This essay examines three competing views of technological change, developed at the beginning of the millennium, and their impact on our lives. The discussion will lead to three conclusions. First, we must be involved in decisions about how technology is regulated and used. Second, we should be wary not to consider all technologies as having the same effects. The cell phone is neither the personal computer nor the television, and there is no reason to consider each as having the same (...) potential social consequences. Third, new methodologies must be developed to account for any changes in social relations that come about as a result of our adoption of these technologies. In the final section of the essay, the consequences of contemporary technologies on what it means to be human are briefly discussed. Rather than substitute technology for democracy or big data for the ability to find significant information, we must take democratic control of these technologies and affirm our humanity. Indeed, I argue along with noted commentators on technology that what makes us human is our ability to sort and find relevant information, reflect on our actions and take risks in associating with other humans. These are things that we must always bear in mind if we are to flourish in the information age. (shrink)

There is no epistemic fault in interpreting events in ways that improve our behavior and lifestyle in situations that force interpretation. Fictionalized but possibly true narratives endow adult life with meaning, in turn rendering day-to-day affairs more agreeable. In this essay, I call the practice of introducing stories when a situation forces interpretation to affect behavior or lifestyle faux-believing, and I explicate and defend faux-believing against the objection that it is epistemically blameworthy After giving two examples of ' (...) class='Hi'>faux belief,' and distinguishing it from similar concepts, including belief proper, I ask if we can have the right to faux-believe independent of whether the faux belief is justified. Next, I turn to William James's "The Will to Believe" to argue that if James is correct that we have the right to believe, then we also have the right to faux-believe. While explicating James's argument for when we have the right to believe on insufficient evidence, I highlight two separate theses of James's (often erroneously thought to be a single thesis). It is one of these two theses that implies we also have the right to faux-believe. (shrink)

Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.—Benito Mussolini. The whole [school] system should be blown up … I feel like a prophet toda...

I consider a puzzle that greatly preoccupies some people and mildly preoccupies others, while being of no interest to some at all: “How did those people get into an elite university?” Problems with writing faux Japanese fiction provide one explanation. Once skilled literary craftspeople have failed, one turns to others.

Louis Painchaud | : Pendant près de deux millénaires, « faux-Judéens » et « synagogue de Satan » de Smyrne et de Philadelphie ont été considérés comme des « Juifs », membres des « synagogues » de ces villes, hostiles aux « chrétiens » qu’ils auraient même dénoncés auprès des autorités. Dans la deuxième moitié du xxe siècle, dans un contexte qui a suscité tout un courant de réflexion critique sur l’antisémitisme chrétien, plusieurs ont proposé de voir dans ces (...) « Juifs » des factions hostiles à Jean au sein des assemblées auxquelles il s’adresse. L’hypothèse qui est proposée ici est de voir, dans ces Judéens accusés de blasphème et taxés d’être de faux Judéens ou des Judéens menteurs, des membres de l’ethnos Judéens souillés, aux yeux de Jean, un prophète judéen sectaire, par leur intégration dans le tissu associatif de la cité. Quant à la « congrégation de Satan » qu’ils formeraient, elle ne doit pas être entendue comme la désignation d’une communauté judéenne ayant une existence réelle dans la cité, mais comme une pure construction de Jean, prophète de Jésus le Vivant qui ne se savait pas encore chrétien, visant à démoniser non pas tous les Judéens de ces deux cités, mais certains Judéens infidèles aux commandements et, donc, à leur identité judéenne. | : For nearly two thousand years, the Smyrneans and Philadelphians that the book of Revelation describes as “false Judeans” and as making up a “synagogue of Satan” have been taken to be “Jews,” members of the “synagogues” located in those cities, who were hostile to local “Christians,” to the point of denouncing them to the authorities. In the second half of the twentieth century, in a context in which Christian anti-Semitism was increasingly recognized and critiqued, many argued that these “Jews” were in fact members of the communities addressed by John, belonging to factions hostile to his message. In this paper, I will argue that the people whom John accuses of being blaspheming and false Judeans were members of the Judean ethnos who were seen by John — himself a Judean sectarian — as having become defiled through their integration into the social and professional fabric of the city. From this point of view, the “synagogue of Satan” is not to be seen as a real Judean community, but rather as the pure creation of John, a prophet of Jesus the Living One who did not know that later generations would consider him a “Christian.” Thus John does not intend to demonize all the Judeans in these two cities ; rather, his invective is directed at some Judeans, whom he sees as betraying the commandments and, hence, their own Jewish identity. (shrink)

Moral debate over vegetarianism forms the backdrop to a preliminary consideration of the questions: Is it ethical to produce, sell and eat faux meat? Is it ethical to produce, sell and wear fake animal skin? Is it ethical to sell or wear secondhand or thriftshop genuine animal skin? If vegetarianism is morally required, the question of just what uses of nonhuman animals are ethical or unethical and on what grounds is always on tap. In this piece, I examine the (...) above questions in light of deontological then utilitarian reasons for vegetarianism. I conclude deontological or animal rights grounds entail the moral condemnation of faux meat and fake and secondhand animal skin. I conclude utilitarian or animal welfare grounds entail, with some qualification, the moral acceptability of faux meat and fake animal skin but the clear moral unacceptability of secondhand animal skin. (shrink)

