Dans le débat portant sur la définition de la santé mentale, trois grandes approches peuvent être distinguées : l’approche normativiste (Szasz, Sarbin), l’approche naturaliste (Boorse) et l’approche hybride (Wakefield). Cet article vise à nuancer cette classification en clarifiant en quel sens Boorse, le représentant de l’approche naturaliste, peut être rangé dans cette catégorie. La conception de Boorse est beaucoup plus critique à l’égard de l’entreprise psychiatrique que ce qui est habituellement admis et les similarités entre Boorse et l’approche normativiste, quant à elles, sont beaucoup plus importantes.

This paper identifies a puzzle that emerges when recent work on the suspension of judgement is integrated with evidentialist solutions to the wrong kind of reasons problem: it looks like there is no such thing as a reason to suspend judgement. Two possible responses to this puzzle are considered: one recharacterizes the suspension of judgement as a mental action, and the other recharacterizes it as a second-order attitude. It is argued that these responses sidestep the puzzle only with unacceptable compromise to the view of suspension of judgement.

Dans cet article, nous nous efforcerons de comprendre un phénomène mis en lumière par Michel Foucault dans les tomes 2 et 3 de son Histoire de la sexualité : celui de la tendance à la valorisation du «vieil âge» au cours de la période du Haut Empire romain, tendance illustrée notamment par la représentation stoïcienne, et plus particulièrement sénéquienne, de la vieillesse. Cette représentation positive agit chez Sénèque à la fois comme point focal et pôle d’attraction d’une existence placée toute entière sous l’égide des pratiques d’auto-édification de soi, pour celui qui s’efforce de convertir le matériau brut de sa propre vie en œuvre d’art. Au-delà de la lecture foucaldienne du phénomène, nous montrerons que la représentation du vieil âge dans le stoïcisme tardif signale un effort intellectuel et éthique censé activer un autre cours du temps à rebours de la temporalité habituelle de la déliquescence, vécue comme une douloureuse et inexorable dissolution de l’être.

Kant often compares reason to an organized body, which suggests that reason should be understood as a whole from which all possible uses of the faculties of reason are derived. However, Kant does not elaborate his conception of the whole of reason. Nor does the secondary literature. This paper suggests that the wholeness of reason is the apodictic modality of reason, i.e., the necessary standard that determines what can systematically belong to reason, and thus works as the systematic condition for all possible uses of the faculties of reason. This necessary standard is the discipline of pure reason.

One of the main problems that Paul Horwich’s Minimalist theory of truth must face is the generalization problem, which shows that Minimalism is too weak to have the fundamental explanatory role Horwich claims it has. In this paper, I defend Horwich’s response to the generalization problem from an objection raised by Bradley Armour-Garb. I also argue that, given my response to Armour-Garb, Horwich’s proposal to cope with the generalization problem can be simplified.

The basic argument is that the consensus debate has not been very meaningful until now because consensus has not been closely studied as a concept, and deliberation has not been studied precisely in terms of the propensity to reach common agreement. In particular, deliberation—as well as issues for deliberation—has not been categorized into different levels with a view to exposing the varying challenges of reaching common agreement and the kinds of deliberative approaches entailed in each category. In this research, I attempt to provide this categorization in order to clarify the debate.

In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit takes issue with Bernard Williams’ view of the relation between love and identity. Williams thought that, in a world where there were several co-existing replicas of one’s beloved, our current conception of love would begin to crumble. Parfit agrees with Williams in the branching case of replication, but thought that, where replication takes a non-branching form, our ordinary view of love would remain intact. I believe Parfit arrives at this conclusion because he has not fully appreciated the degree to which Williams’ claim is primarily about a view of love rather than one of identity.

Descartes believed the extended world did not terminate in a boundary: but why? After elucidating Descartes’s position in §1, suggesting his conception of the indefinite extension of the universe should be understood as actual but syncategorematic, we turn in §2 to his argument: any postulation of an outermost surface for the world will be self-defeating, because merely contemplating such a boundary will lead us to recognise the existence of further extension beyond it. In §3, we identify the fundamental assumption underlying this argument by comparing Descartes’s and Malebranche’s respective conceptions of the ontological status of modes of extension.

This study challenges present-day dualisms and divisions, which are reflected in socio-political and intercultural dialogue. The aim of this study is to connect the philosophical discourse of the ninth-century House of Wisdom to modern conceptions of Islam by extending the dialogical rhetoric of that discourse. This study revisits the House of Wisdom, first, to invoke an inclusive, intercultural Islamic tradition that negates the circumscription of Islam by radical views. Second, it reintroduces the liberal arts as pedagogical tools that are central to the Islamic wisdom tradition. Third, it explores the notions of Aql and Fitrah and how they prescribe Hikmah.