Résumé : Le thème de la Métaphysique de l’acte d’être a connu un succès jamais démenti au cours du siècle dernier, avec des auteurs comme Gilson, Maritain ou Fabro, pour ne citer que les plus célèbres. Pourtant, des questions de fond n’ont jamais reçu de réponse satisfaisante, et ont laissé le sentiment d’une doctrine inachevée et inachevable. Trois observations contribuent à cette insatisfaction : la quasi-absence d’une telle problématique chez Thomas d’Aquin, les désaccords entre certains points de la théorie ainsi (...) qu’entre les auteurs, et les incompatibilités avec certains thèmes centraux de la philosophie de Thomas d’Aquin. - Abstract: The theme of the Metaphysics of the act of being has known a never denied success over the last century, with authors like Gilson, Maritain or Fabro, to name only the most famous. Nevertheless, some important questions have never been fittingly answered, and have left the feeling of an unachieved and unachievable doctrine. Three observations contribute to this disappointment : a quasi-absence of such a problematic in Thomas Aquinas, contradictions between certain points of the theory as well as between the authors, and incompatibilities with certain central themes of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. (shrink)

C’est un véritable Discours de la Méthode qu’Aristote nous livre avec son traité de la démonstration intitulé Seconds Analytiques. Avec lui, l’auteur parvient au sommet de l’art logique dont il est le véritable inventeur.

In this paper, we would like to share a view of Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysics which differs significantly from the “doxa of the act of being” currently widespread among Thomistic philosophers. -/- Nous voudrions faire part ici d’une vision de la métaphysique de Thomas d’Aquin qui diverge sensiblement de la “doxa de l’acte d’être” actuellement répandue parmi les philosophes thomistes.

The object of our reflection is to examine whether Aristotle's proof of the eternity of the Universe has a scientific character or only a dialectical one, as Thomas Aquinas claims. On this response depends faith in Creation. -/- L’objet de notre réflexion est d’examiner si la preuve de l’éternité de l’Univers avancée par Aristote a un caractère scientifique ou bien seulement dialectique, comme le prétend Thomas d’Aquin. De cette réponse dépend la foi en la Création.

La somme d’Humbrecht fait preuve d’une érudition peu commune et d’un réel amour de Thomas d’Aquin (mais au détriment d’Aristote, comme c’est de mode). Sa réflexion s’allonge au fil de la plume, en des méandres et des reflux quelquefois difficiles à suivre. Mais donne aussi le sentiment heureux d’une libre méditation de l’auteur voguant au gré de ses pensées, méditation à laquelle il nous invite avec amitié, pourvu que nous acceptions de nous laisser guider. Hélas, si nous branchons un GPS, (...) nous réalisons que nous nous promenons benoîtement au milieu de sables mouvants prêts à nous engloutir tout entiers à chaque pas. (shrink)

L'ordre des derniers livres de la Métaphysique, tel que Thomas d'Aquin le dégage dans son commentaire, ainsi que le début du livre XIII (Mu) invitent à repenser l'organisation de la fin de l'ouvrage. -/- The order of the last books of Metaphysics, as Thomas Aquinas highlights in his commentary, as well as the beginning of book XIII (Mu) invite to rethink the organization of the end of the work.

Une lecture d'Aristote se rattachant à un courant de pensée averroïste conclut à l'ignorance de Dieu sur tout autre objet que Lui-même. Thomas d'Aquin affirme au contraire que Dieu, se connaissant, connaît toutes choses. Un courant actuel du néo-thomisme veut expliquer cette réponse de Thomas par le fait que Dieu connaît ce qu'il cause, or, ce qu'il cause des choses, c'est leur acte d'être. Donc Dieu connaît l'acte d'être de toutes choses. -/- Cette explication est-elle suffisante ou n'est-ce qu'une variante (...) de celle d'Averroes ? N'hésitez pas à donner votre avis. (shrink)