Scholarly debate over faux-snuff’s content has predominantly focused on realism and affect. This paper seeks to offer an alternative interpretation, examining what faux-snuff’s form reveals about self. Faux-snuff is typically presented from a first-person perspective (killer-cam), and as such is foundationally invested in the killer’s experiences as they record their murder spree. First then, I propose that the simulated-snuff form reifies self-experience in numerous ways. Faux-snuff’s characteristic formal attributes capture the self’s limited, fractured qualities, for example. (...) Second, I contend that the faux-snuff film’s singular focus lays bare the killer-self. The killer’s identity is principally constituted by the murders they commit. Resultantly, faux-snuff’s victims necessarily affirm the killer qua killer in the moment of murder. However, homicide eradicates the victim. Victims thus vanish in the moment they become the killer’s counter-identity. Consequently, the mock-snuff film centralises not only killing, but also the killer’s self-abnegation. Simulated-snuff’s repeated murders are a compulsive process of becoming in which the killer-self is both reified and erased. Despite presenting events through the killer’s eyes then, the simulated-snuff film can never provide access to the killer. The killer is an absent-presence that also acts as a constant reminder that the viewer is profoundly distanced from the action depicted, despite its apparent immediacy. In sum, faux-snuff commonly combines first-person form with relentless violent content. That melding leads me to scrutinize the apparently absolute binary oppositions at the heart of self-conception. By nature of their approach, these films routinely expose the tipping points between victim/killer, self/other, and life/death. In doing so, simulated-snuff catalyses questions about the self in general, and about our own selves in particular,. (shrink)

At the head of The Colbert Report, one of the most popular shows on television, Stephen Colbert is a pop culture phenomenon. More than one million people backed his fake candidacy in the 2008 U.S. presidential election on Facebook, a testament to the particularly rich set of issues and emotions Colbert brings to mind. Stephen Colbert and Philosophy is crammed with thoughtful and amusing chapters, each written by a philosopher and all focused on Colbert's inimitable reality — from his word (...) creations (truthiness, wikiality, freem, and others) to his position as a faux-pundit who openly mocks Fox News and CNN. Although most of the discussion is centered around The Colbert Report, this collection does not neglect either his best-selling book, I Am America (And So Can You!), or his public performances, including his incendiary 2006 White House Press Correspondents' Dinner speech. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage rassemble une serie d'articles parus en francais dans les Archives de philosophic entre 1974 et 1987. Passons rapidement sur le fait que la collection «Vrin-Reprise» se donne pour but de remettre a la disposition de tous des textes ou des etudes «aujourd'hui introuvables ou inaccessibles». Ouvert par un texte de 1981 ou I'auteur nous livre son autobiographic intellectuelle, l'ouvrage reprend ensuite l'article «Philosophie de la recherche scientifique» (1974) qui expose les vues de Radnitzky sur une theorie praxiologique de (...) la recherche. Reconstruction ratjonnelle de la recherche scientifique comme systeme d'action, cette theorie developpe des modeles de facteurs qui brientent la-recherche ainsi que des modeles de coagence des recherches theoriques et empiriques. Bien que la theorie se concentre sur les processus de production, elle comprend egalement un systeme de types de criteres qui permettent de juger les produits de la recherche scientifique. Con§ue comme voie mediane par rapport aux reconstructions logiques et aux etudes empiriques de la science, la praxiologie envisagee par Radnitzky («"Praxiologie" est employe ici au sens de Kotarbinski; en gros, c'est la theorie de Faction effective et efficace» [p. 99]) se reclame d'une theorie de l'action dirigee rationnellement vers un but (Zweckrationalitat) qui deboucherait ultimement sur une «anthropologie philosophique de la connaissance» (p. 31). Quoi qu'il en soit, Radnitzky manifeste le desir de se situer a la confluence des traditions analytique et hermeneutique; mais, en fait, malgre un apanage de concepts systemiques qui lui est particulier, son entreprise demeure largement tributaire de la theorie critique de Popper, comme l'atteste la teneur des autres articles qui composent cet ouvrage et qui portent tous, a une exception pres, sur la methodologie popperienne des sciences. L'exception est un article recent qui propose d'emprunter a l'economie l'analyse cout-benefice pour tirer au clair les questions de choix intertheorique («preference rationnelle») en science. Pour le reste, Radnitzky nous presente une defense parfois servile de la methodologie popperienne, tout en tentant de l'affermir par sa propre contribution d'une dimension qui lui manque, la dimension praxiologique justement. (shrink)

D'un philosophe comme de l'autre, on peut dire qu'ils sont tous deux, dans l'horizon contemporain, des penseurs de l'amour. Tous deux s'inscrivent en faux contre la réduction de ce dernier à la sexualité, mais, tout autant, contre sa réduction inverse, plus ancienne, à une forme de mystique éthérée de type platonico-chrétien qui a pu se formuler sous le terme d'agapè. Nous nous proposons dans cette contribution d'étudier la pensée de J.-L. Marion en adoptant l'hypothèse d'une « unité théo-phénoménologique » (...) de son questionnement. Nous faisons usage du terme « théo-phénoménologie » en référence à l'approche de l'œuvre du philosophe et théologien grec Christos Yannaras, et souhaitons ce faisant rendre justice à l'avancée de J.-L. Marion en situant son geste philosophique singulier à la lumière de la théologie orthodoxe du Christianisme grec oriental telle qu'elle est elle-même renouvelée philosophiquement par C. Yannaras. Jean-Luc Marion and Christos Yannaras are both well-known as contemporary love-thinkers. Both refuse the reduction of love to sexuality as much as its older opposite reduction to a form of platonic christian mystics sometimes named agapè. In the following contribution I wish to examine Jean-Luc Marion's approach while making the hypothesis of its « theo-phenomenological » unity. Since the expression « theo-phenomenology » is used in reference to the work of the contemporary Greek philosopher and theologian Christos Yannaras, I aim at doing justice to Marion's philosophical thrust by putting his conception of love in the light of the Orthodox theology of the Eastern Church as it is nowadays philosophically renewed by Yannaras. (shrink)

Il problema della rappresentazione, connaturato ad ogni mediazione linguistica del rapporto di mente e mondo, è nelle sue molteplici forme un tema antico della riflessione filosofica. La rappresentazione letteraria appartiene alla stessa categoria e pone problemi analoghi al pensiero. Che cosa significa rappresentare poeticamente? Il concetto di finzione letteraria può avere solo un senso peggiorativo o limitante nei confronti della comunicazione dell’universale, o ne può essere una modalità? Il tema del saggio è il rapporto tra realtà e finzione letteraria che (...) pare emergere da I falsari di André Gide. Seguendo le intuizioni e i suggerimenti dello scrittore, si proverà a tracciare le linee principali di un’interpretazione positiva della finzione letteraria, che ne riconosca la potenza espressiva senza soffocarne i caratteri distintivi. Non è detto, poi, che ciò che vale per la rappresentazione poetica non possa avere un senso anche sotto punti di vista più generali. (shrink)

I argue that Schmitt was a faux jurist and that is important to understand ‘Schmittean’ logic. This is a logic which aims to undermine democracy and the rule of law which is not unique to Schmitt and is at play in our contemporary world.

