Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 8 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Language | Deacon | I 34 Animal language/Deacon: the communication of other species is never a "simpler form" of human language. It is not language at all. >Communication. Biological explanation/Deacon: is always evolutionary and tries to show continuity. However, there are no animal precursors to the emergence of human language, let alone an ascending scale of complexity. (See Robin Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language, 1997(1); and Dunbar 1992 a(2), b(3)). I 54 Animal language/animals/Deacon: the misconception that animal calls and gestures are like words or phrases can be traced back to misunderstandings about the concept of reference. >Reference, >Gestures. Behaviorism: some behaviorists have suggested that animal cries are just external expressions of internal states and therefore have nothing to do with reference. >Behaviorism. Cognitive behaviorists saw calls as equivalent to words. One study played a central role in this. Seyfarth/Cheney: Thesis: Warning calls of guenons are like names for predators in the distance. (See Seyfarth, Cheney and Marler 1980(4)). I 56 In response to various calls, the monkeys left the trees (warning of eagles) or jumped on trees (leopards) or peeked into bushes (snake). Deacon: this is evolutionary easy to explain. Since the saving behaviour cannot always look the same and is even mutually exclusive, different calls have to be distinguished. (See also Hauser, 1996(5)). Animal calls/Cheney/Seyfarth/Deacon: Cheney and Seyfarth initially assumed that the animal calls were names for the predators. These were accepted instead of a complete sentence, i.e. as "holophrastic" utterances. Holophrastic utterances/Deacon: it is disputed how much syntactic potential lies in them. >Wittgenstein language game "Platte", cf. >Subsententials. Animal communication: the thesis was put forward that warning cries were different from cries of pain or grimaces by referring to something else... I 57 ...than the inner state of the animal. Reference/DeaconVsCheney/DeaconVsSeyfarth: it was implicitly assumed that pain cries, for example, could not be referring. Such assumptions give rise to the idea of a "proto-language" with calls as "vocabulary". >Vocabulary, >Words, >Signs, >Signals. Then you could imagine an animal language evolution with grammar and syntax that emerged later. This whole house of cards is falling apart however. (See also Cheney and Seyfarth, 1990(6)). Reference/Deacon: is not limited to language. Symptoms can refer to something other than themselves. For example, laughter: is congenital in humans. It does not have to be produced intentionally and can be simulated in social contexts. But laughter can also refer to things, even to absent ones. In this way alarm calls also refer. >Innateness. I 58 Language/DeaconVsSeyfarth/DeaconVsCheney: e.g. laughter differs from speech by the fact that it is contagious. In a room full of laughing people, it is hard to be serious. The idea of a room full of people repeating just one sentence is absurd. Intentionality/Intention/animal calls/Deacon: Animal calls do not fulfil the Grice criterion for messages either: "I think you believe that I believe x". Animal calls are involuntary and contagious. >Language, >P. Grice. I 59 Solution/Deacon: it is more about spreading excitement than sharing information. Reference/Deacon: therefore, reference is not the distinguishing feature between animal calls and words. Both can refer to inner states and things in the outer world. We must therefore distinguish between different types of reference rather than distinguish between referring and allegedly non-referring signals. >Reference/Deacon. I 65 Animal language/Herrnstein/Deacon: (Herrnstein 1980(7)): Experiments with pigeons who had successfully learned an arbitrary sign language and cooperation. I 66 Symbolic reference/Deacon: this simple form of reference with the characteristic learned association, randomness of characters, transmission of information between individuals are not sufficient to define symbolic reference. A symbolic reference system does not simply consist of words without syntax. >Symbolic reference, >Syntax. I 67 Animal calls: in one sense their understanding is innate, on the other hand the connection to the referent is not necessary. The reference is somewhat flexible. Some connections are built in prenatal, others are learned. I 68 Symbolic competence: is that which goes beyond parrot-like expressions. For this purpose, one has to distinguish between contextually determined causes of expression and memorized dictations. >Symbolic communication, >Symbolic learning, >Symbolic representation. 1. Dunbar, R. (1997). Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2. Dunbar, R. (1992a). Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 3. Dunbar, R. (1992b). Neocortex size as a constraint on group sizes in primates. Journal of Human Evolution 20, 469-493. 4. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P. (1980): Vervet monkey alarm calls: Semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Animal Behaviour, 28(4), 1070–1094. 5. Hauser, M. D. (1996): The evolution of communication. The MIT Press. 6. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990): How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press. 7. Herrnstein, R. (1980). Symbolic communication between two pigeons (Columba domestica). Science 210. |