Pour la première fois en langue française, cette traduction du Commentaire des douze livres de la Métaphysique d’Aristote rédigé par Thomas d’Aquin, veut être la transmission d’un relais, à l’heure où la pratique de la langue latine disparaît, même parmi les intellectuels. Aucune nostalgie dans ces propos ; Thomas d’Aquin méconnaissait, semble-t-il, la langue grecque et dut, lui aussi, faire appel à des traductions pour son propre travail de commentaire. L’heure est simplement venue de traduire ce qui ne l’est pas (...) encore et que l’on juge précieux. Or, ce texte est l’expression achevée de la philosophie du Maître moyenâgeux. Assumant presque un millénaire d’histoire de la pensée païenne, arabe, juive et chrétienne, il commente la forme la plus élevée de l’intelligence grecque. Car la Métaphysique d’Aristote est unanimement reconnue comme la perfection éternelle de la sagesse antique. Mais les lignes de pensée actuelles sont paradoxales. D’un côté, de nombreux thomistes opposent aux commentaires aristotéliciens de leur Docteur, une supposée philosophie sous-jacente à sa théologie, d’inspiration néoplatonicienne. D’un autre, les disciples d’Heidegger manifestent un intérêt croissant pour Aristote, au point de le préférer parfois au penseur de Fribourg. À droite, donc, Thomas d’Aquin sans Aristote, et à gauche, Aristote sans Thomas d’Aquin. Cette traduction contribuera-t-elle au ralliement ? Démontrera-t-elle aux uns que Thomas d’Aquin est bien l’interprète majeur d’Aristote et aux autres que la philosophie d’Aristote est bien le fondement définitif de la pensée de Thomas d’Aquin ? Notre travail n’aspire qu’à offrir au lecteur les moyens du jugement. (shrink)

Avec son traité de la démonstration intitulé Seconds Analytiques, c’est un véritable discours de la méthode qu’Aristote nous livre. L’auteur parvient au sommet de l’art logique dont il est l’inventeur. Pourtant, de l’avis unanime des interprètes anciens et actuels, nous sommes devant un de ses écrits les plus difficiles à comprendre. C’est pourquoi Thomas d’Aquin a voulu commenter minutieusement ce texte dont il juge la maîtrise essentielle au travail intellectuel. Tous ses écrits, tant philosophiques que théologiques sont, en effet, construits (...) sur cette trame méthodologique qui leur donne force de science. -/- C’est aussi grâce à cette discipline d’esprit partagée, qu’il a pu entrer en dialogue fécond avec les penseurs païens, musulmans et juifs qui l’ont précédé dans la voie ouverte par Aristote. Une invitation pour notre époque de conflits culturels et religieux ? Pour la première fois en langue française, nous en proposons une traduction qui permet à nos contemporains d’accéder à cette école de rigueur pour l’intelligence : la logique. (shrink)

« En écrivant son Traité de l’Interprétation, Aristote a trempé sa plume à l’encre de son esprit ! » L’antique remarque de Cassiodore vaut encore aujourd’hui tant la matière étudiée est complexe et le style ramassé. Aristote démonte les mécanismes du langage philosophique, aux confins de la linguistique et de la métaphysique. Il offre à cette occasion des développements fondateurs sur la formulation de la vérité, les règles de mise en contradiction, les propositions universelles, la contingence des jugements sur le (...) futur, ou encore les redoutables énonciations modales. S’appuyant sur ses prédécesseurs, Thomas d’Aquin en rédige un commentaire hautement structuré, reconnu comme l’un des plus explicites. Demeuré cependant inachevé, il est complété par Thomas de Vio, dit Cajetan, un des premiers grands thomistes et maître logicien. C’est de l’ensemble de ces deux parties de commentaires que nous proposons la traduction ; la seconde pour la première fois en langue française. (shrink)

Le Commentaire du Traité de l’âme d’Aristote par Thomas d’Aquin, est le cinquième des commentaires fondamentaux des œuvres d’Aristote traduits en langue française. Avec celui des Physiques, de la Métaphysique, de l’Interprétation et des Analytiques, il fonde l’édifice de la philosophie de Thomas d’Aquin et assure les contreforts de sa théologie. Ce traité se présente comme un vaste essai de définition de l’âme et principalement de l’âme humaine, avec en filigrane, une question lancinante : cette âme est-elle immortelle ?

