Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 16 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disjunction | Disjunction: linking two or more statements by an inclusive "or". The disjunction is only false when all disjuncts are false. Notation v. See also adjunction, alternation, conjunction, compound sentences. |
||
| Disjunction | Armstrong | III 15 Disjunction of prop > disjunctive predicates/Armstrong: a single predicate "M" could be used for "A or B or C" > "grue"/Armstrong: simplified form: green becomes blue and at the same time blue becomes green - new pair of pred: bleen/grue: nothing changes relative to the pair: green> blue: remains bleen, blue> green. Remains grue - but: a thing that remains blue changes relative to the new pair bleen/grue - Question: what kind of predicates priority? III 68 Disjunction/Disjunctive Properties/System/Order/F.o.Th./Armstrong: Example, a natural system contains three fundamental laws: Fs are Gs, Hs are Js, Ks are Ls - these are united as follows: we define M: "an F or an H or a K" N: "a G or a J or an L" - then we have a single "fundamental law": "Ms are Ns" - then "F is an N": less informative but apparent improvement: G = J = L: no more information than "F is G v J v L". But if "N" is a true property, then "G", "J", "L" are merely artificial subdivisions (Armstrong pro) (f.o.th disjunction, identity) (>grue) - (s) otherwise we would always have to say "yellow or black Banana"). III 151 Disjunctive properties: being G or H": ArmstrongVs - Problem: disj. laws: does not the unrealized alternative need to be missing first? - disjunctional predicates always possible, but no real relation |
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 |
| Disjunction | Chisholm | I 172 Disjunction of facts / disjunctive fact / Chisholm: even if there were an entity that would be the disjunction of "Miller or Smith," I am not in relation to it that in that it is either sick or gone. - (> Fodor, no disjunctive law). - Solution: the belief that either Miller is ill or Smith is absent, is a feature that I simply ascribe to myself - not a complex subject is required. (> Self-ascription/Chisholm). |
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 |
| Disjunction | Davidson | I (e) 102 Disjunctive Predicate/state of mind/brain state/Davidson/(s): there is no physical difference between the state e.g. to mean that there is a "short-beaked Echidna" or a "short-beaked echidna or porcupine" - is a psychological difference. >Disjunctive predicates. |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson III D. Davidson Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Disjunction | Dummett | II 114 Disjunction/Verification /Meaning Theory/Dummett: The verification of a disjunction is unlike in the intuitionistic logic: e.g.. there was either an even or an odd number of geese on the Capitol - should not have to guarantee that any one of the disjuncts can be verified - then the law of the excluded middle is assertible even if the sentence itself is undecidable. >Verification, >Intuitionism. |
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 |
| Disjunction | Fraassen | I 127 Contrast-class/Bromberger/Explanation/Fraassen: E.g. why (it is the case that) P in contrast to (other elements of) X? X: Contrast-Class:set of alternatives. P may belong to X or not - e.g. why this temperature instead of another? - ((s)> disjunctive predicates). E.g. Why is this person suffering from paresis - because previously Syphilis. Why from this syphilis patient: here there is no answer. Individual/Fraassen: is never explained - only qua event of a certain type. >Individual causation. VsContrast class: dos not exclude irrelevance. Still a problem: asymmetry: e.g. length of the shadow. >Asymmetry. |
Fr I B. van Fraassen The Scientific Image Oxford 1980 |
| Disjunction | Lewis | V 191 Disjunction/Lewis: each event can be described as a disjunction. But Go-or-talk that cannot be taken as the cause. >Events/Lewis. V 212 Disjunction/events/Lewis: an event cannot be disjunction of events, because then the (double) event would always have to occur in every region where one or the other disjunct occurs, i.e. it would have to happen twice in a possible world - impossible. V 263 Events are not disjunctive when different definitions are possible, but then the event still does not consist in their disjunction. V 266 Definition disjunction of events/Lewis: e is a disjunction of events f1, f2 .. iff. e necessarily occurs in a region, iff. either f1 or f2 or... occurs here - as a set the disjunction is simply the unification - some events are disjunctions of other events. E.g. stamping - of left and right foot - the disjuncts must not vary too much - the disjunctions as a whole are in non-causal counterfactual dependence on their referents, the disjuncts - without one, the whole thing would not be - but the individual disjuncts are not in this counterfactual dependence. Disjunction: not based on different definitions. E.g. Disposition: Breaking of the window could be caused by many things - none of the possible events is significantly associated with the fragility - if there are no extrinsic disjunctive events, there may still be disjunctive truths - and this can be explained causally. >Disposition/Lewis. |
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 |
| Disjunction | Logic Texts | Read III 79 Disjunction / tautology / Read: In a sense, "A or B" follows from A alone - but then is not equivalent to "if ~ A, then B". Logical Constants. Undecidability: Re III 262 Not constructive: e.g. the proof that there are two irrational numbers a and b, so that a is highly b rational (the disjunction of alternatives is constructively unacceptable here). We have no construction by which we can determine whether root 2 to the power of root 2 is rational or not). The excluded third party is therefore intuitionistic and not a substantial assertion. >Undecidability, >Intuitionism. Goldbach's conjecture: every even number greater than two should be the sum of two prime numbers. Not decidable. But we must not claim that it is either true or not. Theorem of the Excluded Middle/Constructivism/Read: Constructivists often present so-called "weak counterexamples" against the Excluded Third. If a is a real number, "a= 0" is not decidable. Consequently, the constructivist cannot claim that all real numbers are either identical with zero or not. (But this is more a question of representation). >Excluded middle, >Goldbach's conjecture. |
Logic Texts Me I Albert Menne Folgerichtig Denken Darmstadt 1988 HH II Hoyningen-Huene Formale Logik, Stuttgart 1998 Re III Stephen Read Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 Sal IV Wesley C. Salmon Logic, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1973 - German: Logik Stuttgart 1983 Sai V R.M.Sainsbury Paradoxes, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 1995 - German: Paradoxien Stuttgart 2001 Re III St. Read Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 |
| Disjunction | Nozick | II 236 Belief/Knowledge/Disjunction/Conjunction/Probability/Nozick: Conjunction: we can believe it with connection to only one - disjunction: here we need both. - Adjunction: from the premises p, q, we can conclude the conjunction p & q as conclusion. >Conjunction, >Disjunction, >Adjunction. Probability: here, adjunction may fail, because the conjunction of two premises has a lower probability than each one individually. >Probability. Universal Generalization/Existence Generalization: we can believe it without connection to a particular instance. >Universal Generalization, >Existential Generalization. |
No I R. Nozick Philosophical Explanations Oxford 1981 No II R., Nozick The Nature of Rationality 1994 |
| Disjunction | Pauen | III 79 Disjunction/tautology/Read: In a sense, "A or B" follows from A alone. - But then is not equivalent to "if ~ A, then B". Pauen I 227 Disjunction: representation can be a disjunction: "cow or cat" - but not the meaning! >Representation, >Statements, >Assertions, >Ambiguity, >Generality, >Logical constants, >Meaning. |
Pauen I M. Pauen Grundprobleme der Philosophie des Geistes Frankfurt 2001 |
| Disjunction | Peacocke | I 212 Disjunction/belief/Peacocke: one must be able to believe the whole "that a or b". - Not merely "believe that a" or "believe that b". >Belief, >Thinking, >World/Thinking, >Knowledge, >Decisions, cf. >Conjunction, >Logic. |
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 |
| Disjunction | Putnam | III 125 Disjunction/definition/science/Putnam: e.g. different color combinations can produce the same perceived color. Any non-disjunctive predicate can be converted into a disjunctive predicate through conversion (by switching the current basic concepts terms in each case, and vice versa). Therefore disjunctivity is not a refutation that no >universal exists. --- V 122 Disjunction/property/Putnam: the disjunction of properties is itself a third property: neither A nor B is a sensation state, but only their disjunction. >Properties/Putnam. |
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 |
| Disjunction | Quine | V 113 Alternation is implied by each of its components - (s) e.g. Monday = Monday or Tuesday. XI 62 Disjunction/Intuitionism/Brouwer/Lauener: a disjunction cannot be claimed if you do not know which of the disjuncts is true. XI 145 Elimination of reference: we could transform all quantifications into conjunctions and disjunctions, so that no recognizable referential apparatus remains. >Reference. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| Disjunction | Searle | I 66 Naturalization of content: naturalization of content is the separation of consciousness and intentionality (SearleVs). Searle: meanings are in your head (intentionality). Intentionality is biologically teleological. I 67 SearleVs: when there is a confusion, words like "horse or cow" are required. > Disjunctive predicates. |
Searle I John R. Searle The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 German Edition: Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996 Searle II John R. Searle Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983 German Edition: Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991 Searle III John R. Searle The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995 German Edition: Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997 Searle IV John R. Searle Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979 German Edition: Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982 Searle V John R. Searle Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983 Searle VII John R. Searle Behauptungen und Abweichungen In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle VIII John R. Searle Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle IX John R. Searle "Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Disjunction | Sellars | I 50 Disjunction/SellarsVsLocke: should allow not only the idea of being- A-and B but also the being-A-or B! SeallarsVsLocke: Locke thought, a triangle is the "idea of equal-sided and unequal-sided". >Idea/Locke, >Disjunctive predicates, >Generalization, >Generality, >Ideas. |
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 |
| Disjunction | Wittgenstein | II 305 Disjunction/Wittgenstein: there is no disjunction between various circles because in our language, there is no distinguishing characteristics of the various circles - no disjunction between shades of color. >Continuum, >Sorites. --- II 315 Disjunction/Wittgenstein: if "etc." occurs, there is no disjunction, because "and so on" is not itself a disjunct. >Logical constants. --- III 218 Disjunction/Wittgenstein/late/Flor: the disjunction of similarities should not be regarded as joint. >Similarity. |