Dea I T. W. Deacon The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of language and the Brain New York 1998 Dea II Terrence W. Deacon Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter New York 2013 |
| Description Levels | Quine | IX 188 Predicate Calculus 2nd order: this predicate calculus compromises individuals and classees of individuals. V 33 Similarity/Perception/Ontology/Quine: the transition from perception to perception similarity brings ontological clarity. Perception (the result of the act of perception) is omitted. >Perception/Quine. V 34 Similarity/Quine: Perceptual similarity differs from reception similarity. The latter is purely physical similarity. Three digit relation: Episode a resembles b more than episode c. Perceptual similarity: on the other hand, is a bundle of behavioral dispositions of the 2nd order (to react). The contrast can be eliminated by using the reception similarity, but not only speaking of individual episodes a, b, c, but more generally of episodes that have a reception similarity with these. VI 71 Levels of Uncertainty: the uncertainty of the reference is not identical to the uncertainty of the translation, nor is it as serious. Translation indeterminacy is more serious because it is holophrastic (it refers to whole sentences): it can produce divergent interpretations that remain unexplored even at the level of whole sentences. VI 72 The uncertainty of the reference can be illustrated by examples of compensating adjustment manoeuvres within a sentence. X 20 QuineVsEquivalence of Sentences/Sentence Equivalence: the equivalence relation has no objective sense at the level of sentences. |
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 |
| Epistemology | Quine | XII 86/87 Epistemology/Quine: a) conceptual side: is explanation of terms by terms. b) applicability/validity: by truth. II 35 Epistemology is about the question of how we animals managed to produce this ((s) highly differentiated) science in view of the sketchy neural input. This study shows that shifts due to the representative function would not have done any less justice to this input. This does not mean rejecting ontology. We can refuse them! II 36 Truth must not be confused with evidence. Truth is intrinsic and there is nothing about it. See also >Naturalized Epistemology. V 15 Berkeley/Traditional Epistemology: Problem: how do we know that there are objects and that science is true? V 16 Quine: the introduction of the physical sense organs would have appeared to them as a circle. V 17 Epistemology/Quine: the emancipated epistemologist works as an empirical psychologist (with >stimuli instead of >sense data, but without >gestalt theory.) VsGestalt Theory: it is about the connection of stimuli with receptors, not with consciousness. V 38 Epistemology/Quine: main question: if our theory of the outside world is true, how could we ever come up with it? X 12 Inductive Logic/Quine: is indistinguishable from epistemology. X II 86 Epistemology/Quine: we can look at it here analogous to mathematics: just as mathematics should be reduced to logic or to logic + set theory, so should empirical knowledge be somehow based on sensory experience. XII 87 a) conceptual side: is there to explain the concept of the body from the sensory experience b) (validity, truth): is there to justify our knowledge of nature from the sensory experience. Epistemology/Hume: a) conceptual side: here he equated it immediately with sensory experiences. I.e. an apple is a new apple in every moment. b) Validity, truth: Hume failed here and we still have no solution. Problem: general statements as well as singular statements about the future gain nothing in certainty by being understood as if they were talking about sensory impressions. Quine: We are still facing the same problem as Hume. On the conceptual side, however, progress was made. Solution: Bentham: XII 88 Def Theory of Fiction/Context Definition/Entire Sentences/Word/holophrastic/Bentham/Quine: Bentham discovered the Def Context Definition/Bentham/Quine: (Vs normal definition): to explain a term we do not need to specify a reference object, not even a synonymous word or phrase, we just need to show how to translate all complete sentences containing the term. Epistemology/Quine: apart from context theory, epistemology was enriched by set theory. Then you do not have to equate bodies with sense data or context definitions: XII 