An important suggestion of objective Bayesians is that the maximum entropy principle can replace a principle which is known to get into paradoxical difficulties: the principle of indifference. No one has previously determined whether the maximum entropy principle is better able to solve Bertrand’s chord paradox than the principle of indifference. In this paper I show that it is not. Additionally, the course of the analysis brings to light a new paradox, a revenge paradox of the chords, that is (...) unique to the maximum entropy principle. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell in his essay On Denoting [1905] presented a theory of description developed in response to the one proposed by Gottlob Frege in his paper Über Sinn und Bedeutung [1892]. The aim of our work will be to show that Russell underestimated Frege three times over in presenting the latter’s work: in relation to the Gray’s Elegy argument, to the Ferdinand argument, and to puzzles discussed by Russell. First, we will discuss two claims of Russell’s which do not (...) do justice to Frege: that we speak of a sense by means of quotation marks, and that all Frege does to cope with phrases that might denote nothing is define an arbitrary object as their reference. Second, we will show that Russell omitted the fact that Frege’s theory provided some answers for the puzzles presented by Russell in his essay. (shrink)

Bertrand Russell’s epistemology had the interesting structural feature that it made propositional knowledge (“S knows that p”) asymmetrically dependent upon what Russell called knowledge by acquaintance. On this view, a subject lacking any knowledge by acquaintance would be unable to know that p for any p. This is something that virtually nobody has defended since Russell, and in this paper I initiate a sympathetic reconsideration.

Bertrand Russell, in the second of his 1914 Lowell lectures, Our Knowledge of the External World, asserted famously that ‘every philosophical problem, when it is subjected to the necessary analysis and purification, is found either to be not really philosophical at all, or else to be, in the sense in which we are using the word, logical’ (Russell 1993, p. 42). He went on to characterize that portion of logic that concerned the study of forms of propositions, or, as (...) he called them, ‘logical forms’. This portion of logic he called ‘philosophical logic’. Russell asserted that ... some kind of knowledge of logical forms, though with most people it is not explicit, is involved in all understanding of discourse. It is the business of philosophical logic to extract this knowledge from its concrete integuments, and to render it explicit and pure. (p. 53) Perhaps no one still endorses quite this grand a view of the role of logic and the investigation of logical form in philosophy. But talk of logical form retains a central role in analytic philosophy. Given its widespread use in philosophy and linguistics, it is rather surprising that the concept of logical form has not received more attention by philosophers than it has. The concern of this paper is to say something about what talk of logical form comes to, in a tradition that stretches back to (and arguably beyond) Russell’s use of that expression. This will not be exactly Russell’s conception. For we do not endorse Russell’s view that propositions are the bearers of logical form, or that appeal to propositions adds anything to our understanding of what talk of logical form comes to. But we will be concerned to provide an account responsive to the interests expressed by Russell in the above quotations, though one clarified of extraneous elements, and expressed precisely. For this purpose, it is important to note that the concern expressed by Russell in the above passages, as the surrounding text makes clear, is a concern not just with logic conceived narrowly as the study of logical terms, but with propositional form more generally, which includes, e.g., such features as those that correspond to the number of argument places in a propositional function, and the categories of objects which propositional.... (shrink)

In a recent article, P. Roger Turner and Justin Capes argue that no one is, or ever was, even partly morally responsible for certain world-indexed truths. Here we present our reasons for thinking that their argument is unsound: It depends on the premise that possible worlds are maximally consistent states of affairs, which is, under plausible assumptions concerning states of affairs, demonstrably false. Our argument to show this is based on Bertrand Russell’s original ‘paradox of propositions’. We should then (...) opt for a different approach to explain world-indexed truths whose upshot is that we may be morally responsible for some of them. The result to the effect that there are no maximally consistent states of affairs is independently interesting though, since this notion motivates an account of the nature of possible worlds in the metaphysics of modality. We also register in this article, independently of our response to Turner and Capes, and in the spirit of Russell’s aforementioned paradox and many other versions thereof, a proof of the claim that there is no set of all true propositions one can render false. (shrink)

