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.

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?

Ily a un problème de la raison dans la pensée berkeleyenne. Il n'a guère été débattu jusqu'ici.

Deux éléments importants peuvent être invoqués à ce sujet. D'une part, on a cru longtemps que Berkeley était un empiriste. Plusieurs le croient toujours. De nombreux penseurs anglophones soutiennent cette thèse. Or des études assez profondes ont permis de dégager certains aspects structuraux de la pensée de Berkeley.

In a recent article published in this journal, Charles Ripley argues that determinism cannot be true because it is self-defeating. According to Ripley, the determinist “holds determinism to be objectively true and supports his claim by appealing to justifying reasons” but unfortunately “it is a logical consequence of determinism that appeals to justifying reasons and also the very concept of objective truth must be abandoned.” On this view, if determinism is true, there can be neither true nor justified belief, or if there can be such things, we can never know when we have them.

John Locke is famous for, among other things, his attack on innate ideas. At one time it was felt that Locke had attacked a straw man. But John Yolton has shown that many of Locke's contemporaries held strange views about innate ideas. Appealing to innate ideas was apparently a popular method of establishing principles that might otherwise be difficult to defend. Locke's attack is in good measure directed at those who preferred not to provide arguments. However, when one tries to sort out Locke's own arguments and to reconstruct what the more articulate defenders of innate ideas were interpreted to hold, matters become complicated.

Most of the readers of Frege's first Logical Investigation, “The Thought,” have been convinced that, according to Frege, the sense of ‘I’ was a private one, that an I-thought was a private thought. But it is not the case: the famous Fregean distinction between private representations and public thoughts seems an explanation and a generalization of the I-thought problem as much as an anti-Cartesian repetition of the Cartesian Second Meditation. Frege's position concerning indexical thoughts is that they are public thoughts, for the sense of an indexical expression is not related to private representations but to some semiotical aspects of the public context of its utterance.

The doctrine I have in mind is the theory of intensional meanings, the theory according to which unitary descriptive expressions (and some complex ones) have not only extensions, but intensions as well. According to this theory, found in fullest flower in Carnap's Meaning and Necessity, individual expressions, one-place predicates and sentences, have corresponding to them individual concepts, properties and propositions respectively, these latter being the intensions, or, meanings, or, logical contents, of the expressions in question. In the first part of this paper I shall attempt to show that the whole theory of intensional entities represents not just an ontological extravagance, but a fairly clear absurdity. In the second I shall sketch briefly an alternative semantical method and in the third shall attempt to exploit this method for the clarification of a couple of puzzles.

David Gauthier's impressive new book, Morals by Agreement, attempts to resuscitate something like Lockean natural rights on an essentially Hobbesian basis—a project eminently worth doing, if it can be done. Hubin and Lambeth offer some interesting criticisms of his project, and as they also raise some fundamental questions about the character and derivation of rights, it is important to see whether those criticisms hold up. I wish to comment on the one I think to be most crucial.

In the following pages I should like critically to consider certain aspects of John Dewey's thought as set forth for the most part in Experience and Nature. In particular, I should like to discuss the conceptions of being and of philosophieal reflection which underlie his delineation of human agency as located in nature and as essentially characterized by reference to the problematic. I select these ideas both because they concern something fundamental philosophieally and because one can see in Dewey's development of them both the strength and weakness of his philosophieal reflection.

After a presentation of the main onto-theological theses contained in the Liber de causis, the author explains how they were received and interpreted by Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant in their respective commentaries on the short treatise “de primis causis rerum.” Starting from a mistranslation of the word “yliathim,” Thomas “injects” into the De causis his own doctrine of the distinction between being and essence. As for Siger, while he is often regarded as an adversary of Thomas Aquinas, his ideas about the ontological difference between the Prime Cause and the created beings are on the very lines of the Thomasian lecture of the Liber de causis.

J'aborde, ici, une question que personne, à ma connaissance, n'a soulevée sous cette forme en lisant Aristote et, en même temps, le commentaire d'un passage qui, toujours à ma connaissance, n'a reçu l'attention qu'il mérite chez aucun interprète.

Deux remarques préliminaires s'imposent, afin de préciser mon propos.

It is not difficult to sympathize with the strong impulse among philosophers to attempt to explain, justify, and even define moral concepts in factual terms. For without some kind of grounding in the facts of human nature, we may be quite perplexed concerning what relevance moral concepts have to our actual decisions, actions, and social relationships. Put another way, without grounding moral concepts in facts we may be quite puzzled as to the connections between principles and practice, between the ideal and the actual. The history of ethical theory contains several serious efforts by various philosophers to provide factual grounding for moral concepts, efforts which we cannot here take up.

Michel Foucault disait de ses propres travaux qu'ils avaient été des essais aveugles (Archéologie du savoir, 26) qui ne s'éclairaient qu'en cours de route, au fur et à mesure que se précisait la méthode d'analyse historique qui y était appliquée. Us ont été reçus comme oeuvres d'his-torien. Cet accueil laissait cependant l'inconfortable impression que Foucault envahissait le champ de l'histoire en se comportant en his-torien cannibale, en dissolvant de son regard de sauvage les évidences incontestées et en résolvant avec facilité les problèmes sur lesquels les spécialistes se cassaient les dents. Cela lui a valu une réception controversée. Foucault eut, en effet, maille à partir non seulement avec les historiens, mais aussi avec les spécialistes des disciplines auxquelles il s'intéressait. De plus, chaque fois qu'on lui demandait de définir le “point d'où il soulevait la terre épistémique ”, de circonscrire l'espace blanc où il s'installe quand il fait ses enquêtes et fabrique les histoires sur l a folie, sur la maladie et la naissance de la clinique, sur l'apparition des sciences de la vie, du langage et de l'économie, sur la naissance de la prison et sur l'usage des plaisirs des grecs au dix-neuvième siècle, Foucault répondait en véritable anarchiste qu'il n'était ni ceci, ni cela, qu'il était plutôt contre toutes ces étiquettes que l'on essayait de lui coller.

One of the central problems in philosophy since Kant has been that of the possibility of a science of human culture. Dilthey, Croce and Collingwood devoted their energies to this task, in an atmosphere marked by an intense hostility between positivists, who represented the tradition of naturalism and historicists, who represented the tradition of humanism. The positivists, led by Comte, Buckle, Mill and Taine, argued for a science of man modelled on the prevailing methods of the natural sciences. Typical of this approach was the attempt by the English historian T. H. Buckle:

to accomplish for the history of man something equivalent, or at all events analogous, to what has been effected by other inquiries for the different branches of the natural sciences.

L'effort principal de Merleau-Ponty, au début de son cheminement philosophique, consiste à amener l'expérience perceptive à l'expression de son propre sens.

Pourquoi fallait-il commencer par le retour à l'expérience perceptive? Pour deux raisons qui finalement n'en font qu'une, mais dont la première fut plus explicitement reconnue par Merleau-Ponty au moment où il décida de consacrer ses thèses au problème de la perception. Il lui était évident, dès les années 1933–1934, que la perception est une forme d'expérience particulièrement mutilée et faussée par les philosophies d'inspiration criticiste qui l'interprétaient «comme une opération intellectuelle par laquelle des données inextensives (les «sensations») sont mises en relation et expliquées de telle sorte qu'elles finissent par constituer un univers objectif». Il est clair déjà que cette interprétation intellectualiste se base, par un côté, sur la conception empiriste des «sensations», et que la critique de l'intellectualisme devra être tout à la fois une critique de l'empirisme.