89 Def Object/Quine: Solution: Objects as sets of sets of sensations; then there may be a category of objects that enjoy the very qualities that bodies are supposed to have. Vs: this is not as untouchable as the context definition. Because of the recourse to the problematic ontology of quantities. Epistemology/Validity/QuineVsCarnap: Hume's problem (general statements and statements about the future are uncertain if they are understood to be about sense data or sensory impressions) is still unsolved today. Carnap/Quine: his constructions would have made it possible to translate all sentences about the world into sense data or observation terms plus logic and set theory. XII 90 QuineVsCarnap: the mere fact that a sentence is expressed with logical, set-theoretical and observation terms does not mean that it can be proven with logical and set-theoretical means from observation sentences. ((s) Means of expression are not evidence. (> exterior/interior, description levels, circularity). Epistemology/Quine: N.B.: to want to endow the truths about nature with the full authority of immediate experience is just as doomed to failure as the return of the truths of mathematics to the potential insight of elementary logic. >Epistemology/Carnap. XII 91 Epistemology/Psychology/Quine: if sensory stimuli are the only thing, why not just turn to psychology? TraditionVsPsychology/Quine: this used to appear circular. No Circle/QuineVsVs: Solution: we just have to refrain from deducting science from observations. If we only want to understand the connection between observation and science, we need all the information we can get. Also those from science, which is investigating exactly this connection. See > Rational reconstruction. XII 98 Epistemology/Quine: still exists within psychology and thus within empirical sciences. It studies the human subject. Aim: to find out how observation is related to theory and to what extent theory goes beyond observation. XII 99 Epistemology/Quine: old: wanted to include empirical sciences, so to speak, to assemble them from sense data. New: now, conversely, epistemology is part of psychology. Quine: at the same time, the old relationship remains: epistemology is included in the empirical sciences and at the same time science is included in the epistemology. ((s) Epistemology studies the subject and the subject studies epistemology.) This is not a circle because we have given up the dream of deducing all science from sense data. This also solves the old mystery of seeing. See also Seeing/Quine. |
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 |
| Imperatives | Geach | I 275f Command/Moral/Logic/Geach: a statement-line cannot be in an if-clause. - "If you want ..." these are real imperatives, only grammatically a hypothetical sentence. - The wish itself has nothing to do with the truth conditions. - But an utterance does not get empty qua imperative, simply because it cannot be fulfilled. I 282 Imperative/Logic/Geach: difficult problems: "Tu x or tu y!" Cannot be interpreted as "I command x or I command y" - analog to assertions: l- p v q cannot be interpreted as l-p or l-q. Solution/Hare/Geach: distinction neustic/tropic/Hare (> Hare, R.M.: >phrasticon, >neusticon). E.g. tropic: is identical in "Tu x or tu y" and "You will do x or you will do y". Phrasticon: "Your future doing of either x or y" Neusticon: "Please!" or yes". (assertorically). Disjunction/Geach: it belongs to the tropic. Neustic: is added to the tropic as a whole, not to one or the other disjoint. --- Zoglauer I 23 Def Tropic/Hare: descriptive component of a standard sentence Def Neustic/Hare: prescriptive component of a standard sentence. |
Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 Zo I Th. Zoglauer Einführung in die formale Logik für Philosophen Göttingen 2002 |
| Language Acquisition | Quine | V 68 Language Learning/Quine: the success depends on whether the similarity standards match. - What do the episodes have in common? V 71 Approval/learning/Quine: instead of reward: is more general. There are not enough situations for rewards, because not everything is pronounced. - Language learning: is not only done by linguistic statements, but also through non-verbal responses. - Even animals. - Approval: leads to voicing one's own sentences -> Gavagai: if you just wait until the parents say rabbit, you will not find out that everything that is called a rabbit is also referred to as an animal. Radical Interpretation: question and answer game is essential here. - Approval must be obtained. ((s) reward has to be confirmed otherwise). V 75 1) red from the child, yes from the mother - 2) vice versa - generalization: by previously learned expressions - criterion for approval: readiness, to express an observation sentence on one’s own initiative. >Observation Sentences V 77 Good/language learning/QuineVsMoore/QuineVsTradition: two factors: perception similarity and desire. - Distinction between aesthetically