W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W III L. Wittgenstein The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958 German Edition: Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aristotle | Berkeley Vs Aristotle | I 230 General/BerkeleyVsAristotle/BerkeleyVsPlato/BerkeleyVsLocke: the idea of a triangle as an abstract notion may neither be acute nor perpendicular nor obtuse (>SellarsVsLocke: disjunction, Berkeley: rejection). Berkeley: but then it is not a triangle, so there are no abstract notions. I 231 VsBerkeley: how is science at all possible? Solution/Berkeley: referential character of the signs. |
G. Berkeley I Breidert Berkeley: Wahrnnehmung und Wirklichkeit, aus Speck(Hg) Grundprobleme der gr. Philosophen, Göttingen (UTB) 1997 |
| Armstrong, D. | Meixner Vs Armstrong, D. | State of Affairs/st.o.a./Meixner: Def elementary instantiation fact: e.g. that Anna loves Fritz, e.g. that every living being is mortal (includes that every human being is mortal) Def higher level state of affairs: example "that is greater than a transitive relation". Def conjunctive state of affairs: example "that Anna loves Fritz and Is greater than a transitive relation". Def negative state of affairs: e.g. that Nuremberg is not located between Regensburg and Munich Def possibility state of affairs: e.g. that it is possible that an Iraq war will break out in March 2013. Def necessity state of affairs: e.g. that it is inevitable that an Iraq war will break out in March 2013. These classes are not unconnected: every state of affairs is an elementary instantiation state of affairs negative state of affairs: every is also a negative state of affairs by being identical with the negation of its negation. I 122/123 All conjunctive state of affairs are negations of disjunctions of state of affairs. All disjunctive negations of conjunctions of state of affairs, all necessity state of affairs are negations of possibility state of affairs and vice versa. All at least one state of affairs negations of all-state of affairs and vice versa. Meixner: nevertheless it is surprisingly controversial among ontologists whether there are negative state of affairs. Parallel to the discussion whether there are negative universals: ArmstrongVsNegative Universals. MeixnerVsArmstrong: pro negative state of affairs: one cannot deny the sentence A does not express a proposition and thus also a state of affairs. (Although state of affairs is not equal to propositions). ArmstrongVsDisjunctive state of affairs MeixnerVsArmstrong: much clearer is the occurrence of negative and disjunctive state of affairs in names for disjunctive and negative state of affairs: For example, the police inspector is convinced that 1. the gardener or butler is involved in the murder 2. not both 3. no one who is different from both the gardener and the butler (so no one else). Absurd: that the police inspector would not be convinced of any state of affairs as a consequence. He is rather convinced of three state of affairs. I 124 The same can be said for all- and at least one- state of affairs: their names appear in descriptions of the exemplification of propositional attitudes. Here they cannot be eliminated. |
Mei I U. Meixner Einführung in die Ontologie Darmstadt 2004 |
| Belnap, Nuel | Read Vs Belnap, Nuel | Re III 270 Belnap: we have not shown, and cannot show that there is such a link. The same applies for "tonk". Read: One problem remains: why is there ever an analogy between definitions and links. It cannot always be wrong to expand a language with new links. Calculation rules for 'conservative' extensions of languages are conceivable. The old rules must persist. Re III 271 Peirce's Law: (>Peirce): "If P, then Q, or if Q only if P, then R" is negation-free, but still not, as the constructivist claims, part of the negation-free fragment (>Gentzen). The law cannot be proved within the classical calculus without using classic negation rules. Re III 273 The crucial step in all cases is certainly that the implication "If P, then Q or R" from "If P then Q or R" (Note: the comma is missing here) is allowed. A step which foresees the establishment of the multiple conclusion, the LK, and not the establishment of the individual conclusion. (Peirce's Law: "If P, then Q or, if Q only if P, then R") The constructivist objects against such a step, because he introduces a disjunction in a way that does not guarantee that you know which member of the disjunction is the justification! ReadVsBelnap: The true disagreement lies beyond constructivism and realism. Belnap's condition (conservative extension) cannot show that the classical negation is illegitimate. |
Re III St. Read Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997 |
| Cartesianism | Lewis Vs Cartesianism | Schwarz I 158f Mary, the color scientist/Learning/Knowledge wie/LewisVsCartesianism: >color scientist Mary cannot learn anything new: even if there were a realm of "ectoplasmic" objects and characteristics which are responsible for mental processes. All facts will not supervene upon physical facts, but upon the physical and the ectoplasmic facts. ((s) Solution/(s): If the second element of the conjunction or the disjunction always states the same esoteric entity, it can be "shortened".) Lewis: But we have not gained anything by doing this. We can still imagine a zombie world, which is similar to our actual world, but is now physical and ectoplasmic. Had Mary attended black and white ectoplasmic classes prior to her first contact, it would also not have helped her. (1988e(1),280f,Churchland 1985(2),24f). 1. D. Lewis [1988e]: “What Experience Teaches”. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 13: 29–57. 2. Paul M. Churchland [1985]: “Reduction, Qualia, and the Direct Introspection of Brain States”. Journal of Philosophy, 82: 8–28 |
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 |
| Descartes, R. | Locke Vs Descartes, R. | I 27 Innate ideas/LockeVsScholastics/LockeVsDescartes: there are no innate ideas! Neither in speculative nor in practical (moral, theological) thinking, not even in the form of "maxims", i.e. immediately plausible principles. 1. Speculative principles: if they were innate, they would have to be demonstrable in people not yet spoiled by prejudices, as, for example, in children or mentally weak people, and they are not! 2. If truths were innate in the form of sentences, then these would also have to be the associated terms, even the conclusions from these sentences! Such assumptions, however, extend the range of innate concepts and sentences into the impossible. 3. Maxims: the spontaneous consent to them means that they were not known before! But innate must always be present. ChomskyVsLocke/(s): would object that grammar rules also come into consciousness first. This is about the ease of learning). Innate ideas/Curls: the assumption that thinking begins with the application of innate laws of thought or first principles that are more than mere instrumental thinking is a deception. I 45 Body/Stretch/res extensa/LockeVsDescartes: stretch and body are therefore not identical! It is also not at all clear that the mind must let them be distinguished from the body. (Risked the dangerous accusation of materialism). The idea of expansion and the idea of the body are different. Expansion: does not include strength or resistance to movement (>inertia). Space: cannot be divided, otherwise surfaces would come up! VsCartesians: they have to admit that they either think of bodies as infinite in view of the infinity of space, or they have to admit that space cannot be identified with bodies. I 52 Res cogitans/LockeVsDescartes: Descartes: to strictly separate the world of bodies from the world of thought. Locke: mentions to consider whether there could not be extended things, thus bodies that think, something flowing matter particles. In any case, it cannot be ruled out that God in his omnipotence "matter systems" may have I 53 given or "overturned" the power of perception and thought. Contemporary theologies felt provoked by this, especially his Kontrahend Stillingfleet. LockeVsDescartes: also leads to problems with human identity (see below). I 54 Identity/LockeVsDescartes: Problem: the relationship between substance and person when the ability to think is attributed solely to an immaterial substance. For example, it would be conceivable that someone could be convinced that he was the same person as Nestor. If one now presupposes the correctness of the Cartesian thesis, I 55 it is conceivable that a contemporary human being is actually the person Nestor. But he is not the human being Nestor, precisely because the idea of the human cannot be detached from his physical form. That is abstruse for us today. (> Person/Geach). Locke relativizes the thesis by saying that it is not the nature of the substance that matters to consciousness, which is why he wants to leave this question open - he conveys the impression that he is inclined towards the materialistic point of view. II 189 Clarity/LockeVsDesacrtes: no truth criterion, but further meaning: also in the area of merely probable knowledge. II 190 Clarity/LockeVsLeibniz/LockeVsDescartes: linked to its namability. Assumes the possibility of a unique designation. (>Language/Locke). II 195 Knowledge/Locke: according to Locke, intuitive and demonstrative knowledge form a complete disjunction of possible certain knowledge. VsDescartes: this does not consist in a recognition of given conceptual contents, which takes place in their perception, but constitutes itself only on the empirical basis of simple ideas in the activity of understanding. |
Loc III J. Locke An Essay Concerning Human Understanding |
| Dretske, F. | Pauen Vs Dretske, F. | V 230 Meaning/Naturalization/Mental Representation/Dretske/Pauen: (1994.1995): tries, like Fodor, to explain the origin of meaning purely naturalistically. But extends this also to non-human beings. Four aspects: 1) Causal relationship between object and representation 2) Representational function for the organism 3) Evolution of earning 4) Possibility of change. Sign/Meaning/Causality/Dretske/Pauen: (ad 1) a purely causal relationship can only cause a natural sign ("signs"). The normative aspect has no place here. ad 2) The normative distinction between right and wrong of the mental representation comes into play when a device or an organ is assigned the function of displaying a different state of affairs. ad 3) e.g. magnetotactic bacteria pursue deeper, low-oxygen water layers. Suppose these bacteria were brought to the northern hemisphere, they would head for shallower water layers with higher oxygen content! Here it would be unclear what exactly is the object of representation: the magnetic fields or the oxygen concentration? V 232 Dretske: acknowledges that this is difficult to decide. Solution: most organisms have multiple approaches to a situation. If a representation normally occurs in the presence of an enemy, one can speak of a representation of the enemy. ad 4) Only the objection that not the enemy, but the disjunction of all stimuli is the subject of the representation seems possible. E.g. odor or silhouette, or sound. Here, the ability to learn is important. Higher organisms can learn new stimuli, which means that a complete old disjunction could even be absent. Thus, the disjunction cannot be considered as a representation. VsDretske/Pauen: a causally determined sunburn is still not a representation of the sun. V 233 Indigestion are no representation of spoiled food. |
Pauen I M. Pauen Grundprobleme der Philosophie des Geistes Frankfurt 2001 |
