Le point de départ est logique. Et la logique signifie pour Bolzano une théorie et une méthodologie des sciences. Son œuvre maîtresse, la Doctrine de la Science (WL) est ainsi un livre de logique. Lorsqu'il examine les fondements de toute science, c'est-à-dire, lorsqu'il les définit comme un ensemble de lois analytiques et universelles qui, à leur tour, constituent une science en soi, Bolzano fait bien une analyse de type spécifiquement logique, mais dans le même moment, c'est véritablement sa philosophie qu'il réalise, à savoir, la philosophie des fondements objectifs et a priori de la réalité concrète.

Le Traité des prédicables, aussi appelé Isagogè, fut rédigé par Porphyre, vers la fin du IIIe siècle, pour servir d'introduction à la logique et en particulier au Traité des categories d'Aristote. L'auteur y traite des cinq universaux – le genre, l'espèce, la différence, le propre et l'accident – qui sont, si l'on veut, cinq sortes de prédicats généraux qu'un sujet quelconque est susceptible de se voir attribuer. Traduit du grec au latin par Boèce, sans doute au début du VIe siècle, l'ouvrage fut intégré par le Moyen Age au corpus de la logique aristotélicienne et devint, à ce titre, l'un des manuels de base de l'enseignement de la logique. Lorsque, vers 1320, le Franciscain Guillaume d'Occam entreprend d'expliquer «les divers livres de la logique», c'est en premier lieu vers l'Isagogè qu'il se tourne, pour le commenter à sa façon: ce fut là le tout premier ouvrage de logique de celui qui allait devenir l'un des plus grands logiciens de tous les temps. Occam y prend occasion du texte de Porphyre pour réitérer, sous le couvert d'une interprétation parfois audacieuse, sa célèbre critique du réalisme des universaux, qui le conduit à voir dans les cinq prédicables cinq sortes de signes généraux.

Pollock's How to Build a Person is a highly sophisticated defence of the “strong” Artificial Intelligence (AI) program within the framework of a physicalist/functionalist ontology. Its central thesis is as robust as any defender of strong AI could possibly want it to be: to build a person—“a thing that literally thinks, feels, and is conscious” (p. ix)—is to build a physical system that adequately models human rationality; and building such a system is, essentially, a computational task. The epistemological groundwork for the computational task (a task already underway at the University of Arizona under the name “the OSCAR project”) is sketched in the sixth and last chapter of the book—a 64-page-long chapter (“Cognitive Carpentry”) where Pollock presents the main lines of a general theory of rationality which he has been developing over the course of many years. The bulk of the book (chaps. 1 to 4) is devoted to an articulation and defence of what Pollock takes to be the metaphysical underpinnings of his conception of a person as an intelligent machine: token-physicalism, agent materialism, psychophysical supervenience and (a form of) analytical functionalism. This part of the book, which will be the focus of this review, provides an account of “the physical basis for mentality”—an account of what it is that makes a physical structure capable of having mental states relevantly like our own. And since on the proposed account mental capacity “involves a way of codifying information—a system of mental representations” (p. 93), Pollock devotes a chapter (chap. 5) to the semantics of “the language of thought”; though basically a digression, since “semantics plays no role” in the computations involved in rational thought, the chapter is intrinsically very interesting, bearing as it does on current debates on thought ascription and content individuation.

This essay examines and criticizes a set of Kantian objections to Parfit's attempt in Reasons and Persons to connect his theory of personal identity to practical rationality and moral philosophy. Several of Parfit's critics have tried to sever the link he forges between his metaphysical and practical conclusions by invoking the Kantian thought that even if we accept his metaphysical theory of personal identity, we still have good practical grounds for rejecting that theory when deliberating about what to do. The argument between Parfit and his opponents illuminates broader questions about the relationship between our metaphysical beliefs and our practical reasons.

ABSTRACT: Confronted with the “wrong kind of reason problem”, several proponents of the fitting attitude analysis of emotional values have argued in favor of an epistemic approach. In such a view, an emotion fits its object because the emotion is correct. However, I argue that we should reorient our search towards a practical approach because only practical considerations can provide a satisfying explanation of the fittingness of emotional responses. This practical approach is partially revisionist, particularly because it is no longer an analysis of final value and because it is relativistic.

