In this volume a first collection of contributions to this project, from a diversity of angles and research subjects, is presented.

Lorsqu’il laisse interagir l’expérience contextuelle et l’interprétation traditionnelle, le langage religieux apporte du neuf. L’auteur se demande si la «linguistique cognitive» offre certaines pistes de réflexion et certains modèles utiles à la recontextualisation de l’épistémologie théologique dans la situation actuelle de la postmodernité. La sémantique cognitive présente la théologie comme une approche de la réalité dans un cadre conceptuel fondamental et non dans un rapport prédéterminé entre l’ordre logique et l’ordre ontologique. La théorie de la métaphore est ici particulièrement suggestive. (...) Elle montre que certains concepts – la plupart du temps abstraits, comme AMOUR et DIEU – sont essentiellement structurés métaphoriquement, parce qu’ils sont sémantiquement non autonomes. En cinq remarques conclusives, l’auteur montre comment l’approche interdisciplinaire de la linguistique cognitive peut servir la théologie d’aujourd’hui, tout en manifestant ses limites. (shrink)

In an attempt to clarify our present-day postmodern context and to ascertain the critical consciousness of our time, I study a number of main lines of thought in the work of the postmodernist thinkers Wolfgang Welsch, Jean-François Lyotard and Richard Rorty. Afterwards, I elaborate on the position of Jürgen Habermas in the postmodern debate. In the second section I present a schematic overview of this postmodern panorama, pointing out the main similarities and differences of the theorists under consideration. A critical (...) discussion of and with these authors, in the third section, yields the model of the “open narrative” as a possible form of contemporary critical consciousness. This model will help me to recontextualize the Christian narrative in our postmodern context. In the conclusion I shed some light upon this recontextualization. (shrink)

. reh S.ni a Paul Rieoeur. hfFerem ï penenee i in ree PEE TERS.LEI \ IN PEETERS.

This volume consists of several contributions to a refined understanding of religious experience in view of contemporary theological epistemology.

In this volume we present the proceedings from the fourth international Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology (LEST IV, November 5-8, 2003), which focussed ...

This study elaborates, illustrates and evaluates two different reading trajectories for approaching Fides et Ratio starting from the ambiguity which is apparent in the encyclical. The first trajectory, points foremost to the continuity between reason and faith. According to this first trajectory the encyclical presents a pre-modern model of philosophy, which has left the modern philosopher shocked and the theologian vexed. It also suffers from a confusion of philosophical and theological discourse. The second trajectory, from the perspective of an inner-theological (...) reading, understands the encyclical’s aspirations as fides quaerens intellectum. In developing a sacramental concept of truth, the encyclical bears within itself the deconstruction of the defensive, anti-modern position of the first trajectory, precisely by accentuating the discontinuity between reason and faith. A theology, which takes account of the actual, post-modern critical consciousness may find in Fides et Ratio a basis for further reflection. (shrink)

