There are at least two importantly different ways for a philosophical theory to account for something. Explanations account for why something exists or occurs or is the way it is. Explications account for what it is for something to exist or occur or be a certain way. Both explanation and explication do important philosophical work. I show what it takes to defend genuine philosophical explanations. The sort of explanation I am interested in is incompatible not only with eliminating the target (...) phenomenon, but also with reducing it to the explanans. I show how explication comes into play in determining whether some phenomenon can plausibly be given either a reductive or eliminative treatment. Explication helps us distinguish certain kinds of reductive and eliminative views, gives us a graded account of the philosophical cost of eliminations, and furnishes us with a certain limit upon what resources an eliminative view can plausibly claim. This last point exposes a defect in a family of eliminative views that seek to retain truths about what they eliminate. Before concluding, I offer a brief defense of common sense as a legitimate, though defeasible, source of philosophical evidence. (shrink)

According to the subset account of realization, a property, F, is realized by another property, G, whenever F is individuated by a non-empty proper subset of the causal powers by which G is individuated (and F is not a conjunctive property of which G is a conjunct). This account is especially attractive because it seems both to explain the way in which realized properties are nothing over and above their realizers, and to provide for the causal efficacy of realized properties. (...) It therefore seems to provide a way around the causal exclusion problem. There is reason to doubt, however, that the subset account can achieve both tasks. The problem arises when we look closely at the relation between properties and causal powers, specifically, at the idea that properties confer powers on the things that have them. If realizers are to be ontically prior to what they realize, then we must regard the conferral of powers by properties as a substantive relation of determination. This relation of conferral is at the heart of a kind of exclusion problem, analogous to the familiar causal exclusion problem. I argue that the subset account cannot adequately answer this new exclusion problem, and is for that reason ill-suited to be the backbone of a non-reductive physicalism. (shrink)

Après avoir subi au début des années cinquante une sorte de procès public en raison de ses idées et traversé en conséquence une crise existentielle d'une rare intensité, Albert Camus, se retrouvant face à lui-même, a estimé que le problème majeur auquel l'humanité est désormais confrontée consiste dans ce besoin impérieux qu'ont les hommes de s'accuser mutuellement et de faire ainsi de leur existence un procès permanent, transformant tour à tour les mêmes personnes en prévenus, en procureurs, en avocats, en (...) témoins et en juges. Le problème, qui n'est autre que celui du jugement que les hommes portent les uns sur les autres, tient donc au fait que ceux-ci, alors même qu'ils ne croient plus au jugement de Dieu, continuent de croire qu'être juste c'est être juge. Pour expliquer que la dissociation de la justice et du jugement devrait révéler un horizon de sens nouveau à une humanité privée de boussole, Paul Audi s'applique d'abord dans cet essai à mesurer la profondeur de la crise qui a conduit l'auteur de La Chute à coucher sur le papier, quelques mois seulement avant sa mort, ce terrible ultimatum : "Je me fais la guerre et je me détruirai ou je renaîtrai, c'est tout". (shrink)

L'étranger divin qu'incarne Dionysos, l'étranger à soi que devient Rousseau dans le regard des autres, l'étranger barbare que décrit Lucien de Samosate, l'étranger du dehors qui n'habite pas la maison commune, l'étranger mis à distance par la constitution des morales, l'étranger en exil que célèbre l'Islam... Qu'ont-ils donc en commun? Et comment se distinguent-ils? L'objet de ce travail à plusieurs voix n'est pas de construire une théorie. L'exercice consiste au contraire à multiplier les approches, à laisser jouer librement, de la (...) Grèce antique aux Temps modernes en passant par le monde musulman, une diversité de figures et de notions, pour mettre à l'épreuve leur impact sur l'idée même d'altérité. (shrink)

Truthmaker theorists often express their core commitment by saying that truth is grounded in being, and grounding theorists often take truthmaking to be a paradigm case of grounding. But I will argue that truthmaking is not a case of grounding. What is crucial for understanding truthmaking is not grounding but rather meaning (in a broad sense including reference). Truth is still constrained by how things are, so even if (so‐called) truthmakers don't play a role in grounding truths, the methodological program (...) of truthmaker theory survives. Here I lay out my understanding of truth and truthmaking, and distinguish two conceptions of grounding. I argue that truthmaking is not plausibly seen as a case of grounding on either conception. I argue further that treating truthmaking as grounding threatens to violate a plausible irreflexivity principle, and makes trouble for the view that grounding is transitive. I then suggest that there is no genuine relation of truthmaking (which there would have to be if it were a true case of grounding). Finally, I show how the core insights of truthmaker theory are preserved by the understanding of truthmaking that I favor. (shrink)

