Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Belnap, Nuel | Cresswell Vs Belnap, Nuel | HCI 299 Paradoxes of implication/Hughes/Cresswell: are at worst harmless. In most cases, we wish to speak of entailment. VsEntailment/VsBelnap/VsAnderson: Their system E (see above) pays too high a price with the absence of the disjunctive syllogism (see below principle C). I 300 Problem: the mere construction of such an axiom system does not provide us with a clear notion of entailment. paradoxes of implication/Hughes/Cresswell: are even desirable: we want to be able to say: "If you accept that, you can prove anything." I.e. in a contradictory system everything can be proven. aca |
Cr I M. J. Cresswell Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988 Cr II M. J. Cresswell Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984 |
| Discourse Representation | Partee Vs Discourse Representation | Klaus von Heusinger, Eselssätze und ihre Pferdefüsse, Uni Konstanz Section Linguistics Working Paper 64; 1994 I 21 Discourse Representation/Discourse Representation Theories/DRT//File Change Semantics/FCS/Heim/Kamp/Heusinger: (Heim 1982, 1983, Kamp (1981, with Reyle: 1993): Thesis the analysis should go beyond the individual sentence. Anaphora/DRT/FCS/Heim/Kamp/Heusinger: should be able to go beyond the boundaries of sentences. NP: are not quantifier expressions, but precisely anaphorical. They can also refer to "virtual" objects. File/Terminology/Heim/Heusinger: the possibly virtual objects of discourse. Discourse Reference/Terminology/Karttunen: like Heim's files. I 22 Anaphora: anaphoric relations take place between files and certain operators can the bind files or give them a certain "lifetime". Discourse Representation/Heusinger: is displayed on a model only in the model-theoretic interpretation. Def Meaning/FCS/DRT/Heim/Kamp/Heusinger: is a dynamic concept here, it is not the truth condition of sentences, but the information-changing potential of sentences. (Therefore terminology: file change) NP: new: they are discourse references here (with possibly changing correspondences) and more referential than quantifying. Referential/Heusinger: referring to particular properties. Quantifying/Heusinger/(s): not referring to properties. I 23 Discourse Representation Theory/Heusinger: Solution: there is no anaphora paradox (because NP, like pronouns, are interpreted as a discourse reference) and the problem of the wide range of the existential quantifier is resolved. Problem/VsDiscourse Representation Theories: the problem of compositionality remains. Problem: the texts can then only obtain a truth value in their entirety. Chrysipp Sentences/Heusinger: New: the conditional is represented not as a material implication, but as unselective all-quantification over cases in the sense of Lewis (1975) Adverbs of Quantification. I 24 Proportion Paradox/Partee/ParteeVsHeim/ParteeVsDiscourse Representation Theory/Donkey Sentence/Heusinger:(Partee 1984): Problem (40) can only be represented as (40a), but that becomes incorrect if out of 6 farmers who each have a donkey, five beat theirs, while the sixth farmer has 10 donkeys, all of which he treats well. Problem: the quantification over cases only considers farmer-donkey pairs. I 25 Dynamic Logic/Groenendijk/Stokhof/Dekker/Heusinger: (Groenendijk & Stokhof 1991, Dekker 1993): VsDiscourse Representation Theory: departs from a dynamic concept of meaning, like this one, which is not incorporated in the representation, but is coded in a new interpretation of the well-known logical inventory. Sentence meaning: no longer truth conditions, but contribution to the change of the context or information. Relevant information: is that on the variable assignment. Sentence meaning: is then the relation between two variable assignments. Discourse references: do not exist here. Dynamic Logic/Heusinger: Inspired by computer languages. I 42 Epsilon AnalysisVsDiscourse Representation/VsHeim/VsKamp/Heusinger: here, NP are not introduced as discourse referents on the additional semantic level of the discourse representation structure, but directly refer to selected objects of the model according to the principle of selection. |
Part I B. Partee Mathematical Methods in Linguistics (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy) New York 1990 |
| Dunn, J. M. | Wessel Vs Dunn, J. M. | I 134 WesselVsDunn System E/Dunn: (subsystem of E): WGS criterion (Wright, Geach, Smiley): From A follows B exactly when 1. A > B is an insertion into a tautology A' > B', where 2. A' is no contradiction and 3. B' is not a tautology. Vs: this cannot be accepted as a criterion for a valid logical subsequent relationship because it is not transitive. Improvement: 2. A' no partial contradiction. 3. B' no partial tautology. Def Truth Tree/Falsehood Tree/Dunn: tree-like diagram for the conditions according to which a subsequent relationship (implication) can assume the truth value t (true) or f (false). Def "closed branch": contains both a statement variable and its negation (Negat). The others are open. Rules for the production of a truth tree for negation, conjunction and adjunction: A U B ~(A u B) A v B ~(A v B) ~~A_ A ~ A ~B A B ~A A B ~B I 135 E.g. Falsehood Tree: A u B ~ (A u B) A v B ~(A v B) ~~A A B ~A A ~A ~B A ~B B ((s) same as upper line). Def Partial Contradiction/Partial Tautology/Dunn/Wessel: Tautology: exists when its falsehood tree is closed. Contradiction: if its truth tree is closed. Partial Tautology: if the false tree has at least one closed branch. Partial Contradiction: if the truth tree has at least one closed branch. E.g. (A v B) u ~A. L Criterion/Dunn/WesselVsDunn: does not correspond to the intuitive view of the logical subsequent relationship. Reason: according to the L criterion (A v B) u ~A -> B is not a valid rule, since the forelimb is a partial contradiction. ((System E/Belnap/Anderson/Dunn/Wessel: A -> B is a subsequent relationship of the first stage of system E exactly when A follows logically from B according to the L criterion.) put up!) Example truth tree: of the formula (A v B) u ~A ~A A v B A B. (The left branch is closed because it contains A and ~A.) WesselVsDunn: but this does not mean that the end of (A v B) u ~A on B is invalid! On the contrary, the truth tree is the prerequisite for validity. Therefore the L criterion is not usable. Subsequent relation/first level/Dunn/Wessel: that Dunn's subsystem of E only applies to the first level is not a coincidence: With a contentwise interpretation of the operator e.g. with the axioms E1 E3 and E6 (I 133) different occurrences of the operator must get different contentwise interpretations: E1. A -> A -> B -> B E2. A -> B ->(B -> (A -> C)) E3. A -> (A >B) -> (A -> B) E6. (A -> B) u (A -> C) -> (A -> B u C). I 136 WesselVsDunn: the demands that A must not be a partial contradiction and B a partial tautology are too strong. We only want to exclude tautologies and contradictions in our own theory (see below). Adjunction/Wessel: the elimination rule of the adjunction is controversial! (Dunn: "infamous"). It is missing in system E. Introduction of adjunctions: is not actually a logical final rule, it is an auxiliary rule that allows new tautologies (or contradictions) to be obtained. This problematic introductory rule A -> A v B can be proven in system E. System E/Wessel: the implementation rule A l- A {a/B} does not apply here. WesselVsBelnap/VsDunn: here there is no criterion for freedom from paradox. It is not guaranteed that these systems are free of paradoxes. In addition -> is again an operator! |
Wessel I H. Wessel Logik Berlin 1999 |