Ciência Política: Introdução à Sófocles*1 -/- Science Politics: Introduction to Sophocles -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva*2 -/- Sófocles (496/4-406 a.C.) -/- 1 CONTEXTO HISTÓRICO: TEATRO E POLÍTICA -/- Na Grécia antiga, o teatro fazia parte das celebrações religiosas, especialmente nos rituais e representações dos festivais em homenagem ao deus Dionísio. A tragédia nasceu de tais circunstâncias, culminando seu apogeu no século V a.C., com as peças de Ésquilo*3 (525-456a.C.), SÓFOCLES*4 (496/4-406 a.C.) e Eurípedes*5 (480-406 a.C.). Pode-se dizer que, contrário (...) ao que ocorre normalmente, a arte não se deixou preceder pela filosofia, pois os poetas eram filósofos, pensando com sua própria mente e constituindo-se na vanguarda intelectual do seu tempo. -/- SÓFOCLES, em 468 a.C., ganhou do já consagrado Ésquilo, seu primeiro prêmio de tragédia, quando tinha vinte e sete anos. Ele nasceu em Colono, nas imediações de Atenas, filho de fabricante de espadas, que, com as guerras da Pérsia e do Peloponeso, aumentou seus serviços consideravelmente, enriquecendo a família. Não obstante, os demais atenienses empobreceram miseravelmente. SÓFOCLES era considerado bonito, inclusive sua estátua, que o representa na velhice, indica-lhe como um vigoroso homem. Era muito habilidoso em tudo o que fazia, tanto nas tragédias, como nas guerras e nos esportes. -/- Foi contemporâneo e amigo de Péricles*6 (495-429 a.C.), grande líder de Atenas, que lhe 6 ajudou a ocupar altos cargos, como o de tesoureiro e general, em 443 a.C. Em 440 a.C., encontrava-se entre os generais e comandantes das forças atenienses contra Pomos. Foi, ainda, membro do Comitê de Segurança Pública, votando a favor da Constituição oligárquica, em 411 a.C. Exerceu, também, funções de sacerdote. Era um homem alegre e amante dos prazeres, emanando encanto e simpatia, que lhes faziam perdoar os erros, envolvido com rapazes e cortesãs, inclusive teve um filho da célebre hetera Têoris.*7 Foi também contemporâneo de Eurípedes, ainda que nascido bem antes deste, mas ambos morreram no mesmo ano, em 406 a.C. -/- SÓFOCLES escreveu cento e treze peças, das quais só nos chegaram sete, nesta ordem de procedência, Ajax (c. 445 a.C.) As Traquínias (c. 445 a.C.), Antígona (c. 442), Édipo Rei (c. 425), Electra (c. 415), Filoteuto (409) e Édipo em Colono (401). Ganhou o primeiro prêmio de teatro, por dezenove vezes, tendo vinte e sete anos na primeira, e oitenta e cinco, na última. Governou o teatro ateniense por mais de trinta anos, da mesma maneira que seu amigo Péricles governava Atenas. -/- Escreveu uma trilogia não intencional, com as tragédias Édipo Rei (425 a.C.), Édipo em Colono (401 a.C.) e Antígona (442 a.C.). A primeira foi o mais famoso dos dramas gregos, tendo uma abertura impressionante, com a população diante do palácio real de Tebas. Havia uma peste que assolava a cidade, e isso os oráculos identificaram como decorrência de um grande crime. A clássica narrativa tratava de um filho, Édipo, que inadvertidamente matara o pai, Laio, e se casara com a mãe, Jocasta, com a qual teve quatro filhos: Antígona, Polinice, Etéocles e Ismênia. Quando tudo fora descoberto, Jocasta se enforcara e Édipo, enlouquecido, arrancara os próprios olhos e abandonara Tebas, partindo para o exílio em companhia apenas de Antígona. Já em Édipo em Colonos, este estava envelhecido a mendigar em Colono, perto de Atenas, apoiado apenas pela filha. -/- Antígona foi a última peça da trilogia, ainda que tenha sido a primeira a ser escrita. Ao tomar conhecimento de que seus irmãos Polinice e Etéocles estavam em guerra pelo trono de Tebas, regressou apressada para tentar apaziguá-los. Não obstante, eles lutaram até a morte. Creonte aliado de Etéocles, tomou o reino e puniu a rebeldia de Polinice, proibindo que fosse sepultado. Antígona, evocando a crença de que o espírito de um morto só se livrava das torturas da morte depois do corpo ser enterrado, violou o decreto de Creonte e sepultou seu irmão Polinice. Houve, então, o conflito entre as leis dos homens com as leis dos deuses, optando ela por esta, como esperavam as pessoas dignas de se comportarem. Antígona foi condenada pelo tio a ser enterrada viva, colocada em uma catacumba. Seu noivo, Hêmam, filho de Creonte, que desaparecera quando ela desobedecera o decreto real, voltou e encontrou sua prometida morta, suicidando-se em seguida.*8 O drama era denso em todos os seus elementos, mas se elevava quando discutia o comportamento que o cidadão devia ter frente às leis opressivas. -/- 2 DESOBEDIÊNCIA CIVIL: RECUSA DE ANTÍGONA -/- Antígona e sua irmã Ismênia representavam, respectivamente, os símbolos de resistência à tirania e de obediência à razão, colocando a lei de Creonte frente à lei da justiça. Diante do édito que impedia Antígona de sepultar Polinice, considerava a existência do direito natural de enterrá-lo, sendo este o seu drama político. Devia obedecer às leis da polis ou da consciência e dos princípios religiosos? Este drama é representado pelo magnífico texto de SÓFOCLES, quando Creonte perguntou se Antígona tripudiava sobre suas leis. Antígona lhe respondeu que: -/- “Essas leis não foram promulgadas por Zeus, nem mesmo a Justiça, que convive com os deuses do inferno, foi a que estabeleceu tais princípios para os homens. Ele ainda afirmou que os anúncios das leis de Creonte não tinham o poder que eles imaginavam que o tinha, e que um simples mortal pudesse suplantar os preceitos, não escritos e imutáveis dos deuses. Antígona ainda afirma que tais preceitos não foram de hora, como também não fora de ontem, mas que sempre vigoraram no mundo sensível, e