Språket vårt utgjør en stor del av vår identitet. Det er et redskap for kommunikasjon med andre mennesker, men også med oss selv. Vi uttrykker oss gjennom språket, og vi tenker ved hjelp av språket. Men hva er egentlig språk? Gjennom å ta for meg to vesensforskjellige tilnærminger til dette spørsmålet ønsker jeg å vise at det synet vi har på språk, har stor filosofiske betydning. Dette er fordi et språksyn nødvendigvis vil få konsekvenser for hvordan vi tenker om beslektede (...) filosofiske spørsmål, som blant annet: -/- – Hva er forholdet mellom språk og verden? -/- – Hva er sannhet? -/- – Hvordan får vi kunnskap om verden? -/- – Hva gjør vi når vi bruker språk? -/- – Hva er vår rolle som språkbrukere? -/- – Hvordan lærer vi språk? -/- Det er to ting som er viktig å avklare om vinklingen av denne artikkelen: Det første er at når jeg her velger å skissere to ulike filosofiske syn på språk, er det for å belyse de spørsmålene jeg har satt opp ovenfor, snarere enn å angripe eller fremme konkrete filosofiske teorier. Det andre er at når jeg her skriver om forholdet mellom språk og verden, og vår rolle som språkbrukere, vil jeg ta for gitt at dette omfatter alle naturlige språksystemer. Poengene mine er derfor ment å ha overføringsverdi til tegnspråk i sin alminnelighet, og selvfølgelig også til norsk tegnspråk. Dette innebærer at det jeg sier om ord, like gjerne kan sies om tegn. Målet med artikkelen er først og fremst å vise at språket må forstås som et gjennomgripende erkjennelsesmiddel i vårt møte med verden. (shrink)

Den filosofiske position konsekventialisme er ofte genstand for debat i filosofikredse, men alt for hyppigt opstår der misforståelser blandt de involverede, fordi de ikke er eksplicitte, hvad grundantagelser og væsentlige distinktioner angår. Denne korte artikel vil give en approksimation af, hvad der forstås ved konsekventialisme på et generisk niveau. Målet med artiklen er at klargøre nogle af de grundantagelser og distinktioner, som konsekventialister ofte benytter i deres teoridannelse, og som bør holdes for øje i ønsket om en frugtbar debat.

Trope theory is the view that the world consists (wholly or partly) of particular qualities, or tropes. This admittedly thin core assumption leaves plenty of room for variation. Still, most trope theorists agree that their theory is best developed as a one-category theory according to which there is nothing but tropes. Most hold that ‘sameness of property’ should be explained in terms of resembling tropes. And most hold that concrete particulars are made up from tropes in compresence (for an overview, (...) including an introduction to some alternative versions of the view, cf. Maurin, 2014). D. M. Armstrong disagrees. He thinks the world is a world of immanent universals, the thin particulars in which those universals are instantiated, and the states of affairs that—thereby—exist. He holds that ‘sameness of property’ should be explained in terms of numerically identical universals or—if the resembling things are the universals themselves—in terms of partially identical universals. And he believes that concrete particulars are made up from ‘thin particulars’ in which a (sufficient) number of universals are instantiated. In spite of their disagreements, proponents of tropes owe Armstrong a debt of gratitude. First, for being one of the theory’s earliest, most serious, and—not least—most prominent, critics (Armstrong for the first time considers, and rejects, what he then labels ‘particularism’, in his 1978a). But also for being one of the theory’s most ardent champions. Already in his 1989a, Armstrong regrets his 1978-rejection of the view. Equivalence classes of exactly resembling tropes, he now admits, for most purposes “serve as an excellent substitute for universals” (Armstrong 1989a, 122). But then why isn’t Armstrong a trope theorist? In this paper, Armstrong’s main reasons for rejecting the trope view are critically scrutinized. All of them, it is maintained, fail to convince. If this argument is accepted, Armstrong seems to have no—or, at least, no good—reason for not accepting the existence of tropes. But, then, ought Armstrong to have been a trope theorist? If the ‘best’ version of the trope view turns out to be ontologically more parsimonious than Armstrong’s own theory of universals, then, yes. That there is a version of the trope view, a version that is not (or, at least not seriously) considered by Armstrong, that is ontologically more parsimonious than the universals view, is argued in the next section. Why none of Armstrong’s reasons for preferring universals to tropes manage to convince, is explained in the section after that. First, however, and in order to avoid a common misunderstanding of the trope view and, as a consequence, of why one ought to reject it, a few more words about the core-difference between tropes and universals, and about how this difference matters (as well as does not matter) to what—and how well—these theories explain. (shrink)

The title of this paper reflects the fact that truthmaking is quite frequently considered to be expressive of realism. What this means, exactly, will become clearer in the course of our discussion, but since we are interested in Armstrong’s work on truthmaking in particular, it is natural to start from a brief discussion of how truthmaking and realism appear to be associated in his work. In this paper, special attention is given to the supposed link between truthmaking and realism, but (...) it is argued that this link should not be taken too seriously, as truthmaking turns out to be, to a large extent, ontologically neutral. Some consequences of this are studied. (shrink)