C'est avec la grammaire générative (cf. Chomsky, 1966) que la discussion sur les rapports entre l'analyse linguistique et le rationalisme est devenue particulièrement abondante, en même temps qu'elle devenait une affaire idéologique concernant un large public. En présentant sa Cartesian Linguistics comme un chapitre dans l'histoire du rationalisme, Chomsky a prétendu avec éclat que: (i) il y aurait une tradition rationaliste ayant des idées précises sur le langage, liée aux thèses cartésiennes et à la grammaire générale de Port-Royal; (ii) la grammaire générative reprendrait cette tradition et lui apporterait une confirmation définitive. De manière générale, la validité historique des thèses de Chomsky a été contestée avec succès par les historiens: qu'il s'agisse de l'idée d'une linguistique cartésienne (Salmon, 1969; Aarsleff, 1982), de la prédominance du rationalisme aux dix-septième et dix-huitième siècles (Joly, 1977 et 1985), de l'identité de démarche entre Port-Royal et la grammaire générative (Pariente, 1975, 1985), voire même de la définition du rationalisme classique (Cooper, 1972 et la réponse dans Chomsky et Katz, 1975).

ABSTRACT : On many accounts, Rule IV appears to be composed of two distinct texts, and this should be justified by the difference between the mathesis universalis and the Cartesian method. This article runs counter to the usual interpretation by showing that the discussion on mathematics in Rule IV has enabled the introduction of method constraining scientific research to operate on grounds of order and measurement. The mathesis universalis is not so much a science of higher mathematics as a universal method by the means of which one can find truth.

Even though Émile Meyerson is rightly seen as an opponent of Comte's positivism, analyzing passages of his works with the help of his correspondence shows the ambiguity of his relation to Comte's philosophy. Drawing on Meyerson's remarks about his relation to Comte's philosophy, this article offers a new perspective on the notion of influence, which is too often perceived as passive or unassimilated reception of a stream of ideas. I argue that Meyerson treated Comte's ideas as a sort of raw matter he transformed into a finished product.

In the present paper I propose to examine St. Thomas Aquinas' third way of proving the existence of a God (henceforth TW), keeping in view and applying the proposals I have made elsewhere concerning the number andorder of the “Five Ways” and the role therein played by TW. I maintain that the first three ways take as starting-points the three types of act or actuality presented by Aristotle in Metaphysics 9.6: that the first way starts from imperfect actuality (motion), the second from secondary actuality (action or efficiency), and TW from primary actuality (being, or substantial actuality). The idea, of course, of a way of proving the existence of a God is that one proceeds from an effect, itself better known to us than its cause, to a knowledge of the existence of the cause. The problem is to develop a vision of the effect as an effect, i.e., a vision such as to reveal dependence on another, and so lead us in knowledge to the existence of that other.

Is it somehow a requirement of justice that we meet people's needs? So, for instance, do people in need of certain goods necessary to sustain life deserve help from those not (similarly) in need because this is a requirement of justice?

As van Fraassen pointed out in his opening remarks, Henry Kyburg's lottery paradox has long been known to raise difficulties in attempts to represent full belief as a probability greater than or equal to p, where p is some number less than 1. Recently, Patrick Maher has pointed out that to identify full belief with probability equal to 1 presents similar difficulties. In his paper, van Fraassen investigates ways of representing full belief by personal probability which avoid the difficulties raised by Maher's measure-theoretic version of the lottery paradox. Van Fraassen's more subtle representation dissolves the simple identification of full belief with maximal personal probability. His investigation exploits the richer resources for representing opinion provided by taking conditional, rather than unconditional, personal probability as fundamental. It has interesting implications for equivalent alternative approaches based on non-Archimedean probability, as well as for equivalent approaches in which assumption contexts representing full belief relative to suppositions are taken as fundamental.

The mainstream of the philosophy of science in the second quarter of this century—the so-called “logical empiricist” or “logical positivist” movement—assumed that theoretical language in science is parasitic upon observation language and can be eliminated from scientific discourse by disinterpretation and formalization, or by explicit definition in or reduction to observational language. But several fashionable views now place the onus on believers in an observation language to show how such a language is meaningful in the absence of a theory.

In the present paper, I propose to show why logical positivism failed to do justice to the basic empirical and logical problems of philosophy of science. I also wish to consider why the drastic reaction, typified by Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, fails t o provide a suitable alternative, and to suggest that the radical approaches of recent writers such as Mary Hesse and Dudley Shapere hold out a genuine promise of dealing effectively with the central tasks that face the philosopher of science today.

This paper attempts to take a new look at the famous Lewis Carroll paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise. It examines in particular the connections between Lewis Carroll's regress argument for logical inferences and a similar regress for practical inferences. The Tortoise's point of view is espoused: no norm of reasoning or of conduct can in itself “make the mind move,” only the brute force of belief can. This conclusion is a Humean one. But it does not imply that we renounce altogether the normative force of such principles of reasoning as modus ponens. Connexions with the Wittgensteinian rule-following problem are indicated.

In Plato’s Laches, Socrates ascribes knowledge of courage to his eponymous interlocutor and makes an attempt to reconstruct it in speech. His attribution of knowledge to Laches controls his discursive behaviour in the dialogue, requiring him to withhold judgements of error, construe apparent error as a failure of speech rather than knowledge, and search for the deeper truth underlying the overt content of Laches’ utterances. Socrates’ method in this elenchus can be described as a kind of ‘epistemic exegesis,’ which aims to draw out and give discursive shape to knowledge of virtue that it assumes that the interlocutor already possesses.

