Idolatry is vehemently rejected by the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and closely connected with idolatry are certain varieties of anthropomorphism, which involve the attribution of a human form or personality to God. The question investigated in this paper is whether a highly anthropomorphic conception of God, one that commits the sin of idolatry, is entailed by a particular theory of religious language. This theory is the 'univocity thesis', the view that, for some substitutions for 'F', the sense (...) of '___ is F' as applied to God and its sense as applied to human creatures is exactly or substantially the same. My claim is that the univocity thesis entails a strong form of anthropomorphism that in effect reduces God to creaturely status and thus succumbs to idolatry (albeit a conceptual form of idolatry). In the course of my argument, a comparison is made between, on the one hand, the methods of Duns Scotus and modern proponents of perfect-being theology in arriving at a concept of God as maximally perfect, and on the other hand the work of Thomistic philosophers (especially Barry Miller) in showing how a more adequate conception of divinity can be reached by dispensing with some of the methods and assumptions of perfect-being theology, particularly the assumption of univocity. (shrink)

In this paper, we show (among other things) that the conditional in Frege's Begriffsschrift is ambiguous.

In this essay, we consider the formal and ontological implications of one specific and intensely contested dialectical context from which Deleuze’s thinking about structural ideal genesis visibly arises. This is the formal/ontological dualism between the principles, ἀρχαί, of the One (ἕν) and the Indefinite/Unlimited Dyad (ἀόριστος δυάς), which is arguably the culminating achievement of the later Plato’s development of a mathematical dialectic.3 Following commentators including Lautman, Oskar Becker, and Kenneth M. Sayre, we argue that the duality of the One and (...) the Indefinite Dyad provides, in the later Plato, a unitary theoretical formalism accounting, by means of an iterated mixing without synthesis, for the structural origin and genesis of both supersensible Ideas and the sensible particulars which participate in them. As these commentators also argue, this duality furthermore provides a maximally general answer to the problem of temporal becoming that runs through Plato’s corpus: that of the relationship of the flux of sensory experiences to the fixity and order of what is thinkable in itself. Additionally, it provides a basis for understanding some of the famously puzzling claims about forms, numbers, and the principled genesis of both attributed to Plato by Aristotle in the Metaphysics, and plausibly underlies the late Plato’s deep considerations of the structural paradoxes of temporal change and becoming in the Parmenides, the Sophist, and the Philebus. After extracting this structure of duality and developing some of its formal, ontological, and metalogical features, we consider some of its specific implications for a thinking of time and ideality that follows Deleuze in a formally unitary genetic understanding of structural difference. These implications of Plato’s duality include not only those of the constitution of specific theoretical domains and problematics, but also implicate the reflexive problematic of the ideal determinants of the form of a unitary theory as such. We argue that the consequences of the underlying duality on the level of content are ultimately such as to raise, on the level of form, the broader reflexive problem of the basis for its own formal or meta-theoretical employment. We conclude by arguing for the decisive and substantive presence of a proper “Platonism” of the Idea in Deleuze, and weighing the potential for a substantive recuperation of Plato’s duality in the context of a dialectical affirmation of what Deleuze recognizes as the “only” ontological proposition that has ever been uttered. This is the proposition of the univocity of Being, whereby “being is said in the same sense, everywhere and always,” but is said (both problematically and decisively) of difference itself. (shrink)

We pay attention to the concept of univocal connective. Considering the corresponding definition in the context of the sequent calculus a problem arises in a paper by Belnap. We provide an explanation by Belnap and finally give some examples and non-examples of univocal connectives.

This essay offers a reading of Badiou’s univocity of being in relation to his understanding of ontological immanence and also his commitment or indeed “fidelity” to ontologically articulating the atheistic premise that “God is dead”—which for Badiou also means “the One is not”. Although Badiou famously deploys set theory to develop his “univocal” mathematical ontology of the multiple in Being and Event, his most sustained and detailed discussion of the univocity of being is in his controversial critique of (...) Deleuze’s ontology in his Deleuze: The Clamor of Being. While references to (Badiou’s reading of) Deleuze will be made, it is not the purpose of this essay to add to the existing scholarship on the Deleuze-Badiou debate. Instead, the chief aim here is to apply Badiou’s accusations and criticisms of Deleuze’s univocal ontology back to Badiou’s own ontological project, and thereby consider how Badiou reconciles his “commitment to radical ontological univocity” with his metaphysical position against “the One” most vividly expressed in his critique of Deleuze’s univocal ontology. (shrink)

In this postscript to our 2024 BSL univocity paper, we extend our results to many other historical axiomatizations of classical logic. These two papers together suggest the following conjecture: Every Hilbert-style axiomatization for classical logic using a minimal, expressively complete set of connectives and a single rule of inference contains at least one non-univocal connective. This conjecture certainly holds true for every such axiomatization we have seen in the literature.