| Entailment | Cresswell Vs Entailment | Hughes I 267 Paradoxes of strict implication/Disjunctive syllogism/DS/Entailment/Some authors/Hughes/Cresswell: some consider the "paradoxes" to be legitimate and accept them as a price for being able to keep the disjunctive syllogism. VsEntailment: Consider the absence of the disjunctive syllogism even to be a reason for rejecting the entailment. |
Cr II M. J. Cresswell Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984 Hughes I G.E. Hughes Maxwell J. Cresswell Einführung in die Modallogik Berlin New York 1978 |
| Kant | Frege Vs Kant | I 30 HankelVsKant: the assumption of an infinite number of irrefutable original truths is inappropriate and paradoxical. (Frege pro Hankel) Axioms/FregeVsKant: should be immediately obvious. E.g. is it obvious that 135 664 + 37 863 = 173 527? And that is precisely what Kant cites for their synthetic nature! I 30 Frege: much more speaks against their unprovability. How should they be viewed other than by evidence, since they are not immediately obvious. I 41 Numbers/FregeVsKant: Kant wants to use the view of fingers and points, but that is precisely what is not possible here! A distinction between small and large numbers should not be necessary! FregeVsKant: "pure view" does not help! The things that are called views. Quantities, lengths, surface areas, volumes, angles, curves, masses, speeds I 42 Forces, light levels, currents, etc. In contrast, I cannot even admit the view of the number 100 000. The sense of the word number in logic is therefore a further advanced than that in the transcendental aesthetic. Numbers/Frege: the relationship with geometry should not be overestimated!. I 43 A geometric point is, considered by itself, is impossible to distinguish from another, individual numbers, on the other hand, are not impossible to distinguish! Each number has its peculiarity. I 120 FregeVsKant: he has underestimated the analytic judgments:. I 121 He thinks the judgement in general affirmative. Problem: what if it is about an individual object, about an existential judgement? Numbers/FregeVsKant: he thinks that without sensuality no object would be given to us, but the numbers are it, as abstract but very specific items. Numbers are no concepts. IV 61 Negation/FregeVsKant: he speaks of affirmative and negative judgments. Then you would also have to distinguish affirmative and negative thoughts. This is quite unnecessary in logic. I 119 FregeVsKant: he has underestimated the analytic judgments:. I 120 He thinks the judgement in general affirmative. Problem: what if it is about an individual object, about an existential judgement? Kant: seems to think of adjunctive properties. But E.g. in the case of a continuous function of a really fruitful definition there is certainly a more intimate connection. I 121 The implications of mathematics enrich our knowledge, therefore, they should be called synthetic according to Kant, but they are certainly also analytical! They are included in the definitions as the plant in the seed, not like the beam in the house. Numbers/FregeVsKant: he thinks that without sensuality no object would be given to us, but the numbers are it, as abstract but very specific items. Numbers are no concepts. Stepanians I 34 Mathematics/Truth/FregeVsKant: it is false to generalize geometric knowledge (by mere view) to all mathematics. Stepanians I 34 pPure View/Kant/Frege/Stepanians: (like Kant): geometrical knowledge is based on pure view and is already synthetic "in us", a priori. FregeVsMill: geometrical knowledge is not a sensation, because point, line, etc. are not actually perceived by the senses. Mathematics/Truth/FregeVsKant: it is false to generalize geometric knowledge (by mere view) to all mathematics. I 35 Numbers/KantVsFrege: are not given to us by view. I 36 Numbers/Arithmetic/FregeVsKant: purely logical definitions can be given for all arithmetical concepts. ((s) Therefore, it is a safer knowledge than the geometric one). Def Logicism/Frege/Stepanians: this is the view that was called "logicism". I.e. arithmetic is a part of logic. Arithmetic/FregeVsKant: is not synthetic but analytic. Newen I21 Discovery Context/Justification Context/Newen: the distinction has its roots in Frege’s Foundations of Arithmetic. Def Analytical/Frege: is the justification of a sentence if only general logical laws and definitions are needed in the proof. I 22 Frege/FregeVsKant: all numerical formulas are analytical. Quine X 93 Analytic/FregeVsKant: (1884): the true propositions of arithmetic are all analytic. Quine: the logic that made this possible also contained the set theory. Tugendhat II 12 "Not"/Tugendhat: Error: considering the word "not" as a reflection of the "position". (Kant calls "being" a "position"). FregeVsKant: has shown that the negation always refers to the so-called propositional content and does not stand at the same level with the assertion-moment (position). The traditional opposition of negating and affirming judgments (Kant) is therefore untenable! |
F I G. Frege Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik Stuttgart 1987 F II G. Frege Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung Göttingen 1994 F IV G. Frege Logische Untersuchungen Göttingen 1993 Step I Markus Stepanians Gottlob Frege zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 Tu I E. Tugendhat Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976 Tu II E. Tugendhat Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992 |
| Lewis, C.I. | Schwarz Vs Lewis, C.I. | Schwarz I 31 Personal identity/SchwarzVsLewis: his criterion is not accurate and provides in interesting cases no answer. E.g. continuity after brain surgery, etc. But Lewis does not want that. Our (vague) everyday term should only be made explicitly. Beaming/Teleportation/Doubling/Lewis: all this is allowed by his theory. Schwarz I 60 Identity/Lewis/Centered world/Possible world/Schwarz: my desire to be someone else, does not refer to the whole world, but only to my position in the world. E.g. Twin Earth/Schwarz: one of the two planets is blown tomorrow, the two options (that we are on the one or the other) do however not correspond to two possible worlds! Detailed knowledge would not help out where we are, because they are equal. ((s) so no "centered world"). Actually, we want to know where we ourselves are in the world. (1979a(1),1983b(2),1986e(3):231 233). SchwarzVsLewis: says too little about these perspective possibilities. It is not enough here to allow multiple counterparts (c.p.) in a world. It should not just be possible that Humphrey is exactly as the actual Nixon, he should also to be allowed to be different. Humphrey may not be a GS of himself. (> Irreflexive counterpart relation,> see below Section 9.2. "Doxastic counterparts". Similarity relation. No matter what aspects you emphasize: Nixon will never be more similar to Humphrey than to himself. Schwarz I 100 Fundamental properties/SchwarzVsLewis: this seems to waver whether he should form the fE to the conceptual basis for the reduction of all predicates and ultimately all truths, or only a metaphysical basis, on which all truths supervene. (>Supervenience, >Reduction). Schwarz I 102 Naturalness/Natural/Property/Content/Lewis: the actual content is then the most natural candidate that matches the behavior. "Toxic" is not a perfectly natural property (p.n.p.), but more natural than "more than 3.78 light years away" and healthy and less removed and toxic". Naturalness/Degree/Lewis: (1986e(3):, 61,63,67 1984b(4):66): the naturalness of a property is determined by the complexity or length of their definition by perfectly natural properties. PnE: are always intrinsically and all their Boolean combinations remain there. Problem: extrinsic own sheep threaten to look unnatural. Also would e.g. "Red or breakfast" be much more complicated to explain than e.g. "has charge -1 or a mass, whose value is a prime number in kg. (Although it seems to be unnatural by definition). Naturalness/Property/Lewis: (1983c(5), 49): a property is, the more natural the more it belongs to surrounding things. Vs: then e.g. "cloud" less natural than e.g. "table in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant or clock showing 7:23". Schw I 103 Naturalness/Properties/Lewis: (1983c(5): 13f): naturalness could be attributed to similarity between characteristics: E.g. a class is more natural, the more the properties of its elements resemble each other. Similarity: Lewis refers to Armstrong: similarity between universals 1978b(6),§16.2,§21, 1989b(7): §5.111997 §4.1). Ultimately LewisVs. Naturalness/Lewis/Schwarz: (2001a(8):§4,§6): proposing test for naturalness, based on similarity between individual things: coordinate system: "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" axis. A property is then the more natural, the more dense and more compact the appropriate region is. Problem: 1. that presupposes gradual similarity and therefore cannot be well used to define gradual naturalness. 2. the pnE come out quite unnatural, because the instances often do not strongly resemble each other. E.g. if a certain mass property is perfect, of course, then all things with this mass build a perfectly natural class, no matter how dissimilar they are today. SchwarzVsLewis: it shows distinctions between natural and less natural properties in different areas, but does not show that the distinction is always the same. Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: could also depend on interests and biological expression. And yet, can in various ways the different types of natural - be determined by perfect naturalness. That is not much, because at Lewis all, by definition, by the distribution of p.n.p. is determined. ((s)>Mosaic). Schwarz I 122 Naturalness/SchwarzVsLewis: not reasonable to assume that it was objectively, regardless of how naturally it appears to us. Lewis introduced objective naturalness as a metaphysical basis for qualitative, intrinsic similarity and difference, as some things resemble each other like eggs and others do not. (see above 5.2). Intrinsic Similarity: also qualitative character and duplication: these terms are intended to be our familiar terms by Lewis. SchwarzVsLewis: but if objective naturalness is to explain the distinction of our opinions about similarity, one cannot ask with sense the question whether the distinction serves exactly this. So although there are possible beings (or worlds) whose predicates express relatively unnatural properties and therefore are wrong about natural laws, without being able to discover the error. But we can be sure a priori that we do not belong to them. Problem: the other beings may themselves believe a priori to be sure that their physical predicates are relatively natural. Solution: but they (and not we) were subject to this mistake, provided "natural" means in their mouth the same as with us. ((s) but we also could just believe that they are not subject to error. Respectively, we do not know whether we are "we" or "they"). Schwarz: here is a tension in our concept of natural law (NL): a) on the one hand it is clear that we can recognize them empirically. b) on the other hand they should be objective in a strong sense, regardless of our standards and terms. Problem: Being with other standards can come up with the same empirical data to all other judgments of NL. Schwarz I 134 Event/SchwarzVsLewis: perhaps better: events but as the regions themselves or the things in the regions: then we can distinguish e.g. the flight from the rotation of the ball. Lewis appears to be later also inclined to this. (2004d)(9). Lewis: E.g. the death of a man who is thrown into a completely empty space is not caused by something that happens in this room, because there is nothing. But when events are classes of RZ regions, an event could also include an empty region. Def Qua thing/Lewis/Schwarz: later theory: “Qua-things” (2003)(10): E.g. „Russell qua Philosoph“: (1986d(9a),247): classes of counterpieces – versus: LewisVsLewis: (2003)(10) Russell qua Philosoph and Russell qua Politician and Russell are identical. Then the difference in counterfactual contexts is due to the determined by the respective description counterpart relation. These are then intensional contexts. (Similar to 1971(11)). counterfactual asymmetry/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis' analysis assumes similarity between possible worlds. HorwichVsLewis: (1987(15),172) should explain why he is interested in this baroque dependence. Problem/SchwarzVsLewis: so far, the analysis still delivers incorrect results E.g. causation later by earlier events. Schwarz I 139 Conjunctive events/SchwarzVsLewis: he does not see that the same is true for conjunctive events. Examples A, B, C, D are arbitrary events, so that A caused B and C caused D. If there is an event B&C, which exactly occurs when both B and C happen, then A is the cause of D: without A, B would not have happened, neither B&C. Likewise D would not have happened without B&C. Because causation is transitive, thus any cause causes any effect. Note: according to requirement D would not happen without C, but maybe the next possible world, in which B&C are missing, is one in which C is still taking place? According to Lewis the next possible world should however be one where the lack of cause is completely extinguished. Schwarz: you cannot exclude any conjunctive events safely. E.g. a conversation or e.g. a war is made up of many events and may still be as a whole a cause or effect. Lewis (2000a(13), 193) even used quite unnatural conjunctions of events in order to avoid objections: E.g. conjunction from the state of brain of a person and a decision of another person. Absence/Lewis/Schwarz: because Lewis finds no harmless entities that are in line as absences, he denies their existence: they are no events, they are nothing at all, since there is nothing relevant. (200a, 195). SchwarzVsLewis: But how does that fit together with the Moore's facts? How can a relationship be instantiated whose referents do not exist?. Moore's facts/Schwarz: E.g. that absences often are causes and effects. Something to deny that only philosopher comes to mind. I 142 Influence/SchwarzVsLewis: Problem: influence of past events by future. Example had I drunk from the cup already half a minute ago, then now a little less tea would be in the cup, and depending on how much tea I had drunk half a minute ago, how warm the tea was then, where I then had put the cup, depending on it the current situation would be a little different. After Lewis' analysis my future tea drinking is therefore a cause of how the tea now stands before me. (? Because Ai and Bi?). Since the drinking incidents are each likely to be similar, the impact is greater. But he is not the cause, in contrast to the moon. Schwarz I 160 Know how/SchwarzVsLewis: it is not entirely correct, that the phenomenal character must be causal effect if the Mary and Zombie pass arguments. For causal efficacy, it is sufficient if Mary would react differently to a phenomenally different experience ((s) >Counterfactual conditional). Dualism/Schwarz: which can be accepted as a dualist. Then you can understand phenomenal properties like fundamental physical properties. That it then (as above Example charge 1 and charge 1 switch roles in possible worlds: is possible that in different possible worlds the phenomenal properties have