The non-existence of fictional entities does not seem incompatible with their possible existence. The aim of this paper is to give an accornt of the intuitive truth of statements of possible existence involving fictional proper names in an actualist framework. After having made clear the opposition between a possibilist and an actualist approach of possible worlds, I distinguish between fictional individuals and fictional characters and between the fictional use offictional proper names and their metafictional use. On that basis, statements of possible existence involving fictional proper names appear to say of fictional characters conceived as abstact objects that they might have been exemplified.

We believe that, granting radical holism, a homophonie (or disquotational) definition of truth for a language achieves no progress towards guaranteeing the material equivalence of the left- and right-hand-side sentences for T-sentences. In order to avoid paradoxes such as the antinomy of the liar, Tarski requires that the metalanguage be semantically richer than the object language. For a radical holist, the difference in semantic powers of the meta- and object languages means that homophony is no guarantee of synonymy; therefore, worries about the indeterminacy of translation still apply.

This paper focuses on Heideggers 1937 lecture course on the Nietzschean doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. Heidegger interprets the motive of recurrence in Nietzsche as the Moment (Augenblick) of the Eternal Recurrence. Through this key motive of the moment, we try then to examine the double function of the doctrine which, on the one hand, refers us back to some essential themes of the existential analytics, whereas, on the other hand, it paves the way for the new confrontation with metaphysics in the Beitrâge zur Philosophie. We hold that the turning away from the existential conception of the moment toward its “aletheiological” understanding in terms of a “site of the Moment” (die Augenblicksstàtte) takes place in the context of this very lecture course. This transition is even more critical as it constitutes the very heart of Heidegger s critique of subjectivity in the new perspective opened by the history of Being: Nietzsche's doctrine of time provides the basis for this questioning.

ABSTRACT: This article analyzes the relation between Godwin (1756-1836), Republican and author of Politcal lustice (1793), and French philosophers, particularly Helvetius. Both Godwin and Helvetius were in favour of a political understanding of the theory of knowledge as opposed to an intellectual treatment of policy. They continually questioned the links between policy, history of the human understanding, and moral science from the perspective of the question of education. After the September Massacres (1792), Godwin’s thought changed radically and began to revolve around the notion of perfectibility. The final disagreement marked a distinction between French reformers, who advocated state control, and English writers, influenced by dissent and reformation, who held the idea of perfectibility.RÉSUMÉ: Cet article examine le rapport de Godwin (1756-1836), écrivain anglais «jacobin», auteur de Political Justice (1793), aux philosophes français, Helvétius en particulier. Partisans d’une politisation de la théorie de la connaissance plutôt que d’une intellectualisation de la politique, ils interrogent sans cesse, via la question de l’education, les liens du pouvoir politique, de l’histoire de l’entendement humain etde la science morale. Après les massacres de septembre (1792), la position de Godwin évolue considérablement et met en scène la perfectibilité. Le différend final marque la distinction entre un courant des Lumières françaises, réformatrices et étatistes, et un courant des Lumières anglaises, aux sources religieuses dissidentes ou réformées, porteuses, elles, de l’idée de perfectibilité.

RÉSUMÉ: Le but de cet article est de comprendre les fonctions que dans le Sophiste l’Étranger attribue à la forme de l’Être et à celle de l’Autre. À la différence d’une interprétation de type linguistique, qui vise à déceler dans le texte une distinction entre les emplois du verbe «être», nous mettons en évidence le rôle ontologique assigné aux très grands genres dans l’entrelacement des formes. Exploitant l’analogiedes voyelles, nous montrons que l’Être est un connecteur, qui rend actuelles les participations entre formes, tandis que l’Autre est un séparateur, qui rend actuelles leurs différences. Cette analyse permet d’eclairer les procédés dialectiques décrits dans le dialogue en termes très abstraits et de résoudre le problème controversé de l’auto-prédication sans avoir besoin de recourir à l’auto-participation.ABSTRACT: This article aims at understanding the functions of the forms of Being and the Other in Plato’s Sophist. In contrast with a linguistic interpretation purporting to draw a distinction between uses of the verb “to be,” I shed light on the ontological role ascribed to “the great genus” in the interweaving of forms. Focusing on the vowel analogy, I argue that the roles of Being and the Other respectively are that of a connector and aseparator actualizing the participations and the differences between the forms. The outcome of this analysis is to offer an explanation of the dialectical methods described in that dialogue in a rather obscure, abstract way; the much-debated question of self-predication can be settled without recourse to self-participation.