Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | Thomas Aquinas | Mause I 29 Price/Economy/Thomas Aquinas: Based on the principle of commutative justice in Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas defines the fair price ("ius pretium") as the price at which performance and return service correspond. And, contrary to the current view, this is not necessarily the case with every (voluntary) market transaction, but only if the price covers the work deployed and the other costs. The decisive factor in determining the fair price is therefore supply, whereas demand is irrelevant. Since a cost-covering price is guaranteed and profits are limited, economic structural change (...) is made more difficult. >Money/Thomas. |
Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
| Price | Smith | Mause I 40 Price/Smith: Smith took the theory of labour value as a basis and postulated a "natural" price, which is determined solely on the supply side by the "normal" remuneration of the production factors and the "normal" profit. >Labour value, >Labour. Market prices may differ from this natural price due to demand influences, but competition will ensure that these differences are only of a short-term nature. The latter was also responsible for the fact that wages, basic pensions and interest rates each tended to have a uniform value within an economy. Smith, however, does not explain the distribution of income, i.e. the shares of the various factors of production in the national product. |
EconSmith I Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments London 2010 EconSmithV I Vernon L. Smith Rationality in Economics: Constructivist and Ecological Forms Cambridge 2009 Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
| Price | Sunstein | I 103 Price/Information/Markets/Sunstein: one way to get information is to look at prices and the signals sent by them. For example, one can place a bet to assess the strength of the different views in a group. Prices are not determined by experts, but are created in markets and thus by the assessment of many independent individuals. If we want to have access to what many people think, we must examine whether economic incentives are not a more systematic and formal means of doing so. Prediction markets/prediction markets/Sunstein: Investments in such markets, where people bet on a particular outcome they expect, will not be published. The private information that flows into the system is reflected in prices. >Google/Sunstein. I 105 Since people can lose money here, those who have less information will not participate, the more those who have a lot of information. Group pressure and polarisation within groups do not occur in markets. >Communication/Sunstein. I 109 For example, election forecasts: the Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) outperformed conventional election forecasts in 2004 in 451 of 596 cases.(1) Conventional polling surveys ask people what they think - not who wins the election. 1. See Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock, Harnessing the Power of Information: A New Approach to Economic Development, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper No. 04–21 (2004), 4, available at http://www.aei-brookings.org/ publications/abstract.php?pid=846. |
Sunstein I Cass R. Sunstein Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge Oxford 2008 Sunstein II Cass R. Sunstein #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media Princeton 2017 |
| Price | Hall | Surowiecki I 138 Price/Demand/Hall/Surowiecki: in his study on the history of price developments in 35 of the most important industries in the USA from 1958 to 1992, Hall came to the conclusion that there was no relation between demand and price increases. (1) >Demand. Surowiecki: companies have fixed and maintained their prices. Surowiecki I 139 For many goods there are prices that are accepted by habit, such as prices for CDs or cinema tickets. 1. Robert E. Hall, »The Response of Prices to Shifts in Demand«, Stanford-Arbeitspapier (2002). |
EconHallR I Robert E. Hall The Streetcorner Strategy for Winning Local Markets: Right Sales, Right Service, Right Customers, Right Cost Austin 1999 Surowi I James Surowiecki Die Weisheit der Vielen: Warum Gruppen klüger sind als Einzelne und wie wir das kollektive Wissen für unser wirtschaftliches, soziales und politisches Handeln nutzen können München 2005 |
| Price | Neoclassical Economics | Mause I 54 Price/Neoclassical Theory: if the marginal utility determines the price and that decreases with the increase in the available quantity, very useful goods can also be cheap if they are abundant, or less useful goods can be expensive if they are rare. See Marginal Utility/Neoclassic Economy. |
Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
| Price | Microeconomics | Mause I 467 Price/Behavioural Control/Microeconomics: A basic microeconomic principle is that any relative price change has an impact on the consumption decisions of individual economic actors and triggers substitution processes. Example: Transport policy: If a road user has to pay a fee in addition to his time and operating costs for the use of a road section in a congestion-prone period (e.g. rush hour traffic), there is an incentive to switch to an alternative point in time, an alternative route or an alternative means of transport. The optimum amount of this additional charge corresponds exactly to the additional costs for all other road users caused by each additional road user on an overused road section (cf. Yan and Lam 1996, p. 319)(1). >Transport policy. 1. Yan, Hai, und William H. K. Lam. 1996. Optimal road tolls under conditions of queueing and congestion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 30 (5): 319– 332. |
Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antirationalism | Black Vs Antirationalism | III 33 Cause/Reason/Rationality/Black: Reasons must also be applied correctly! They must be "good reasons". Irrationality/Anti-Rationality/Black: the punishment for it can be damage, injury or extinction. III 34 VsAnti-Rationalism/Black: Just because our Skepticus is still alive we can now assume that he applies at least proto-rationality. Canonical form: (of this argument): "You should respect fundamental reasons, because otherwise you expose yourself to frustration, pain or death." Skepticus/Black: has the choice to "imitate" an animal with its reflexes. Namely, by trusting his own reflexes. VsAnti-Rationalism/Black: consequently, he would have to be completely weak-willed, and distrust all social ties. He would be without friends! Circularity/Black: so far, there is nothing circular about our argument. Reasoning/Black: for us here the first step (the assumption of proto-rationality) is of extreme importance. We can then infer on wider rationality. ((s)VsBlack: Why actually, animals also stop after quasi-rationality? His argument therefore leads to the difficulty of distinguishing humans and animals or finding a reason why intelligent life has developed.) BlackVsVs: for expansion we assume social skills. III 35 That means that something is involved in his dealings with others. III 36 Rationality/Black: As a child you had no choice of wanting to be rational or not, but as an adult you do. VsAnti-Rationality/Black: the price for this is high, but: one would have to become the pet of someone else. Cleansing oneself of reason would lead to a catatonic (apathetic) state. You would only live in the immediate present. |
Black I Max Black "Meaning and Intention: An Examination of Grice’s Views", New Literary History 4, (1972-1973), pp. 257-279 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, G. Meggle (Hg) Frankfurt/M 1979 Black II M. Black The Labyrinth of Language, New York/London 1978 German Edition: Sprache. Eine Einführung in die Linguistik München 1973 Black III M. Black The Prevalence of Humbug Ithaca/London 1983 Black IV Max Black "The Semantic Definition of Truth", Analysis 8 (1948) pp. 49-63 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Bayesianism | Fraassen Vs Bayesianism | I 22 Bayes/Bayesians/Fraassen: typical for them is that they assume an "initial probability" (here: in a)). More traditional approaches only assume b). But that also requires H and H’ to provide certain probability. Important argument: if H’ is merely the negation of H, this is usually not the case! E.g. H says that the probability of E is ¾. Then the negation non-H says that it is a number other than ¾. But normally, it will not even contain this, because H will include other things as well. Solution/Bayesians: solve this problem of the "unattainability of probability" by assuming that everyone has a subjective probability (degree of belief) for any proposition they can formulate. In that case, all probabilities for E, H and H’ are attainable. The price for this is that they subjectivize all probabilities. FraassenVsBayes: they do not subjectivize all probabilities! I do not believe that the realism of subjective probability wants to be dependent on the existence of unobservable entities. I 36 Bayes/Putnam: Rationality requires that if two hypotheses have the same verifiable consequences, we should not accept the one that is a priori less plausible. But how do we obtain the a priori order? We obtain it ourselves, either as individuals or as a community: Plausibility/Accept/Theory/Hypotheses/Bayes: is neither an empirical judgment nor the assertion of a theorem of deductive logic, but a methodological cause. According to that, Rutherford and Vaihinger or Putnam and Duhem differ with respect to the a-priori implausibility. (of electrons or demons). FraassenVsBayes: This is supposed to be the position of any rational human? How disappointing! But that will not do. |
Fr I B. van Fraassen The Scientific Image Oxford 1980 |
| 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 |
| Burke, Michael | Simons Vs Burke, Michael | I 195 Interrupted Existence/Simons: interrupted existence met us in connection with temporal sums and products and will meet us again below in connection with superposition (to be in the same place at the same time). Anyway, it is not clear to decide if it exists: E.g. an artifact can be taken apart and reassembled, for example for maintenance or repair. Here, we will say that it exists again when it resumes its old function. I 197 E.g. if some parts are scattered and may be lost and must be replaced by other parts it is a matter of chance. Then the question is whether an object exists in the state, not only dependent on the current physical state and on the history but also on the further course of development, and that seems wrong. Artifacts/Simons: of course, the conditions for the survival of artifacts are vague. We certainly allow the replacement of parts. E.g. a machine that is fed with any powder and water and busts of Mozart are made of it. After a while, the busts are crashed and the powder is filled again in the machine. Then again a bust of Mozart is made. Should it be the same? No, because the atoms are in another place. E.g. variant: in the variant Mozart and Beethoven busts are produced alternately. Then the case would be clear anyway. (For the defenders of continuity): there is a new bust every time, despite the complete continuity. Stronger example: Chisholm's toy castle: here the building blocks are always in the same place. E.g. Michael Burke: a table is created with thirty blocks, then disassembled and with the same building blocks a chair and a bird house are created. Then again a table. I 198 Burke: 1. The table ended its existence when being disassembled: 2. The same table is created again. Simons: then the continuity theorists are in trouble no matter what strategies they apply. But Burke leaves the way open for them to deny identity across the gap: they can still claim that the example corresponds to the one of the busts, despite the fixed localization of parts: a new table is always created out of old material. BurkeVs: pro identity. SimonsVsBurke: Burke's arguments for identity are less convincing than for the ends of the existence of the table. His point is rather that so well controlled interruptions are ontologically harmless and not one has to search the traces of parts across the gap. "Continuity Theory"/terminology/Simons: the continuity theory is the thesis that the "old" existence is resumed after the interruption. SimonsVs: it paid a price for it: namely the exaggeration of objects which are broken down into its parts or duplication of objects that do not take place. Simons: but both views seem benign: each has its arguments. The only problem is that the two are contradicting each other. This can be seen with e.g. the Ship of Theseus. I 199 Ship of Theseus/Simons: problem: there are conflicting claims: between a) the "Collector": he places value on substantive continuity and b) the "Pragmatist": he wants functional continuity. Problem: both sides have complementary things that speak for each of them. Wrong solution: "relativized identity": then both sides would virtually no longer "touch" each other but that would not explain why there is a problem at all. SimonsVsBurke: that the type of an object is a function of its properties is regardless of it wrong: e.g. objects that are needed in a community: there are many pairs of objects which are physico-chemically exactly alike but belong to different types: e.g. holy/normal water, real/ perfectly counterfeit banknotes, originals/replicas, wedding rings/other rings, maybe also person/body. Of course, each of these objects falls under a higher sortal. Burke: thesis: various substantive objects cannot be simultaneously embodied in one and the same matter. SimonsVsBurke: on the contrary, e.g. (see above) different boards may have the same members. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| Chisholm, R.M. | Simons Vs Chisholm, R.M. | Chisholm II 166 SimonsVsChisholm/SimonsVsBrentano: thesis: Chisholm inherited a mereological essentialism by Brentano with which I do not agree. But I will use these ideas to give a slightly different interpretation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Wittgenstein himself was not so clear with respect to facts as it seems. Self-Criticism: self-criticism is a mess of facts and complexes. There are worlds between the later Wittgenstein and Brentano, but there are contacts between Brentano and the Tractatus. --- Simons I 1 Extensional Mereology/Simons: extensional mereology is a classical theory. Spelling: CEM. Individuals Calculus/Leonard/Goodman: (40s): another name for the CEM is an individual calculus. This is intended to express that the objects of the part-whole relation belong to the lowest logical type (so they are all individuals, both a whole and a part are individuals). VsCEM: 1. The CEM claims the existence of sums as individuals for whose existence we have no evidence beyond the theory. Vs: 2. The whole theory is not applicable to most things in our lives. Vs: 3. The logic of the CEM has not the resources to deal with temporal and modal terms: e.g. temporal part, substantial part, etc. Simons: these are all external critiques but there is an internal critique: that comes from the extensional mereology. Extensional Mereology: thesis: objects with the same parts are identical (analogous to set theory). Problem: 1. Flux: e.g. people have different parts at different times. I 2 2. Modality/extensional mereology: problem: e.g. a man could have other parts than he actually has and still be the same person. (s) The extensionality would then demand together with the Leibniz identity that all parts are essential. This leads to mereological essentialism. Chisholm/mereological essentialism/Simons: Chisholm represents the mereological essentialism. Thesis: no object can have different parts than it actually has. Vs: it is a problem to explain why normal objects are not modally rigid (all parts are essential). Solution/Chisholm: thesis: (appearing) things (appearances) ((s) everyday things) are logical structures made of objects for which the mereological essentialism applies. Flux/mereology/Simons: problem/(s): according to the CEM changing objects may not be regarded as identical with themselves. 