In this paper I argue that the trolley method of moral philosophy has three shortcomings not yet adequately addressed in the literature. First, trolley problems highlight high stakes ethical decisions. These decisions do not represent the majority of ethical decisions made by most people, and thus, the trolley method ignores most of moral life. Second, the trolley method operates by way of a faux-anonymization of moral agents. This process leads to descriptions of moral agents being unwittingly supplied by those (...) to whom the problems are presented and thereby the formation of a paradigmatic moral agent which excludes a considerable number of real world moral persons. Lastly, the trolley method mischaracterizes what most moral decision-making is like by presenting a moral agent's decision as isolated, uninfluenced, and made with full self-awareness. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ Dans de récents travaux, Charles Taylor distingue deux types de libéralisme, qu'il associe respectivement au Canada et au Québec. Le premier se caractérise par l'adhésion à la règle de neutralité de I'État, tandis que le second impose moins de limites à l'intervention de l'État. Parce qu'il serait moins « homogénéisant », Taylor se prononce en faveur du second type. Plusieurs éléments de l'analyse de Taylor me semblent faux ou erronés. Premièrement, la distinction entre les deux types de libéralisme (...) n'est pas toujours claire. Deuxièmement, le type de libéralisme que Taylor favorise n'est pas du tout acceptable. Troisièmement, je ne crois pas que le Canada et le Québec adhèrent à des types différents de libéralisme. ABSTRACT In his recent works, Charles Taylor distinguishes between two forms of liberalism, which are respectively associated with Canada and Québec. The first one is characterized by its support for the neutrality of the State, while the second imposes almost no restriction to the intervention of the State. Because it is less "homogenizing", Taylor favors the second form. Many parts of Taylor's analysis seems to me to be false or erroneous. First, the distinction between the two liberalisms is not at all clear. Second, the liberalism that Taylor favors is not acceptable. Third, it is not true that Québec and Canada adhere to different forms ofliberalism. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that atheism is different from secularism. Secularism is based on a faux elimination of theology which effectively preserves that theology in the guise of overcoming it. To achieve atheism (a term that I draw from the work of Maria Aristodemou), I argue that one needs to directly confront the theological element in order to come to terms with it. In this essay I look at how two political theological thinkers, Nietzsche and Benjamin, accomplish this. (...) Nie-tzsche accomplishes atheism via his thesis of the “death of God,” a death that is not always literal but which creates a space for human life that is not determined by theological terms. Benjamin does the same thing with his idea that God vacates divine powers of judgment and determination in order to allow an atheistic space where human beings can engage in their own self-determination (even as the notion of God remains to challenge any would be human spokespersons for that role). I ultimately argue that atheism and anarchism are related concepts based not just on a rejection of certain forms of theology and all forms of archism, but also in terms of the way they allow a posi-tive and undetermined human response. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to expose, and provide a possible solution to, an internal inconsistency in Axel Honneth's critical theory of recognition. Honneth requires a way of making his claim that misrecognition causes subjective suffering, with the potential to cognitively disclose injustice, consistent with his account of ideological recognition as a form of misrecognition that engenders compliance with an oppressive social order. Only by reconciling these claims—that is, by showing how ideological recognition can engender an acceptance of domination (...) whilst at the same time causing subjective suffering—can Honneth's theory of recognition retain the kind of critical capacities he desires. As a means of achieving this reconciliation, I propose the notion of “invisible suffering.” In the case of ideological recognition, I suggest that the suffering caused by misrecognition has its disclosive power blocked by the faux-affirmation that the ideology discursively accords, and this renders the experience of suffering, qua painful indicator of social injustice, invisible to the subject. Drawing on insights from medical sociology, I show how the need to supplement Honneth's theory of recognition with the idea of invisible suffering is revelatory of the kind of critical theoretical stance demanded by his ontological commitments. (shrink)

There are many different kinds of libertarianism. The first is right libertarianism, which received its most powerful expression in Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), a book that still sets the baseline for discussions of libertarianism today. The second, I will call faux libertarianism. For reasons I will explain in this paper, most ‘man-on-the-street’ libertarians and most politicians who claim to be libertarians are actually this kind of libertarian. And third, there is left libertarianism, which is what I (...) shall spend most of this paper explicating. But I will not simply be surveying the views of those who identify as left libertarians and put this forth as if I were engaged in an exegetical exercise. Instead, what I shall set forth is a kind of manifesto, a statement of why I consider myself a left libertarian, one that takes this approach to political morality well beyond where it was left around the end of the last century by the previous generation of left libertarians. My hope is to provide those who find certain left libertarian ideas attractive a guide by which they can explain and harmonise their own views, recognise left libertarianism as a distinct comprehensive political doctrine, and feel more open to identify themselves as left libertarian too. (shrink)

This article provides an empirical demonstration of the saliency of epistemics to two core conversational organizations, turn-taking and repair. To that end, I examine cases in which a participant of a multiparty conversation intervenes into a repair sequence to respond to a repair initiation addressed to the trouble-source speaker, that is, in violation of the turn-taking rules, without having an epistemically grounded entitlement to do so. I show that such interventions enact a range of corrective actions vis-a-vis the repair initiation, (...) such as contesting and correcting assumptions or understandings conveyed by the repair initiation. In providing these corrections ‘out of turn’, the intervening speakers demonstrate their own attentive recipiency or cultural expertise and, at the same time, expose the repair initiator’s interactional faux pas. The analysis demonstrates the procedural consequentiality of epistemic considerations for the interlocutors – and, thus, the necessity to incorporate them into an empirically grounded analysis of their actions. (shrink)

