Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Terminology: This section explains special features of the language used by the individual authors. _____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Jaakko Hintikka on Terminology - Dictionary of Arguments
II 15 Standard Semantics/modal logic/Hintikka: problem: the alternative worlds must be formed from the same individual domain and also from the same domain of predicates (basic term). That is, the individuals must all already exist! II 46 Def Scenario/Hintikka: a scenario is everything that is compatible with the knowledge of a knowing person b. We can also call it b's worlds of knowledge. II 56 Def relevant world/Hintikka: relevant worlds are all those which are compatible with the knowledge of a person considered here. II 189 Def Qualitative/terminology/Hintikka: terminology corresponds to a yes-no distinction. Contrast: the contrast is comparative. II 216 Def Desideratum/Hintikka: the desideratum is the piece of information that provides a complete answer to a question. E.g. (3) is the desideratum of (2). (2) Who killed Roger Ackroyd? (3) I know who killed Roger Ackroyd. II 217 (3) can be analyzed as: (4) (Ex) I know that (x killed Ackroyd) Where "x" is about people. Def Conclusive/conclusive answer/Hintikka: an answer is conclusive iff. (5) implies (4), for example, (5) I know that d has killed Ackroyd. (4) (Ex) I know that (x killed Ackroyd). Problem: normally the implication is valid, but it can be because "d" (on different occasions) does not refer to the same person. II 221 Presupposition/questions/Hintikka: the presupposition of a question is obtained by omitting the extreme epistemic operator ("I know that") from the desideratum of the question. Definition matrix of a question/Hintikka: the matrix of a question is the presupposition obtained from the desideratum without the utmost epistemic operator. Def Meaning/Hintikka: meaning is the function of possible worlds on extensions. Worlds: worlds are the arguments of functions that are meanings. Intentionality/Hintikka: if intentionality is to be defined by the necessity of explaining it through possible worlds, we must examine possible counterexamples._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
||
> Counter arguments against Hintikka
> Counter arguments in relation to Terminology
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-18