1. Solution/Chisholm: thesis: the actual objects are mereologically constant and the appearances again logical constructions of unchanging objects. SimonsVsChisholm: the price is too high. 2. Common solution: the common solution is to replace the normal things (continuants) through processes that themselves have temporal parts. SimonsVs: hence, the extensionality cannot be maintained. Such four-dimensional objects fail on the modal argument. CEM/event/Simons: in the case of events the extensional mereology is applicable. It is also applicable in classes and masses. Classes/masses/Simons: these are non-singular objects for which the extensionality applies. Part/Simons: a part is ambiguous, depending on whether used in connection with individuals, classes or masses. Extensionality/mereology/Simons: if extensionality is rejected, we are dealing with continuants. I 3 Continuants/Simons: continuants may be in flux. Extensionality/Simons: if extensionality is rejected, more than one object can have exactly the same parts and therefore several different objects can be at the same time in the same place. I 175 Temporal Part/continuants/mereology/SimonsVsAll/SimonsVsChisholm: thesis: continuants can also have temporal parts! That means that they are not mereologically constant but mereologically variable. Continuants/Simons: thesis: continuants do not have to exist continuously. This provides us with a surprising solution to the problem of the Ship of Theseus. I 187 SimonsVsChisholm: if Chisholm is right, most everyday things, including our organism, are only logical constructions. I 188 Strict Connection/separateness/SimonsVsChisholm: the criterion for strict connection is unfortunately so that it implies that if x and y are strictly connected, but not in contact, they can be separated by the fact that a third object passes between them what per se is not a change, also not in their direct relations to each other. Problem: when this passing is only very short, the question is whether the separated sum of the two which was extinguished by the third object is the same that exists again when the third object has disappeared. If it is the same, we have a discontinued existing sum. Chisholm: Chisholm himself asks this question with the following example: a castle of toy bricks will be demolished and built again with the same bricks. I 189 Chisholm: thesis: it is a reason to be dissatisfied with the normal ontology, because it just allows such examples. SimonsVsChisholm: but Chisholm's own concepts just allowed us the previous example. Topology/Simons: yet there is no doubt that it is useful to add topological concepts such as touching or to be inside of something to the mereology. I 192 Def succession/Chisholm: 1. x is a direct a-successor of y to t ' = Def (i) t does not start before t’ (ii) x is an a to t and y is a y to t’ (iii) there is a z so that z is part of x to t and a part of y to t’ and in every moment between t’ and t including, z is itself an a. Simons: while there will be in general several such parts. We always choose the largest. w: is the common part in it, e.g. in altering a table. SimonsVsChisholm: problem: w is not always a table. ChisholmVsVs: claims that w is indeed a table: if we cut away a small part of the table, what remains is still a table. Problem: but if the thing that remains is a table because it was already previously there then it was a table that was a real part of a table! I 193 SimonsVsChisholm: the argument is not valid! E.g.: Shakespeare, Henry IV, Act IV Scene V: Prince Hal considers: if the king dies, we will still have a king, (namely myself, the heir). But if that person is a king, then, because he had previously been there, then he was a king who was the eldest son of a king. ((s) This is a contradiction because then there would have been two kings simultaneously.) Simons: this point is not new and was already highlighted by Wiggins and Quine (not VsChisholm). I 194 Change/transformation/part/succession/SimonsVsChisholm: it seems, however, that they are not compatible with the simple case where a at the same time wins and loses parts. E.g. then a+b should be an A-predecessor of a+c and a+c an A-successor of a+b. But that is not allowed by the definition, unless we know that a is an A all the time, so that it connects a+b and a+c in a chain. But this will not usually be the case. And if it is not the case, a will never ever be an A! SimonsVsChisholm: so Chisholm's definitions only work if he assumes a wrong principle! Succession/entia successiva/SimonsVsChisholm: problem: that each of the things that shall "stand in" (for a constant ens per se to explain the transformation) should themselves be an a in the original sense (e.g. table, cat, etc.) is counterintuitive. Solution/Simons: the "is" is here an "is" of predication and not of constitution (>Wiggins 1980, 30ff). Mereological Constancy/Simons: thesis: most things, of which we predict things like e.g. "is a man" or "is a table" are mereologically constant. The rest is easy loose speech and a play with identity. E.g. if we say that the man in front of us lost a lot of hair in the last year we use "man" very loosely. Chisholm: we should say, strictly speaking, that the man of today (stands for) who today stands for the same successive man has less hair than the man who stood for him last year. SimonsVsChisholm/WigginsVsChisholm: with that he is dangerously close to the four-dimensionalism. And especially because of the following thesis: I 195 To stand in for/stand for/entia successiva/Chisholm: thesis: "to stand in for" is not a relation of an aggregate to its parts. Sortal Concept/Simons: the question is whether sortal concepts that are subject to the conditions that determine what should count at one time or over time as a thing or several things of one kind are applicable rather to mereologically constant objects (Chisholm) or variable objects (Simons, Wiggins). SimonsVsChisholm: Chisholm's thesis has the consequence that most people mostly use their most used terms wrongly, if this is not always the case at all. I 208 Person/body/interrupted existence/identity/mereology/Chisholm/Simons: our theory is not so different in the end from Chisholm's, except that we do not accept matter-constancy as "strictly and philosophically" and oppose it to a everyday use of constancy. SimonsVsChisholm: advantage: we can show how the actual use of "ship" is related to hidden tendencies to use it in the sense of "matter-constant ship". Ship of Theseus/SimonsVsChisholm: we are not obligated to mereological essentialism. A matter-constant ship is ultimately a ship! That means that it is ready for use! Interrupted Existence/substrate/Simons: there must be a substrate that allows the identification across the gap. I 274 SimonsVsChisholm: according to Chisholm's principle, there is no real object, which is a table, because it can constantly change its microstructure ((s) win or lose atoms). Chisholm/Simons: but by this not the slightest contradiction for Chisholm is demonstrated. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 Chisholm I R. Chisholm The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981 German Edition: Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992 Chisholm II Roderick Chisholm In Philosophische Aufsäze zu Ehren von Roderick M. Ch, Marian David/Leopold Stubenberg Amsterdam 1986 Chisholm III Roderick M. Chisholm Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989 German Edition: Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004 |
| Chomsky, N. | Strawson Vs Chomsky, N. | VI 386 Transformational grammar: two kinds of formative: 1. lexical: correspond to names and general terms whose meaning is not somehow derived syntactically: e.g. "to sing", "to love", "red", "Mary". 2. non-lexical: heterogeneous group: e.g. the formative "pret" for the past tense. There is no mechanical process to find the deep structure. VI 389 Thesis: "Unconscious mastery" or "internal representation" is not enough to explain the linguistic abilities. The rules of transformational grammar provide the basis for the determination of those grammatical relations which are decisive for the semantic interpretation of sentences though not alone determining. VI 390 Grammar not circular, because it contains a lexicon. StrawsonVsChomsky: there is no general theory of the decisive class of compounds (of grammatical categories and formatives). VI 391 There is only the list of items in the dictionary without any representation of general principles of the allocation. But we should expect just such a theory if the grammar is to satisfy the conditions of transparency. Because we define with the grammatical categories the functions and relations of the sentence elements. That is what everyone understands without having explicitly learned grammar. We combine obvious semantic and syntactic considerations. VI 392 Explanation/Chomsky: this one admits that a "descriptively adequate" grammar must not be "explanation adequate". We need a theory of linguistic universals. In addition, it must be explained how our grammar was selected from other possible grammars. It must be explained: 1. Why do we understand infinitely many new propositions? (> See also the discussion "Is Language infinite?"). 2. The connection of semantics and syntax. VI 393 StrawsonVsChomsky: comments only expressly reserved on semantic considerations. Dictionary/Chomsky: is part of the base and contains far fewer entries than our ordinary dictionary. VI 395 Transformation grammar Vs traditional grammar: it was too unsystematic, no explanation of the traditional terms "verb", "noun", "object" possible. VI 396 PhilosophyVsGrammar/Strawson: is first freed from "empirical" requirements, does initially not need to cope with the actual formal requirements He has just like the grammarian a conception of meaning elements and a conception of semantically significant combination modes of these elements, to which the vocabulary is available in a transparent relationship. With these transparent relations he can consider possible formal arrangements by whom the combining functions could be dispensed. This is reminiscent of the construction of ideal languages. VI 397 Quine: (anywhere): "Do not show more structure than necessary". Grammar/Strawson: one must always distinguish between the actual (essential, crucial) and possible grammars. E.g. the essential grammar must show what elements belong to which, all combinations must be shown and be possible to distinguish. E.g. it must be possible to show when an element describes a non-symmetric relation. But the essential grammar determines in no way how these requirements are to be fulfilled. VI 398 We can choose one of several grammars. If it fulfills the requirements, we have a complete and totally transparent grammar. (Only idealized simplified, that is the price). Vocabulary/Strawson: we need a completely elaborate vocabulary or a set of related vocabularies. 1. Ontological vocabulary e.g. space, time, thing, gen. characteristics 2. Semantic V., for types and individual (abstract) elements, proper names for things, 3. Functional V. for combination or relation types. Deictic elements. 4. Vocabulary of the formal apparatus. |
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 |
| Conceptual Role | Fodor Vs Conceptual Role | IV 163 Conceptual Role/CRT/Block/Fodor/Lepore: "conceptual role theory" or theory of the conceptual role, semantics of conceptual role. Thesis: the meaning of an expression is its semantic role (or inferential role). Block: believes that one version of this theory is true, but does not want to decide which one. Anyway, it is, according to Block, the only one that fulfills the conditions of the cognitive sciences. Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: Block's arguments for the conceptual role theory are not the decisive ones. But this does not lead to semantic holism anyway. It would have to be asserted together with the distinction analytic/synthetic. Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: perhaps the psychology, which Block has in mind, needs these conditions, but we do not believe that a version of the conceptual role theory fulfills them. IV 166 Fodor/Lepore/GriceVsBlock: ad 6.: (autonomous/inherited meaning) each Gricean semantics can tell the same story as Block: namely, that the meanings of sentences in a natural language depend on contents of propositional attitudes expressed by these sentences (propositional attitudes may be, for example, the communicative intentions). Grice: thesis: meanings are derived from the content of propositional attitudes (e.g. communicative intentions, >Position). IV 169 Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: 1) Now it becomes obvious: distinctions between inferential roles only solve Frege’s problem if there is an adequate principle of individuation for them. But there is no criterion for that! Block also names this as the main problem. So it is not easier to distinguish between the inferiential roles than between meanings. Twin Earth/TE/CRT/Block/Fodor/Lepore: problems with the Twin Earth are going in the a different direction than Frege’s problems (intention/extension). Frege: needs more finely grained concepts than extensions. Putnam: needs less finely grained concepts than extensional equivalence. (Eng) Synonymous expressions must be treated as extensionally different (water/twin earth water). Therefore, a common theoretical approach (CRT - conceptual role theory) is unlikely to work. Solution/Block: "two factors" version of the CRT. The two are orthogonal to each other: a) actual CRT: covers the meaning aspect of Frege IV 170 b) independent, perhaps causal theory of reference: (twin earth/water/twin earth water). Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: that has almost nothing to do with conceptual role theory. But also neither a) (meaning) nor b) (causality) are available. But let’s assume it anyway: E.g. suppose distinction meaning/reference: with "two factor" theory: we do have enough discrimination capability, but we pay a high price for it: Question: what actually holds the two factors together? IV 171 Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: precisely in the case of the twin earth, the conceptual role cannot determine the reference! Conceptual Role/Block: seems to be saying that it is indeed not the conceptual role of water that determines what it refers to, but the conceptual role of names! Their reference is causally determined, after all, according to Kripke. Conceptual Role/(s): difference: a) conceptual role of a particular concept, e.g. water. b) a word class, e.g. names. Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: but that does not solve the problem! We need something that prevents the confusion of extension and intension. What is it that excludes an expression like (see above) "prime/moisture"? Block: T is not a species concept if the causal theory of species concepts is not true of it. Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: that does precisely not prevent "water" from having the extension of a species concept, while having the logic of a numerical concept. Mention/use/Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: Block seems to be guilty of this confusion here: the problem here is how the meaning of an expression is related to the denotation if the intension does not determine the extension. Block only tells us that the concpet T, etc. falls under the extension of expressions such as "name", "species concept" if a certain semantic theory is true. This tells us how the inferential roles of "name", "species concept", etc. are related to their extensions. For those it proposes a kind of description theory: E.g. "name" is applied to "Moses", iff "Moses" has the semantic properties which the causal theory defines for names. IV 172 Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: but it does not tell us how the meaning of "Moses" defines its extension! And that is exactly the problem that the "two-factor" theory raises. Narrow Content/Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: the idea that narrow meanings are conceptual roles sheds no light on the distinction meaning/reference. A semantic theory should not only be able to ascertain the identity of meaning, but also provide a canonical form that can answer the questions about the meaning of expressions. If the latter succeeds, it is not entirely clear whether the first must succeed as well. Narrow Content/categories/twin earth/Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: problem: how to express narrow contents. |
