Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction

This paper advances the following criticisms against the received view of implicatures: (1) implicatures are relations of pragmatic implication and not attempts to convey particular speaker meanings; (2) conversational implicatures are non-cancellable; (3) generalised conversational implicatures and conventional implicatures are necessary to preserve the cooperative assumption by means of a conversational maxim of conveyability; (4) implicatures should be divided in utterance implicatures and assumption implicatures, not speaker implicatures and sentence implicatures; (5) trivial implicatures are genuine implicatures; (6) Grice’s theory of (...) conversation cannot explain most of his own examples of particularised conversational implicatures; (7) the apparent attempts of explicit cancellation of implicatures are apologies, not attempts to avoid misunderstandings. (shrink)

In this paper, I analyze the concept of ineffability: what does it mean to say that something cannot be said? I begin by distinguishing ineffability from paradox: if something cannot be said truly or without contradiction, this is not an instance of ineffability. Next, I distinguish two different meanings of ‘saying something’ which result from a fundamental ambiguity in the term ‘language’, viz. language as a system of symbols and language as a medium of communication. Accordingly, ‘ineffability’ is ambiguous, too, (...) and we should make a distinction between weak and strong ineffability. Weak ineffability is rooted in the deficiencies of a particular language while strong ineffability stems from the structure of a particular cognitive system and its capacities for conceptual mental representation. Mental contents are only sayable if we are able to conceptualize them and then create signs to represent them in communication. (shrink)

I argue that semantics is the study of the proprietary database of a centrally inaccessible and informationally encapsulated input–output system. This system’s role is to encode and decode partial and defeasible evidence of what speakers are saying. Since information about nonlinguistic context is therefore outside the purview of semantic processing, a sentence’s semantic value is not its content but a partial and defeasible constraint on what it can be used to say. I show how to translate this thesis into a (...) detailed compositional-semantic theory based on the influential framework of Heim and Kratzer. This approach situates semantics within an independently motivated account of human cognitive architecture and reveals the semantics–pragmatics interface to be grounded in the underlying interface between modular and central systems. (shrink)

This article focuses on foundational issues in dynamic and static semantics, specifically on what is conceptually at stake between the dynamic framework and the truth-conditional framework, and consequently what kinds of evidence support each framework. The article examines two questions. First, it explores the consequences of taking the proposition as central semantic notion as characteristic of static semantics, and argues that this is not as limiting in accounting for discourse dynamics as many think. Specifically, it explores what it means for (...) a static semantics to incorporate the notion of context change potential in a dynamic pragmatics and denies that this conception of static semantics requires that all updates to the context be eliminative and distributive. Second, it argues that the central difference between the two frameworks is whether semantics or pragmatics accounts for dynamics, and explores what this means for the oft-heard claim that dynamic semantics blurs the semantics/pragmatics distinction. (shrink)

One of the central figures of philosophy of language- John Langshaw Austin, attributes principles of causation to the mere pragmatic language. Conversely, Kant tried to construct a “free human act” which is independent from any physical determination except its innate motivations via his well-known the phenomenal / noumenal distinction. That kind of Kantian metaphysical ground which addresses to the noumenal field, he obviously tries to establish this behavioral causation again by denying Austinian style pragmatic propositions or illocutionary acts. I claimed (...) that sort of duality between Austin and Kant, creates an epistemological problem with how propositions and actions relate. From a Kantian position, it (indetermination) is overlooked by Austin's propositional doctrine, without being grounded on any universal principle, but only with propositions that embraced by speech act theory. (shrink)

A short reconstruction of the origins of the concept of metaphor, the early modern mistrust of metaphor in the name of univocal scientific language, the twentieth century rescue of the cognitive value of metaphor.

Philosophers have nearly universally assumed that some highly general semantic relationship obtains between slurs and so-called “neutral counterpart” terms. This assumption has been fleshed out in different ways. On all extant accounts, however, it implies an unmotivated distinction between paradigmatic slur/“neutral counterpart” pairs and many pairs that theorists haven’t considered, including `chick flick’/`romantic comedy’, `stoner’/`cannabis user’, and `liberal’/`libtard’. For pairs like these, the most intuitive theory of the target relationship involves overlap––both in (presumed) extension and associated stereotypes. Since (I argue) (...) we have no good reason to distinguish pairs like `chick flick'/`romantic comedy’ from paradigmatic slur/“neutral counterpart” pairs, we have good reason to accept an overlap thesis about those pairs, too. An overlap thesis can accommodate the intuitions behind more orthodox views of slurs. It also paves the way for a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms of ordinary bigotry. (shrink)

Tarski's analysis of the concept of truth gives rise to a hierarchy of languages. Does this fragment the concept all the way to philosophical unacceptability? I argue it doesn't, drawing on a modification of Kaplan's theory of indexicals.

Frege argued for the force-content distinction not only by appealing to the logical and fictional contexts which are most closely associated with the “Frege point", but also based on the fact that an affirmative answer to a yes-no question constitutes an assertion. Supposedly this is only intelligible if the question contains a forceless thought or proposition which an affirmative answer then asserts. Against this I argue that this fact more readily supports the view that questions operate on assertions and other (...) forceful acts themselves. Force is neither added to propositions as on the traditional view, nor is it cancelled as has recently been proposed. Rather higher-level acts such as questioning, but also e.g. conditionalizing, embed and present assertoric or directive acts that are forceful and committal, while suspending commitment to them. The Frege point confounds different varieties of force and the question whether something is merely presented for consideration with the question what is so presented. Force is representational: through assertoric and directive force indicators subjects non-conceptually present positions of theoretical or practical knowledge, while interrogative acts indicate positions of wondering which strive for such knowledge. (shrink)

Det är min uppfattning att tabellen över avsiktlighet (rationalitet, medvetande, sinne, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har framträdande här beskriver mer eller mindre exakt, eller åtminstone fungerar som en heuristisk för, hur vi tänker och beter sig, och så det omfattar inte bara filosofi och psykologi, men allt annat (historia, litteratur, matematik, politik etc.). Observera särskilt att avsiktlighet och rationalitet som jag (tillsammans med Searle, Wittgenstein och andra) visa det, omfattar både medvetna deliberative språkliga System 2 och omedvetna automatiserade prelinguistiska (...) System 1 åtgärder eller reflexer. Jag ger en kritisk undersökning av några av de viktigaste resultaten av två av de mest framstående studenter beteende i modern tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein och John Searle, om den logiska strukturen av avsiktlighet (sinne, språk, medvetande, beteende), med som min utgångspunkt Wittgenstein grundläggande upptäckt, att alla verkligt "filosofiska" problem är desamma-förvirring om hur man använder språket i ett visst sammanhang, och så alla lösningar är desamma, titta på hur språket kan användas i det aktuella sammanhanget så att dess sanningsvillkor (Villkor för tillfredsställelse eller COS) är tydliga. Det grundläggande problemet är att man kan säga vad som helst, men man kan inte betyda (ange tydliga COS för) någon godtycklig yttrande och mening är endast möjligt i ett mycket specifikt sammanhang. Jag analyserar olika skrifter av och om dem från det moderna perspektivet av de två tankesystemen (populariserades som "tänkande snabbt, tänkande långsamt"), med en ny tabell över avsiktlighet och nya dubbla system nomenklatur. Jag visar att detta är en kraftfull heuristisk för att beskriva beteende. Således är allt beteende intimt ansluten om man tar rätt synvinkel. Den fenomenologiska Illusion (glömska till vårt automatiserade System 1) är universell och sträcker sig inte bara hela filosofin utan hela livet. Jag är säker på att Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg och påven skulle vara skeptiska om berättade att de lider av samma problem som Hegel, Husserl och Heidegger, (eller att de skiljer sig endast i grad från drog-och sexmissbrukare i att motiveras av stimulering av deras frontalkortices genom leverans av dopamin (och över 100 andra kemikalier) via ventrala tegmentum och nukleos accumbens), men det är helt klart sant. Medan fenomenologerna bara slösat bort en hel del människors tid, slösar de bort jorden och deras ättlings framtid. (shrink)