their roles changed, does not mean that they are causally irrelevant! On the contrary, a particle with exchanged charge would behave differently. Solution: because a possible world, in which the particle has a different charge and this charge plays a different role, is very unlike to our real world! Because there prevail other laws of nature. ((s) is essential here that besides the amended charge also additionally the roles were reversed? See above: >Quidditism). SchwarzVsLewis: this must only accept that differences in fundamental characteristics do not always find themselves in causal differences. More one must not also accept to concede Mary the acquisition of new information. Schwarz I 178 Content/Individuation/Solution/LewisVsStalnaker: (1983b(2), 375, Fn2, 1986e(3), 34f), a person may sometimes have several different opinion systems! E.g. split brain patients: For an explanation of hand movements to an object which the patient denies to see. Then you can understand arithmetic and logical inference as merging separate conviction fragments. Knowledge/Belief/Necessary truth/Omniscience/SchwarzVsLewis/SchwarzVsFragmentation: Problem: even within Lewis' theory fragmentation is not so easy to get, because the folk psychology does not prefer it. Schwarz I 179 E.g. at inconsequent behavior or lie we do not accept a fragmented system of beliefs. We assume rather that someone changes his beliefs or someone wants to mislead intentionally. E.g. if someone does not make their best move, it must not be the result of fragmentation. One would assume real ignorance contingent truths instead of seeming ignorance of necessary truths. Fragmentation does not help with mathematical truths that must be true in each fragment: Frieda learns nothing new when she finally finds out that 34 is the root of the 1156. That they denied the corresponding proposition previously, was due to a limitation of their cognitive architecture. Knowledge/Schwarz: in whatever way our brain works, whether in the form of cards, records or neural networks - it sometimes requires some extra effort to retrieve the stored information. Omniscience/Vs possible world/Content/VsLewis/Schwarz: the objection of logical omniscience is the most common objection to the modeling mental and linguistic content by possible worlds or possible situations. SchwarzVsVs: here only a problem arises particularly, applicable to all other approaches as well. Schwarz I 186 Value/Moral/Ethics/VsLewis/Schwarz: The biggest disadvantage of his theory: its latent relativism. What people want in circumstances is contingent. There are possible beings who do not want happiness. Many authors have the intuition that value judgments should be more objective. Solution/Lewis: not only we, but all sorts of people should value under ideal conditions the same. E.g. then if anyone approves of slavery, it should be because the matter is not really clear in mind. Moral disagreements would then in principle be always solvable. ((s)>Cognitive deficiency/Wright). LewisVsLewis: that meets our intuitions better, but unfortunately there is no such defined values. People with other dispositions are possible. Analogy with the situation at objective probability (see above 6.5): There is nothing that meets all of our assumptions about real values, but there is something close to that, and that's good enough. (1989b(7), 90 94). Value/Actual world/Act.wrld./Lewis: it is completely unclear whether there are people in the actual world with completely different value are dispositions. But that does not mean that we could not convince them. Relativism/Values/Morals/Ethics/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis however welcomes a different kind of relativism: desired content can be in perspective. The fate of my neighbor can be more important to me than the fate of a strangers. (1989b(14), 73f). Schwarz I 232 Truthmaker principle/SchwarzVsLewis: here is something rotten, the truth maker principle has a syntax error from the outset: we do not want "the world as it is", as truth-makers, because that is not an explanation, we want to explain how the world makes the truth such as the present makes propositions about the past true. Schwarz I 233 Explanation/Schwarz: should distinguish necessary implication and analysis. For reductive metaphysics necessary implication is of limited interest. SchwarzVsLewis: he overlooks this when he wrote: "A supervenience thesis is in the broader sense reductionist". (1983,29). Elsewhere he sees the difference: E.g. LewisVsArmstrong: this has an unusual concept of analysis: for him it is not looking for definitions, but for truth-makers ". 1. David Lewis [1979a]: “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se”. Philosophical Review, 88: 513–543. 2. David Lewis [1983b]: “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation”. Philosophical Review, 92: 3–32. 3. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell 4. David Lewis [1984b]: “Putnam’s paradox”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377 5. David Lewis [1983c]: “New Work for a Theory of Universals”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377. 6. David M. Armstrong [1978b]: Universals and Scientific Realism II: A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 7. David M. Armstrong [1989b]: Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press 8. David Lewis [2001a]: “Redefining ‘Intrinsic’ ”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 381-398 9. David Lewis [2004d]: “Void and Object”. In [Collins et al. 2004], 277–291 9a. David Lewis [1986d]: “Events”. In [Lewis 1986f]: 241–269 10. David Lewis [2003]: “Things qua Truthmakers”. Mit einem Postscript von David Lewis und Gideon Rosen. In Hallvard Lillehammer und Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (Hg.), Real Metaphysics: Essays in Honour of D.H. Mellor, London: Routledge, 25–38. 11. David Lewis [1971]: “Counterparts of Persons and Their Bodies”. Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–211. 12. David Lewis [1987]: “The Punishment that Leaves Something to Chance”. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 12: 81–97. 13. David Lewis [2000a]: “Causation as Influence”. Journal of Philosophy, 97: 182–197. Gekürzte Fassung von [Lewis 2004a] 14. David Lewis [1989b]: “Dispositional Theories of Value”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 63: 113-137. 15. Paul Horwich [1987]: Asymmetries in Time. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press |
Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Lewis, C.I. | Wessel Vs Lewis, C.I. | System SI/C.L.Lewis/Wessel: here all axioms are tautologies and the reasoning rules inherit the tautological character. But: p -> (q -> p) assumes at p = 3 and q = 3 the non-marked value 4, thus is not derivable and thus no theorem of SI: Also no theorem: ~p -> (p -> q). The "classical" paradoxes are avoided, but: ~p u p -> q and q > ~(~p u p) are provable! ((s) other representation of contradiction or impossible statement) So: 1. From a contradiction follows an arbitrary statement. 2. A logically true statement follows from an arbitrary one. ((s) excluded by SI) Since in the original variant of SI a contradiction ~p u p was defined as an impossible statement and its negation as necessary, one can reformulate: I 131 Modal: 1. From an impossible follows any arbitrary one, 2. A necessary statement follows from an arbitrary one. ((s) excluded by SI) ("paradoxes of Strict implication"). implication/WesselVsLewis(C.L.): has not satisfactorily solved the paradoxes. Although he saw the necessity of a contextual connection, he did not specify it. (see below: same variables must appear twice!). Lewis: new: for A > B ↔ ~(A u ~B) "A u ~B" must not only not apply, but must be impossible. I 131 WesselVsLewis,C.L.: he tries to define the subsequent relationship using modal terms. A -> A = def ~M(A u ~B). 1. This is circular: a definition of the subsequent relationship is necessary to be able to introduce modal terms in the first place. 2. The paradoxes of Principia Mathematica(1) are excluded, but not the "classical" ones. (Ajdukiewicz/(s) EFG or true from any). 3. The strict implication is understood as an operator. So it can never occur in provable formulas of propositional logic! 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Wessel I H. Wessel Logik Berlin 1999 |
| Moore, G.E. | Verschiedene Vs Moore, G.E. | Grice I 266ff Hungerland Thesis Vs "inductive conception" of the paradigm of context implication: p claim to imply believing that p. Hungerland: instead: thesis Explanation model, if an assertion is normal, everything is implied that can be inferred from it. This depends on three different things: 1. Context of the assertion 2. Assumptions about what is considered normal 3. Rules for the correct use of expressions Example (Moore) "He went out, but I don't believe it." Hungerland: that is no contradiction! No logical isolation in the community. Brendel I 14 Term Analysis/Moore/Brendel: necessary condition: synonymy of the terms. Epistemological criterion/Synonymy/Moore: "Nobody can know, I 15 that the analytical standard applies to an object without knowing that the analytical standard applies to it. (Moore 1942, 663). Synonymy/Cooper LangfordVsMoore/Brendel: if the terms are then synonymous (i.e. the analysis is considered correct), it is trivial. ("paradox of Analysis"). Synonymy/KünneVsMoore: is not at all a necessary condition for a correct conceptual analysis. I 16 Def Co-Implication/Künne/Brendel: Solution: "Co-Implication" = necessary extensional equality. (Künne 1990. 37). Logical form: "x is A" and "x is BC" imply each other in all possible worlds. Problem: this is not always obvious even for competent speakers. Intension Equality/Brendel: condition for it is necessary extension equality: if two expressions have the same intension, then they have the same extension in all possible world. Intension/Extension/some authors: but this does not apply vice versa. Example Kirkham: "2+2=4" and "36+7=29" and example "This object has a form" and "This object has a size" are extensionally equivalent by having the same truth value in all possible worlds, but they are not intensionally equivalent (not synonymous). I 17 Concept Analysis/Kirkham/Brendel: sometimes it is only about extension equality in the real world. Extension Equivalence/Equal Scope/stronger/weaker/Brendel: also in all possible worlds it is still somewhat weaker than synonymy. Putnam I 195 BurnyeatVsMoore: "he philosophises as if Kant never existed". (a propos "Moore's hands"). |
Grice I H. Paul Grice "Meaning", in: The Philosophical Review 66, 1957, pp. 377-388 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Megle Frankfurt/M. 1993 Grice II H. Paul Grice "Utterer’s Meaning and Intentions", in: The Philosophical Review, 78, 1969 pp. 147-177 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Grice III H. Paul Grice "Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and Word-Meaning", in: Foundations of Language, 4, 1968, pp. 1-18 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Grice IV H. Paul Grice "Logic and Conversation", in: P. Cple/J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3, New York/San Francisco/London 1975 pp.41-58 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Bre I E. Brendel Wahrheit und Wissen Paderborn 1999 Putnam I Hilary Putnam Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993 Putnam I (a) Hilary Putnam Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (b) Hilary Putnam Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (c) Hilary Putnam What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (d) Hilary Putnam Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482. In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (e) Hilary Putnam Reference and Truth In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (f) Hilary Putnam How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (g) Hilary Putnam Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982) In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (h) Hilary Putnam Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (i) Hilary Putnam Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam I (k) Hilary Putnam "Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133 In Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993 Putnam II Hilary Putnam Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988 German Edition: Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999 Putnam III Hilary Putnam Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997 Putnam IV Hilary Putnam "Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164 In Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994 Putnam V Hilary Putnam Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981 German Edition: Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990 Putnam VI Hilary Putnam "Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Putnam VII Hilary Putnam "A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 SocPut I Robert D. Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000 |
| Russell, B. | Wittgenstein Vs Russell, B. | Carnap VI 58 Intensional logic/Russell: is not bound to certain statement forms. All of their statements are not translatable into statements about extensions. WittgensteinVsRussell. Later Russell, Carnap pro Wittgenstein. (Russell, PM 72ff, e.g. for seemingly intensional statements). E.g. (Carnap) "x is human" and "x mortal": both can be converted into an extensional statement (class statement). "The class of humans is included in the class of mortals". --- Tugendhat I 453 Definition sortal: something demarcated that does not permit any arbitrary distribution . E.g. Cat. Contrast: mass terminus. E.g. water. I 470 Sortal: in some way a rediscovery of the Aristotelian concept of the substance predicate. Aristotle: Hierarchy: low: material predicates: water, higher: countability. Locke: had forgotten the Aristotelian insight and therefore introduced a term for the substrate that, itself not perceivable, should be based on a bunch of perceptible qualities. Hume: this allowed Hume to reject the whole. Russell and others: bunch of properties. (KripkeVsRussell, WittgensteinVsRussell, led to the rediscovery of Sortals). E.g. sortal: already Aristotle: we call something a chair or a cat, not because it has a certain shape, but because it fulfills a specific function. --- Wittgenstein I 80 Acquaintance/WittgensteinVsRussell/Hintikka: eliminates Russell's second class (logical forms), in particular Russell's free-floating forms, which can be expressed by entirely general propositions. So Wittgenstein can say now that we do not need any experience in the logic. This means that the task that was previously done by Russell's second class, now has to be done by the regular objects of the first class. This is an explanation of the most fundamental and strangest theses of the Tractatus: the logical forms are not only accepted, but there are considered very important. Furthermore, the objects are not only substance of the world but also constitutive for the shape of the world. I 81 1. the complex logical propositions are all determined by the logical forms of the atomic sentences, and 2. The shapes of the atomic sentences by the shapes of the objects. N.B.: Wittgenstein refuses in