I pursue an answer to the psychological question “what is it for S to presuppose that p?” I will not attempt a general answer. Rather, I will explore a particular kind of presuppositions that are constituted by the mental act of reasoning: Inferential presuppositions. Indeed, I will consider a specific kind of inferential presuppositions—one that is constituted by a specific reasoning competence: The univocality competence. Roughly, this is the competence that reliably governs the univocal thought-components’ operation as univocal in a (...) line of reasoning. I will argue that the exercise of this reasoning competence constitutes certain inferential presuppositions. More specifically, I outline a conception of an inferential presupposition as a non-attitudinal but genuinely psychological and rationally committing relation that holds between a reasoner and a proposition. Thus, inferential presuppositions may be distinguished from tacit or standing attitudes that function as premise-beliefs in reasoning. Likewise inferential presuppositions may be distinguished from other kinds of presuppositions. In conclusion, I note some features of inferential presuppositions that bear on the epistemology of inference. (shrink)

What role does Scotus‘s understanding of univocity play in Cajetan‘s development of a theory of analogy? In this paper I examine three relevant texts from Cajetan (question 3 of his commentary on Aquinas‘s De Ente et Essentia, his treatise De Nominum Analogia, and his commentary on question 13, article 5 of Aquinas‘s Summa Theologiae) in which Cajetan articulates his understanding of analogy at least in part through dialectical engagement with Scotus‘s arguments about univocity.

Introduction -- The univocity of being -- The modern predicament -- The problem of univocity in ancient and medieval philosophy -- From Heidegger to Aristotle -- Medieval philosophy -- Scholasticism -- Heidegger, Scotus, and univocity -- The question of being -- Analogy, the medieval experience of life -- Univocity and phenomenology -- Destruction and tradition -- Metaphysics -- Phenomenological philosophy and aletheia -- Descartes, scholasticism, and time -- The presupposition of the tradition -- Scholasticism, analogy, and (...) the interpretation of Heidegger -- The phenomena of beingness and time -- Beyond being -- The analogical interpretation of Heidegger's text -- Univocity and phenomenological philosophy -- Being and some other key terms -- The phenomenology of being and the question of Dasein -- Transcendental philosophy -- Univocity from 1916 to 1927 -- Cartesian connections and the medieval ontology -- Dasein, univocity, and the question of analogy -- Univocity and fundamental ontology -- Husserl and Heidegger -- Phenomenology, being, and univocity -- Univocity and analogy -- Univocity and Heidegger's later thought -- Mysticism -- The present age -- The later Heidegger -- A-letheia, ereignis, and epochal immanence -- A history of being -- The tradition -- The history of metaphysics -- The medieval and the modern -- A history of the modern : subjectivity -- Univocity and the problem of history -- History and civilization -- Art and history -- Fractured history -- Language and poetry -- The fate of univocity -- The re-enchanted forest -- Being mortal. (shrink)

I shall confine my attention to the one Scotist doctrine that seems to be singled out as especially worrisome, the doctrine of univocity. In the first part of the paper I argue that the doctrine of univocity is true. So even if the doctrine has unwelcome consequences, we ought to affirm it anyway; it is not the job of the theologian or philosopher to shrink from uncomfortable truths. In the second part I argue further that the doctrine of (...) univocity is salutary. That is, it does not have the deplorable consequences that have been attributed to it. It should be noted that by “consequences” I mean logical consequences. What historical consequences the doctrine may have had are beside the point: if people have been led astray by false inferences from the doctrine of univocity, the proper remedy is to correct their inferences, not to reject univocity. (shrink)