Det är min uppfattning att tabellen över avsiktlighet (rationalitet, medvetande, sinne, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har framträdande här beskriver mer eller mindre exakt, eller åtminstone fungerar som en heuristisk för, hur vi tänker och beter sig, och så det omfattar inte bara filosofi och psykologi, men allt annat (historia, litteratur, matematik, politik etc.). Observera särskilt att avsiktlighet och rationalitet som jag (tillsammans med Searle, Wittgenstein och andra) visa det, omfattar både medvetna deliberative språkliga System 2 och omedvetna automatiserade prelinguistiska (...) System 1 åtgärder eller reflexer. Jag ger en kritisk undersökning av några av de viktigaste resultaten av två av de mest framstående studenter beteende i modern tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein och John Searle, om den logiska strukturen av avsiktlighet (sinne, språk, medvetande, beteende), med som min utgångspunkt Wittgenstein grundläggande upptäckt, att alla verkligt "filosofiska" problem är desamma-förvirring om hur man använder språket i ett visst sammanhang, och så alla lösningar är desamma, titta på hur språket kan användas i det aktuella sammanhanget så att dess sanningsvillkor (Villkor för tillfredsställelse eller COS) är tydliga. Det grundläggande problemet är att man kan säga vad som helst, men man kan inte betyda (ange tydliga COS för) någon godtycklig yttrande och mening är endast möjligt i ett mycket specifikt sammanhang. Jag analyserar olika skrifter av och om dem från det moderna perspektivet av de två tankesystemen (populariserades som "tänkande snabbt, tänkande långsamt"), med en ny tabell över avsiktlighet och nya dubbla system nomenklatur. Jag visar att detta är en kraftfull heuristisk för att beskriva beteende. Således är allt beteende intimt ansluten om man tar rätt synvinkel. Den fenomenologiska Illusion (glömska till vårt automatiserade System 1) är universell och sträcker sig inte bara hela filosofin utan hela livet. Jag är säker på att Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg och påven skulle vara skeptiska om berättade att de lider av samma problem som Hegel, Husserl och Heidegger, (eller att de skiljer sig endast i grad från drog-och sexmissbrukare i att motiveras av stimulering av deras frontalkortices genom leverans av dopamin (och över 100 andra kemikalier) via ventrala tegmentum och nukleos accumbens), men det är helt klart sant. Medan fenomenologerna bara slösat bort en hel del människors tid, slösar de bort jorden och deras ättlings framtid. (shrink)

帮助我们近亲的遗传倾向（"利他主义"）对于我们几万至数千万年前在非洲平原上祖先的生存至关重要，在拥挤不堪的世界里是一个致命的缺陷，我们的邻居不再关系密切，正在为生存而进行生死斗争。 我称之为"一个大幸福家庭妄想"，它是政治左派自杀的乌托邦妄想的核心，这种妄想是由于地球无情地强奸而带来的暂时丰富的资源和相对和平。 过去有意义的自由政治观点正在导致现代民主社会的崩溃，或许也带来了文明本身的崩溃。 虽然这是显而易见的任何明亮的10岁，访问网络，甚至卫星电视， 它完全不透明的自由/民主/新马克思主义/新法西斯主义/第三世界至上主义/20，30，40的东西Googloids和iPhoners，谁将很快接管和破坏繁荣与和平在美国和英国，然后世界，无论是直接，并通 过开放它由墨西哥卡特尔，伊斯兰圣战者和超越，统治中国的七个社会路径。美国和世界正处于人口过度增长的崩溃过程中，大部分都发生在上个世纪，现在由于第三世界人民，这一切都在崩溃。资源消耗和增加20亿美元，将 使工业文明崩溃，造成饥饿、疾病、暴力和战争。地球每年至少损失1%的表土，因此，随着接近2100，大部分粮食生长能力将不复存在。数十亿人将死去，核战争几乎可以肯定。在美国，大规模移民和移民再生产，加上民 主带来的滥用，正在大大加速这一速度。堕落的人性无情地把民主和多样性的梦想变成犯罪和贫穷的噩梦。对基本生物学和心理的无知导致部分受过教育的人的社会工程错觉，他们控制着民主社会。很少有人明白，如果你帮助一 个人，你伤害了别人——没有免费的午餐，任何人消费的每一件物品都会破坏地球，无法修复。因此，世界各地的社会政策都是不可持续的，如果不严格控制自私，所有社会都会陷入无政府状态或独裁。几乎从未提及的最基本事 实是，美国或世界没有足够的资源来使相当一部分穷人摆脱贫困，并让他们留在贫困中。这样做的企图使美国破产，毁灭世界。地球生产食物的能力每天都在下降，我们的遗传质量也是如此。现在，一如既往，穷人的最大敌人是 其他穷人，而不是富人。如果不立即作出戏剧性改变，就没有希望阻止美国或任何遵循民主制度的国家的崩溃。.

הטיעון שלי הוא שטבלת הכוונות (הרציונליות, התודעה , הנפש, המחשבה, השפה, האישיות וכדומה) שתכונות בולטת כאן מתארות פחות או יותר מדויק, או לפחות משמשת כיוריסטיל, כיצד אנו חושבים ומתנהגים, ולכן היא כוללת לא רק פילוסופיה ופסיכולוגיה, אלא כל דבר אחר (היסטוריה הערה במיוחד כי הכוונות והרציונליות כפי שאני (יחד עם סריל, Wittgenstein ואחרים) להציג אותו, כולל מערכת לשונית מודעת מודע 2 מודע אוטומטי prelinguistic מערכת 1 פעולות או רפלקסים. אני מספק סקר קריטי של חלק מהממצאים העיקריים של שניים מהתלמידים הבולטים (...) ביותר של התנהגות הזמנים המודרניים, לודוויג ויטגנשטיין וג סריל, על המבנה הלוגי של הכוונות (המוח, שפה, תודעה, התנהגות), שלוקחים כנקודת המוצא של התגלית הבסיסית של ויטגנשטיין – שכל הבעיות הפילוסופיות הקיימות הן זהות – בלבולים לגבי אופן השימוש בשפה בהקשר מסוים, ולכן כל הפתרונות זהים – בהסתכלות בשפה שניתן להשתמש בהם בהקשר בנושא, כך שתנאי האמת (תנאי ש הבעיה הבסיסית היא שאפשר לומר כל דבר , אבל אחד לא יכול להתכוון (המדינה ברורה כי) כל אמירה שרירותית ומשמעות אפשרית רק בהקשר ספציפי מאוד. אני מנתח כתבים שונים על ידי ועליהם מנקודת המבט המודרנית של שתי מערכות מחשבה (לפופולרי כמו "חשיבה מהירה, חשיבה איטית"), העסקת שולחן חדש של כוונות הכוונות החדש של מערכות כפולות מינוח. אני מראה שזוהי היוריסטירבת עוצמה לתיאור התנהגות. לכן, כל ההתנהגות קשורה באופן אינטימי אם האדם מקבל את נקודת המבט הנכונה. האשליה הפנומנולוגית (השכחה למערכת האוטומטית שלנו 1) היא אוניברסלית והיא מתרחבת לא רק במהלך הפילוסופיה, אלא במהלך החיים. אני בטוח שחומסקי, אובמה, צוקרברג והאפיפיור היו מאוד בטוחים אם אמרו שהם סובלים מאותה בעיה כמו הגל, Husserl והיידגר, (או כי הם נבדלים רק במידה מסמים ומכורים למין בלהיות מונעים על ידי גירוי של מערבולות הקדמית שלהם על ידי משלוח של דופמין (ויותר מ 100 כימיקלים אחרים) דרך tegmentum והגרעין האקומבדים), אבל זה נכון בבירור. בעוד שphenomenologists בזבזו הרבה זמן של אנשים, הם מבזבזים את האדמה ואת עתידו של הצאצא שלהם. (shrink)

Je suis d'avis que la table de l'intentionnalité (rationalité, esprit, conscience, pensée, langage, personnalité, etc.) qui figure en bonne place ici décrit plus ou moins précisément, ou du moins sert d'heuristique pour, comment nous pensons et nous nous comportions, et donc il n'englobe pas simplement la philosophie et la psychologie, mais tout le reste (histoire, littérature, mathématiques, politique, etc.). Notez en particulier que l'intentionnalité et la rationalité que je (avec Searle, Wittgenstein et d'autres) le voir, comprend à la fois conscient (...) délibératif système linguistique 2 et inconscient automatisé système prélinguistique 1 actions ou réflexes. Je fournis une enquête critique de quelques-unes des principales conclusions de deux des plus éminents étudiants du comportement des temps modernes, Ludwig Wittgenstein et John Searle, sur la structure logique de l'intentionnalité (esprit, langue, comportement), en prenant comme point de départ La découverte fondamentale de Wittgenstein, à savoir que tous les problèmes véritablement « philosophiques » sont les mêmes, les confusions sur la façon d'utiliser la langue dans un contexte particulier, et donc toutes les solutions sont les mêmes— en regardant comment la langue peut être utilisée dans le contexte en cause afin que sa vérité (Conditions de satisfaction ou COS) sont claires. Le problème fondamental est que l'on peut dire n'importe quoi, mais on ne peut pas signifier (état clair COS pour) toute déclaration arbitraire et le sens n'est possible que dans un contexte très spécifique. J'analyse divers écrits par et à leur sujet du point de vue moderne des deux systèmes de pensée (popularisés comme «penser vite, penser lentement»), en utilisant une nouvelle table de l'intentionnalité et de nouvelles nomenclatures de systèmes doubles. Je montre que c'est un puissant heuristique pour décrire le comportement. Ainsi, tout comportement est intimement lié si l'on prend le point de vue correct. L'illusion phénoménologique (oubli de notre système automatisé 1) est universelle et s'étend non seulement à travers la philosophie, mais tout au long de la vie. Je suis sûr que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg et le pape serait incrédule si on leur dit qu'ils souffrent du même problème que Hegel, Husserl et Heidegger, (ou qu'ils diffèrent seulement dans le degré de la drogue et les toxicomanes du sexe en étant motivés par la stimulation de leur cortices frontaux par la livraison de dopamine (et plus de 100 autres produits chimiques) via le tegmentum ventral et le noyau accumbens), mais c'est clairement vrai. Alors que les phénoménologues ne gaspillaient que beaucoup de temps, ils gaspillent la terre et l'avenir de leur descendant. (shrink)

