DOCSLIB.ORG

Proquest Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is Included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI' Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Art)or, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 THE METAPHYSICS OF CLASSICAL LOGIC: SEMANTIC ANTI-REALISM, QUASI-REALISM AND LOGICAL REVISIONISM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joseph Roy Salerno, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved W Robert Kraut, co-adviser Neil Ten nant, co-adviser /t /I ^p^AdviserJ-^A dviser Stewart Shapiro Co-Adviser Department of Philosophy UMI Number: 9941424 UMI Microfonn 9941424 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microfonn edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 © Copyright by Joseph Roy Salerno 1999 ABSTRACT The project is to demonstrate important connections between our metaphysical views and the logical principles we endorse. For example, acceptance of the principle that every proposition is determinately true or false commits us to certain “meta­ physical realist” views about the existence of mind-independent facts. Conversely: acceptance of certain metaphysical views (e.g., “irrealist” views that deny the exis­ tence of certain kinds of facts) necessitate rejection of certain logics in favor of others. Current debates offer several views about the relation between logic and meta­ physics. “Semantic anti-realism,” says that truth is essentially constrained by possible knowledge: that is, that all truths are knowable, and that once this is acknowledged, we must revise classical logic. The arguments for this view are not compelling; I suggest that Dummett and others do not provide a precise enough account of the relation between logic and semantic anti-realism. My main positive contribution is a revised formulation of the purported connection. It establishes, in a way that others have not, that semantic anti-realism does issue a demand to revise our principles of logic. Another form of anti-realism suggests that certain indicative statements (e.g., statements of moral appraisal) serve not to represent facts, but rather to express sentiments. Such “irrealist” metaphysical views (Simon Blackburn’s expressr.dsm in ethics, for example) are said to be compatible with classical principles of inference. ii I argue that this is a mistake: despite Blaxrkbum’s “quasi-realist” attempts to show that the expressivist can consistently accept the Excluded Middle, the expressivist cannot consistently endorse the possibility of unknowable moral truths. So this form of metaphysical irrealism (viz., rejection of “moral facts”) entails an important form of semantic anti-realism (i.e., that all truths are knowable), and therefore, shares the its consequences for logical revision. One general result is that various metaphysical theories necessitate radical revi­ sions in our inferential rules. Another result is that endorsement of classical logic implies acceptance of various forms of metaphysical realism (some of which rule out “projectivist” or “expressivist” theories). Upshot: our logic really does, in some important sense, guide our metaphysics, and vice versa. m For Daniel IV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For being invaluable sources of ongoing discussion, insight and guidance, I am deeply grateful to Neil Tennant, Robert Kraut and Stewart Shapiro, a team of meta­ physicians that I will truly, truly miss. A special thanks goes to Sarah Pessin, Andrew Pessin, Hope May and Michael Russo, who have been great friends and even greater sources of inspiration over the yeêirs, to Jyllian Tricot for her selflessness, love and understanding, and to my parents and wonderful sisters, Jackie and Holly, for their perpetual love and support. Great thanks are also due to many others who have contributed in one positive way or another to my fulfilling graduate career and/or my professional endeavors, including Debra Blickensderfer, Robert Batterman, Jon Cogbum, Jon Curtis, Justin D’Arms, Jill Dieterle, Daniel Farrell, Richard Gamer, Kevin Giordano, Brenda Grosse, Mehran Habibi, Risto Hilpinen, Saii Johari, A1 Lent, Ty Lightner, Karrie Mills, Pierluigi Miraglia, Calvin Normore, George Pappas, Diana Raffrnan, George Schumm, Mark Silcox, Allan Silverman, Marshall Swain, James Summerford, William Taschek, and Crispin Wright. Daniel Kolak opened to me the door to philosophy. To him this manuscript is dedicated. VITA 1970 ...................................................................Bom - Livingston, NJ 1992 ..................................................... B.A. William Paterson. University, Wayne, NJ 1995 ...................................................................M.A. The Ohio State University 1993-1999 .........................................................Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Instructional Publications A Companion for Lovers of Wisdom^ with H. May and M. Russo (Wadsworth, 1997). FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Philosophy VI TABLE OP CONTENTS Page A bstract ........................................................................................................................ ii Dedication.................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... v V i t a ........................................................................................................................... vi Chapters: 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Some Philosophical P roblem s............................................................ 5 1.2 Radical Alternatives to Realism ......................................................... 10 1.3 The Project........................................................................................... 12 2. SEMANTIC ANTI-REALISM AND LOGICAL REVISION.......................................................................... 18 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 18 2.2 Restriction On A Meaningful Semantic D e b a te .............................. 20 2.3 Dummett’s Argument for Logical Revision ....................................... 22 2.4 Wright’s Argument for Logical R ev isio n .......................................... 25 2.5 Revising the Logic of Logical R evision ............................................. 29 2.6 Some Problems, Old and N ew ............................................................ 32 2.6.1 The Fitch Paradox of Knowabüity ......................................... 32 2.6.2 The Problem of Not Knowing .................................................. 34 2.6.3 The Problem of Shared Content ............................................... 35 2.6.4 The Problem of Godelian O p tim ism ...................................... 37 2.7 Appendix: Summary of Semantics, Rules, Theses and Results . 41 vu 2.7.1 Sem antics ........................................ 41 2.7.2 R u le s .......................................................................................... 41 2.7.3 Theses and Main Results ........................................................ 42 3. NON-FACTUALISM AND QUASI-REALISM............................................. 44 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 44 3.2 Projectivism ......................................................................................... 44 3.3 Quasi-Realism ....................................................................................... 49 3.4 When is Quasi-Realism Successful? .................................................... 51 3.4.1 The Consistency Constraint ..................................................... 51 3.4.2 The Conservativism Constraint ............................................... 52 3.5 The Problem of Normativity ................................................................. 53 3.6 Peircean Limits, and Improved
Recommended publications
  • On Moral Understanding