que ninguém sabia ao certo de sua existência. Antígona afronta Creonte dizendo que por causa das leis do mesmo, não queria ser ela castigada perante os deuses por ter, de alguma forma, medo da ira e afronta de um reles mortal. Ainda diz que sua morte é algo inevitável, uma vez que é a única certeza dos homens, e que ela há de vir em um tempo, pois isso não se pode ignorar, todavia se sua morte não a tivesse sido anunciada antes, e que com isso morrera antes do tempo, o tomaria como vantagem, uma vez que, submetido as mais variadas intempéries da vida, como não iria considerar sua morte um benefício? E com isso, essa dor de nada vale no tocante de seu destino. Antígona continua dizendo que em nada o afeta ao ver o cadáver do filho morto de sua mãe na condição de insepulto, uma vez que isso não lhe causa dor . O mesmo conclui dizendo que se achara que ele cometera um ato de loucura após a proclamação de sua resposta, talvez o achasse louco aquele que viera a condená-lo.”*9 -/- O conflito entre a lei positiva, enunciava o drama grego, e a lei natural, significava que esta identificava-se com a Justiça dos deuses, que era superior à lei da terra.*10 Para Antígona, aquela deveria sempre prevalecer, mas a sua morte representou o triunfo, mesmo que trágico, da lei da polis.*11 SÓFOCLES foi quem primeiro falou do direito de resistência, inclusive com a possibilidade de se sofrer uma grave sanção, como ocorreu com Antígona, e ainda assim sabendo suportar a dor.*12 A teoria não logrou desenvolvimento na Grécia antiga, nem na teoria política antiga. Deixou, porém, uma indagação que só no século XVIII começou a ser respondida, pela forma clássica do direito de resistência. -/- NOTAS: *1: In. COSTA, N. N. Ciência Política. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2012. p. 61-67. *2: Tecnólogo em agropecuária pelo Instituto Federal de Pernambuco campus Belo Jardim. Normalista pela Escola Frei Cassiano Comacchio. Pesquisador assíduo de assuntos de cunho filosófico, com ênfase em política. *3: “Ésquilo, poeta grego (Elêusis, c. 525 – Gela, Sicília, 456 a.C.). Suas obras, As Suplicantes (c. 490), Os Persas (472), Os Sete contra Tebas (467), Prometeu Acorrentado (depois de 467) e a trilogia da Oréstia(Agamênom, Os Coéforos, As Eumênides) (458), fazem dele o verdadeiro criador da tragédia grega” (KOOGAN/HOUAISS. Enciclopédia e Dicionário Ilustrado, op. cit., p. 622). *4: “Sofócles, o poeta trágico grego (Colono, perto de Atenas, entre 496 e 494 a.C., Atenas 406 a.C.). Amigo de Péricles e Heródoto, cidadão completo, obteve, durante sua carreira excepcional, mais de 20 vitórias em concursos dramáticos. De sua obra, apenas sete tragédias, entre as mais de uma centena, e um drama satírico, do qual só restam longos fragmentos, Os Cães de Caça, chegaram até nós: Ajax (c. 445 a.C.), Trachiniani (c. 445?), Antígona(442), Édipo rei (c. 425), Electra (c. 415), Filotecto (409), Édipo em Colono (401). Deu à tragédia sua configuração definitiva: elevando de 12 para 15 o número de integrantes do coro,acrescentou um terceiro ator e substituiu atrilogia unida pela trilogia livre, onde cada drama forma um todo. Em Sófocles, a ação da tragédia é levada a termo pela vontade e pelas paixões do herói, indivíduo excepcional que, em luta contra um destino que o oprime, continua livre” (Grande Enciclopédia Larousse Cultural, op. cit., vol. 22, p. 5.441). *5: “Eurípedes, poeta trágico grego (Salamina, 480 – Macedônia, 406,a.C.), cujas obras mais célebres são: Alcestes (438), Medeia (431), Hipólito (428), Andrômaca (c. 426), Hécuba (c. 424), Íon (c. 418), Ifigênia em Áulida, As Bacantes. Eurípedes introduziu várias inovações na tragédia: ênfase na análise psicológica, preocupações científica e filosóficas, coros independentes da ação, introdução de personagens do povo” (KOOGAN/HOUAISS. Enciclopédia e Dicionário Ilustrado, op. cit., p. 642). *6: Vide nota 7 do capítulo II, Herôdotos. *7: “Más-línguas afirmam que Sófocles consumou sua velhice com a hetera Têoris, tendo um filho. Seu filho legítimo Iófas, talvez temendo que o poeta legasse ao filho de Têoris, levantou contra ele uma ação judicial,acusando-o de servil e incapaz da administração dos bens, Sófocles, para provar sua lucidez, fez perante os juízes a leitura de certos trechos da peça que na ocasião estava escrevendo, e que se julgou ser Édipo em Colono, ao término da leitura, os juízes não só o absolveram como o acompanharam até sua casa” (DURANT, Will. História da Civilização Mundial: nossa herança clássica, op. cit., vol. II, p. 314). *8: SÓFOCLES. Antígona. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 1997, p. 45. *9: Idem, op. cit., pp. 41-2. *10: “Aquela (Antígona), porém, prefere ficar com as ordens mais altas dos deuses, inacessíveis à maldade humana” (MACHADO PAUPÉRIO, A. O Direito Político de Resistência. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 1978, p. 38). *11: “Antígona, entretanto, rebelou-se contra o edital de Creonte, considerando o sepultamento um dever mais forte que as leis dos homens, principalmente em se tratando de parentes, e cumpriu, embora sumariamente, os ritos fúnebres de Polinice” (KURY, Mário da Gama. Dicionário de Mitologia Grega e Romana. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Sales, 1990, p. 35). *12: “No século V a.C., os grandes trágicos gregos, Ésquilo, Sófocles e Eurípedes, empregavam os mitos antigos para explorar os mais profundos temas da condição humana” (TARNAS, Richard. A Epopeia do Pensamento Ocidental: para compreender as ideias que molduram nossa visão de mundo. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2000, p. 33). -/- . (shrink)