F/L Jerry Fodor Ernest Lepore Holism. A Shoppers Guide Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992 Fodor I Jerry Fodor "Special Sciences (or The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis", Synthese 28 (1974), 97-115 In Kognitionswissenschaft, Dieter Münch Frankfurt/M. 1992 Fodor II Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz Sprachphilosophie und Sprachwissenschaft In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Fodor III Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz The availability of what we say in: Philosophical review, LXXII, 1963, pp.55-71 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 |
| Connectionism | Pinker Vs Connectionism | I 146 Def Connectionism/Pinker: Variant of the computer theory of the mind: the main form of information processing are statistical calculations with multiple levels. Vs: despite the promising name "neuronal" they are not particularly realistic models of the brain. For example, a "synapse" (i.e. the weighting of a link!) can switch between stimulating and inhibiting properties. And information can flow both ways at an "axon" (connection). VsConnectoplasm/VsConnectionism: has major difficulties with 5 tasks of everyday thinking: I 147 1) No individuality: if networks work with the same representations, they are indistinguishable from each other! Only generalities (classes, vegetables) can be represented, but not a specific horse. It is not a solution to let the node for horses become twice as be active, because this state does not differ from the twice as large the belief that the properties of a horse are present or the properties are present in double scope. It would be a mistake to regard the individual as a very, very specific subclass. I 151 VsConnectionism/VsAssociationism: 2) Problem: Def Compositionality/Pinker: the possibility that a representation is made up of parts, while their meaning results from the meanings of the parts and the way they are combined. E.g. Compositionality is the key feature of all the human languages. I 153 Language: E.g. distinction baby saw chicken/chicken saw baby shows that this is not a collection of separate units. Neural Networks/Compositionality/Language: Problem: compositionality is surprisingly hard to cope with for the connectoplasm. When active/passive are distinguished, then at the price that you no longer know who does something to whom. I 154/155 We have the units: Baby eats and snail is eaten. If we wanted to distinguish between poodle and baby, we do not know whether the poodle saw that the baby ate the snail, or vice versa. The unit that the baby eats does not say anything about what it eats, and the (separate) unit for snail is eaten does not say by whom. The problem cannot be solved by weighting again. Solution: the mind needs a representation of the statement itself. Our model therefore needs an extra layer of units. This structure is very similar to normal, language-like Mentalese. The components of the logic, predicate, argument, and statement must adjust themselves again. In addition, quantification to eliminate I 156 E.g. "every 45 seconds someone suffers an accident, poor fellow." "Someone"/Quantification/Pinker/(s): x can be stand for "someone". (Everyday language translation). PinkerVsConnectoplasm: Problem: Interference, "disastrous forgetting": if the weighting for addition is changed, for example is newly introduced for the addition of 2, then it may be that the addition of 1 is forgotten. ("crosstalk"). I 165 PinkerVsConnectoplasm: the connectoplasm is so underprivileged that you often have to build networks with the worst combination: with too many innate structures in conjunction with too much input from the environment. This is how knowledge becomes useless if the question itself changes only a little. |
Pi I St. Pinker How the Mind Works, New York 1997 German Edition: Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998 |
| 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 I M. J. Cresswell Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988 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 |
| Externalism | Newen Vs Externalism | I 174 Natural Species/Putnam/Newen: E.g. water, oil, tiger: in doing so, we single out individual specimens, even if we I 175 are unaware of the essential conditions for the existence of the natural species. I 176 Meaning/Putnam: is therefore dependent on the surroundings. >Externalism. Externalism/Burge: Transfers Putnam's knowledge to the contents of beliefs. Twin Earth: shows that beliefs cannot be fully characterized by the internal states. Arthritis/Shmarthritis/Burge/Newen: Alfred's belief that he had arthritis in the thigh becomes a true statement when changing to a language community in which this is common. I 177 Point: in this, however, we still assume that the use is determined by experts. I.e. we still can make mistakes! We may use it correctly sometimes, even though we connect false beliefs with it! VsExternalism/Newen: Problem: Supervenience! E.g. 1) beliefs depend on the surroundings 2) brain states are independent of the surroundings 3) beliefs supervene on brain states. That is impossible, if some are dependent and the others are independent. I 178 It might so happen that different beliefs are present in the same brain states. VsExternalism/Knowledge/Belief/Newen: 2) argument VsExternalism: it is inconsistent with our self-knowledge. In general, we know what we believe. It might be, however, that the surroundings have such an influence that the content is changed. There are two positions a) incompatibility thesis: either the externalism or the everyday intuition is true b) compatibility thesis: both are compatible at the price that our everyday intuition is significantly attenuated. NS I 139 VsExternalism: simply saying that you need causal chains for successful reference is not enough. You must also say what kind they need to be. E.g. direct visual contact, hearsay, instrument monitoring, etc. E.g. phlogiston: it was believed to be responsible for combustion processes. Question: Why does "phlogiston" not refer to oxygen? Why did this reference not succeed? VsExternalism: Problem: it cannot give the following answer, because it brings out the thesis rejected by him: "Intention determines the extension". Externalism has to say that the theory is so fundamentally wrong that it is not satisfied by any substance. Therefore, "phlogiston" does not reference. VsExternalism: thus it cannot show how the causal chains are linked and owes us a theory of causal chains in general. |
New II Albert Newen Analytische Philosophie zur Einführung Hamburg 2005 Newen I Albert Newen Markus Schrenk Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie Darmstadt 2008 |
| Field, H. | Soames Vs Field, H. | I 467 Truth Theory/WT/Tarski/Soames: two statuses: a) as a mathematical theory with many rich results b) philosophically significant for the concept of truth. Truth Theory/Soames: there is controversy about what a truth theory should be; in general it should do one of the following three things: (i) give the meaning of the truth predicate for natural languages. (ii) replace these truth predicates reductionistically (iii) use a previously understood truth concept to explain meaning or for other metaphysical purposes. Proposition/Soames: for the following purposes you need propositions rather than sentences or utterances: Example (1) a. the proposition that the earth is moving is true. b. Church's theorem is true c. Everything he said is true. I 468 SoamesVsPropositions. Truth Predicate/Generalization/Quine/Soames: e.g. to characterize realism: (5) There is a doppelgänger of the sun in a distant region of space, but we will never find sufficient evidence that he exists. Soames: of course you can be a realist without believing (5). ((s) (5) is too special, it is only an example). Anti-Realism/Soames: what then distinguishes it from realism? One is tempted to say: (6) Either there is a doppelgänger of our sun.... or no doppelgänger.... and we will have no evidence at all.... I 470 SoamesVs: this leads to an infinite list that we should avoid. Solution: semantic rise: (7) There is at least one sentence S, so that S is true (in German) but we will never find (sufficient) evidence for S. I 472 Truth Definition/Field: consists of two parts: 1. "primitive denotation": e.g. (s) "Caesar" refers to Caesar. 2. the truth definition in terms of primitive denotation. The result is a sentence of the metalanguage: (8) For all sentences S of L, S is true iff T(S). FieldVsTarski/Soames: (Field: "Tarski's Truth Theory" (this journal, I XIX, 1972): this assumption (that truth, truth and reference are physically acceptable in Tarski) is wrong! Field: the proposed substitutions for the notions of primitive denotation are not physically acceptable reductions I 474 of our pre-theoretical concepts of reference and truth. Soames: this is only true if Field assumes that Tarski has reduced truth to primitive denotation. Truth-Def/Correctness/Tarski/Field/Soames: Field does not deny that the truth definition is extensionally correct. FieldVsTarski: but extensional correctness is not sufficient. "Cb" is a sentence and the semantic n facts about it are given in (9): (9) a. "b" refers (in L) to Boston b. "C" applies (in L) to cities (and cities only) c. "Cb" is true (in L) iff Boston is a city. (speaker dependent) Problem: you cannot just identify the facts from (10) with the facts from (9) now. Semantic Property/Field: expressions of a language have only force through the way they are used by speakers (usage). Problem: the facts from (9) would not have existed at all if the language behaviour (in the broadest sense) had been different! N.B.: the facts from (10) are not dependent on speakers. Therefore they are not semantic facts. Therefore Tarski cannot reduce them to physical facts. Truth Predicate/FieldVsTarski: it is both physicalistic and coextensive with "true in L", but it is still not a physicalistic truth concept. Problem: the inadequacy inherits the characterization of the truth from the pseudo reductions that constitute the "base clauses" ((s) recursive definitions?) ((s) among other things for and, or etc. base clauses). I 475 Solution/Field: we need to find real reductions for the concepts of primitive denotation or something like a model of the causal theory of reference. Field/Soames: these are again two stages: 1. Tarski's reduction from truth to primitive denotation ((s) as above) 2. an imagined reduction of the concepts of the reference of names and of the accuracy of predicates, similar to a causal theory. Language independence/Field/Soames: if the physical facts that determine the denotation in a language do so for all languages, then the denotation applies to all languages. If logical constants and syntax are kept constant, we get a truth concept that is language independent. Problem: 1. Reference to abstract objects ((s) for these there are no semantic facts). 2. Ontological relativity and undeterminedness of the reference. SoamesVsField: he even understated his criticism of Tarski (FieldVsTarski)! Tarski/Soames: because if Tarski did not reduce primitive denotation to physical facts, then he did not reduce truth to primitive denotation at all ((s) so he missed point 1). Example two languages L1 and L2 which are identical except: L1: here "R" applies to round things L2: here on red things. Truth conditional: are then different for some sentences in both languages: (11) a. "Re" is true in L1 iff the earth is round b. "Re" is true in L2 iff the earth is red. Tarski/Soames: in its truth definition, this difference will be traceable back to the base clauses of the two truth definitions for each language, because here the applications of the predicates are presented in a list. FieldVsTarski: its truth definition correctly reports that "R" applies to different things in the two languages, but it does not explain how the difference came about from the use of language by speakers. SoamesVsField/SoamesVsTarski: Field does not say that the same accusation can be made against VsTarski I 476 in relation to logical vocabulary and syntax in the recursive part of its definition. Example L1: could treat [(A v B)] as true if A or B is true, L2: ...if A and B are true. FieldVsTarski: then it is not sufficient for the characterization of truth to simply "communicate" that the truth conditions are different. It would have to be explained by the language behavior in the two different languages ((s) > speaker meaning). FieldVsTarski: because he says nothing about language behavior (speaker meaning in a community), he does not meet the demands of physicalism ((s) to explain physical facts of behavior). Soames: this means that Field's strategy of obtaining a real reduction of truth by supplementing Tarski with non-trivial definitions of primitive denotation cannot work. For according to Field, Tarski did not reduce truth to primitive denotation. He has reduced them at best to lists of semantic basic concepts: (13) the term of a name referring to an object The term of a predicate that applies to an object. The concept of a formula which is the application of an n digit predicate to an n tuple of terms ... I 477 Soames: but this requires a reformulation of each clause in Tarski's recursive definition. E.g. old: 14 a, new: 14.b: (14) a. if A = [~B] , then A is true in L (with respect to a sequence s) iff B is not true in L (with respect to s). b. If A is a negation of a formula B, then A is .... Soames: the resulting abstraction extends the generality of truth definition to classes of 1. Level languages: these languages differ arbitrarily in syntax, plus logical and non-logical vocabulary. SoamesVsField: Problem: this generality has its price. Old: the original definition simply stipulated that [~A) is a negation ((s) >symbol, definition). New: the new definition gives no indication which formulas fall into these categories. SoamesVsField: its physicist must now reduce each of the semantic terms. Logical Linkage/Constants/Logical Terms/Soames: we can either a) define about truth, or b) specify that certain symbols should be instances of these logical terms. SoamesVsField: neither of these two paths is open to him now! a) he cannot characterize negation as a symbol that is appended to a formula to form a new formula that is true if the original formula was false because that would be circular. b) he cannot simply take negation as a basic concept (primitive) and determine that [~s] is the negation of s. For then there would be no facts about speakers, ((s) Language behavior, physicalistic), that would explain the semantic properties of [~s]. Soames: there are alternatives, but none is convincing. Truth functional operator/Quine: (roots of the reference) are characterized as dispositions in a community for semantic ascent and descent. Problem/Quine: uncertainty between classical and intuitionist constructions of linkages are inevitable. SoamesVsField: Reduction from primitive denotation to physical facts is difficult enough. I 478 It becomes much more difficult for logical terms. SoamesVsField: this is because semantic facts on physical facts must supervene over speakers. ((s) >speaker meaning, language behavior). Problem: this limits adequate definitions to those that legitimize the use of semantic terms in contexts such as (15) and (16). ((s) (15) and (16) are fine, the later ones no longer). (15) If L speakers had behaved differently, "b" (in L) would not have referred to Boston and "C" to cities and .....