Mon propos est d'explorer les voies ouvertes à la philosophie contemporaine par ce qu'on pourrait appeler la greffe du problème herméneutique sur la méthode phénoménologique. Je me bornerai à un bref rappel historique, avant d'entreprendre l'investigation proprement dite, laquelle devrait, à son terme au moins, donner un sens acceptable à la notion d'existence,—un sens où s'exprimerait précisément le renouvellement de la phénoménologie par l'herméneutique.

Le débat actuel sur la pensée structurale soulève diverses questions qui intéressent l'interprétation de la philosophie hégélienne, et particulièrement l'interprétation hégélienne de la psychanalyse.

Lucien Sebag estime que l'histoire et la structure représentent deux types d'explications qui se distinguent nettement par leur méthode d'opération tout autant que par les résultats obtenus. On peut conceptualiser, nous dit-il, de deux façons: I) en considérant des conduites individuelles ou collectives dont le compte rendu forme alors un récit. Ce mode de pensée est de type causal.

Is there such a thing as a ‘Logic of Discovery’? Do we even have a consistent idea of such a thing? The approved answer to this seems to be “No.” Thus Popper argues (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) “The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis nor to be susceptible of it.” (p. 31.) Again, “… there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or a logical reconstruction of this process.” (p. 32.) Reichenbach writes that philosophy of science “… cannot be concerned with [reasons for suggesting hypotheses], but only with [reasons for accepting hypotheses].” (Experience and Prediction, p. 382.) Braithwaite elaborates: “The solution of these historical problems involves the individual psychology of thinking and the sociology of thought. None of these questions are our business here.” (Scientific Explanation, pp. 20, 21.)

It is readily conceded that “pain” is a term in a public language. But the concession leads us at once to speak of a criterion or criteria for its proper ascription; and the concept of a criterion of pain is a particularly difficult concept to lay bare. The issue has its classic source in Wittgenstein, where it extends far beyond the boundaries of mental entities. It is hard to say what Wittgenstein's view actually is regarding criteria; and it may be more profitable to canvass certain untenable possibilities, with an eye to the problem, than to settle what can only be a question of a sort of archaeology.

Our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions men have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth marking, in the lifetimes of many generations: these surely are likely to be more numerous, more sound, since they have stood up to the long test of the survival of the fittest, and more subtle, at least in all ordinary and reasonably practical matters, than any that you or I are likely to think up in our arm-chairs ofan afternoon—the most favoured alternative method.

Many of the essays in this volume were written about ten years ago and a fair amount of philosophical water has passed under the bridge since then. Nevertheless the appearance of the book at this delayed date is perhaps a good thing—and not just because it contains some of Carnap's final formulations. Philosophical fashions have shifted away from Carnap's preoccupations and the appearance of the book now may serve to remind the public how very impressive Carnap is, both in the substance of his work and the style with which he pursues the philosophical enterprise.