In this article we aim to see how far one can get in defending the identity thesis without challenging the inference from conceivability to possibility. Our defence consists of a dilemma for the modal argument. Either “pain” is rigid or it is not. If it is not rigid, then a key premise of the modal argument can be rejected. If it is rigid, the most plausible semantic account treats “pain” as a natural-kind term that refers to its causal or historical origin, namely, C-fibre stimulation. It follows that any phenomenon that is not C-fibre stimulation is not pain, even if it is qualitatively similar to pain. This means there could be phenomena that feel like pain but are not pain since they are not C-fibre stimulation. These possible phenomena can be used to explain away the apparent conceivability of pain without C-fibre stimulation. On either horn of the dilemma, the identity theorist has ample resources to respond to Kripke's argument, even without wandering into the contentious territory of conceivability and possibility.

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the difficulties involved in interdisciplinary work on the question of the risks associated with the ethical and social acceptability of human enhancement through the development of nanotechnologies. These difficulties emerge in the context of the debate between transhumanism, whose principal defenders have backgrounds in the natural sciences, and humanism, whose principal defenders have backgrounds in the social sciences and the humanities. The aim of the paper is to demonstrate that essentially transhumanists and humanists differ on these questions: the identification of risks and impacts; the assessment that serves as the foundation for the acceptability or unacceptability of these risks and impacts; and faith in the capacity of science to overcome the identified risks to human beings. This paper’s presentation of the divergences that exist in the debate between transhumanism and humanism constitutes a necessary first step towards intervening in that debate in an interdisciplinary manner.

Aristotle is sometimes committed to a pattern of inference that moves from complexity offunctioning to complexity in the entity's metaphysical structure. This article argues that Aristotle rejects this inference in the case of the basic essence, the ultimate differentia that determines the kind to which the entity belongs. Specifically, the functional difference between active and passive reasoning in humans is not matched in the structure of the basic human essence. The basic essence is an immediate unity in the strong sense that it is wholly without structural parts. Complex rational functioning emerges from a metaphysically simple basic essence.

L'Histoire de la pensée occidentale, Heidegger nous le dit, se constitue dans l'unité d'une tradition cohérente et bien définie. Il se peut que sur ce point il ait largement raison. Quoi qu'il en soit, l'œuvre de Heidegger devient elle-même intelligible quand on la considère a la lumière de cette tradition dont elle parle. L'œuvre de Heidegger, on peut alors dire, est la tentative de surmonter la tradition occidentale afin d'instaurer un « nouveau commencement » en retournant, par delà la tradition, à son premier commencement, c'est-à-grave;dire à la pensée des présocratiques, la pensée de Parménide et d'Héraclite en particulier.

I focus on David Gauthier’s intriguing suggestion that actions are not to be evaluated directly but via an evaluation of deliberative procedures. I argue that this suggestion is misleading, since even the most direct evaluation of (intentional) actions involves the evaluation of different ways of deliberating about what to do. Relatedly, a complete picture of what an agent is or might be (intentionally) doing cannot be disentangled from a complete picture of how s/he is or might be deliberating. A more viable contrast concerns whether actions and deliberative procedures are properly evaluated on the whole or, instead, through time.

Recently American scholars have examined the politics of mourning in relation to anti-black racism in the United States. Drawing on the work of queer theorist Maggie Nelson, I will illustrate that a political sense of mourning is also relevant to queer theory and life as a way to bear witness to the violence of the sex-gender system even as we find ways of navigating through it. Lastly, I will defend the claim that a sense of mourning-without-end is political for any marginalized population that suffers from social death and from the disavowal of its suffering through the normalization of violence against them.

Human beings shape the landscapes of their individual, social, and political lives entangled in a web of language. Everything that human beings do, the way they act and think, is shaped by the use of language. Charles Taylor explores these anthropological dimensions of language. This article discusses three different aspects of Taylor’s language-oriented anthropology and confronts his considerations with three distinct questions concerning the relation between language and the lives of human beings. The first question is how Taylor’s constitutive view of language can be related to his criticism of the mediational view of language. Next, the relation between language and concepts is discussed. Finally, emotions are considered.