Je suis d'avis que la table de l'intentionnalité (rationalité, esprit, conscience, pensée, langage, personnalité, etc.) qui figure en bonne place ici décrit plus ou moins précisément, ou du moins sert d'heuristique pour, comment nous pensons et nous nous comportions, et donc il n'englobe pas simplement la philosophie et la psychologie, mais tout le reste (histoire, littérature, mathématiques, politique, etc.). Notez en particulier que l'intentionnalité et la rationalité que je (avec Searle, Wittgenstein et d'autres) le voir, comprend à la fois conscient (...) délibératif système linguistique 2 et inconscient automatisé système prélinguistique 1 actions ou réflexes. Je fournis une enquête critique de quelques-unes des principales conclusions de deux des plus éminents étudiants du comportement des temps modernes, Ludwig Wittgenstein et John Searle, sur la structure logique de l'intentionnalité (esprit, langue, comportement), en prenant comme point de départ La découverte fondamentale de Wittgenstein, à savoir que tous les problèmes véritablement « philosophiques » sont les mêmes, les confusions sur la façon d'utiliser la langue dans un contexte particulier, et donc toutes les solutions sont les mêmes— en regardant comment la langue peut être utilisée dans le contexte en cause afin que sa vérité (Conditions de satisfaction ou COS) sont claires. Le problème fondamental est que l'on peut dire n'importe quoi, mais on ne peut pas signifier (état clair COS pour) toute déclaration arbitraire et le sens n'est possible que dans un contexte très spécifique. J'analyse divers écrits par et à leur sujet du point de vue moderne des deux systèmes de pensée (popularisés comme «penser vite, penser lentement»), en utilisant une nouvelle table de l'intentionnalité et de nouvelles nomenclatures de systèmes doubles. Je montre que c'est un puissant heuristique pour décrire le comportement. Ainsi, tout comportement est intimement lié si l'on prend le point de vue correct. L'illusion phénoménologique (oubli de notre système automatisé 1) est universelle et s'étend non seulement à travers la philosophie, mais tout au long de la vie. Je suis sûr que Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg et le pape serait incrédule si on leur dit qu'ils souffrent du même problème que Hegel, Husserl et Heidegger, (ou qu'ils diffèrent seulement dans le degré de la drogue et les toxicomanes du sexe en étant motivés par la stimulation de leur cortices frontaux par la livraison de dopamine (et plus de 100 autres produits chimiques) via le tegmentum ventral et le noyau accumbens), mais c'est clairement vrai. Alors que les phénoménologues ne gaspillaient que beaucoup de temps, ils gaspillent la terre et l'avenir de leur descendant. (shrink)

È mia contesa che la tabella dell'intenzionalità (razionalità, coscienza, mente, pensiero, linguaggio, personalità, ecc.) che figura in primo piano qui descrive più o meno accuratamente, o almeno serve come euristica per, come pensiamo e ci comportiamo, e quindi comprende non solo la filosofia e la psicologia, ma tutto il resto (storia, letteratura, matematica, politica ecc.). Si noti in particolare che l'intenzionalità e la razionalità come io (insieme a Searle, Wittgenstein e altri) lo vedono, include sia il sistema linguistico deliberativo cosciente (...) 2 e l'inconscio sistema prelinguistico automatizzato 1 azioni o riflessi. Fornisco un'indagine critica di alcuni dei principali risultati di due dei più eminenti studenti di comportamento dei tempi moderni, Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle, sulla struttura logica dell'intenzionalità (mente, linguaggio, coscienza, comportamento), prendendo come punto di partenza la scoperta fondamentale di Wittgenstein -che tutti i problemi veramente 'filosofici' sono gli stessi - confusioni su come usare il linguaggio in un particolare contesto, e quindi tutte le soluzioni sono le stesse, guardando a come il linguaggio può essere utilizzato nel contesto in questione in modo che le sue condizioni di verità (Condizioni di soddisfazione o COS) siano chiare. Il problema di base è che si può dire qualsiasi cosa, ma non si può significare (dichiarare chiaro COS per) qualsiasi espressione arbitraria e significato è possibile solo in un contesto molto specifico. Analizzo vari scritti da e su di loro dalla prospettiva moderna dei due sistemi di pensiero (popolari come 'pensare veloce, pensare lentamente'), impiegando una nuova tabella di intenzionalità e nuova nomenclatura di sistemi duali. Vi mostro che questa è una potente euristica per descrivere il comportamento. Così, tutti i comportamenti sono intimamente connessi se si prende il punto di vista corretto. L'Illusione Fenomenologica (oblio al nostro Sistema automatizzato 1) è universale e si estende non solo per tutta la filosofia, ma per tutta la vita. Sono sicuro che Chomsky, Obama, zuckerberg e il Papa sarebbero increduli se gli venisse detto che soffrono dello stesso problema di Hegel, Husserl e Heidegger, (o che si differenziano solo in grado dai tossicodipendenti e dai tossicodipendenti di sesso nell'essere motivati dalla stimolazione delle loro cortice frontali dalla consegna della dopamina (e oltre 100 altre sostanze chimiche) attraverso il tegmentum ventrale e il nucleus e il nucleus èevidente, ma è vero. Mentre i fenomenologi hanno sprecato solo un sacco di tempo delle persone, stanno sprecando la terra e il futuro del loro discendente. (shrink)

The main goal of this paper is to show that there are many phenomena that pertain to the construction of truth-conditional compounds that follow characteristic patterns, and whose explanation requires appealing to knowledge structures organized in specific ways. We review a number of phenomena, ranging from non-homogenous modification and privative modification to polysemy and co-predication that indicate that knowledge structures do play a role in obtaining truth-conditions. After that, we show that several extant accounts that invoke rich lexical meanings to (...) explain such phenomena face problems related to inflexibility and lack of predictive power. We review different ways in which one might react to such problems as regards lexical meanings: go richer, go moderately richer, go thinner, and go moderately thinner. On the face of it, it looks like moderate positions are unstable, given the apparent lack of a clear cutoff point between the semantic and the conceptual, but also that a very thin view and a very rich view may turn out to be indistinguishable in the long run. As far as we can see, the most pressing open questions concern this last issue: can there be a principled semantic/world knowledge distinction? Where could it be drawn: at some upper level (e.g. enriched qualia structures) or at some basic level (e.g. constraints)? How do parsimony considerations affect these two different approaches? A thin meanings approach postulates intermediate representations whose role is not clear in the interpretive process, while a rich meanings approach to lexical meaning seems to duplicate representations: the same representations that are stored in the lexicon would form part of conceptual representations. Both types of parsimony problems would be solved by assuming a direct relation between word forms and (parts of) conceptual or world knowledge, leading to a view that has been attributed to Chomsky (e.g. by Katz 1980) in which there is just syntax and encyclopedic knowledge. (shrink)

Det er min strid at tabellen av intensjonalitet (rasjonalitet, bevissthet, sinn, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har fremtredende her beskriver mer eller mindre nøyaktig, eller i det minste fungerer som en heuristisk for, hvordan vi tenker og oppfører oss, og så omfatter det ikke bare filosofi og psykologi, men alt annet (historie, litteratur, matematikk, politikk etc.). Legg spesielt merke til at intensjonalitet og rasjonalitet som jeg (sammen med Searle, Wittgenstein og andre) ser det, inkluderer både bevisst deliberativspråklig system 2 og (...) bevisstløs automatisert prelinguistic System 1 handlinger eller reflekser. Jeg gir en kritisk undersøkelse av noen av de viktigste funnene fra to av de mest eminente studentene i moderne tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein og John Searle, om den logiske strukturen av intensjonalitet (sinn, språk, bevissthet, oppførsel), tar som utgangspunkt Wittgensteins grunnleggende oppdagelse - at alle virkelig "filosofiske" problemer er de samme - forvirringer om hvordan man bruker språk i en bestemt sammenheng, og så alle løsninger er de samme - ser på hvordan språket kan brukes i sammenheng en sammenheng slik at sannheten forhold (Vilkår for tilfredshet eller COS) er klare. Det grunnleggende problemet er at man kan si noe, men man kan ikke bety (stat klar COS for) noen vilkårlig ytring og mening er bare mulig i en svært spesifikk sammenheng. Jeg analyserer ulike skrifter av og om dem fra det moderne perspektivet til de to tankesystemene (popularisert som "tenker raskt, tenker sakte"), ved hjelp av en ny tabell med intensjonatitet og nye doble systemer nomenklatur. Jeg viser at dette er en mektig heuristisk for å beskrive atferd. Dermed er all oppførsel nært forbundet hvis man tar riktig synspunkt. Den fenomenologiske illusjonen (glemsel en automatisert system 1) er universell og strekker seg ikke bare gjennom filosofi, men gjennom hele livet. Jeg er sikker på at Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg og paven ville være vantro hvis fortalt at de lider av det samme problemet som Hegel, Husserl og Heidegger, (eller at de skiller seg bare i grad fra narkotika- og sexavhengige i å være motivert av stimulering av deres frontale kortices ved levering av dopamin (og over 100 andre kjemikalier) via ventral tegmentum og kjernen accumbens), men det er helt klart sant. Mens fenomenologene bare kastet bort mye folks tid, kaster de bort jorden og deres etterkommers fremtid. (shrink)