En este artículo abordamos la interpretación de Badiou sobre la filosofía de Deleuze. Nos concentraremos en su manera de comprender la univocidad y el acontecimiento porque son conceptos cruciales que reúnen los rasgos más controversiales de su enfoque. Con relación al primer tema, examinaremos las dos tesis sobre las que se apoya su mirada de la univocidad: la primacía del Uno-Todo y el carácter ficticio de lo múltiple. Con relación al segundo, analizaremos la crítica de Badiou a Deleuze en tanto (...) en cuanto este reduciría el acontecimiento a hechos regulares y ordinarios del mundo, y además se aproximaría al giro lingüístico y a una dimensión religiosa. Nuestra hipótesis es que la lectura de Badiou tiene debilidades conceptuales insalvables, por lo cual propondremos perspectivas diferentes con fundamento más sólido en los textos de Deleuze. Consideramos que la interpretación de Badiou tiene un potencial heurístico limitado dado que no aporta claves de lectura renovadoras, sino que acusa a Deleuze de caer en las mismas posiciones filosóficas que este critica: la trascendencia, el platonismo, la confusión empirista, el giro lingüístico. (shrink)

In the following, I examine Aristotle’s non-univocity argument against the Form of the Good in Nicomachean Ethics (EN) 1.6. I assess the main available interpretations of it and, having shown that they are not wholly satisfactory, I put forward a new one, based on strong textual evidence deriving from EN and the Topics. According to this interpretation, in EN 1.6 Aristotle should be taken to speak about a particular kind of good: goods which are good per se, i.e. intrinsic (...) goods. (shrink)

I argue that Locke’s various descriptions of real essence pick out one and the same thing, namely a nature that can be ascribed to many things, and in terms of which we can get matters of classification right or wrong. On my reading, Locke does not attack real essences of the sort that are the essences of real species, but rather the presumption that a sorting according to our species concepts and their names is a sorting of things according to (...) their real essences. And the lesson of Locke’s empirical argument against that presumption, I argue, is that our species concepts often function more like higher taxa, grouping together things that knowledge of their real essences would distinguish into distinct lowest species. (shrink)

I argue that Locke’s various descriptions of real essence pick out one and the same thing, namely a nature that can be ascribed to many things, and in terms of which we can get matters of classification right or wrong. On my reading, Locke does not attack real essences of the sort that are the essences of real species, but rather the presumption that a sorting according to our species concepts and their names is a sorting of things according to (...) their real essences. And the lesson of Locke’s empirical argument against that presumption, I argue, is that our species concepts often function more like higher taxa, grouping together things that knowledge of their real essences would distinguish into distinct lowest species. (shrink)

O âmbito da fenomenologia pode ser circonscrito pelo que Husserl chamou de a priori universal da correlação entre o ente transcendente e seus modos subjetivos de doação. Este a priori significa ao mesmo tempo que a essência do ente envolve sua relação com uma consciência e que o sentido de ser do sujeito consiste em se relacionar com o ente transcendante, em fazê‑lo aparecer, o que equivale a dizer que uma consciência que não fosse cons-ciência de algo, ou seja, intencionalidade, (...) não seria. A dificuldade aqui é a de dar conta do sentido de ser dos pólos da correlação, a saber, do ente transcendente e do sujeito, à luz dessa correlação, que remete a uma forma de primado da relação sobre os termos. Trata‑se de se perguntar o que significa aparecer, qual é o estatuto daquilo que aparece e, enfim, qual é o modo de ser daquilo que chamamos de intencionalidade. Eu queria mostrar que a fenomenologia é fadada a se ultrapassar em proveito duma cosmologia e duma metafísica, que aparecem não como campos que lhe seriam estrangeiros mas, muito pelo contrário, como dimensões internas e constitutivas da própria fenomenologia. (shrink)

Scotus’ theory of univocity is described: his exact definition of univocity and his view of transcendental concepts that are ‘simply simple’. These concepts are said to be univocally applied to God and creatures. Next, we describe Scotus’ views on univocity in ‘being’ and the precise meaning of the infinite and finite ‘mode’ of being. Finally, we apply these results to work of Heidegger and Marion. It appears that they had an insufficient grasp of the intricacies of Scotus’ (...) theory of univocity and that Marion’s religious phenomenology could have benefitted from these scotistic tools. (shrink)

Moritz Schlick defined truth as univocal designation. This definition puzzled his followers and exegetes. In this article, I intend to clarify Schlick’s definition and examine his argument for it. I will argue that the motivation for as well as the problems of Schlick’s definition become clear if one sees it as flowing from his Helmholtzian view of scientific representation.