good and morally well: the former feels good, the latter announces former. Moral/Quine: as flavor: community thing. V 113 Truth/language learning/Quine: somehow such a connection of meaning and truth is indicative for learning, regardless of the logical particles - we learn the use of declarative sentences by learning the truth conditions - but truth value is learned late. V 121 Compliance/language learning/Quine: in casual conversation - not hidden meanings. - ((s) internal objects). V 147 Set theory/language learning/Quine: set theory/language learning/Quine: by imagining the substitutional quantification as a simulation of the referential quantification, we imagine the general term as a simulation of abstract singular terms, of names of attributes or names of classes. - Class name: is an abstract singular term, not a general term. >Classes/Quine. VI 89f Whole sentence/holophrastic/language learning/Quine: we need whole sentences to define that e.g. a mirrored object is meant - or reflection. - ((s) or mirroring). |
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 |
| Practical Inference | Kenny | Geach I 285 Practical Inference/Kenny: (A. KIenny 1966(1)). Thesis: Theoretical and practical inference are radically different. Geach: What they have in common is a certain asymmetry between premises and conclusions. >Premises, >Conclusions. 1. A lot of premises provide a single conclusion and cannot be achieved with any of these premises. 2. On the other hand, a set of conclusions follows from a single premise only if each individual conclusion follows from it on its own. Carnap and Kneale have sought technical solutions to this asymmetry. GeachVs: one should leave the asymmetry. Cf. >Asymmetries. It remains in Kenny's approach. If a set of conclusions would always be deducible together, but not individual conclusions...(s) then the set itself could not follow. Practical Inference/Kenny/Geach: I present it in the style of Kenny: From a set of commands Fq, Fr, Fs... one can conclude the conclusion Ft, provided that the phrastic of the conclusion entails the phrastic of a premise and that it is consistent with the phrastic of all other premises. I. e. >Phrastic. t ent q and the conjunction Kt, Kr, Ks... is consistent. Spelling: ent: entails, p ent q = p contains q, q follows q from p, entailment Kpq: Conjunction p u q Cpq Conditional p > q >Entailment. It is about how a wish is consistent with other wishes. This immediately means that no practical conclusion can be drawn from an inconsistent set of commands. When Kq, Kr, Ks... is an inconsistent conjunction and t ent q, then Kt, Kr, Ks... is inconsistent and then Ft is not valid deducible from the set FqFrFs.... >Commands, >Imperatives. Further difference to theoretical inference: practical inference can be cancelled. (>added premises). Geach I 287 Definition Synthetic theorem/Peripathetics/Geach: the principle that if a conclusion t follows from its set of premises P, and if P plus t delivers the conclusion v, then the premises provide P v. Only if the synthetic theorem applies, we get a chain of inferences. That is what we need in theory and practice. Kenny's theory secures the synthetic theorem. Practical Conclusion/Kenny/Geach: it is necessary for a correct conclusion Ft from a set of premises that (the phrasticon t ent the phrasticon v) from one of these fiats (commands) is compatible with the phrastics of all other fiats from the set. We can omit the word "or" if we formulate it in this way: t ent v, KtKpKqKr.... is a consistent conjunction if and only if KtKvKpKr.... is consistent. Proof: with the validity criterion in this practical form: We have to show that from (1) Ft is deducible from Fp, Fq, Fr... and (2) Fv is deducible from Ft, Fp, Fq, Fr... from that follows that (3) Fv is derived from Fp, Fq, Fr..... (1) holds if and only if t ent (one of the phrastic p, q, r...) I 288 and if the conjunction KtKpKqKr.... is consistent. Without losing the general public, it can be said that t ent p. Now (2) will hold if and only if v ent (one of the phrastic t, p, q, r...) and the if conjunction KvKtKpKpKqKr... is consistent. But if v ent t, because t ent p (through (1)), then v ent p. And no matter if v ent t or v ent (one of the phrastics of p, q, r...), v is always ent one of (p, q, r...). Now if KvKtKpKqKr... is a consistent conjunction, then also KvKpKqKr is ... Then v ent (one of p, q, r...) and KvKpKqKr... a consistent conjunction. (3) Q.E.D. holds. Premises/Added/Deleted/Inference/Conclusion/Concluding/Inference/Geach: although the modus ponens becomes invalid by added premises, a conclusion from the modus ponens will remain valid if it does not become invalid by an added premise. Because we do not get any conclusions from inconsistent practical premises. But if p and Cpq are consistent, it is also p and q. So Kpq will be consistent. And q ent cpq. But then Fq is a correct conclusion of Fp and FCpq! Practical Inference/Kenny/Geach: surprising result: in practical closing, the FKpq command is not deductively equivalent to the pair Ep, Eq. But this is not really paradoxical: the equivalence would lead to an absurd result, because for the same reason the set Fp, Fq, Fr... would be deductively equivalent to FKpKqKr... But this latter order could only be fulfilled if it were guaranteed that all our wishes could be fulfilled at the same time. We therefore need further closing rules for practical closure. >Desires, >Will, >Deontic logic. 1. A. Kenny (1966). "Practical Inference" in: Analysis 26,3. 1966. |