Cet article présente une analyse du thème de la religion dans l’oeuvre de Bruno Latour. Certains commentateurs affirment que la présence persistante du thème n’est qu’une manifestation de la piété catholique résiduelle de Latour et, ce faisant, mettent en cause l’ontologie pluraliste qu’il défend. M’inscrivant en faux face à ces critiques, je suggère que ce thème a constitué un argument dominant dès les premières étapes de sa carrière. Latour propose deux définitions de la religion. La première, que j’ai nommée (...) « la Religion », a vocation à fermer le monde pluriel. La seconde, que Latour nomme « religion comme mode d’existence », ou [REL], est une expression de ce monde pluriel et, pour cette raison, peut être qualifiée de « rationnelle ». Si on perd de vue cet aspect, on risque de se priver du potentiel de critique de la situation de la modernité séculière que nous offre sa pensée.This paper examines the theme of religion in the work of Bruno Latour. Some critics have suggested that the persistent presence of this theme is an indication of a residual Catholic piety on the part of Latour and hence that it calls into question the pluralist ontology he advocates. However, I will argue that this theme has been a concern from the earliest stages of his career. In fact, Latour identifies two forms of religion as operating in the world. The first, which I will name “Religion,” serves to close down the plurality of the world. The second, which Latour himself names “religion as a mode of existence,” or [REL], is an expression of the plural world, and can be called rational for this reason. If this point is not well understood, the potential of Latour’s work for a critique of the situation of secular modernity risks being missed. (shrink)

Histoire de la philosophie et liberté -- Le monde libre -- Le récit du commencement : une aporie de la raison grecque -- La vraisemblance du faux (Parménide, fragment I, 31-32) -- Sur le plan du Timée -- La cosmologie finale du Sophiste (265b4-e6) -- La communauté humaine dans la philosophie grecque -- Note sur la définition du mouvement (Physique III 1-3) -- Le fou stoïcien.

La physique panpsychiste de Ruyer est fondée sur deux arguments : la science, par méthode, ne peut que méconnaître les formes, ne connaît que les structures, et toute réalité ne peut être qu'en se possédant activement, c'est-à-dire comme domaine, ou subjectivité, ou présence. La critique décisive du parallélisme psycho-physique montre que la philosophie de l'esprit, ou le fameux mind-body problem, n'est qu'un catalogue de faux problèmes . Mais, s'agissant de la personne humaine, le spiritualisme ruyérien continue la tradition empiriste (...) en faisant du « je » un point de perspective mythique et provisoire. Le « je » émerge pragmatiquement de la présence, ne la constitue pas et disparaît avec elle. Peut-on opposer à ce spiritualisme sans sujet personnel un « je » distant et séparé de la seule présence ? À distance par là même de l'activité qui, au lieu de la substance, est la catégorie fondamentale de l'ontologie ruyérienne. Ruyer's panpsychical physics is based on two arguments: science, by its method, can only underestimate the forms, can only know the structures, and any reality can exist only by controlling itself actively, that is as a domain, a subjectivity, or a presence. The crucial criticism of psycho-physical parallelism shows that the philosophy of mind, or the famous mind-body problem, is only a catalog of non-problems . However, with respect to the human person, Ruyerian spiritualism continues the empiricist tradition by turning the « I » into a mythical and temporary focal point. The « I » pragmatically emerges from the presence, it does not constitute it and it disappears with it. Can we oppose to this spiritualism deprived of any personal subject an « I » far more distant and separated from presence only? Does is exist severed from activity, which, replacing substance, is the fundamental category of Ruyerian ontology? (shrink)

ABSTRACT: This article addresses two main concerns: first, the relation between the truth/falsehood and purity/impurity criteria as applied to pleasure, and, second, the status of our pleasures of learning. In addressing the first, I argue that Plato keeps the truth/falsehood and purity/impurity criteria distinct in his assessment of pleasures and thus leaves room for the possibility of hybrid pleasures in the form of true impure pleasures and false pure pleasures. In addressing the second issue, I show that Plato's view is (...) perfectly able to accommodate an understanding of our pleasures of learning as pure pleasures even if such pleasures are preceded by awareness of a lack (ignorance).RÉSUMÉ: Cet article aborde deux concepts principaux: premièrement, la relation entre les critères de vérité/fausseté et de pureté/impureté appliqués au plaisir, et deuxièmement, le statut de notre plaisir d'apprendre. En abordant le premier concept, j'argumente que Platon tient distincts les critères de vérité/fausseté et de'pureté Iimpureté dans son évaluation du plaisir, laissant ouverte la possibilité de plaisirs hybrides sous forme de vrais plaisirs impurs et faux plaisirs purs. En abordant le deuxième concept, je montre que le point de vue de Platon est parfaitement capable d'accommoder la compréhension de nos plaisirs d'apprendre comme plaisirs purs si de tels plaisirs sont précédés par la conscience d'un manque (ignorance). (shrink)

Ce livre traite du 11 septembre ; du triomphe de la télé réalité, des formes nouvelles de domination symbolique, du capitalisme culturel, mais il gravite autour d'un seul et même foyer : nous vivons une crise mondiale de narration, dont le symptôme le plus visible est une inflation narrative, la substitution de l'anecdote au récit. Qu'il emprunte la forme de l'essai ou du récit, ce livre décrit la situation d'un homme sans recours narratif face à l'expérience, qui ne sait plus (...) faire la distinction entre fait et fiction, et entre vrai et faux. Un homme qui représentait pour Hannah Arendt, "le sujet idéal du règne totalitaire". Un homme, en somme, sans récit. Face à l'empire, c'est le manque et l'impossibilité d'une contre-narration que Christian Salmon explore - et déplore - ici. i. (shrink)