| Field, H. | Leeds Vs Field, H. | Field II 304 Indeterminacy/Set Theory/ST/Leeds/Field: e.g. somebody considers the term "set" to be undetermined, so he could say instead: The term can be made "as large as possible". (Leeds 1997,24) (s) "everything that is included in the term"). As such the term can have a wider or narrower definition. Cardinality of the continuum/Indeterminacy/Field: This indeterminacy should at least contain the term set membership. LeedsVsField: It is not coherent to accept set theory and to qualify its terms as indetermined at the same time. And it is not coherent to then apply classical logic in set theory. Field: It could also look like this: the philosophical comments should be separated from mathematics. But we do not need to separate theory from practice, e.g. if the belief in indeterminacy is expressed in whether the degree of the mathematician's belief in the continuum hypothesis and his "doubt degree" adds up to 1 ((s) So that there is no space left for a third possibility). Problem: A mathematician for whom it adds up to 1 could ask himself "Is the continuum hypothesis correct?" and would look for mathematical proof. A second mathematician, however, whose degree of certainty adds up to 0 ((s) since he believes in neither the continuum hypothesis nor its negation) will find it erroneous to look for proof. Each possibility deserves to be analyzed. The idea behind indeterminacy however is that only little needs to be defined beyond the accepted axioms. ((s) no facts.) Continuum Hypothesis/Field: Practical considerations may prefer a concept over one another in a particular context and a different one in another context. Solution/Field: This is not a problem as long as those contexts are hold separate. But is has been shown that its usefulness is independent from the truth. II 305 Williamsons/Riddle/Indeterminacy/Leeds/Field: (LeedsVsField): (e.g. it must be determined whether Joe is rich or not): Solution/Leeds: i) we exclude the terms in question, e.g. rich (in this example) from the markup language which we accept as "first class" and ii) the primary (disquotional) use of "referred" or "is true of" is only used for this markup language. Indeterminacy/Leeds: Is because there is no uniform best way to apply the disquotional scheme in order to translate into the markup language. Field: This is genius: To reduce all indeterminacy on the indeterminacy of the translation. FieldVsLeeds: I doubt that a meaning can be found. Problem: To differentiate between undetermined termini and those which are only different regarding the extension of the markup language. Especially if we have a number of translations which all have different extensions in our markup language. Solution/Disquotationalism: It would integrate the foreign terms in its own language. We would then be allowed to cite.(Quine, 1953 b, 135. see above chap. IV II 129-30). Problem: If we integrate "/" and "", the solution which we obtained above may disappear. FieldVsLeeds: I fear that our objective - to exclude the indeterminacy in our own language- will not be reached.It even seems to be impossible for our scientific terms! e.g. the root –1/√-1/Brandom/Field: The indeterminacy is still there; We can simply use the "first class" markup language to say that -1 has two roots without introducing a name like "i" which shall stand for "one of the two". FieldVsLeeds: We can accept set theory without accepting its language as "first class". ((s) But the objective was to eliminate terms of set theory from the first class markup language and to limit "true of" and "refer" to the markup language.) Field: We are even able to do this if we accept Platonism (FieldVsPlatonism) : II 306 e.g. we take a fundamental theory T which has no vocabulary of set theory and only says that there is an infinite number of non-physical eternally existing objects and postulates the consistency of fundamental set theory. Consistency is then the basic term which is regulated by its own axioms and not defined by terms of set theory. (Field 1991). We then translate the language of set theory in T by accepting "set" as true of certain or all non-physical eternally existing objects and interpret "element of" in such a way that the normal axioms remain true. Then there are different ways to do this and they render different sentences true regarding the cardinality of the continuum. Then the continuum hypothesis has no particular truth value. (C.H. without truth value). Problem: If we apply mathematical applications to non-mathemtical fields, we do not only need consistency in mathematics but in other fields as well. And we should then assume that the corresponding theories outside mathematics can have a Platonic reformulation. 1. This would be possible if they are substituted by a nominal (!) theory. 2. The Platonic theorie could be substituted by the demand that all nominal consequences of T-plus-set theory are true. FieldVs: The latter looks like a cheap trick, but the selected set theory does not need to be the one deciding the cardinality of the continuum. The selected set theory for a physical or psychological theory need not to be compatible with the set theory of another domain. This shows that the truth of the metalanguage is not accepted in a parent frame of reference. It's all about instrumental usefulness. FieldVsLeeds: We cannot exclude indeterminacy - which surpasses vagueness- in our own language even if we concede its solution. But we do not even need to do this; I believe my solution is better. I 378 Truth/T-Theory/T-concept/Leeds: We now need to differentiate between a) Truth Theory (T-Theory) ((s) in the object language) and b) theories on the definition of truth ((s) metalinguistic) . Field: (1972): Thesis: We need a SI theory of truth and reference (that a Standard Interpretation is always available), and this truth is also obtainable. (LeedsVsStandard Interpretation/VsSI//LeedsVsField). Field/Leeds: His argument is based on an analogy between truth and (chemical)valence. (..+....) Field: Thesis: If it would have looked as if the analogy cannot be reduced, it would have been a reason to abandon the theory of valences, despite the theory's usefulness! Truth/Field: Thesis: (analogous to valence ): Despite all we know about the extension of the term, the term also needs a physicalistic acceptable form of reduction! Leeds: What Field would call a physicalistic acceptable reduction is what we would call the SI theory of truth: There always is a Standard Interpretation for "true" in a language. Field/Leeds: Field suggests that it is possible to discover the above-mentioned in the end. LeedsVsField: Let us take a closer look at the analogy: Question: Would a mere list of elements and numbers (instead of valences) not be acceptable? I 379 This would not be a reduction since the chemists have formulated the law of valences. Physikalism/Natural law/Leeds: Does not demand that all terms can be easily or naturally explained but that the fundamental laws are formulated in a simple way. Reduction/Leeds: Only because the word "valence" appears in a strict law there are strict limitations imposed on the reduction. Truth/Tarski/LeedsVsTarski: Tarski's Definitions of T and R do not tell us all the story behind reference and truth in English. Reference/Truth/Leeds: These relations have a naturalness and importance that cannot be captured in a mere list. Field/Reduction/Leeds: If we want a reduction à la Field, we must find an analogy to the law of valences in the case of truth, i.e. we need to find a law or a regularity of truth in English. Analogy/Field: (and numerous others) See in the utility of the truth definition an analogy to the law. LeedsVsField: However, the utility can be fully explained without a SI theory. It is not astonishing that we have use for a predicate P with the characteristic that"’__’ is P" and "__"are always interchangeable. ((s)>Redundancy theory). And this is because we often would like to express every sentence in a certain infinite set z (e.g. when all elements have the form in common.) ((s) "All sentences of the form "a = a" are true"), > Generalization. Generalization/T-Predicate/Leeds: Logical form: (x)(x e z > P(x)). Semantic ascent/Descent/Leeds: On the other hand truth is then a convenient term, same as infinite conjunction and disjunction. I 386 Important argument: In theory then, the term of truth would not be necessary! I believe it is possible that a language with infinite conjunctions and disjunctions can be learned. Namely, if conjunctions and disjunctions if they are treated as such in inferences. They could be finally be noted. I 380 Truth/Leeds: It is useful for what Quine calls "disquotation" but it is still not a theory of truth (T-Theory). Use/Explanation/T-Theory/Leeds: In order to explain the usefulness of the T-term, we do not need to say anything about the relations between language and the world. Reference is then not important. Solution/Leeds: We have here no T-Theory but a theory of the term of truth, e.g. a theory why the term is seen as useful in every language. This statement appears to be based solely on the formal characteristics of our language. And that is quite independent of any relations of "figure" or reference to the world. Reference/Truth/Truth term/Leeds: it shows how little the usefulness of the truth term is dependent on a efficient reference relation! The usefulness of a truth term is independent of English "depicts the world". I 381 We can verify it: Suppose we have a large fragment of our language, for which we accept instrumentalism, namely that some words do not refer. This is true for sociology, psychology, ethics, etc. Then we will find semantic ascent useful if we are speaking about psychology for example. E.g. "Some of Freud's theories are true, others false" (instead of using "superego"!) Standard Interpretation/Leeds: And this should shake our belief that T is natural or a standard. Tarski/Leeds: This in turn should not be an obstacle for us to define "T" à la Tarski. And then it is reasonable to assume that "x is true in English iff T (x)" is analytic. LeedsVsSI: We have then two possibilities to manage without a SI: a) we can express facts about truth in English referring to the T-definition (if the word "true" is used) or b) referring to the disquotional role of the T-term. And this, if the explanandum comprises the word "true" in quotation marks (in obliqua, (s) mentioned). Acquaintance/Russell/M. Williams: Meant a direct mental understanding, not a causal relation! This is an elder form of the correspondence theory. I 491 He was referring to RussellVsSkepticism: A foundation of knowledge and meaning FieldVsRussell/M. WilliamsVsRussell: das ist genau das Antackern des Begriffsschemas von außen an die Welt. Field/M. Williams: His project, in comparison, is more metaphysical than epistemic. He wants a comprehensive physicalistic overview. He needs to show how semantic characteristics fit in a physical world. If Field were right, we would have a reason to follow a strong correspondence theory, but without dubious epistemic projects which are normally linked to it. LeedsVsField/M. Williams: But his argument is not successful. It does not give an answer to the question VsDeflationism. Suppose truth cannot be explained in a physicalitic way, then it contradicts the demand that there is an unmistakable causal order. Solution: Truth cannot explain (see above) because we would again deal with epistemology (theory of knowledge).(>justification, acceptability). |
Leeds I Stephen Leeds "Theories of Reference and Truth", Erkenntnis, 13 (1978) pp. 111-29 In Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Field I H. Field Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989 Field II H. Field Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001 Field III H. Field Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980 Field IV Hartry Field "Realism and Relativism", The Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1982), pp. 553-67 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 |
| Fraassen, B. van | Armstrong Vs Fraassen, B. van | Arm III 108/109 ArmstrongVsFraassen: Suppose we have good inductive evidence that it is a law that Fs are Gs. What kind of a thing should the law be? Theistic and atheistic view are both logically stronger than agnosticism. Agnosticism/ Armstrong: involves a disjunction, and an excluding one at that! We can not remain in this view. For we have neither a reason to remain in the "theistic" nor in the "atheistic" position. Both are logically possible and the principles of logical possibility that apply here do not tip the scale to one or the other side. They make no distinction between negative and positive statements. Between the presence of a relation between universals and the absence of such. Certainly, the regularity theory is "logically weaker" than the universals theory and therefore "on the safe side". But it’s clear what the "weakness" is. |
