L'objectif de notre étude sur le concept de «civil» dans la pensée de Montesquieu consiste à établir, dans un premier temps, le contexte dans lequel, après Adam Smith en particulier, et dans le cadre du processus de la séparation des sciences économiques et des sciences juridiques, le domaine du «civil», plus tard désigné comme «société civile», devient l'objet des sciences économiques, et, en second lieu, à voir comment, en même temps, cette notion de «civil» perd la connotation de «société politique et juridique» (c'est-à-dire « civitas »). Pour aborder cette question, nous nous intéressons tout d'abord à l'accroissement de l'intérêt pour l'histoire de I'Antiquité romaine qui connaît un renouveau avec l'humanisme en Europe. Les interprétations portant sur l'histoire romaine reflètent les intérêts des intellectuels aux prises avec leur propre société contemporaine, et la diversité de ces interprétations nous permet de retracer l'évolution des moyens analytiques employés pour penser la société en général. Dans cette perspective, nous étudions Montesquieu en référence à Machiavel qui a vécu à une période cruciale dans le Nord de l'Italie entre la fin du 15e et le 16e siècle, puis, à Harrington qui a vécu à l'époque de la 1ère révolution anglaise au milieu du 17e siècle et, finalement, à David Hume qui a défendu le régime établi après la Glorieuse révolution en 1688. À partir de ces analyses, nous rendront compte des causes de l'évolution des sciences sociales au cours de ces siècles, qui constituent la période historique dans laquelle s'est établi graduellement le système étatique moderne. / The objective of our study on the concept of "civil" in the thought of Montesquieu consists at first in presenting the context in which, especially after Adam Smith, and in the process of the separation of economical sciences from legal sciences, the sphere of the "civil", la ter called "civil society", becomes the object of economical sciences, and second, in understanding how, at the same time, the notion of "civil" lost the connotation of "political and legal society", that is "civitas". To approach this question, our first concern focuses on the increasing interest on R.oman antiquity which begin as renewal in huamnist thought in Europe. lntepretations of Roman history actually reflect the interests of intellectuals preoccupied with their own contemporary society. Nonetheless the divcrsity of these interpretations helps to understand the evolution of the analytical means used to analyse the society in general. ln this perspective, we compare Montesquieu with Machiavelli who lived in an incisive period in North of ltaly in the 15th, and the begging of the 16th, century, along with Harrington who lived in the time of the Civil War in England in the middle of the 17th century and, fïnally, with David Hume who defended the govemement established after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. From these analyses, we show the causes of the progressive sophistication of the social sciences matching the historical period during which the modern state system has gradually been established.

As a practical moralist and political theorist concerned with reforming a factious and religious public, Hume recommends a particular outlook that is fit for civilized society. In this dissertation, I present Hume as a contributor to the post-scholastic contest of philosophical systems, as an innovative thinker who revised the modern Epicurean outlook of Hobbes and Mandeville and challenged both the austere Christian Stoicism of Francis Hutcheson and the Platonic rationalism of Samuel Clarke. I argue that the political mentality that Hume presented as suitable for sustaining the prevailing social order constitutes one more step in the development of the modern Epicurean mentality. This mentality, moreover, is not strictly political, but incorporates metaphysical, epistemological, and moral judgments that, in light of the contest of systems, are rightly regarded as a restatement of modern Epicurean positions. Hume, in accord with the principles of the new political science, sought to protect the gains of civilization from the vestiges of barbarism, which, for Hume, were manifested in the superstitious tribalism of religionists and political partisans. Hume replaces Christian, Whig, and Tory myths—i.e. grand narratives situating human beings as moral and political subjects—with the Epicurean myth of the progress of human society. The end of political society, from this perspective, is neither piety nor moral improvement, but prosperity, ease, and comfort, which, together, serve as the measure of progress and the reason for popular consent to the exercise of public political authority. This mentality, I argue, sheds light on the normative dimensions of Hume’s liberal political science.

No description available.

