Une longue introduction précède les contributions de ces trois philosophes et théologiens à la querelle sur la distinction entre l'être et l'essence qui anima la Faculté de théologie de l'Université de Paris dans les années 1280.

Résumé — II s’agit ici de montrer que la mimèsis tragique chez Aristote a un sens éthique, dans la mesure où elle donne à réfléchir sur les conditions du bonheur humain. En effet, en montrant des personnages soumis aux vicissitudes de la fortune, elle donne à réfléchir sur la contingence du bonheur, que la vertu ne suffit pas à assurer. En ce sens, la mimèsis tragique est le pendant de l’Éthique à Nicomaque qui définit les conditions morales du bonheur. (...) Ce sens éthique de la tragédie peut déboucher sur une portée éthique, dans la mesure où la connaissance qu’elle procure de la condition humaine et du hasard qui règne sur la vie des hommes s’oppose à toute hubris en faisant prendre conscience au spectateur de la fragilité du bonheur. Dès lors, on peut dire que le sens éthique de la tragédie selon Aristote est d’abord intellectuel, mais qu’il peut avoir du coup une portée pratique. La différence entre Platon et Aristote sur ce point vient de la différence de leurs conceptions éthiques : pour Platon en effet, et contrairement à son disciple, la condition nécessaire et suffisante du bonheur est la vertu, de telle sorte que la mimèsis tragique, en tant qu’elle présente des hommes soumis à des malheurs sans pour autant avoir nécessairement commis une faute, donne une fausse idée du bonheur. C’est pourquoi chez Platon la tragédie ne peut donner un enseignement éthique, contrairement à ce qui se passe chez Aristote. (shrink)

The Norbert Wiener Memorial Gold Medal address delivered by the Nobel Laureate recipient. Considers Norbert Wiener and the idea of contingence. Refers to Wiener's book The Human Use of Human Beings and in particular to the preface entitled "The idea of a contingent universe" and to the epilogue of the book by Rosenblith. This raises the question faced by Wiener: how to reconcile a deterministic world à la Newton with the intrinsically probabilistic universe of Gibbs, the relativistic universe of (...) Einstein and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Notes the parallelism among the questions Wiener is asking with the ones to which the Gold Medallist has devoted most of his scientific life. Presents a different point of view, as a tribute to the visionary ideas developed by Wiener. Discusses the "new physics" and the problems facing physics today, at the end of the twentieth century. (shrink)

1ere edition: Aubier, 1999 En assignant pour tache a la philosophie de surmonter la contingence, Hegel accomplit un geste original et difficile. Original parce qu'il s'ecarte aussi bien des rationalismes qui pensent n'en avoir fini avec le contingent que lorsqu'ils l'ont ramene au necessaire, que des penseurs qui estiment que reconnaitre la contingence, c'est y voir le tout autre de la raison. Hegel ne prone ni le regne de la necessite ni la capitulation devant l'absurde, mais une philosophie (...) de la liberte. Difficile, parce que, en decidant de penser ensemble et la consistance et la rationalite du contingent, Hegel doit a la fois reconnaitre ce qu'il appelle son droit monstrueux et au moment meme ou la raison avoue ses limites devant une contingence sans regle et sans frein ne jamais renoncer a l'exigence de dire le sens de cette limitation meme. A travers cette epreuve de la contingence, l'ouvrage tente d'offrir une interpretation d'ensemble du systeme aussi attentive a la lettre des textes qu'attachee a mettre en lumiere les apories que la philosophie hegelienne rencontre ou engendre. (shrink)