Le Traité de l’âme d’Aristote joue, dans l’histoire de la philosophie, un rôle crucial. Assumant toute la conception de la vie et de l’homme, depuis l’aube de la réflexion jusqu’au déclin de la Grèce, il est à la source des plus riches développements de l’anthropologie musulmane et chrétienne du Moyen-Age. Hegel, Marx ou Darwin le connaissent bien et s’y réfèrent aisément. Les scientifiques de notre fin de siècle le redécouvrent avec intérêt. Mais aujourd’hui, de très nombreuses études spécialisées, des monographies (...) et des articles de revue, font de plus en plus rarement la synthèse des problèmes qu’il soulève. -/- L’intention de ce livre est de retrouver la perspective d’ensemble du Traité. Il ne s’est, en effet, plus produit depuis longtemps, d’étude globale et systématique de l’ouvrage. C’est ce créneau, abandonné parce que très exposé, que nous voudrions réoccuper. (shrink)

Pour la première fois en langue française, la traduction du Commentaire des huit livres des Physiques d'Aristote de Thomas d'Aquin, offre la quintessence de ce qu'on a appelé l' « aristotélo-thomisme ». Encore méconnue des spécialistes d'Aristote, l’œuvre constitue pourtant le sommet qui domine toute la tradition philosophique antique et médiévale. Traversant les aléas critiques du modernisme et du scientisme des trois derniers siècles, ce commentaire brille d'une actualité renouvelée grâce à l'évolution des sciences physiques et humaines les plus récentes, (...) avec lesquelles il est étonnamment en accord. Les Leçons sur la Nature (autre titre du livre) d'Aristote sont le porche d'entrée pour quiconque veut approfondir la philosophie et en vivre. Le métaphysicien reçoit d'elles le modèle méthodologique et l'assise conceptuelle pour sa contemplation ; le moraliste en hérite les principes d'une éthique rationnelle et sociale ; le théologien y puise les fondements naturels de sa discipline. En détachant le fonds philosophique de son apparat méthodologique, cette traduction met singulièrement l'un et l'autre en relief. La densité de réflexion se voit ainsi libérée des nombreuses coupures techniques, pour permettre une lecture ininterrompue, tandis que l'ordre de progression, dont Thomas d'Aquin avait un tel souci, est exhaussé pour lui-même. L'ensemble se veut donc autant une oeuvre de méditation qu'un instrument de travail. (shrink)

La quête de la “Métaphysique de l’acte d’être” passe inévitablement par Cornelio Fabro. La “Bibliothèque de la Revue Thomiste”, avec le concours des éditions “Parole et Silence”, a eu la bonne idée de rééditer son maître ouvrage : Participation et causalité selon Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Je m’attendais, comme dans mes explorations précédentes chez Gilson, Mercier et autres, à découvrir un auteur didactique, plus dialecticien et historien que philosophe, pour qui les pétitions de principe pèsent peu devant la faconde des dissertations. (...) Mais au contraire, je dois reconnaître que nous avons devant les yeux un exercice de philosophie de très grande classe, sans comparaison avec les précités. Tout le mal que j’en pourrai dire par la suite, à cause de mon tempérament atrabilaire, doit être mesuré à l’aune de ce jugement premier. (shrink)

Georges Canguilhem, A Vital Rationalist: Selected Writings from Georges Canguilhem, edited by François Delaporte and translated by Arthur Goldhammer. New York: Zone Books, 1994. Pp. 481. ISBN 0-942299-72-8. £24.25, $36.25.

Я интерпретирую философские взгляды Вернера Гайзенберга как прагматизм и неметафизический реализм виттгенштайновского типа. «Замкнутая теория» – виттгенштайновское правило/концепт. В отличие от Бокулич, предпочитающей позицию Дирака относительно природы связей между различными физическими теориями, я отдаю предпочтение позиции Гайзенберга. Моя позиция, интерпретирующая Гайзенберга, также прямо противоположна позиции Поппера: критерием устоявшейся научной (замкнутой) теории является её нефальсифицируемость. -/- I interpret philosophical views of Werner Heisenberg as a pragmatism and non-metaphysical realism of a Wittgensteinian kind. The “closed theory” is a Wittgensteinian rule/concept. Unlike Alisa (...) Bokulich, favouring Dirac’s position about inter-theoretical relations, I favour Heisenberg’s one. My position, interpreting Heisenberg’s notion of a closed theory, is also in direct opposition to Popper’s one: the criterion of an established scientific (closed) theory is its non-falsifiability. (shrink)