This manuscript is the introductory article for the special issue of the Journal of Social Studies Research titled Teaching Disciplinary Thinking, Literacy, and Argumentation Skills. In it, the authors provide an historical overview of disciplinary thinking as outlined by Edwin Fenton and Sam Wineburg. They talk about how the C3 Framework is a melding of a focus on disciplinary thinking outlined by Fenton and Wineburg with the emphasis on preparing K-12 students for their future roles as democratic citizens as stressed (...) by scholars like Shirley Engle. Then, the focus of the manuscript shifts to highlight the underdeveloped areas of disciplinary thinking in civics, geography, and economics. The authors define economic, civic, and geographic thinking and provide habits of mind for each of these disciplines along with classroom activities for each. They close with arguments for why K-12 social studies teachers and social studies education scholars should focus on developing K-12 students’ civic, economic, and geographic thinking skills. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hume: Between Leibniz and Kant (The role of pre-established harmony in Hume's philosophy) Vadim Vasilyev 1. Introduction In the history of eighteenth century European philosophy, Hume appears as an important connecting link between Leibniz and Kant. I mean, however, not only the well-known historical fact that Hume "awakened Kant from his dogmatic slumber" (and it was the "dogmatism" ofLeibnizian metaphysics), but I shall try to show that it is (...) true from the philosophical point of view as well. The first problem I would like to discuss is the actual relationship between Hume and Leibniz. Hume never openly criticized the views of Leibniz. On the other hand, Hume did not admit himself to be a follower of him. Did Hume everread any works ofLeibniz? Hume has never said thathe did. Hume also hasn't directly quoted these works, so it looks like Hume wasn't acquainted with them at all. Nonetheless, we can show that already in 1739 Hume had known Theodicée which can be considered as the main treatise ofLeibniz. In his Abstract Hume writes: The celebratedMonsieurLeibnitz has observed it tobe a defect in the common systems of logic, that they are very copious when they explain the operations ofthe understanding in the forming ofdemonstrations, but are too concise when they treat of probabilities, and those other measures of evidence on which life and action entirely depend, and which are our guides even in most of our philosophical speculations. In this censure, he comprehends the essay on human understanding, Ie recherche de la vérité, and l'art dépenser.1 The fragment is a rendering of the following passage from Theodicée: caril n'y a rien de plus impartaitqui nostre Logique, lorsqu'on va au delà des argumens nécessaires; et les plus excellens philosophes de nostre temps, tels que les Auteurs de l'Art de penser, de la Recherche de la vérité, et de l'Essai sur Volume XLX Number 1 19 VADIMVASILYEV l'entendment, ont été fort éloignés de nous marquer les vrais moyens propres à aider cette faculté qui nous doit faire peser les apparences du vrait et du faux: sans parler de l'art d'inventer.2 So, it is highly probable that Hume knew Theodicée. The ideas ofLeibniz in Hume's philosophy The most important philosophical ideas of Theodicée are: the definitions ofpossibility and oftwo kinds ofnecessity, a theory of"the best possible world" and a conception ofthe pre-established harmony. As we shall see, all these ideas, one way or another, were assimilated by Hume. In his Theodicée Leibniz states that a distinction should be made between two kinds of necessity and, correspondingly, between two kinds ofnecessary knowledge: metaphysical and moral.? ne faut done que bien entendre des distinctions, comme celle que nous avons pressée bien souvent entre le necessaire et le certain, et entre la nécessité métaphysique et la nécessité morale. (Theodicée, 284, par. 282) Metaphysical or mathematical truths are such that propositions which are opposite to them imply contradictions. Or les vérités de la Raison sont de deux sortes; les unes sont ce qu'on appelle les Vérités Eternelles, qui sont abolument nécessaires, en sorte que l'opposé implique contradiction. (Theodicée, 50, par. 2) Not so regarding the moral truths; the opposite statements may be false but they imply no contradictions and are possible: "? est vray qu'il n'y auroit point eu de contradiction dans la supposition que Spinosa fût mort à Leide, et non pas à La Haye; il n'y auroit rien de si possible" (Theodicée, 218, par. 174). The possibility is equivalent to logical consistency and what is possible may be distinctly conceived: puisqu'il y a bien des choses qui ne sont jamais arrivées et n'arriveront jamais, et qui cependant sont concevables distinctement, et n'impliquent aucune contradiction, comment peut on dire qu'elles sont absolument impossibles? (Theodicée, 257, par. 234) 20Hume Studies HUME: BETWEEN LEIBNIZ AND KANT Hume uses all these definitions. The following fragment is a good example. The non-existence ofany being, without exception, is as clear and distinct an... (shrink)

