Joerissen Robert

Les rédacteurs du Code pénal, lorsqu'ils ont décrit l'élément matériel des crimes et des délits, ont pris grand soin de distinguer entre l'omission et la commission punissables, et les juges s'interdisent scrupuleusement de les confondre, même quand elles ont le même résultat dommageable. Pourtant, les personnes investies d'une autorité publique ou privée sont, par la jurisprudence, rendues responsables d'un grand nombre de délits commis sous leur autorité, par le seul motif qu'elles n'ont pas mis tout en oeuvre pour les empêcher. Cet article explique l'origine historique de ce paradoxe. La responsabilité des décideurs était primitivement confinée à la matière des contraventions, conçues comme des violations de règles de police administrative, et sanctionnées de peines faibles précisément dites "de police". Les lois modernes ont peu à peu détruit la spécificité des contraventions et leur lien avec la police administrative. Le mode d'imputation jadis caractéristique des contraventions est passé dans la matière des délits et concerne tous ceux dont l'élément moral est fait d'une intention faiblement caractérisée ou d'une imprudence

I formulate a counterfactual version of the notorious ‘Ramsey Test’. Whereas the Ramsey Test for indicative conditionals links credence in indicatives to conditional credences, the counterfactual version links credence in counterfactuals to expected conditional chance. I outline two forms: a Ramsey Identity on which the probability of the conditional should be identical to the corresponding conditional probability/expectation of chance; and a Ramsey Bound on which credence in the conditional should never exceed the latter. Even in the weaker, bound, form, the counterfactual Ramsey Test makes counterfactuals subject to the very argument that Lewis used to argue against the indicative version of the Ramsey Test. I compare the assumptions needed to run each, pointing to assumptions about the time‐evolution of chances that can replace the appeal to Bayesian assumptions about credence update in motivating the assumptions of the argument. I finish by outlining two reactions to the discussion: to indicativize the debate on counterfactuals; or to counterfactualize the debate on indicatives.

In this updated edition of his brief, engaging book, Robert J. Fogelin examines figures of speech that concern meaning--irony, hyperbole, understatement, similes, metaphors, and others--to show how they work and to explain their attraction. Building on the ideas of Grice and Tversky, Fogelin contends that figurative language derives its power from its insistence that the reader participate in the text, looking beyond the literal meaning of the figurative language to the meanings that are implied. With examples ranging from Shakespeare, John Donne, and Jane Austen to e.e. cummings, Bessie Smith, and Monty Python, Fogelin demonstrates that the intellectual and aesthetic force of figurative language is derived from the opportunity it provides for unlimited elaboration. Fogelin presents a modern restatement of the view, first put forward by Aristotle, that metaphors are to be treated as elliptical similes. He then offers a detailed defense of this "comparativist" view of metaphors in response to criticisms that have been brought against it by a series of eminent philosophers. This new edition is updated to reflect more recent work on the topic and will interest philosophers, linguists, and literary theorists.