Illusionism about phenomenal consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, even though it seems to exist. This thesis is widely judged to be uniquely counterintuitive: the idea that consciousness is an illusion strikes most people as absurd, and seems almost impossible to contemplate in earnest. Defenders of illusionism should be able to explain the apparent absurdity of their own thesis, within their own framework. However, this is no trivial task: arguably, none of the illusionist theories currently on (...) the market is able to do this. I present a new theory of phenomenal introspection and argue that it might deal with the task at hand. (shrink)

Phenomenal consciousness appears to be particularly normatively significant. For this reason, sentience-based conceptions of ethics are widespread. In the field of animal ethics, knowing which animals are sentient appears to be essential to decide the moral status of these animals. I argue that, given that materialism is true of the mind, phenomenal consciousness is probably not particularly normatively significant. We should face up to this probable insignificance of phenomenal consciousness and move towards an ethic without sentience.

Illusionism about consciousness is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, but merely seems to exist. Embracing illusionism presents the theoretical advantage that one does not need to explain how consciousness arises from purely physical brains anymore, but only to explain why consciousness seems to exist while it does not. As Keith Frankish puts it, illusionism replaces the “hard problem of consciousness” with the “illusion problem.” However, a satisfying version of illusionism has to explain not only why the illusion (...) of consciousness arises, but also why it arises with its particular strength: Notably, why we are so deeply reluctant to recognize the illusory nature of consciousness. Explaining our strong intuitive resistance to illusionism means solving what I call the “illusion meta-problem,” which I think is a part of the illusion problem. In this paper, I argue that current versions of illusionism are unable to solve the illusion meta-problem. I focus on two of the most promising recent illusionist theories of consciousness, and I show why they fail to explain the peculiar reluctance we encounter whenever we try to accept that consciousness is an illusion. (shrink)

The prevalent view in animal ethics is that speciesism is wrong: we should weigh the interests of humans and non-humans equally. Shelly Kagan has recently questioned this claim, defending speciesism against Peter Singer’s seminal argument based on the principle of equal consideration of interests. This critique is most charitably construed as a dilemma. The principle of equal consideration can be interpreted in either of two ways. While it faces counterexamples on the first reading, it makes Singer’s argument question-begging on the (...) second. In response, Singer has grasped the first horn of this dilemma and tried to accommodate Kagan’s apparent counterexamples. In my opinion, this attempt is unpersuasive: the principle of equal consideration is inconsistent with common-sense intuitions on Kagan’s cases. Worse, Singer’s argument begs the question anyway. It therefore faces two serious objections. This is not to say that there is nothing wrong with speciesism, however. In the second half of the paper, I propose another, better argument against speciesism, which I argue is immune to both objections. According to this other argument, speciesism is wrong because it involves discriminating on the basis of a merely biological property. (shrink)

Animal ethicists have been debating the morality of speciesism for over forty years. Despite rather persuasive arguments against this form of discrimination, many philosophers continue to assign humans a higher moral status than nonhuman animals. The primary source of evidence for this position is our intuition that humans’ interests matter more than the similar interests of other animals. And it must be acknowledged that this intuition is both powerful and widespread. But should we trust it for all that? The present (...) paper defends a negative answer to that question, based on a debunking argument. The intuitive belief that humans matter more than other animals is unjustified because it results from an epistemically defective process. It is largely shaped by tribalism, our tendency to favor ingroup members as opposed to outgroup members. And this influence is distortive for two reasons. First, tribalism evolved for reasons unrelated to moral truths; hence, it would at best produce true moral beliefs accidentally. Second, tribalism generates a vast quantity of false moral beliefs, starting with racist beliefs. Once this intuition is discarded, little evidence remains that speciesism is morally acceptable. (shrink)