Det er min strid at tabellen av intensjonalitet (rasjonalitet, bevissthet, sinn, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har fremtredende her beskriver mer eller mindre nøyaktig, eller i det minste fungerer som en heuristisk for, hvordan vi tenker og oppfører oss, og så omfatter det ikke bare filosofi og psykologi, men alt annet (historie, litteratur, matematikk, politikk etc.). Legg spesielt merke til at intensjonalitet og rasjonalitet som jeg (sammen med Searle, Wittgenstein og andre) ser det, inkluderer både bevisst deliberativspråklig system 2 og (...) bevisstløs automatisert prelinguistic System 1 handlinger eller reflekser. Jeg gir en kritisk undersøkelse av noen av de viktigste funnene fra to av de mest eminente studentene i moderne tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein og John Searle, om den logiske strukturen av intensjonalitet (sinn, språk, bevissthet, oppførsel), tar som utgangspunkt Wittgensteins grunnleggende oppdagelse - at alle virkelig "filosofiske" problemer er de samme - forvirringer om hvordan man bruker språk i en bestemt sammenheng, og så alle løsninger er de samme - ser på hvordan språket kan brukes i sammenheng en sammenheng slik at sannheten forhold (Vilkår for tilfredshet eller COS) er klare. Det grunnleggende problemet er at man kan si noe, men man kan ikke bety (stat klar COS for) noen vilkårlig ytring og mening er bare mulig i en svært spesifikk sammenheng. Jeg analyserer ulike skrifter av og om dem fra det moderne perspektivet til de to tankesystemene (popularisert som "tenker raskt, tenker sakte"), ved hjelp av en ny tabell med intensjonatitet og nye doble systemer nomenklatur. Jeg viser at dette er en mektig heuristisk for å beskrive atferd. Dermed er all oppførsel nært forbundet hvis man tar riktig synspunkt. Den fenomenologiske illusjonen (glemsel en automatisert system 1) er universell og strekker seg ikke bare gjennom filosofi, men gjennom hele livet. Jeg er sikker på at Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg og paven ville være vantro hvis fortalt at de lider av det samme problemet som Hegel, Husserl og Heidegger, (eller at de skiller seg bare i grad fra narkotika- og sexavhengige i å være motivert av stimulering av deres frontale kortices ved levering av dopamin (og over 100 andre kjemikalier) via ventral tegmentum og kjernen accumbens), men det er helt klart sant. Mens fenomenologene bare kastet bort mye folks tid, kaster de bort jorden og deres etterkommers fremtid. (shrink)

این مشاجره من است که جدول معنایی (عقلانیت ، آگاهی ، ذهن ، فکر ، زبان ، شخصیت و غیره) که ویژگی های برجسته در اینجا توصیف بیشتر یا کمتر با دقت ، و یا حداقل به عنوان یک اکتشافی برای ، چگونه ما فکر می کنیم و رفتار ، و پس از آن شامل نه صرفا فلسفه و روانشناسی ، اما هر چیز دیگری (تاریخ ، ادبیات ، ریاضیات ، سیاست و غیره). توجه داشته باشید به خصوص که قصدمندی (...) و عقلانیت به عنوان من (همراه با سرل ، ویتگنشتاین و دیگران) آن را مشاهده کنید ، شامل هر دو آگاهانه سیستم زبانی ، 2 و ناخودآگاه خودکار سیستم پیش زبانی 1 اقدامات یا رفلکس. من ارائه یک بررسی انتقادی از برخی از یافته های عمده ای از دو نفر از دانش آموزان برجسته ترین رفتار دوران مدرن ، لودویگ ویتگنشتاین و جان سرل ، در ساختار منطقی از قصدمندی (ذهن ، زبان ، آگاهی ، رفتار) ، به عنوان نقطه شروع من کشف بنیادی ویتگنشتاین-که همه مشکلات واقعا "فلسفی" مشابه هستند-ابهامات در مورد چگونگی استفاده از زبان در یک چارچوب خاص ، و به همین ترتیب تمام راه حل ها یکسان هستند-به دنبال چگونگی استفاده از زبان در زمینه در موضوع به طوری که شرایط حقیقت آن (شرایط رضایت یا COS) روشن است. مشکل اساسی این است که می توان هر چیزی می گویند ، اما یکی نمی تواند به معنای (دولت روشن COS برای) هر گفته های خودسرانه و معنی تنها در یک زمینه بسیار خاص ممکن است. من تجزیه و تحلیل نوشته های مختلف توسط و در مورد آنها از دیدگاه مدرن از دو سیستم اندیشه (به عنوان "تفکر سریع ، تفکر آهسته ') ، به کارگیری یک جدول جدید از قصدمندی و سیستم های جدید دوگانه نامگذاری. من نشان می دهم که این یک اکتشافی قدرتمند برای توصیف رفتار است. بنابراین ، تمام رفتار تنگاتنگی متصل است اگر یک نقطه نظر درست طول می کشد. توهم پدیدارشناسی (فراموشی به سیستم خودکار ما 1) جهانی است و نه تنها در سراسر فلسفه بلکه در طول زندگی گسترش می دهد. من مطمئن هستم که چامسکی ، اوباما ، زوکربرگ و پاپ خواهد بود incredulous اگر گفت که آنها از همان مشکل به عنوان هگل رنج می برند ، Husserl و هایدگر, (یا این که آنها تنها در درجه از مواد مخدر و معتادان جنسی در حال با تحریک از قشر پیشانی خود را از طریق تحویل دوپامین متفاوت (و بیش از ۱۰۰ مواد شیمیایی دیگر) از طریق کلاهک شکمی و هسته اکومبنس), اما به وضوح درست است. در حالی که پدیده شناسان تنها زمان زیادی از مردم را تلف می کنند ، آنها زمین و آینده نسل خود را به هدر خواهند بردند. (shrink)

این مشاجره من است که جدول معنایی (عقلانیت ، آگاهی ، ذهن ، فکر ، زبان ، شخصیت و غیره) که ویژگی های برجسته در اینجا توصیف بیشتر یا کمتر با دقت ، و یا حداقل به عنوان یک اکتشافی برای ، چگونه ما فکر می کنیم و رفتار ، و پس از آن شامل نه صرفا فلسفه و روانشناسی ، اما هر چیز دیگری (تاریخ ، ادبیات ، ریاضیات ، سیاست و غیره). توجه داشته باشید به خصوص که قصدمندی (...) و عقلانیت به عنوان من (همراه با سرل ، ویتگنشتاین و دیگران) آن را مشاهده کنید ، شامل هر دو آگاهانه سیستم زبانی ، 2 و ناخودآگاه خودکار سیستم پیش زبانی 1 اقدامات یا رفلکس. من ارائه یک بررسی انتقادی از برخی از یافته های عمده ای از دو نفر از دانش آموزان برجسته ترین رفتار دوران مدرن ، لودویگ ویتگنشتاین و جان سرل ، در ساختار منطقی از قصدمندی (ذهن ، زبان ، آگاهی ، رفتار) ، به عنوان نقطه شروع من کشف بنیادی ویتگنشتاین-که همه مشکلات واقعا "فلسفی" مشابه هستند-ابهامات در مورد چگونگی استفاده از زبان در یک چارچوب خاص ، و به همین ترتیب تمام راه حل ها یکسان هستند-به دنبال چگونگی استفاده از زبان در زمینه در موضوع به طوری که شرایط حقیقت آن (شرایط رضایت یا COS) روشن است. مشکل اساسی این است که می توان هر چیزی می گویند ، اما یکی نمی تواند به معنای (دولت روشن COS برای) هر گفته های خودسرانه و معنی تنها در یک زمینه بسیار خاص ممکن است. من تجزیه و تحلیل نوشته های مختلف توسط و در مورد آنها از دیدگاه مدرن از دو سیستم اندیشه (به عنوان "تفکر سریع ، تفکر آهسته ') ، به کارگیری یک جدول جدید از قصدمندی و سیستم های جدید دوگانه نامگذاری. من نشان می دهم که این یک اکتشافی قدرتمند برای توصیف رفتار است. بنابراین ، تمام رفتار تنگاتنگی متصل است اگر یک نقطه نظر درست طول می کشد. توهم پدیدارشناسی (فراموشی به سیستم خودکار ما 1) جهانی است و نه تنها در سراسر فلسفه بلکه در طول زندگی گسترش می دهد. من مطمئن هستم که چامسکی ، اوباما ، زوکربرگ و پاپ خواهد بود incredulous اگر گفت که آنها از همان مشکل به عنوان هگل رنج می برند ، Husserl و هایدگر, (یا این که آنها تنها در درجه از مواد مخدر و معتادان جنسی در حال با تحریک از قشر پیشانی خود را از طریق تحویل دوپامین متفاوت (و بیش از ۱۰۰ مواد شیمیایی دیگر) از طریق کلاهک شکمی و هسته اکومبنس), اما به وضوح درست است. در حالی که پدیده شناسان تنها زمان زیادی از مردم را تلف می کنند ، آنها زمین و آینده نسل خود را به هدر خواهند بردند. (shrink)

