Michel Meyer (philosopher)

See also: Meyer

Michel Meyer , born on November 11th, 1950, is a Belgian Philosophe and professor with the Universit3e libre de Bruxelles. Its reflection relates mainly to the Rhétorique to which it largely contributed by the introduction of an approach of the Argumentation that it names the “Problématologie”. He is economist of formation, main are arts (John Hopkins, the U.S.A.), bachelor and doctor of philosophy (1979).

Raise Chaïm Perelman, of which it contributed much to make known the thought, Michel Meyer also devoted work to the analytical Philosophie, Kant and the ontology. Although asserting itself of a modern approach of rhetoric and language, Meyer remains faithful to the tradition aristotelician ( Rhetoric , the Topics ) of which it renews the questionings in the light of the contemporary theories of the argumentation and the Philosophie of the language.

Through its problematologic approach, Meyer was also interested in the Problème S posed by the Esthétique and, in particular, the Littérature. From the same point of view, he also proposes to include/understand the Réalité - problematic concept par excellence - by integrating it in dynamics (rhetoric) Question/Réponse which he places in the center of the problematology and, more largely, of the Philosophie.

The work of Michel Meyer could be divided into two parts: on the one hand, the problematologic mechanics itself - which find in problematology and Questionnement and historicity - and, on the other hand, the application of this one to a daily set of themes suitable for meet any individual during his existence; existence which precisely been the subject of questions.

They is not only philosophers who seek a direction with our life, they are also the astrophysicists, the doctors, and many other people still. Only does there exist a direction with our life? Here is question thousand times re-sifted, Présocratiques until researchers of today, and which does not find answer because it is always presented under the same veil, that of the philosophical tradition, that of a history of the philosophy - certainly very important - but which does not leave a system which, at first sight, can appear closed. Michel Meyer breaks this traditional approach to join again with the bases even thought - of our thought -, of our existence and questions which are attached to it.

Principal mechanisms of the theory of the questioning

The emergence of the theory of the questioning or problematology is in the middle same work ( Questionnement and historicity , Of the problematology ) of Meyer.

Philosophy is a radical questioning. This pleasing radical questioning of the answers which will raise other questions. For example, the answer “Yes, tomorrow I come to the university” is an answer to a precise question like: “Tomorrow, do you come to the university? ”. However, nothing prohibits to us compared to this answer to wonder about what is the university. The question is certainly not put, but is however implicitly present: it is what Michel Meyer calls “the effectivity” of the questioning or “derived” from the questioning. Because the question does not arise, but it is however possible indeed. Of this principle, one from of deduced that very fact is except question. Thus “Kant is the author of the Critique of the pure reason ” is a fact except question, because, on the one hand, this sentence is affirmative and noninterrogative, and, on the other hand, it brings an answer. However, nothing obliges us to remain of marble to this fact. One can question it: who is Kant? What the Critical of the pure reason ? This type of interrogation makes it possible to deviate on sentences manipulators, rhetorics, which put in tension the aspect of answer or question.

Let us move back still a little in the theory of the questioning. X is it with what I am thinking. It is, for you, unspecified. Guess. At the beginning, my X is unspecified, and, beside this X unspecified is added the field with the surdéterminations, i.e. the whole of the possible answers so that as it is my X is unspecified. A category or interrogative can reduce the field of the surdéterminations, in which case X is a little less unspecified all while being it still despite everything. Let us allot a category to X, for example: courageous. By qualifying my X unspecified of courageous, we more reduce the field of the surdéterminations by determining the object even our interrogation. Because if X is courageous, it cannot not the being and we justify the principle of non-contradiction. In the same way, it is possible that X is a man (say “human being”) or a not-man, remains to check. They are “rhetorics questions”. While affirming a given number of determinations we will manage to identify X.

The utility of such a problem, of such an approach, is in excessive and intentional handling not very scrupulous individuals. “Isn't he dishonest person? ” in tension the aspect of answer and question puts. Why? Because this sentence is a question, but force the answer in the direction of the transmitter.

This philosophical mechanics is the node even of the problematology. Any individual who manages to raise the good questions and especially, to question rather than to put in answer, will manage to distinguish the essence of the accessory, to maintain a serenity constant and optimal with the center even of his existence, to enjoy an order a little more adequate by privileging the qualitative one and not the quantitative one, because at the bottom, it is well of that it acts: to question the solutions and to guide its existence in the way just possible.

Random links: