Philosophy, and especially metaphysics, today enjoys less respect and influence than at any time in the last 800 years, since Aristotle was rediscovered by the Medievals. Philosophy once was the realm of the controversies and upheavals that determine man's perspectives and attitudes; today that realm is the sciences and arts. Once “the queen of the sciences”, philosophy is rapidly becoming their handmaiden or stepchild. The very relevance of philosophy for life is seriously being questioned in many quarters. Today's “empiricists” are decreasingly concerned with philosophy in the traditional sense, and increasingly concerned rather with the methodology of certain disciplines, such as science, logic, grammar, etc.—if not with the outright destruction of philosophy itself. And even the speculative metaphysicians of today seem to find literature more conducive than philosophy to the quest and expression of their ideas. Sartre expresses himself philosophically in plays and novels and Heidegger's works become increasingly poetic; he has expressly called philosophy the “bad danger” to thought, as opposed to poetry, the “good danger”.

In this paper, I wish to explore a certain tension I find in Plato's Republic between two competing conceptions of human nature. One of these is set forth explicitly; the emphasis Plato gives it strongly indicates that he conceives of it as his “official” theory. The other is merely hinted at, or presupposed, by certain things he says about pre-social man. Since this is so, it may be more prudent for me to speak at this stage about two different accounts of human nature which occur in the Republic, leaving it open and thus as subject to proof whether the accounts do embody disparate conceptions. Accordingly, I will set myself two tasks here: first, to establish that Plato does espouse two such conceptions of human nature, and then to show how they differ from one another; and second, to explore some of the implications of this analysis for the political theory he constructs in the Republic. I will attempt to show in the light of these efforts that the plausibility of his political theory depends upon a subtle vacillation between these conceptions.

The first person singular is the nucleus on which all the other referential devices depend… The final point of reference, by which a statement is attached to reality, is the speaker's reference to himself, as one thing and one person among others… The world is always open to conceptual re-arrangement. But the re-arrangement is only the addition of new tiers of discrimination to a foundation that remains constant: the recognition of persisting things singled out by active observers who have a statable standpoint as objects among other objects. It is in judgments of perception that the notion of identity, and principles of individuation, are given their earliest sense. That beings, who are capable of action and observation, are born into, and move among, a world of persisting objects is a logical necessity and not a contingent matter of fact. (Stuart Hampshire, Thought and Action, London: Chatto and Windus, 1959, pp. 40, 87).

Dans l'Essay concerning Human Understanding, Locke entreprend de déterminer la nature et les limites du savoir pour l'homme. Il accepte, semble-t-il, l'idée d'une certitude a priori, c'est-à-dire, d'après l'usage du XVIIe siècle, d'une certitude liée à la « lumière naturelle », à l'activité de l'entendement, lorsqu'il perçoit la connexion nécessaire des idées. Les critiques contenues dans le Premier Livre de I'Essay indiquent clairement qu'il ne saurait être question d'interpréter le savoir humain comme s'il se fondait sur des principes évidents, « inscrits » dans l'âme de telle sorte qu'elle pût en prendre conscience avant toute expérience effective; mais, par contre, il n'y a jamais, pour Locke, de conflit entre les principes rationnels dans leur nécessité logique et leur émergence progressive dans la conscience à partir de données de l'expérience: les maximes logiques, comme le principe d'identité, ne sont pas innées, mais elles sont certaines, d'une certitude nécessaire.

When Feuerbach published his The Essence of Christianity in 1841 it excited a “clamour” in the educated circles of the day, a “clamour” which apparently did not surprise Feuerbach nor cause him to back down from the bold thesis of the work. Rather it caused him “once more, in all calmness” to subject his work “to the severest scrutiny, both historical and philosophical” and in the full conviction of the truth of his thesis to publish a second edition two years later.