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 |
| Grice, P.H. | Black Vs Grice, P.H. | I 52 Max Black: Causal theory (also Stevenson, Morris) - BlackVsIntentionality theories (Grice, Searle, Strawson?). I 58 BlackVsGrice: The conditions of Grice are neither necessary nor sufficient. a) Not sufficient: there are situations in which it is not true that someone "says that...", although the conditions are met, b) not necessary: someone says something, although the conditions are not met. I 60 The whole theory becomes suspicious when it is so complicated. I 65 BlackVsGrice: he must constantly make modifications (negative conjunctions or corresponding positive disjunctions). This defensive strategy is too flexible on the one hand, while being too rigid on the other hand. (Sticking to the intended effect). I 67 BlackVsGrice: Insufficient: 1) His reference to standard effects - 2) his confidence that the speaker’s intention brings about such effects. I 68 BlackVsGrice: Every concrete manifestation usually has numerous effects. One would have to be "semantically relevant". The one that is necessary and sufficient to be communicated successfully. ((s) VsBlack: this is trivial and does not explain what is going on in successful communication or what is meant by an utterance). I 70 BlackVsGrice: a belief of the listener or a prop. att. induced in the listener are apparently perlocutionary. They are of practical importance, but irrelevant for a philosophical analysis of the concept of communication or the derived concept of speaker meaning. I 74 This applies mutatis mutandis also to the imperative case. When I have understood the request, my role as a listener and interpreter ends!. BlackVsGrice: he does not discuss how according to the principles of the basic model it can be expected of the listener that he discovers the speaker meaning. E.g. a beggar in a foreign country gestures to me that he is hungry. I 76 BlackVsGrice: no interposition of "discovering". - (The theory must cover as many cases as possible.) BlackVsGrice Thesis: not detecting the speaker’s intention to elicit an effect in the listener allows the listener to determine the meaning, but rather the reverse: the discovery of the speaker meaning allows the listener to infer the speaker’s intention. |
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 |
| Harrah, D. | Prior Vs Harrah, D. | I 72 Questions/Logic/Prior: we distinguish: a) questions b) the act of questioning c) interrogative sentences d) the things that they are about. Interrogabilia/Middle Ages/Prior: the "questionable thing", "questionable nature", "subject of the question", etc.? Any objectivity? (see below). "Objective questions? Would probably have to be based on a theory of propositions. Questions/Prior: it is quite reasonable to say that there are questions that were never asked. Study 1) interrogabilia and then 2) enuntiabilia (remarks): Adam of Balsham/Middle Ages/Questions/Interrogabilia/Logic/Prior. Aristotle: (de interpretatione): first affirmative and negative responses. Balsham: had proof that interrogabilia could be put in a one-to-one relationship with a part of themselves. Questions/Ontology/Prior: we need not be Platonists regarding interrogabilia and we can avoid considering what is asked as "part of the sentence"as if it were a name. Content/Command/Questions/Prior: as with the command, also with questions there are no special features or something "behind" the indicative sentences which constitutes a special content. Def Questions/Harrah, David: Thesis: a question is simply an indicative statement which consists in the disjunction or the set of possible answers. PriorVsHarrah: we need not go this far. (But pro: see below) Questions/Prior: We can rules for equivalents for statements of the form "He asked the question Q" and "He knows Q" for different types of Q (questions). E.g. "He knows whether 2 + 2 = 4" This is equivalent to "Either he knows that 2 + 2 = 4, or he knows that 2 + 2 unequal 4". E.g. "He knows what is 2 + 2 is." turns into: "For some x, he knows that 2 + 2 is x". (He knows only that they have a sum). Questions/Variables/Prior: unasked questions: Problem: "For some p, no one has ever asked if p" is not the same as "There are questions that were never asked." Because there are other kinds of questions than those of the "whether variety". It would be arbitrary to single out this translation and not I 74 E.g. "For some , it has never been asked for which x it is the case that x t" or: "For some x, it has never been asked for which it is the case that x t" Would we have to ask then if "questions of type A were ever asked? In ordinary language that's nonsense. The alternative seems to be to introduce variables for questions for questioning sub-sentences: E.g. "whether 2 + 2 = 4" or "what is 2 + 2", etc., and then to say: "For some p, it was never asked, p". ((s) here no longer "if p" or "what is p"). Question Variables/Prior: could then be put in front of any indicative sentence. E.g. "Is it the case that..." (variable), thus producing an understandable question. Command/Variable/Prior: in the case of commands only a not accurately defined subset seems to be accessible for this treatment. Mainly because of the cases that refer to the past or to logical truths. E.g. "Make (variable) that 2 + 2 = 4", e.g. "Make that yesterday the glass was on the table". Questions/Command/Variable/Prior: our language can also express that someone has asked a question or gave a command. It can be formalized like this: a) first convert the indicative sentence into a question or command, and then introduce an operator. b) couple an operator directly to the question or command. (Quote). In everyday language, it does not quite work like in formal logic. The sentence structure is changed. I 75 For commands we found b) good enough Questions: here we will need a). The "question sub-sentences" are of course not names of questions or interrogabilia. Questions/Prior: are not supposed to be a "relations" between a questioner and any interrogabilia. The argument is not a name but an interrogative sentence. Knowledge/Questions/Meaning/Prior: Problem: 1) It should seem that if "whether p" and "what t" are different components, if they follow "He asks __", just as they should be different if they follow "He knows __". Because they do not seem to have any other meaning, when they appear in this different context. Vs: but then "knows" would function for itself as a special ((s) operator?) that forms a sentence from a name and a question. Operator/Prior: (see above), we have seen above that we have to use parentheses: not "__ knows __", but "__ knows, that __". Knowledge/Questions/Prior: nevertheless "knows" seems to have no different meaning in a) "He knows that 2 + 2 = 4" and b) "He knows what 2 + 2 is". Knowing That/Knowing What/Prior: has the same meaning, but if it should be a different sentence-forming operator in each case (as we assume here for questions), then a different meaning would have to turn up! (PriorVs). I 76 Solution/Prior: in "He knows what t" and "He knows if p" is understood as something, but not explicitly: what is meant: "He knows the answer to the question..." In that, we assume a different form which consists of an indicative sentence and a sub-sentence of the question. Then there are two forms: a) "For some p, he knows that p" b) "...that p is the answer to the question q". A "logic of the question" will work out the following thesis, among others: "For some y, that y t is the answer to the question for which x applies that x t" or "Either, the answer to the question whether p is that p or it is that not p". From this we can then deduce the above forms. ("He knows what 2 + 2 is", etc.) Questions/Variables/Prior: that still does not seem to be easy and economical enough with repsect to to the internal question sentences and variables. Surely there is a now better understood relation between the forms: "He asked whether p" and "It is the case that p": the latter is part of the former. This can also be done with commands. But the relation that we want is not syntactic, but a semantic one and that can best be brought out in a meta-language: "For all x, if x expresses p?" then he will ask, under normal circumstances, if p", etc. What initially prevented us from using this, was the fact that "There are questions that have never been asked" cannot be formally presented as "For some p, no one asked whether p". Because that only covers the specific question type "whether" and not e.g. "which are?" or "Who stole my pencil?" I 77 Perhaps "Is it the case that p?" is reducible to "For which ?" Where "d" is somehow distributed on the operators "It is the case that" and "it is not the case that". But that is a bit odd. |
Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 Pri II Arthur N. Prior Papers on Time and Tense 2nd Edition Oxford 2003 |
| Kant | Strawson Vs Kant | Rorty VI 359 StrawsonVskKant/Rorty: shows that thanks to the progress since Kant some concepts are no longer that attractive: e.g. "in the mind", "created by the mind" (Wittgenstein, Ryle have dissuaded us from this). --- Strawson V 9 StrawsonVsKant: appears to violate his own principles by attempting to set sense limits from a point which is outside of them, and that, if they are properly marked, cannot exist. --- V 16 Continuous determination/Kant/Strawson: everywhere through the mind guaranteed applicability of the concepts. StrawsonVsKant: seed for the disastrous model of determination of the whole universe. --- V 19 StrawsonVsKant: this one had unlimited confidence in a certain complicated and symmetrical scheme, which he freely adopted from the formal logic as he understood it, and forced upon this the whole extent of his material. --- V 23 StrawsonVsKant: this one is constantly trying to squeeze out more of the arguments in the analogies than there is. --- V 25 StrawsonVsKant: the whole deduction is logically incorrect. The connection to the analysis is thin and is, if at all, brought about by the concept of "synthesis". --- V 37 Dialectic/Kant: primary goal: exposing the metaphysical illusion. Instrument: the principle of sense. Certain ideas that do not have any empirical application, are sources of appearance, yet they can have a useful or even necessary function for the extension of empirical knowledge. E.g. we think of internal states of affair, as if they were states of affair of an immaterial substance. ("regulative ideas"). StrawsonVsKant: which is obviously quite implausible. But why did he represent it? --- V 29 StrawsonVsKant: It is not clear that there is no empirical mediation of antinomies. --- V 32 Kant: I really appear to myself in the time but I do not really appear to myself in time. StrawsonVsKant: incomprehensible what "to appear" means here. It is no defense of an incomprehensible doctrine to say that its incomprehensibility is guaranteed by a product obtained from its principle. --- V 33/34 Space/time/StrawsonVsKant: Kant: things themselves not in space and time. Strawson: thereby the whole doctrine becomes incomprehensible. --- V 35 Synthetically a priori/StrawsonVsKant: Kant himself has no clear conception of what he means with it. The whole theory is not necessary. Instead, we should focus on an exploration and refining of our knowledge and social forms. --- V 36 Limit/StrawsonVsKant: to set the coherent thinking limits it is not necessary to think from both sides of these limits as Kant tried despite his denials. --- V 49 Space/Kant: our idea of space is not recovered