    On Moral Understanding

    COMMENTTHE COLLEGE NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO 147 | MAY 2003 TOM WHIPPS On Moral Understanding DNA pioneers: The surviving members of the King’s team, who worked on the discovery of the structure of DNA 50 years ago, withDavid James Watson, K Levytheir Cambridge ‘rival’ at the time. From left Ray Gosling, Herbert Wilson, DNA at King’s: DepartmentJames Watson and of Maurice Philosophy Wilkins King’s College the continuing story University of London Prize for his contribution – and A day of celebrations their teams, but also to subse- quent generations of scientists at ver 600 guests attended a cant scientific discovery of the King’s. unique day of events celeb- 20th century,’ in the words of Four Nobel Laureates – Mau- Orating King’s role in the 50th Principal Professor Arthur Lucas, rice Wilkins, James Watson, Sid- anniversary of the discovery of the ‘and their research changed ney Altman and Tim Hunt – double helix structure of DNA on the world’. attended the event which was so 22 April. The day paid tribute not only to oversubscribed that the proceed- Scientists at King’s played a King’s DNA pioneers Rosalind ings were relayed by video link to fundamental role in this momen- Franklin and Maurice Wilkins – tous discovery – ‘the most signifi- who went onto win the Nobel continued on page 2 2 Funding news | 3 Peace Operations Review | 5 Widening participation | 8 25 years of Anglo-French law | 11 Margaret Atwood at King’s | 12 Susan Gibson wins Rosalind Franklin Award | 15 Focus: School of Law | 16 Research news | 18 Books | 19 KCLSU election results | 20 Arts abcdef U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N A C C O M M O D A T I O N O F F I C E ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION - FINDING SOMEWHERE TO LIVE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy WARNING: Under no circumstances inshould the this University document be of taken London as providing legal advice.
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference

    Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference

    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
  • DICTIONARY of PHILOSOPHY This Page Intentionally Left Blank

    DICTIONARY of PHILOSOPHY This Page Intentionally Left Blank

    A DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY This page intentionally left blank. A Dictionary of Philosophy Third edition A.R.Lacey Department of Philosophy, King’s College, University of London First published in 1976 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd Second edition 1986 Third edition 1996 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” © A.R.Lacey 1976, 1986, 1996 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Lacey, A.R. A dictionary of philosophy.—3rd edn. 1. Philosophy—Dictionaries I. Title 190′.3′21 B41 ISBN 0-203-19819-0 Master e-book ISBN ISBN 0-203-19822-0 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-13332-7 (Print Edition) Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available on request Preface to the first edition This book aims to give the layman or intending student a pocket encyclopaedia of philosophy, one with a bias towards explaining terminology. The latter task is not an easy one since philosophy is regularly concerned with concepts which are unclear.
  • The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: a Relevance-Theoretic Account

    The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: a Relevance-Theoretic Account

    The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic Account Ingrid Lossius Falkum Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London January 2011 I, Ingrid Lossius Falkum, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. _____________________ Sign. 2 Abstract This thesis investigates the phenomenon of polysemy: a single lexical form with two or multiple related senses (e.g. catch the rabbit/order the rabbit; lose a wallet/lose a relative; a handsome man/a handsome gift). I develop a pragmatic account of polysemy within the framework of Sperber and Wilson’s relevance theory, where new senses for a word are constructed during on-line comprehension by means of a single process of ad hoc concept construction, which adjusts the meanings of individual words in different directions. While polysemy is largely unproblematic from the perspective of communication, it poses a range of theoretical and descriptive problems. This is sometimes termed the polysemy paradox. A widely held view in lexical semantics is that word meanings must consist of complex representations in order to capture the sense relations involved in polysemy. Contrary to this view, I argue that a conceptual atomist approach, which treats word meanings as unstructured atoms and thereby avoids the range of problems associated with decompositional theories of word meaning, may be at least as able to account for polysemy when paired with an adequate pragmatic theory. My proposed solution to the polysemy paradox is to treat polysemy as a fundamentally communicative phenomenon, which arises as a result of encoded lexical concepts being massively underdetermining of speaker-intended concepts, and is grounded in our pragmatic inferential ability.
  • Phenomenalism in Epistemology and Physicalism in Aesthetics 441 Belonging to a Subject and Representing an Object

    Phenomenalism in Epistemology and Physicalism in Aesthetics 441 Belonging to a Subject and Representing an Object

    doi: 10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n3p439 PHENOMENALISMIN EPISTEMOLOGY AND PHYSICALISM IN AESTHETICS JACQUES MORIZOT Université de Provence Abstract. The starting point of this paper is the intriguing observation that Goodman has defended a phenomenalist point of view in his epistemological works and a physicalist one in aesthetics. In fact, it would certainly be more accurate to say that his focus was anti physicalist in epistemology and anti phenomenalist in aesthetics. In any case a majority of interpreters would spontaneously have waited for a diametrically opposite choice, more con- sistent indeed with the positions taken by the representatives in these fields. Yet Goodman’s strategy is not arbitrary, it has deep roots in the general context of the philosophy in the twentieth century and in return contributes to clarify some of its features and motivation. Keywords: Phenomenalism; physicalism; epistemology; aesthetics. The starting point of this paper is the intriguing observation that Goodman has de- fended a phenomenalist point of view in his epistemological works and a physicalist one in aesthetics. In fact, it would certainly be more accurate to say that his focus was anti physicalist in epistemology and anti phenomenalist in aesthetics. In any case a majority of interpreters would spontaneously have waited for a diametrically opposite choice, more consistent indeed with the positions taken by the representa- tives in these fields. Yet Goodman’s strategy is not arbitrary, it has deep roots in the general context of the philosophy in the twentieth century and in return contributes to clarify some of its features and motivation. First it is worth mentioning that to state the problem in these terms may already seem questionable because the concept of ‘phenomenalism’ no longer occupies a prominent place in our contemporary philosophical horizon.
  • Structuralism, Indispensability, and the Access Problem Russell Marcus