This paper will seek firstly to understand Deleuze’s main challenges to phenomenology, particularly as they are expressed in The Logic of Sense and What is Philosophy?, although reference will also be made to Pure Immanence and Difference and Repetition. We will then turn to a discussion of one of the few passages in which Deleuze directly engages with Merleau-Ponty, which occurs in the chapter on art in What is Philosophy? In this text, he and Guattari offer a critique of what (...) they call the “final avatar” of phenomenology – that is, the “fleshism” that Merleau-Ponty proposes in his unfinished but justly famous work, The Visible and the Invisible. It will be argued that both Deleuze’s basic criticisms of phenomenology, as well as he and Guattari’s problems with the concept of the flesh, do not adequately come to grips with Merleau-Ponty’s later philosophy. Merleau-Ponty is not obviously partisan to what Deleuze finds problematic in this tradition, despite continuing to identify himself as a phenomenologist, and is working within a surprisingly similar framework in certain key respects. In fact, in the more positive part of this paper, we will compare Merleau-Ponty’s notion of flesh, and Deleuze’s equally infamous univocity of being, as a means to consider the broader question of the ways in which the two philosophers consider ontological thought, its meaning and its conditions. It is our belief that through properly understanding both positions, a rapprochement, or at least the foundation for one, can be established between these two important thinkers. (shrink)

Explaining genuine moral disagreement is a challenge for metaethical theories. For expressivists, this challenge comes from the plausibility of agents making seemingly univocal claims while expressing incongruent conative attitudes. I argue that metaethical inferentialism – a deflationary cousin to expressivism, which locates meaning in the inferential import of our moral assertions rather than the attitudes they express – offers a unique solution to this problem. Because inferentialism doesn’t locate the source of moral disagreements in a clash between attitudes, but instead (...) in conflicts between the inferential import of ethical assertions, the traditional problem for expressivism can be avoided. After considering two forms of inferentialism that lead to revenge versions of the problem, I conclude by recommending that we understand the semantics of moral disagreements pragmatically: the source of univocity does not come from moral or semantic facts waiting to be described, but instead from the needs that ethical and semantic discourses answer – a solution to the problems of what we are to do and how we are to talk about it. (shrink)

Scotus’s theory of the univocity of being and other divine attributes is openly indebted to St. Anselm. Anselm has five methods or argumentative strategies that he combines to arrive at a common definition of attributes said of God and creatures, and Scotus references all of them. This paper will examine these methods, showing their interrelation, and how Anselm develops them into a theory of common definitions. This reading explains Anselm’s insistence (in Reply 8) that his Proslogion formula does involve (...) inferences from concepts drawn from creaturely experiences, despite several centuries of interpretation that deny this. Scotus uses these same methods, in ways that Anselm scholars often overlook. The fact that Anselm’s methods are developments of Augustine’s Neoplatonic One-over-many argument in De Trinitate 8.3, and Scotus’s arguments are developments of Anselm’s, suggests that Scotus’s arguments for univocity can be seen in relation to the Platonic tradition, which is not typically done. (shrink)

The article explains the notion of univocity in line with the mature Scotistic doctrine, which plays so crucial a role in the Scotistic rejection of analogy as a middle ground between univocity and pure equivocity. Since univocity of a concept is found to consist in its perfect unity, and the perfect unity of a concept is achieved by means of perfect abstraction, the notion of this so-called abstraction by precision is made clear and contrasted with the so-called (...) abstraction by confusion, by means of which analogical concepts are supposed to be formed by the Thomists. (shrink)

Nigel Biggar (2015) argues that religion deserves a place in secular medicine. Biggar suggests we abandon the standard rationalistic conception of the secular realm and see it rather as “a forum for the negotiation of rival reasonings”. Religious reasoning is one among a number of ways of thinking that must vie for acceptance. Medical ethics, says Biggar, is characterised by “spiritual and moral mixture and ambiguity”. We acknowledge this uncertainty by recognising rival viewpoints and agreeing to provisional compromises. In this (...) response, I object to Biggar's characterisation of medical ethics as “morally ambiguous” and “provisional”. I argue that Biggar has failed to provide adequate support for his conception of ethics as a “forum for negotiation and compromise”. I criticise Biggar's attempt to ‘pluralise’ rationality, and assert that if religion is to play a role in secular medicine, it must be ready to defend itself against a universal standard of reason. In the second section of my response, I argue that ‘theistic natural law’ gives us the resources to defend using reason alone ostensibly faith-based positions in healthcare ethics. In doing so, we retain a univocal conception of rationality, while at the same time leaving space for ‘theism’ in healthcare ethics. (shrink)

In this essay I focus on the idea of the univocity of being, championed by Duns Scotus and given prominence more recently by Deleuze. Although I am interested in how this idea can be established, my primary concern is with something more basic: how the idea can even be properly thought. In the course of exploring this issue, which I do partly by borrowing some ideas about logical syntax from Wittgenstein's Tractatus, I try to show how there can be (...) dialogue between analytic philosophers and those of other traditions. (shrink)

