Cet ouvrage n'est ni un commentaire ni une explication d'obedience historiciste ou deterministe. Par questionnement, lecture et interpretation, l'auteur a voulu produire une semantique philosophique. La doctrine des idees est ainsi reexaminee a la convergence des problemes du langage, de la science et de la cite (logos, episteme, polis). Elle ne peut plus des lors etre interpretee sous l'hypothese de l' idealisme. Elle se manifeste comme une serie de questions de sens ou s'indique une philosophie de la raison. Partout (...) ou le logos nous porte, c'est la qu'il faut aller, tel en serait le mot d'ordre, mais avec la precision qu'a l'articulation du mythique et du theorique, du tragique et du philosohique, et plus profondement de la deraison et du logos, le rationalisme platonicien n'est fait que de raison. (shrink)

Discussion Christian List, Philip Pettit, Episteme, FirstView Article.

Aristotle contrasts episteme and doxa through the key notions of universal and necessary. These notions have played a central role in Aristotle’s characterization of scientific knowledge in the previous chapters of APo. They are not spelled out in APo I.33, but work as a sort of reminder that packs an adequate characterization of scientific knowledge and thereby gives a highly specified context for Aristotle’s contrast between episteme and doxa. I will try to show that this context introduces a (...) contrast in terms of explanatory claims: on the one hand, episteme covers those claims which capture explanatory connections that are universal and necessary and thereby deliver scientific understanding; on the other hand, doxa covers the explanatory attempts that fail at doing so. (shrink)

En este trabajo nos proponemos, en primer lugar, reconstruir brevemente el análisis de Michel Foucault acerca de la episteme moderna, para luego analizar algunos rastros que identificamos en ciertos textos del pensador francés sobre la episteme contemporánea. A los fines de lograr este cometido, en tercer lugar, analizamos algunos textos de algunos pensadores del posestructuralismo francés y de la Mass Communication Research. Finalmente, concluimos que el acontecimiento que da lugar a la reconfiguración del saber occidental y a la (...) conformación de la episteme contemporánea está relacionado con las cuestiones del sentido y de la información, que contribuyen a delinear los contornos de las características del hombre y el lenguaje en la nueva episteme. (shrink)

The sixteen essays written in honour of Jonathan Barnes for this volume reflect the impressive scope of his contributions to philosophy. Six are on knowledge, five on logic and metaphysics, five on ethics. The volume ranges widely over ancient philosophy, while also finding room for two contemporary papers on truth and vagueness. Aristotle is prominent in eight of the essays; Plato, Sextus Empiricus, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and ancient Greek medical writers are also discussed. The contributors include some of the (...) most distinguished scholars of our time. (shrink)

Against prevailing interpretations, this article contends that Plato's Sophist and Statesman accord the sophist a kind of ‘knowing-how’ (epistêmê). In Soph. 233c10‒d2, the Visitor and Theaetetus agree that the sophist has not truth but a δοξαστικὴ ἐπιστήμη. This phrase cannot mean ‘a seeming knowledge’, for –ικός adjectives formed from verbs express the ability to perform the action denoted by the verb—here, δοξάζω. Although not a first-order, subject-area knowledge, sophistry is a second-order knowledge of how to form and use judgements (doxai). (...) Other acknowledgements of the sophist's epistêmê and the ascription to him of τέχνη, ‘craft/expertise’, confirm that the Visitor's conclusion is not to be dismissed as irony. To critics who argue from the Gorgias and from other works that Plato must consider the Visitor's conclusion an error, the author replies: 1) other dialogues do not control the Visitor dialogues; 2) the Visitor does not validly demonstrate that the sophist lacks all knowledge; 3) by admitting sensibles into Being, the Visitor and Theaetetus allow the objects of epistêmê to include things in the embodied world, even likenesses. Non-philosophers’ epistêmê in the Visitor dialogues is not implicated in the difficulties that critics have raised about epistemology in the so-called Two Worlds dialogues. On this new ontology, even the sophist, if guided by philosophical rulers, can benefit citizens by employing his elenctic expertise as Socrates did, aiding their growth toward virtue. (shrink)

Since a reading of young Nietzsche’s criticism of the desire of knowledge that guides modernity – particularly regarding to the distinctions he operated between: a) two postures facing reality: the theoretical optimism and the tragic pessimism ; and b) two types of man: the theoretical and the artist ones; and c) two kinds of philosophy and philosophers: the one of the desperate knowledge and the other, of the tragic knowledge – we aim to defend, as an access-key to nietzschean’s thought (...) from the period of The Birth of Tragedy , the presence of a larger, gnosiological distinction between two forms of access to real: via knowledge [ Erkenntni ? ] and via understanding [ Verständnis ] – ???????? [ epistéme ] and ?????? [ gnôsis ] –, leading respectively to the targets of science and wisdom. (shrink)

