If we consider human thought as the, so far, ultimate, if not supreme, stage in the evolution of life on Earth, we must also try to understand the evolutionary conditions that allowed it to emerge, and that leads us to look again at living organization.Whatever the origins of life (cf. the text of Jacques Reisse, p. 53), it is clear that the oldest living organization, that of a protobacteria, is extremely complex in its functional and complementary association of extremely diverse (...) macro-molecules, and that this complexity includes in particular: a) the organization of exchanges with an environment from which it draws both matter-energy and organization ; b) a permanent process of self-reorganization through the replacing of molecules that have deteriorated and through the production of new ones; c) the organization of the self-reproduction of the creature through division. An organization of this kind includes a quasi-informational dimension (the hereditary message inscribed in the genes and the capacity to extract information from the environment), a quasi-computational dimension (the processing of data, via indices or quasi-signs from the interior and exterior), and a communicational dimension (internal RNA-protein communication and external communication with its congeners). In short, from the beginning, a living being is the product/producer of a self-eco-organization the nature of which is at the same time computational, informational, and communicational. In other words, within every living organization, there is a cognitive dimension, but this cognitive dimension is undifferentiated within it. (shrink)

Plato’s Protagoras contains, among other things, three short but puzzling remarks on the media of philosophy. First, at 328e5–329b1, Plato makes Socrates worry that long speeches, just like books, are deceptive, because they operate in a discursive mode void of questions and answers. Second, at 347c3–348a2, Socrates argues that discussion of poetry is a presumptuous affair, because, the poems’ message, just like the message of any written text, cannot be properly examined if the author is not present. Third, at 360e6–361d6, (...) it becomes clear that even if the conversation between Socrates and Protagoras was conducted by means of short questions and answers, this spoken mode of discourse is problematic too, because it ended up distracting the inquiry from its proper course. As this paper 2 sets out to argue, Plato does not only make Socrates articulate these worries to exhibit the hazards of discursive commodifi cation. In line with Socrates’ warning to the young Hippocrates of the dangers of sophistic rhetoric, and the sophists’ practice of trading in teachings, they are also meant to problematize the thin line between philosophical and sophistical practice. By examining these worries in the light of how the three relevant modes of discourse are exemplifi ed in the dialogue, this paper aims to isolate and clarify the reasons behind them in terms of deceit, presumptuousness and distraction; and to argue that these reasons cast doubts on the common assumption that the dialogue’s primary aim is to show how sophistical rhetoric must succumb to Socratic dialectic. (shrink)

RésuméLa psychanalyse se pose comme savoir quant à certains aspects de l'esprit humain et comme instrument pour y apporter des changements. II y a relativement peu de travaux consacrés à la structure de ce savoir ou aux modalités ?action de cet instrument. Ce travail se propose ?examiner brièvement ce qui dans l'oeuvre du pionnier de la psychanalyse – Sigmund Freud –, ou à partir ?elle, permet ?entrevoir les réponses qui pourraient être apportées à de telles questions.

Au cours des xvi e et xvii e siècles, les théoriciens de la raison d’État définissent la nouvelle notion par comparaison des temps anciens et modernes: ils affirment, dans une quasi-unanimité, que les Anciens connaissaient la raison d’État — la privant volontiers de sa modernité. Pourtant, il n’en demeure pas moins qu’historiquement la raison d’État accompagne l’avènement de l’État moderne et participe à l’élaboration de sa rationalité politique. Dans cet article, on entend rappeler ces multiples figures antiques de la raison (...) d’État, mises au jour et exploitées par ses propres théoriciens, afin de saisir leurs enjeux pour l’histoire de la notion, leurs rapports à la modernité politique et leurs effets sur l’art de gouverner propre à l’État moderne. À partir de la description de sa polymorphie constitutive, par laquelle elle semble s’adapter à toutes les époques, il s’agit de saisir en quoi consiste la modernité de la raison d’État. (shrink)