The first reactions to the encyclical Fides et Ratio ranged from cautiously positive to critical disapproval. Many observers pointed to the ambiguity which they perceive in the encyclical, probably due to the several hands which participated in its writing process. This ambiguity functions as a starting point to develop two different keys to read the text, resulting in divergent interpretations and evaluations. Inspired by the opening clause of the encyclical the first key can be represented by the image of a (...) beautiful swan, which takes off for a flight towards the ultimate horizon of truth. This key starts from the perception that the encyclical is biased by an dismissal of the modern emancipation of reason and by a subordination of all rationality to faith . Only when reason complies with the presumptions of revelation, and thus limits its autonomy, can it enter the realm of absolute. But, following the lines of this key of interpretation, precisely this results in clipping one of the wings of the swan, preventing it from taking off. By his refusal to take seriously the modern redefinition of rationality and his reintroduction of a massive, static, and propositional concept of revelation, the pope makes a thoroughly provocative and fruitful meeting of Christian faith and contemporary reason impossible. And it is only by such an engaging encounter that theology can regain its plausibility in our modern times. The other interpretative key is represented by the image of a dove coming down from heaven, seeking for a place on earth to settle down. This key takes as its primary starting point the theological status of the genre of the encyclical, and consequently links up with fragments of the text which can seem more open. First of all, an encyclical is a magisterial document. This means that from the beginning it must be situated within a faith perspective, written from standpoint of a particular tradition. Only then one can understand that in the text - internal to the discourse - truth is immediately related to revelation. Secondly, this key points to the understanding of revelation as mystery, and in this regard to the sacramental or eucharistic concept of truth: the truth of faith becomes present to us, but cannot ever be pinpointed ontologically by us. The knowledge of faith never diffuses the mystery of revelation. Therefore, faith as faith can never be founded in reason. Taking into account these two starting points, the encyclical addresses reason only in relation to faith: reason from itself does not lead to faith, but faith needs rational, philosophical knowledge for its own understanding. Following this line of thought implies that the principles of philosophy as ‘praeparation fidei’ and as ‘ancilla theologiae’ have to be reconsidered. Moreover this perspective results in a more open reading of many other passages . Both readings imply a selective reading of the text. The more observatorial reading, according to the key of the swan, interprets the whole text from its more antimodern closed passages. The intra-theological reading with the key of the dove reinterprets many of the seemingly closed passages but nevertheless is confronted by fragments which hardly fit its reading. Neither key neutralizes the ambiguity, but confronts it. The perspective of the dove could be the more theologically successful way in doing this. However, even here a theological assimilation of a profound analysis of the contemporary philosophical situation would have enriched the encyclical extensively. For theology as ‘fides quaerens intellectum’, relevant today, must relate to the contextual critical consciousness as expressed in contemporary modern philosophy.The first reactions to the encyclical Fides et Ratio ranged from cautiously positive to critical disapproval. Many observers pointed to the ambiguity which they perceive in the encyclical, probably due to the several hands which participated in its writing process. This ambiguity functions as a starting point to develop two different keys to read the text, resulting in divergent interpretations and evaluations. Inspired by the opening clause of the encyclical the first key can be represented by the image of a beautiful swan, which takes off for a flight towards the ultimate horizon of truth. This key starts from the perception that the encyclical is biased by an dismissal of the modern emancipation of reason and by a subordination of all rationality to faith . Only when reason complies with the presumptions of revelation, and thus limits its autonomy, can it enter the realm of absolute. But, following the lines of this key of interpretation, precisely this results in clipping one of the wings of the swan, preventing it from taking off. By his refusal to take seriously the modern redefinition of rationality and his reintroduction of a massive, static, and propositional concept of revelation, the pope makes a thoroughly provocative and fruitful meeting of Christian faith and contemporary reason impossible. And it is only by such an engaging encounter that theology can regain its plausibility in our modern times. The other interpretative key is represented by the image of a dove coming down from heaven, seeking for a place on earth to settle down. This key takes as its primary starting point the theological status of the genre of the encyclical, and consequently links up with fragments of the text which can seem more open. First of all, an encyclical is a magisterial document. This means that from the beginning it must be situated within a faith perspective, written from standpoint of a particular tradition. Only then one can understand that in the text - internal to the discourse - truth is immediately related to revelation. Secondly, this key points to the understanding of revelation as mystery, and in this regard to the sacramental or eucharistic concept of truth: the truth of faith becomes present to us, but cannot ever be pinpointed ontologically by us. The knowledge of faith never diffuses the mystery of revelation. Therefore, faith as faith can never be founded in reason. Taking into account these two starting points, the encyclical addresses reason only in relation to faith: reason from itself does not lead to faith, but faith needs rational, philosophical knowledge for its own understanding. Following this line of thought implies that the principles of philosophy as ‘praeparation fidei’ and as ‘ancilla theologiae’ have to be reconsidered. Moreover this perspective results in a more open reading of many other passages . Both readings imply a selective reading of the text. The more observatorial reading, according to the key of the swan, interprets the whole text from its more antimodern closed passages. The intra-theological reading with the key of the dove reinterprets many of the seemingly closed passages but nevertheless is confronted by fragments which hardly fit its reading. Neither key neutralizes the ambiguity, but confronts it. The perspective of the dove could be the more theologically successful way in doing this. However, even here a theological assimilation of a profound analysis of the contemporary philosophical situation would have enriched the encyclical extensively. For theology as ‘fides quaerens intellectum’, relevant today, must relate to the contextual critical consciousness as expressed in contemporary modern philosophy. (shrink)

