Some natural languages do not lexically distinguish between modals of possibility and modals of necessity. From the perspective of languages like English, modals in such languages appear to do double duty: they are used both where possibility modals are expected and where necessity modals are expected. The Nez Perce modal suffix o’qa offers an example of this behavior. I offer a simple account of the flexibility of the o’qa modal centered on the absence of scalar implicatures. O’qa is a possibility (...) modal that does not belong to a Horn scale; its use is never associated with a scalar implicature. Accordingly, in an upward entailing environment, φ-o’qa is appropriate whenever there are accessible φ-worlds, even if indeed all accessible worlds are φ-worlds. In a downward entailing environment, the flexibility of the o’qa modal is seen no more. Here, neither o’qa nor English possibility modals are associated with scalar implicatures, and the use of o’qa exactly parallels the use of English modals of possibility. -/- Given that o’qa is a possibility modal that does not contrast with a modal of necessity, just how do you talk about necessities in Nez Perce? Speakers translating into Nez Perce rely on a variety of techniques to paraphrase expressions of simple necessity away. Their strategies highlight an area where Nez Perce and English plausibly differ in the range of propositions they convey. The data cast doubt on any strong form of effability as a language universal. (shrink)

This essay examines the contributions of Greek philosopher and theologian Christos Yannaras to the question of the relationship between faith and reason. Although a comprehensive analysis of the entire body of his work is beyond the scope of this project, we will attempt to demonstrate through a selective survey, from the early `On the Absence and Unknowability of God' (1970) to the later `The Effable and the Ineffable' (1999), that he presents a convincing `third way' between rationalism and deism. We (...) will argue that Yannaras accomplishes this by methodologically deconstructing the presuppositions of rationalism and advocating for a more `empirically correct' approach grounded in apophaticism and social verification of knowledge. In doing so, he introduces a paradigm that not only challenges the binary opposition between faith and reason but also establishes a distinctive point of encounter between Orthodox Christian theology and contemporary philosophical discourse. (shrink)

In this thesis, I compare Kant and Wittgenstein’s critical philosophies with respect to Transcendental Idealism, as a doctrine meant to “prove” the possibility of Metaphysics. My Central Question is: Is the early Wittgenstein a transcendental idealist? In virtue of a distinction between Transcendentalism and Transcendental Idealism, I answer “No”, by arguing that the early Wittgenstein is a transcendental philosopher, but not a transcendental idealist of any kind. In particular, I distinguish two variants of Transcendental Idealism, namely an effable variant, which (...) Kant endorsed, and an ineffable variant, often ascribed to Wittgenstein. And I argue that Wittgenstein cannot commit to either variant. This raises questions as to what kind of transcendental philosopher Wittgenstein is, if not an idealist one, and how his stance may bear on Metaphysics. I answer both questions by the end of the work. -/- The dissertation’s core is structured into two parallel Parts, one on Kant (PartK) and one on Wittgenstein (PartW). Each Part is composed of 3 Chapters. In PartK, I give a general account of -/- (1K) Transcendental Philosophy—based on Kant’s one, but less restrictive than his; (2K) Effable Transcendental Idealism—by expounding Kant’s doctrine; (3K) Ineffable Transcendental Idealism—inspired by Kant, but not strictly Kantian. -/- In PartW, I argue that -/- (1W) the early Wittgenstein is a transcendental philosopher; (2W) the early Wittgenstein is not an effable transcendental idealist; (3W) the early Wittgenstein is not an ineffable transcendental idealist. -/- By the final Chapter of the work, I argue that -/- (7) the early Wittgenstein is a transcendental quietest, -/- namely, someone who accepts that there are transcendental conditions of cognition, while refraining from commitment over their metaphysical nature and status. However, Wittgenstein’s (ineffable) version of Transcendental Quietism is extreme, as it turns the whole of Metaphysics into mere nonsense. I will thus conclude the work by sketching a moderate (effable) version, whereby Transcendental Metaphysics is possible, but while we should engage with it, we should not engage in it. (shrink)