Kenn I A. Kenny A New History of Western Philosophy Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 |
| Skepticism | Davidson | I (d) 67 Skepticism/Davidson: As a minimum assumption one can assume that we are at least right with regard to our own person. Such a realization, however, is logically independent of what we believe about the world outside. So it cannot provide a foundation for the science and beliefs of the healthy human understanding. >Beliefs/Davidson. Rorty VI 166 Skepticism: the skeptic says: from the fact that we must think of the world in a certain way does not follow that it is indeed so. He encounters all claims with the question "How do you know that?" DavidsonVsSkepticism: that can be pathologized and omitted (like FregeVsSkepticism): the skeptic is not curable, because even in his/her next utterance he/she cannot assume that his/her words still mean the same as before. Skeptics: Why should not necessary assumptions be objectively wrong? It is common to all skeptical arguments that the skeptic understands the truth as a relation of correspondence between the world and belief, knowing that this can never be verified. DavidsonVsSkepticism/Rorty: The "problem of the outside world" and the "other minds" rests on a false distinction between the "phenomenological content of experience" (tradition) and the intentional states that one attributes to a person on the basis of their causal interactions with the environment. >Other minds. Davidson I (c) 53/4 "Everything different"/Skepticism/Stroud: it could be that everything is different than we imagine it to be - Quine: that would be a distinction without differentiation: since the observation sentences are holophrastically conditioned for stimuli, the relationships to the evidence remain unchanged - Preserve the structure and you will preserve everything. ((s) Then yesterday everything was already different.) I (e) 94 Causal theory of meaning/VsDescartes: in basic cases, words act necessarily from the kinds of objects causing them. Then there is no room for Cartesian doubt. I (e) 95 DavidsonVsSkepticism: cannot be formulated because the senses do not play a role in the explanation of believing, meaning (to mean) and knowledge - as far as the content of the causal relations between the propositional attitudes and the world is independent. Of course, senses play a causal role in knowledge and language learning. >Language acquisition, >Cognition. |
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 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 |
| Skepticism | Quine | Quine II 37 Skepticism: confusion between truth and evidence - as such not incoherent (grue, time t). - Doubt is also still immanent. --- Davidson I 54 "Everything could be different"/skepticism/Stroud: It could be that everything is to be different than we imagine. Quine: that would be a distinction without a difference: since the observation sentences are holophrastically conditioned to stimuli, the relations to the evidence remain unchanged - preserve the structure and you will preserve everything. - ((s) Then everything was different yesterday already.) --- Stroud I 223 Skepticism/Knowledge//Quine: if all knowledge is put to the test at the same time, you cannot invoke any part of it. - That makes sensual experience necessary. Stroud I 225 Skepticism/Quine: the tradition has not even recognized its strength. The doubt about knowledge stems from knowledge itself - the solution as well. Illusion: is only relative to the previously accepted assumption of real bodies. I 227 Quine/Stroud: does not make the mistake of Austin: (distortion of meaning, see above) - It’s not about the meaning of a given term. - Quine goes to the roots (language learning). I 228 Skeptical doubts are scientific doubts. Skepticism/Quine: if science is true, it can never say whether the world is the way we perceive it due to the meagre inputs - then just as little knowledge would be possible as if science was wrong. I 231 Skepticism/QuineVsSkepticism: is an overreaction to the uncertainty of individual options. - Solution: reflection takes place within science, not beyond it. I 248 Skepticism/StroudVsQuine: if all beliefs were only projections from meager data (underdetermination) - Knowledge: is then a combination of many subjective and few objective factors - then all hypotheses are real competitors - no objective superiority. - This is exactly the view of traditional epistemology. I 248 QuineVsSkepticism: if we deprive philosophy of its external view, it is sufficient in order to exclude the total skepticism - (naturalized epistemology). StroudVsQuine: This does not work as long as we consider our own knowledge as projection beyond the data. |
