the epistemic framework of Porphyry’s Isagoge. (shrink)

After a presentation of the main onto-theological theses contained in the Liber de causis, the author explains how they were received and interpreted by Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant in their respective commentaries on the short treatise “de primis causis rerum.” Starting from a mistranslation of the word “yliathim,” Thomas “injects” into the De causis his own doctrine of the distinction between being and essence. As for Siger, while he is often regarded as an adversary of Thomas Aquinas, his (...) ideas about the ontological difference between the Prime Cause and the created beings are on the very lines of the Thomasian lecture of the Liber de causis. (shrink)

When we reconstruct Fichte's philosophy of nature of the Jena period, we notice striking similarities between the conception of organism in theDoctrine of Scienceand Schelling's corresponding developments in his earlyNaturphilosophie.Even though both thinkers agree to consider organic nature within the framework of transcendental idealism, it is nevertheless possible at this stage to discover slight differences in their interpretation which announce their future disagreement on the status of a philosophy of nature. If, for instance, organism for both Fichte and Schelling can (...) be considered as ananalogonof the absolute, much depends on whether they conceive this analogy from a practical or theoretical point of view. (shrink)

Neste estudo, dá-se continuidade à exposição do scotismo do mestre franciscano chileno Alfonso Briceño (1587-1668), pondo a ênfase em um de seus cinco Apêndices Metafísicos, que constam em suas Controversiae (Madri, 1639-1642). No terceiro Apêndice Metafísico, após expor o conceito metafísico de “distinção”, após apresentar a sua doutrina da “distinção de razão” e após uma digressão sobre a “distinção precisiva”, Briceño dá início à sua apresentação da “distinção real”, da qual a “distinção formal” será um tipo especial e particularmente controverso. (...) Passo intermediário para a compreensão da distinção formal é uma breve exposição dos tipos de distinção real e uma discussão articulada sobre um tipo especial de “distinção modal” na escola scotista. O significado e a importância dessa distinção na metafísica scotista de Alfonso Briceño são o enfoque deste estudo. (shrink)

Civilisation.--Simplicité.--L'instinct.--La science et la politique.--La crise.--La syumpathie.--Les sociétés animales.--Intelligence et phénomènes d'adaptation.--La mémoire, l'intelligence et la raison.--La valeur de la science.--L'intuition.--L'attention et la distraction.--Phénomènes de télépathie.--L'inspiration.--La science et la croyance.--Mysticisme.--L'âme et la mémoire.--De la vie à la mort.--La sensation.--La subconsience.--La loi de Ribot.--La fin de l'univers envisagée par les matérialistes.--L'intuition et la guerre.

In the Introduction to the Transcendental Dialectic, of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant presents a conception of error. In the (Jäsche) Logic, he also deals with the problem of error, albeit in a different way. This paper aims to highlight this difference and arguing that, in the (Jäsche) Logic, error is explained more consistently and suitably than it is in the Transcendental Dialectic. It begins by considering judgment as the place of truth, falsehood and error, and inquiring into the (...) cognitive faculties that take part in its framing. These faculties, whose roles cannot be interchanged, are the sensibility, passive and receptive, and the understanding, active and spontaneous. Erroneous judgment springs from the unnoticed influence of sensibility on understanding, which makes the understanding hold merely subjective grounds of judgment to be objective ones. In the Transcendental Dialectic, this unnoticed influence is conceived in such a way that sensibility is, in a certain sense, held to be the determining ground of error, as if it were an active faculty, whereas in the (Jäsche) Logic that influence is conceived in such a way that the understanding itself is regarded as the source and author of error. This author agrees with the conception of the understanding as submitted to prescriptive laws, which is contained in the very definition of Pure General Logic, as a science of the a priori laws of how the understanding ought to think. (shrink)