Předmětem studie je obecná problematika vztahu mezi obrazem a jeho referentem, resp. referentem obrazu, obrazem samým a jeho recipientem. Je-li malba principiálně intencionální v tom smyslu, že zobrazení referentu malby závisí na původci této malby a jeho přesvědčení, a je-li fotografie principiálně kauzální v tom smyslu, že se intence původce do vztahu mezi referentem a jeho snímkem promítá jen na (formální i obsahové) technologické rovině, jedná se o dva typy obrazu, předpokládající rozdílný způsob vnímání a interpretace. Je tomu tak skutečně (...) a je tomu tak nutně? Na příkladu ikony jako hraničního typu obrazu se ukazuje, že fotografie má přinejmenším potenciál dosahovat podobné úrovně psychologické iluzivnosti jako malba. Je-li tomu tak, lze snad oprávněně předpokládat, že je fotografie schopna fikčního účinku srovnatelného s fikčním účinkem malby. Cílem studie je tento předpoklad dále prozkoumat s ohledem na epistemologický rámec věci. (shrink)

Předmětem studie je obecná problematika vztahu mezi obrazem a jeho referentem, resp. referentem obrazu, obrazem samým a jeho recipientem. Je-li malba principiálně intencionální v tom smyslu, že zobrazení referentu malby závisí na původci této malby a jeho přesvědčení, a je-li fotografie principiálně kauzální v tom smyslu, že se intence původce do vztahu mezi referentem a jeho snímkem promítá jen na (formální i obsahové) technologické rovině, jedná se o dva typy obrazu, předpokládající rozdílný způsob vnímání a interpretace. Je tomu tak skutečně (...) a je tomu tak nutně? Na příkladu ikony jako hraničního typu obrazu se ukazuje, že fotografie má přinejmenším potenciál dosahovat podobné úrovně psychologické iluzivnosti jako malba. Je-li tomu tak, lze snad oprávněně předpokládat, že je fotografie schopna fikčního účinku srovnatelného s fikčním účinkem malby. Cílem studie je tento předpoklad dále prozkoumat s ohledem na epistemologický rámec věci. (shrink)

¿Cómo conceptualizar la temporalidad? ¿Qué analítica puede inteligir su carácter inefable? ¿Dónde reside la potencia heurística capaz de dar cuenta de la experimentación de su multiplicidad? Este artículo intentará poner en valor las herramientas elaboradas por la filosofía modal de V. Jankélévitch, a fines de contribuir a la tarea de arquitecturar una "episteme de la intuición" del tiempo presente. Si antes de Bergson la experiencia del tiempo había quedado ligada a la fijación de un concepto, Jankélévitch, proseguirá el trabajo (...) de su maestro, poniendo en foco el dominio disímil de "las maneras" en las que el tiempo se vivencia subjetivamente y se experimenta con-otros. Para ello, creará nociones capaces de indagar cualitativamente un dominio complejo, fugaz e irreversible, surcado por experiencias diversas, singulares, intransferibles. Así, la sutil elaboración efectuada por Jankélévitch en las nociones del "Yo-no-sé-qué" y el "Casi-nada", devendrá aquí la puerta de entrada a este mundo en movimiento, constituido por saberes que se producen siempre de modo fragmentario, "semi-gnosis" como caracterizará Jankélévitch, visto que atienden a una intelección "intuitiva" de la temporalidad, cuya capacidad heurística sobre nuestros modos de producción de la subjetividad sin duda puede sumar un aporte a las perspectivas de la filosofía contemporánea. How to conceptualize temporality? Which analytics can understand its ineffable character? Where does the heuristic strength capable of accounting an experimentation of its multiplicity lie? The aim of this article is to bring in value the tools developed by the modal philosophy of V. Jankélévitch, in order to contribute to the task of building an architecture for an "episteme of intuition" of present time. If before Bergson the experience of time had been linked to the setting of a concept, Jankélévitch will continue the work of his master, putting in focus the dissimilar domain of "ways" in which the time is subjectively lived and experienced with-others. To affront this challenge, he will propose notions capable to qualitatively inquire a complex domain, fugacious and irreversible, marked by diverse experiences, unique, non-transferable ones. Thus, the subtle elaboration made by Jankélévitch on the notions of "I-don't-know-what" and the "Almost-nothing", will become here the entrance gate to this moving world, constituted by a production of knowledge that always occurs in a fragmentary way, "semi-gnosis" as Jankélévitch's would characterize, as it serves to an "intuitive" intellection of temporality, whose heuristic capability on our modes of production of subjectivity can definitely contribute to the perspectives of the contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

