This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

[I] Les conséquences immédiates et le syllogisme. -- [II] La proposition et le syllogisme. -- {III] L'observation de Platner. -- [IV] Note sur le "Philèbe" [de Platon].

The main doctrines of the traditional logic of terms (logica termini) are standardly organized according to the formation structure of syllogistic inferences. A syllogistic inference is analyzed into propositions, and propositions, in the last instance, to terms; the logic of terms, in line with this formation structure, is partitioned into the doctrines, respectively, of terms (terminorum), of propositions (propositionum) or judgments (judiciorum), and of immediate and mediate inferences or followings (consequentiarum immediatarum/mediatarum). This structure communicates the idea that a given doctrine (...) could be treated, to a certain extent, independently of the next one to come, so that propositions, for instance, could be examined, at least to a certain extent, independently of syllogistic inferences. Some classical philosophers such as Immanuel Kant have developed approaches that break in part this order of analysis which finds its clearest expression in the Port-Royal logic (Arnauld & Nicole’s Logic or the Art of Thinking). In Kant’s case the order is changed in favor of the doctrine of judgements. This paper examines the French philosopher Jules Lachelier’s (1832-1918) approach which similarly breaks the same doctrinal order, and which, more specifically, refines the typification of propositions according to the roles to be played by propositions in syllogisms. What lies at the core of this approach is the identification of the semantic values of categorical propositions (or, as Lachelier calls them, of propositions of inherence) in terms of modal statuses which are to determine these roles. Lachelier seems to use the set of values he assigns to the categorical forms as a tool for testing logical implication among types of predication, that is, as some sort of semantic theory in the modern sense. Lachelier also discusses the three-figured categorical syllogistic along with a method, effectively used by G. W. Leibniz, of transforming syllogistic moods into each other, and tries to confirm his semantic theory in terms of such syllogistic. This paper explains Lachelier’s analysis of meaning by treating it as a non-formal semantics of predication, and tries to make some modern sense of Lachelier’s general approach to syllogistic. (shrink)

There can be no question but that Lachelier exercised great influence over French philosophy. Gabriel Séailles notes it as do others. Boutroux remarked "il fut un excitateur singulièrement puissant des intelligences," and Benrubi places him with Ravaisson in initiating the tradition of spiritualistic positivism in France. Bergson also recognized and acknowledged his debt to Lachelier, although the tradition which Lachelier helped to father was opposed to Bergsonianism in many important respects. The two traditions can, I suggest, be (...) recognized as dialectical opposites of one another. (shrink)

M. Roch Bouchard has contributed an intriguing essay to Idealistic Studies: “Idealist Requirements and the Affirmation of the Other World—the Lachelier Case”. His subject, the distinguished French idealist, Jules Lachelier, is shown by M. Bouchard to have idealized in triumphantly paradoxical form certain tensions between Divine Immanence and Transcendence that have troubled Biblical religionists for millennia. Problems raised for the educated faithful by thinkers like Parmenides, Plotinus, Eriugena, Boehme, Spinoza, Goethe, and Hegel came home all at once to (...) roost for Lachelier, a devout Roman Catholic. (shrink)

M. Roch Bouchard has contributed an intriguing essay to Idealistic Studies: “Idealist Requirements and the Affirmation of the Other World—the Lachelier Case”. His subject, the distinguished French idealist, Jules Lachelier, is shown by M. Bouchard to have idealized in triumphantly paradoxical form certain tensions between Divine Immanence and Transcendence that have troubled Biblical religionists for millennia. Problems raised for the educated faithful by thinkers like Parmenides, Plotinus, Eriugena, Boehme, Spinoza, Goethe, and Hegel came home all at once to (...) roost for Lachelier, a devout Roman Catholic. (shrink)

M. Roch Bouchard has contributed an intriguing essay to Idealistic Studies: “Idealist Requirements and the Affirmation of the Other World—the Lachelier Case”. His subject, the distinguished French idealist, Jules Lachelier, is shown by M. Bouchard to have idealized in triumphantly paradoxical form certain tensions between Divine Immanence and Transcendence that have troubled Biblical religionists for millennia. Problems raised for the educated faithful by thinkers like Parmenides, Plotinus, Eriugena, Boehme, Spinoza, Goethe, and Hegel came home all at once to (...) roost for Lachelier, a devout Roman Catholic. (shrink)