Common sense has it that animals matter considerably less than humans; the welfare and suffering of a cow, a chicken or a fish are important but not as much as the welfare and suffering of a human being. Most animal ethicists reject this “speciesist” view as mere prejudice. In their opinion, there is no difference between humans and other animals that could justify such unequal consideration. In the opposite camp, advocates of speciesism have long tried to identify a difference that (...) would fit the bill, but they have consistently seemed to fail. In light of this, some naturally began to appeal to Moorean arguments: the case against speciesism must be flawed somehow, these philosophers maintain, because speciesism is supported by a strong and widespread intuition. This chapter draws on recent findings in social psychology to criticize this defence of speciesism. It argues that the strong and widespread intuition that humans count more than animals is epistemically defective because it is causally shaped by a pair of irrelevant influences: cognitive dissonance and tribalism. Accordingly, it is no suitable basis for a Moorean argument. (shrink)

Illusionists about phenomenal consciousness claim that phenomenal consciousness does not exist but merely seems to exist. At the same time, it is quite intuitive for there to be some kind of link between phenomenality and value. For example, some situations seem good or bad in virtue of the conscious experiences they feature. Illusionist views of phenomenal consciousness then face what I call the normative challenge. They have to say where they stand regarding the idea that there is a link between (...) phenomenality and value. If they accept that there is such a link, they might be committed to revisionary normative consequences (and some of them may prove to be uncomfortable). If they deny that there is such link, they might avoid revisionary normative consequences (without being guaranteed against them) but then they have to give reasons to deny that such link obtains, which is not a trivial task. The existence of the normative challenge does not show that illusionism is false, but it shows that illusionism might have important consequences in the normative domain, which have to be clarified. (shrink)

Many people believe that human interests matter much more than the like interests of non-human animals, and this “speciesist belief” plays a crucial role in the philosophical debate over the moral status of animals. In this paper, I develop a debunking argument against it. My contention is that this belief is unjustified because it is largely due to an off-track process: our attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance generated by the “meat paradox”. Most meat-eaters believe that it is wrong to (...) harm animals unnecessarily, yet they routinely and deliberately behave in ways that cause great unnecessary suffering to animals. As recent research suggests, this practical inconsistency puts them in an unpleasant state of dissonance, which they try to escape by resolving the paradox. And they do so in part by adopting the speciesist belief—if animal suffering matters much less than human suffering, then harming animals cannot be so wrong after all. Since this belief-forming process does not track moral truth, I conclude that we are not justified in believing that human interests matter more than the similar interests of non-humans. (shrink)

The article introduces a special issue on “Rethinking Liberal Multiculturalism: Foundations, Practices and Methodologies.” The contributions presented in this special issue were discussed during the conference « Multicultural Citizenship 25 Years Later », held in Paris in November 2021. Their aim is to take stock of the legacy of Kymlicka’s contribution and to highlight new developments in theories of liberal multiculturalism and minority rights. The contributions do not purport to challenge the legitimacy of theories of multiculturalism and minority rights, they (...) rather aim at deepening our understanding of the foundations of liberal multiculturalism and of its practical implementation, sensitive to social scientific dynamics of diverse societies. Without abandoning the general idea that cultural minorities should be granted special minority rights, the essays presented raise new questions about three dimensions central to liberal multiculturalism: its normative foundations, its practical categories of minorities or groups, and its fact-sensitive methodology. Taken together they shed light on the renewed variety of theories of liberal multiculturalism highlighting their complexity and internal disagreements. To introduce these articles, the article first draws a brief historical overview of the debates on multiculturalism since the 1990s (section 1). It then highlights the distinctive aspects of Kymlicka’s contribution (section 2) and identifies recent research trends (section 3). Doing so, it explains how the articles gathered here both expand on those distinctive aspects and explore those new research avenues. The section 4 summarizes the contributions. (shrink)

ABSTRACTWhat does it take for lawyers and others to think or talk about the same legal topic—e.g., defamation, culpability? We argue that people are able to think or talk about the same topic not when they possess a matching substantive understanding of the topic, as traditional metasemantics says, but instead when their thoughts or utterances are related to each other in certain ways. And what determines the content of thoughts and utterances is what would best serve the core purposes of (...) the representational practice within which the thought or utterance is located. In thus favoring a “relational model” in metasemantics, we share Ronald Dworkin's goal of explaining fundamental legal disagreements, and also his reliance on constructive interpretation. But what we delineate is a far more general and explanatorily resourceful metasemantics than what Dworkin articulated, which also bypasses some controversial implications for the nature of law that Dworkin alleged. (shrink)