In Aristotle's views on cognition a series of terms – hupolêpsis, doxa, and epistêmê – play key roles. But it has not been noticed that each of these comes in two kinds – one unqualified and the other qualified. When these and their interrelations are properly explored, a deeply systematic picture of cognition emerges, in which doxa is best understood as ‘belief’, hupolêpsis as ‘supposition’, and epistêmê as a sort of belief, so that – contrary to orthodoxy – we can (...) have belief and knowledge of the same things at the same time. Many of these conclusions are shown to mark a continuity with Plato, in that neither thinker, it is argued, holds a so-called ‘two-worlds’ picture of cognition. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Foucault’s Renaissance Episteme Reassessed: An Aristotelian CounterblastIan MacleanThere seem to me to be two good reasons for looking at Foucault’s Renaissance episteme again, even though specialists of the Renaissance have given it short shrift and Foucault himself does not seem to have set great store by it in his later writings. 1 The first is that in general books on Foucault accounts of it are still given (...) in a neutral or even approving way, as though neither the concept of episteme (which suggests both that mind-sets or paradigms or epistemes are all-constraining) nor the account of the Renaissance episteme in particular (which is given a predominantly Platonic and hermetic character) require modification, if not refutation. 2 I shall suggest that although in some sense we are all prisoners of our mind-sets, there are ways in which we can escape from this prison 3 ; and with respect to the Renaissance in particular, I shall claim that Aristotelianism, not Platonism, is the appropriate context in which to see the dominant universe of discourse of the day and that this philosophy can be shown to possess the resources for escaping its limitations. To do this I shall [End Page 149] give a brief resume of Foucault’s episteme in general and the Renaissance episteme in particular. Then I shall show first, that the Platonist features which he cites as typical are actively refuted at that time and cannot be described as dominant without severe qualification; second, that the versions of Aris-totelianism widely taught in universities and schools give quite different accounts of these features; and third, that this form of thinking can be shown to have the freedom of self-critique in the very areas in which Foucault chooses to see Renaissance philosophy as both constraining and constrained.In 1969 Foucault produced his “theoretical work” L’Archéologie du savoir as the methodological systematization of his earlier historical writings, L’Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique (l961), La Naissance de la clinique (l963), and Les Mots et les choses (1966). In this work man is described as a modern self-invention, fashioned from a particular configuration of knowledge and destined soon to disappear. Foucault’s history of man is a story about the way he constituted himself as a subject and then made his body, his behavior, his reason, and his consciousness the object of his study and a field to be controlled, regulated, trained, and coerced. In this analysis man’s “rationality” becomes not a faculty but an authoritarian straitjacket. What Foucault sets out to investigate is a very fundamental form of ontology but not one associated with profound knowledge; it is a superficial and finite, if largely invisible, field, which is discontinuous, not defined by the agenda of the modern state of any associated discipline, and peopled by “utterances” (énoncés) which are only graspable in their differences and their dispersion. If coagulations of these “utterances” (formations discursives) occur at all, they appear only in the form of consistent relations: the objects to which they “refer” are no more than objectifications whose scientific status cannot be established and whose meaning cannot be recovered by semantic or rhetorical analysis. In calling his previous book Les Mots et les choses, he was being explicitly ironic, for neither the words nor the things of the title have any substance to them: they are not presences but absences. The description made by the historian is remote from his object, indirect, incomplete; it describes a “preconceptual field” in which the “preconcepts” are no more than organizing operators or functions revealing relationships of dependence, processes of validation, contingent theories of truth. The “utterances” which these “preconcepts” inform come together in “discourses” which are neither systems nor mere aggregations of knowledge; archaeological history as practiced by Foucault uncovers not a “mentality” but an “episteme,” which he defines as follows:By episteme we mean... the total set of relations that unite, at a given period, the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures, sciences, possibly formalized systems.... The episteme is not a form of knowledge or type of rationality which, crossing the boundaries [End Page 150] of the most... (shrink)

before i begin, i would like to express my considerable gratitude to Heldke, Orosco, and Stehn for their stimulating reading of my work and their considered critiques, and to the SAAP Coss Committee for taking pains to represent a community, identifying members in the spirit of the SAAP. Indeed I must parallel and reflect the words Heldke used: "It was just fun to read... about a place... [described] by a theoretical tradition I value" or Orosco locating my scholarship in ancient (...) debates between forms of reasoning about human behavior, or Stehn making me think how to better achieve the aspirations of my applied scholarship. Again, let me say, thanks to you all.Readers made... (shrink)