Various theories concerning how to speak positively about God have been proposed. One such theory, the theory of complete univocity, states that although the mode of existence between God and human beings is different, there are, in principle, ontological commonalities between God and humans in existence and His attributes. These ontological commonalities make it possible to attribute a single meaning to both God and human beings univocally. In this article, it is attempted to both explain and defend the theory (...) of complete univocity, while also critiquing the theory of partial univocity, a theory which believes solely in semantic univocity and ontologically assumes that God is absolutely different and separate from humans. Further, as the commonality of meaning between God and humans requires the existence of an ontological commonality between them, the theory of analogy is also not acceptable. Because, firstly, the denial of shared attributes between God and humans has many unsatisfactory theological implications. Secondly, there is no middle term between univocity and equivocality. Therefore, the only theologically defensible theory is that of complete univocity. (shrink)

This article considers the attempt by a prominent fifteenth-century follower of Thomas Aquinas, Dominic of Flanders, to address John Duns Scotus’ most famous argument for the univocity of being. According to Scotus, the intellect must have a concept of being that is univocal to substantial and accidental being, and to finite and infinite being, on the grounds that an intellect cannot be both certain and doubtful through the same concept, but an intellect can be certain that something is a (...) being while doubting whether it is a substance or accident, finite or infinite. The article shows how Flandrensis’ reply in defence of analogy of being hinges on a more fundamental disagreement with Scotus over the division of the logically one. It also shows how Flandrensis’ answer to this question commits him to a position on the unity of the concept of being that lies between the positions of Scotus and of Flandrensis’ earlier Thomistic sources. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that that three of Duns Scotus’s most controversial philosophical positions, namely, his doctrine of the univocity of the concept of being, his radical voluntarism, and his formal distinction between the soul and its powers, are related in the following way: The latter two depend upon the former, sometimes in obvious ways that Duns Scotus owns, and sometimes in ways that are not licensed by the doctrine of the univocity of the concept of being (...) as Scotus himself claims to employ it. In particular, I argue that in Scotus’s development of his theory of freedom and his understanding of the powers of the soul, he makes inferences from God to creatures that the doctrine of the univocity of the concept of being does not allow and that, coupled with inferences that are licensed by that doctrine, result in circularity. (shrink)

The focus of this essay is the idea of the univocity of being, championed by Duns Scotus and given prominence more recently by Gilles Deleuze. Although one concern of the essay is with how this idea can be established, its primary concern is with something more basic: how the idea can even be properly thought. This issue is explored with the aid of some ideas about logical syntax borrowed from Wittgenstein’s _Tractatus_. One incidental benefit of the exercise is to (...) indicate how there can be dialogue between analytic philosophers and those of other traditions. (shrink)

Horan offers a substantial challenge to the narrative of radical orthodoxy's idiosyncratic take on Scotus and his role in ushering in the philosophical age of the modern. This volume not only corrects the received account of Scotus but opens a constructive way forward toward a positive assessment and appropriation of Scotus's work for contemporary theology. --Book cover.

Among the exciting prospects raised by advocates of predictive processing [PP] is the offer of a systematic description of our neural activity suitable for drawing explanatory bridges to the structure of conscious experience. Yet the gulf to cross seems wide. For, as critics of PP have argued, our visual experience certainly doesn’t seem probabilistic.While Clark proposes a means to make PP compatible with the experience of a determinate world, I argue that we should not rush to do so. Two notions (...) of determinacy are conflated in the claim that perception is determinate: ‘univocality’ and ‘full detail’. The former, as Clark argues, is only to be expected in any PP agent that models its world for the purpose of acting on it. But as Husserl argued, and as perceptual psychology has borne out, we significantly overestimate the degree of detail with which we perceive a univocal world.This second form of indeterminacy is due not to the probabilistic nature of PP’s model, but rather to its hierarchical structure, with increasingly coarse-grained representations as we move further from the sensory periphery. A PP system may, or may not, deliver a univocal hypothesis at each of these levels. An action-oriented PP system would only be expected to do so only at the level needed for successful action guidance. A naïve reporter’s overestimation of the degree of determinate detail in their visual experience can thereby be accounted for with a more gradual version of the ‘refrigerator light’ effect: we experience determinate details just to the degree that they’re needed – immediately as they’re needed. (shrink)