from the experience, because the experience already presupposes the space. StrawsonVsKant: that is simply tautological. If "to presuppose" means more than a simple tautology, then the argument is not enlightening. --- V 50 StrawsonVsKant: he himself admits that it is contradictory to represent a relational view of space and time and to deny its transcendental ideality at the same time. --- V 58 StrawsonVsKant: there are the old debates about "inherent" ideas of space and time. They are unclear. There is the argument that the acquisition of skills presupposes the ability to acquire skills. Experience/space/time/properties/Kant/Strawson: problem: the manifestation of the corresponding trait in experience, his appearance in the world, can be ascribed only to our cognitive abilities, the nature of our skills, not to the things themselves. StrawsonVsKant: problem: then these ideas must themselves be prior to all experience in us. --- V 66 Categories/Strawson: we have to understand them here in the way that to the forms of logic the thought of their application is added in judgments. StrawsonVsKant: his subdivision of the categories puts quite a bit on the same level, which certainly cannot be regarded as equivalent as e.g. affirmative, negative, infinite. --- V 73 StrawsonVsKant: he thinks it is due to the (failed) metaphysical deduction (see above) entitled to identify "pure" concepts. --- V 75 StrawsonVsKant: why should the objects of consciousness not be understood as realities that are distinguished from the experiences of consciousness existence, even if sequence and arrangement coincide point by point with the experiences of consciousness? --- V 83 StrawsonVsKant: unity of the different experiences requires experience of objects. Can his thesis withstand the challenge? Why should not objects (accusatives) form such a sequence that no differentiation between their order and the corresponding experiences has to be made? E.g. Such items may be sensory data: red, round spots, tickling, smells, lightning, rectangles. --- V 84 Why should the terms not simply be such sensory quality concepts? StrawsonVsKant: it is very easy to imagine that experience exactly has this sort of unrelated impressions as its content. Impressions that neither require nor permit, to become "united in the concept of an object". StrawsonVsKant: the problem with the objects of experience is that their ESSE is at the same time entirely their percipi how their percipi nothing but their ESSE. That is, there is no real reason for distinguishing between the two. --- V 106 Room/persistence/Kant: The space alone is persistent. Any time determination presupposes something persistent. StrawsonVsKant: unclear. For the concept of self-consciousness the internal temporal relations of the sequence are completely insufficient. We need at least the idea of a system of temporal relations, which includes more than these experiences themselves. But there is no access for the subject itself to this broader system than by its own experiences. --- V 107 StrawsonVsKant: there is no independent argument that the objective order must be a spatial order. --- V 116 Causality/StrawsonVsKant: its concept is too rough. Kant is under the impression that he is dealing with a single application of a single concept of "necessity", but he shifts in his application, the meaning of this concept. The required sequence of perceptions is a conceptual, but the necessary sequence of changes is a causal one. --- V 118 Analogies/StrawsonVsKant: fundamental problem: the conditions of the possibility of objective determination of time. Possible objects/Kant: Problem: whether there should be a "at the same time" or "not at the same time" of possible and actually perceived objects. If there is no "at the same time", there can be no distinction made between possible and real objects. --- V 124 Pure space/Kant: is itself not an object of empirical perception. StrawsonVsKant: element of deceptive logic: Kant seems to think that certain formal properties of the uniform spatiotemporal frame must have direct correlates in the objects themselves. --- V 128 StrawsonVsKant: its entire treatment of objectivity is under considerable restriction, he relies nowhere on the factor onto which, for example, Wittgenstein strongly insists: the social nature of our concepts. --- V 157 StrawsonVsKant: but assuming that the physical space is euclidic, the world could be finite in an otherwise infinite empty space. And that would be no meaningless question. --- V 163 Antinomies/StrawsonVsKant: from the fact that it seems to be the case that there are things which are ordered in time or space in a certain way, it does not follow that it either seems that all things appear as members of a limited series, neither that it seems that all things exist as members of an infinite series. In fact, neither of the two members of the disjunction is true. --- V 164 Antinomies/StrawsonVsKant: certainly the notion of a sequential order is justified, but it does not follow that the concept for the "whole series" of things must apply. --- V 178 Antinomies/StrawsonVsKant: he was mistaken that the antinomies are the field, on which the decisive battles are fought. --- V 184 Existence/Kant: "necessity of existence can only be recognized from the connection with what is perceived according to general laws of experience." StrawsonVsKant: this is a deviation from the critical resolution of antinomies and has to do with the interests of "pure practical reason": that is, with morality and the possibility of free action. --- V 194 StrawsonVsKant: we can draw the conclusion from the assertion that when a being of endless reality exists, it does not exists contingently, not reverse in that way that if something exists contingently, it is a character of endless reality. --- V 222 Transcendental idealism/Kant: claims, he is an empirical realism. Confidence must include an awareness of certain states of consciousness independent of objects. StrawsonVsKant: this is certainly a dualistic realism. This dualism questions the "our". --- V 249 StrawsonVsKant: to say that a physical object has the appearance, a kind of appearance of a physical character, means, trying to brighten an unclear term by another dubious, namely the one of the visual image. |
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 Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 |
| Lewis, D. | Block Vs Lewis, D. | I 188 Lewis: Pain can be characterized functionally. FodorVsLewis: thus seems to be set to an identity theory of functional properties. In my view, this amounts to an identity theory of functional states. (I 213) Solution: Lewis: Proposal: not conjunction of all banalities, but "a bunch of them through a disjunction of conjunctions of most of them (in that case, it does not matter if some are wrong) BlockVsLewis:. But that can exacerbate the problem of distinction (1), as there may be pairs of different mentalities, which are the same with respect to most of the banalities. |
Block I N. Block Consciousness, Function, and Representation: Collected Papers, Volume 1 (Bradford Books) Cambridge 2007 Block II Ned Block "On a confusion about a function of consciousness" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 |
| Lewis, D. | Fodor Vs Lewis, D. | Block I 163 Pain/FodorVsLewis: if you say that pain in humans and Martians is different, you are not stating on the basis of which properties both of them perceive pain. Any disjunction of physical conditions which used to mean pain in the history of the universe, is not a solution. Because that does not cover what the individuals have in common. I 215 Pain/FodorVsLewis: since the property of having the state is a functional one - and not only a functionally characterized property, Lewis is still bound by the functionalism discussed here. Pain/VsLewis: the functionalism presented here asserts a state Z that is defined as a state with such and such a causal role, and the functionalist assertion becomes: "Pain = Z". Here, Z itself is not a functional state (> Ramsey-functional Correlate). I 217 FodorVsLewis: the contrast to Lewis (functional characterization of a state rather than a functional state) can be made clearer: e.g. assuming, a condition type is a specific type of property. Namely, the property which each token of this condition has because it is a token of this type. Then, the pain condition would be identified with the property of being a pain (not of being in pain). I.e. in terms of the pain and not of the organism. Lewis: defines pain as the state that has a certain causal role ("ix"). Functionalism/Block: pain as the property of playing a certain causal role ("lx"). --- Fodor/Lepore IV 107 Radical Interpretation/RI/Lewis: the radical interpretation is governed by fundamental principles that tell us how belief and meanings are usually related to each other, as well as to behavior and sensory input. IV 108 These fundamental principles are nothing but a lot of platitudes of common sense. E.g. that most of the beliefs of the speaker are true. But that can only be true if the speaker has several propositional attitudes. Holism/Fodor/Lepore: then holism can be derived from the conditions for the intentional attribution! Fodor/LeporeVsLewis: (he might perhaps agree): it is not clear that anything metaphysically interesting follows from the fulfillment of conditions for the intentional attribution. IV 114 Meaning Holism/MH/belief/Fodor/Lepore: if according to Lewis’ thesis belief has primacy over the attribution of the intentional, then it must itself be holistic. If meaning holism is to follow, for example, the following would have to be assumed: Def Thesis of the "Primacy of Belief"/PT/Lewis: thesis: "the conditions of intentional attribution include the conditions of belief attribution. Therefore: if the former is holistic, so must be the latter." Semantic Holism/SH/Fodor/Lepore: we concede that semantic holism might follow from this thesis (belief holism seems plausible). Primacy of Belief/Fodor/LeporeVsLewis: the thesis is so strong that semantic holism emerges even without the principle of charity. Even without any theory of interpretation! But we do not believe that the thesis is true. RI/Lewis/Fodor/Lepore: his version of radical interpretation does not endorse the thesis of the primacy of belief (PT) and we do not say that he accepts it at all. We believe that the PT is not true. Holism/Lewis/Fodor/Lepore: but if Lewis does not represent the primacy thesis, his arguments in favor of holism are limited. They can show that belief qua belief is holistic, but not that they are holistic qua intentional. IV 121 VsLewis: the primacy thesis is implausible. IV 131 Fodor/LeporeVsDavison/VsLewis: it could be said: because the semantics of representations is atomistic, it follows that intentional attribution as such is not determined by constitutive principles like the principle of rationality! Allowing the attribution of irrational propositional attitudes would simply be a "change of subject". That would be no intentional states! I.e if we attribute irrational things to the speaker, we change our opinion on the content of his mental states. Vs: 1) It could be made stronger, not only epistemically, by saying that even God would change the content of his attribution, before violating rationality. IV 132 2) Assuming the point was metaphysical and not only epistemic: nevertheless it does not follow from the atomistic approach to mental semantics that the principle of rationality could be ignored in the attribution. You cannot believe simultaneously that p and that not p. These principles are constitutive of belief, and also for wishes, etc. |
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 Block I N. Block Consciousness, Function, and Representation: Collected Papers, Volume 1 (Bradford Books) Cambridge 2007 Block II Ned Block "On a confusion about a function of consciousness" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 |