Bien que la philosophie berkeleyenne de la matière ait apparu aux contemporains, et d'abord à Berkeley lui-même, comme une antithèse de la doctrine cartésienne, il est devenu banal, en histoire de la philosophic, d'établir entre l'une et l'autre une filiation presque directe. C'est même en partie pour cette raison, sans aucun doute, que Descartes est généralement regardé, malgré le réalisme délibéré qu'il professe, comme le père de l'idéalisme classique et moderne, lequel adopte en effet pour principe, on le sait, non plus la transcendance des Idées, mais « l'idéalité du rapport extérieur ». Nous ne voudrions pas méconnaître qu'une opinion de ce genre est apparemment bien fondée. Outre qu'elle a pour elle le poids des auteurs qui l'ont accréditée, et ils sont aussi considérables que divers, puisqu'un Brunschvicg et un Maritain lui ont accordé leur suffrage, des faits non moins incontestables la suggèrent spontanément. Car il suffit de rapprocher les ouvrages de Descartes et de Berkeley pour apercevoir, sur des points décisifs, leur évidente connexion.

Les critères qui ont cours dans les milieux de l'enseignement et de la recherche scientifique pour mesurer et jauger la « valeur » de la philosophie ne sont peut-être pas essentiellement différents ni tellement plus critiques que ceux, inaperçus mais non moins efficaces, que secrète notre vie journalière et anonyme, modelée et transie par un monde avili, intolérant, techniciste, axé principalement sur la consommation et l'accumulation du profit. La société postindustrielle dans laquelle nous vivons, soutenue toute entière par une volonté de puissance, c'est-à-dire par une recherche incontrôlée de rendement maximum, d'efficacité cumulative, peut difncilement accueillir, à l'intérieur de ses coordonnées habituelles basées sur des évidences palpables, une pensée qui, par essence, s'éloigne et de l'immédiateté et de l'efficacité et de l'évidence elle-même.

Il nous paraît assez significatif qu'au long de l'histoire de la philosophic, la quête du sens de l'existence se soit développée, quoique sous des modes différents, dans une étroite relation avec le dévoilement de la mort. Dans son effort de se donner la réalité, l'activité rationnelle effectue une séparation avec cette réalité, reproduisant ainsi la coupure originelle des êtres vécue dans l'expérience du changement; cependant, nous croyons déceler dans cette activité même une action sur cette séparation, une conquête, une maîtrise, qu'elle prenne la forme du défi ou de l'assomption. L'exercice de mort caractéristique de la philosophic serait-il done le prélude d'une création?

La place généreusement accordée par Sartre dans la Critique de la Raison Dialectique à l'analyse de phénomènes économiques invitait d'elle-même à une réflexion neuve sur les relations de la pensée économique et de la philosophie existentielle. A cause toutefois de l'intérêt constant suscité par des polémiques vieilles déjà d'un quart de siècle sur les rapports de l'existentialisme et du marxisme, il semble que cette question ait été laissée dans l'ombre: on s'est beaucoup plus souvent inquiété, — Raymond Aron n'étant ici qu'un témoin particulièrement éloquent — de savoir si le marxisme de Sartre est ou n'est pas un « marxisme imaginaire » que de savoir quelle est au juste la portée philosophique de ces longues discussions de l'activité économique qui font l'objet d'une part importante de la Critique. Pourtant à réfléchir sur une telle question, on peut aisément reconnaître dans la problématique même de la science économique un terrain d'élection pour le développement de la philosophie sartrienne, —osons dire plus, on peut y découvrir une voie permettant de retrouver et d'éclairer quelques-unes de ses articulations les plus décisives.

Paradigm-Case arguments were set out to meet epistemological scepticism and to refute in a short decisive way, without even the need to examine them in detail, paradoxical metaphysical claims. Stroud, J. J. Thomson and Rorty think they utterly fail to do so.1 I shall argue that supplemented by a perfectly innocuous verificationist argument, a distinct argument of Moore's, given a limited sphere of application and taken as also involving the argument from a non-vacuous contrast, the argument from the paradigm-case presents a decisive argument against such forms of scepticism. If it is not sound, transcendental arguments will also be undermined but if it is sound, they are unnecessary.