We propose a new approach to the study of introspection. Instead of asking what form introspection actually takes in humans or other animals, we ask what forms it could take, in natural or artificial minds. What are the dimensions along which forms of introspection could vary? This is a relatively unexplored question, but it is one that has the potential to open new avenues of study and reveal new connections between existing ones. It may, for example, focus attention on possible (...) forms of introspection radically different from the human one and help to integrate competing theories of human introspection in a non-adversarial manner. We introduce and motivate the project, provide a preliminary mapping of the space of possible forms of introspection, and sketch a programme for interdisciplinary research on the topic. (shrink)

Illusionism is the thesis that phenomenal consciousness does not exist, but merely seems to exist. Many opponents to the thesis take it to be obviously false. They think that they can reject illusionism, even if they conceded that it is coherent and supported by strong arguments. David Chalmers has articulated this reaction to illusionism in terms of a “Moorean” argument against illusionism. This argument contends that illusionism is false, because it is obviously true that we have phenomenal experiences. I argue (...) that this argument fails by showing that its defenders cannot maintain that its crucial premise has the kind of support needed for the argument to work, without begging the question against illusionism. (shrink)

Oscar Horta has argued that speciesism is wrong by definition. In his view, there can be no more substantive debate about the justification of speciesism than there can be about the legality of murder, for it stems from the definition of “speciesism” that speciesism is unjustified just as it stems from the definition of “murder” that murder is illegal. The present paper is a case against this conception. I distinguish two issues: one is descriptive and the other normative. Relying on (...) philosophers’ use of the term, I first answer the descriptive question negatively: speciesism is a purely descriptive concept. Then, based on both its main functions in the philosophical and public debates and an analogy with racism, I answer the normative question negatively: speciesism should remain a purely descriptive concept. If I am correct, then speciesism neither is nor should be wrong by definition. (shrink)

According to philosophical orthodoxy, the parties to moral or legal disputes genuinely disagree only if their uses of key normative terms in the dispute express the same meaning. Recently, however, this orthodoxy has been challenged. According to an influential alternative view, genuine moral and legal disagreements should be understood as metalinguistic negotiations over which meaning a given term should have. In this paper, we argue that the shared meaning view is motivated by much deeper considerations than its recent critics recognize, (...) and that much would be lost in opting for the explanation of normative disputes as metalinguistic negotiations. (shrink)

I present and I implement what I take to be the best approach to solve the meta-problem: the evidential approach. The main tenet of this approach is to explain our problematic phenomenal intuitions by putting our representations of phenomenal states in perspective within the larger frame of the cognitive processes we use to conceive of evidence.

Moral error theorists face the so-called “now-what problem”: what should we do with our moral judgments from a prudential point of view if these judgments are uniformly false? On top of abolitionism and conservationism, which respectively advise us to get rid of our moral judgments and to keep them, three revisionary solutions have been proposed in the literature: expressivism, naturalism, and fictionalism. In this paper, I argue that expressivism and naturalism do not constitute genuine alternatives to abolitionism, of which they (...) are in the end mere variants—and, even less conveniently, variants that are conform to the very spirit of abolitionism as formulated by its proponents. The main version of fictionalism, by contrast, provides us with a recommendation to which abolitionists cannot consistently subscribe. This leaves us with only one revisionary solution to the now-what problem. (shrink)

Many philosophers have tried to defend physicalism concerning phenomenal consciousness, by explaining dualist intuitions within a purely physicalist framework. One of the most common strategies to do so consists in interpreting the alleged “explanatory gap” between phenomenal states and physical states as resulting from a fallacy, or a cognitive illusion. In this paper, I argue that the explanatory gap does not rest on a fallacy or a cognitive illusion. This does not imply the falsity of physicalism, but it has consequences (...) on the kind of physicalism we should embrace. (shrink)