    Structuralism, Indispensability, and the Access Problem Russell Marcus

    Structuralism, Indispensability, and the Access Problem Russell Marcus, Ph.D. Chauncey Truax Post-Doctoral Fellow Department of Philosophy, Hamilton College 198 College Hill Road Clinton NY 13323 [email protected] (315) 859-4056 (office) (315) 381-3125 (home) (917) 903-7483 (mobile) January 2008 2783 words Abstract: The central problem in the philosophy of mathematics concerns access. The access problem arises from the common supposition that the referents of mathematical terms inhabit a realm separate from us. Quine’s approach in the philosophy of mathematics, his indispensability argument, dissolves the access problem, though his solution sometimes goes unrecognized, even by those who are sympathetic to his work. According to the indispensability argument, we are justified in believing in a limited mathematical ontology, even if we lack any special faculty for acquiring mathematical knowledge. This paper highlights both Quine’s position and its neglect. As an example, I defend Michael Resnik’s structuralism from recent criticism. Resnik has no access problem for the so-called mathematical objects he posits, since he relies on a Quinean indispensability argument. Still, the indispensabilist does not provide an account of our access to the objects of a traditional mathematical ontology, and this may be seen as a real access problem. Structuralism, Indispensability, and the Access Problem, page 1 §1: Structuralism and the Problem of Mathematics The central epistemological problem for mathematics is sometimes called the access problem. The access problem arises from a two-realm view, the supposition that the referents of mathematical singular terms inhabit a realm which is separate from us. The history of philosophy is littered with attempts to solve the access problem, which is just the old question of how concrete humans can have knowledge of abstract mathematical objects.
  • Katz, Jerrold J. (1932–2002) D

    Katz, Jerrold J. (1932–2002) D

    Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (Second Edition), 2006, Pages 165–167. Katz, Jerrold J. (1932–2002) D. Terence Langendoen Department of Linguistics University of Arizona P O Box 210028 Tucson AZ 85721-0028 USA [email protected] Abstract This biography of Jerrold J. Katz focuses on his main contributions to linguistic theory and the philosophy of language. His accomplishments include (1) developing the first comprehensive theory of semantics within generative grammar, (2) proposing that language is an abstract rather than a physical or mental object, and (3) challenging the Fregean notions that sense determines reference and that semantic form is equivalent to logical form. In addition to his general semantic theory, Katz worked out detailed accounts of presupposition, illocutionary force, idioms and names, and published authoritatively on the work of such philosophers as René Descartes, Gottlob Frege, Willard van Orman Quine, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Jerrold Katz’s career Katz received a PhD in Philosophy from Princeton University in 1960. In 1961 he became Research Associate in Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was appointed Assistant Professor of Philosophy there in 1963. He quickly rose through the ranks at MIT, becoming Professor of Philosophy in 1969. He was appointed Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Linguistics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York in 1975, a position he held until his death. He wrote or coauthored 11 books and over 75 articles on philosophy and linguistics, and edited or coedited three books. Semantics in generative grammar Katz started out with the goal “to try to understand meaning in natural language using some form of Fregean intensionalism to provide a semantic theory for Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar, which ..
  • (Anti-)Realisms: the Metaphysical Issue