Are there disjunctive properties? This question is important for at least two reasons. First, disjunctive properties are invoked in defense of certain philosophical theories, especially in the philosophy of mind. Second, the question raises the prior issue of what counts as a genuine property, a central concern in the metaphysics of properties. I argue here, on the basis of general considerations in the metaphysics of properties, that there are no disjunctive properties. Specifically, I argue that genuine properties must guarantee similarity-in-a-respect (...) among their instances, and must inhere in their bearers (two notions to be clarified). Disjunctive properties would fail both requirements. I compare the case of disjunctive properties with “mere Cambridge properties,” determinable properties, and functional properties, and show how my conception of properties remains compatible with determinables and functional properties while ruling out disjunctive and mere Cambridge properties. (shrink)

Objects partially resemble when they are alike in some way but not entirely alike. Partial resemblance, then, involves similarity in a respect. It has been observed that talk of “respects” appears to be thinly‐veiled talk of properties. So some theorists take similarity in a respect to require property realism. I will go a step further and argue that similarity in intrinsic respects (partial intrinsic resemblance) requires properties to be immanent in objects. For a property to be immanent in an object (...) is roughly for it to be wholly present in that object. (So understood, immanence does not imply repeatability, and thus tropes count as immanent.) If two objects are intrinsically similar in one way but not another, there must be a difference between the two ways. And if the similarity is between the objects as they are in themselves, then this difference, too, must be within the objects. Partial intrinsic resemblance thus requires internal structure. Without it, there can be no distinctions between ways in which things are intrinsically alike and ways in which they aren't. I will argue, further, that distinctions between properties that transcend objects fail to account for the possibility of partial intrinsic resemblance. (shrink)

The question of how properties are individuated is extremely important. Consider the following proposals. To be in pain is to be in a certain neurological state. To be red is to appear red to normal observers in standard conditions. To be obligatory is to maximize the good. Each makes a claim of property identity. Each is a substantive metaphysical thesis of wide interest. None can be studied with due scrutiny in the absence of a general account of property identity. Here, (...) I will survey existing accounts and suggest a new account in terms of grounding that has some advantages over the other candidates. (shrink)

To all appearances, the basic building blocks of reality tend to keep existing unless something intervenes to destroy them. In other words, basic things seem to have existential inertia. But why might this be? This paper considers a number of arguments for and against existential inertia. It discusses arguments inspired by Aquinas, Descartes, and Spinoza, as well as considerations deriving from Occam’s Razor, entropy, and certain views about the nature of time and change.

There is no doubt that spatial relations aid us in pairing up causes and effects. But when we consider the possibility of qualitatively indiscernible things, it might seem that spatial relations are more than a mere aid – they might seem positively required. The belief that spatial relations are required for causal relations is behind an important objection to Cartesian Dualism, the pairing problem. I argue that the Cartesian can answer this objection by appeal to the possibility of primitive causal (...) relations, a possibility I defend. This topic is of importance beyond the philosophy of mind; the possibility that causal relations might sometimes hold brutely is of general metaphysical importance. I close with a discussion of what Cartesians should say about embodiment, and how that bears on issues of mental causation. (shrink)

What does it take to solve the exclusion problem? An ingenious strategy is Stephen Yablo’s idea that causes must be commensurate with their effects. Commensuration is a relation between events. Roughly, events are commensurate with one another when one contains all that is required for the occurrence of the other, and as little as possible that is not required. According to Yablo, one event is a cause of another only if they are commensurate. I raise three reasons to doubt that (...) this account solves the exclusion problem successfully. First, it leaves a mystery about what determines a particular’s causal capacities. Second, because there are two ways of construing coincidence between particulars, a dilemma arises: either the solution to the exclusion problem is threatened, or the account of coincidence loses an attractive feature concerning ontological economy. Third, even if we assume the commensuration constraint, a plausible principle about overdetermination seems to regenerate the exclusion problem. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper discusses three aspects of Karen Bennett’s theory of building relations, as articulated in her book Making Things Up: the inclusion of causation among the building relations, the denial that non-fundamental things add to the complexity of a theory, and the claim that building relations are one-sided relations that are themselves built. Section 1 gives a brief overview. Section 2 seeks to motivate a distinction between building relations and making relations, and questions whether the deep structural similarities among (...) building relations has the methodological consequences that Bennett claims. Section 3 argues against the claim that considerations of ontological simplicity in theory choice are restricted to non-fundamental entities. Section 4 raises objections to the idea of a one-sided building relation. (shrink)

