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).

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.

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.

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.

Authenticity and diversity have both become catchwords in contemporary North Atlantic societies. What has not, however, been widely explored is the interrelation of these two ideas. To this end, the present article takes up the sometime convergent, sometime divergent writings of Charles Taylor and Martin Heidegger, drawing out their thoughts on authenticity and showing how they can serve as a ground for a new form of cultural diversity. For both, authentic being-in-the-world affords us access to our own deep reservoir of cultural material that is the necessary resource for fruitful engagement with other cultures.

I offer here an interpretation and defense of John Stuart Mill's qualitative hedonism. One of the results of Mill's well-known mental crisis was a concept of utility substantially different from the orthodox Benthamite quantitative hedonism which Mill came to regard as being fraught with difficulties. He saw Bentham's concept as being excessively narrow, and he sought to overcome its limitations by enlarging his own concept of utility. He did this by including the quality of pleasures along with the quantity in the estimation of their worth. At the same time, Mill was highly critical of the intuitionist ethical theories of his day, and propounded utilitarianism as the rational, objective, and scientific alternative. So if Mill is to succeed in his enterprise of countering intuitionism while avoiding the pitfalls of Benthamite utilitarianism, he must retain the objectivity of Benthamism while repudiating its narrowness. Mill's critics have argued that when he opened up his concept of utility to include quality, he modified his theory so radically that he can no longer be called a hedonistic utilitarian, and that he relinquished the consis- tency and objectivity of Benthamite utilitarianism along with its weak- nesses. I argue here that Mill abandons neither hedonism nor utilitarianism, and that the objectivity and consistency of his theory are not undermined.

In Chapter II of his work The Philosophy of Spinoza, Wolfson accepts Descartes' distinction between the geometrical method of philosophizing and the geometrical form of literary exposition. The geometrical method of philosophizing is a method of demonstration and is essentially identical with “valid syllogistic reasoning as practised throughout the history of philosophy.” The geometrical form of literary exposition is one modelled after the literary form of Euclid's Elements. Wolfson proceeds to present two theses which serve as the premises of a conclusion respecting the relation between form and content in Spinoza's Ethics. The first thesis is that as a consequence of Spinoza's “mathematical way of looking at things” the geometrical method “is adopted by Spinoza and used consistently in his discussions of metaphysical matters throughout his chief philosophic work.” The second thesis is to the effect that there is no logical connection between the geometrical method of philosophizing and the geometrical literary form of exposition, i.e., a geometrizing philosopher, e.g., Descartes, need not employ the geometrical literary form. From these theses, serving as premises, Wolfson concludes that “there is no logical connection between the substance of Spinoza's philosophy and the form in which it is written” and, hence, “his choice of the Euclidian geometrical form is to be explained on other grounds.” Wolfson proceeds to present four possible reasons which, either individually or conjointly, may lie behind Spinoza's employment of the geometrical literary form: (1) on pedagogical grounds, (2) in reaction against certain literary forms which had developed since the Renaissance, (3) to avoid arguing against his opponents, and (4) for the sake of novelty.

In this article, I examine whether Spinoza's account of blessedness can be identified with a contemplative ideal in the Aristotelian tradition. I first introduce the main features of the Aristotelian life of contemplation and its difference from the life of practically oriented virtues — a difference that is grounded in Aristotle's distinction between praxis and theoria. In highlighting the commonalities between Spinoza's two kinds of adequate cognition — that is, intuitive knowledge and reason — I show that there is no room for a similar distinction in Spinoza, which will enable us to identify intuitive knowledge and its attendant blessedness exclusively with the theoretical activity.

ABSTRACT: In this paper I argue that John McDowell’s objections to Philipa Foot’s ethical naturalism do not justify a rejection of her views, but only clarifies what we can defensibly take from her position. Moreover, his comments suggest a way in which Foot’s naturalism may help to secure the realism McDowell defends in his own work. In seeing how Foot’s naturalism can reassure us of the reality of ethical reasons, we can understand how McDowell needs something like Foot’s naturalism in order to redeem his own realist aspirations for ethics.

Traditionally, the problem of defeating scepticism about the rationality of morality is that of showing that every morally required act is rationally required. Little or no direct attention has been paid to whether we must also show that it is rational for the agent to have and act from the morally appropriate motive, whatever that may be. This is not to say that philosophers have entirely ignored the issue of motives; a fair number—Kant and Aristotle come to mind—are concerned in part with the kind of motive agents ought to have and from which they ought to act. But the link to scepticism has not been clearly made. At issue is whether scepticism is fully defeated if we show that every morally required act is rationally required, even if we leave it possible that a fully rational person who performs the act just “goes through the motions” in doing so.

Lawrence H. Davis (1977, 1985) has formulated and defended a version of the argument from symmetry for the non-iterated Prisoner's Dilemma that attempts to show that under certain conditions the rationally prescribed course of action in this game is co-operation. The argument runs as follows below. (I have prefixed a ‘D’ to each of Davis's numbers here, and in subsequent references, in order to avoid confusion as I refer to his points.)

In the Symposium Socrates shows how Diotima initiated him into the mysteries of love in two stages. Yet, at first sight, the teachings offered at the two stages seem divergent and discontinuous. In this article I argue that we can understand the continuity between them if we regard Diotima's notions of spiritual pregnancy and birth-giving as metaphors suggesting that the metaphysical horizon looming in the background of her teaching is that of Plato's theory of recollection.

Twardowski's On the Content and Object of Presentations (1894) is one of the most influential works that Austrian philosophy has left to posterity. The manuscript Logik (1894–1895) supplements that work and allows us to reconstruct Twardowski's theory of judgement. These texts raise several issues, in particular whether Twardowski accepts propositions and states of affairs in his theory of judgement and whether his theory is acceptable. This article presents Twardowski's theory, shows that he accepts states of affairs, that he has a notion of proposition, and that his theory is interesting and sophisticated.

In her recent paper, “Belief, Values and the Will,” Trudy Govier raises several interesting and challenging points. Most interesting is her conclusion that it is at least logically possible for a person to believe something “simply in virtue of having taken that decision,” i.e., by fiat. In otherwords, it is possible to believe something by an act of will.