The moral error theory holds that moral claims and beliefs, because they commit us to the existence of illusory entities, are systematically false or untrue. It is an open question what we should do with moral thought and discourse once we have become convinced by this view. Until recently, this question had received two main answers. The abolitionist proposed that we should get rid of moral thought altogether. The fictionalist, though he agreed we should eliminate moral beliefs, enjoined us to (...) replace them with attitudes that resemble to some extent the attitudes we have towards pieces of fiction. But there is now a third theory on the market: conservationism, the view that we should keep holding moral beliefs, even though we know them to be false. (According to a fourth theory, ‘substitutionism’, we should modify the content of our moral claims in such a way that they become true.) Putting abolitionism (and substitutionism) aside, our aim is to assess the plausibility of conservationism as an alternative to the – relatively dominant – fictionalism that we find in the literature. Given the difficulty of finding a conservationist view that is both (i) plausible and (ii) not merely a terminological variant of fictionalism, we will argue that conservationism fails to constitute a plausible alternative to fictionalism, at least insofar as it purports to be an alternative view as to what we should do with our moral thoughts. (shrink)

According to the Copernican myth, geocentrism was a form of anthropocentrism because it showcased humankind as being both the centre and the purpose of the Cosmos, whereas heliocentrism, in dethroning humankind from this privileged position, luckily provided a means to quash this point of view, which was illusory and vain, and that even went against scientific progress. According to the anthropocentric myth, which is a part of it, geocentrism is a form of anthropocentrism, while heliocentrism is really an anti-anthropocentrism and (...) not simply a non-anthropocentrism. This article, in the form of a dialogue, questions these two myths, looking in particular for the causes of their appearance, among which is a guilty anachronism. (shrink)

The moral error theory has become increasingly popular in recent decades. So much so indeed that a new issue emerged, the so-called “now-what problem”: if all our moral beliefs are false, then what should we do with them? So far, philosophers who are interested in this problem have focused their attention on the mode of the attitudes we should have with respect to moral propositions. Some have argued that we should keep holding proper moral beliefs; others that we should replace (...) our moral beliefs with fictional attitudes, beliefs in natural facts, or conative attitudes. But all these philosophers have set aside an important question about the content of these attitudes: which moral propositions, and more generally which moral theory, should we accept? The present paper addresses this neglected issue, arguing that moral error theorists should adopt a utilitarian moral fiction. In other words, they should accept the set of moral principles whose general acceptance would maximize overall well-being. (shrink)

In 'Ethics Without Sentience: Facing Up to the Probable Insignificance of Phenomenal Consciousness' (Kammerer, 2022), I argued that phenomenal consciousness is probably normatively insignificant, and does not play a significant normative role. In 'Preserving the Normative Significance of Sentience' (Dung, 2024), Leonard Dung challenges my reasoning and defends sentientism about value and moral status against my arguments. Here I respond to Dung's criticism, pointing out three flaws in his reply. My conclusion is that the view that phenomenal consciousness is distinctively (...) significant is still very much under threat. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Eric Schwitzgebel argues that if materialism about consciousness is true, then the United States is likely to have its own stream of phenomenal consciousness, distinct from the streams of conscious experience of the people who compose it. Indeed, most plausible forms of materialism have to grant that a certain degree of functional and behavioral complexity constitutes a sufficient condition for the ascription of phenomenal consciousness – and Schwitzgebel makes a case to show that the United States (...) as a whole fulfills this condition. One way to avoid this counter-intuitive consequence of materialism about consciousness is to adopt what Schwitzgebel calls an “anti-nesting principle”: a principle that states that there can be no nested forms of phenomenal consciousness and that therefore a conscious whole cannot have parts that are themselves conscious. However, Schwitzgebel then proceeds in his paper to draw up various objections, notably based on thought experiments, in order to dismiss these kinds of “anti-nesting” principles. My aim in this paper is to present a version of a sophisticated anti-nesting principle that avoids Schwitzgebel’s objections. This principle is reasonable, intuitive, and as non-arbitrary as possible. Moreover, it can resist the objections mounted by Schwitzgebel against simple anti-nesting principles. This principle helps materialists avoid the implication that the United States has its own stream of consciousness, while granting consciousness to some entities which, in many cases, are intuitive instantiators of phenomenal consciousness. This principle therefore constitutes a way out for a materialist who wants to deny that the United States is conscious. (shrink)