Ce texte est consacré à la conception de la liberté absolue chez Schelling, telle qu’elle est exposée dans les Weltalter et accomplie dans la philosophie tardive. À partir d’une élucidation des rapports entre liberté, nécessité et contingence, nous souhaitons montrer que Schelling parvient à développer un nouveau concept de liberté absolue qui d’une part ne concerne pas seulement Dieu mais aussi l’homme, et qui d’autre part dépasse la liberté kantienne comme autonomie et autodétermination, mais aussi la liberté de l’É (...) crit sur la liberté de 1809 comme « pouvoir du bien et du mal ». En outre, nous soutenons que la liberté du Dieu « Seigneur de l’être » de la philosophie de Munich et Berlin se distingue de celle du Dieu seulement « sur-étant » des Weltalter. Seule la « liberté d’être et de ne pas être » du « Seigneur de l’être » représente une forme de liberté à laquelle l’homme peut et doit tendre, une liberté non pas de l’auto-anéantissement, mais du don de soi, liberté suprême qui n’est autre que celle de l’amour. (shrink)

Generally in agreement with the stoic doctrin of causality, Seneca’s primary concern is not conceptual precision, but rather the way the problem of causality is perceived and understood by the human mind, which is unable to comprehend immediately the world’s absolute rationality. The relative vagueness surrounding the notion of cause, and particularly that of Primary Cause, implies the use of a pedagogical device which prepares the progrediens to grasp the ambiguity existing between necessity and contingency. Seneca dramatizes causality, creates a (...) play, and provides the deus with masks, so as to allow the progressing student of wisdom to comprehend the various facets of the god, as perceived by man, wise or not : necessity, contingency, Fortune, providence. The Roman philosopher’s favourite tools in this dramatization of causality are on one hand the personification of Fortune, and on the other the symbolical hypotyposis which allows the conceptualization of the Primary Cause, governing the world, through an analogy with a concrete figure, particularly that of the ideal princeps. So, through this theatrical depiction of causality, the philosopher provides the „spectator” with a distanciation, a catharsis and a comprehension of the world. (shrink)

Première partie. De la question des mondes possibles aux présuppositions de la méta-éthique -- Deuxième partie. Différenciation logique et connaissance morale -- Troisième partie. Un paradigme pour penser les droits.

There is a familiar debate between Russell and Strawson concerning bivalence and ‘the present King of France’. According to the Strawsonian view, ‘The present King of France is bald’ is neither true nor false, whereas, on the Russellian view, that proposition is simply false. In this paper, I develop what I take to be a crucial connection between this debate and a different domain where bivalence has been at stake: future contingents. On the familiar ‘Aristotelian’ view, future contingent propositions are (...) neither true nor false. However, I argue that, just as there is a Russellian alternative to the Strawsonian view concerning ‘the present King of France’, according to which the relevant class of propositions all turn out false, so there is a Russellian alternative to the Aristotelian view, according to which future contingents all turn out false, not neither true nor false. The result: contrary to millennia of philosophical tradition, we can be open futurists without denying bivalence. (shrink)

This book defends a radical new theory of contingency as a physical phenomenon. Drawing on the many-worlds approach to quantum theory and cutting-edge metaphysics and philosophy of science, it argues that quantum theories are best understood as telling us about the space of genuine possibilities, rather than as telling us solely about actuality. When quantum physics is taken seriously in the way first proposed by Hugh Everett III, it provides the resources for a new systematic metaphysical framework encompassing possibility, necessity, (...) actuality, chance, counterfactuals, and a host of related modal notions. -/- Rationalist metaphysicians argue that the metaphysics of modality is strictly prior to any scientific investigation; metaphysics establishes which worlds are possible, and physics merely checks which of these worlds is actual. Naturalistic metaphysicians respond that science may discover new possibilities and new impossibilities. This book's quantum theory of contingency takes naturalistic metaphysics one step further, allowing that science may discover what it is to be possible. As electromagnetism revealed the nature of light, as acoustics revealed the nature of sound, as statistical mechanics revealed the nature of heat, so quantum physics reveals the nature of contingency. (shrink)