Previous chapter In a book that was only recently translated into English, Die Form des Werdens: Eine Kulturgeschichte der Embryologie, 1760-1830, Janina Wellmann has claimed that around 1800 the concept of rhythm emerged and penetrated the entire Western culture. In literature, in theoretical reflection on art, in philosophy, and above all in the newest life sciences, rhythm became, she argues, a common scientific “Paradigm” or better yet, a new “Episteme” - Sur le concept de rythme.

Many contemporary critiques of `modernity' target a caricatured construction of `modernity-as-universalist-reason'. Such critiques are often blind to the constitutive splits and tensions within the philosophical and political horizons of modernity between a rationalist and a romanticist episteme. These critiques are therefore also oblivious to the fact that their own critiques of modernity move on a terrain heavily structured and prefigured by older romanticist critiques of reason and scientific objectivity. Some of the persistent problems in romanticist thought - the celebration (...) of authenticity and a recurrent essentialism - reappear in current post-structuralist critiques of modernity. This is particularly evident in the debates in South Asia - emerging from the subaltern studies group in India, from debates on hybridity and migration, and on post-coloniality as a critique of Western modernity. Rather than launching essentializing and totalizing critiques of `modernity-as-universalist-reason', which tend to reproduce the metaphysical fallacies of romanticism, critiques of modernity could more fruitfully unfold as concrete critiques of modern practices and institutions. (shrink)

Departing from the premise that the poststructuralist paradigm still reigns supreme in feminist and gender theory, that is, despite the niche efforts made in the past two decades to challenge it linked to the so called “speculative” turn or the materialisms (and realisms) emerging from the feminist field itself (such as the Utrecht School, inspired by Rosi Braidotti), we set the call for papers for the issue before you in terms that would invite authors ready to challenge the dominant epistemic (...) framework. We invited papers that engage with materialism(s), realism(s), sciences and projects engaged in rethinking the post-human beyond the poststructuralist (and, we dare say, postmodern/ist) norm. -/- . (shrink)

According to the standard and largely traditional interpretation, Aristotle’s conception of nous, at least as it occurs in the Posterior Analytics, is geared against a certain set of skeptical worries about the possibility of scientific knowledge, and ultimately of the knowledge of Aristotelian first principles. On this view, Aristotle introduces nous as an intuitive faculty that grasps the first principles once and for all as true in such a way that it does not leave any room for the skeptic to (...) press his skeptical point any further. Thus the tradi- tional interpretation views Aristotelian nous as having an internalist justificatory role in Aristotelian epistemology. In contrast, a minority (empiricist) view that has emerged recently holds the same internalist justificatory view of nous but rejects its internally certifiable infallibility by stressing the connection between nous and Aristotelian induction. I argue that both approaches are flawed in that Aristotle’s project in the Posterior Analytics is not to answer the skeptic on internalist justificatory grounds, but rather lay out a largely externalist explication of scientific knowledge, i.e. what scientific knowledge consists in, without worrying as to whether we can ever show the skeptic to his satisfaction that we do ever possess knowledge so defined. (shrink)

The article explores the inter-relations between episteme, ideology and knowledge in biblical translations and the underlying historical and intellectual questions that emerge. Through four narratives, drawn across differing timelines, this article maps the implications of theological and temporal power. Besides, it is also argued for how translations are sites of transgressions that eventually shape knowledge and impact epistemology. In conclusion, the article argues that Jerome and Wycliffe represent the role of public intellectuals and the dissident lessons of history.

Cet ouvrage n'est ni un commentaire ni une explication d'obedience historiciste ou deterministe. Par questionnement, lecture et interpretation, l'auteur a voulu produire une semantique philosophique. La doctrine des idees est ainsi reexaminee a la convergence des problemes du langage, de la science et de la cite (logos, episteme, polis). Elle ne peut plus des lors etre interpretee sous l'hypothese de l' idealisme. Elle se manifeste comme une serie de questions de sens ou s'indique une philosophie de la raison. Partout (...) ou le logos nous porte, c'est la qu'il faut aller, tel en serait le mot d'ordre, mais avec la precision qu'a l'articulation du mythique et du theorique, du tragique et du philosohique, et plus profondement de la deraison et du logos, le rationalisme platonicien n'est fait que de raison. (shrink)