    (Anti-)Realisms: the Metaphysical Issue

    Philosophia Scientiæ Travaux d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences 12-1 | 2008 (Anti-)Realisms: The Metaphysical Issue Roger Pouivet et Manuel Rebuschi (dir.) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/195 DOI : 10.4000/philosophiascientiae.195 ISSN : 1775-4283 Éditeur Éditions Kimé Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 avril 2008 ISSN : 1281-2463 Référence électronique Roger Pouivet et Manuel Rebuschi (dir.), Philosophia Scientiæ, 12-1 | 2008, « (Anti-)Realisms: The Metaphysical Issue » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 01 avril 2008, consulté le 19 janvier 2021. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/philosophiascientiae/195 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ philosophiascientiae.195 Tous droits réservés Preface Roger Pouivet & Manuel Rebuschi L.H.S.P. – Archives H. Poincaré (UMR 7117) The fundamental question of Metaphysics is “What is reality?” And the most fundamental question about this fundamental question is “Can we answer this question?” Full realists think we can. They are convinced that the world is in- dependent of our minds and that we can know it as it is independently of us. Half realists think that the world is independent of us (onto- logical realism), but that we cannot know it as it is independently of our minds (epistemological anti-realism). Full anti-realists think that both the world and our knowledge of it depend on our minds, thoughts, languages, categories, conceptual schemes, ways of worldmaking, intel- lectual habits, social practices, political organization, gender, sexual preferences, and so on. For them, “reality” is a deeply relative word; and reality is something we make, not something we find. It is a con- struct, not a ready-made.
  • Philosophy of Linguistics to Appear in Kelly Michael Becker and Iain Thomson, Eds., the Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945-2015

    Philosophy of Linguistics to Appear in Kelly Michael Becker and Iain Thomson, Eds., the Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945-2015

    Philosophy of Linguistics To appear in Kelly Michael Becker and Iain Thomson, eds., The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945-2015 Geoffrey K. Pullum School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh Draft of June 5, 2018 Linguistics in 1945 was a modest discipline, with much to be modest about.1 Very few universities had linguistics departments; the profession was tiny. The history of American linguistics (on which this brief chapter concentrates, because it has been the main focus of philosophical interest) goes back barely a hundred years. Its foundational documents include the Handbook of American Indian Languages (Boas 1911), a posthumously reconstructed lecture course by Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), and Leonard Bloomfield’s general survey of the field Language (1933). Linguistics may not have been on the radar for philosophers of science in the 1940s, but lin- guists had philosophical interests. Much influenced by the positivism and operationalism of the Vienna Circle, they sought general analytical procedures not just for practical use by field lin- guists working on undocumented languages but as theoretically rigorous methods, applicable to any language, that would both yield a scientifically adequate analysis and confer epistemological justification upon it. They were divided between realists and antirealists. Householder (1952) introduced the epi- thets “God’s-truth” and “hocus-pocus” for the two camps. God’s-truthers believed linguistic ex- pressions had structure that linguists should try to discover. Hocus-pocus linguists believed that no structural properties inhered in the acoustic mush of utterances as physically experienced: linguists imputed structure and systematicity to them to render language more scientifically tractable.
  • Critique of Worldmaking»? Nelson Goodman’S Conception of Philosophy

    Critique of Worldmaking»? Nelson Goodman’S Conception of Philosophy

    Enrahonar. Quaderns de Filosofia 49, 2012 29-40 What is «Critique of Worldmaking»? Nelson Goodman’s Conception of Philosophy Lars Leeten Universität Hildesheim [email protected] Abstract The contribution examines Goodman’s conception of philosophy, in particular his remark that his project can be understood as a «critique of worldmaking». It is argued that, despite dealing with epistemological questions, the general theory of symbols and worldmaking does not answer them. Rather, it can be conceived as a practical conception comparable to Kant’s critique of reason or to Wittgenstein’s critique of language games, i. e., as a philosophy of world orient ation. It is claimed that Goodman himself could not artic ulate this dimension of his position appropriately as he kept using the language of epistemol- ogy. Yet many aspects of his thinking become much clearer if they are interpreted with in a non-epistemological frame. Keywords: Goodman; symbol theory; worldmaking; world orientation; world disclosure. Resumen. ¿Qué es la «crítica de la construcción de mundos»? La concepción de la filosofía de Nelson Goodman Esta contribución examina la concepción de la filosofía de Goodman, concretamente su afirmación de que su proyecto puede entenderse como una «crítica de la construcción de mundos». Se argumenta que, a pesar de tratar cuestiones epistemológicas, la teoría general de los símbolos y de la construcción de mundos no las contesta. Más bien se puede conside- rar como una concepción práctica comparable a la crítica de la razón de Kant o a la crítica de los juegos del lenguaje de Wittgenstein, esto es, como una filosofía de la orientación del mundo.
  • Article Precises