We connect learning algorithms and algorithms automating proof search in propositional proof systems: for every sufficiently strong, well-behaved propositional proof system [Formula: see text], we prove that the following statements are equivalent, (1) Provable learning. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently that p-size circuits are learnable by subexponential-size circuits over the uniform distribution with membership queries. (2) Provable automatability. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently that [Formula: see text] is automatable by non-uniform circuits on propositional formulas expressing p-size circuit lower bounds. Here, (...) [Formula: see text] is sufficiently strong and well-behaved if I.–III. hold: I. [Formula: see text] p-simulates Jeřábek’s system [Formula: see text] (which strengthens the Extended Frege system [Formula: see text] by a surjective weak pigeonhole principle); II. [Formula: see text] satisfies some basic properties of standard proof systems which p-simulate [Formula: see text]; III. [Formula: see text] proves efficiently for some Boolean function [Formula: see text] that [Formula: see text] is hard on average for circuits of subexponential size. For example, if III. holds for [Formula: see text], then Items 1 and 2 are equivalent for [Formula: see text]. We use the following modified notion of automatability in Item 2, the automating circuits output a [Formula: see text]-proof of a given formula (expressing a p-size circuit lower bound for a function [Formula: see text]) in non-uniform p-time in the length of a shortest [Formula: see text]-proof of a closely related but different formula (expressing an average-case subexponential-size circuit lower bound for the same function [Formula: see text]). If there is a function [Formula: see text] which is hard on average for circuits of size [Formula: see text], for each sufficiently big [Formula: see text], then there is an explicit propositional proof system [Formula: see text] satisfying properties I.-III., i.e. the equivalence of Items 1 and 2 holds for [Formula: see text]. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’David PichéLuca Bianchi. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris: Vrin, 2008. Pp. 192. Paper, €18.00.Since the publication of the work of the Belgian medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen, a solid consensus seems to have emerged in the community of historians of medieval philosophy: no scholar in the Middle Ages defended the so-called “doctrine of the double truth” that (...) the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, had denounced in the prologue of his 1277 Condemnation. Moreover, how could a professional philosopher or theologian seriously contend that two contradictory statements are simultaneously true, one due to natural reason, and the other through the authority of faith? Therefore, the matter seemed settled and the file definitely closed: the double truth is nothing more than a “legend.” Yet the Italian medievalist Luca Bianchi’s in-depth critical analysis of the pseudo-historical evidence has now changed this. Without wanting to propose an entirely new interpretation of the historical ins and outs of this famous doctrine, Bianchi carries out a re-examination of the subject through a meticulous study of certain key texts that he has read in the light of a three-fold question: What impact did passages from Tempier’s decree on the “double truth” have on the medieval scholars themselves? Does the expression itself, ‘duplex veritas’, appear in some medieval documents? What were medieval thinkers’ attitudes in the face of philosophical arguments leading to conclusions contradicting the teachings of the Catholic faith?Due to space constraints, I will limit my discussion to Bianchi’s most crucial results. The answer to the first question (ch. 1) leads us in a surprising fashion to the famous Disputatio of Luther (1539). In this text, the father of the Reformation opposes the principle according to which what is true in theology must also be true in philosophy—a thesis whose paternity he attributes to Parisian theologians. Wanting to ensure the pre-eminence of faith-based teachings over all forms of human rationalization, Luther came to subscribe to a certain form of the double truth, since he claimed that what is absolutely true according to faith can be false and impossible from the perspective of philosophy. This explains his radical opposition to the “Parisian” principle that Bianchi calls “the principle of the oneness of truth.” We learn that some theologians in fifteenth- century Paris, notably Jean Gerson and Guillaume Baudin, were actually inspired by Tempier’s decree to defend some form of this principle.To respond to the second question (ch. 2), Bianchi first researched the electronic database Library of Latin Texts (CLCLT-6), and came up with “disappointing results”: no author uses the expression ‘duplex veritas’ in the relevant sense. Nevertheless, as imposing as it is, this database is not exhaustive, and Bianchi, well aware of this, extended his research by consulting other documents on paper, allowing him ultimately to reach a positive conclusion: the expression ‘duplex veritas’ appears in the course of a debate that took place around [End Page 99] 1470 on the subject of the truth-value of statements about future contingents. This debate involved a master of arts from Louvain, Pierre de Rivo, who considered it essential to distinguish between the truth of philosophers and the “popular” truth upheld by the churchmen, and a Parisian theologian whom we have already encountered, Guillaume Baudin, who invoked the “principle of the oneness of truth” to denounce the “double truth” that his adversary was promoting.From Bianchi’s multifaceted response to the third question (chs. 3–4), I can only present the groundswell. From the statutes promulgated by the Parisian Arts Faculty in 1272 up to the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, including the constitution Apostolici regiminis issued by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), a significant evolution may be observed in the requirements academic and religious authorities imposed on professors of philosophy (as well as on scientists) in the western Christian world. Indeed, we may observe that these requirements correspond, first, to the obligation to counter, as far as possible, arguments that contradict faith, and then transform into the duty to commit to a strong... (shrink)