In his recent article, “A Philosophy of Wonder”, Howard Parsons launched an investigation into the nature of wonder, a subject that is of the highest importance, not only for making philosophy relevant to the present condition of man and society, but also for expanding and integrating philosophic disciplines. With care and sensitivity, he marked out the main sources of evidence for understanding wonder as a phenomenon, distinguished some of its leading features, and most important, showed that analysis of this essential structure of consciousness might illuminate a host of other phenomena in psychology, epistemology, aesthetics, ethics, politics, and religion.

“What is phenomenology? It may seem strange that this question has still to be asked half a century after the first works of Husserl. The fact remains that it has by no means been answered.” Merleau-Ponty made this observation in 1945. It is still substantially correct, except that it is now three-quarters of a century after the first works of Husserl.

On most views of the nature of moral judgments, it is possible for a person to be mistaken in the belief that it is right to act in a certain way. When someone believes that it is right to do something, does that thing on the basis of such a belief, and yet in so doing commits deeds which are wrong by moral standards other than his own, we do not quite know whether to praise him for his conscientiousness while condemning his actions. He acts according to his conscience and does what he believes to be right, but his beliefs are erroneous and his actions wrong. Shall we praise the man for his conscientiousness while condemning his actions ?

De la spontanéité révolutionnaire, je dénnerai une prèmiere définition, extrêmement sommaire, qu'il faudra affiner. La spontanédité, c'est un mouvement et un événement qui ont des causes, qui ont des conditions, qui ont des raisons et des motivations, mais qui tendent a les deborder et à les dépasser. La spontan´ité constitue une expérience politique.

Moore often is credited with implying the view that the meaning of evaluative or normative concepts is distinct from the criteria invoked to justify evaluative or normative judgments. A second view, to the effect that definitions cannot be evaluative or moral assertions, is attributed to him less frequently. In this paper, I shall argue that, while these views seem to be implied by much of what Moore says in Principia Ethica, Moore was not himself uniformly successful in observing their prohibitions. In particular, I shall argue that his account of ‘Right’ in Principia involved the very confusions which he seems to imply others should avoid. Against this backdrop, however, his subsequent treatment of ‘right’ in his Ethics, as well as his retrospective remarks about the relationships between ‘good’ and ‘right’ in his “A Reply to My Critics”, can be interpreted as both predictable and necessary. If the argument developed in this paper is sound, the explanation of Moore's abandonment of his earlier account of ‘right’ is not, as he says, merely because that account is “paradoxical”, but lies, instead, in a latent inconsistency between his Principia account of this predicate and other principles implied in that work.

Sous une limpidité apparente, le livre de J. Monod cache une profonde ambiguïté, à tel point que cet ouvrage peut donner lieu à des interprétations trés divergentes, parfois même contradictoires.

Determinism presents us with a sceptical problem by casting doubt upon the basic common sense conviction that we are free agents who are, on occasion, confronted with genuine alternatives. A genuine alternative is present in a situation in which an agent must choose between two actions, each of which he can both select and perform. Which of the actions he chooses and does is determined at the moment of his decision, but not prior to it. The non-determinist hangs steadfastly onto this conviction and seeks to bolster it by common sense arguments; yet the arguments of the determinist are so clear, simple and “scientific” that the would-be libertarian often finds himself at a loss. In this paper I shall argue that the seemingly irrefutable arguments of the determinist rest upon an implicit assumption which is inconsistent with determinism. This assumption is a quasi-Kantian one: that a human being is a rational agent who, on occasion, acts on the basis of reasons which justify but do not causally explain his action. The relation between the reason and the action which it justifies is logical rather than causal. Although the determinist explicitly rejects this assumption, he also holds determinism to be objectively true and supports his claim by appealing to justifying reasons. I shall argue that it is a logical consequence of determinism that appeals to justifying reasons and also the very concept of objective truth must be abandoned.

DE mon exil, source vive en effet de philosphie, je prends connaissance de la livraison de mars de Dialogue (vol. XI, n° 1, 1972). D'où cette note qui ne se veut pas plus qu'une reaction ad hominem et ad litteram contre toute tentative de delier mesure et philosophic dans l'expression « mesure de la philosophic », ou pour toute position voulant renier ou renverser démesure et philosophic dans l'article « La Démesure de la philosophic » (p. 23–34).