J'analyse la façon dont Bergson caractérise la logique tel un organe de simplification, de dissimulation, d'ordonnance, de limitation, de systématisation, comme habitude de pensée et comme ontologie foncière. Partout, la logique semble la prérogative de l'entendement et inapte à s'appliquer à la durée, voire à la réalité elle-même. Pour sortir d'un tel dualisme, je montre que Bergson conçoit une logique de l'absurde et de l'imagination, avec le rêve, la folie et le comique, laquelle transmute la logique dans le domaine du pathologique et de l'art littéraire, et offre à l'image une seconde gloire.

In the Traité des systèmes, Condillac analyses a plurality of systematic metaphysical doctrines, specifically, those of Spinoza, Malebranche and Leibniz. Commentators have mainly interpreted this plurality as a way for Condillac to illustrate his criticisms and to raise doubts about the main contemporary systems while using the same criteria for interpretation. However, I note that his analytic tools differ according to which philosopher or philosophical system he analyses. This paper focuses on the criticism of Leibniz’s system, and aims to show that Condillac operated from subsequent reconstructions. In order to raise criticisms against the Leibnizian system, Condillac gave it an architectonic structure that is borrowed mainly from Wolff.

In this article, I wish to discuss in an informal way the motivations and the motifs of the constructivist approach to logic and mathematics and by a natural extension to the general field of science, particularly theoretical physics. Foundational questions in those domains are not ruled by philosophical principles, but a critical philosophy of foundations could be the leitmotiv to the extent that it can be used as a criterion to decide between the theoretical options of scientific practices that are often oblivious to their own doctrinal presuppositions. My objective is to provide the justificatory reasons for a constructivist option or posture in the field of scientific knowledge.