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 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 Stroud I B. Stroud The Significance of philosophical scepticism Oxford 1984 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cultural Relativism | Quine Vs Cultural Relativism | II 45 Suppose all categorical observation sentences were indeed true, although even that is not known. Other conditions for the truth of one or the other theory can certainly not be made. Question: are they both true? Quine: I say yes. But even they can be logically incompatible, despite their empirical equivalence, which evokes the scare of >cultural relativism. Because each is apparently true only from its standpoint. QuineVsCultural Relativism: The scare can be easily dispelled: with a step that is as trivial as the interchange of "electron" and "molecule": As the two theoretical formulations are incompatible, they must evaluate a particular sentence oppositely. Since they are nevertheless empirically equivalent, this sentence must contain terms that are not sufficiently determined by observation criteria. Then we might as well pick out one of these terms and treat it as if they were two independent words, one belonging to one theory, the other to the other one. II 46 We could characterize this by the notation. By consistently maintaining this notation we could settle any conflict of these theories. Both could thenceforth be allowed as terminologically different true descriptions of the same world. The threat of truth relativism is averted. Observation sentences correspond with the theory holophrastically (as whole sentence) regardless of their internal structure except for the possible content of the logical implikation links between formulations and categorical observation sentences. The language needs to be neither divalent nor realistic, it does not even need anything that is clearly recognizable as terms or reference or contain any identifiable ontology. XI 121 QuineVsCultural Relativism/Lauener: self-contradictory. |
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 |
| Hare, R.M. | Prior Vs Hare, R.M. | I 65 Command/Prior: giving a command is different from the command and the imperative sentence is yet something else (because a command can be expressed differently). And yet another thing is what the command is about. (For example, about the window that is to be closed). Ontology/Command: should we then say that the equipment of the universe contains something else, "objective commands", apart from command expressions and windows, imperative sentences? Objective Command/Prior: two things can be said about this: a) that someone explains it, i.e. they are the object of commanding, they constitute what is being commanded b) that they are not forming or binding c) that they are obeyed. (Ad c) see below) I 66 Command/Relation/Brackets/Prior: ad a) the common notion that a command is a relation between a commanding person and something that is commanded can be eliminated through proper brackets. Instead of "X commands us/to close the door" ""X commands us to"/"close door". Here, "commands us to" is not a two-digit predicate, but rather an operator that forms a sentence from a name on the one hand, and from an imperative sentence on the other. Facts/Ramsey: "There are facts": logical form: "for some p, ". (Special character) Standards/Prior: analog we could write if there are any standards at all "for some ". Problem: as far as this is at all comprehensible, it would be a command and not a sentence! Namely the most general command: "Do something." And so general that even doing nothing would be a case of doing something. (?). But that does not yet destroy the analogy. Unlike facts: here it would be impossible that there was any fact, because at least this finding would correspond to a fact, it would then be a fact that there are no facts and that would be a fact, i.e. there must be at least one fact. I 68 Command/Prior: analog, the command to do something is binding, if any command is binding, even the command to do nothing! It follows that doing nothing could not be binding (in the broad sense of "doing"). But while the command to do something is a necessary command in the sense that it is a command which is binding, if any command is binding, it is therefore also a trivial command like necessary truths as when it rains, it rains or the truth that there is truth. This is trivial. That is certainly not what people think who insist on "absolute moral standards". Command/Existence/Indicative/Imperative/Objectivity/Prior: Problem: E.g. "There are commands that have never been expressed and will