the Tractatus to recognize the complex logical forms as independent objects. Their task must be fulfilled by something else: I 82 The shapes of simple objects (type 1): they determine the way in which the objects can be linked together. The shape of the object is what is considered a priori of it. The position moves towards Wittgenstein, it has a fixed base in Frege's famous principle of composite character (the principle of functionality, called Frege principle by Davidson (s)> compositionality). I 86 Logical Form/Russell/Hintikka: thinks, we should be familiar with the logical form of each to understand sentence. WittgensteinVsRussell: disputes this. To capture all logical forms nothing more is needed than to capture the objects. With these, however, we still have to be familiar with. This experience, however, becomes improper that it relates to the existence of objects. I 94ff This/logical proper name/Russell: "This" is a (logical) proper name. WittgensteinVsRussell/PU: The ostensive "This" can never be without referent, but that does not turn it into a name "(§ 45). I 95 According to Russell's earlier theory, there are only two logical proper names in our language for particularistic objects other than the I, namely "this" and "that". One introduces them by pointing to it. Hintikka: of these concrete Russellian objects applies in the true sense of the word, that they are not pronounced, but can only be called. (> Mention/>use). I 107 Meaning data/Russell: (Mysticism and Logic): sense data are something "Physical". Thus, "the existence of the sense datum is not logically dependent on the existence of the subject." WittgensteinVsRussell: of course this cannot be accepted by Wittgenstein. Not because he had serious doubts, but because he needs the objects for semantic purposes that go far beyond Russell's building blocks of our real world. They need to be building blocks of all logical forms and the substance of all possible situations. Therefore, he cannot be satisfied with Russell's construction of our own and single outside world of sensory data. I 108 For the same reason he refused the commitment to a particular view about the metaphysical status of his objects. Also: Subject/WittgensteinVsRussell: "The subject does not belong to the objects of the world". I 114 Language/sense data/Wittgenstein/contemporary/Waismann: "The purpose of Wittgenstein's language is, contrary to our ordinary language, to reflect the logical structure of the phenomena." I 115 Experience/existence/Wittgenstein/Ramsey: "Wittgenstein says it is nonsense to believe something that is not given by the experience, because belonging to me, to be given in experience, is the formal characteristics of a real entity." Sense data/WittgensteinVsRussell/Ramsey: are logical constructions. Because nothing of what we know involves it. They simplify the general laws, but they are as less necessary for them as material objects." Later Wittgenstein: (note § 498) equates sense date with "private object that stands before my soul". I 143 Logical form/Russell/Hintikka: both forms of atomic sentences and complex sentences. Linguistically defined there through characters (connectives, quantifiers, etc.). WittgensteinVsRussell: only simple forms. "If I know an object, I also know all the possibilities of its occurrence in facts. Every such possibility must lie in the nature of the object." I 144 Logical constants/Wittgenstein: disappear from the last and final logical representation of each meaningful sentence. I 286 Comparison/WittgensteinVsRussell/Hintikka: comparing is what is not found in Russell's theory. I 287 And comparing is not to experience a phenomenon in the confrontation. Here you can see: from a certain point of time Wittgenstein sees sentences no more as finished pictures, but as rules for the production of images. --- Wittgenstein II 35 Application/use/WittgensteinVsRussell: he overlooked that logical types say nothing about the use of the language. E.g. Johnson says red differed in a way from green, in which red does not differ from chalk. But how do you know that? Johnson: It is verified formally, not experimentally. WittgensteinVsJohnson: but that is nonsense: it is as if you would only look at the portrait, to judge whether it corresponds to the original. --- Wittgenstein II 74 Implication/WittgensteinVsRussell: Paradox for two reasons: 1. we confuse the implication with drawing the conclusions. 2. in everyday life we never use "if ... then" in this sense. There are always hypotheses in which we use that expression. Most of the things of which we speak in everyday life, are in reality always hypotheses. E.g.: "all humans are mortal." Just as Russell uses it, it remains true even if there is nothing that corresponds to the description f(x). II 75 But we do not mean that all huamns are mortal even if there are no humans. II 79 Logic/Notation/WittgensteinVsRussell: his notation does not make the internal relationships clear. From his notation does not follow that pvq follows from p.q while the Sheffer-stroke makes the internal relationship clear. II 80 WittgensteinVsRussell: "assertion sign": it is misleading and suggests a kind of mental process. However, we mean only one sentence. ((s) Also WittgensteinVsFrege). > Assertion stroke. II 100 Skepticism/Russell: E.g. we could only exist, for five minutes, including our memories. WittgensteinVsRussell: then he uses the words in a new meaning. II 123 Calculus/WittgensteinVsRussell: jealousy as an example of a calculus with three binary relations does not add an additional substance to the thing. He applied a calculus on jealousy. II 137 Implication/paradox/material/existence/WittgensteinVsRussell: II 137 + applicable in Russell's notation, too: "All S are P" and "No S is P", is true when there is no S. Because the implications are also verified by ~ fx. In reality this fx is both times independent. All S are P: (x) gx > .fx No S is P: (x) gx > ~ fx This independent fx is irrelevant, it is an idle wheel. Example: If there are unicorns, then they bite, but there are no unicorns = there are no unicorns. II 152 WittgensteinVsRussell: his writing presupposes that there are names for every general sentence, which can be given for the answer to the question "what?" (in contrast to "what kind?"). E.g. "what people live on this island?" one may ask, but not: "which circle is in the square?". We have no names "a", "b", and so on for circles. WittgensteinVsRussell: in his notation it says "there is one thing which is a circle in the square." Wittgenstein: what is this thing? The spot, to which I point? But how should we write then "there are three spots"? II 157 Particular/atom/atoms/Wittgenstein: Russell and I, we both expected to get through to the basic elements ("individuals") by logical analysis. Russell believed, in the end there would be subject predicate sentences and binary relations. WittgensteinVsRussell: this is a mistaken notion of logical analysis: like a chemical analysis. WittgensteinVsAtomism. Wittgenstein II 306 Logic/WittgensteinVsRussell: Russell notes: "I met a man": there is an x such that I met x. x is a man. Who would say: "Socrates is a man"? I criticize this not because it does not matter in practical life; I criticize that the logicians do not make these examples alive. Russell uses "man" as a predicate, even though we almost never use it as such. II 307 We could use "man" as a predicate, if we would look at the difference, if someone who is dressed as a woman, is a man or a woman. Thus, we have invented an environment for this word, a game, in which its use represents a move. If "man" is used as a predicate, the subject is a proper noun, the