It maybe thought that it is no longer important to understand what Rousseau meant by the General Will. It might be argued that since the term is not used by contemporary political writers it can be assumed that the concept has nothing 10 contribute to the understanding of present-day problems. Or, it might be urged that the meaning given to the General Will by such a disciple as Bosanquet is richer and more useful than what Rousseau himself meant by it. Even if both of these claims can be justified, there is still a need, as long as Rousseau remains prominent in political thought, to try to understand what he meant by his chief concept. Thus, my aim in almost all of this paper is to expound and interpret.

On aurait du mal à trouver de la métaphysique dans la science moderne. Les théories scientifiques ne nous parlent pas de l'objet, du changement, du hasard, de la vie ou de la pensée en général. Et les données expérimentales ne renferment pas d'idées métaphysiques non plus. À première vue, donc, la science moderne est étrangère, voire hostile, à la métaphysique.

Cette conclusion repose sur la supposition tacite que la science est identique à la somme des produits de la recherche scientifique. Or, cette supposition est fausse: la recherche est une activité qui ne sauiait être confondue avec ses produits. Et l'échafaudage heuristique servant à la recherche, constitué d'idées de toutes sortes, pourrait contenir des composantes métaphysiques.

On n'a jamais bien jugé l'empirisme, supposant d'emblée qu'il était l'opposé du rationalisme. En fait, qu'il s'agisse de l'empirisme ou du rationalisme, on déploie dans chaque cas une chaîne de séquences dont il s'agit de rendre les termes solidaires:

(a) rationalisme ═ a priorisme ═ principes généraux abstraits (i.e. pensée logique) ═ raison universelle ═ idéalisme ═ la vérité est raison pure

(b) empirisme ═ a postériorisme ═ pas de principes généraux abstraits ═ pas d'ordre rationnel (on renvoie à Bacon et à la chasse de Pan) ═ positivisme ═ réalisme (naïf).

In this paper, I focus on the notion of creation in Bergson’s works, and I characterize it as a virtuous circle. The pattern of the virtuous circle displays a process that retrospectively finds its identity in itself through present events. I show that this pattern is at work in the free act, in the actions of living organisms, and mostly in the evolutionary process itself. I then move on to ask weather it is possible to broaden the perspective beyond the traditional pattern associated with Bergson’s spiritualism. I show that, contrary to what Bergson envisioned, this virtuous circle can be broadened as to include even the material world.

Nous publions sous ce titre la traduction française de l'essai philosophique de Kurt Gödel intitulé: «Is Mathematics Syntax of Language?» Inédit jusqu'à présent, l'original paraîtra dans le 3e volume des Collected Works de Gödel, dont la publication est imminente. Nous savons par Hao Wang que, le 15 mai 1953, Paul Arthur Schilpp avait invité Gödel à apporter sa contribution au volume consacré à Carnap dans The Library of Living Philosophers. Le manuscrit de Gödel «Carnap and the Ontology of Mathematics», devait être remis au plus tard le 2 avril 1954. Dés le 2 juillet 1953, Gödel donnait son accord à Schilpp pour la rédaction d'un article intitulé «Some Observations on the Nominalistic View of the Nature of Mathematics.» Cependant, le volume consacré à Carnap paraîtra en 1963 sans qu'y figure la contribution de Gödel. En effet — toujours selon Wang — Gödel avait informé Schilpp, le 2 février 1959, qu'il renonçait à l'envoi de l'article, dont il avait composé, surtout en 1954–1955, plusieur s versions sous le titre «Is Mathematics Syntax of Language?» Pour expliquer cet abandon, Wang avance les raisons suivantes: En premier lieu, Gödel était bien convaincu d'avoir réfuté la thése syntaxique, mais il n'était pas satisfait de son argumentation en faveur du platonisme. Deuxiémement, les critiques de Gödel s'adressent aux théses soutenues par Carnap en 1934 plutôt qu'à celles que ce dernier défendra vingt ans aprés, et qui paraissent moins hostiles au platonisme de son interlocuteur. II pouvait paraître douteux, en troisieme lieu, que Carnap ait eu le temps de rédiger, en 1959, la réponse qu'il aurait du faire, conformément aux régies de la collection, à Gödel. Or, en 1943 déjà, Gödel avait voulu retirer sa contribution au volume consacré à Russell dans la même serie, parce que ce dernier n'avait pu répondre à l'article de Gödel dont la rédaction lui avait été communiquée trop tardivement.

Marjorie Hope Nicolson's The Conway Letters is, simultaneously, a work of so many different kinds, and offers itself to so many distinct cultural and intellectual constituencies, that it is difficult to include them all, and impossible to assign them priority or precedence. It is first of all, though, a delightful and important book. It has been out of print for a great many years, the original edition of 1930 long ago sold out. So its reappearance in a new edition, with extensive revisions and additions by Sarah Hutton, is very much to be applauded and welcomed.

Imagine asking a typical, well informed, contemporary philosopher whether or not she considered biology to be a science. Our informant, being a philosopher, would not necessarily respond with the straightforward “of course” that would be expected from anyone else. She might first reason through a complicated and heavily qualified definition of science, or she might distinguish certain parts of biology (molecular genetics, perhaps) that she held to be more clearly scientific than others (sociobiology, perhaps). If she were partial to a certain sort of critical stance, she might question the political basis for wishing to dignify certain parts of our inquisitive practice with the honorific ‘scientific’ in the first place. But there is at least one thing that she would almost certainly not do. She would not simultaneously embrace a version of the conventional philosophical view of science and deny that biology is a science. This is despite the fact that, as she will acknowledge, biology exploits a range of methodologies and explanatory strategies that have not yet admitted of systematic, consensual philosophical explication.