Ce texte a été présenté lors de la journée d'études « CHANGER DE RYTHME, CHANGER DE SENS » organisée par Maria Manca (Paris 7), Jean Lambert (Paris 10) et Sandra Bornand (CNRS/LLACAN), journée dont on trouvera le programme ici. L'augmentation du nombre des études rythmiques La première chose qui saute aux yeux quand on traverse les textes consacrés récemment aux phénomènes rythmiques ou utilisant le rythme comme concept opératoire – toutes définitions confondues –, c'est tout simplement l'augmentation (...) - 3. (...) Sur le concept de rythme – Nouvel article. (shrink)

From the early reception of Thomas Aquinas up to the present, many have interpreted his theory of liberum arbitrium to imply intellectual determinism: we do not control our choices, because we do not control the practical judgments that cause our choices. In this paper we argue instead that he rejects determinism in general and intellectual determinism in particular, which would effectively destroy liberum arbitrium as he conceives of it. We clarify that for Aquinas moral responsibility presupposes liberum arbitrium and thus (...) the ability to do otherwise, although the ability to do otherwise applies differently to praise and blame. His argument against intellectual determinism is not straightforward, but we construct it by analogy to his arguments against other deterministic threats. The non-determinism of the intellect’s causality with respect to the will results from his claims that practical reasoning is defeasible and that the reasons for actions are not contrastive reasons. (shrink)

The argument from ignorance mounted by John Schellenberg argues from the existence of non-faulty unbelief to the non-existence of God, from the fact of atheism or agnosticism to the truth of atheism. It relies on two putative conceptual relations: between the idea of love and that of personal relationship, and between personal relationship and existential belief on each side of the relation concerning the other relatum. I argue that each is debatable, and so the argument cannot proceed.