Ini adalah pendapat saya bahwa tabel intensionality (rasionalitas, kesadaran, pikiran, pikiran, bahasa, kepribadian dll) yang menonjol di sini menggambarkan lebih atau kurang akurat, atau setidaknya berfungsi sebagai heuristic untuk, bagaimana kita berpikir dan berperilaku, dan sehingga mencakup tidak hanya filsafat dan psikologi, tetapi segala sesuatu yang lain (sejarah, sastra, matematika, politik dll). Perhatikan terutama bahwa intensionalitas dan rasionalitas sebagai I (bersama dengan Searle, Wittgenstein dan lain-lain) melihatnya, mencakup baik sistem linguistik pertimbangan sadar 2 dan tidak disadari otomatis sistem prelinguistik 1 (...) tindakan atau refleks. Aku memberikan survei kritis dari beberapa temuan utama dari dua siswa yang paling terkemuka perilaku zaman modern, Ludwig Wittgenstein dan John Searle, pada struktur Logis intensionality (pikiran, bahasa, kesadaran, perilaku), mengambil sebagai titik awal saya adalah penemuan fundamental Wittgenstein-bahwa semua benar ' filosofis ' masalah adalah sama-kebingungan tentang bagaimana menggunakan bahasa dalam konteks tertentu, dan sehingga semua solusi yang sama-melihat bagaimana bahasa dapat digunakan dalam konteks di masalah sehingga kondisi kebenarannya (kondisi kepuasan atau cos) yang jelas. Masalah dasar adalah bahwa seseorang dapat mengatakan apa-apa kecuali satu tidak bisa berarti (negara yang jelas cos untuk) sembarang ucapan dan makna yang hanya mungkin dalam konteks yang sangat spesifik. Saya menganalisis berbagai tulisan oleh dan tentang mereka dari perspektif modern dari dua sistem pemikiran (Dipopulerkan sebagai ' berpikir cepat, berpikir lambat '), mempekerjakan sebuah meja baru intensionality dan baru sistem ganda nomenklatur. Saya menunjukkan bahwa ini adalah heuristic kuat untuk menggambarkan perilaku. Dengan demikian, Semua perilaku yang erat terhubung jika salah satu mengambil sudut pandang yang benar. The fenomenologis Illusion (terlupakan untuk sistem otomatis kami 1) adalah universal dan meluas tidak hanya di seluruh filsafat tetapi sepanjang hidup. Saya yakin bahwa Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg dan Paus akan menjadi tidak percaya jika diberitahu bahwa mereka menderita masalah yang sama seperti Hegel, Husserl dan Heidegger, (atau bahwa mereka hanya berbeda dalam derajat dari obat dan pecandu seks dalam menjadi termotivasi oleh stimulasi dari Coral frontal mereka dengan pengiriman dopamin (dan lebih dari 100 bahan kimia lainnya) melalui tegmentum ventral dan inti accumbens), tapi itu jelas benar. Sementara fenomenolog hanya menyia-nyiakan banyak waktu orang, mereka membuang-buang bumi dan masa depan keturunan mereka. (shrink)

यह मेरा तर्क है कि जानबूझकर की मेज (तार्किकता, चेतना, मन, सोचा, भाषा, व्यक्तित्व आदि) है कि प्रमुखता से यहां सुविधाओं कम या ज्यादा सही वर्णन करता है, या कम से कम के लिए एक हेरिस्टिक के रूप में कार्य करता है, हम कैसे सोचते है और व्यवहार करते हैं, और इसलिए यह केवल दर्शन और मनोविज्ञान नहीं शामिल है, लेकिन बाकी सब कुछ (इतिहास, साहित्य, गणित, राजनीति आदि) । विशेष रूप से ध्यान दें कि जानबूझकर और समझदारी के रूप (...) में मैं (Searle, Wittgenstein और दूसरों के साथ) यह देखें, दोनों सचेत विमर्श भाषाई प्रणाली 2 और बेहोश स्वचालित preभाषा प्रणाली 1 कार्रवाई या सजगता भी शामिल है । मैं आधुनिक समय के व्यवहार के सबसे प्रख्यात छात्रों में से दो के प्रमुख निष्कर्षों में से कुछ का एक महत्वपूर्ण सर्वेक्षण प्रदान करते हैं, लुडविग विटगेंस्टीन और जॉन सेरले, जानबूझकर (मन, भाषा, चेतना, व्यवहार) की तार्किक संरचना पर, मेरे शुरुआती बिंदु विटगेंस्टीन की मौलिक खोज के रूप में लेते हैं - कि सभी वास्तव में 'दार्शनिक' समस्याएं समान हैं - एक विशेष संदर्भ में भाषा का उपयोग करने के बारे में भ्रम, और इसलिए सभी समाधान समान हैं - यह देखते हुए कि इस मुद्दे पर संदर्भ में भाषा का उपयोग कैसे किया जा सकता है ताकि इसकी सच्चाई की स्थिति (संतुष्टि या COS की स्थिति) स्पष्ट हो। बुनियादी समस्या यह है कि एक कुछ भी कह सकते हैं, लेकिन एक मतलब नहीं कर सकते (राज्य के लिए स्पष्ट COS) किसी भी मनमाने ढंग से कथन और अर्थ केवल एक बहुत ही विशिष्ट संदर्भ में संभव है । मैं विचार की दो प्रणालियों के आधुनिक परिप्रेक्ष्य से और उनके बारे में विभिन्न लेखन का विश्लेषण करता हूं (जिसे 'तेजी से सोचना, धीमी सोच'), जानबूझकर और नए दोहरे सिस्टम नामकरण की एक नई तालिका को नियोजित करना। मुझे पता चलता है कि यह व्यवहार का वर्णन करने के लिए एक शक्तिशाली heuristic है । इस प्रकार, यदि कोई सही दृष्टिकोण रखता है तो सभी व्यवहार परिचित रूप से जुड़े हुए हैं। फेनोमेनोलॉजिकल भ्रम (हमारे स्वचालित सिस्टम 1 को गुमनामी) सार्वभौमिक है और न केवल पूरे दर्शन में बल्कि पूरे जीवन में फैली हुई है। मुझे यकीन है कि चोमस्की, ओबामा, जुकरबर्ग और पोप अविश्वासी होगा अगर कहा कि वे Hegel, Husserl और Heidegger के रूप में एक ही समस्या से पीड़ित हैं, (या कि वे केवल दवा और सेक्स नशेड़ी से डिग्री में अलग डोपामाइन की डिलीवरी से अपने ललाट cortices की उत्तेजना से प्रेरित किया जा रहा है (और १०० से अधिक अंय रसायनों) वेंट्रल tegmentum और नाभिक accumbensके माध्यमसे, लेकिन यह स्पष्ट रूप से सच है जबकि फेनोमेनोलॉजिस्ट केवल बहुत से लोगों का समय बर्बाद कर रहे हैं, वे पृथ्वी और उनके वंशज के भविष्य को बर्बाद कर रहे हैं। . (shrink)

Это мое утверждение, что таблица преднамеренности (рациональность, сознание, ум, мысль, язык, личность и т.д.), что особенное здесь описывает более или менее точно, или, по крайней мере, служит эвристическим для, как мы думаем и ведом, и поэтому она охватывает не только философию и психологию, но все остальное (история, литература, математика, политика и т.д.). Обратите внимание, особенно, что преднамеренность и рациональность, как я (наряду с Сирл, Витгенштейн и другие) просматривать его, включает в себя как сознательное совещательной лингвистической системы 2 и бессознательного автоматизированной (...) прелингвистической системы 1 действия или рефлексы. Я предоставляю критический обзор некоторых из основных выводов двух самых выдающихся студентов поведения современности, Людвиг Витгенштейн и Джон Сирл, о логической структуре преднамеренности (ум, язык, сознание, поведение), принимая в качестве отправной точки фундаментальное открытие Витгенштейна, что все действительно "философские" проблемы одинаковы- путаницы о том, как использовать язык в определенном контексте, и поэтому все решения одинаковы, глядя на то, как язык может быть использован в контексте вопроса, так что его истина условия (Условия удовлетворенности или COS) ясны. Основная проблема заключается в том, что можно сказать что-нибудь, но нельзя означать (государство ясно COS для) любое произвольное высказывание и смысл возможен только в очень конкретном контексте. Я анализирую различные писания и о них с современной точки зрения двух систем мышления (популяризировал как "мышление быстро, думая медленно"), используя новую таблицу преднамеренности и новых двойных систем номенклатуры. Я показываю, что это мощная эвристика для описания поведения. Таким образом, все поведение тесно связано, если вы принимаете правильную точку зрения. Феменологическая иллюзия (забвение нашей автоматизированной системы 1) является универсальной и распространяется не только на всю философию, но и на протяжении всей жизни. Я уверен, что Хомский, Обама, Цукерберг и Папа был бы недоверчивым, если бы сказали, что они страдают от той же проблемы, как Гегель, Husserl и Хайдеггер, (или что они отличаются только в степени от наркоманов и наркоманов в мотивации стимуляции их лобной кортики путем доставки допамина (и более 100 других химических веществ) через вентральный tegum и ядра. В то время как меноменологи только потратили много времени людей, они растают землю и будущее своего потомка. (shrink)