Title descriptionThe thought of Meister Eckhart — the Dominican theologian, the preacher, the master of language, the mystic — exudes a remarkable fascination on the modern mind, not the least due to its characteristic interplay of scholastic-academic and vernacular terminology. This volume presents the only book-length study in English of Meister Eckhart the philosopher within the tradition in which his thought is embedded and from which it draws its authority. It shows that even as Eckhart may be justly regarded as (...) a medieval precursor of a modern philosophy of subjectivity, the novelty and continuity of his thought can only be understood in its relation to that of Albert the Great, Aristotle, Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagita, the Liber de causis and the Neoplatonic heritage, Theodoric of Freiberg and Thomas Aquinas as well as Eckhart of Gründig, Jakob of Metz and Johannes Picardi of Lichtenberg. At its center lies the return of the soul, through its detachment from everything corporeal, manifold and temporal, into its ground or spark — into that “something” in the soul where, according to Eckhart, “the ground of God is my ground and my ground is God’s ground”. The present translation not only revises the German-language original to take account of recent debates in Eckhart-scholarship, it moreover makes accessible to the non-specialist all Latin and Middle High German material, much of it previously not available in any translation at all. Meister Eckhart: Dominikanischer Theologe, Prediger, Sprachgenie, Mystiker — sein Denken fasziniert den modernen Menschen nicht zuletzt wegen der einprägsamen Wechselwirkung von scholastisch-akademischer Terminologie und deutscher Mundart. Der vorliegende Band ist die einzige englischsprachige Monographie über Meister Eckhart als Philosophen, die ihn im Zusammenhang der ihn maîgeblich bedingenden philosophischen Tradition interpretiert. Auch wenn Eckhart zurecht als Vordenker der modernen Subjektivität gilt, kann man ihn nur im bezug auf Albert den Groîen, Aristoteles, Dionysius Pseudo-Areopagita, den Liber de causis und die neuplatonische Tradition, Dietrich von Freiberg und Thomas von Aquin sowie Eckhart von Gründig, Jakob von Metz und Johannes Picardi von Lichtenberg adäquat verstehen. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Studie steht die Rückkehr der Seele — durch ihre Abgeschiedenheit vom Körperlichen, vom Mannigfaltigen und vom Zeitlichen — in ihren Grund bzw. in den Funken der Seele, wo nach Eckhart “gotes grunt mîn grunt und mîn grunt gotes grunt” ist. Der vorliegende Band revidiert nicht nur die deutschsprachige Original-Studie im Hinblick auf Debatten in der neueren Eckhart-Forschung: Auch dem Nicht-Spezialisten werden sämtliche lateinische und mittelhochdeutsche Quellen durch die Übersetzung ins Englische zugänglich gemacht. (shrink)

As is well known, Deleuze says in Difference and Repetition that ‘the task of contemporary philosophy has been defined: to reverse Platonism’. This task is then continued in Logic of Sense, through its discussion of Stoic logic. Deleuze says there that ‘the Stoics are the first to reverse Platonism’. And, at the same time, in the big Spinoza book, we see Deleuze present Spinoza's ‘anti-Cartesian reaction’. This anti-Cartesian reaction is equivalent to the reversal of Platonism. We can say then that (...) the task of the reversal of Platonism unifies the three books Deleuze published at the end of the Sixties. The thesis of this essay will consist in arguing that ethics we find in Logic of Sense – which we can call ‘the ethics of the univocity of being’ – completes, in a constructive way, Deleuze's early project of the reversal of Platonism. The ethics centres on the idea of counter-actualisation. We shall argue that there are four senses of counter-actualisation. Here is a summary of the four senses of counter-actualisation: (1) beatitude against resentment (against presentist modes of measurement); (2) caring for the sense against neglecting the sense (denouncing any one determinate answer); (3) the embodiment of plural hopings and rememberings against the embodiment of one hope and one memory (against the character); and (4) ‘just enough’ against ‘too much’ (against suicide). Yet, as we shall see, there is a fifth meaning of counter-actualisation, the ultimate meaning. The ultimate sense of counter-actualisation is universal freedom. This is where my essay will end. (shrink)

A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference principle (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with the so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° the Leximin, 2° the Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to the maximin rule of decision), represented by the figure in L of the perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° the genuine DP. When the augmentation of inequality benefits the worse off, only (...) Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after the first maximum D), where only the richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive Rules of Justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify the links and the differences between on the one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on the other hand, the DP properly understood and the Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But the intuition behind the distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only the best off improves in a productive social cooperation. (shrink)