((s) Counterfactual Conditionals). (16) The fact that L speakers behave the way they do explains why "b" (in L) refers to Boston, etc. ((s) Both times reference) Soames: FieldVsTarski is convinced that there is a way to decipher (15) and (16) that they become true when the semantic terms are replaced by physical ones and the initial clauses are constructed in such a way that they contain contingents to express physical possibilities. This is not the character of Tarski's truth definition. I 481 Primitive Reference/language independent/SoamesVsField: For example a name n refers to an object o in a language L iff FL(n) = o. FL: is a purely mathematical object: a set of pairs perhaps. I.e. it contains no undefined semantic terms. Truth Predicate/Truth/Theory/Soames: the resulting truth predicate is exactly what we need to metatheoretically study the nature, structure, and scope of a multiple number of theories. Truth Definition/Language/Soames: what the truth definition does not tell us is something about the speakers of the languages to which it is applied. According to this view, languages are abstract objects. ((s) All the time you have to distinguish between language independence and speaker independence). Language/primitive denotation/language independent/truth/SoamesVsField: according to this view languages are abstract objects, i.e. they can be understood in such a way that they essentially have their semantic properties ((s) not dependent on language behaviour or speakers, (speaker meaning), not physical. I.e. with other properties it would be another language). I.e. it could not have turned out that expressions of a language could have denoted something other than what they actually denote. Or that sentences of one language could have had other truth conditions. I 483 SoamesVsField: this too will hardly be able to avoid this division. Index Words/Ambiguity/Field: (p. 351ff) Solution: Contextually disambiguated statements are made unambiguous by the context. Semantic terms: should be applied to unambiguous entities. I.e. all clauses in a truth definition must be formulated so that they are applied to tokens. Example Negation/Field (21) A token of [~e] is true (with respect to a sequence) iff the token of e it includes is not true (with respect to that sequence). SoamesVsField: that does not work. Because Field cannot accept a truth definition in which any syntactic form is simply defined as a negation. ((s) Symbol, stipulates, then independent of physical facts). Soames: because this would not explain facts about speakers by virtue of whom negative constructions have the semantic properties they have. Semantic property(s): not negation itself, but that the negation of a certain expression is true or applies in a situation. Example "Caesar" refers to Caesar: Would be completely independent from circumstances, speakers, even if not from the language, the latter, however, actually only concerns the metalanguage. Solution/Soames: (22) A token of a formula A, which is a negation of a formula B, is true (with respect to a sequence) iff a designated token of B is not true (with respect to this sequence). "Designated"/(s): means here: explicitly provided with a truth value. |
Soames I Scott Soames "What is a Theory of Truth?", The Journal of Philosophy 81 (1984), pp. 411-29 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Soames II S. Soames Understanding Truth Oxford 1999 |
| Frege, G. | Dummett Vs Frege, G. | Brandom II 74 Frege (late): representation of independent reality DummettVsFrege: Falsely: property of sentences instead of transitions between them. Brandom II 173 Frege, late: sentences are singular terms! Predicates: frames. (DummettVsFrege: the disregards the specific nature of the sentences to be moves in the language game BrandomVsDummett:. As if Frege had no idea about Fregean force). Dummett I 15 Frege’s basic idea: Extraction of the concept (in the sense of the definition of 1890) by decomposition of a complete thought. (Begriffsschrift)(1). I 51 DummettVsFrege: It is questionable, however, whether this term can be explained without referring to the concept of the sentence. One must, for example, not only identify a proper noun in a sentence, but also be able to replace it in this position. How to explain the "occurrence" of the meaning of a name in a thought without relying on the form of its linguistic expression, is not clear. Frege: The meaning of every partial expression should be the contribution of this subexpression for determining this condition. DummettVsFrege: So we must know, contrary to Frege’s official theory, what it means that a proposition is true, before we can know what it means that it expresses a thought; before we can know what it means that an expression makes sense, we need to know what it means that it has a reference. Tradition: It used to be argued: as long as the meaning is the way of givenness of the reference object, there can, if no object is present, be no corresponding way of givenness and therefore no meaning (Evans, McDowell). DummettVsFrege: The difficulty is triggered by the fact that Frege strictly equates the semantic value of a singular term and the object to which it is intended to refer. The slogan "Without semantic value no meaning" is impressive, but it can only be accepted at the price of admitting that a singular term without reference still has a semantic value which then presumably consists in the mere fact of the absence of a reference. Husserl has no doubts in this regard. He generalizes the concept of meaning and transfers it from expressing acts to all acts of consciousness. For this generalized term Husserl uses the term "noema". DummettVsFrege: That does not show that the thesis the meaning (thought, see above) was not a content of consciousness is wrong, but rather that its reasoning, namely the communicability and consequent objectivity do not quite apply. Dummett I 61 DummettVsFrege: For an incommunicable meaning which refers to a private sentiment, would, contrary to the sensation itself, not belong to the content of consciousness. DummettVsFrege: Independence from sensation is necessary for objectivity: E.g. color words, opaque surface, a color-blind person recognizes by this that others see the color. I 63. Frege: "Red" does not only refer to a physical property, but to a perceptible property (it appears as red to perople with normal vision). If we explained "appears red" with "is red", however, we are no longer able to do this the other way around. DummettVsFrege: The modified version by Frege is unsatisfactory, because it gives the word "red" a uniform reference, but attributes a different meaning to it, depending on the speaker. I 64 Intension/Frege: "parallel to the straight line" different from "same direction as the straight line", DummettVs: Here, one must know the concept of direction or not "whatever value" other sense than "value curve" DummettVs: Here, the concept of value curve must be known or not. special case of the Basic Law V from which Russell antinomy arises. I 79 Meaning: Contradictory in Frege: on the one hand priority of thought over language, on the other hand, it is not further explained. I 90 ++ - Language/Thinking/Perception I 93 + - DummettVsFrege, DummettVsHusserl: both go too far if they make the linguistic ideas expressed similar to "interpretation". I 104 - Thoughts/DummettVsFrege: not necessarily linguistic: Proto thoughts (also animals) (linked to activity) - Proto thoughts instead of Husserl’s noema. I 106 Frege: Grasping of the Thought: directly through the consciousness, but not content of the consciousness - DummettVs: contradictory: Grasping is an ability, therefore background (both episodically and dispositionally) I 122 - DummettVs Equating the literal meaning with the thought module. I 124 + DummettVsFrege: all thoughts and ideas can be communicated! Because they only appear in a particular way - by this determination they are communicable I 128. 1. G. Frege, Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens, Halle 1879, Neudruck in: Ders. Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsätze, hrsg. v. J. Agnelli, Hildesheim 1964 |
Dummett I M. Dummett The Origins of the Analytical Philosophy, London 1988 German Edition: Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992 Dummett II Michael Dummett "What ist a Theory of Meaning?" (ii) In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Dummett III M. Dummett Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (a) Michael Dummett "Truth" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59 (1959) pp.141-162 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (b) Michael Dummett "Frege’s Distiction between Sense and Reference", in: M. Dummett, Truth and Other Enigmas, London 1978, pp. 116-144 In Wahrheit, Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (c) Michael Dummett "What is a Theory of Meaning?" in: S. Guttenplan (ed.) Mind and Language, Oxford 1975, pp. 97-138 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (d) Michael Dummett "Bringing About the Past" in: Philosophical Review 73 (1964) pp.338-359 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (e) Michael Dummett "Can Analytical Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it to be?" in: Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 17 (1977) S. 305-326 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Bra I R. Brandom Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994 German Edition: Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000 Bra II R. Brandom Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001 German Edition: Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001 |
| Goodman, N. | Simons Vs Goodman, N. | I 108 Sum/extensional mereology/CEM/Simons: CEM, or extensional mereology, is based on a general existence of sums. This has found the most critics, including Rescher and Chisholm. ChisholmVsSum: it seems that it does not belong to the concept of part intrinsically or analytically, that there must be a sum that should otherwise contain all of these individuals and nothing else. I 109 Part: but somebody who refuses the sum-axioms does not refuse Lesniewski’s and Goodmans’ and others concept of "part". Individual: instead of it there is disagreement about the concept "individual". Individual/Goodman: an individual has a very technical sense for him: they must not be connected or causally connected as everyday things. They do not have to be "medium size dry". Any accumulation of individuals may be (subject to paradoxes) combined into an abstract quantity. Individual/Goodman: an individual is analogous to such abstract quantities and each cluster (collection) of individuals can be grouped to a sum-individual (here, however, without the threat of paradoxes!). The resulting thing does not have to be anything that can be found in the everyday world. SimonsVsGoodman: but that is only so far a good analogy as the existence of any desired composition is acceptable. We must distinguish: a) the existence of specific (not abstract) pluralities can be claimed, but not: b) the one of abstract pluralities which is just a mere reflection of the existence of a plural term, therefore merely a facon de parler. Goodman's sum-individuals seem merely correspond to the need for a reference for some arbitrary expressions. I 110 Sum/Goodman/Simons: Goodman could indicate that arbitrary sum individuals obey the extensional theory. They exist in which the identity in the equality of parts exists. Identity/SimonsVsGoodman: this general condition of the equality of all parts is itself questionable (see below). Sum/mereology/Simons: so far no one has been able to show that the acceptance of sums leads to contradictions (as Russell has shown it for certain sets). ((s) stronger/weaker/(s): stronger theories tend to lead to contradictions.) Simons: but even the strongest extensional mereology does not lead to contradictions. Theory/solution/Simons: not the theory is suspicious but its non-critical application to the world. Part relation/Simons: part relations may be different in different areas (for example, mathematics). One must not force them to a common denominator. Sum/Simons: what damage should they cause that does not already exist in the ontological assumption of corresponding "pluralisms"? I 111 Sum/mereology/Simons: suppose we looked at any portions of space-time as evidenced by any sums. Then it comes to the question whether the relevant predicates are cumulative. I 284 "Normal part"/mereology/Simons: philosophers often forget that there is a middle way between a simple part and an essential part: that something is a "normal part of a normal kind". There is no formal theory of "normal mereology". Here are some informal remarks: Normality/Simons: one could start from the idea of a well-shaped thing of a kind. Normality/Aristotle: Aristotle called an object mutilated when it is connected but a prominent part is missing. Shapeliness/music/Nicholas WolterstorffVsGoodman/Simons: (Wolterstorff 1980, 56): he applied the idea of a normal or shapely thing of a kind to music pieces: it is non-well-formed if one or more of the normal parts are missing or are in the wrong place. Thus, the term is a little wider than Aristotle defined it. It allows us to say that a performance with an incorrect note is still a performance of the same piece. GoodmanVsWolterstorff: (Goodman 1969, 186f): we must not allow this because of the transitivity of identity: if a performance with a wrong note is identical, then at the end all pieces identical. I 285 Metaphysics/Goodman/Simons: metaphysics represents here a hard metaphysical line and adheres to bivalence and strict identity conditions. SimonsVsGoodman: the price for it is a distance from the everyday language. Solution/Simons: musical performance has no strict identity conditions. |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| Hegel, G.W.F. | Bubner Vs Hegel, G.W.F. | I 44 BubnerVsHegel: shortens the concrete liveliness of Platonic dialogues to external reflection, because of his own strong understanding of methods. Plato's dialogues do not permit a clean separation of the philosophical statement from the pictorial decoration. To leave their mysteriousness standing demands the active cooperation of the conscious participant. I 47 At no point does the exact knowledge of the method correspond in a way with its practice that no rest would remain. Plato's method never represents the goal, but serves the better knowledge. I 49 Otherness/Hegel: the other is to be taken as isolated, in relation to itself, abstract as the other. not of something, but as the other of itself. BubnerVsHegel: the fascination of recognizing a basic form of one's own science of logic carries Hegel's interpretation far beyond Plato. He reads into Plato an identity of identity and difference that only German idealism has fully articulated. I 72 Paradoxes/Movement/Zenon/Hegel: Hegel adopts Aristotle's solution: the introduced distinction of two aspects in space and time, namely continuity and discretion. Bubner: but this is unhistorical, because Zenon could not yet have been aware of it. Solution: the continuum introduced by Aristotle makes the infinite divisibility of space and time compatible with its unity. Hegel: "the equality of oneself, continuity is the absolute connection, the extinction of all differences, all negatives, of being-by-oneself. The point, on the other hand, is the pure being-by-oneself, the absolute discriminating and abolishing of all equality and connection with others. These two, however, are set in space and time in one, space and time thus the contradiction (!). It is closest to showing it by movement: For in movement, the opposite is also set for the imagination. BubnerVsHegel: here Hegel discovers more than the translation gives. It is anachronistic to elevate Zenon to a dialectician. But anachronisms are the price of structural comparisons that are philosophically illuminating. |