Salafism is one of the most important issues of the last few centuries. There are intense discussions on the issues related to Salafism, its emergence, how it was first used by whom and in what sense. Discussions about Salafism are sometimes experienced in relation to whether this concept corresponds to a mentality or to a sect, and sometimes this phenomenon is brought up in relation to a number of important names that have taken place in the history of Islamic thought. (...) Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) emerges as the most frequently mentioned name in this context. Therefore, in this article, we have examined how Salafism/Salafiyya concept is used in the works of Ibn Taymiyya who is accepted as the theorist and the most powerful representative of Salafism. We have discussed the issue in a comprehensive manner by including the concept of Salaf, which is one of the most used concepts of Ibn Taymiyya. When we consider Ibn Taymiyya's use of the concepts of Salaf and Salafiyya, the concept of Salaf is seen to be used much more than the concept of Salafiyya. Thus, the concept of Salaf in the thought of Ibn Taymiyya refers to the Islamic society that lived in the early centuries and the conception of religion revealed by this society. The concept of Salafiyya, however, appears to have been used in a way that reflects a mentality and a way of thinking rather than a particular school or sect.Summary: Sects are human made structures that emerged with the institutionalization of differentiations in the conception of religion. The production of systematic theology and fiqh, the formation of its own literature, its dissemination and dissociation from other systems of thought are the most important turning points for the emergence of sects. One of the most important variables that determine the formation process of sects is the mentality of sect. It is known that the sects come into the realm of existence when the mindsets with the implicit reference system become visible. Therefore, there is a mentality on which every sect is based, but not every mentality has come to the point of being a sect. While some mentalities have influenced different sects in different shades, some of them have been confronted with only one sect.In fact, Salafism is one of the ways of thinking which is a mindset and it is a subject of important debates about whether it is a sect. Although the use of salafiyya is seen in the literature in the past, the fact that Salafism felt its existence as a kind of religion or mentality was realized in the 18th and 19th centuries. It is also known that the discussions about the definition of Salafism have started since these periods. From the second half of the 20th century, Salafism began to take a place in the agenda of both the Islamic world and the West. This has naturally led to efforts to define Salafism. Thus, Salafism is subjected to attempts to identify and associate with structures, such as denomination, ideology, religious understanding and mentality. In this direction, it is seen that Salafism is tried to be defined by establishing close link with the structures, such as Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahl-i Hadith, Hanbalism and Wahhabism or by reducing them directly to one of these structures. Thus, Salafism is sometimes backed up to the early stages of Islamic thought and sometimes associated with multilayered structures, such as the Ahl al-Sunnah, which embodies many political-mythic and fiqh structures.In line with the efforts of defining Salafism, it is also seen that many names that have had a say in classical Islamic thought or have been mentioned in modern times have been brought to the agenda. In addition to the names, such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the names of Emir al-Saneyani, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Muhammad al-Shawkani, Shaykh Abdulaziz ibn Baz and Muhammad Nasir al-din al-Albani are frequently mentioned in this process. It should be noted that there is a special place of Ibn Taymiyya among these names. Ibn Taymiyya took the place of both in history of Islamic thought and Ahl al-Hadith-Hanbalite tradition and made a name for himself in the context of many subjects. It is claimed that Ibn Taymiyya, who was the theorist of the Hanbalite conception of religion, and the missionary of the New Hanbalism, was also the founding figure and the most important representative of Salafism. In modern times, most of those who declare ideas about Salafism place Ibn Taymiyya at the center of Salafism and present him as the founding name of this mentality. However, the question of what kind of relationship between the mentality called Salafism and Ibn Taymiyya's world of thought and religion is not the subject of academic studies. However, the works of Ibn Taymiyya, who is an author of a very velocity, should be analyzed from this point of view and all kinds of words about Ibn Taymiyya-Salafism relationship should be left behind this effort. Our study, which aims to fulfill this gap, was designed to explain topics, such as whether the concept of salafiyya was used in the works of Ibn Taymiyya, whether and how the past was used, and the extent to which the meaning attributed to the salafiyya coincided with the current Salafism. Understanding of the concept of the salafiyya in the works of Ibn Taymiyya depends on the explanation of how the term salaf was derived and used by Ibn Taymiyya. When the works of Ibn Taymiyya are scanned, it is seen that he used the word salaf much more than the word salafiyya. In fact, the word of salafiyya, which Ibn Taymiyya has rarely included, has been placed in some places in a way that refers to the meaning field of the word salaf. When we consider the use of the word salaf in the works of Ibn Taymiyya, we first see the generations who lived in the early historical periods of Islamic thought and the conception of religion which these generations have revealed. Other names that have taken place in the history of Islamic thought have similar opinions about the generation of the predecessors and the religious understanding of this generation. In other words, according to the general opinion of the predecessor, especially the first three centuries came to mind. However, it is seen that Ibn Taymiyya made some attempts to periodize both the generation of the predecessors and to define the understanding of religion of this generation. Nevertheless, Ibn Taymiyya could not provide a clear picture on this issue, and he occasionally contradicted his findings regarding his involvement in the predecessor generation. Nevertheless, he generally adopted generalizations and an attitude to limit the meaning of the predecessor to the first generations. The word salafiyya, which Ibn Taymiyya placed on the meaning of the word salaf, is used less compared to the word salaf and is given in more complete terms. This indicates that the main factor that influenced Ibn Taymiyya's salafi thought was salaf, not salafiyya as a systematic structure. These findings make it necessary to reconsider the claims of Salafism being a sect and it is being represented at the time of Ibn Taymiyya. (shrink)