Philosophical accounts of freedom typically fail to capture an important kind of freedom—freedom to change what one cares about—that is central to our understanding of what it is to be a person. This paper articulates this kind of freedom more clearly, distinguishing it from freedom of action and freedom of the will, and gives an account of how it is possible. Central to this account is an understanding of the role of emotions in determining what we value, thus motivating a (...) rethinking of the importance of emotions in the mental lives of persons. (shrink)

One central argument in favor of perceptual accounts of emotions concerns recalcitrant emotions: emotions that persist in the face of repudiating judgments. For, it is argued, to understand how the conflict between recalcitrant emotions and judgment falls short of incoherence in judgment, we need to understand recalcitrant emotions to be something like perceptual illusions of value, so that in normal, non-recalcitrant cases emotions are non-illusory perceptions of value. I argue that these arguments fail and that a closer examination of recalcitrant (...) emotions reveals important disanalogies with perception that undermine the perceptual model of emotions. (shrink)

By a `denoting phrase' I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the center of mass of the solar system at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form. We may distinguish (...) three cases: (1) A phrase may be denoting, and yet not denote anything; e.g., `the present King of France'. (2) A phrase may denote one definite object; e.g., `the present King of England' denotes a certain man. (3) A phrase may denote ambiguously; e.g. `a man' denotes not many men, but an ambiguous man. The interpretation of such phrases is a matter of considerably difficulty; indeed, it is very hard to frame any theory not susceptible of formal refutation. All the difficulties with which I am acquainted are met, so far as I can discover, by the theory which I am about to explain. (shrink)

Published in 1903, this book was the first comprehensive treatise on the logical foundations of mathematics written in English. It sets forth, as far as possible without mathematical and logical symbolism, the grounds in favour of the view that mathematics and logic are identical. It proposes simply that what is commonly called mathematics are merely later deductions from logical premises. It provided the thesis for which _Principia Mathematica_ provided the detailed proof, and introduced the work of Frege to a wider (...) audience. In addition to the new introduction by John Slater, this edition contains Russell's introduction to the 1937 edition in which he defends his position against his formalist and intuitionist critics. (shrink)

It is often thought that metaphysical grounding underwrites a distinctive sort of metaphysical explanation. However, it would be a mistake to think that all metaphysical explanations are underwritten by metaphysical grounding. In service of this claim, I offer a novel kind of metaphysical explanation called metaphysical explanation by constraint, examples of which have been neglected in the literature. I argue that metaphysical explanations by constraint are not well understood as grounding explanations.

