Abstract
philosophy," writes Bouveresse, "is - or should be - to an essential extent, an art of dealing correctly with what we don't know." In the practice of this art, what place belongs to reason? Which reason? And how to conduct it? Bouveresse is certainly a rationalist, but from his earliest books, he has answered these questions by developing a style of thought that distinguishes him from both twentieth-century French rationalists and analytic philosophers.
In this talk, I'd like to try and describe the kind of use he makes of his reason in philosophy. What maxims guide him, whether explicit or implicit? What philosophical choices underpin his practice? What intellectual, moral and political values are at stake? And what readings can we draw from this for the "reconstruction of reason"?