Nous prendrons pour point de départ la célèbre distinction de Winnicott entre un vrai soi et un faux soi ou, en d'autres termes, empruntés à la phénoménologie, entre un soi authentique et un soi inauthentique . Mais le soi est une notion qui ne va pas sans soulever bien des difficultés, y compris aux yeux des spécialistes de l'œuvre de Winnicott, ne serait-ce que dans son rapport au moi. Il nous semble cependant possible d'élucider certaines d'entre elles grâce à (...) l'élaboration par la phénoménologie heideggérienne puis sartrienne des concepts de soi, d'authenticité et d'inauthenticité. En effet, pour Heidegger, le Dasein ne saurait être un moi au sens d'un ego substantiel mais le Dasein est un soi , un être dont le mode d'être est irréductible à celui d'un objet subsistant et qui peut se "choisir" lui-même, se gagner ou bien se perdre . De ce point de vue, l'authenticité est tout d'abord une manière possible d'exister, et si le Dasein peut être soi sur le mode de l'authenticité, il peut l'être également sur le mode privatif de la fuite et de l'inauthenticité. Reprenant le concept heideggérien d'authenticité, Sartre l'enrichit, nous semble-t-il, en insistant sur l'impossibilité pour l'existant d'être ce qu'il est. Ainsi, contrairement au soi inauthentique qui ne cesse de se fuir dans ce qu'on peut appeler un faux soi, le soi authentique ou vrai soi assume son existence et, par conséquent, aussi bien la contingence de son être que sa liberté. Nous essayerons ainsi de montrer qu'il est possible de reprendre et d'approfondir phénoménologiquement la conception winnicottienne du vrai et du faux soi.Partiremos da célebre distinção de Winnicott entre um verdadeiro si-mesmo e um falso si-mesmo ou, em outros termos, emprestados da fenomenologia, entre um si-mesmo autêntico e um si-mesmo inautêntico . Todavia, o si-mesmo é uma noção que levanta muitas dificuldades, também para os especialistas da obra de Winnicott, mesmo que seja somente em sua relação com eu [moi]. Parece-nos possível, entretanto, elucidar algumas dentre essas noções por meio da elaboração da fenomenologia heideggeriana e, em seguida, por meio da sartriana, dos conceitos de si mesmo, de autenticidade e de inautenticidade. Com efeito, para Heidegger, o Dasein não seria um ser, um eu , no sentido de um ego substancial, mas o Dasein é um si-mesmo , um ser cujo modo de ser é irredutível àquele de um objeto subsistente e que pode "escolher" a si mesmo, se ganhar ou mesmo se perder . Desse ponto de vista, a autenticidade é, primeiramente, uma maneira possível de existir, e se o Dasein pode ser si mesmo no modo da autenticidade, ele o pode ser igualmente no modo privativo da fuga e da inautenticidade. Retomando o conceito heideggeriano de autenticidade, Sartre o enriquece, parece-nos, insistindo sobre a impossibilidade para o existente de ser isto que ele é. Assim, contrariamente ao si-mesmo inautêntico que não cessa de fugir para isto que poder-se-ia chamar de falso si-mesmo, o si-mesmo autêntico ou verdadeiro si-mesmo assume sua existência e, por consequência, tanto a contingência de seu ser como sua liberdade. Desse modo, nós tentaremos mostrar que é possível retomar e aprofundar fenomenologicamente a concepção winnicottiana de verdadeiro e falso si-mesmo.We begin with Winnicott's well-known distinction between a true and a false self, or, in terms borrowed from phenomenology, between an authentic and an unauthentic self. Self, however, is a notion that raises many difficulties also for Winnicott scholars, even if only in its relation with the I [me]. Yet it seems possible to elucidate some of those notions by way of a Heideggerian phenomenology followed by a Sartrean phenomenology of the concepts of self, authenticity and unauthenticity. In fact, for Heidegger the Dasein is not a being, an I , in the sense of a substantial ego, but rather a self , a being whose mode of being is irreducible to that of a subsisting object and that can "choose" itself, gain itself , and even loose itself . From this point of view, authenticity is above all a possible mode of existing, and if the Dasein can be itself in the authentic way, it can likewise be in the deprived mode of fleeing and of unauthenticity. Returning to the Heideggerian concept of authenticity, Sartre enriches – it seem to us – by underlining the impossibility for the existent of being what it is. Thus, unlike the unauthentic self that cannot but flee towards that which we might call a false self, the authentic or true self takes on its existence, and therefore also takes on both the contingency of its being and its freedom. Hence, we will try to show that it is possible phenomenologically to resume and go deeper into the Winnicottian conception of the true and false self. (shrink)

There is confusion about what counts as abstraction in photography: art theorists class very different kinds of photographs as abstract, and common philosophical views of photography, if true, should cause us to doubt their very possibility. I address two questions here: ‘What is Abstraction?’ and ‘What is Abstraction in Photography?’ To the answer the second, I briefly consider a third: ‘What is Photography?’ so that the resulting account is not undermined by a poor theory of photography. In answer to my (...) target question, I outline a schematic typology of kinds of work generically typed as ‘abstract’ in order to bring out some differences between them. I distinguish ‘proto’, ‘faux’, ‘constructed faux’, ‘weak’, ‘strong’, ‘constructed’ and ‘concrete’ abstraction, although the differences between them are not always clear-cut and there is room for debate about borderline cases. My goal is not to resolve all such cases, but to show: that there is a range of broadly identifiable kinds of abstraction in photography; that images can be abstract in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons; and why certain images are not abstract, despite being widely typed as such. (shrink)

Rowland Stout argues that a disposition toward violence in certain circumstances counts as a virtue in Aristotle’s sense. In this paper, I will offer three reasons to reject Stout’s position. First, I will present Stout’s position. I will then argue that the plausibility of Stout’s position capitalizes on a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, what has been called the “faux anonymization of agents,” without which his position is less plausible. Next, I will argue that Stout’s own method supports conclusions which Aristotle explicitly (...) rejects—namely, that adultery, theft, and murder could also count as virtuous. Finally, I will argue that Stout fails to account for the fact that human flourishing limits the types of environments that can be used as hypothetical tools by which to discover what counts as a virtue. (shrink)

Lorsque Platon essaie, dans le Sophiste, de réfuter l’argumentation de Parménide à propos de l’inexistence du non-être, il arrive à une conclusion inattendue : c’est la langue grecque qui, du fait d’identifier « ce qui est » aux étants, rend impossible d’exprimer « ce qui n’est pas ». Or, étant donné que le discours faux, propre à la sophistique, suppose que « ce qui n’est pas » existe, Platon examine les théories des philosophes qui l’ont précédé et il découvre (...) que, mis à part le néant absolu, sur lequel il partage le jugement de Parménide, un certain non-être est possible : celui de la prédication. Fidèle à sa philosophie, Platon propose une Forme comme garantie de ce non-être relatif : l’Altérité. Celle-ci, avec sa Forme complémentaire, l’Identité, assure dorénavant la définition de chaque réalité.When Plato, in the Sophist, tries to turn down Parmenides’ argumentation about the existence of non-being, he reaches a most unexpected conclusion : i.e. the Greek language, identifying « what is » to « the beings », makes it impossible to express what is not. Now, since the false discours, proper to sophistics, supposes that « that which is not » exists, Plato examines the theories of the philosophers who came before him and discovers that, apart from the absolute nothingness – on which he shares Parmenides’ judgement –, some kind of a non-being is possible, i.e. that of predication. True to his philosophy, Plato suggests a Form as warrant of such a « relative » non-being : the Different. This Form, with its complementary Form, the Identity, guarantees the definition of every reality. (shrink)

