Sartre begins the first chapter of his monograph, Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions with a critique of William James' “peripheric theory” of the emotions. According to Sartre, James claims that emotions are “nothing but the consciousness of physiological manifestations” (p. 33), the reflection in consciousness of changes occuring in the body. Sartre attacks this theory as being unable to account for the meaningful and purposive nature of emotions. Sartre's own view is that emotions are the substitution of a magical or symbolic way of relating to the world for problem-solving behaviour, and occur when problem-solving behaviour is perceived to be “impossible” for one reason or another.

Patricia Kitcher has argued that there is an anomaly in our thought about ourselves. Her thesis turns on a claim concerning our attitude toward an imagined case, and on an argument that the attitude is irrational.

The example, E, is as follows. Suppose you are told today that tomorrow you will lose those capacities, whatever they may be, in virtue of which you are a person. After this happens, the body which is now yours will be tortured. Pain will be felt.

David Miller est un intellectuel de gauche britannique bien connu pour ses nombreuses et importantes publications en philosophie politique et son dernier ouvrage, Principles of Social Justice, était attendu avec impatience. Dans cet ouvrage, Miller propose des principes généraux de justice sociale devant guider l'organisation des principales institutions de la société ainsi qu'une justification élaborée de ces principes. C'est ce qu'on peut appeler, à l'instar de Miller, une théorie de la justice sociale. La théorie est ambitieuse, traite des principaux aspects de l'organization de la société (la répartition des richesses, l'emploi, l'éducation, la santé) et contient des remarques intéressantes sur les difficultés du maintien des services sociaux et des paiements de transfert dans le contexte de la mondialisation et du multiculturalisme. L'auteur prétend que ce qui caractérise sa théorie est un plus grand souci du contexte d'application de la justice ainsi qu'une considération plus systématique des opinions des gens ordinaires (préface, p. x).

The disagreement between André Gombay and Storrs McCall can be summed up in terms of the distinction between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference. This distinction is actually used by Professor McCall in his paper. Thus, it would seem that both speakers agree that a person acting under duress cannot exercise liberty of spontaneity—he (or she) does not act according to his (or her) wishes. However, Gombay also claims, at least according to McCall, that liberty of indifference is also lacking in cases of duress—persons under duress have no other choice than to obey when threatened. McCall takes an opposite view. He thinks that the only genuine cases of compulsion belong either to various types of physical coercion or to a certain number of pathologies of the mind.

ABSTRACT : Alfred Fouillée’s doctrine of ideas-forces is historically and intellectually analogous to William James’s philosophy of the will. Nevertheless, Fouillée’s criticisms of pragmatism appear to be close to a Peircean view which emphasizes the resistance of the real and the clarification of conceptions. That Peirce overtly acknowledged Fouillée’s influence only on his own tychism is quite misleading.

In this article, I try to shed light on the (Fregean) project of a logic of arithmetic—as discussed by Natorp and Rickert—by outlining three main questions. Is the number a logical object? Is arithmetic reducible to logic? Is it possible to deduce the arithmetical operations from purely logical laws? I argue that rigorous distinction between these three questions makes it possible to elucidate many problems affecting the program of a logic of arithmetic. The Neo-Kantian contribution to this program is at the same time considered in a new light.

Cet article a pour objet d'étudier diverses règies d'inférence dites “règies de Gentzen”. Je me limiterai dans cette première partie aux inférences dont la validité tient au rôle qu'y jouent les cinq connecteurs « ⊃ », « ∼ » , « & », « ∨ », et « ≡ ». Celles dont la validité tient au rôle qu'y jouent ces cinq connecteurs, les deux quantificateurs « ∀ » et « ∃ », et le signe d'égalité ou d'identité « = », feront l'objet d'une autre étude. Quelques-uns des résultats que je soumettrai dans ces deux études sont le fruit de mes propres recherches; d'autres sont dus à divers collègues avec qui j'ai eu le plaisir de collaborer ces dernières années.

Most philosophers, I think, would hold that there is a great deal more to be noticed about moral judgments than any special connections which they may be supposed to have with displays of emotion. I strongly hold this myself. Many philosophers, however—and I am one of them—are inclined to believe that special connections of this kind do exist. Agitation counts in ethics. But just what does it count for? What is to be made of the central fact that the same forms of words to which both ethical and “emotive” meaning is ascribed may sometimes be used when emotions are being manifested and sometimes when they are not? Stevenson acknowledges, “There are emotively active and emotively inactive uses of literally all the ethical terms”. But how, in view of this fact, can it be illuminating to say that some forms of words—taken to be the characteristic forms of words for expressing moral judgments—have anything like a distinctive function of expressing (or “venting”) emotions?

In his thoughtful paper, “The Liberal Tradition, Kant, and the Pox”, Rolf George joins the venerable argument about whether Kant should be accounted friend or foe of liberals. But this is not just a rehearsal of the debate over the compatibility of the Old Jacobin's defense of civil liberties and government by consent with his notoriously unpleasant doctrines of the absolute duty to obey the law or his ruthlessly retributive view of punishment. George advances the debate by suggesting that elements of Kant's moral theory are deeply incompatible with liberalism. And this is particularly striking when liberals like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin and Robert Nozick are quick to invoke Kant's name in defense of their own views. The attraction of Kant for these modern (and American) liberals is clear, for they hold individualistic moral theories and they reject utilitarianism. But, if George is right, there are aspects of Kant's thought which make him an unsuitable mascot.