Paul Cortois

Cette étude présente un moment assez surprenant du développement de la pensée du jeune Cavaillès : celui d’une affinité avec la pensée métaphysique de Plotin, un Plotin vu, bien sûr, à travers le prisme de l’ouvrage d’Émile Bréhier sur cet auteur (1928). J’essaie de montrer que cette lecture permet de comprendre la vision sous-jacente d’écrits aussi divers que « Éducation morale et laïcité », « Au Barrès du Culte du moi », et, bien sûr, « La philosophie de Plotin », tous publiés par Cavaillès en 1928. En entamant un commentaire littéral de quelques passages, on montre que ces écrits éclairent et sont réciproquement éclairés par quelques réflexions sur l’art et la musique, ainsi que par une lettre assez énigmatique que Cavaillès écrivait à son père en cette même année. Finalement est posée la question des traces que cette étape de la pensée de Cavaillès a pu laisser dans sa philosophie ultérieure – celle dite « du concept ».

Bevat het religieuze discours aanspraken die vergelijkbaar zijn met de aanspraken die in strict cognitieve contexten, zoals wetenschap, gemaakt worden? Is van het spreken over religieuze fenomenen, en van het religieuze spreken, in enige zin een rechtvaardiging mogelijk die men kan vergelijken met de manier waarop wetenschappelijke of alledaagse overtuigingen zich lenen tot rechtvaardiging? Hoe zou zo'n rechtvaardiging er moeten uitzien? De bijdragen in deze bundel cirkelen rond deze vragen. De hefboom wordt echter ook dieper aangezet. Is het element van overtuiging (belief) of geloofsinhoud, dat aanwezig lijkt in de meeste vormen van religiositeit, de grond voor andere aspecten zoals de religieuze praktijk en houdingen? Of zijn andersom de praktijken en (vertrouwvolle) houdingen de grond waarop religieuze overtuigingen eerst kunnen bloeien? Naast werk van Vlaamse auteurs, werden ook vertaalde artikelen opgenomen van D.Z. Philips en Alvin Plantinga. Paul Cortois (1954) is doctor in de wijsbegeerte. Momenteel is hij verbonden aan het Hoger Instituut voor Wijsbegeerte (KU Leuven) en aan de Vakgroep Filosofie van de Universiteit Antwerpen (UFSIA). Walter Van Herck (1962) is doctor in de wijsbegeerte. Hij is verbonden aan de Vakgroep Filosofie van de Universiteit Antwerpen (UFSIA) en aan de Karel de Grote-Hogeschool Antwerpen.

We are happy to present the proceedings of the international symposium on Rationality and Religious Trust which were held at the University of Antwerp in this volume of Bijdragen. Rationality and religious trust is of course a topic that falls within the scope of the epistemology of religion. Contemporary epistemology of religion has been the scene of a vigorous debate about the nature of religious belief, or more precisely about the role of rationality and rational argument with respect to religious belief. What is at stake in the debate, is the very way the concept of belief applies to the religious life. More specifically, the issue is about the place to be reserved for belief within the religious life at large, and again, about the role played especially by rational arguments in holding or not holding those beliefs.

This special issue aims to redress the balance and to open up Gaston Bachelard's work beyond a small in-crowd of experts and aficionado’s in France. It aims to stimulate the discovery of new and understudied aspects of Bachelard’s work, including aspects of the intellectual milieu he was working in. Fortunately, for this purpose we were able to rely both on renowned Bachelard specialists, such as Hans-Jörg Rheinberg-er, Cristina Chimisso and Dominique Lecourt, as well as on a number of younger scholars who are discovering their work in a different intellectual context. At the same time we also want to reassess the value of this oeuvre, which also entails examining the reasons and causes of the relative neglect of Bachelard’s work in recent times. Has it exhausted its possibilities? Does it have intrinsic limitations that have contributed to the eclipse, as some influential, mainly French, philoso-phers have more or less explicitly suggested?

In this expository article one of the contributions of Jean Cavailles to the philosophy of mathematics is presented: the analysis of ‘mathematical experience’. The place of Cavailles on the logico-philosophical scene of the 30s and 40s is sketched. I propose a partial interpretation of Cavailles's epistemological program of so-called ‘conceptual dialectics’: mathematical holism, duality principles, the notion of formal contents, and the specific temporal structure of conceptual dynamics. The structure of mathematical abstraction is analysed in terms of its complementary dimensions: paradigmatic generalization (domain extension, descriptive definitions, creative role of the symbolism...) and thematic reflexivity of concepts (promotion of operations to objects of a higher type).

Whatever the precise analysis of the notion of an `internal point of view', to talk about `religious traditions' is to imply that traditions of a certain kind primarily deploy an internal point of view. But what can be said about the notion of an intellectual tradition that would at the same time also be, or be connected to, a religious tradition? To some, such notions appear to border on contradiction. In accordance with the Cartesian criticism of coutume et exemple, we tend to think of an intellectual stance as the correlate of a detached view, with the rational remaining the enemy of the traditional. In that case, every application whatsoever of the predicate `intellectual' to a tradition would be flawed. According to a certain Enlightenment view, inspired by science, is it not of the very essence of the intellectual stance in general that one stand back at a critical distance from any tradition, especially one's own?In fact, historically oriented philosophers of science like Crombie, Kuhn, Laudan have reminded us of the fact that there is nothing disturbingly paradoxical in speaking of `intellectual traditions': to quote one of Kuhn's book titles, there is the "essential tension" that characterizes science in its development just as much as any other cultural tradition. This tension between the old and the new is the mark of traditions, including the ones defining the rationality or rationalities of science. We could say that Kuhn's `paradigms' already outlined the borders of specific `catholicities' for the specialized fields of scientific research traditions. If Kuhn ever had a point, it must be that science too can develop only within the framework of styles of reasoning, which is to say that it demands viewpoints that cannot be characterized as `external', at least not in an absolute, metaphysical sense of the word

The arrow of time has been invoked to bridge all gaps between the 'two cultures'. Would time also help to mediate between the sphere of cognition (epistemic meaning) and the sphere of Bedeutsamkeit (meaning-as-relevance) when taking ritual to be a strongly idiosyncratic representative of the latter? What is the role of time in the modes of meaning in the realm of scientific concepts in their most rigorous shape (the mathematical) on the one hand, in ritual on the other hand? Taking an external point of view, surprising connections can be laid, especially when focussing on the relations of form and materiality or content in the respective fields. Ritual can be considered — according toits formal structure — as an embodiment of the notion of an algorithm. When looking at the temporal structure of the respective symbolic practices from an internal point of view however, their contrasting modes of creating meaning become irreducible. In particular, the algorithmic-sequential mode in ritual is a shell for another time, constitutive of a proper Bedeutsamkeit. This is analyzed in terms of the role of the past in ritualized meaning (and illustrated via the art of time in the Japanese tea ceremony). Whereas a paradoxical creation of a past as something lost and nevertheless to be recollected is constitutive for the meaning of the ritual gesture, the proper element of the concept is time's arrow always pointing forward, to the next stage. Here the past, while embodied in the scientist's gesture as trace of epistemic styles and traditions, at the same time has to be suppressed in the interest of the creation of the new