This paper examines the polemical nature of anti-racist education and discourse in America today. On one side of this issue are those who think of the efforts toward inclusion, diversity, and the pursuit of social justice in academia as serving positive ends. On the other side are those who oppose and vilify such efforts as evidence of the destructive ethos of liberal education. This has led to a situation where universities and schools across the country have seen professors and teachers, (...) including philosophers, experience backlash for speaking seriously and courageously about confronting the problem of racism in society. One recent example of this anomaly is the kind of faux outrage or moral panic that drives the hysteria against Critical Race Theory, an inquiry that examines the intersection of race and law in the United States, as well as unearthing the reality of structural racism in America, often disguised in the mainstream liberal approaches to racial justice. This faux moral panic has been used by legislatures across the country, as the raison d’être, to pass bans and enforce policies or rules that restricts how professors (including philosophers), and teachers can talk about race, systemic racism, structural oppression, or the problem of racial injustice in the classroom. In this paper, I explore how this polemical situation creates significant challenges and unique possibilities for the discourse of philosophy, especially for those who are interested in becoming antiracist philosophers, in the context of such legal rules and restrictions. This is not for the faint of heart. (shrink)

This paper is a response to Kathleen Stock’s book Material Girls, by way of imitation. I have attempted to write a faux chapter in the book’s style, identifying four moments in overcoming the low-high culture divide in responses to the arts.

« Si la connaissance se donne comme connaissance de la vérité, c’est qu’elle produit la vérité par le jeu d’une falsification première et toujours reconduite qui pose la distinction du vrai et du faux. » Leçons sur la volonté de savoir, Gallimard-Seuil, Paris, 2011 (1re éd. : 1971)."If knowledge is given as knowledge of the truth, it is because it produces the truth by the game of a first, primary falsification renewed again and again which raises the distinction of (...) true and false" [my translation]. Michel Foucault, Lessons on the will to know, Gallimard-Seuil, Paris, 2011 (1st ed.: 1971)I wonder how can Foucault, who refers to Nietzsche as source of inspiration, speak of falsification and deny at the same time objectivity of truth – besides the obvious pun. The challenge of Nietzsche is to contest the objectivity of truth as human desiderata, in such a context Foucault's notion of falsification (of what? falsification of an objective reality?) does either make no sense at all or encodes some other meaning beyond being false – a possible reading would be to take it that Foucault means "distortion", or better “will to deceive “.Perhaps, Foucault's observation amounts to the simple remark that some of the so-called scientific justifications of institutionalized qualifications and anathemas that have important political and socio-economic consequences such as those involving notions as health, disease, or gender do not have the scientific backing they are purported to have (now scientific backing, I guess, must be understood in a rather standard or naïve sense of distinguishing between sciences and pseudo-sciences). This might in some sense be a sensible reflection, and it must be conceded that Foucault had the merit of undertaking extensive and thorough examinations of archives, protocols and reports buried in institutions of various kinds which animated his legendary charming style of writing. Of course, this is quite far away from constituting a revolutionary assault on the notions of (scientific) truth, knowledge and meaning, but, one can say, I think, that his work motivated and still motivates some new approaches to the study of institutional archives. If the reading proposed in the preceding paragraph seems a too meagre result and we are prepared to read Foucault's remarks as involving more thorny epistemological matters, there are of course other ways to delve into them: On one hand I allow me to suggest studying the sceptics of the ancient Greek tradition, or the study of analogical dialectical reasoning within the Arabic Jurisprudence theories of the Middle-Ages (or more generally their theory of Argumentation that has been largely ignored also by the analytic approaches to Argumentation theory and Epistemic Logic), or if one dares to go so far the millenary Jain epistemological lessons on the Art of the Point of View provide plenty to learn from (this constitutes another gap in the recent studies on reasoning and knowledge). On the other one cannot escape the feeling that claims as those of Foucault, though they might be seen as involving interesting questions, many of them have been brought forward without awareness (or perhaps even because of lack of awareness) of the discussions that took place in depth and length in philosophy of logic and knowledge – moreover, as a quick look on nowadays publications bring to the fore, such kind of discussions are nowadays experiencing a creative impulse at a breath-taking pace (particularly so in the context of social sciences). True, analytic philosophers and some philosophers of logic stemming from analytic philosophy quite often ignore history of philosophy or even the history of the science they are purported to study, or more generally philosophical approaches foreign to their own framework – with the result that quite often they produced a rather superficial analysis of the links between knowledge and truth – however, this only points out, that it is time that we start learning each from the other Am I falsifying Foucault? Who knows …. (shrink)

Heather M. Farley and Zachary A. Smith, Sustainability: If It’s Everything, Is It Nothing? xiv + 176 pp., index. New York: Routledge, 2014. $39.95 Leslie Paul Thiele, Sustainability. viii + 234 p., bibl., index. New York: Polity Press, 2013. $22.95 The authors of both of these books offer new definitions of sustainability. They do so in order to battle “faux interpretations” or “hypocritical” or “unsupported endorsements” of sustainability. While I think many people, including I expect many readers of this (...) journal, would agree that sustainability is a rather imprecise concept that sometimes gets misused, I am not convinced the definitions in these books offer a way forward. Partly this is due to the specific ways the authors develop their discussions, and partly it is due to issues connected to their shared methodological approach, viz. the search for a new, univocal, strong definition. After discussing each book, I examine briefly that shared .. (shrink)

Nadezhnostʹ matematicheskogo dokazatelʹstva -- Nadezhnostʹ logicheskikh norm -- Ontologicheskoe obosnovanie matematiki -- Sistemnoe obosnovanie matematiki.