proper name of a man. Properties/predicate/Wittgenstein: if the term "man" is used as a predicate, it can be attributed or denied meaningfully to/of certain things. This is an "external" property, and in this respect the predicate "red" behaves like this as well. However, note the distinction between red and man as properties. A table could be the owner of the property red, but in the case of "man" the matter is different. (A man could not take this property). II 308 WittgensteinVsRussell: E.g. "in this room is no man". Russell's notation: "~ (Ex)x is a man in this room." This notation suggests that one has gone through the things in the room, and has determined that no men were among them. That is, the notation is constructed according to the model by which x is a word like "Box" or else a common name. The word "thing", however, is not a common name. II 309 What would it mean, then, that there is an x, which is not a spot in the square? II 311 Arithmetics/mathematics/WittgensteinVsRussell: the arithmetic is not taught in the Russellean way, and this is not an inaccuracy. We do not go into the arithmetic, as we learn about sentences and functions, nor do we start with the definition of the number. |
W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W III L. Wittgenstein The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958 German Edition: Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 Ca I R. Carnap Die alte und die neue Logik In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Ca II R. Carnap Philosophie als logische Syntax In Philosophie im 20.Jahrhundert, Bd II, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993 Ca IV R. Carnap Mein Weg in die Philosophie Stuttgart 1992 Ca IX Rudolf Carnap Wahrheit und Bewährung. Actes du Congrès International de Philosophie Scientifique fasc. 4, Induction et Probabilité, Paris, 1936 In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Ca VI R. Carnap Der Logische Aufbau der Welt Hamburg 1998 CA VII = PiS R. Carnap Sinn und Synonymität in natürlichen Sprachen In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Ca VIII (= PiS) R. Carnap Über einige Begriffe der Pragmatik In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Tu I E. Tugendhat Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976 Tu II E. Tugendhat Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992 |
| Russell, B. | Lewis, C.I. Vs Russell, B. | Hughes I 190 Strict implication/C.I.LewisVsRussell/LewisVsPrincipia Mathematica(1)/PM: (1912) a series of systems, VsParadoxes of (material implication). paradoxes of implication/Hughes/Cresswell: usually from Principia Mathematica: a) a true statement is implied by any statement: (1) p > (q > p) b) a false statement implies any statement: (2) ~p > (p > q) Both together are called the paradox of (material) implication. Since either the antecedens of (1) or the antecedens of (2) must be true for each statement p, it is also easy to derive (3) from (1) and (2): (3) (p > q) v ( q > p). I 191 i.e. of two statements always the first implies the second or vice versa. I 191 Paradox of material implication: summarized: of two statements the first always implies the second or vice versa C.I.Lewis: did not intend to reject this thesis, on the contrary, (1) and (2) were "neither mysterious wisdom, nor great discoveries, nor great absurdities", but they reflect the truth-functional sense with which "implicate" is used in Principia Mathematica. Strict implication/C.I.Lewis: there is a stronger sense of "imply", according to which "p implies q" means that q follows from p. Here it is not the case that a true one is implied by every statement, or that out of a false one any follows. This stronger form leads to pairs of statements, none of which imply the other. Strict implication: necessary implication. Notation(s): "strimp". Strict disjunction/C.I.Lewis: analog to the strict implication: necessary disjunction. analog: Strict equivalence/C.I.Lewis: necessary equivalence. Hughes I 191 Strict implication/C.I.Lewis: p strimp q: "p follows from q" avoids paradox of (material) implication leads to pairs of statements, none of which implies the other. C.I.Lewis: introduces a whole series of systems, e.g. in the book "A Survey of Logic": the "Survey System". Basic operator here: logical impossibility, and conjunction/negation). strict implication: first comprehensively discussed in "Symbolic Logic" Lewis and Langford, (1932). (Systems S1 and S2). (Also the first comprehensive treatment of modal logical systems ever). Basic operator here: Possibility. 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Hughes I G.E. Hughes Maxwell J. Cresswell Einführung in die Modallogik Berlin New York 1978 |
| Strawson, P. F. | Verschiedene Vs Strawson, P. F. | Grice I 277 Strawson: Tautology: that someone who says p also believes p. HungerlandVsStrawson: not necessary. He may speak incorrectly or with intent to deceive. Grice I 300 Presupposition/Strawson: Def "S presupposes S": "The truth of S" is a necessary condition of the truth or falsity of the assertion that S. For example, "All my children sleep soundly" presupposes "I have children". I 303 David RyninVsStrawson: from this interpretation paradoxically follows that all presupposed assertions would be true: it should apply: S > S" and ~S > S"; but it also applies: S v ~S. From this follows: S". In other words: (~S" > ~(Sv~S)) > S is analytically true in a system of bivalent propositional logic. I 309 HungerlandVsStrawson: the relationship he defines is not that of context implication. I additionally imply that I believe to have children. His definition makes no reference whatsoever to the beliefs or the intentions of so-speakers or listeners, nor to any circumstances of communication. Strawson/Presupposition: "The S is P". Hungerland: consists of two independent parts: 1. function of the particular article, (relevant grammar). Strawson's model is a logical explanatory model. VsStrawson: normal communication does not do this. HungerlandVsStrawson: he has confused rule and exception (in terms of frequency). Strawson: also interprets errors as exceptions to the rules (HungerlandVs). Strawson I 103 VsStrawson: the idea of the simultaneous existence of what is perceived and what is not perceived is certainly linked to the idea of the simultaneous presentation of elements, each of which has a certain character, but which at the same time stand in a system of relations that goes beyond those established in the respective character of the elements. The first idea is necessarily an extension of the latter. It is simply the idea that such a system of relations extends beyond the limits of what is observable. StrawsonVs: the critic could argue this way, but he would overreach himself! He ignores the idea of change between observer and scene. If he claims to have given only a necessary, not a sufficient condition for such an extension, we cannot reply to that. Strawson I 131 VsStrawson: "What right do we have to speak of the unambiguous subject in this way? Why should there not be any number of experiential subjects, perhaps indistinguishable? The uniqueness of the body does not guarantee a unified Cartesian soul." StrawsonVs: in order to free ourselves from these difficulties, we must recognize the concept of the person as a primitive (not fundamental) concept. Def Person/Strawson: type of entities such that both states of consciousness and physical characteristics can be attributed. Initial questions: not independent on each other: 1. Why are states of consciousness ascribed to a subject at all? 2. why the same thing as physical qualities? Strawson I 170 VsStrawson: isn't there a danger for us that there could be any number of exactly the same individual consciousness that are connected in the same way to a single body? I 171 Strawson: the concept of a single consciousness can exist only as the concept of a non-essential, secondary type of single things. Only in this way. |
