Plusieurs L'Ont déjà dit. Marx, Freud, Lévi-Strauss, Skinner, par exemple, l'ont affirmé d'une façon ou d'une autre. On peut toutefois se demander s'ils l'ont vraiment pense, ou si, plutot, ils ne voyaient pas comment il serait possible á l'homme d'intervenir dans le cours du monde. Personne ne semble avoir voulu pousser tres loin, ni tres longtemps, 1'interrogation et la recherche a ce propos, avec le resultat qu'on s'en tient a des affirmations — tout au plus a des croyances — sur la possibilité ou, au contraire, l'impossibilité que l'homme intervienne dans le monde physique, psychologique, ou social, pour le changer.

L'Ambitieux Projet du professeur John Rawls dans son important ouvrage intitulé «A Theory of Justice» consiste essentiellement dans l'élaboration d'une théorie de la justice qui prétend offrir une «solution de rechange viable» aux doctrines traditionnelles de la justice représentées par l'utilitarisme, l'intuitionisme, les théories contractuelles, etc …, mais une théorie qui, en méme temps, se présente comme une tentative pour «généraliser et porter a un plus haut niveau d'abstraction la theorie traditionnelle du contrat social telle que representee par Locke, Rousseau et Kant», de telle sorte qu'elle puisse parer aux objections les plus decisives qui ont ete faites a l'endroit de ces diverses formulations de la theorie contractuelle. En procédant ainsi, Rawls estime pouvoir offrir une approche systematique au probléme de la justice qui soit non seulement une alternative a 1'utilitarisme traditionnel, mais une synthése supérieure et plus valable pour une sociéte démocratique en méme temps qu'une approche de la justice sociale qui puisse servir de contrepartie ou de succedane a la perspective de Marx.

Despite Decades of scholarly attention certain sections of Kant's first Critique have proved recalcitrant to received readings, canonical interpretations are impossible to come by. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the literature on Kant's treatment of causality in the Second Analogy, where there exists a controversy of many years standing about the success of Kant's arguments in favour of what has come to be known as ‘the causal principle’. For example, contemporary Kant scholars of stature no less than Lewis White Beck and W.H. Walsh argue that Kant offers a uniquely persuasive case for causation. Other interpreters claim that the materials of the Second Analogy fail utterly to provide what is needed to vindicate judgements of cause and effect in a way that would satisfy the sceptic about causation.2 Thus the despairing conclusion of one recent review of the literature on the Second Analogy:

It is possible that there lurks somewhere in the pages of the Critique of Pure Reason a convincing reply to Hume's sceptical doubts about the causal principle. But no such reply has yet been brought to light.

Ira Brevis furor, said the Latins: anger is a brief bout of madness. There is a long tradition that views all emotions as threats to rationality. The crime passionnel belongs to that tradition: in law it is a kind of “brief-insanity defence.” We still say that “passion blinds us;” and in common parlance to be philosophical about life's trials is to be decently unemotional about them. Indeed many philosophers have espoused this view, demanding that Reason conquer Passion. Others — from Hume to the Emotivists — have appeared to reverse this hierarchy (“reason is and ought to be nothing but the slave of the passions).” But those philosophers who refuse to join in the general denigration of emotion as irrational usually share the presupposition that the role of rationality is limited to the calculation of means. In so far as emotions (often confused with desires) are concerned with the determination of ends, they remain, on this view, beyond the pale of rationality. Modern decision theorists have worked out schemes to assess the rationality of desires, as well as actions, against the background of beliefs and other desires.1 But these schemes leave no room at all for emotions, except, by implication, as disrupters of the rational process.

In her recent paper, “Belief, Values and the Will,” Trudy Govier raises several interesting and challenging points. Most interesting is her conclusion that it is at least logically possible for a person to believe something “simply in virtue of having taken that decision,” i.e., by fiat. In otherwords, it is possible to believe something by an act of will.

The philosophers of Canada will long remain indebted to Helier Robinson. In 1969–70 he founded the Canadian Association for Publishing in Philosophy from his Ontarian base at the University of Guelph. Under the aegis of his Association arose the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, edited by the three Universities of Alberta; then a Canadian Monograph Series first administered by David Braybrooke at Dalhousie, and now by R.B. de Sousa at Toronto; more lately the Canadian Library of Philosophy, run by J.A. Brook at Carleton. A native of the (partly francophone) Channel Islands, he has shown a strong commitment to bilingualism, reflected in all of c. A.P.P.'s instruments du travail. Since 1971 his efforts have led to considerably more philosophical research being published in this country.

Yoshida's explicit aim is to defend the standard empiricist model of reduction-bydeduction (SERM hereafter) from recent attacks. Thus the treatment is limited in both scope and orientation.

I shall argue that Yoshida does not succeed. The failure is both internal (on his own terms) and external (what is outside his scope).