Suppose that A explains B. Do A and B need to be true? Provided that we have metaphysical explanation in mind, orthodoxy answers “yes:” metaphysical explanation is factive. This article introduces and defends a non-factive notion of metaphysical explanation. I argue that we need a non-factive notion of explanation in order to make sense of explanationist arguments where we motivate a view by claiming that it offers better explanations than its competitors. After presenting and rejecting some initially plausible rivals, I (...) account for non-factive metaphysical explanation by drawing on existing applications of structural equation models to metaphysical grounding. (shrink)

The paper discusses two conceptions of divine freedom. The first, Hugh McCann’s, proposes that God is a timelessly eternal act, whose agency is not deliberative and who, in that act, creates himself and the contents of his will. God is such an act. Following discussion of this view, its costs and benefits, a more traditional account of God’s freedom, in which he possesses vestigial alternativity, the freedom to choose an alternative should there have been a sufficient reason to do so.

Boethius and Augustine of Hippo are two of the fountainheads from which the long tradition of regarding God’s existence as timelessly eternal has flowed, a tradition which has influenced not only Christianity, but Judaism and Islam, too. But though the two have divine eternality in common, I shall argue that in other respects, in certain crucial respects, they differ significantly over how they articulate that notion.

This is a transcript of a conversation between P F Strawson and Gareth Evans in 1973, filmed for The Open University. Under the title 'Truth', Strawson and Evans discuss the question as to whether the distinction between genuinely fact-stating uses of language and other uses can be grounded on a theory of truth, especially a 'thin' notion of truth in the tradition of F P Ramsey.

Abstract: In this paper we argue that Robert Kane’s theory of free will cannot accommodate the possibility of a sinless individual who faces morally significant choices because a sinless agent cannot voluntarily accord value to an immoral desire, and we argue that Kane’s theory requires this. Since the Jesus of the historic Christian tradition is held to be sinless, we think Christians should reject Kane’s theory because it seems irreconcilable with historic Christian Christology. We consider two objections to our argument (...) and argue that both fail. (shrink)

The survival enhancing propensity (SEP) account has a crucial role to play in the analysis of proper function. However, a central feature of the account, its specification of the proper environment to which functions are relativized, is seriously underdeveloped. In this paper, I argue that existent accounts of proper environment fail because they either allow too many or too few characters to count as proper functions. While SEP accounts retain their promise, they are unworkable because of their inability to specify (...) this important feature. However, I suggest that this problem can be overcome by the application of a new strategy for specifying proper environment that is grounded in the operation of natural selection and I conclude by offering a first approximation of such an account. (shrink)

Belirli betimlemeler, bir belirli tanımlıkla (Türkçede seslendirilmeyen ancak İngilizcede karşılığı "the" olan) başlayan "İngiltere'nin kralı", "Çin'in başkenti" gibi deyimlerdir. Russell bu yazıda belirli betimlemelerin mantıksal olarak nasıl çözümlenmesi gerektiği ile ilgili kendi betimlemeler kuramını ortaya atar. Russell'ın savı, belirli betimlemeler doğru bir biçimde çözümlenirse bir karşılığı olmayan "Fransa'nın şimdiki kralı" gibi deyimlerin yol açtığı türden birçok felsefi bilmecenin ortadan kalkacağıdır.

Dans son article « L’anarchie en philosophie politique », Francis Dupuis-Déri (2007) tente de réhabiliter l’anarchisme face au silence dont il est victime en philosophie politique. Dans cet article, j’entends accepter l’invitation de Dupuis-Déri à prendre au sérieux l’anarchisme et, plus particulièrement, le modèle général d’organisation politique qu’il propose en tentant de répondre à cette question : l’anarchisme est-il un régime politique moralement défendable ? Je réponds par la négative en montrant que l’anarchisme fait face à un trilemme qu’il ne (...) peut, par définition, résoudre. Ainsi, (1) soit l’anarchisme n’est pas moralement souhaitable, (2) soit il se confronte aux mêmes problèmes que rencontrent (selon les anarchistes) la démocratie ainsi que les autres régimes politiques concernant l’autorité et la coercition, (3) soit son application, dans sa version « pragmatique », se réduit à des communautés, ce qui permet en quelque sorte d’évacuer les problèmes soulevés dans les deux autres branches du trilemme, mais ne les résout pas pour autant. (shrink)

P. F. Strawson; II*—Scruton and Wright on Anti-Realism Etc., Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 77, Issue 1, 1 June 1977, Pages 15–22, https://doi.