In this article I offer an explanation of the need for contingent propositions in language. I argue that contingent propositions are required if and only if there is a need for propositions which can be both true and false in different circumstances. Indexical expressions enable the same proposition to be expressed in different contexts, thus allowing it to be both true and false. Examination of the different indexical expressions shows that temporal indexical expressions are the ones that do this. Furthermore, (...) describing the change in the temporal A-determinations of past, present, or future, requires using contingent propositions. The conclusion of this article is that change in the temporal A-determinations is the explanation for the need for contingent propositions in language. (shrink)

Contingent transcranialists claim that the physical mechanisms of mind are not exclusively intracranial and that genuine cognitive systems can extend into cognizers' physical and socio-cultural environments. They further claim that extended cognitive systems must include the deep functional integration of external environmental resources with internal neural resources. They have found it difficult, however, to explicate the precise nature of such deep functional integration and provide compelling examples of it. Contingent intracranialists deny that extracranial resources can be components of genuine extended (...) cognitive systems. They claim that transcranialists fallaciously conflate coupling with constitution and construe cognition as extending always from brains into world rather than world into brains. By using insights from recent research in developmental psychology and by explicating the nature of one form that deep functional integration can take, I argue that (i) transcranialists do not fallaciously conflate coupling wth constitution, and (ii) human emotional ontogenesis is a world-to-brain transcranial achievement. Jennifer Greenwood is a PhD Candidate in Philosophy at the School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics, University of Queensland. (shrink)

At least since Aristotle’s famous 'sea-battle' passages in On Interpretation 9, some substantial minority of philosophers has been attracted to the doctrine of the open future--the doctrine that future contingent statements are not true. But, prima facie, such views seem inconsistent with the following intuition: if something has happened, then (looking back) it was the case that it would happen. How can it be that, looking forwards, it isn’t true that there will be a sea battle, while also being true (...) that, looking backwards, it was the case that there would be a sea battle? This tension forms, in large part, what might be called the problem of future contingents. A dominant trend in temporal logic and semantic theorizing about future contingents seeks to validate both intuitions. Theorists in this tradition--including some interpretations of Aristotle, but paradigmatically, Thomason (1970), as well as more recent developments in Belnap, et. al (2001) and MacFarlane (2003, 2014)--have argued that the apparent tension between the intuitions is in fact merely apparent. In short, such theorists seek to maintain both of the following two theses: (i) the open future: Future contingents are not true, and (ii) retro-closure: From the fact that something is true, it follows that it was the case that it would be true. It is well-known that reflection on the problem of future contingents has in many ways been inspired by importantly parallel issues regarding divine foreknowledge and indeterminism. In this paper, we take up this perspective, and ask what accepting both the open future and retro-closure predicts about omniscience. When we theorize about a perfect knower, we are theorizing about what an ideal agent ought to believe. Our contention is that there isn’t an acceptable view of ideally rational belief given the assumptions of the open future and retro-closure, and thus this casts doubt on the conjunction of those assumptions. (shrink)

Is the cultural evolution of morality fairly contingent? Could cultural evolution have easily led humans to moral norms and judgments that are mostly false by our present lights? If so, does it matter philosophically? Yes, or so we argue. We empirically motivate the contingency of cultural evolution and show that it makes two major philosophical contributions. First, it shows that moral objectivists cannot explain the reliability of our moral judgments and thus strengthens moral debunking arguments. Second, it shows that the (...) reliability of our moral judgments is evidence for theism over metaphysical naturalism. (shrink)

According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (‘PSR’), every fact has an explanation for why it obtains. If the PSR is true, there must be a sufficient reason for why God chose to create our world. But a sufficient reason for God’s choice plausibly necessitates that choice. It thus seems that God could not have done otherwise, and that our world exists necessarily. We therefore appear forced to pick between the PSR, and the contingency of creation and divine choice. I (...) show that a third option remains open, and thus that it is possible to preserve the contingency of creation and divine choice even while endorsing the PSR. My solution depends on the coherence of a restricted modal realism. On this modal realism, there is more than one possible morally optimal created world, and for each such world there is an existing possibility in which God creates that world. (shrink)