我的论点是，这里突出的故意表（理性、思想、思想、语言、个性等）或多或少地准确地描述了我们思考和行为的方式，因此它不包括仅仅是哲学和心理学，但一切（历史，文学，数学，政治等）。特别要注意，故意和理性，因 为我（连同西尔，维特根斯坦和其他人）认为它，包括有意识的审议语言系统2和无意识的自动前语言系统1的动作或反射。 我提供了一个关键的调查，两个最杰出的学生的行为在现代的一些主要发现， 路德维希·维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔，关于故意的逻辑结构（思想、语言、行为），以维特根斯坦的基本发现为出发点——所有真正的"哲学"问题都是一样的——关于在特定上下文中使用语言的困惑，因 此所有解决方案都是相同的——研究如何在问题语境中使用语言，使其真理条件（满意条件或 COS） 是明确的。基本问题是，一个人可以说什么，但一个人不能意味着（状态明确的COS）任何任意的话语和意义只有在非常具体的上下文中才可能。我从现代两种思想体系（被推广为"思维快，思维慢"） 的角度分析各种著作，采用新的意向表和新的双系统命名法。我表明，这是一个强大的启发式描述行为。 因此，如果一个人采取正确的观点，所有行为都是密切相关的。现象幻象（遗忘我们的自动化系统1）是通用的，不仅延伸到整个哲学，而且贯穿整个生命。我确信，如果乔姆斯基、奥巴马、扎克伯格和教皇被告知他们患有与黑 格尔、胡塞尔和海德格尔同样的问题，他们将会难以置信（或者，他们只与毒品和性瘾君子在程度上有所不同，他们的动机是通过心室和核积体来刺激他们的前皮质（和其他100种化学品），这显然是事实。虽然现象学家只浪 费了很多人的时间，但他们却在浪费地球和他们后代的未来。 .

Claramente ni yo ni nadie leeremos nunca ninguna parte sustancial de este enorme tome, así que discutiré el único artículo que más me interese y que creo que proporciona el marco necesario para la comprensión de todos los demás. Me refiero a la de Ludwig Wittgenstein (W). Incluso si yo tratara de discutir otros, no pasaría la primera página, ya que todos los problemas aquí surgen inmediatamente en cualquier discusión de comportamiento. La diferenciación de la pragmática y la semántica no (...) tiene sentido en gran medida. Es defendible que se pueda subtitular esta obra 'Desarrollos del contextualismo de Wittgenstein', pero, por supuesto, este término ha sido inevitablemente corrompido por filósofos. Uno podría decirse entonces que la pragmática y la semántica son partes o coextensivas con la epistemología y la ontología y la psicología descriptiva del pensamiento de orden superior (Estructura lógica de la racionalidad de Searle) o que describen cómo usamos los ruidos en contextos específicos para darles significado --es decir, un uso verdadero o falso (propsicional). La adición del trabajo de Wittgenstein/Searle a la investigación moderna sobre el pensamiento proporciona un marco para la pragmática, la semántica y todos los demás comportamientos humanos. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos sistemas punto de vista puede consultar mi libros Talking Monkeys 3ª ed (2019), Estructura Logica de Filosofia, Psicología, Mente y Lenguaje en Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle 2ª ed (2019), Suicidio pela Democracia 4ª ed (2019), La Estructura Logica del Comportamiento Humano (2019), The Logical Structure de la Conciencia (2019, Comprender las Conexiones entre Ciencia, Filosofía, Psicología, Religión, Política y Economía, Historia y Literatura (2019), Delirios Utópicos Suicidas en el siglo 21 5ª ed (2019), Observaciones sobre Imposibilidad, Incompletitud, Paraconsistencia, Indecidibilidad, Aleatoriedad, Computabilidad, Paradoja e Incertidumbre en Chaitin, Wittgenstein, Hofstadter, Wolpert, Doria, da Costa, Godel, Searle, Rodych Berto, Floyd, Moyal-Sharrock y Yanofsky(2019) y otros. . (shrink)

Claramente nem eu nem ninguém jamais leremos qualquer parte substancial desta enorme tomada, então discutirei o único artigo que mais me interessa e que acho que fornece o quadro necessário para entender todos os outros. Estou falando de Ludwig Wittgenstein 'W. Mesmo que eu tentasse discutir os outros, eu não passaria a primeira página, pois todos os problemas aqui surgem imediatamente em qualquer discussão de comportamento. Diferenciação de pragmáticos e semântica não faz sentido em grande parte. É defensável que este (...) trabalho "Desenvolvimentos do contextualismo de Wittgenstein" possa ser legendado, mas é claro que este termo foi inevitavelmente corrompido pelos filósofos. Pode-se então dizer que pragmáticos e semânticas são partes ou coextensivo com epistemologia e ontologia e psicologia descritiva do pensamento de alta ordem (Estrutura Lógica da Racionalidade de Searle) ou que descrevem como usamos ruídos em contextos específicos para lhes dar significado - ou seja, uso verdadeiro ou falso (proposicional). A adição do trabalho de Wittgenstein/Searle à pesquisa de pensamento moderno fornece uma estrutura para pragmáticos, semânticas e todos os outros comportamentos humanos. Aqueles que querem uma estrutura completa até o momento para o comportamento humano do ponto de vista moderno de dois sistemas podem consultar meus livros Talking Monkeys 3rd ed (2019), Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a ed (2019), Suicide Pela Democracy 4ª ed (2020), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), The Logical Structure of Consciousness (2019, Understanding the Connections Between Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Politics and Economics (2020), Illusaos Utopias Suicidas no século 21 6ª ed (2020), Observações sobre Impossibilidade, Incompletude, Paraconsistência, Indecidabilidade, Aleatoriedade, Computação, Paradoxo e Incerteza em Chaitin, Wittgenstein, Hofstadter, Wolpert, Doria, da Costa, Godel, Searle, Rodych Berto, Floyd, Moyal-Sharrock e Yanofsky (2019) e outros. (shrink)

Recent work in formal semantics suggests that the language system includes not only a structure building device, as standardly assumed, but also a natural deductive system which can determine when expressions have trivial truth‐conditions (e.g., are logically true/false) and mark them as unacceptable. This hypothesis, called the ‘logicality of language’, accounts for many acceptability patterns, including systematic restrictions on the distribution of quantifiers. To deal with apparent counter‐examples consisting of acceptable tautologies and contradictions, the logicality of language is often paired (...) with an additional assumption according to which logical forms are radically underspecified: i.e., the language system can see functional terms but is ‘blind’ to open class terms to the extent that different tokens of the same term are treated as if independent. This conception of logical form has profound implications: it suggests an extreme version of the modularity of language, and can only be paired with non‐classical—indeed quite exotic—kinds of deductive systems. The aim of this paper is to show that we can pair the logicality of language with a different and ultimately more traditional account of logical form. This framework accounts for the basic acceptability patterns which motivated the logicality of language, can explain why some tautologies and contradictions are acceptable, and makes better predictions in key cases. As a result, we can pursue versions of the logicality of language in frameworks compatible with the view that the language system is not radically modular vis‐á‐vis its open class terms and employs a deductive system that is basically classical. (shrink)

Semantics traditionally focuses on linguistic meaning. In recent years, the Super Linguistics movement has tried to broaden the scope of inquiry in various directions, including an extension of semantics to talk about the meaning of pictures. There are close similarities between the interpretation of language and of pictures. Most fundamentally, pictures, like utterances, can be either true or false of a given state of affairs, and hence both express propositions (Zimmermann, 2016; Greenberg, 2013; Abusch, 2015). Moreover, sequences of pictures, like (...) sequences of utterances, can be used to tell stories. Wordless picture books, comics, and film are cases in point. In this paper I pick up the project of providing a dynamic semantic account of pictorial story-telling, started by Abusch (2012) and continued by Abusch & Rooth (2017); Maier & Bimpikou (2019); Fernando (2020). More specifically, I propose here a semantics of speech and thought bubbles by adding event reference to PicDRT. To get there I first review the projection-based semantics for pictures (section 1), noting the fundamental distinction between symbolic and iconic meaning that makes speech bubbles especially interesting (section 2). I then review the dynamic PicDRT framework for pictorial narratives (section 3), add events (section 4), and propose an account of speech bubbles as quotational event modification (section 5). I end with a brief look at other conventional, symbolic enrichments in comics (section 6). (shrink)