Grice I H. Paul Grice "Meaning", in: The Philosophical Review 66, 1957, pp. 377-388 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Megle Frankfurt/M. 1993 Grice IV H. Paul Grice "Logic and Conversation", in: P. Cple/J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3, New York/San Francisco/London 1975 pp.41-58 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Strawson I Peter F. Strawson Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London 1959 German Edition: Einzelding und logisches Subjekt Stuttgart 1972 Strawson II Peter F. Strawson "Truth", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol XXIV, 1950 - dt. P. F. Strawson, "Wahrheit", In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Strawson III Peter F. Strawson "On Understanding the Structure of One’s Language" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Strawson IV Peter F. Strawson Analysis and Metaphysics. An Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford 1992 German Edition: Analyse und Metaphysik München 1994 Strawson V P.F. Strawson The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London 1966 German Edition: Die Grenzen des Sinns Frankfurt 1981 Strawson VI Peter F Strawson Grammar and Philosophy in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol 70, 1969/70 pp. 1-20 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Strawson VII Peter F Strawson "On Referring", in: Mind 59 (1950) In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
| Various Authors | Jackson Vs Various Authors | Field II 255 Material Conditional/Paradoxes of Material Implication/Jackson/Field: Best Solution: (Jackson 1979): Thesis: Counterintuitive conclusions are unacceptable here: Thesis: Although the conclusions are not assertible, they are nevertheless true. (Assertibility/Truth). Field: in explanation of non-assertibility the classical truth conditions do play a role, but not an indispensable one. Conventional Implicature/Jackson: Thesis: there is a conventional implicature for that if we assert "if A then B" not only the probability P(A>B) is high, but also the conditioned probability P(A>BIA). A violation of this implicature would be very misleading. ((s) I.e., we assume that the premise is realized when we express a conditional). Important Argument/Field: the requirement that P(A>BIA) should be high is equivalent to the demand of the non-factualist that P(BIA) is high. Field: thus, Jackson arrives at the same assertibility conditions as non-factualism. EdgingtonVsJackson/Field: (Edgington, 1986, standard objection): it seems that we do not not only assert things like E.g. Clinton/de Vito, but we actually do not believe them, too!. JacksonVsEdgington/Field: would probably say that the conventional implicature makes it even inappropriate to even "assert it mentally". The perceived invalidity then consists in that these conclusions do not receive mental assertibility, although they received truth. So we get both: surface and logic "deeper logic". |
Jackson I Frank C. Jackson From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis Oxford 2000 Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Various Authors | Wessel Vs Various Authors | I 17 Tolerance Principle/Carnap: ("Die logische Syntax der Sprache", 1934): "We do not want to establish prohibitions, we want to make determinations. Prohibitions can be replaced by a definitory distinction. There is no morality in logic. Everyone may construct his logic, i.e. his linguistic form, as he wants, but if he wants to discuss with us, he must indicate syntactic determinations instead of philosophical discussions." (The principle of tolerance was first formulated by Karl Menger). I 20 WesselVsTolerance Principle: overall we reject it, but we agree with Menger that the concept of constructiveness is unclear. VsMenger: the broadest concept of constructiveness is not the demand for mere consistency! (Wessel like Chr. Thiel). Justification/Logics/Wessel: all attempts at justification here are ultimately circular! Pro Carnap: of course, every logician and every mathematician has the right to build up arbitrary calculi first, whereby he has to specify the rules correctly. VsCarnap: this does not mean, however, that the possible or existing calculi are equal! That would be a "principle of indifference" . I 136 Def Analytical Implication/Parry/Wessel: (1933): If a formula A analytically implies a formula B, then only those statement variables occur in B that also occur in A. I 137 Axioms: (selection) + A 12. (A ‹-› B) u F(A) -> F[A/B] A 13. F(A) -> (A -> A) Analytical implication/WesselVsParry: no solution to the problem since > is again an operator and can occur more than once in axioms and theorems. Pro: here for the first time the idea is expressed that only those variables may occur in the conclusion, which are also contained in the prerequisite. paradoxes/implication/Non-Classical Direction/Wessel: Questions: 1. Are there any guarantees that paradoxical formulas are not provable? 2. Are there guarantees that non-paradoxical formulas are not erroneously excluded? 3. Are there criteria to decide whether an arbitrary formula is paradox or not? 4. Is it possible to build a system in which all paradox formulas are not provable, but all non-paradox formulas are provable? I 219 Identity/M.Stirner: "to see the human being in each other and to act against each other as human beings...I see in you the human being as I see in myself the human being and nothing but the human being, so I care for you as I would care for myself...both of us are nothing but mathematical propositions: A = C and B = C therefore A = B, i.e. I nothing but human and you nothing but human: I and you the same". WesselVsStirner, Max: this is the same logic as in "J.Kaspar (pseudonym of Stirner) is a living being, a donkey is a living being, so J. Kaspar is a donkey". This is the confusion of different logical forms. ((s) Predication is not a statement of identity: "I am a human being" does not mean "I = human being".) I 314 Euler Diagrams/Borkowski/Lejewski/"ontological table"/Wessel: Extension of Euler diagrams: Inclusion and exclusion of meaning, existence, etc. WesselVsLejewski: his theory is burdened with serious deficiencies. I 315 Term Theory/Wessel: there are unlimited singular terms possible, but each theory gets by with a limited number. WesselVsLejewski: For example, the term "cosmonaut" undergoes a mysterious transformation. first empty term, then singular term, then general term! WesselVs: it is a general term right from the start: the reference has absolutely nothing to do with it. The distinction between empty and non-empty is a completely different classification of terms. This is not a purely logical task. I 352 Intension/WesselVsStegmüller: the term "content-related" problem only shows that it has not yet been solved on the logical level. StegmüllerVsModal Logic: because modal contexts would have intensional character. |
Wessel I H. Wessel Logik Berlin 1999 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material Conditional | Jackson, F. | Field II 255 material conditional / paradoxes of material implication / Jackson / Field: best solution: (Jackson 1979): counter-intuitive conclusions are unacceptable here: Although the conclusions are not assertible, but nevertheless true. (Assertibility / truth). |
Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| |||