| Lewis, D. | Stalnaker Vs Lewis, D. | Bigelow I 117 StalnakerVsLewis: (1968(1), 1981(2)) defends the conditional proposition of the excluded third against Lewis. Lewis V 183 "hidden property"/LewisVs: "My opponent": thinks that no real probability but a "fake" probability is in play. (see above) E.g. 88%,3%). (s) A "given variation" which then comes into force if c is withdrawn. Lewis: if this is true then it would be okay, then e would be somehow predetermined. It would be so to speak easier for the counterfactual conditional (co.co.). LewisVs: but we still have to accept real probability. Opponent: sounds like Stalnaker if he says: e would have happened either with c or without c. But his position is not the same although he accepts the same disjunction of co.co. and Stalnaker's defenses do not help him. Opponent: thinks that there are two relevant ways how the world could be, one would make a co.co. true, the other way the other. Thus the disjunction is in any case true. StalnakerVs: (Lewis pro): there is only one relevant way of how the world is and it makes none of the co.co. definitely true or false. Ontology/semantics/StalnakerVsLewis: the two co.co. are true or false relative to alternative arbitrary resolutions of a semantic indeterminacy. ((s) Semantic assumptions shall make ontological assumptions superfluous). V 184 What causes that the co.co. does not determine the truth is that different solutions involve different approaches. But any solution makes the one or the other true, the disjunction is certainly true despite the complementary vagueness of the disjoint. This alleged semantic indeterminacy is not a real property in the world. Stalnaker differs with me in a small semantic question, with my opponents in a great ontological question. Schwarz I 60 Counterpart/c.p./counterpart theory/c.p.theory/counterpart relation/c.p.r./StalnakerVsLewis: if you already allow almost any relations as counterpart relation you could also use non-qualitative relationships. (Stalnaker 1987a)(3): then you can reconcile the counterpart with Haecceitism: if you do not stumble against the fact that at Lewis (x)(y)(x = y > N(x = y) is false, (Lewis pro contingent identity, see above) you can also determine that a thing always only has one GS per possible world (poss.w.). >Counterpart Theory. Stalnaker/Schwarz: that does not work with qualitative counterpart relation as it is always possible that several things - e.g. in a fully symmetrical world - are exactly equally similar to a third thing in another poss.w.. LewisVsStalnaker: Vs non-qualitative c.p.r.: all truths including the modal truths are to be based on what kind of things exist (in act.wrld. and poss.w.) and which (qualitative) properties they have (> "Mosaic": >Humean World). 1. Robert C. Stalnaker [1968]: “A Theory of Conditionals”. In Nicholas Rescher (Hg.), Studies in Logical Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112 2. Robert C. Stalnaker [1981]: “Indexical Belief”. Synthese, 49. 3. Robert C. Stalnaker [1987a]: “Counterparts and Identity”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11: 121–140. |
Stalnaker I R. Stalnaker Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003 Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 Lewis I David K. Lewis Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989 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 |
| Locke, J. | Sellars Vs Locke, J. | I 50 SellarsVsLocke: should have allowed not only conjunctive but also disjunctive ideas. Not only the idea of the A- and B-being but also the idea of A- or B-being. (Disjunction). I 51 Disjunction/SellarsVsLocke: the idea of a class is the idea of the disjunction of all their species! So the idea of triangular is the idea of inequaliterality or equilaterality. SellarsVsLocke: he thought it would have to be the idea of the inequaliterality and the equalilaterality. And that is of course the idea of an impossibility! Berkeley: asserts the idea of A cannot be the idea of B simultaneously. Had he taken this step it could not be regarded as deterministic thought the sensation of something crimson. |
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 |
| Mentalesese | Peacocke Vs Mentalesese | I 212 PeacockeVsMentalese: E.g. Suppose a creature whose brain is composed of layers of spatially organized "maps": here you do not need Mentalese, either. Disjunction/Belief/Peacocke: could be realized as something that can be explained with the theory of circuits. Then there could be a third state, that would be equivalent to the acceptance of both alternatives. [Fa or Gb]. (>circuit algebra). There might be reasons to believe the whole disjunction without reasons for one side alone! Our model also allows to explain why a person does not always draw the disjunctive consequences of their beliefs! It is possible that a component of S Fa is not always present. "Not always present" means that the component can be implemented quite differently. It could be a concentration of substance in an set of neurons or a question of the distribution in them. Deduction/Mentalese/Peacocke: because of the single requirement that it must take care of analog syntactic structures of the lines, the thesis of Mentalese is obvious. I 213 Vs: but it is not true that it is indispensable. A physical unit could register that the state S Fa v Gb is a disjunction, because it is suitably connected to two belief states. One side could be negated. (e.g., S ~Gb), then the unit could cause the system to go into the state S Fa. In this case, no information about the contents of either of the two sides is required! There is only the modus tollendo ponens. PeacockeVsMentalese: therefore, we can ask in any situation where the language of the brain seems indispensable at first glance: can supposed syntactic operations be replaced by relational operations? If so, we do not need the thesis of Mentalese. Mentalese/Peacocke: as far as I know none of the proponents asserts that except for an assumed Mentalese sentence S that is supposed to be stored if a subject believes that p, also another Mentalese sentence S' is to stored, which means: "I believe that p." ((s) recourse). It is generally believed that it is sufficient for belief that a stored sentence is based on perception, other states and behavior appropriately. Peacocke: but that is exactly my replacement tactics. (Relations instead of syntax). I 213/214 Replacement Tactics/Peacocke: can also be used to show how actions can easily be explained by states with content. Mentalese would have to adopt an additional translation module. Peacocke: an intention that Gb may partly have its propositional content by the fact that the corresponding action is determined by the fact that the subject is in the unstructured state S Gb which has its contents by its relations to other states. This also applies to the practical inferring: ((s) "content from relations rather than language.") The relational model seems to conceive Mentalese as a special case among itself. I 215 Computation/PeacockeVsMentalese: if we can be in mental states with content (by relations), without having to store sentences, then there can also be computation without internal brain language. Because Def Computation/Peacocke: (calculation) is a question of states with content that emerge systematically from each other. This requires certain patterns of order and causal relations, but no syntactic structure. PeacockeVsFodor: it does not necessarily apply: "No representation, no computation". |
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 |
| Prior, A. | Belnap Vs Prior, A. | Brandom I 198 BelnapVsPrior: if you introduce logical vocabulary, you must restrict such definitions by the condition that the rule does not allow inferences containing only old vocabulary. This means that the new rules must extend the repertoire conservatively. > Example "boche". Brandom: if these rules are not inferentially conservative, they allow new material inferences and thus change the contents associated with the old vocabulary. The expressive concept of logic requires that no new inferences containing only old vocabulary be made appropriate. Conservativity/Conservative Extension/Dummett: if a logical constant is introduced by introduction and elimination rules, we can call this a conservative extension of language. Brandom II 93 For example, this could apply to Belnap's "tonk": introduction rule of the disjunction and elimination rule of the conjunction: Def "tonk"/Belnap: 1. Rule: licenses the transition from p to p tonk q for any q. 2. Rule: licenses the transition from p tonk q to q. With this we have a "network card for inferences": any inference is allowed! Brandom II 94 PriorVsBelnap/PriorVsGentzen: this is the bankruptcy of definitions in Gentzen's style. BelnapVsPrior: if you introduce logical vocabulary, you can restrict such definitions by the condition that the rule does not allow inferences with only old vocabulary that were not allowed before the introduction of the logical vocabulary. Such a restriction is necessary and sufficient. Brandom: the expressive analysis of the logical vocabulary now gives us a deep reason for this condition: only in this way can the logical vocabulary perform its expressive function. The introduction of new vocabulary would allow new material inferences without the restrictive condition (conservatism) and would thus change the contents correlated with the old vocabulary. ((s) retroactive change, also of the truth values of established sentences). Read: meaning: the meaning, even the logical connections, must be independent of and prior to the determination of the validity of the consequent structures. Logic III 269 Belnap: came to the aid of the view of "analytical validity". What it lacks, he said, is any proof that there is such a connection as "tonk" at all. This is a problem for definitions in general. One cannot define into existence. First of all you have to show that there is such a thing (and only 1). Example "Pro-Sum" of two fractions. (a/b)!(c/d) is defined as (a+c)/ (b+d). If you use numbers, you will quickly come to results that produce completely wrong results. Although it is easy to find originally matching numbers, they cannot be shortened.(> Dubislav). Logic III 270 Belnap: we have not shown, and cannot show, that there is such a connection. The same applies to "tonk". Read: one problem remains: why is there any analogy at all between definitions and links? One problem remains: why is there an analogy between definitions and links at all. It cannot always be wrong to extend a language with new links. One could imagine calculation rules for "conservative" extensions of languages. The old rules must continue to exist. |
Beln I N. Belnap Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World Oxford 2001 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 |