Imperatives cannot be true, but they can be obeyed or binding: `Surrender!' is obeyed if you surrender and is binding if you have a reason to surrender. A pure declarative argument — whose premisses and conclusion are declaratives — is valid exactly if, necessarily, its conclusion is true if the conjunction of its premisses is true; similarly, I suggest, a pure imperative argument — whose premisses and conclusion are imperatives — is obedience-valid (alternatively: bindingness-valid) exactly if, necessarily, its conclusion is (...) obeyed (alternatively: binding) if the conjunction of its premisses is. I argue that there are two kinds of bindingness, and that a vacillation between two corresponding variants of bindingness-validity largely explains conflicting intuitions concerning the validity of some pure imperative arguments. I prove that for each of those two variants of bindingness-validity there is an equivalent variant of obedience-validity. Finally, I address alternative accounts of pure imperative inference. (shrink)

Do the ethical features of an artwork bear on its aesthetic value? This movie endorses misogyny, that song is a civil rights anthem, the clay constituting this statue was extracted with underpaid labor—are facts like these the proper bases for aesthetic evaluation? I argue that this debate has suffered from a false presupposition: that if the answer is yes (for at least some such ethical features), such considerations feature as pro tanto contributions to an artwork's overall aesthetic value, i.e., as (...) merits or flaws which make something have more or less overall aesthetic value. As the case of ethically laden, aesthetic evaluation makes clear, however, good aesthetic judgement is irreducibly multi-dimensional, e.g., "the movie has an engaging soundtrack, tasteful camera work, and takes a misogynistically prurient perspective on its female lead.'' Such a "non-summative" judgement refuses to reduce those various dimensions of aesthetic value to a single aggregate aesthetic evaluation, like "it's a 6/10" or "it's a pretty good movie!" I defend both the modest claim that such non-summative evaluations are not mistaken and the extremist claim that summative (i.e., unidimensional) aesthetic evaluation is defective by considering other domains of normative assessment in which summing seems inappropriate, notably including evaluations of people's character. (shrink)

Tradução para o português do livro "Ceticismo e naturalismo: algumas variedades", Strawson, P. F. . São Leopoldo, RS: Editora da Unisinos, 2008, 114 p. Coleção: Ideias. ISBN: 9788574313214. Capítulo 1 - Ceticismo, naturalismo e argumentos transcendentais 1. Notas introdutórias; 2. Ceticismo tradicional; 3. Hume: Razão e Natureza; 4. Hume e Wittgenstein; 5. “Apenas relacionar”: O papel dos argumentos transcendentais; 6. Três citações; 7. Historicismo: e o passado.

Some scientific categories seem to correspond to genuine features of the world and are indispensable for successful science in some domain; in short, they are natural kinds. This book gives a general account of what it is to be a natural kind and puts the account to work illuminating numerous specific examples.

Some recent psychological studies suggest that the belief that humans matter more than other animals can be strengthened by cognitive dissonance. Jaquet (forthcom- ing) argues that some of these studies also show that the relevant belief is primar- ily caused by cognitive dissonance and is therefore subject to a debunking argument. We offer an alternative hypothesis according to which we are already speciesist but cognitive dissonance merely enhances our speciesism. We argue that our hypothesis explains the results of the studies (...) at least as well as Jaquet’s. We then respond to a series of objections. Along the way, we highlight various respects in which further stud- ies are needed to decide between Jaquet’s hypothesis and ours. (shrink)

The notion of a simulating termination analyzer is examined at the concrete level of pairs of C functions. This is similar to AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs. The termination status decision is made on the basis of the dynamic behavior of the input. This paper explores what happens when a simulating termination analyzer is applied to an input that calls itself.

The no-miracles argument and the pessimistic induction are arguably the main considerations for and against scientific realism. Recently these arguments have been accused of embodying a familiar, seductive fallacy. In each case, we are tricked by a base rate fallacy, one much-discussed in the psychological literature. In this paper we consider this accusation and use it as an explanation for why the two most prominent `wholesale' arguments in the literature seem irresolvable. Framed probabilistically, we can see very clearly why realists (...) and anti-realists have been talking past one another. We then formulate a dilemma for advocates of either argument, answer potential objections to our criticism, discuss what remains (if anything) of these two major arguments, and then speculate about a future philosophy of science freed from these two arguments. In so doing, we connect the point about base rates to the wholesale/retail distinction; we believe it hints at an answer of how to distinguish profitable from unprofitable realism debates. In short, we offer a probabilistic analysis of the feeling of ennui afflicting contemporary philosophy of science. (shrink)

The problem of underdetermination is thought to hold important lessons for philosophy of science. Yet, as Kyle Stanford has recently argued, typical treatments of it offer only restatements of familiar philosophical problems. Following suggestions in Duhem and Sklar, Stanford calls for a New Induction from the history of science. It will provide proof, he thinks, of “the kind of underdetermination that the history of science reveals to be a distinctive and genuine threat to even our best scientific theories” (Stanford 2001, (...) p. S12). This paper examines Stanford’s New Induction and argues that it – like the other forms of underdetermination that he criticizes – merely recapitulates familiar philosophical conundra. (shrink)

In 1956, a few writings of Wittgenstein that he didn't publish in his lifetime were revealed to the public. These writings were gathered in the book Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics (1956). There, we can see that Wittgenstein had some discontentment with the way philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians were thinking about paradoxes, and he even registered a few polemic reasons to not accept Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

In this paper, I reply to 18 of the essays on panpsychism in this issue. Along the way, I sketch out what a post-Galilean science of consciousness, one in which consciousness is taken to be a fundamental feature of reality, might look like.

