Berkeley's Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge was published in 1710, when he was only twenty-five. The public silence that greeted it stunned him. Even the ridicule that he had anticipated was initially confined to private circles. No doubt this mortifying experience reinforced his belief “that whatever doctrine contradicts vulgar and settled opinion” must “be introduced with great caution into the world”. It had, indeed, been for this reason that he had “omitted all mention of the non-existence of matter in the title-page, dedication, preface, and introduction to” his performance. In this way he hoped that “the notion of [immaterialism] might steal unawares on the reader, who possibly would never have meddled with a book that he had known contained such paradoxes”.

David Raynor aborde une pluralité de thèmes chez Berkeley, qui se rapportent soit à la signification ambiguë de l'immatérialisme par rapport à la philosophie spontanée des gens ordinaires, soit au dosage savant de réalisme et d'idéalisme dans une philosophie qui élabore une critique radicale de la doctrine de l'idée-représentation. Il est intéressant de noter que Raynor ne s'en laisse pas raconter par certains interprètes classiques de la pensée berkeleyenne et qu'il sait tirer avantageusement parti d'une confrontation de Berkeley avec des rationalistes tels Male-branche ou Leibniz, mais tout aussi bien d'une mise en perspective à l'intérieur du courant empiriste à partir des réflexions de Hume et de Maupertuis.

In the far-off days before the first World War, the British journal Mind was full of articles by writers who thought of themselves as “Neoidealists”. So when the enfant terrible of the groves of Academic Oxford in that generation—a “pragmatic Humanist” by the name of Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller—played his most notorious practical joke upon his colleagues by publishing a mock-issue of the journal (under the title Mind!) he offered as a frontispiece “A portrait of the Absolute in the pink of condition”. Beneath a pale-pink semi-transparent tissue (which, except for its colour, was quite normal for the photographic plates in Victorian memoirs) one found a printed frame that embraced a perfectly blank white sheet of paper.

As one of the bare handful of scholars working on Schelling, I should heartily like to accept Professor Harris's argument, for all these black cows hang around one's neck more heavily than did the albatross on the ancient mariner's. I find myself obliged, however, to closely test his argument. I regret that, viewed in the context of the whole of the Phenomenology's Preface, Harris's argument is not fully convincing. I shall argue that, since the Preface's plain intent is to contrast the vitalism of a method of thought that is spirit's coming into its own with all styles of fixated propositional thinking, the “formalism” Hegel attacks is a loose aggregate of the philosophical styles of Fichte, Schelling, Reinhold and Bardili. Hegel is content to leave the label loose and unspecified and not to name names. It is not strictly fair to let the scope of the term resonate upon Schelling's “first scientific grasp of the idea”, at least not for an author who knew Schelling's work so well. But as Harris points out, it is not fair to Hegel for his public to read him with the sole, simplistic question of what positions he supports and what positions he rejects.

I have only two comments to make, both of which will appear incidental at first. Their full relevance to the paper you have just read will become clear at the end, as I hope.

The first refers to Harris's remark that Jacobi, Schleiermacher and Herder “make strange bedfellows”. Actually, they do not. This is one more example, I believe, of Hegel's usual idiosyncratic yet conceptually sound classification of philosophers and philosophies. I am thinking especially of the Jacobi-Herder pair, but I suspect that what I have to say would apply to the third member of the trio as well. We must remember that, at the time of the writing of the Preface to the Phenomenology, the 1815 edition of Jacobi's dialogue David Hume on Faith, which Jacobi himself had overseen, did not exist. It is the edition that we are most likely to have read, because the wonders of photomechanical reproduction have made it easily available. Hegel, however, could only have read the dialogue in its 1787 edition, without the long new Introduction which Jacobi added in 1815 as an introduction to his collected works as well.

The first part of this essay was read at a Symposium on “Hegel and Schelling” at the Conference of the Canadian Philosophical Association at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba in June 1985. The text was then discussed as a whole by George di Giovanni and Michael Vater. Since their commentaries are here published with it, I have allowed the mistakes which they identified to remain clearly visible. The few revisions of substance that I have made (in order to keep the reader from thinking that I still hold the positions originally maintained) are clearly indicated in the footnotes; and the justification of my final position is given in this Postscript.

La philosophie morale, pas moins que les autres branches de la philosophie, est caractérisée par des contradictions et des dichotomies (par exemple, le déterminisme versus la liberté, le naturalisme versus l'antinaturalisme, l'émotion versus la raison) qui aboutissent à des discussions sans fin. On garde l'impression que l'expérience morale doit être extrêmement individualisée; sans cela, comment des philosophes, également, sinon exceptionnellement, doués intellectuellement, en arrivent-ils à des conclusions aussi diverses quand ils réfléchissent à la question? Et le problème est plus qu'un problème intellectuel. La valeur de l'existence humaine et l'existence humaine elle-même dépendent de valeurs morales et d'impératifs selon lesquels l'homme dirige sa vie. Comprendre de façon cohérente et réaliste la moralité constitue un besoin perpétuellement urgent que la philosophie jusqu'à maintenant, du moins, n'a pu satisfaire.

What is the difference between a reading of a play and a performance of it? In both, the same text is uttered. Both may occur on stage. In both different people may recite the lines of different characters. But unlike a mere reading, in a performance of a play what happens on stage conforms to the text being pronounced.

In an article which appeared in The Philosophical Review Karl Ameriks argues in favour of the rather surprising thesis that Husserl, his own statements and a host of commentators and critics notwithstanding, was a realist, i.e., a philosopher who held that “there are physical objects which exist outside consciousness and are not wholly dependent on it” (498). More recently, Harrison Hall, in his contribution to the volume Husserl, Intentionality, and Cognitive Science, has argued that in Husserl's view there is no legitimate philosophical issue between realism and idealism, because philosophy is concerned exclusively with meanings. Both interpretations are careful, documenting each point with texts, and contain several elements that are illuminating. Yet they are fundamentally mistaken as regards their main thesis, as I shall argue in this paper.

J'aborde, ici, une question que personne, à ma connaissance, n'a soulevée sous cette forme en lisant Aristote et, en même temps, le commentaire d'un passage qui, toujours à ma connaissance, n'a reçu l'attention qu'il mérite chez aucun interprète.

Deux remarques préliminaires s'imposent, afin de préciser mon propos.

L'histoire de la philosophie est marquée par de nombreuses tentatives pour soustraire la morale aux préceptes dictés par une croyance religieuse aveugle, l'arracher aux limbes des émotions, des intérêts égoïstes, des «nobles» sentiments ou des passions troubles de la volonté de puissance, la sortir du terrain où se disputent âprement les évidences intuitives, l'inscrire dans le règne de la raison. Il s'agit de tentatives en vue de fonder les obligations morales, l'éthique tout court, de manière rationnelle. Or, ces démarches peuvent emprunter des chemins variables selon que la rationalité de l'action se trouve conceptualisée dans la perspective des intérêts et préférences raisonnés (de la προαίρεσις d'Aristote), ou qu'elle se comprend à partir de la raison pratique dans sa pureté (en posant, à la manière de Kant, un impératif du devoir comme détermination a priori de la volonté par une «reine praktische Vernunft»).