| Putnam, H. | Dennett Vs Putnam, H. | I 571/572 Meaning/Function/Evolution/Dennett: the meaning is like the function at the moment of their creation still nothing definite. Twin Earth/t.e./Putnam/DennettVsPutnam: it requires a leap in the reference, a jump in the intentionality. Dennett: you could now tend to think that inner intentionality has a certain "inertia". I 573 Twin Earth/Dennett/VsPutnam: you cannot tell a story assuming that tables are no tables, even though they look like tables and are used like tables. Something else would be a "living being that looks like Fury" (But is not Fury). But if there are "twin earth horses" on the Twin Earth which are much like our horses, then twin earth horses are horses, a non-terrestrial kind of horse though, but after all horses. ((s), therefore, in Putnam the Twin Earth water has a different chemical formula: YXZ.) Dennett: of course you can also represent a more stringent opinion according to which the non-terrestrial horses are a separate species. Both are possible. I 575 Indeterminacy/Twin Earth/Dennett: Their idea of what "horse" for really means suffers under the same indeterminacy like the frog’s idea of the fly as a "little flying edible object". Indeterminacy/DennettVsPutnam: E.g. "cat", "Siamese cat": Perhaps you simply find one day that you must make a distinction that was just not necessary previously, because the subject did not come up for discussion. This indeterminacy undermines Putnam’s argument of the t.e. Münch III 379 Twin Earth/DennettVsPutnam: he tries to close the gap by saying that we are referring to natural types, whether we know it or not. Dennett: But what types are natural? Races are as natural as species or classes! ((s) VsDennett: There is also the view that only the species are natural). DennettVsEssentialism: E.g. Vending Machine has dissolved into nothingness. Equally: E.g. Frog: he would have caught food pellets in the wild just the same if they had come in his way. Disjunction: in a way "flies or pellets" are a natural type for frogs. They do not distinguish between the two naturally. On the other hand, the disjunction is not a natural type: it does not occur in nature!. Twin Earth/DennettVsPutnam: "natural type" twin earth horse/horses/disjunction: E.g. Assuming someone had brought twin earth horse to the Earth unnoticed, we would have readily referred to them as horses. Meaning/Dennett: Vending machine and the information of the frog’s eye derive their meaning from the function. Where the function does not provide a response, there is nothing to investigate. The meanings of the people are just as derived as those of a venidng machine. This proves the t.e. Otherwise you have to postulate essentialism. Explanation/DennettVsPutnam: an explanation on microphysical level is not inconsistent with an explanation on rational grounds. Daniel Dennett, “Intentional Systems in Cognitive Ethology: The ‘Panglossian Paradigm’ defended”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (1983), 343-355 Putnam III 31 DennettVsPutnam: according to Putnam’s conception the mind something chaotic. Dennett and Fodor: Both authors have an unspoken premise in mind, and this is reductionist. There is also cognition without reductionism. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Mü III D. Münch (Hrsg.) Kognitionswissenschaft Frankfurt 1992 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 |
| Pythagoras | Quine Vs Pythagoras | XII 75 Löwenheim/Skolem/Strong Form/Axiom of Choice/Ontology/Reduction/Ontological Relativity/Quine: (early form): Thesis: if a theory is true and has a hyper-countable object range, then everything except for a countable section is superfluous, in the sense that it can be eliminated from the range of the variables, without any sentence becoming false. I.e. all acceptable theories can be reduced to countable ontologies. And these, in turn, to a specific ontology of natural numbers. For that you take the list, as far as it is explicitly known, as SF. And even if the list is not known, it exists. Accordingly, we can interpret all our objects as natural numbers, even though the list number ((s) the name) is not always known. Ontology: could we not establish a Pythagorean multi-purpose ontology once and for all? Pythagorean Ontology/Terminology/Quine: consists either only of numbers or only of bodies, or of sets, etc. Problem: Suppose we had such an ontology and somebody offered us something that would have appeared as an ontological reduction prior to our decision for the Pythagorean ontology, namely a method by which all things of a certain type A are superfluous in future theories, while the remaining portion would still be infinite. XII 76 In the new Pythagorean framework his discovery would still retain its essential content, even though it could no longer be called a reduction; it would be only a maneuver in which some numbers - we do not even know which - would lose a number property corresponding to A. VsPythagoreism: it shows that an all-engulfing Pythagoreanism is not attractive, because it only offers new and more obscure versions of old methods and problems. Solution: Ontological relativity, relativistic theory. It's simply pointless to speak of the ontology of a theory in absolute terms. ((s) i.e. in this case to assert that everything is a number.) (>inside/outside). The relevant predicates, e.g. "number", "set", "body" or whatever, would be distinguishable in the frame theory, however, by the roles they play in the laws of this theory. Quine: an ontological reduction is only interesting if we can specify an SF. If we have the axiom of choice and even a sign for a general selection operator, can we then specify an SF that concretizes the Löwenheim theorem? 1) We divide the object range into a countable number of equivalence classes, each with indistinguishable objects. (Indistinguishability Classes). We can dispense with all members of every equivalence class, except one. 2) Then we'll make use of the axiom of choice to pick out a survivor from each equivalence class. XII 77 Quine: if this were possible, we could write down a representative function with Hilbert's selection operator. Löwenheim/Quine: but the proof of the theorem has a different structure: it does not seem to justify the assumption that a representative function could be formulated in any theory that maps a hyper-countable range in a countable one. At first glance, such an SF is of course impossible: it would have to be reversibly unique to provide different real numbers with different function values. And this contradicts the mapping of a hyper-countable into a countable range, because it cannot be reversibly unambiguous. ((s) Because it has to assign the same value to two arguments somehow.) Framework Theory/Stronger/Weaker/Theory/Ontology/Quine: there are three strength levels of requirements regarding what is said about the ontology of the object theory within the framework theory. 1) weakest requirement to the framework theory: is sufficient if we do not want any reduction, but only explain about what things the theory is. I.e. we translate the object theory into the framework theory. I.e. we make translation proposals, with which, however, the inscrutability of reference still is to be taken into account. The two theories may even be identical, e.g. if some terms are explained by definitions by other terms of the same language. XII 78 2) stronger: in case of reduction by an SF, here the frame theory must assume the non-reduced range. (see above, analogy to raa, reductio ad absurdum). 3) strongest requirements: in case of reductions according to Löwenheim: i.e. from a hyper-countable to a countable range: here, the SF must be from a truly stronger frame theory. I.e. we can no longer accept it in the spirit of the raa. Conclusion: this thwarts an argument from the Löwenheim theorem in favor of Pythagoreanism. Ontological Relativity/Finite Range/Quine: in a finite range, ontological relativity is trivial. Since instead of quantification you can assume finite conjunctions or disjunctions, the variables and thus also the question of their value range also disappear. Even the distinction between names and other signs is eliminated. Therefore, an ontology for a finite theory about named objects is pointless. That we have just talked about it is because we were moving in a broader context. Names/Quine: are distinguished by the fact that they may be used for variables. |
Quine I W.V.O. Quine Word and Object, Cambridge/MA 1960 German Edition: Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980 Quine II W.V.O. Quine Theories and Things, Cambridge/MA 1986 German Edition: Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985 Quine III W.V.O. Quine Methods of Logic, 4th edition Cambridge/MA 1982 German Edition: Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978 Quine V W.V.O. Quine The Roots of Reference, La Salle/Illinois 1974 German Edition: Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989 Quine VI W.V.O. Quine Pursuit of Truth, Cambridge/MA 1992 German Edition: Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995 Quine VII W.V.O. Quine From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953 Quine VII (a) W. V. A. Quine On what there is In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (b) W. V. A. Quine Two dogmas of empiricism In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (c) W. V. A. Quine The problem of meaning in linguistics In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (d) W. V. A. Quine Identity, ostension and hypostasis In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (e) W. V. A. Quine New foundations for mathematical logic In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (f) W. V. A. Quine Logic and the reification of universals In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (g) W. V. A. Quine Notes on the theory of reference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (h) W. V. A. Quine Reference and modality In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VII (i) W. V. A. Quine Meaning and existential inference In From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, MA 1953 Quine VIII W.V.O. Quine Designation and Existence, in: The Journal of Philosophy 36 (1939) German Edition: Bezeichnung und Referenz In Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg) München 1982 Quine IX W.V.O. Quine Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge/MA 1963 German Edition: Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967 Quine X W.V.O. Quine The Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge/MA 1970, 1986 German Edition: Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005 Quine XII W.V.O. Quine Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York 1969 German Edition: Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003 Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Dennett Vs Quine, W.V.O. | II 132 de re/de dicto/DennettVsQuine: hopeless philosophical doctrine that there are two different types of belief. The only exception: E.g. I have to follow an object with my eyes before I can describe it. "Priority of tracking before the description." But we can also take the most direct, most primitive cases of tracking with the senses in the de dicto mode: "the what-ever-it-is" that is responsible for the current pixel cluster. (> Disjunction) De re/De dicto/Dennett: the difference is in the point of view, not the phenomenon. Münch III 343 DennettVsQuine: too strongly behavioristically bound. What happens to the task of the translator, if you separate yourself from behaviourist terminology? Münch III 362 Gavagai/Dennett: Quine presupposes that the linguist has already convinced himself of the communicative nature of the natives. (s) Question: can behaviorism presuppose communication at all?. Daniel Dennett, “Intentional Systems in Cognitive Ethology: The ‘Panglossian Paradigm’ defended”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6 (1983), 343-355 |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Mü III D. Münch (Hrsg.) Kognitionswissenschaft Frankfurt 1992 |
