Evolutionary psychology presupposes relations between theories of different domains that the two traditional models, reduction and autonomy, cannot properly account for. We aim to construct a model of relations between theories that succeeds where traditional models fail. We show that the multiple realizability argument, on which the autonomist model is thought to rest, is compatible with reductionism and, following Kim, that an autonomist reading of the argument deprives psychology of its scientific status. We therefore opt for a reductionist model compatible with functionalism and multiple realizability, but show that, within evolutionary psychology at least, the very application of the conditions of reduction requires strong interactions between psychology and various other adjacent disciplines. We also show that reduction must be preceded in evolutionary psychology by an “augmentation” of the reduction base, which brings still other disciplines into play. Finally, we present a model of the interaction between disciplines we believe accounts best for these relations and discuss the problems facing this kind of enterprise.

This text views the case of Quebec nationalism from the vantage point of the debate between Habermas and Taylor on this question. This case highlights the problem of articulating the sphere of civic rights, whose claims are universalist, to that of culture and collective identity, whose essence is particularist. It seems that the multinational context of the Quebec-Canada confrontation needs to be approached in a manner that cannot be fulfilled by a strict proceduralism and a purely formal universalism. The Habermasian position will thus be criticized for these reasons, while Taylor's stance, which contemplates the integration of material considerations in a dialogue open to ideological alterity, will be taken into account so as to make up for the shortcomings of the former.

La nature du projet de Danielle Lories est exposée clairement dans les premières pages de l'ouvrage. L'auteure situe les origines de son entreprise dans la volonté d'affronter la difficulté que présente la notion de «sens commun», aux paragraphes 18,22 et 40 de la Critique de la faculté de juger de Kant, mais aussi le propos de Hannah Arendt tiré de «La crise de la culture» qu'elle cite en page 2, sur la jonction des sens communs kantien et aristotélicien. Ce qui préoccupe essentiellement l'auteure, dans la perspective d'une pensée de la «spécificité du jugement praxique», est ici la façon dont s'articulent le sens commun (aristotélicien) en tant qu'unification de l'expérience sensorielle par-delà la diversité des cinq sens, et le sens communautaire (kantien) en vertu duquel nous communions dans une même appréhension du réel, la constitution d'un rapport au réel étant d'abord affaire de sens : «Chez Arendt, tout se passe comme si le partage des choses perçues avec autrui et donc leur réalité “objective” était le prolongement naturel du partage d'une même chose perçue par nos divers sens» (p. 3).

What is the principal function of political philosophy? This question has long been the source of discourse and debate, especially amongst those who practise this ancient art. For Ronald Beiner, the primary and proper function of political philosophy is, always has been, and forever will be, to expand our analytical horizons and thereby improve our ability to judge accurately the desirability and subsequent acceptability of our existing social order(s). Beiner contends, however, that contemporary theorists have so restricted the scope and focus of their investigations that political philosophy is no longer able to fulfil its intended function. This is a theme which has animated much of Beiner's recent work, and provides the foundation and focus for his book Philosophy in a Time of Lost Spirit: Essays on Contemporary Theory (PTS), the subject of this essay.