The aim of the present study is to develop a solution to the problem of skepticism about the external world ("skepticism", for short), inspired primarily by Hume's "skeptical solution" to the problem of skepticism about induction, but also by epistemological externalism and Wittgenstein's discussion of skeptical doubts in On Certainty. The author accepts certain elements in P. F. Strawson's interpretation of Hume and Wittgenstein, but rejects the "psychological" argument against skepticism which Strawson ascribes to the two philosophers. The problem of skepticism is understood as that of showing that we can know what we in common sense claim to know about external objects, despite skeptical arguments to the contrary. A "moderate" skepticism is accepted, according to which it is possible that we are globally mistaken in our beliefs about external objects, and it is argued that there is in fact no conflict between this moderate skepticism and common sense. A distinc-tion is drawn between two types of "strong" skepticism, which does conflict with common sense: prescriptive skepti-cism, the recommendation to abandon our common sense ways of forming beliefs, by suspend-ing judgement or in other ways; and theoretical skepti-cism, the thesis that we can have no rational grounds for our beliefs about external objects. An argument against prescriptive skepticism is devel-oped, according to which each of three possible forms of prescriptive skepticism is unacceptable. An externalist argument against theoreti-cal skepticism is developed, according to which it is suffi-cient for knowledge that one is in fact not globally mis-taken, whether or not one has grounds for believing this to be the case. It is argued that this variant of externalism constitutes a form of natu-ralistic epistemology, and that it as such fills a gap in Quine's argument for the natu-ralization of epistemology. An interpretation of On Certainty is defended, according to which Wittgen-stein accepts a form of moderate skepticism and presents an argu-ment against strong skep-ticism similar to Hume's.

Les travaux de Tversky et Kahneman à propos du raisonnement probabiliste ont déclenché un débat qui s'est transposé aux normes du raisonnement en général. Les tentatives de naturalisation de ces normes entreprises par les psychologues évolutionnistes (en particulier Gigerenzer) avaient comme objectif d'expliquer les normes en fonction du contexte pour lequel elles avaient évolué. Nous présentons les travaux de Tversky et Kahneman ainsi que leur interprétation et celle de la psychologie évolutionniste. Par contre, un problème majeur émerge de ces tentatives. Considérer les normes dans leur adéquation à un contexte particulier a comme conséquence de relativiser ces normes. Or, nous souhaitons, lorsque nous entreprenons une étude normative, expliquer aussi les normes générales du raisonnement et conserver cet aspect de généralité. Il est possible d'expliquer les normes générales du raisonnement à l'intérieur d'un modèle naturaliste. Stanovich réalise cette explication à l'aide de la théorie des mèmes. Nous présentons les arguments de Stanovich. Nous remarquons, ensuite, que malgré la justesse des arguments de Stanovich un second problème demeure en suspens. Ce problème peut être appelé le problème du processus motivationnel qui pousse les individus à accepter et à intégrer les normes générales du raisonnement. Nous faisons alors l'hypothèse selon laquelle il peut être pertinent de regarder du côté de l'histoire de la philosophie, et plus précisément de David Hume, pour trouver des pistes de solution au problème de la motivation. Dans un premier temps nous revoyons les lignes directrices de la théorie de l'esprit et de la croyance de Hume. Nous présentons ensuite sa théorie normative naturaliste et terminons en dressant un tableau comparatif entre Hume et les théories contemporaines. Si nous acceptons de prendre en considération le fait que l'entreprise philosophique de Hume se déploie dans un contexte historique et philosophique différent, nous pouvons accepter que les pistes de solutions qu'il avance demeurent pertinentes. Cette thèse peut être vue comme un complément au débat contemporain. Les deux idées principales de cette tentative de solution sont 1) l'importance des sentiments dans le processus de formation de la croyance (incluant les croyances à propos des normes générales du raisonnement) et 2) la volonté naturelle de s'adapter à notre environnement social, ce qui nous pousse parfois à adopter un point de vue général afin d'éviter les conflits. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : normativité, raisonnement, raisonnement probabiliste, motivation, naturalisme, Hume.

Kant attributes the power to awaken one from dogmatic slumber to skepticism and to the antinomy of pure reason; in his accounts of his own awakening and the origin of the critical philosophy, he credits the antinomy and his memory of David Hume. This essay suggests that Kant’s primary aim in the first Critique was to find a resolution to the antinomy; an examination of this resolution shows Kant’s memory of Hume critical to Kant’s enterprise. Kant’s resolution to the antinomy exploits metaphors of war, jurisprudence, slumber, and historical development, as well as his Transcendental Deduction and explanation of transcendental illusion, to unravel the riddle of metaphysics and provide for both the possibility of objective knowledge and the possibility of freedom.