This paper presents the view that tropes can change, and so are not individuated by their determinate qualitative characters. On the view I have in mind, a trope is at any given time fully determinate, but can change qualitatively within the bounds set by a determinable essence. A charge trope, for example, must at any time have some exact intensity, but can survive changes in intensity. My argument, roughly, is this: Objects can change, and tropes are the parts of objects (...) that change (in a special sense of ‘part’), so tropes can change too. After some preliminaries, I present the argument carefully and discuss the operant notions. I then discuss each premise in turn. I respond to the charge that the view isn't realist, and to objections based on identity‐conditions for tropes. I describe both substratum‐ and bundle‐theoretic versions of the view, and finally, show what the view buys us. (shrink)

Depuis son avènement au début du XXe siècle, la phénoménologie a rallié, dans une fidélité plus ou moins grande à Husserl, son fondateur, des auteurs aussi différents que Heidegger, Scheler ou Fink – non sans que chacun ait d'abord pris la mesure de l'ambition d'un projet qui consistait à réaffirmer le sens de la philosophie en lui assignant pour objet un certain absolu, jugé comme tel « irréductible ». Les philosophes français, dont Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Derrida, Henry, Marion, ont tous (...) eu à cœur de renouveler à leur façon la phénoménologie, en interrogeant à nouveaux frais ses enjeux. En revenant sur l'histoire de ce courant, Paul Audi montre que la plupart de ces penseurs ont suivi un même ordre de mission – que Sartre formule ainsi dans son tout premier texte phénoménologique, en 1934 : « Soyons plus radicaux ». Pourquoi et comment ce devoir de radicalité a-t-il pris auprès d'eux le statut d'un mot d'ordre? Quels enseignements devrions-nous aujourd'hui en tirer? Une de ces leçons ne revient-elle pas à dire que si, en phénoménologie, la demande de radicalité a bien sa raison d'être, elle n'en révèle pas moins les limites de la discipline – des limites qui pourraient bien expliquer pour partie son essoufflement actuel? (shrink)

Cette édition numérique a été réalisée à partir d'un support physique, parfois ancien, conservé au sein du dépôt légal de la Bibliothèque nationale de France, conformément à la loi n° 2012-287 du 1er mars 2012 relative à l'exploitation des Livres indisponibles du XXe siècle. En s'appuyant sur des textes de Kierkegaard, cette étude entend montrer en quoi et comment l'autorité de l'auteur se trouve liée à toute forme de création, et pourquoi il convient de porter l'accent de l'analyse sur le (...) devenir-auteur, c'est-à-dire sur la manière subjective dont un auteur parvient, au travers de sa création, à prendre position au nom de soi. « Copyright Electre » Pages de début Exorde Prémisses 1 - Le don à l'origine 2 - Le Présent de la vie 3 - Créer 4 - Prendre position5 - Au nom de soi Conclusion Note complémentaire Index nominum Pages de fin. (shrink)

L'homme est un animal problématique. Il est cet être qui ne cesse de buter contre lui-même et dont la tâche éthique est de faire de cette " chute " un problème, de la même façon qu'il lui arrive de faire de sa tenue, de sa reprise ou de son redressement, une solution, elle-même fruit d'une intense résolution. Pour cette raison, si le problème est dans la chute, si ce problème est cette chute même, il importe de reconnaître que celle-ci ne (...) forme pas seulement l'échéance la plus immédiate de l'homme, mais qu'elle est aussi sa chance. Complétant la réflexion menée dans Supériorité de l'éthique (PUF, coll. " Quadrige "), le présent essai se propose d'explorer les principaux paradoxes sur lesquels repose l'éthique. P.A. (shrink)

Il y a tout juste un an se produisait en France un événement philosophique majeur. Un événement qui, comme tout grand événement, aura été à la mesure non pas du monde, mais de la vie – en ce sens qu’il fut aussi fondamental, aussi peu tapageur, aussi incognito que la vie peut l’être au regard de tout individu..

Cet essai analyse l'assise ontologique de la sagesse rousseauiste mais il en souligne aussi toute la modernité, en montrant le rôle qu'elle peut encore jouer dans le renouvellement de la compréhension de l'essence de l'homme.

Wittgenstein fait partie de ces philosophes pour qui l'éthique n'est pas tant la résultante d'une réflexion rationnelle sur le malheur et le bonheur de vivre, que le fruit, peut-être amer, d'une épreuve cruciale et bouleversante, confinant au silence, celle d'un "tout ou rien".

This paper is part of a symposium on Paul Moser, _Philosophy After Objectivity (Oxford University Press, 1993). The paper replies to contributions by Philip Quinn and Robert Audi.