Bu I R. Bubner Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung Frankfurt 1992 |
| Intersubjectivity | Brandom Vs Intersubjectivity | I 823 Vs I-we conceptions of social practices: they do not meet the adequacy condition. They found a distinction between what individuals consider as proper use and what is right on the comparison of the views of the individual and society. (VsInter-subjectivity) I 824 This is the usual way to treat objectivity as inter-subjectivity. The excessively high price is the loss of the ability of giving a sense to the distinction on the part of the entire community. This conception unduly assimilates the language communities to the individuals involved in it. It treats the community as something that brings forth and assesses performances. ((s) I.e. as a subject that it is not. Brandom: It is not the community that agrees on definitions, but individuals.) Objectivity: the fact that our concepts are about an objective world, is partially due to the fact that there is an objective sense of rightness to which their application is subjected. I 825 A propositional or other content can only be specified from one point of view, and that is subjective, not in a Cartesian sense, but in a very practical sense. (score-keeping subject). I 832 VsInter-subjectivity (I-We style) it is flawed, since it cannot give room to the possibility of error on the part of the privileged perspective! LL. The community (as composed of individuals) thus has a privileged perspective. In the face of it, one cannot take a third-person point of view as an individual and therefore one cannot judge from the outside, what is actually true. This leads to a full frame. (BrandomVs). I-you conception of inter-subjectivity: no perspective is privileged. Perspective form instead of cross-perspective content. The common aspect of all perspectives is that there is a difference. |
Bra I R. Brandom Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994 German Edition: Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000 Bra II R. Brandom Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001 German Edition: Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001 |
| Jackson, F. | Bigelow Vs Jackson, F. | I 117 Strong centering/Lewis: Axiom (strong Centring): (a and b)> (W a > W b) Translation into everyday language/(s): everything that is true is linked by Counterfactual Conditional. I 150 Strong centering/Solution/Jackson, Frank: accepts the strong centring at the price that he rejects the following assumption: "If a then probably b" entails that if a, then it could be that b and it could be that it is not b". BigelowVsJackson, Frank: We reject the strong centering (BigelowVsStrong centring). |
Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 |
| Kant | Putnam Vs Kant | VI 402ff Knowledge/I/Kant/Putnam: Kant's picture of knowledge understood this as a "representation", a kind of game. I am the author of this game. I: But the author of the game also appears in the game itself (as in Pirandello). "Empirical I"/Kant/Putnam: the author in the game is not the "real author", he is the "empirical I". transcendental ego/Kant/Putnam: is the "real" author of the game. (Outside the game). I/internal realism/PutnamVsKant: I'd modify his picture in two respects: 1. The authors (in the plural, my picture is social) do not write one but several versions. 2. The authors in the stories are the real authors. PutnamVsSkepticism: N.B.: that would be "crazy" if these are only fictions. Because a fictional character cannot be a real author. But these are true stories. --- V 52 Determinism/Kant: said that such a defense component is of rationality itself. We do not discover the principle of determinism, but we impose it on the world. PutnamVsKant: this goes too far. The price would be a too great complication of our knowledge system. V 88 Putnam: one could read Kant as if he had first obtained the position of the internalism. Of course, not explicitly. V 89 I suggest to read it as if he said that Locke's thesis about the secondary qualities applies to all qualities: the simple, the primary and the secondary. V 90 If all properties are secondary: then everything what we say about an object has the form: it is such that it affects us in this or that way. Our ideas of objects are not copies of mind independent things. PutnamVsKant: today the concept of the noumenal world is considered an unnecessary metaphysical element in its thinking. V 118 Rationality/Putnam: is not determined by unalterable rule directories, as Kant believed, described to our transcendental nature. PutnamVsKant: the whole idea of a transcendental nature (noumenal) is nonsense. --- Putnam I (c) 93 Reference/theory/Putnam: one can also say it very briefly. "electron" refers to electrons, how else should we say within a conceptual system with "electron" as a primitive term, whereupon "electron" refers to? This also solves to a certain extent the "dilemma of Quine" and Kant: "Quinean Dilemma"/Putnam: (also in Kant): there is a real world, but we can only describe it with our conceptual system. PutnamVsQuine/PutnamVsKant: so what? How else should we describe it otherwise? should we use the term system of someone else? I (f) 169 Noumenon/noumenal world/PutnamVsKant: is now regarded as an unnecessary metaphysical element. Properties/Kant/Putnam: N.B.: the subtle point is that Kant thinks that all this also applies to sensation ("objects of the inner sense") as well as to external objects. E.g. "E is like this here" (whereby you concentrate on E) means: "E is like E".: Kant: in reality no judgment has come about. Puntam: merely an inarticulate sound, a noise. I (f) 169/170 Putnam: if "red" on the other hand is a real classification expression when I say that this sensation E belongs to the same class as sensations that I call "red" on other occasions, then my judgment goes beyond what is immediately given. Sensation/similarity/Noumenon/PutnamVsKant: whether the sensations that I have at different times, (noumenal) are "really" all similar, this question makes no sense. Kant ignores this completely. The sensations that I call "red", cannot be compared directly with noumenal objects to see if they have the same noumenal property as the objects which I call "gold", neither can they be directly compared with noumenal objects to see if they have the same noumenal property. The objects are similar for me, they are red for me. That is my sensation. Properties/PutnamVsKant: if he says that all properties are secondary (that is, they are assets) then this would be the property of a noumenal object, to invoke in us the impression of pinewood, for example. I (f) 170/171 At this point, he is close to saying that he gives up the correspondence theory. Definition Truth/Kant: "the agreement of knowledge with its object". PeirceVsKant: this is a nominal definition of truth. Assets/Kant: is attributed to the whole noumenal world. |
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 |
| Lewis, D. | Armstrong Vs Lewis, D. | Armstrong III 70 Def Law of Nature/LoN/Lewis: Iff it occurs as a theorem (or axiom) in each of the true deductive systems that unites the best combination of simplicity and strength. Armstrong: "each" is important: Suppose we had L3 and L4 (see E.g. above), both as a law, but both support incompatible counterfactual conditionals. Lewis: then there is no third law. ArmstrongVsLewis: that seems wrong. III 71 The least evil would be to say that an involuntary choice must be made between L3 or L4 as the third law. The price for this is the discovery that in some possible situations the view of Ramsey Lewis does not offer an involuntary response. This may not be a problem for Lewis: Law/Lewis: "vague and difficult concept". ArmstrongVsLewis: if one does not assume the regularity theory, there is a precise distinction between laws and non-laws. Vs Systematic approach/VsRamsey/VsLewis: pro: it is as they say, the manifestations of LoN can be singled out of the Humean uniformities. But: This is not a necessary truth. Their criterion is not part of our concept of LoN. ArmstrongVsLewis: it is logically possible that the uniformities (unif.) in an arbitrarily chosen subclass are manifestations of LoN, while the unif. in the residue class are purely coincidental unif... It is logically possible that every Humean uniformity is the manifestation of a LoN, that none is a manifestation or that any other subclass is this class of manifestations of LoN. Schwarz I 94 Def properties/Lewis: having a property means being a member of a class. ArmstrongVsLewis/Problem/Schwarz: you cannot explain "red" by saying that its bearer is the element of such and such a class. ((s) either, it is circular, or it misses the property, because the object (bearer) can also belong to other classes. E.g. the fact that a tomato is red is not due to the fact that it is an element of the class of red things, but vice versa.) Armstrong 1978a(1), 2,5,2,7) Schw I 95 LewisVsVs: Unlike other representatives of the universals theory, Lewis does not want to explain what it means or why it is that things have the properties that they have. Explanation/Lewis: proper explanations don’t speak of elementness. (1997c(2), 1980b(3)). However, there can be no general explanation of having properties or predication! Because the explanation has to contain predicates if it were circular. Therefore, "Having a property" is not a relation. But there is nothing more to be said about it, either. (2002a(4), 6,1983c(5): 20 24,1998b(6), 219). E.g. "A is F" is to be generally true, because A has this and that relationship with the property F: here, "A is in this and that relationship with the property F" would have to be true again, because A and F are in this and that relation with "having this and that relation", etc. 1. David M. Armstrong [1978a]: Universals and Scientific Realism I: Nominalism & Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2. David Lewis [1997c]: “Naming the Colours”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75: 325–342. 3. David Lewis [1980b]: “Mad Pain andMartian Pain”. In Ned Block (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology Bd.1, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 216–222 4. David Lewis [2002a]: “Tensing the Copula”. Mind, 111: 1–13 5. David Lewis [1983d]: Philosophical Papers I . New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press 6. David Lewis [1998b]: “A World of Truthmakers?” Times Literary Supplement , 4950: 30. |
Armstrong I David M. Armstrong Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Armstrong II (a) David M. Armstrong Dispositions as Categorical States In Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996 Armstrong II (b) David M. Armstrong Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted In Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996 Armstrong II (c) David M. Armstrong Reply to Martin In Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996 Armstrong II (d) David M. Armstrong Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996 Armstrong III D. Armstrong What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| Lewis, D. | Peacocke Vs Lewis, D. | EMD II 169 Lewis: Chomsky: Thesis: it could be that we have far fewer conventions than is generally assumed. But as long as there are at least two possible human languages, there must be a convention according to which the choice is explained. PeacockeVsLewis: that is funny: in the borderline case where there is no other equally rich language, can this fact prevent a possible language from being the actual language? Then it might seem as if it were a matter of convention whether L1 is an actual language of P1, but not a matter of convention whether L2 is an actual language of P2. Ipso facto, the actual language relation (see above II165, application to the world ) is not analyzed in terms of the conventions. II 187 Truth/Actual Language/Peacocke: but we can explain the concept of truth "true in L" that only related to the language (unlike the general W concept) to someone by total recursion: we can teach its use (like winning). For this we do not need to presuppose the general concept of truth (in this case). (Conditions of use) Here, no specific starting point is required, it is only necessary that you start somewhere. PeacockeVsLewis: (conventions) he avoids this current point, but at the price that he has to introduce a quantification over possible worlds, or at least over conditions or propositions. |
Peacocke I Chr. R. Peacocke Sense and Content Oxford 1983 Peacocke II Christopher Peacocke "Truth Definitions and Actual Languges" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 EMD II G. Evans/J. McDowell Truth and Meaning Oxford 1977 Evans I Gareth Evans "The Causal Theory of Names", in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 47 (1973) 187-208 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 Evans II Gareth Evans "Semantic Structure and Logical Form" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Evans III G. Evans The Varieties of Reference (Clarendon Paperbacks) Oxford 1989 |
| Lewis, D. | Hausman Vs Lewis, D. | Schurz I 240 Umstände/Kausalität/Schurz: Umstände müssen analytisch unabhängig sein. Singuläre Kausalrelation/individual causation/Schurz: hier brauchen wir nicht nur die Ursache, sondern auch die Wirkung (im Gegensatz zum allgemeinen Fall). probabilistische Kausalität: hier ist (im Gegensatz zur strikten) das Eintreten der Wirkung wesentlich. EellsVsHausman: (VsHausman’s "Principle G"): in indeterministischen Situationen folgt daraus, dass F in Umständen U G generell verursacht und dass Ereignis Fa unter Umständen Ua eingetreten ist, nicht zwingend, dass auch die Wirkung Ga eingetreten ist, sondern nur mit erhöhter Wahrscheindlichkeit. Individual Causation/Counterfactual Conditional/co.co./Lewis/Schurz: (Lewis 1973a): durch Rekurs auf similarity metrics zwischen möglichen Welten: ein Ereignis Fa verursachte ein anderes Ga, wenn zutrifft: wäre Fa nicht eingetreten, so wäre auch Ga nicht eingetreten. HausmanVsLewis: Problem unter anderem: Deutung der similarity metrics. I 244 interventionistischer Ansatz/probabilistisch/Kausalität/Handlungstheorie/Schurz: der interventionistische Ansatz geht von der Handlungstheorie aus (von Wright, 1974, 73, Menzies, Price 1993): danach ist A die Ursache von B, wenn durch Realisierung von A mit Hilfe einer Handlung H die Wirkung B herbeigeführt werden kann. Das erscheint zirkulär, weil die Herbeiführung durch eine Handlung unerklärt ist. HausmanVsAction theory: (1989): sie sollte durch eine abstrakte kausale intervention theory ersetzt werden. (+) |