It’s natural for hyperbole to mix with metaphor and irony, and other figures of speech. How do they mix together and what kind of compound, if any, arises out of the mixing? In tackling this question, I shall argue that thinking of hyperbolic figures along the lines familiar from ironic metaphor compounds is a temptation we should resist. Looking in particular at hyperbolic metaphor and hyperbolic irony, I argue, they don’t yield a new encompassing compound figure with one figure building (...) on another. Instead, what we have is one dominant figure colored with hyperbolic tinges. So what does hyperbole bring to the mixing pot? I suggest we should think of hyperbole in hyperbolic figures as being an interpretive effect, modulating the working of the partner figure and thus rendering more emphatic. (shrink)

Empiezo con algunos comentarios famosos del filósofo (psicólogo) Ludwig Wittgenstein porque Pinker comparte con la mayoría de la gente (debido a la configuración predeterminada de nuestra psicología innata evolucionada) ciertos prejuicios sobre el funcionamiento de la mente, y porque Wittgenstein ofrece una visión única y profunda del funcionamiento del lenguaje, el pensamiento y la realidad (que él consideraba más o menos coextenso) que no se encontraba en ningún otro lugar. Ahí esta sólo referencia a Wittgenstein en este volumen, lo que (...) es más desafortunado teniendo en cuenta que él era el analista más brillante y original del lenguaje. -/- En el último capítulo, usando la famosa metáfora de la cueva de Platón, resume bellamente el libro con una visión general de cómo la mente (lenguaje, pensamiento, psicología intencional)-un producto de egoísmo ciego, moderado sólo ligeramente por el altruismo automatizado para cerca parientes que llevan copias de nuestros genes (Fitness inclusivo)--funciona automáticamente, pero trata de terminar en una nota optimista al darnos la esperanza de que, sin embargo, podemos emplear sus vastas capacidades para cooperar y hacer del mundo un lugar digno para vivir. -/- Pinker es ciertamente consciente de, pero dice poco sobre el hecho de que mucho más sobre nuestra psicología se deja fuera de lo incluido. Entre las ventanas a la naturaleza humana que se dejan fuera o se presta una atención mínima son las matemáticas y la geometría, la música y los sonidos, las imágenes, los eventos y la causalidad, la ontología (clases de cosas o lo que sabemos), la mayor parte de la epistemología (cómo sabemos), disposiciones (creer, pensar, juzgar, pretender, etc.) y el resto de la psicología intencional de la acción, neurotransmisores y entheogens, Estados espirituales (por ejemplo, Satori e iluminación, estimulación y grabación del cerebro, daño cerebral y comportamiento déficits y trastornos, juegos y deportes, teoría de la decisión (incluyendo la teoría del juego y la economía conductual), comportamiento animal (muy poco lenguaje pero mil millones de años de genética compartida). Se han escrito muchos libros sobre cada una de estas áreas de la psicología intencional. Los datos de este libro son descripciones, no explicaciones que muestran por qué nuestro cerebro lo hace de esta manera o cómo se hace. ¿Cómo sabemos usar las oraciones de manera diversa (es decir, conocer todos sus significados)? Esta es la psicología evolutiva que opera a un nivel más básico: el nivel en el que Wittgenstein es más activo. Y hay escasa atención a el Contexto en el que se utilizan palabras = una arena que Wittgenstein fue pionera. -/- Sin embargo, Este es un trabajo clásico y con estas precauciones todavía vale la pena leer. -/- Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna dos Sistemas View puede consultar mi libro 'La estructura lógica de la filosofía, la psicología, la mente y lenguaje Een Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle ' 2nd ED (2019). Los interesados en más de mis escritos pueden ver 'Monos parlantes--filosofía, psicología, ciencia, religión y política en un planeta condenado--artículos y reseñas 2006-2019 3rd ED (2019) y delirios utópicos suicidas en el 21St Century 4TH Ed (2019) y otras. -/- "Si Dios nos miró a la mente, no sería capaz de ver en quién estábamos pensando." Wittgenstein PI P217 -/- "¿Debe evitarse la palabra" infinito "en las matemáticas? Sí: donde parece conferir un significado sobre el cálculo; en lugar de conseguir uno de él. " Edición revisada de la RFM (1978) P141 -/- "Una y otra vez el intento de usar el lenguaje para limitar el mundo y establecerlo en relieve, pero no se puede hacer. La auto-evidencia del mundo se manifiesta en el mismo hecho de que el lenguaje puede y sólo se refiere a él. Porque el lenguaje sólo deriva la forma en que significa, su significado, del mundo, no hay lenguaje concebible que no represente a este mundo. " Observaciones filosóficas de Wittgenstein S47 . (shrink)

A speaker's use of a declarative sentence in a context has two effects: it expresses a proposition and represents the speaker as knowing that proposition. This essay is about how to explain the second effect. The standard explanation is act-based. A speaker is represented as knowing because their use of the declarative in a context tokens the act-type of assertion and assertions represent knowledge in what's asserted. I propose a semantic explanation on which declaratives covertly host a "know"-parenthetical. A speaker (...) is thereby represented as knowing the proposition expressed because that is the semantic contribution of the parenthetical. I call this view parentheticalism and defend that it better explains knowledge representation than alternatives. As a consequence of outperforming assertoric explanations, parentheticalism opens the door to eliminating the act-type of assertion from linguistic theorizing. (shrink)

У статті проаналізовано семантико-прагматичні варіанти значення першої особи, що виникають унаслідок взаємодії категорій персональності та числа. Виокремлено ми авторське, царське, скромне, родинне, батьківське (опікунське), корпоративне, ми соціальної вагомості, ідеологічне, універсальне (філософське), ми привілейованої групи.

У статті проаналізовано місце паронімічної атракції в словотворчій практиці І. Павлюка. Наголошено на стилістичних особливостях функціювання новотворів-атрактантів. На основі лексико-стилістичного аналізу засвідчено розширення меж сполучуваності неологізмів-атрактантів та узуальних слів до паронімічних гнізд. Із застосуванням методу компонентного аналізу описано семантику складних слів, утворених за допомогою компонентів-атрактантів.

If, relative to a context, what a sentence says is necessarily true, then what it says must be so. If, relative to a context, what a sentence says is possible, then what it says could be true. Following natural philosophical usage, it would thus seem clear that in assessing an occurrence of a sentence for possibility or necessity, one is assessing what is said by that occurrence. In this paper, I argue that natural philosophical usage misleads here. In assessing an (...) occurrence of a sentence for possibility or necessity, one is not assessing the modal status of the proposition expressed by that occurrence of the sentence. (shrink)

Hope, in its propositional construction "I hope that p," is compatible with a stated chance for the speaker that not-p. On fallibilist construals of knowledge, knowledge is compatible with a chance of being wrong, such that one can know that p even though there is an epistemic chance for one that not-p. But self-ascriptions of propositional hope that p seem to be incompatible, in some sense, with self-ascriptions of knowing whether p. Data from conjoining hope self-ascription with outright assertions, with (...) first- and third-person knowledge ascriptions, and with factive predicates suggest a problem: when combined with a plausible principle on the rationality of hope, they suggest that fallibilism is false. By contrast, the infallibilist about knowledge can straightforwardly explain why knowledge would be incompatible with hope, and can offer a simple and unified explanation of all the linguistic data introduced here. This suggests that fallibilists bear an explanatory burden which has been hitherto overlooked. (shrink)

Lawyers and judges cannot adequately address the nature of text, meaning, or interpretation without reference to the insights provided by linguists and philosophers of language. Exploring some of those insights, this article focuses upon what linguists and philosophers of language call “pragmatics.” Pragmatics examines the relations between words and users rather than the relations of words to words (syntax) or the relations of words to the world (semantics). In other words, pragmatics studies how language users actually use and interpret words (...) and other signs in communication. -/- Pragmatics recognizes that speaker meaning can differ from (and even contradict) linguistic meaning, including the literal meaning of text. In its proper context, for example, “Bob is indeed a good lawyer” can ironically mean just the opposite. Pragmatics also recognizes that relevant text is not a thing-in-itself that is simply given. Good lawyers look at such things as purpose and cohesion when determining relevant text. They do not simply take their opponent’s (or even their client’s) assertions of relevance. -/- Pragmatics also provides lawyers with a number of specific concepts and tools which are helpful in determining speaker meaning. For user convenience, this article attempts to set out in one place a number of such concepts and tools. These include: (1) types of cohesion that help determine relevant text, (2) types of context that help determine meaning, (3) pragmatic principles of construction such as principles of relevance and politeness, and (4) important pragmatic notions or devices such as anaphora, cataphora, ellipsis, deixis, presupposition, unstated premises, entailment, and implementives. -/- Finally, as a recurring example (among others) of pragmatics in action, this article examines from multiple perspectives textual issues raised in King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. __ (2015). -/- Keywords: Pragmatics, Semiotics, Interpretation, Textualism, Plain Meaning, King v. Burwell, Affordable Care Act, Text, Meaning, Speaker Meaning, Implicature. (shrink)

