Jean-Pierre Cometti

The “Neuronal man”, as Changeux has called him, is now credited with an aesthetic mind. This mind is not the “Geist” of the philosophical tradition. The cognitive sciences have took over from philosophy and now they deal with art and aesthetics as they do with whatever aspect of human thought, experience and activity. Philosophers like Kant were interested in the empirical sources of beauty, but for him empirical features of its development did not change anything at all to its very essence. The naturalism implemented in the philosophy of mind and sciences of cognition has changed the terms of the question, so that the main point in discussion is whether aesthetic experience can be explained in terms of brain and/or computational process or whether it should be considered as irreductible to empirical or physical facts. These debates can be seen as new and interesting, but they drive directly to an aporia reminding in a certain way the old debate between the "Sons of the ground" and the "Friends of ideas"

Les définitions de la rationalité fondées sur les seules ressources des activités communicationnelles et des formes de vie qui leur sont liées se heurtent à des difficultés dont la tentative de Habermas constitue un eminent exemple. La question de la légitimation en constitue la pierre de touche; elle est au coeur de la controverse qui oppose Apel à Habermas et de ce qui les conduit à chercher différemment une issue dans les prétentions à la validité que renferment à leurs yeux les activités communicationnelles. Leur mobilisation d’un modèle pragmatique de la rationalité s’articule ainsi à la recherche d’un élément inconditionné dans lequel on peut voir une source majeure d’apories et de désaccords quant aux solutions respectivement envisagées. Cette situation conduit à se demander 1) si le concept de « rationalité communicationnelle » n’est pas intrinsèquement affecté par l’ambiguïté qui associe à l’argumentation et à l’immanence des pratiques communicationnelles l’idée d’une légitimation, elle-même liée à une transcendance que celles-ci paraissent exclure, 2) si un éclairage, à défaut d’une issue, ne résiderait pas dans une meilleure compréhension des liens qui associent le nécessaire à l’arbitraire.The possibility of defining the rationality upon the only basis of communicative actions and forms of life lies at the root of several difficulties, of which Habermas’ attempts give a very significant example. Legitimation is its touchstone. It is the central point of the Apel-Habermas controversy and it is the basis of its latest developments. Apel and Habermas are both seeking an out- come by looking at " claims to validity " which they consider to be embodied in communicative actions. So they appeal at the same time to a pragmatist account of rationality and to some Unconditional, which is the main source of the dilemmas and disagreements they have to cope with. One may wonder whether the kind of tension which strikes the tie relating argumentation to some " transcendant moment " is not built into the very notion of communicative rationality. But one may also wonder whether some illumination, if not outcome, might not consist in some attempt to investigate the very connections between Necessary and Arbitrary