Hausm D. M. Hausman The Philosophy of Economics: An Anthology Cambridge 2008 Schu I G. Schurz Einführung in die Wissenschaftstheorie Darmstadt 2006 |
| Metaphysics | Chisholm Vs Metaphysics | III 133 "Theories of reality"/VsMetaphysics/Chisholm: metaphysical: we could set up a "theory about the nature of truth": E.g. that an entity such as the one introduced above is additionally created in a way that Socrates is mortal if it is evident for this entity that he is mortal. III 134 Then we could not only say that if it is evident to such a being, then Socrates is also mortal, but we could say that if it is true that Socrates is mortal, then Socrates is mortal. Thus we arrive at a theory of reality. ((s) the relevant fact would then follow from the truth. This is not objectionable, but presupposes a being that knows). Problem/Chisholm: such theories existed many times in history. They always assume that there is a being that judges with evidence, and this is then the "measure of all things". Note III 193 Brentano: this comes down to the truth belonging to the judgment of right one who judges rightly, i.e. the judgment of the one who judges like the one would judge who makes his judgment with evidence. (Truth and evidence, Hamburg 1962, p. 139) Reality/Peirce: depends on the real fact that the investigation if it is only carried out long enough, is destined to lead to a belief in it. III 134 ChisholmVs: how we make sure that what is evident to us is also evident to that being? I.e. our metaphysician requires us to go yet another step. ((s) whose necessity he has not recognized). 3) In the next step each of us is required to be identical with these adopted ((s) ideal) beings. Problem: then every one of us is also identical with the others! ChisholmVsCoherence theory: this is what underlies the idealistic tradition of coherence theory. That’s too high a price for the desired connection of the truth with the evident. Solution/Aristotle: you are not white, because our opinion that you are white is correct, but it is because you’re white that we are telling the truth when we say this. |
Chisholm I R. Chisholm The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981 German Edition: Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992 Chisholm III Roderick M. Chisholm Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989 German Edition: Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004 |
| Mysticism | Black Vs Mysticism | III 69 VsScience/Mysticism/Black: some contemporary critics might say "the so-called science (the "academic" one that arouses their hostility) has proved that real science (mysticism, etc.) is impossible." BlackVsMysticism: the price for giving up objectivity is much higher: it is also the task of the commonsense view of the everyday world. III 70 Naïve realism/Black: the commonsense view is often called naïve realism but it is definitely correct in all essential respects of dealing with the outside world. ((s) The scientist pushes the red button instead of the green one, because he believes that both exist. Def Objective orientation/Terminology/Black: By that I do not mean "everyday ontology", but something that underlies it: we have an objective orientation of perception. Violating it leads to madness and self-destruction. |
Black IV Max Black "The Semantic Definition of Truth", Analysis 8 (1948) pp. 49-63 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Neale, St. | Verschiedene Vs Neale, St. | Klaus von Heusinger, Eselssätze und ihre Pferdefüsse Uni Konstanz Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft Arbeitspapier 64; 1994 Heusinger I 19 E-Type-Analysis/Neale/Identifications/Unity Conditions/Heusinger: Recently Neale (1990) has given the E-Type-Analysis a boost by allowing the violation of the uniqueness condition. Solution/Neale: Def "numberless pronouns"/Neale: (1990, 235, (*8))= Pronouns as a certain description without uniqueness condition. "Whoever". Spelling: „whe“ (whoever) Here: as generalized quantifier in (31) as term-building operator in (32) (31) ‚[whe x: Fx] (Gx)’ is true iff I F-GI = 0 and I F I > 1. (32) G whe (x) Fx ⇔ (Ex)Fx & (x)(Fx > Gx) Chrysipp Sentence/Neale/Heusinger: this is how the pronoun in (30) receives universal power. And not by the indefinite NP, which is interpreted as the classical E-Quantifier, but by the number-less pronoun, which designates all objects that fulfill the antecedent theorem. (30e) If a man is in Athens, whoever is a man and is in Athens is not in Rhodes. (30f) (Ex) [Man (x) & Athens (x)] > ~ Rhodos (whe (x) [Man (x) & Athens (x)] ) (30g) (x) [Man (x) & Athens (x)] > ~Rhodos (x)]. Problem: this is only possible at the price of an ambiguity of the pronouns (ambiguous, whether as Iota expression or "whoever" expression). This cannot be seen in the sentence. VsNeale/Heusinger: This leaves open the questions of a system of strong or weak readings, the solution of the proportional paradox and a comparison of symmetrical and asymmetrical readings. I 20 E-Type Analysis/pragmatic/anaphora/pronouns/Cooper/Heim/Heusinger: Thesis: here the descriptions are formed by a characteristic that stands out in the context. ...Example ... Advantage: (VsNeale/CoopervsNeale): here you do not have to take all the material of the sentence containing the antecedent. |
|
| Nozick, R. | Verschiedene Vs Nozick, R. | I 378 Minimal State/Nozick: Rights/Nozick: the human has the right to self-destruction. Other people are untouchable. Taxes/Nozick: there is no abstract total social benefit. Therefore, millionaires should not be taxed. I 379 Utilitarianism/Nozick/Rawls: both reject all utilitarian considerations and calculations! Life: only a creature with the ability to plan its own life can have a meaningful life. Property: the individual is its own property and not that of another. Otherwise one could, for example, remove its kidneys on demand. Reason: the individual would not have worked them out itself. The free market with private property rights will ensure the effective use of scarce resources and encourage inventiveness and new thinking. This is the reason why those who have fewer resources available because they have already used others are not really worse off. I 381 For example, suppose one person's life could only be saved by violating another person's property right, for example over a certain medicine. Nozick: in certain extreme cases, his principle that the property of others is absolutely inviolable can be relaxed. VsNozick: unfortunately, deals nowhere with how the moral status of these rights is founded. Question: if the right to property has the same moral value as the right to self-determination, the plausibility of the starting position is endangered. If the second has priority over the first, the argumentation is inconclusive, because the inviolability of property is a necessary precondition for the rejection of any form of state. I 383 Distribution/Nozick: there is no allocation or distribution of goods just as there is no allocation of spouses in a society. The just distribution therefore depends on the way in which the property came into the hands of the owner, that is, on its prehistory. (Most other theories about distributive justice deal only with the result of distribution or the key: e.g. Rawls' principle of difference). Justice: a) original acquisition: appropriation of "masterless" goods. b) transfer of possessions. I 384 1. Anyone who acquires a property in accordance with the principle of just appropriation shall be entitled to that property. 2. Anyone who acquires a property in accordance with the principle of equitable transfer from someone who is entitled to the property shall be entitled to the property. 3. Claims to possessions arise only through (repeated) application of rules (1) and (2). c) Correction of injustices. Dealing with thieves, fraudsters and perpetrators of violence. Question: how can the sins of the past be corrected again? VsNozick: he deals with this complicated problem on less than one and a half pages. He only says that this is an important and complicated problem. Distributive justice/Nozick: Difference: structured (historical) principles/non-structured (non-historical) principles. I 384/385 "Natural Dimension": distribution according to performance (historical). Historical: according to intelligence or race. E.g. Basketball fans pay completely overpriced prices to see their star. Nozick: this must be seen as completely fair, since it happens voluntarily. The appearance of injustice arises only if, on the one hand, individuals are granted a free right of disposal over their goods and, on the other hand, it is demanded that the distribution resulting from the exercise of this right should have taken place in accordance with the original structured and result-oriented distribution principle. Nozick: there can be no enforcement of result-oriented principles or structural distribution without permanent interference in people's lives! In order to maintain a certain structure, the state would have to intervene again and again. I 386 VsNozick: Question: why does he assume that people in the state of the original distributive justice V1 have absolute freedom to deal with their possessions at their own discretion (to buy overpriced baseball tickets)? A right which, according to the structural theories, they supposedly have based on their assumptions V1, yes, a right they do not even possess! Contradiction. The question is more complicated than it seems: Goods/Nozick: are seen by Nozick as a kind of mass entry to the common catering of all. VsNozick: this systematically ignores the demands of the workers from their own production. Nozick unfortunately gives himself a systematic discussion of this problem of competing demands. |
|
| Price, H.H. | Chisholm Vs Price, H.H. | I 51 Thinking/H.H.Price/Chisholm: below the thinking there is the "assumption of propositions" (entertaining). It is the most familiar of all intellectual phenomena, it is also found in many of our cognitive or emotional attitudes. It is so fundamental that it allows no explanation or analysis, but on the contrary, all other forms of thought must be explained with its help. Meaning/Price: essentially propositional. ChisholmVsPrice. |
Chisholm I R. Chisholm The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981 German Edition: Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992 Chisholm III Roderick M. Chisholm Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989 German Edition: Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004 |
| Putnam, H. | Goodman Vs Putnam, H. | Horwich I 397 Realism/Incompatibility/Putnam/Early: in particular, I believed that what we refer to as "incompatible" can be applied to the same real object, though not within the same theory. E.g. this "real object" may be called a "point" in one theory, an "amount convergent segments" in another. Conversely: the same term can be applied to different objects in different theories. Putnam early: it is a property of the world (i.e. the WORLD) itself that it "allows different images": Problem/GoodmanVsPutnam (early): the price for this is that this view preserves the WORLD, but gives up an understandable concept of how the world is. Each of the many equivalent descriptions will only express one theory relative property of the world. |
G IV N. Goodman Catherine Z. Elgin Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences, Indianapolis 1988 German Edition: Revisionen Frankfurt 1989 Goodman I N. Goodman Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis/Cambridge 1978 German Edition: Weisen der Welterzeugung Frankfurt 1984 Goodman II N. Goodman Fact, Fiction and Forecast, New York 1982 German Edition: Tatsache Fiktion Voraussage Frankfurt 1988 Goodman III N. Goodman Languages of Art. An Approach to a Theory of Symbols, Indianapolis 1976 German Edition: Sprachen der Kunst Frankfurt 1997 Horwich I P. Horwich (Ed.) Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Fodor Vs Quine, W.V.O. | Esfeld I 62 FodorVsQuine: (and Lepore): the confirmation holism and verificationism refer to different things: Verificationism: refers to linguistic things. Confirmation holism: refers to cross-language entities like propositions. EsfeldVsFodor: However, if we assume beliefs, we can summarize both. Fodor II 114 Language/Behavior/Meaning/Quine/Fodor: but even if there were an identifiable property, how could we justify the assertion, assuming we had found it? Quine: (The Problem of Meaning in Linguistics): Test for the question of whether S is a grammatical phoneme sequence: whether the expression triggers puzzlement. FodorVsQuine: that will fail in both directions: 1) almost all expressions in everyday language are ungrammatical! 2) Almost every grammatical sentence may cause puzzlement in certain situations! Our intuitions about grammar are often not consistent with grammar as such. On the other hand, intuition in semantics is far less reliable than in grammar. Fodor/Lepore IV 54 Fodor/LeporeVsQuine: his argument is a fallacy of equivocation! ((s) Between statement and formula). (Namely: IV 52 Quine/Fodor/Lepore: Def immanence of confirmation: the thesis that, because confirmation is defined through types of entities whose connection IV 53 to a particular theory is essential, it does not have to be possible to construct such questions as if it were about whether two theories match regarding their confirmation conditions.). IV 76/77 Child/Language Acquisition/Language Learning/Quine: perhaps the child has a background (perhaps innate), E.g. about the character of his dialect? Anyway, in that case it differs from that of the linguist in that it is not a bootstrapping. Fodor/LeporeVsQuine: this is totally unjustified. His choice of a WT does not justify true belief and provides no knowledge. But then you cannot attribute any knowledge of the language to the child! Solution: Children know the language in the sense that they can speak it, therefore they have any possible true belief that the speaking may require ((s) and that is compatible with it, i.e. goes beyond that). Not even Quine believes that the epistemic situation of the child is fully characterized by the fact that the observational data are determined. Somehow, even the child generalizes. Problem: the principles of generalization, in turn, cannot have been learned. (Otherwise regress). They must be innate. Solution/Quine: similarity space. Likewise: Skinner: "intact organism" with innate dispositions to generalize in one, but not in the other direction. Hume: Association mechanisms, "intrinsic" in human nature, etc. - - - Note IV 237 13> IV 157 o Causal Theory: many philosophers consider causal relationships constitutive of semantic properties, but their examples always refer to specific intuitions about specific cases, E.g. that we need to distinguish the mental states of twins (Twin Earth?). Quine: he has, in contrast, no problem in explaining why that which causally causes consent must be the same that specifies the truth conditions. For Davidson rightly writes that, for Quine, these are the "sensory criteria" which Quine treats as evidence. And as a verificationist, Quine takes the evidence relation (evidence) as ipso facto constitutive of semantic relations. ((s): relation/relation). VsQuine: the price he has to pay for it is that he has no argument against skepticism!. IV 218 Intuitionism/Logic/Quine/Fodor/Lepore: Quine favors an ecumenical story, according to which the logical connections (connectives) signify different things, depending on whether they are used in classical or intuitionistic logic. Fodor/LeporeVsQuine: as long as there is no trans-theoretical concept of sentence identity, it is unclear how it is ever to be detected. |