I den här uppsatsen undersöker jag det rationella i att tro på Jesu uppståndelse. Då uppståndelsen är en central del i den kristna läran kan man tänka sig att det är viktigt för troende kristna att bevisa att det inte är irrationellt att tro på den. En sådan troende kristen är Stephen T Davis och det jag särskilt tittar på här är huruvida denne lyckas bevisa det rationella i att tro på uppståndelsen. I en debatt mellan honom och Michael Martin försöker Davis visa att uppståndelsen är sannolik. Martin kommer i sitt svar med invändningar, där han förklarar att uppståndelsen är osannolik. Båda använder sig av ett förnuftsresonemang då de försöker avgöra det rationella i att tro på Jesu uppståndelse. Jag frågar mig om man verkligen kan bedöma det rationella i att tro genom att använda sig av förnuftsresonemang. Jag frågar mig också om Davis med sitt inlägg verkligen lyckas bevisa något, och om inte, om han hade kunnat göra det på något annat sätt. Det jag kommer fram till, efter att ha gått igenom bl a vad rationalitet och tro innebär, är att Davis, om han vill försvara det rationella i att tro på Jesu uppståndelse, inte kan bygga sitt försvar på ett sannolikhetsresonemang. Tro är, menar jag, något annat än kunskap baserad på empirisk erfarenhet, den tillhör en annan verklighet än vår vanliga verifierbara och kan knappast ligga till grund för sannolikhetsbedömningar. Man kan inte heller utifrån sannolikhetsresonemang bedöma tron, eller huruvida det är rationellt att ha den. Jag menar att Davis inte lyckas bevisa det rationella i att tro på Jesu uppståndelse, tvärtom lyckas han bevisa det irrationella i att göra det, eftersom han angriper problemet på fel sätt. Han borde istället ha låtit tron vara kvar i den verklighet där den hör hemma. Det är inte, vad jag kan se, irrationellt att ha olika religioner, eller andra uppfattningar och normer som vi fått oss förmedlade av kultur och samhälle, och därför inte heller irrationellt att utifrån en sådan tro anse att uppståndelsen skulle kunna ha inträffat trots att den, enligt vad vi vet om den vanliga världen utifrån empirisk erfarenhet och sannolikhetsbedömningar, inte är sannolik.

Why do we care for future generations? This work argues that the reason we care for future generations lies in our psychogenetic nature. When we think of future generations, we feel that we have to do something for them. If we all have a common feeling profile, it is plausible to assume that this common feeling profile includes &ldquo / caring for future generations&rdquo / , because all of us do care for at least our own future generations. This psychogenetic disposition enables us to explain why sometimes we act as if we do not care for future generations as well. I believe that instead of telling people what their obligations are, it would be more realistic to reach their feelings deep inside: once people are aware of their true feelings, the situation can change.

The aim of this study is to examine Hume&rsquo / s moral theory as expressed in his two main books, Treatise and Enquiry and to show the defects of this theory. Without explaining some basic doctrines such as moral motivation, moral judgment, sympathy, passions, virtues, justice e.t.c., it is not possible to understand Hume&rsquo / s moral theory. To this aim, first, Hume&rsquo / s moral theory is explained in detail. Next, in order to provide a deeper understanding of the theory, its relation with his epistemology and his aesthetics are explained. Afterwards, few philosophers who influenced Hume&rsquo / s thought such as Hobbes, Mandeville, Hutcheson have been briefly discussed. Consequently, it is claimed that Hume&rsquo / s moral theory has a heterogeneous structure so it is difficult to understand his moral theory. Hume&rsquo / s moral theory contains an ambiguity due to his conception of sympathy, which has led to some misinterpretations.

THE FORMATION OF THE SELF AS MENTAL UNITY AND MORAL AGENCY IN HUME&rsquo / S PHILOSOPHY This dissertation proposes to analyze the stages in the formation of the idea of self in Hume&rsquo / s philosophy. According to Hume we have no a simple and individual impression that we can call the self &amp / #8722 / where the self is the totality of conscious life of a person. Nevertheless, we do have an idea of personal identity that must be accounted for. He begins his explanation of this idea by noting that our perceptions are fleeting, and he concludes from this that all we are is a bundle of different perceptions. But as a result of such a consideration Hume argues that he failed to find sufficient account for the relation between the idea of self involved in the indirect passions of pride and humility and the idea of self associated with its mental aspect. In this dissertation it is attempted to show that these two aspects of the self do not contradict, but rather they co-exist, and such a co-existence of the two aspects of the self should be recognised as an empirical fact. This means that the self is not a mere bundle of perceptions, but it is at least a very peculiar form of the relational unity of perceptions.