The first reactions to the encyclical Fides et Ratio ranged from cautiously positive to critical disapproval. Many observers pointed to the ambiguity which they perceive in the encyclical, probably due to the several hands which participated in its writing process. This ambiguity functions as a starting point to develop two different keys to read the text, resulting in divergent interpretations and evaluations. Inspired by the opening clause of the encyclical the first key can be represented by the image of a (...) beautiful swan, which takes off for a flight towards the ultimate horizon of truth. This key starts from the perception that the encyclical is biased by an dismissal of the modern emancipation of reason and by a subordination of all rationality to faith . Only when reason complies with the presumptions of revelation, and thus limits its autonomy, can it enter the realm of absolute. But, following the lines of this key of interpretation, precisely this results in clipping one of the wings of the swan, preventing it from taking off. By his refusal to take seriously the modern redefinition of rationality and his reintroduction of a massive, static, and propositional concept of revelation, the pope makes a thoroughly provocative and fruitful meeting of Christian faith and contemporary reason impossible. And it is only by such an engaging encounter that theology can regain its plausibility in our modern times. The other interpretative key is represented by the image of a dove coming down from heaven, seeking for a place on earth to settle down. This key takes as its primary starting point the theological status of the genre of the encyclical, and consequently links up with fragments of the text which can seem more open. First of all, an encyclical is a magisterial document. This means that from the beginning it must be situated within a faith perspective, written from standpoint of a particular tradition. Only then one can understand that in the text - internal to the discourse - truth is immediately related to revelation. Secondly, this key points to the understanding of revelation as mystery, and in this regard to the sacramental or eucharistic concept of truth: the truth of faith becomes present to us, but cannot ever be pinpointed ontologically by us. The knowledge of faith never diffuses the mystery of revelation. Therefore, faith as faith can never be founded in reason. Taking into account these two starting points, the encyclical addresses reason only in relation to faith: reason from itself does not lead to faith, but faith needs rational, philosophical knowledge for its own understanding. Following this line of thought implies that the principles of philosophy as ‘praeparation fidei’ and as ‘ancilla theologiae’ have to be reconsidered. Moreover this perspective results in a more open reading of many other passages . Both readings imply a selective reading of the text. The more observatorial reading, according to the key of the swan, interprets the whole text from its more antimodern closed passages. The intra-theological reading with the key of the dove reinterprets many of the seemingly closed passages but nevertheless is confronted by fragments which hardly fit its reading. Neither key neutralizes the ambiguity, but confronts it. The perspective of the dove could be the more theologically successful way in doing this. However, even here a theological assimilation of a profound analysis of the contemporary philosophical situation would have enriched the encyclical extensively. For theology as ‘fides quaerens intellectum’, relevant today, must relate to the contextual critical consciousness as expressed in contemporary modern philosophy.The first reactions to the encyclical Fides et Ratio ranged from cautiously positive to critical disapproval. Many observers pointed to the ambiguity which they perceive in the encyclical, probably due to the several hands which participated in its writing process. This ambiguity functions as a starting point to develop two different keys to read the text, resulting in divergent interpretations and evaluations. Inspired by the opening clause of the encyclical the first key can be represented by the image of a beautiful swan, which takes off for a flight towards the ultimate horizon of truth. This key starts from the perception that the encyclical is biased by an dismissal of the modern emancipation of reason and by a subordination of all rationality to faith . Only when reason complies with the presumptions of revelation, and thus limits its autonomy, can it enter the realm of absolute. But, following the lines of this key of interpretation, precisely this results in clipping one of the wings of the swan, preventing it from taking off. By his refusal to take seriously the modern redefinition of rationality and his reintroduction of a massive, static, and propositional concept of revelation, the pope makes a thoroughly provocative and fruitful meeting of Christian faith and contemporary reason impossible. And it is only by such an engaging encounter that theology can regain its plausibility in our modern times. The other interpretative key is represented by the image of a dove coming down from heaven, seeking for a place on earth to settle down. This key takes as its primary starting point the theological status of the genre of the encyclical, and consequently links up with fragments of the text which can seem more open. First of all, an encyclical is a magisterial document. This means that from the beginning it must be situated within a faith perspective, written from standpoint of a particular tradition. Only then one can understand that in the text - internal to the discourse - truth is immediately related to revelation. Secondly, this key points to the understanding of revelation as mystery, and in this regard to the sacramental or eucharistic concept of truth: the truth of faith becomes present to us, but cannot ever be pinpointed ontologically by us. The knowledge of faith never diffuses the mystery of revelation. Therefore, faith as faith can never be founded in reason. Taking into account these two starting points, the encyclical addresses reason only in relation to faith: reason from itself does not lead to faith, but faith needs rational, philosophical knowledge for its own understanding. Following this line of thought implies that the principles of philosophy as ‘praeparation fidei’ and as ‘ancilla theologiae’ have to be reconsidered. Moreover this perspective results in a more open reading of many other passages . Both readings imply a selective reading of the text. The more observatorial reading, according to the key of the swan, interprets the whole text from its more antimodern closed passages. The intra-theological reading with the key of the dove reinterprets many of the seemingly closed passages but nevertheless is confronted by fragments which hardly fit its reading. Neither key neutralizes the ambiguity, but confronts it. The perspective of the dove could be the more theologically successful way in doing this. However, even here a theological assimilation of a profound analysis of the contemporary philosophical situation would have enriched the encyclical extensively. For theology as ‘fides quaerens intellectum’, relevant today, must relate to the contextual critical consciousness as expressed in contemporary modern philosophy. (shrink)