    Article Precises

    Philosophy 408: The Language Revolution Hamilton College Spring 2009 Russell Marcus Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:30pm - 3:45pm [email protected] Article Prècises Assignments In preparing for most classes, you should write an article prècis. Article prècises are 100- to 150- word summaries of an assigned reading. I will collect all of your prècises at the end of the term, May 7, unless you display a need for me to collect them earlier. You will mainly be graded on the completion of twenty prècises, rather than their quality. I expect that the prècises will be useful to you in preparing both for classes and for the final exam. You need not complete a prècis for the three classes in which you are presenting a seminar paper. In lieu of up to five prècises, you can write a list of 6-8 detailed questions on the reading. The following is a list readings for which prècises are assigned; for readings which we will discuss in more than one class, you may be asked to write more than one prècis. John Locke, “Of Words” Gottlob Frege, “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry” Gottlob Frege, “On Sense and Nominatum” Bertrand Russell, “Descriptions” P.F. Strawson, “On Referring” Keith Donnellan, “Reference and Definite Descriptions” Saul Kripke, “Naming and Necessity” (twice) Hilary Putnam, “Meaning and Reference” Ayer, “The Principle of Verification” W.V. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (twice) W.V. Quine, “Ontological Relativity” H.P. Grice, “Meaning” Mark Johnston, “The End of the Theory of Meaning” Alfred Tarski, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics” Donald Davidson, “Truth and Meaning” Jerrold Katz, “Introduction” and “Sense” Wittgenstein, “On Private Language” (twice) Saul Kripke, “On Rules and Private Languages” Ruth Millikan, “Truth Rules, Hoverflies, and the Kripke-Wittgenstein Paradox” Noam Chomsky, “Language and Problems of Knowledge” Jerrold Katz, “The Unfinished Chomskyan Revolution” Michael Devitt, “Linguistics is Not Psychology”.
  • The Nature of Aesthetic Experiences

    The Nature of Aesthetic Experiences

    The Nature of Aesthetic Experiences Fabian Dorsch University College London MPhil Philosophy March 2000 Abstract This dissertation provides a theory of the nature of aesthetic experiences on the basis of a theory of aes- thetic values. It results in the formulation of the following necessary conditions for an experience to be aesthetic: (i) it must consist of a (complex) representation of an object and an accompanying feeling; (ii) the representation must instantiate an intrinsic value; and (iii) the feeling must be the recognition of that value and bestow it on the object. Since representations are of intrinsic value for different reasons, there are different kinds of aesthetic experiences (such as sensual or meta-cognitive ones). By means of certain conceptual links, it is possible to extend this account to other aesthetic entities thus enabling the formulation of a general theory of the aesthetic in non-aesthetic terms. In particular, aes- thetic values are identical with subjective dispositions to elicit aesthetic experiences under normal condi- tions. Accordingly, I endorse anti-realism about aesthetic values: their existence, nature and exemplifica- tion are mind-dependent, while their ascriptions to objects have genuine truth-values. I back up this ac- count by arguing against the alternative positions that either take aesthetic values to be objective or deny the truth-aptness of their attributions. Furthermore, I put forward a relativist variant of anti-realism according to which ascriptions of differ- ent (and seemingly incompatible) aesthetic values to a particular object are all correct, given that the aes- thetic experiences involved are made under normal conditions and concern the same aesthetically non- evaluative features of that object.