| Quine, W.V.O. | Russell Vs Quine, W.V.O. | Prior I 39 Ramified type theory/rTT/Prior: first edition Principia Mathematica(1): here it does not say yet that quantification on non-nouns (non nominal) is illegitimate, or that they are only apparently not nominal. (Not on names?) But only that you have to treat them carefully. I 40 The ramified type theory was incorporated in the first edition. (The "simple type theory" is, on the other hand, little more than a certain sensitivity to the syntax.) Predicate: makes a sentence out of a noun. E.g. "φ" is a verb that forms the phrase "φx". But it will not form a sentence when a verb is added to another verb. "φφ". Branch: comes into play when expressions form a sentence from a single name. Here we must distinguish whether quantified expressions of the same kind occur. E.g. "__ has all the characteristics of a great commander." logical form: "For all φ if (for all x, if x is a great commander, then φx) then φ__". ΠφΠxCψxφx" (C: conditional, ψ: commander, Π: for all applies). Easier example: "__ has the one or the other property" logical form: "For a φ, φ __" "Σφφ". (Σ: there is a) Order/Type: here one can say, although the predicate is of the same type, it is of a different order. Because this "φ" has an internal quantification of "φ's". Ramified type theory: not only different types, but also various "orders" should be represented by different symbols. That is, if we, for example, have introduced "F" for a predicative function on individuals" (i.e. as a one-digit predicate), we must not insert non-predicative functions for "f" in theorems. E.g. "If there are no facts about a particular individual ..." "If for all φ, not φx, then there is not this fact about x: that there are no facts about x that is, if it is true that there are no facts about x, then it cannot be true. I.e. if it is true that there are no facts about x, then it is wrong, that there is this fact. Symbolically: 1. CΠφNφxNψx. I 41 "If for all φ not φ, then not ψx" (whereby "ψ" can stand for any predicate). Therefore, by inserting "∏φφ" for "ψ": 2. CΠφNφxNΠφNφx Therefore, by inserting and reductio ad absurdum: CCpNpNp (what implies its own falsehood, is wrong) 3. CΠφNφx. The step of 1 to 2 is an impermissible substitution according to the ramified type theory. Sentence/ramified type theory/Prior: the same restriction must be made for phrases (i.e. "zero-digit predicates", propositions). Thus, the well-known old argument is prevented: E.g. if everything is wrong, then one of the wrong things would be this: that everything is wrong. Therefore, it may not be the case that everything is wrong. logical form: 1. CΠpNpNq by inserting: 2. CΠpNpNPpNp and so by CCpNpNp (reductio ad absurdum?) 3. NΠpNp, Ramified type theory: that is now blocked by the consideration that "ΠpNp" is no proposition of the "same order" as the "p" which exists in itself. And thus not of the same order as the "q" which follows from it by instantiation, so it cannot be used for "q" to go from 1 to 2. RussellVsQuine/Prior: here propositions and predicates of "higher order" are not entirely excluded, as with Quine. They are merely treated as of another "order". VsBranched type theory: there were problems with some basic mathematical forms that could not be formed anymore, and thus Russell and Whitehead introduce the reducibility axiom. By contrast, a simplified type theory was proposed in the 20s again. Type Theory/Ramsey: was one of the early advocates of a simplification. Wittgenstein/Tractatus/Ramsey: Thesis: universal quantification and existential quantification are both long conjunctions or disjunctions of individual sentences (singular statements). E.g. "For some p, p": Either grass is green or the sky is pink, or 2 + 2 = 4, etc.". (> Wessel: CNF, ANF, conjunctive and adjunctive normal form) Propositions/Wittgenstein/Ramsey: no matter of what "order" are always truth functions of indiviual sentences. Ramified Type TheoryVsRamsey/VsWittgenstein: such conjunctions and disjunctions would not only be infinitely long, but the ones of higher order would also need to contain themselves. E.g. "For some p.p" it must be written as a disjunction of which "for some p, p" is a part itself, which in turn would have to contain a part, ... etc. RamseyVsVs: the different levels that occur here, are only differences of character: not only between "for some p,p" and "for some φ, φ" but also between "p and p" and "p, or p", and even the simple "p" are only different characters. Therefore, the expressed proposition must not contain itself. 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 Pri II Arthur N. Prior Papers on Time and Tense 2nd Edition Oxford 2003 |
| Russell, B. | Lewis, C.I. Vs Russell, B. | Hughes I 190 Strict implication/C.I.LewisVsRussell/LewisVsPrincipia Mathematica(1)/PM: (1912) a series of systems, VsParadoxes of (material implication). Paradoxes of implication/Hughes/Cresswell: usually from Principia Mathematica: a) a true statement is implied by any statement: (1) p > (q > p) b) a false statement implies any statement: (2) ~p > (p > q) Both together are called the paradox of (material) implication. Since either the antecedens of (1) or the antecedens of (2) must be true for each statement p, it is also easy to derive (3) from (1) and (2): (3) (p > q) v ( q > p). I 191 i.e. of two statements always the first implies the second or vice versa. I 191 Paradox of material implication: summarized: of two statements the first always implies the second or vice versa C.I.Lewis: did not intend to reject this thesis, on the contrary, (1) and (2) were "neither mysterious wisdom, nor great discoveries, nor great absurdities", but they reflect the truth-functional sense with which "implicate" is used in Principia Mathematica. Strict implication/C.I.Lewis: there is a stronger sense of "imply", according to which "p implies q" means that q follows from p. Here it is not the case that a true one is implied by every statement, or that out of a false one any follows. This stronger form leads to pairs of statements, none of which imply the other. Strict implication: necessary implication. Notation(s): "strimp". Strict disjunction/C.I.Lewis: analog to the strict implication: necessary disjunction. analog: Strict equivalence/C.I.Lewis: necessary equivalence. Hughes I 191 Strict implication/C.I.Lewis: p strimp q: "p follows from q" avoids paradox of (material) implication leads to pairs of statements, none of which implies the other. C.I.Lewis: introduces a whole series of systems, e.g. in the book "A Survey of Logic": the "Survey System". Basic operator here: logical impossibility, and conjunction/negation). strict implication: first comprehensively discussed in "Symbolic Logic" Lewis and Langford, (1932). (Systems S1 and S2). (Also the first comprehensive treatment of modal logical systems ever). Basic operator here: Possibility. 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Hughes I G.E. Hughes Maxwell J. Cresswell Einführung in die Modallogik Berlin New York 1978 |
| Tradition | Davidson Vs Tradition | Frank I 677 Subjectivity/Tradition/Davidson: the concept of the subjective seems to fall apart because of the externalism: on the one hand the true inner states about which the mind reserves authority, on the other hand the ordinary states of belief, wishing, meaning, of the intention which is contaminated by its external links to social environment. By analogy, there is an experts for sunburn who cannot detect whether the sun or any other cause is responsible. Def "Senburn"/Terminology/Davidson: is constituted just like a sunburn, only the sun must not necessarily be involved in the cause: "Sun or other cause", disjunction. Important argument: the expert can recognize a senburn by simply looking at it, but not a sunburn. DavidsonVsTradition: this solution works for sunburn because, unlike with objects of the mind, it is not necessary to havve a very special person who can recognize just by he looks (first person authority) whether the condition exists or not. Mental states/DavidsonVsTraditionVsMyth of the subjective: here the solution is even simpler: Of course people have beliefs, but these are not entities that the mind has in mind. Fra I 678 Ontology/Davidson: Not of interest here. We will always need an unlimited supply of objects that help us to describe attitudes (externalism), belief sentences are thus relational. But these objects are not "psychological objects". Donald Davidson (1987): Knowing One's Own Mind, in: Proceedings and Adresses of the American Philosophical Association LX (1987),441-4 58 |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology | Armstrong, D.M. | Meixner I 78 Ontology/Logic/Meixner: controversial question: to what extent the logical form (composition) of expressions reflects an ontological fact or distinction. Armstrong: Thesis: Ontology depends on the logical structure. MeixnerVsArmstrong: It is much more plausible that d the mere complexity of an expression should not decide the ontological nature, i.e. not how many occurrences of negation or disjunction, and other logical operators, are there. |
Mei I U. Meixner Einführung in die Ontologie Darmstadt 2004 |
| Negation | Field, Hartry | II 308 "Reject"/Field: perhaps there is a sense of "reject" in which you reject everything and also the disjunction. "Reject"/Stronger/Lower/Field: this sense must be weaker than the sense of "accepting negation". But it must again be stronger than "not accepting". Solution: Def "reject p": as "accept that it is not the case that determines p". FieldVs: this proves my thesis in the section that moderate non-classical logic needs a det-operator. But the actual thesis was that he needs it just as much as classical logic does. Vs: later argued that the det-operator for classical logic is not fundamental, thesis: fundamental are rather non-classical degrees of belief. ((s) But this is about non-classical probability theory, not about non-classical logic). Because one explains acceptance with high and rejections with low degrees of belief. |
|
| Logic | Field, Hartry | I 36 "Wide view"/Field: thesis: not all logical truths are logically knowable. I 38 Essay 4: modal conservatism cannot be accepted in non-axiomatic logic if modality is understood narrowly. Thesis: this is not an argument against non-axiomatizable logic, because the broad conception is nothing incomprehensible to me. II 290 Def radically non-classical logic/Field: thesis: that it is possible to deny certain instances of the sentence of the excluded middle without contradictions. Def moderate non-classical logic/Field: that some instances of the sentence of the excluded middle are not claimable. II 291 Moderate non-classical logic/vagueness/Field: thesis: we should neither accept nor deny the disjunction "rich/non-rich"! |
|
| Ontology | Meixner, U. | I 78 Ontology / Logic / Meixner: controversial question: how far the logical form (composition) of expressions reflects an ontological condition or distinction. Armstrong: ontology depends on the logical structure. MeixnerVsArmstrong: it is much more plausible that the mere complexity of an expression should not decide on the ontological nature. It should not decide on how many occurrences of negation or disjunction, and other logical operators are there. |
|
| Questions | Prior, A. | I 72~ Def Questions/Harrah, David: Thesis: a question is simply an indicative utterance that consists in the disjunction or set of possible answers. PriorVsHarrah: You do not have to go that far. (but pro: see below) Questions/Prior: we can have rules for equivalents for statements of the form "He asked the question Q" and "He knows Q" for different types of Q (questions). Example "He knows if 2+2=4". This is equivalent to "Either he knows that 2+2=4 or he knows that 2+2 is not equal to 4". Example "He knows what 2+2 is" becomes: "For some x, he knows that 2+2 is x". (He only knows that they have a sum). I 77 Questions/Objectivity/Presupposition/Harrah/Prior: Harrah thesis: Each question is identified by an implicit statement that presupposes it. |
|
| Wittgenstein | Prior I 41 Wittgenstein / Tractatus / Ramsey: universal quantification and existential quantification are both long conjunctions or disjunctions of single sentences (singular statements). |
Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 Pri II Arthur N. Prior Papers on Time and Tense 2nd Edition Oxford 2003 |
|
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Questions | Harrah, D. | Prior I 72 ~ Def Questions / Harrah, David: thesis: a question is simply an indicative statement which is the disjunction or the set of possible answers. PriorVsHarrah: so far one does not need to go. (but per: see below) I 77 Questions / Objectivity / presupposition / Harrah / Prior: Harrah thesis: each question is identified by an implicit statement that it presupposes. |
Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 |
| |||