Brief sketches of the life and thought of American philosophers who contributed to pragmatic philosophy.

In this timely book L.W. Sumner addresses these issues within the wider context of palliative care for patients in the dying process.

L. Nathan Oaklander is one of the leading philosophers of time defending the tenseless or B-Theory of time. He has remained at the forefront of this field since the early 1980s and today he is arguably the most formidable opponent of the tensed or A-theory of time. Much of the direction of the debate in this field for the past twenty years or so, especially in regards to the new tenseless theory of time, has been influenced by Oaklander's work. This (...) book presents a carefully argued defense of the tenseless theory of time. The topics discussed include: the ontology of A- and B-theories of time; presentism; the open future theory; the A/B theory; defending the B-theory of time; temporal experience; temporal semantics; and time, identity, responsibility, and freedom. (shrink)

Edmund Gettier is Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This short piece, published in 1963, seemed to many decisively to refute an otherwise attractive analysis of knowledge. It stimulated a renewed effort, still ongoing, to clarify exactly what knowledge comprises.

This new edition of the classic Contemporary Theories of Knowledge has been significantly updated to include analyses of the recent literature in epistemology.

This edited volume represents a unique addition to the available literature on animal ethics, animal studies, and neuroethics. Its goal is to expand discussions on animal ethics and neuroethics by weaving together different threads: philosophy of mind and animal minds, neuroscientific study of animal minds, and animal ethics. Neuroethical questions concerning animals’ moral status, animal minds and consciousness, animal pain, and the adequacy of animal models for neuropsychiatric disease have long been topics of debate in philosophy and ethics, and more (...) recently also in neuroscientific research. The book presents a transdisciplinary blend of voices, underscoring different perspectives on the broad questions of how neuroscience can contribute to our understanding of nonhuman minds, and on debates over the moral status of nonhuman animals. All chapters were written by outstanding scholars in philosophy, neuroscience, animal behavior, biology, neuroethics, and bioethics, and cover a range of issues and species/taxa. Given its scope, the book will appeal to scientists and students interested in the debate on animal ethics, while also offering an important resource for future researchers. Chapter 13 of this book is available open access under a CC BY 4.0 license at link.springer.com. (shrink)

Le philosophe Jean Baudrillard (1929-2007) a-t-il vraiment existé? Que reste-t-il de lui? "Une élégance certaine de la pensée", affirme l'un de ses meilleurs interprètes, François L'Yvonnet. Le philosophe de La Société de consommation, des Stratégies fatales et des Cool Memories s'attachait à l'idée du fragment comme mode de pensée : car dans le détail, tout est parfait, c'est dans sa reproduction que tout se complique. François L'Yvonnet explore cinq fragments de la philosophie de Jean Baudrillard et de sa biographie pour (...) mieux saisir l'éclat et la jubilation d'une pensée toujours vivante et contemporaine. (shrink)