F/L Jerry Fodor Ernest Lepore Holism. A Shoppers Guide Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992 Fodor III Jerry Fodor Jerrold J. Katz The availability of what we say in: Philosophical review, LXXII, 1963, pp.55-71 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Es I M. Esfeld Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002 |
| Ramsey, F. P. | Grover Vs Ramsey, F. P. | Horwich I 319 VsRedundancy Theory/VsRamsey/Camp, Grover, Belnap/CGB/Grover: the first two objections assume that the data base is too narrow, i.e. that there are cases that are not covered by the theory. (See Redundancy Theory). I 320 1) Index words: (Here: repetition of indices): (14) John: I’m greedy - Mary: That is true Problem: here no mere repetition, or else she would say "I am,..." Problem: there is no general scheme for such cases. 2) Modification: Here, a translation is absolutely impossible: (here with indirect reference and quantification): (15) Every thing that Mark said could be true Problem: there is no verb for "could". Similar: (16) Something that Charlie said is either true or not true. (17) Everything that Judith said was true then, but none of it is still true today. Of course you can try: (15’)(p) Mark said that p > It could be the case that p) or (15’)(p) (Mark said that p > that might p exist) Vs: "being the case" and "existing" are variations of "being true". This would make the redundancy theory a triviality. In this case, Ramsey’s "direct" theory would be wrong. CGBVsRamsey: we improve the redundancy theory by we let by not only allowing propositional quantification for the target language, but also an indeterminate field of links, such as M (for "might"), "P" (for past tense), "~" for negation, etc. I 321 The reader has likely already assumed that we have introduced the negation long ago. But that’s not true. Then: (16’)(p) (Mark said that p > Mp) (17’)(Ep) (Charlie said that p & (p v ~p)) (17’)(p) (Judith said that p > (Pp & ~p)) Redundancy Theory/Ramsey/CGB: it is this variant of the theory of Ramsey, enriched by the above links and propositional quantification, which we call redundancy theory (terminology) from now on. The thesis is that "true" thus becomes superfluous. Thesis this allows translations in Ramseyan sense to be found always. VsRedundancy Theory/VsRamsey: 3) "About"/Aboutness/Accuracy of the Translation/CGB: some authors: argue that "snow is white" is about snow, and "That snow is white, is true" is about the proposition. And that therefore the translation must fail. CGB: this involves the paradox of analysis. We do not directly touch upon it. ((s) Paradox of analysis, here: you’d have to act more stupid than you are in order not to realize that both sentences are about snow; to be able to name the problem at all (as the opponents do) you need to have it solved already.) 4) PragmatismVsRedundancy Theory: even if the translation preserves the alleged content, it neglects other features which should be preserved. Case of recurrence: E.g. (3) Mary: Snow is white. John: That is true. (3’) Mary: Snow is white. John: Snow is white. Is that supposed to be a good translation?. I 322 Strawson: "true" and "not true" have their own jobs to do!. Pro-Sentence/Pronoun/Anaphora/"True"/CGB: "that is true" presupposes that there is an antecedent. But that is not yet taken into account in Ramsey’s translation (3’). So Ramsey’s translation fails in pragmatic terms. VsPropositional Quantification/PQ/VsRedundancy Theory/VsRamsey/CGB: 4) redundancy: at what price? Propositional quantification is mysterious: it is not consistent with everyday language. It is not shown that "is true" is superfluous in German, but only in a curious ad hoc extension. 5) Grammar: (already anticipated by Ramsey): variables need predicates that are connected with them, even if these variables take sentence position. CGBVsRamsey: unfortunately, Ramsey’s response is not convincing. Ramsey: (see above) "p" already contains a (variable) verb. We can assume the general sentence form as aRb here, then. I 232 (a)(R)(b): If he says aRb, then aRb). Here,"is true" would be a superfluous addition. CGBVsRamsey: We must assume an infinite number of different sentence forms ((s)> language infinite). Redundancy Theory/CGB: But that does not need to worry us. 1) Propositional quantification can be set up formally and informally proper. 2) Variables which take sentences as substituents do not need a verb that is connected to them. That this was the case, is a natural mistake which goes something like this: E.g.(4’) (p)(John says p > p). If we use pronouns that simplify the connected variable: For each sentence, if John said it, it then it. Heidelberger: (1968): such sentences have no essential predicate!. Solution/Ramsey: (4’) For each sentence, if John said that it is true, then it is true. T-Predicate/CGB: "T": reads "is true". (4’) (p) (John said that Tp > Tp) Problem: because "T" is a predicate, and "Tp" is a sentence, "p" must be a term of the language, i.e. it must take a nominal position. I.e. the quantifiers bind individual variables (of a certain type), and not variables about sentences. I 335 Disappearance Cases/Pro-Sentence: some of them can be regarded as a translation in Ramsey language. Def Ramsey Language/CGB/(s): Language in which "true" is entirely superfluous. English*/CGBVsRamsey: for the purpose of better explanation. E.g. (26) It is true that snow is white, but in Pittsburgh it rarely looks white. (27) It is true that there was unwarranted violence by the IRA, but it is not true that none of their campaigns was justified. T-Predicate/CGB: used in (25) and (26) to concede a point in order to determine afterwards by "but" that not too much emphasis should be placed on it. English*. I 336: E.g. (26’) There was unwarranted violence by the IRA, that’s true, but it is not true that none of their campaigns was justified. These are all disappearance cases. I 342 VsProsentential Theory/Spurious Objections/CGB: I 343 Index Words: Laziness pro-sentences refer to their antecedent. Therefore, the theory must be refined further when it comes to indexical expressions. Otherwise E.g. John: "I’m lazy." Mary: "That’s true." Is not to say that Mary means "I (Mary) am lazy". CGB: but that’s a common problem which occurs not only when speaking about truth: E.g. John: My son has a wart on his nose. Bill: He is the spitting image of his father. E.g. Lucille: You dance well. Fred: That’s new to me. Pragmatics/CGBVsRamsey: our approach represents it correctly, in particular, because we exclude "plagiarism". Ramsey’s theory does not. I 344 Quote/VsPro-Sentence Theory/VsCGB: The pro-sentence theory is blamed to ignore cases where truth of quotes, i.e. names of sentences, is expressed. E.g. (27) "Snow is white" is true. CGB: We could say with Ramsey, that (27) simply means that snow is white. CGBVsRamsey: that obscures important pragmatic features of the example. They become more apparent when we use a foreign language translation. E.g. (28) If "snow is white" is true, then... Why (28) instead of If it’s true that snow is white, then or If snow is white, then... CGB: There are several possible reasons for this. It may be that we want to make clear that the original sentence was said in German. Or it is possible that there is no elegant translation, or we are not sufficiently familiar with German grammar. Or E.g. "snow is white" must be true, because Fritz said it, and everything Fritz says is true. I 345 Suppose, English* had a possibility to present a sentence formally: E.g. "consider __". (29) Consider: Snow is white. This is true. CGB: why should it not work just like "Snow is white is true" in normal English? VsCGB: it could be argued that this requires a reference on sentences or expressions, because quotation marks are name-forming functors. Quotation Marks/CGB: we depart from this representation! Quotation marks are not name-forming functors. I 353 Propositional Variable/Ramsey: Occupies sentence position. (Quantification over propositions). CGBVsRamsey: Such variables are of pro-sentential nature. Therefore, they should not be connected to a T-predicate. ((s) otherwise, "true" appears twice). T-Predicate/Ramsey/Redundancy Theory/CGB: this answers the old question of whether a Ramsey language has to contain a T-predicate: see below. Our strategy is to show how formulas can be read in English*, where there is no separable T-predicate. E.g. (4’) For each proposition, if John says it is true, then it is true. CGB: in this case,propositional variables and quantificational pro-sentences do the same job. Both take sentence position and have the cross-reference that is required of them. Important argument: (4’) is just the candidate for a normal English translation of (4’). Problem: this could lead to believing that a Ramsey language needs a T-predicate, as in (4’) (p)(John said that Tp > Tp). ((s) then, "true" implicitly appears twice). I 354 But since (4’) is perfect English, there is no reason to assume that the T-predicate is re-introduced by that. Or that it contains a separately bound "it" (them). |
Grover I D. L. Grover Joseph L. Camp Nuel D. Belnap, "A Prosentential Theory of Truth", Philosophical Studies, 27 (1975) pp. 73-125 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Horwich I P. Horwich (Ed.) Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994 |
| Russell, B. | Donnellan Vs Russell, B. | I 18/19 DonnellanVsRussell: has not grasped the referential use, but placed it in a strange construct of "logically proper names". DonnellanVsStrawson: does not see the difference ref/att correctly and mixes the two. Referential/Attributive/Donnellan: varies even when it comes to the importance of the distinction: 1) Text: only pragmatic distinction, 2) later: "semantic significance". KripkeVsDonnellan: denies semantic ambiguity of the use of descriptions. Both can be grasped with the Russell’s analysis: sentences of the form "The F which is G is H" have the same truth conditions, they are true, if the only F that fulfils G is actually H. I 193 DonnellanVsRussell: his strict implication works at most with attributive use. (But he does note make the distinction). I 194 Def Description/Russell: affects an entity which only it fulfills. Donnellan: that is certainly applicable to both uses(!). Ref/Att/Donnellan: if both are not distinguished, the danger is that it must be assumed that the speaker would have to refer to something without knowing it. E.g. "Presidential candidate": we had no idea that it would be Goldwater. Nevertheless, "presidential candidate" would absurdly refer to Goldwater. Solution: DonnellanVsRussell: attributive use. I 205 Logical Proper Names/"This"/Russell: refer to something without attributing properties! (Donnellan pro) Donnellan: It could eb said that they refer to the thing itself, not to the thing under the condition that it has any special properties. DonnellanVsRussell: he believed that this is something that a description cannot do. But it does work with referential use. I 275 Theory of Descriptions/Reference/Existence/Russell/Donnellan: Attributed to himself as a merit to explain the reference to non-existent things without the need to bring the idea of non-existent references of singular terms into play. His fully developed theory of singular terms extended this to the of proper names. Philosophy of logical atomism: names as covert descriptions. I 275/276 Here, the theory "proper names in the strict logical sense" was introduced, which is rarely found in everyday speech. ((s) logical proper names: "this", etc.) DonnellanVsRussell: we want to try to make Russell’s attempt at a solution (which has not failed) redundant with the "historic explanation". (> like ZinK). I 281 Logical Proper Names/DonellanVsRussell: have no place in a correct theory of reference. Proper Names/Historical Explanation/DonnellanVsRussell: Russell’s view is incorrect in terms of common singular terms: it is not true that common proper names always have a descriptive content. Question: does this mean that ordinary singular terms might be able to fulfill the function which according to Russell only logical proper names can have?. I 283 Descriptions/DonellanVsRussell: it seems absurd to deny that in E.g. Waverley that what is described by the description, i.e. Scott, is not "part" of the expressed proposition. Russell: was of the opinion that such statements are not really statements about the described or the reference of the name, that they do not really name the described thing! Only logical proper names could accomplish the feat of actually mentioning a certain particular. "About"/Reference/DonnellanVsRussell: Putting great emphasis on concepts such as "about" would lead us into marshy terrain. We should require no definition of "about"!. It would be a delicate task to show that such a statement is either not a statement in any sense of "about" about the described thing or that there is a clear sense of "about" by it being not. I 285/286 DonnellanVsRussell: For his theory he paid the price of giving up the natural use of singular terms. RussellVsVs: but with the "natural conception" we end up at the Meinong population explosion. Proper Names/Historical Explanation/DonnellanVsRussell: according to my theory names are no hidden descriptions. E.g. "Homer" is not an abbreviation for "The author of the Homeric poems". I 209 DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Question: Does he refute Russell? No, in itself not! For methodological considerations, Russell’s theory is better than many thought. Nevertheless, it will probably fail in the end. I 222 Statement/Donnellan/VsRussell/Kripke: It’s not so clear that Donnellan refutes Russell. E.g. "Her husband is kind to her": had Donnellan flatly asserted that this is true iff. the lover is nice, without regard to the niceness of the husband (is perhaps also nice), he would have started a dispute with Russell. But he does not assert this! If we now asked "Is the statement is true?", Donnellan would elude us. Because if description is used referentially, it is unclear what is meant by "statement". If the statement is to be that the husband is nice, the problem is: to decide whether ref. or att. Referential: in this case, we would repeat the speech act wrongly, Attributive: we ourselves would be referring to someone, and we can only do that if we ourselves believe that it is the husband. I 232 DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Are the two really conflicting? I propose a test: Test: if you consider whether a particular linguistic phenomenon in English is a counterexample to an analysis, you should consider a hypothetical language that is similar to English, except that here the analysis is assumed to be correct. If the phenomenon in question also appears in the corresponding (hypothetical) community, the fact that it occurs in English cannot refute the hypothesis that the analysis for English is correct!. DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Test: would the phenomenon ref/att occur in different languages?. I 234 E.g. Sparkling Wine: speakers of the weaker and middle languages think (albeit erroneously) that the truth conditions are fulfilled. Weak: here, the apparatus seems to be entirely adequate. The semantic reference is the only object. Our intuitions are fully explained. Strong: Here, the phenomenon may occur as well. Even ironic use may be clear if the affected person drinks soda. I 235 These uses would become more common in the strong language (which is not English, of course), because the definite article is prohibited. This leads to an expansion of the speaker reference: If the speaker thinks an item to be fulfilling (Ex)(φ x u ψx), it is the speaker reference, then it may indeed be fulfilling or not. Middle: if speaker reference is applicable in the strong one, it is just as easily transferred to the middle one, because the speaker reference of "ψ(ixφ(x)" is then the thing that the speaker has in mind, which is the only one to fulfill φ(x) and about which he wants to announce that it ψ-s. Conclusion: because the phenomenon occurs in all languages, the fact that it occurs in English can be no argument that English is not a Russell language. Newen/Schrenk I 95 Def Attributive/Donnellan/Newen/Schrenk: E.g. "The murderer of Schmidt is insane" in the view of the body of Schmidt ((s) In the absence of the person in question, no matter whether it is them or not, "Whoever ...".). Def referential/Donnellan/Newen/Schrenk: E.g. "The murderer of Schmidt is insane" in the face of a wild rampaging man at court - while Schmidt comes through the door - ((s) in view of the man in question, no matter whether it’s him or not. "This one, whatever he did..."). |