The paper concentrates on the problem of adequate reflection of fragments of reality via expressions of language and inter-subjective knowledge about these fragments, called here, in brief, language adequacy. This problem is formulated in several aspects, the most being: the compatibility of language syntax with its bi-level semantics: intensional and extensional. In this paper, various aspects of language adequacy find their logical explication on the ground of the formal-logical theory T of any categorial language L generated by the so-called classical (...) categorial grammar, and also on the ground of its extension to the bi-level, intensional and extensional semantic-pragmatic theory ST for L. In T, according to the token-type distinction of Ch.S. Peirce, L is characterized first as a language of well-formed expression-tokens (wfe-tokens) - material, concrete objects - and then as a language of wfe-types - abstract objects, classes of wfe-tokens. In ST the semantic-pragmatic notions of meaning and interpretation for wfe-types of L of intensional semantics and the notion of denotation of extensional semanics for wfe-types and constituents of knowledge are formalized. These notions allow formulating a postulate (an axiom of categorial adequacy) from which follow all the most important conditions of the language adequacy, including the above, and a structural one connected with three principles of compositionality. (shrink)

L’article qui suit a pour but de présenter un des aspects centraux de la contribution philosophique de Jaakko Hintikka : l’épistémologie formelle. Le thème choisi, le Paradoxe de Moore, permettra d’illustrer le mot d’ordre de la philosophie formelle, celui d’utiliser des outils logiques en vue de la clarification de problèmes philosophiques. Il s’agit également de mettre en évidence la nature pragmatique du discours épistémique, qui transparaît dans les résultats sémantiques de Hintikka et parle en faveur de la logique illocutoire.

The relevance of any logical analysis lies in its ability to solve paradoxes and trace conceptual troubles back; with this respect, the task of epistemic logic is to handle paradoxes in connection with the concept of knowledge. Epistemic logic is currently introduced as the logical analysis of crucial concepts within epistemology, namely: knowledge, belief, truth, and justification. An alternative approach will be advanced here in order to enlighten such a discourse, as centred upon the word assertion and displayed in terms (...) of utterance. Insofar as epistemic modalities express some attitudes, the intentionality of discourse will be emphasized within an illocutionary modal logic. Two large views will range over the whole study: declarative and epistemic sentences have one and the same logic (assertion logic); the plurality of languages games doesn’t entail any logical pluralism. -/- La valeur d'une analyse logique réside dans sa capacité à résoudre des paradoxes et à comprendre l'origine de nos problèmes conceptuels ; à ce titre, le rôle d'une logique épistémique est de traiter des paradoxes liés au concept de connaissance. On présente généralement la logique épistémique comme une analyse logique de concepts centraux en épistémologie : connaissance, croyance, vérité, justification. Une autre approche sera proposée ici en vue de clarifier ce genre de discours, centrée sur la notion d'assertion et décrite en termes d'énonciation. Parce que les modalités épistémiques expriment des attitudes, c'est l'intentionnalité du discours qui sera mise en valeur dans le cadre d'une logique modale illocutoire. Deux thèses transversales parcourront l'ensemble du travail : les énoncés déclaratifs et épistémiques partagent la même logique (logique assertorique) ; la pluralité des jeux de langages n'implique pas un pluralisme logique. (shrink)

Lying is standardly distinguished from misleading according to how a disbelieved proposition is conveyed. To lie, a speaker uses a sentence to say a proposition she does not believe. A speaker merely misleads by using a sentence to somehow convey but not say a disbelieved proposition. Front-and-center to the lying/misleading distinction is a conception of what-is-said by a sentence in a context. Stokke (2016, 2018) has recently argued that the standard account of lying/misleading is explanatorily inadequate unless paired with a (...) theory where what-is-said by a sentence is determined by the question under discussion or QUD. I present two objections to his theory, and conclude that no extant theory of what-is-said enables the standard account of the lying/misleading distinction to be explanatorily adequate. (shrink)

We propose an extension of Discourse Respresentation Theory (DRT) for analyzing pictorial narratives. We test drive our PicDRT framework by analyzing the way authors represent characters’ mental states and perception in comics. Our investigation goes beyond Abusch and Rooth (2017) in handling not just free perception sequences, but also a form of apparent perspective blending somewhat reminiscent of free indirect discourse.

Clearly neither I nor anyone will ever read any substantial part of this massive tome so I will discuss the one article that interests me most and which I think provides the framework necessary for the understanding of all the rest. I refer to the one on Ludwig Wittgenstein (W). Even were I to try to discuss others, we would not get past the first page as all the issues here arise immediately in any discussion of behavior. The differentiation of (...) pragmatics and semantics is largely meaningless. It is defensible that one might subtitle this work ‘Developments of Wittgenstein’s Contextualism’, but of course this term has inevitably been corrupted by philosophers. One might then say that pragmatics and semantics are parts of or coextensive with epistemology and ontology and the descriptive psychology of higher order thought (Searle’s Logical Structure of Rationality) or that they describe how we use noises in specific contexts to give them meaning --i.e., a true or false (propositional) use which Searle calls their Conditions of Satisfaction. Adding the Wittgenstein/Searle work to modern research on thinking provides a framework for pragmatics, semantics and all other human behavior. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

I suspect the answer to the question in the title of this paper is no. But the scope of my paper will be considerably more limited: I will be concerned with whether certain types of considerations that are commonly cited in favor of dynamic semantics do in fact push us towards a dynamic semantics. Ultimately, I will argue that the evidence points to a dynamics of discourse that is best treated pragmatically, rather than as part of the semantics.

The meaning that expressions take on particular occasions often depends on the context in ways which seem to transcend its direct effect on context-sensitive parameters. ‘Truth-conditional pragmatics’ is the project of trying to model such semantic flexibility within a compositional truth-conditional framework. Most proposals proceed by radically ‘freeing up’ the compositional operations of language. I argue, however, that the resulting theories are too unconstrained, and predict flexibility in cases where it is not observed. These accounts fall into this position because (...) they rarely, if ever, take advantage of the rich information made available by lexical items. I hold, instead, that lexical items encode both extension and non-extension determining information. Under certain conditions, the non-extension determining information of an expression e can enter into the compositional processes that determine the meaning of more complex expressions which contain e. This paper presents and motivates a set of type-driven compositional operations that can access non-extension determining information and introduce bits of it into the meaning of complex expressions. The resulting multidimensional semantics has the tools to deal with key cases of semantic flexibility in appropriately constrained ways, making it a promising framework to pursue the project of truth-conditional pragmatics. (shrink)

Recent work in formal semantics suggests that the language system includes not only a structure building device, as standardly assumed, but also a natural deductive system which can determine when expressions have trivial truth-conditions (e.g., are logically true/false) and mark them as unacceptable. This hypothesis, called the `logicality of language', accounts for many acceptability patterns, including systematic restrictions on the distribution of quantifiers. To deal with apparent counter-examples consisting of acceptable tautologies and contradictions, the logicality of language is often paired (...) with an additional assumption according to which logical forms are radically underspecified: i.e., the language system can see functional terms but is `blind' to open class terms to the extent that different tokens of the same term are treated as if independent. This conception of logical form has profound implications: it suggests an extreme version of the modularity of language, and can only be paired with non-classical---indeed quite exotic---kinds of deductive systems. The aim of this paper is to show that we can pair the logicality of language with a different and ultimately more traditional account of logical form. This framework accounts for the basic acceptability patterns which motivated the logicality of language, can explain why some tautologies and contradictions are acceptable, and makes better predictions in key cases. As a result, we can pursue versions of the logicality of language in frameworks compatible with the view that the language system is not radically modular vis-a-vis its open class terms and employs a deductive system that is basically classical. (shrink)

The standing tradition in theorizing about meaning, since at least Frege, identifies meaning with propositions, which are, or determine, the truth-conditions of a sentence in a context. But a recent trend has advocated a departure from this tradition: in particular, it has been argued that modal claims do not express standard propositional contents. This non-propositionalism has received different implementations in expressivist semantics and certain kinds of dynamic semantics. They maintain that the key aspect of interpretation of modal claims is the (...) characteristic dynamic effect they have on the context. I argue that pessimism about truth-conditions arises from an overly simplistic picture of content, context and their interaction. While I agree with the critics that an important aspect of modal meaning is the dynamic effect modals have on the context, I argue that they have mischaracterized the nature and the complexity of this effect. A more nuanced account of the interaction between modals and context shows that far from being incompatible with propositional meaning, the dynamic aspect of meaning is precisely what allows us to predict the correct propositional content of an utterance. (shrink)