never be expressed." Analog: indicative sentence: "There are facts (true propositions) that were never asserted and will never be asserted. Ramsey: "For some p, p, although it was never asserted and never will be." analog: imperative sentence: "For some a ("do a"), even though a was never commanded, not will be". Contradiction: This command has the particularity of being unspecifianble! Indicative sentence: E.g. "537 + 86251 = 86788 has never been asserted": This does not diminish the truth or plausibility of the sentence. Is that also true for the (binding) command? I 69 E.g. "The command to close the door, was binding before anyone expressed it" or "You should have closed the door before someone told you" according to common translation principles that would have to be translated as: ""I closed the door before..." i.e. it is a command to already have done something. (Absurd). Commands should always refer to the future. ((s) Christian commandments are maxims, not commands.) Prior: but: "you should have closed the door before someone told you does not sound so absurd at all! And it does not means that you now have an obligation with regard to the past. Nevertheless, it is not clear how the past tense should be introduced in a command. Problem: the past tense was precisely supposed to affect the commands here, and not the content. Reducing the objectivity of commands on the objectivity of propositions Command/Requirement/Objectivity/Existence/Prior: A similar problem exists with requirements (non-binding commands). Falsity/Ramsey: "There are falsities": logical form: "for some p, it is not the case that p". Analog: can you say "For some a, not a"? E.g. "Not (close the door)". Is this simply the command to leave the door open? But that would not be equivalent to the fact that the command to close the door was not binding, but that the opposite, to leave the door open, is binding. I.e. it would not be a translation of "There are requirements". But rather of "There are binding prohibitions". Prior: this is again about commanding and not about the content. I 70 It looks as if we needed something like Hare's neusticon and phrasticon. PriorVsHare: but I see no reason why the phrasticon could not simply be replaced by indicative sentences. Notation/McKinsey Hofstadter: "!p" ("shriek"): "Let it be the case that p". Or "See to it that p". "Bring forth p". Prohibition/Negation/Command/Prior: there are two possibilities here: a) "!not p": see to it that p does not happen" b) "not (!p)" as: "you need not worry about it". Past/Command: if the exclamation mark (shriek) can be modified like this by negation, then perhaps also by past operators? E.g. "Previously: !p". You should ensured p. Such forms could be called "imperatives" rather than commands. But this is a radical change to our original program. Our variables are now just those of the old propositions, and the formulas look very different. E.g. "Do something" can have two forms: a) "for some p see to it that p" b) See to it that (for some p, p). And these two are probably not equivalent! I 71 Furthermore, none of these is a parallel of the assertion "For some p, p". I.e. "There are facts" so that it is no longer plausible now, to identify this form with "There are standards". With this seems the hope for "objective commands" to have fallen into disrepute. The objective part of the command is our old friend, the proposition. If we want to be realists in ethics, only the old way remains. Introducing "It should be the case that __" as an operator for forming indicative sentences. |
Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 Pri II Arthur N. Prior Papers on Time and Tense 2nd Edition Oxford 2003 |
| Stroud, B. | Quine Vs Stroud, B. | Barry Stroud: it might be true that the world in its general form is completely different from the way in which we imagine it because of its effect on the senses. Davidson I 53 QuineVsStroud this difference would make no difference. Reason: since observation sentences are holophrastically (complete sentences) conditioned to stimulation, all connections between sentences and observation evidence will remain unchanged. From the standpoint of the subject nothing that could be done identified happened. Keep the structure, and you'll keep everything. I 53 |
Quine XIII Willard Van Orman Quine Quiddities Cambridge/London 1987 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phrastikon | Grice, P.H. | Meggle I 420 Walker: The thesis of the two theses of Grice (Conversations Hypothesis) and Cohen (Semantic Hypothesis) is to put a third to their side: Such expressions actually have more than one meaning. Here, there is a very different sense of "if". 1. Difference between question and indicative form. 2. The two parts are logically in reality independent of each other. The conditional is completely within what is questioned or commanded. Hare calls this "the phrastic". (Phrastikon). Example If it rains, stay home! |
|
| |||