Donnellan I Keith S. Donnellan "Reference and Definite Descriptions", in: Philosophical Review 75 (1966), S. 281-304 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
| Simons, P. | Wiggins Vs Simons, P. | Simons I 216 Superposition/Simons: it is not just a pragmatic resistance that lets us assume that two objects cannot be superposed and yet have no common part. Simons: nevertheless pro, WigginsVsSuperposition/WigginsVsSimons: he makes this clear in the following principle: Principle/Wiggins: A and a real part or component B of a third thing C, where A unequal C and A ≠ B and where no part or component of A is a part or component of B or of C, cannot completely occupy the same space at the same time. Simons: where does this lead? rta: be the container from a to t. This means that space can become the object of timeless operators and predicates of extensional mereology. Frame of Reference: we assume it as fixed, so that identity of spaces can be determined. Then we can apply all axioms of CEM (Extensional Mereology), also the Sum-Axiom and the SSP are not contradictory. (…+…) I 217 SimonsVsWiggins: that does not seem particularly frightening. It even seems to be able to be amplified. For example, we can assume a Strong Supplement Principle (SSP) that is relativized to times: (…+…) SimonsVsCoincidence Principle: if it were correct, it would establish a very close conceptual link between mereological relations and spatial relations between continuants. Simons pro Wiggins: in any case we can agree that "space" can only be mapped by reference to its occupants. ((s) >no "empty space"). Thus, the conceptual utility of the part-whole relations between continuants will consist in their necessity for the formation of spatial concepts. Coincidence Principle/Simons: it is neat and it provides a seductive simplification. SimonsVsCoincidence Principle/SimonsVsWiggins: one pays too high a price. I 218 But with his rejection we must also reject one of the premises, WP, PP or SSP. Which one? I would reject SSP (see below). But first we want to test WP against a hypothetical counter-example from Sharvy. I 220 WigginsVsSuperposition/Simons: his argument for WP goes like this: Suppose A and B were distinct and at the same place at the same time. Then they cannot be distinguished by location. Then they have to be distinguished by their properties. Problem: no space region (volume) can be described simultaneously by different predicates (be it color, form, texture etc.). (s) It cannot be spherical and cube-shaped at the same time). I 221 Simons: the latter may be true, but that does not speak against the possibility of a perfect mixture, because its qualities do not have to be those of its ingredients in isolation, which is proved by the imperfect mixtures every day. ((s) Contradiction to above I 218: there mixture of compound is distinguished by the fact that the properties of the ingredients are largely preserved in the mixture.) Superposition/Simons: Assuming that it would be possible that the occupation of space by a mass would be a gradual matter, then it would be possible that different masses occupy the same region Simons: although the occupation would have different intensity distributions. Simons: if this were the case, Wiggins' principle would be wrong and then we would have to doubt its necessity. |
Wiggins I D. Wiggins Essays on Identity and Substance Oxford 2016 Wiggins II David Wiggins "The De Re ’Must’: A Note on the Logical Form of Essentialist Claims" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| Skepticism | Ryle Vs Skepticism | Fodor/Lepore Note 14. on IV 240 (related to IV 173) Functionalism: a functional semantics implies intrinsic connections between propositional attitudes and behavior. Wittgenstein/RyleVsSkepticism: attempted e.g. to use criteria for the relationship between mental states and behavior. Vs: the price for it is that the generalizations about relative consequences, which define a mental state, IV 241 are not contingent ipso facto, therefore Ryle does not believe in psychological laws. |
Ryle I G. Ryle The Concept of Mind, Chicago 1949 German Edition: Der Begriff des Geistes Stuttgart 1969 |
| Strawson, P. F. | Cohen Vs Strawson, P. F. | Horwich I 214 Paradoxes/true/Strawson/Cohen: occur under the assumption that the words "true" and "false" can be used to make claims of 1st level. Solution: (formal). The paradoxes are formally solved by declaring that "true" and "false" may only be used in level 2 claims. Paradoxes/Strawson: disappear under the much more radical thesis that "true" and "false" are not used at all to make claims. True/Redundancy Theory/CohenVsStrawson: that is unsatisfactory. It is also not only a "descriptive use" done by "true" and "false". ((s) Redundancy theory is not really the issue here). For example, a judge might interpret a lawyer's remark "What the policeman said is true" as an assertion about the character of the policeman. And then there could be empirical evidence about the character. CohenVsStrawson: but this claims much more than the presupposition that the policeman made a statement at all. The judge would set up a formula ((s) scheme) to indirectly verify a number of further statements. But the verification would not consist of confirming the presupposition "The policeman made a statement". Cohen: You do not have to assume that "true" here works as a logical predicate to describe the policeman's statements. CohenVsStrawson: but the sentence cannot be paraphrased by "The policeman made a statement, I confirm it," as Strawson assumes. I 215 Because this is not a statement about the character of the policeman. VsCohen: one could argue that it is only a summary of some statements like e.g. "the defendant was riding 50 on the wrong side", "the plaintiff was riding his bike on the right side", etc. Then one could say that it is these statements that are indirectly verified by empirical evidence on the character of the policeman Strawson/Cohen: could then say that the lawyer said: e.g. "I confirm what the policeman said, the defendant was riding...". CohenVsStrawson: this does not work, 1. if the content is unknown 2. if the number of statements made is indefinite ((s) or infinite). ((s) >"Everything he said".) For then "what he said is true" cannot be replaced by a set of auxiliary statements confirmed by the reporter. He seems to make a single complete assertion: For example, "Smith's observation reports are always true" and he can do that without having read all his reports. Cohen: I had suggested that this be verifiable by evidence of the character of the person concerned. Then you could also say that conclusions can be drawn from it. And this leads to paradoxes. This often occurs in journalism, in historical and scientific research and in jurisprudence. I 216 Redundancy Theory/paradoxies/everything he said/Ramsey/Cohen: Ramsey's solution of eliminating "true" and "false" from such contexts has the price of introducing logical jargon. RamseyVsStrawson/Cohen: but he still assumes that the sentence is used as a statement (assertion). Example "For all p, if the policeman claims that p, then p". Problem/Cohen: here again we can get paradoxes, analog to the truth paradox. For example "Every statement I claim is false". Logical Form: (p): (x).phi(p . x) >. ~p. Logical Form/everyday translation: phi(p, x): "The statement that ... is made by ..." ((s) in brackets one point, one comma). "Is true"/Truth/Logical Form/Question/(s): not "wx" or "wp" (for P is true") but better "x is a statement and x" or p is a statement and p": (Ex)(Ae . x) or (Ep) (Ap . p). But that means "there is a true statement" and not: "the statement p is true"?). Paradox/Logical Form/Cohen: can occur when in (p): (x). phi (p . x) >. ~p. this expression as a whole can occur as value of p. Solution/Cohen: you can even take "all my statements are wrong" as a statement about the character. Then you do not get a paradox. CohenVsStrawson: but if that amounts to "the policeman is a reliable witness" then that is more a recommendation than a description! Solution: I should specify the type of statement I classify as unreliable. I 217 Strawson/Cohen: may still be right that "true" is not used as a logical predicate: Logical Predicate/Cohen: Example Analysis as description: here it is "true statements maker". Analysis as recommendation: here "true" is not a logical predicate. Analysis as verification: "true" can be eliminated here. (But not in everyday language). |
Cohen I Laurence Jonathan Cohen "Some Remarks on Grice’s Views about the Logical Particals of Natural Languages", in: Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed), Pragmatics of Natural Languages, Dordrecht 1971, pp. 50-68 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Cohen II Laurence Jonathan Cohen "Mr. Strawson’s Analysis of Truth", Analysis 10 (1950) pp. 136-140 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Horwich I P. Horwich (Ed.) Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994 |
| Tooley, M. | Lewis Vs Tooley, M. | Schwarz I 119 Natural Laws/Law of Nature/Reductionism/LewisVsTooley: this is the price for anti-reductionist intuitions: it sounds nice and good that laws of nature do not supervene on local events, that our concepts of counterfactual truths and causality cannot be reduced to something outside. (Tooley 1987(1), 2003(2)). Problem: the most obvious features of laws of nature become incomprehensible! Lewis: (as a reductionist) can explain why one can empirically discover the laws of nature, why physics is on the way to it, why it is useful to know the laws of nature, and why all Fs are Gs, if "all Fs are Gs" is a law of nature. As an anti-reductionist, one just has to acknowledge all this with humility. Lewis: the assumption of a primitive modal fact which ensures that in every possible world in nature (F,G) exists, also all Fs are Gs, is obscure and almost pointless: if there is no possible world in which nature (F,G) exists, but some Fs are not G, then this must have an explanation, then the idea of such worlds must be somewhat incoherent. Possible worlds cannot simply be missing. Laws of nature/LewisVsArmstrong: perhaps better: regularities that are additionally blessed by a primitive relationship between universals, a relationship that also exists in possible worlds where the law of nature does not apply. That's even more obscure, but then it's at least no wonder that all Fs are Gs if a law of nature demands it. 1. Michael Tooley [1987]: Causation: A Realist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2. Michael Tooley [2003]: “Causation and Supervenience”. In [Loux und Zimmerman 2003] |
Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 Lewis I (a) David K. Lewis An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (b) David K. Lewis Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972) In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis I (c) David K. Lewis Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980 In Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989 Lewis II David K. Lewis "Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979 Lewis IV David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983 Lewis V David K. Lewis Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986 Lewis VI David K. Lewis Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Konventionen Berlin 1975 LewisCl Clarence Irving Lewis Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970 LewisCl I Clarence Irving Lewis Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991 Schw I W. Schwarz David Lewis Bielefeld 2005 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 4 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essentialism | Chisholm, R. | II 166 SimonsVsChisholm/SimonsVsBrentano: Thesis: Chisholm has inherited from Brentano a mereological essentialism with which I disagree. But I will use these ideas to give a slightly different interpretation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Wittgenstein himself was not as clear about facts as it seems. Self-criticism: confusion of facts and complexes. There are worlds between the later Wittgenstein and Brentano, but there are overlaps between Brentano and the Tractatus. Simons I 2 Chisholm/Mereological Essentialism/Simons: Chisholm represents mereological essentialism: thesis: no object can have other parts than it has actual. Vs: Problem: to explain why normal objects are not modally rigid (all parts essential). Solution/Chisholm: Thesis: (appearing) things are logical constructions of objects to which mereological essentialism applies. Solution/Chisholm: Thesis: the actual ones are mereologically constant and the phenomena again logical constructions from unchangeable objects. SimonsVsChisholm: the price is too high. Simons I 275 Mereological Essentialism/Intermediate Position/Chisholm/Simons: there is another one that Chisholm rejects: that some parts are essential and others are not. That is my position. ChisholmVsSimons: all parts are necessary. Simons: Thesis: some parts are essential (not necessary!). |
Simons I P. Simons Parts. A Study in Ontology Oxford New York 1987 |
| Price, H.H. | Price, H.H. | ||
| Thermometer Th. | Price, H.H. | Sellars I 56 Thermometer theory / meaning / Price / Sellars: main representative: Price - thesis: meaning consists of the syntax of a predicate and the fact of a reaction - SellarsVs: error: to see meaning as a relation between a word and a non-linguistic entity - (s)> tags -> "myth of the Museum"). |
Sellars I Wilfrid Sellars The Myth of the Given: Three Lectures on the Philosophy of Mind, University of London 1956 in: H. Feigl/M. Scriven (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1956 German Edition: Der Empirismus und die Philosophie des Geistes Paderborn 1999 Sellars II Wilfred Sellars Science, Perception, and Reality, London 1963 In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 |
| Survive | Simons, P. | I 198 "Continuity" - theory / terminology / Simons: the thesis that the "old" existence after the interruption is resumed. SimonsVs: they paid a price for it: namely, a bunching of objects that are broken down into its parts, or duplication of objects that do not take place. I 206 Person / body / Operation / Simon: there is no reason to deny that the person does not exist during the operation. |
|
| |||