Excerpt from Der Echte: Und der Xenophontische Sokrates Der xen0phontische Sokrates selbst wieder zwang, die Fuh rung der Untersuchung weit mehr, als bisher geschehen, zu ver breitem. Die Memorabilien sind das Gegentheil eines selbst herrlichen Kunstwerks, weisen an allen Ecken und Enden uber sich hinaus, stehen als ein schwaches Glied in der Kette der sokratischen Literatur und zunachst in der der xenophontischen Schriften. Es galt, sie zunachst als solches zu begreifen und das volle Licht der Parallelen bei Xenophon auf sie (...) einwirken zu lassen. Dabei enthullten sich die Mem. Oft nur als durftiger Abklatsch anderer xenophontischen Schriften, von denen sie erst die farbige Beleuchtung, die Erklarung ihrer Motive, die Auf hellung ihrer Ordnung erhalten. So ward nun moglichst psycho logisch aus Xenophon erklart, was sich aus ihm erklaren liess. Indessen fur die Hauptsache, das Philosophische, stellte Xeno phon's notorische Unselbstandigkeit neue Fragen und Aufgaben, und hier ergab nun eine weitschichtige Vergleichung seine fast vollige philosophische Abhangigkeit im Ganzen wie im Einzelnen vom Kynismus, die in Grad und Art und plausiblen Motiven genau der Abhangigkeit der romischen Praktiker von den stoischen Nachfolgern der Kyniker_ entspricht. Nicht nur die Memorabilien, auch die andern Socratica Xenophon's, sowie vor Allem Cyropadie Hiero Agesilaus, de rep. Lac. Prolog und Epilog des Oynegeticus offenbarten sich mehr und mehr als durchaus kynisirende Schriften, und auch hier liegt dem Verf. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

What is the nature of temporal passage—the movement of events or moments of time from the future through the present into the past? Is the future and the past as real as the present, or is the present—or perhaps the present and the past—all that exists? What role, if any, does language play in giving us an insight into temporal reality? Is it possible to travel through time into distant regions of the future or the past? What accounts for the (...) direction of time, the sense we have that we are moving toward the future and not back into the past? What is the relation between the physics of time and the philosophy of time? These are the kind of dizzying questions that have been addressed by metaphysicians since antiquity, and time has remained a critical concept for many thinkers and philosophers since then (for instance, in his Confessions, St Augustine, restating an observation by Plotinus, wrote: ‘So what is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I seek to explain it, I do not’). Interest in the subject has also been enduring—and has blossomed anew in the past century. The Philosophy of Time is a new title in the Routledge series, Critical Concepts in Philosophy. It meets the need for an authoritative reference work to make sense of the subject’s vast literature and the continuing explosion in research output. Edited by L. Nathan Oaklander, a leading scholar in the philosophy of time, this new Major Work from Routledge brings together in four volumes the canonical and the very best cutting-edge scholarship in the field to provide a synoptic view of all the key issues and current debates. With a comprehensive introduction to the collection, newly written by the editor, which places the collected material in its historical and intellectual context, The Philosophy of Time is an essential work of reference and is destined to be valued by philosophers of time—as well as those working in related areas of philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion—as a vital research resource. (shrink)

First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Ingthorsson, McTaggart’s Paradox and the R-theory of Time L. Nathan Oaklander University of Michigan-Flint, USA [email protected] his provocative book, McTaggart’s Paradox, R.D. Ingthors- son argues that McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time rests on the principle of temporal parity according to which all times or events in time exist equally or co-exist in a sense that is compatible with their being successive. Moreover, since temporal parity is also an essential tenet of the B-theory, McTaggart’s argument against the reality of (...) time can also be used to undermine the B-theory. Ingthorsson argues further that only by adopting an ontologically frugal presentist metaphysics can one avoid McTaggart’s paradox and account for identity through time and change. The aim of this paper is to clarify Russell’s authentic view of time in con- trast to the B-theory which is McTaggart’s misrepresentation of Russell and argue that temporal parity it is not a fundamental tenet of the Rus- sellian theory. For that reason, the R-theory is immune to objections that are based on temporal parity. I shall then offer my own interpretation of McTaggart’s paradox that renders Ingthorsson’s version of presentism subject to it. (shrink)

En une petite centaine de pages, l'auteur éclaire l'œuvre de Simone Weil avec des facettes emblématiques de sa biographie : une cartographie des lieux et des influences, la question du déracinement, son rapport à la judaïté.