I argue that Moore's arguments have anti-skeptical force even though they beg the question against skepticism because they target the skeptic rather than skepticism directly. Moore offers two arguments which are usually conflated by his interpreters, namely, his proof of an external world and a reductio argument. I explain why the anti-skeptical force of the latter has to be derived from that of the former. I consider an objection to Moore that is based on distinguishing between the everyday and the (...) philosophical contexts. I argue that the objection fails even on the most plausible understanding of the distinction. (shrink)

It is a standing temptation for philosophers to find anticipations of their own views in the great thinkers of the past, but few have been so bold in the search for precursors, and so utterly mistaken, as Berkeley when he claimed Plato and Aristotle as allies to his immaterialist idealism. InSiris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries Concerning the Virtues of Tar-Water, which Berkeley published in his old age in 1744, he reviews the leading philosophies of antiquity and finds (...) them on the whole a good deal more sympathetic to his own ideas than the ‘modern atheism’, as he calls it, of Hobbes and Spinoza or the objectionable principles of ‘the mechanic and geometrical philosophers’ such as Newton. But his strongest and, I think, his most interesting claim is that neither Plato nor Aristotle admitted ‘an absolute actual existence of sensible or corporeal things’. (shrink)

It is a standing temptation for philosophers to find anticipations of their own views in the great thinkers of the past, but few have been so bold in the search for precursors, and so utterly mistaken, as Berkeley when he claimed Plato and Aristotle as allies to his immaterialist idealism. InSiris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries Concerning the Virtues of Tar-Water, which Berkeley published in his old age in 1744, he reviews the leading philosophies of antiquity and finds (...) them on the whole a good deal more sympathetic to his own ideas than the ‘modern atheism’, as he calls it, of Hobbes and Spinoza or the objectionable principles of ‘the mechanic and geometrical philosophers’ such as Newton. But his strongest and, I think, his most interesting claim is that neither Plato nor Aristotle admitted ‘an absolute actual existence of sensible or corporeal things’. (shrink)

This paper argues for the presence in Plato’s work of a conception of thinking central to which is what I call the Transparency View. According to this view, in order for a subject to think of a given object, the subject must represent that object just as it is, without inaccuracy or distortion. I examine the ways in which this conception influences Plato’s epistemology and metaphysics and explore some ramifications for contemporary views about mental content.

Moore’s “Proof of an external world” and his “Four forms of scepticism” have long puzzled commentators. How are these adequate responses to sceptics? How, for that matter, is the so-called proof of an external world even pertinent to the challenge of scepticism? The notion of relativized burdens of proof is introduced: this is a burden of proof vis-à-vis one’s opponent that one takes on when trying to convince that someone of something. The relativized burden of proof is a making explicit (...) the truism that if you argue with someone with the intent of trying to convince that someone of something, and if you fail to, you have not met your own conversational goal. Assuming Moore is implicitly relying on the notion of relativized burdens of proof illuminates his approach in these papers. (shrink)

I argue that, in analysing the structure and development of moral traditions, MacIntyre relies primarily on Kuhn's model of scientific tradition, rather than on Lakatos' model. I unpack three foci of Kuhn's conception of the sciences, namely: the ‘crisis’ conception of scientific development, what I call the ‘systematic conception’ of scientific paradigms, and the view that successive paradigms are incommensurable. I then show that these three foci are integrated into MacIntyre's account of the development of moral traditions with a surprising (...) degree of faithfulness to Kuhn. And crucially, I argue against the overall cogency of his account, given the disparities I pinpoint between scientific and moral traditions. My overall critique is, however, fundamentally friendly, since nothing I have to say invalidates the very notion of a moral tradition, and all I am calling for are less problematic construals of that notion. (shrink)

In Plato's Theaetetus Socrates is portrayed as a midwife of the intellect. The comparison of Socratic questioning to midwifery had until recently been commonly attributed to Socrates himself. In 1977 M. F. Burnyeat published Socratic Midwifery, Platonic Inspiration, which transformed the way in which the dialogue has since been perceived. The author maintains that the midwife comparison is in no sense to be attributed to the historical Socrates.

Cet article se propose d’étudier les procédés platoniciens de l’exemple, de l’analogie et du paradigme, en insistant à la fois sur leur distinction et sur leur articulation mutuelle. En ce qui concerne l’exemple, il convient d’en distinguer un usage dianoétique, que Platon proscrit, d’un usage proprement dialectique, qu’il encourage et qui peut avoir deux fonctions différentes : faire comprendre une question ou une méthode et faire saisir une structure. L’analogie au sens strict développe cette deuxième fonction, en la complexifiant parfois (...) (notamment dans le Gorgias et la République) par une dimension « constructive ». Reste que le but de l’analogie, comme celui de l’exemple, est avant tout de faire saisir des rapports ; et dans la mesure où ces rapports sont purement intelligibles, l’analogie peut elle aussi être considérée comme un procédé dialectique. Enfin, le paradigme tel qu’il est utilisé dans le Sophiste et le Politique développe les traits précédents au sein d’un dispositif très élaboré, qui a pour but essentiel de faire saisir une méthode susceptible d’être appliquée à ce qui fait l’objet de l’examen. En ce sens, il s’agit d’un prolongement de l’un des usages dialectiques des exemples que l’on trouve dès les premiers Dialogues. La pensée paradigmatique de Platon manifeste ainsi une grande continuité, qui repose sur une conception fondamentale : la dialectique, en tant que science suprême qui étudie les Idées, ne peut être décrite de l’extérieur, mais seulement se pratiquer. Cette pratique se prépare, non pas en commençant par se tourner vers le sensible, comme on l’écrit parfois, mais en se tournant vers des cas tout aussi intelligibles – en tant que rapports ou ensembles de rapports, c’est‑à‑dire structures –, quoique « plus faciles », afin de rendre le dialecticien ultimement capable d’examiner n’importe quel sujet. (shrink)