By way of a selective comparison of the work of Georges Canguilhem and Henri Bergson on their respective conceptions of ‘problematology’, this article argues that the centrality of the notion of the ‘problem’ in each can be found in their differing conceptions of the philosophy of life and the living being. Canguilhem’s model, however, ultimately moves beyond or away from (legislative) philosophy and epistemology towards the question of ethics in so far as his vitalism is a means of signalling the (...) refusal of the supposition that all of the dimensions of life are or might be in our possession. Michel Foucault’s project, though directed for the most part to very different subject-matter, worked out a similar logic in the historical problematology of the sciences of ‘man’ and mentalities of government and power; and the results were equally ethical in so far as Foucault’s nominalist historical problematology entailed the refusal of any idea that all of the dimensions of our anthropological ‘essence’ are, or could be, likewise, in our possession. (shrink)

Dans son ouvrage Contre les « modèles » de justice constitutionnelle. Essai de critique méthodologique, Guillaume Tusseau décide de déconstruire et de combattre la traditionnelle dichotomie entre le soi-disant « modèle américain » et celui « européen » ou « kelsénien ». En effet, cette distinction est inutile voire contre-productive. Cet écrit est, pour l’auteur, l’occasion d’énoncer un projet comparatif, s’affranchissant des cadres antérieurs. Si sa démonstration est convaincante et fortement argumentée, une autre position théorique peut toutefois être embrassée. Sans (...) être opposée à celle développée dans l’ouvrage, elle peut se présenter de manière alternative, voire complémentaire. Celle-ci ouvre alors deux pistes de réflexion : la définition du concept de modèle et une remise en cause radicale des critères employés actuellement par la doctrine. Soutenus par une démarche problématologique, nous appelons à l’avènement d’un nouveau paradigme plus pragmatique et questionnant, que l’on pourrait qualifier de « post-moderne ». (shrink)

One of the most crucial questions in the philosophy of law deals with the very nature of legal reasoning. Does this reasoning belong to logic or to rhetoric? This debate, increasingly centered on rhetoric, is not merely a question of language use; it covers and indicates a more basic choice between formal legalism — focusing on rational deduction from the law — and pragmatic judiciarism — focusing on reasonable debate in the court.Today, it is necessary to circumscribe the respective fields (...) of logic and rhetoric in the language of law, while showing how they are sometimes complementary in the resolution of legal problems.But, even when we have acknowledged the need for a rhetoric accompanied by logic, we have to define that rhetoric cautiously. I confront a narrow rhetoric, often called argumentation, with a wider one of interrogative nature. There are two conceptions of rationality at stake. Their comparison enables us to raise the question of the foundation of law, as a locus to use arguments, as well as to solve social problems. (shrink)

Both questions as abstract objects and the speech acts, here called requests, by which we ask them play an enormous role in all argumentative practices. Nonetheless, there is hardly a proper systematic treatment of questions and requests in current argumentation theories. This paper is a first attempt at providing such a systematic treatment. This is achieved by following the ideal model of a critical discussion as elaborated over the years by the Amsterdam school of pragma-dialectics. After introducing the distinction between (...) questions and requests, the paper sets forth and illustrates the norms of questioning which implicitly underlie the four stages of a critical discussion in the standard order: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and conclusion. Among other things, it is shown that crucial insights of pragma-dialectics are illuminated by the questioning perspective, in particular the distinction between single and multiple differences of opinion, the duties of the antagonist and protagonist roles, the precise character of the argumentation stage, and the different ways in which a disagreement can be resolved. (shrink)

On 13 March 2020, in the magazine Po&sie, which he founded, Deguy published a text entitled Coronation. Here, the reading of the contingent viral situation and certain concomitant events made use of his particular interpretative lens aimed at the poetic fact: the continuous exorbitance of the verbal matter from the confined space of the text, and the 'oppugnance' between its inside and outside, as a gift and its antidote. The twofold meaning of the lemma corona leads us back to the (...) double status of the virus: both evil and remedy. By overflowing its borders, the virus pervades the global world, becoming a metaphor for contemporary evils and at the same time urging the critical act. We are left, as Deguy notes in La Poésie n'est pas seule, with «that homeopathic vaccine, catalysis and apocalypse, which adds to the world its end, 'precipitates' its end, is the possibility of art». (shrink)

This study advances the claim that Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which drew its inspiration and guidelines from Cicero's De Natura Deorum, fulfills four basic elements of Michel Meyer's theory of problematology. In doing so, it is argued, the Dialogues contribute importantly to our understanding of the question-answer pair, and to the notion of rhetoric as a way of knowing.