Although some authors hold that natural kinds are necessarily relative to disciplinary domains, many authors presume that natural kinds must be absolute, categorical features of the reality —often assuming that without even mentioning the alternative. Recognizing both possibilities, one may ask whether the difference especially matters. I argue that it does. Looking at recent arguments about natural kind realism, I argue that we can best make sense of the realism question by thinking of natural kindness as a relation that holds (...) between a category and a domain. (shrink)

Cover songs are a familiar feature of contemporary popular music. Musicians describe their own performances as covers, and audiences use the category to organize their listening and appreciation. However, until now philosophers have not had much to say about them. This book explores how to think about covers, appreciating covers, and the metaphysics of covers and songs. Along the way, it explores a range of issues raised by covers, from the question of what precisely constitutes a cover, to the history (...) and taxonomy of the category, the various relationships that hold between songs, performances, and tracks, and the appreciation and evaluation of covers. (shrink)

Philosophy in Africa has for more than a decade now been dominated by the discussion of one compound question, namely, is there an African philosophy, and if there is, what is it? The first part of the question has generally been unhesitatingly answered in the affirmative. Dispute has been primarily over the second part of the question as various specimens of African philosophy presented do not seem to pass muster. Those of us who refuse to accept certain specimens as philosophy (...) have generally been rather illogically said also to deny an affirmative answer to the first part of the question. In a paper presented at the International Symposium in Memory of Dr William Amo, the Ghanaian philosopher who taught in German universities in the early part of the eighteenth century, Professor Odera Oruka identified four trends, perhaps more appropriately approaches, in current African philosophy. (shrink)

When we ask what natural kinds are, there are two different things we might have in mind. The first, which I’ll call the taxonomy question, is what distinguishes a category which is a natural kind from an arbitrary class. The second, which I’ll call the ontology question, is what manner of stuff there is that realizes the category. Many philosophers have systematically conflated the two questions. The confusion is exhibited both by essentialists and by philosophers who pose their accounts in (...) terms of similarity. It also leads to misreading philosophers who do make the distinction. Distinguishing the questions allows for a more subtle understanding of both natural kinds and their underlying metaphysics. (shrink)

Tradução para o português do ensaio "Freedom and Resentment”, de P. F. Strawson. Publicado originalmente em Proceedings of the British Academy, v. 48, 1960. Republicado em Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. Londres: Methuen, 1974. [Routledge, 2008, p. 2-28]. Publicado na coletânea: Ensaios sobre a filosofia de Strawson: com a tradução de Liberdade e ressentimento & Moralidade social e ideal individual. Organizadores: Jaimir Conte & Itamar Luís Gelain. Editora da UFSC, 2015. ISBN: 9788532807250.

Tradução para o português do ensaio "Social Morality and Individual Ideal”. Publicado originalmente em Philosophy: The Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, vol. XXXVI, n. 136, p. 1-17, Jan. 1961. Republicado em: STRAWSON, P. F. Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. Londres: Methuen, 1974. [Routledge, 2008, p. 26-44]. ]. Publicado na coletânea: Ensaios sobre a filosofia de Strawson: com a tradução de Liberdade e ressentimento & Moralidade social e ideal individual. Organizadores: Jaimir Conte & Itamar Luís Gelain. Editora da (...) UFSC, 2015. ISBN: 9788532807250. (shrink)

The accepted narrative treats John Stuart Mill’s Kinds as the historical prototype for our natural kinds, but Mill actually employs two separate notions: Kinds and natural groups. Considering these, along with the accounts of Mill’s nineteenth-century interlocutors, forces us to recognize two distinct questions. First, what marks a natural kind as worthy of inclusion in taxonomy? Second, what exists in the world that makes a category meet that criterion? Mill’s two notions offer separate answers to the two questions: natural groups (...) for taxonomy and Kinds for ontology. This distinction is ignored in many contemporary debates about natural kinds and is obscured by the standard narrative that treats our natural kinds just as a development of Mill’s Kinds. (shrink)

The novel concept of a simulating halt decider enables halt decider H to to correctly determine the halt status of the conventional “impossible” input D that does the opposite of whatever H decides. This works equally well for Turing machines and “C” functions. The algorithm is demonstrated using “C” functions because all of the details can be shown at this high level of abstraction. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Simulating halt decider H correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H would remain stuck in (...) recursive simulation never reaching its own final state. D cannot do the opposite of the return value from H because this return value is unreachable by every correctly simulated D. This same result is shown to be derived in the Peter Linz Turing machine based proof. (shrink)

The Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) account of natural kinds has become popular since it was proposed by Richard Boyd in the late 1980s. Although it is often taken as a defining natural kinds as such, it is easy enough to see that something's being a natural kind is neither necessary nor sufficient for its being an HPC. This paper argues that it is better not to understand HPCs as defining what it is to be a natural kind but instead as (...) providing the ontological realization of (some) natural kinds. (shrink)

Some philosophers understand natural kinds to be the categories which are constraints on enquiry. In order to elaborate the metaphysics appropriate to such an account, I consider the complicated history of scurvy, citrus, and vitamin C. It may be tempting to understand these categories in a shallow way (as mere property clusters) or in a deep way (as fundamental properties). Neither approach is adequate, and the case instead calls for middle-range ontology: starting from categories which we identify in the world (...) and elaborating their structure, but not pretending to jump ahead to a complete story about fundamental being. (shrink)

Kyle Stanford has recently claimed to offer a new challenge to scientific realism. Taking his inspiration from the familiar Pessimistic Induction (PI), Stanford proposes a New Induction (NI). Contra Anjan Chakravartty’s suggestion that the NI is a ‘red herring’, I argue that it reveals something deep and important about science. The Problem of Unconceived Alternatives, which lies at the heart of the NI, yields a richer anti-realism than the PI. It explains why science falls short when it falls short, and (...) so it might figure in the most coherent account of scientific practice. However, this best account will be antirealist in some respects and about some theories. It will not be a sweeping antirealism about all or most of science. (shrink)

Peter Baumann offers the tantalizing suggestion that Thomas Reid is almost, but not quite, a pragmatist. He motivates this claim by posing a dilemma for common sense philosophy: Will it be dogmatism or scepticism? Baumann claims that Reid points to but does not embrace a pragmatist third way between these unsavory options. If we understand `pragmatism' differently than Baumann does, however, we need not be so equivocal in attributing it to Reid. Reid makes what we could call an argument from (...) practical commitment, and this is plausibly an instance of what William James calls the pragmatic method. (shrink)

This paper continues and extensive exploration of the QG and TOE resulting from the PF interpretation of QM. Some highlights are an exploration of symmetries of the Standard Model, outlines of testable predictions of implications for QG, that this theory can simultaneously give an account of dark matter and dark energy, probabilities and statevector collapse vs. gravity, applications of the causal interaction tensor Cαβγδ(Fi, Fj). Note the first section mentions qualia but this is not a psychological theory this is an (...) ontic theory. (shrink)

Homeostatic property clusters (HPCs) are offered as a way of understanding natural kinds, especially biological species. I review the HPC approach and then discuss an objection by Ereshefsky and Matthen, to the effect that an HPC qua cluster seems ill-fitted as a description of a polymorphic species. The standard response by champions of the HPC approach is to say that all members of a polymorphic species have things in common, namely dispositions or conditional properties. I argue that this response fails. (...) Instances of an HPC kind need not all be similar in their exhibited properties. Instead, HPCs should instead be understood as unified by the underlying causal mechanism that maintains them. The causal mechanism can both produce and explain some systematic differences between a kind’s members. An HPC kind is best understood not as a single cluster of properties maintained in stasis by causal forces, but as a complex of related property clusters kept in relation by an underlying causal process. This approach requires recognizing that taxonomic systems serve both explanatory and inductive purposes. (shrink)

The Argument from Inductive Risk (AIR) is taken to show that values are inevitably involved in making judgements or forming beliefs. After reviewing this conclusion, I pose cases which are prima facie counterexamples: the unreflective application of conventions, use of black-boxed instruments, reliance on opaque algorithms, and unskilled observation reports. These cases are counterexamples to the AIR posed in ethical terms as a matter of personal values. Nevertheless, it need not be understood in those terms. The values which load a (...) theory choice may be those of institutions or past actors. This means that the challenge of responsibly handling inductive risk is not merely an ethical issue, but is also social, political, and historical. (shrink)

The influential proposal that the analytical component of a theory is captured by its ‘Carnap sentence’ is critically scrutinized. A counterexample which makes the suggestion problematic is presented.

There are two senses of ‘what scientists know’: An individual sense (the separate opinions of individual scientists) and a collective sense (the state of the discipline). The latter is what matters for policy and planning, but it is not something that can be directly observed or reported. A function can be defined to map individual judgments onto an aggregate judgment. I argue that such a function cannot effectively capture community opinion, especially in cases that matter to us.