This paper has as its topic two recent philosophical disputes. One of these disputes is internal to the project known as decision theory, and while by now familiar to many, may well seem to be of pressing concern only to specialists. It has been carried on over the last twenty years or so, but by now the two opposing camps are pretty well entrenched in their respective positions, and the situation appears to many observers (as well as to some of (...) the parties involved) to have reached a sort of stalemate. The second of these two disputes is, on the other hand, very much alive. While it has been framed in decision theoretic terms, it is definitely not a dispute internal to that enterprise. It is, rather, a debate about the very coherence of the notion of objective value, and as such touches on issues of central importance to, for example, meta–ethics and moral psychology. (shrink)

There is long standing agreement both among philosophers and linguists that the term ‘counterfactual conditional’ is misleading if not a misnomer. Speakers of both non-past subjunctive (or ‘would’) conditionals and past subjunctive (or ‘would have’) conditionals need not convey counterfactuality. The relationship between the conditionals in question and the counterfactuality of their antecedents is thus not one of presupposing. It is one of conversationally implicating. This paper provides a thorough examination of the arguments against the presupposition view as applied (...) to past subjunctive conditionals and finds none of them conclusive. All the relevant linguistic data, it is shown, are compatible with the assumption that past subjunctive conditionals presuppose the falsity of their antecedents. This finding is not only interesting on its own. It is of vital importance both to whether we should consider antecedent counterfactuality to be part of the conventional meaning of the conditionals in question and to whether there is a deep difference between indicative and subjective conditionals. (shrink)

1. Introduction: a look back at the reasons vs. causes debate. 2. The interventionist account of causation. 3. Four objections to interventionism. 4. The counterfactual analysis of event causation. 5. The role of free agency. 6. Causality in the human sciences. -- The reasons vs. causes debate reached its peak about 40 years ago. Hempel and Dray had debated the nature of historical explanation and the broader issue of whether explanations that cite an agent’s reasons are causal or not. Melden, (...) Peters, Winch, Kenny and Anscombe had contributed their anticausal conceptions. The neo-Wittgensteinians seemed to be winning the day when in 1963 Donald Davidson published his seminal paper “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”. Davidson’s paper devastated the Wittgensteinian camp. It contained, among other things, a powerful attack on the logical connection argument. Davidson argued that the existence of a logical or conceptual connection between descriptions can never eliminate a causal relation, which holds between events simpliciter, not between events under certain descriptions. Davidson maintained that in a way, reasons can be causes. When somebody acts for a certain reason, his intentional attitudes, or rather changes in his attitudes, cause his bodily movements. Davidson also argued that rationalization is a species of causal explanation. For the definition of action, he argued that intentional actions are bodily movements caused in the right way by beliefs and desires that rationalize them. Davidson’s paper paved the way for causal theories of action, which superseded neo-Wittgensteinian analyses in the following decades. The causal theory was rapidly adopted by Alvin Goldman, David Armstrong, Paul Churchland, Myles Brand and many others, entering the mainstream and dominating the philosophy of action to this very day. In 1971 Georg Henrik von Wright published his book "Explanation and Understanding". The second chapter did not deal with agency, but with causation. It developed a new account of causation, the interventionist or experimentalist account. Focusing on causation, von Wright remedied a major shortcoming of the reasons vs. causes debate. The concept of causality, and the nature of the causal relation, received little attention in this debate, a fact that holds true for both camps. Mostly it was simply taken for granted that, as Hempel had declared, “causal explanation is a special type of deductive-nomological explanation”. One camp then aligned intentional explanations with D-N explanations, while the other camp insisted on their disparity. So strictly speaking, the label “reasons/causes debate” was a misnomer. The controversy dealt primarily with the question as to whether intentional explanations can take the form of D-N explanations, while the notion of causation, and the metaphysics of the causal relation, were left obscured. With von Wright’s new approach, the situation changed. Von Wright was primarily concerned with causation, but his approach contained an implicit attack on the causal theory of action as well. His core idea was that the notion of causality is intimately linked with, or even derived from, the notion of intentionally making something happen. Other philosophers, even Hume, had considered such a connection before, but often just to reject this view, regarding it as a kind of myth belonging to the infancy of the human mind. Von Wright took the idea seriously. He submitted the analysis that p is the cause of q if and only if by doing p we could bring about q. The causal theory of action was also concerned with the relation between causation and agency, to which its name bears witness. The causal theory of action holds that actions are bodily movements with a certain causal history. This is why von Wright’s account constituted a momentous challenge to the causal theory: it reversed the direction of conceptual dependency between both notions. Davidson and his followers tried to define what an intentional action is by using the notion of causation. The causal condition which the causal theory sets is part of the definition of “doing something intentionally”. Von Wright claimed that the conceptual dependency is the other way round. He used the notions of doing, and bringing about, to explain what causal relations are. So, instead of a causal theory of action, he advocated an agency theory of causation, as it may be dubbed. It is remarkable how seldom this clash of opinions about conceptual primacy is reflected in the literature. There are few exceptions: Fred Stoutland noticed the conflict, and he published a number of papers in which he compared Davidson’s and von Wright’s views. Von Wright’s book "Explanation and Understanding" was widely read and discussed in the seventies, especially in Europe. But it strikes me that especially in North America, where the causal theory of action became the orthodoxy of the day, von Wright’s challenge went largely unnoticed. Even Davidson did not seem to take it seriously. He nowhere takes notice of the interventionist theory of causation, while he does discuss von Wright’s earlier book "Norm and Action". As is well-known, Davidson favoured an alternative account of causation, based on “the principle of the nomological character of causality”, as he somewhat clumsily called it, or, later and less clumsily, “the cause-law thesis”. Davidson’s firm adherence to a nomological theory of causality may explain why he did not take much interest in alternative accounts. [...] -/- . (shrink)

Even though Frege is a major figure in the history of analytic philosophy, it is not surprising that there are still issues surrounding his views, interpreting them, and labeling them. Frege’s view on numbers is typically termed as ‘Platonistic’ or at least a type of Platonism (Reck 2005). Still, the term ‘Platonism’ has views and assumptions ascribed to it that may be misleading and leads to mischaracterizations of Frege’s outlook on numbers and ideas. So, clarification of the term ‘Platonism’ is (...) required to portray Frege’s views more accurately (Reck 2005). This clarification gives us a better picture of what Frege is interested in and what he does not emphasize. Moreover, in such a clarifying process, we find that Frege draws significant influence from Rudolf Hermann Lotze, who is frequently called a Neo-Kantian (Vagnetti 2018). In Lotze’s major work, Logik, Lotze has a central focus on validity, in its most general form as he used it, that investigates various related topics, i.e., concepts, language, etc. (Vagnetti 2018; Lotze 1888). Furthermore, we observe that Frege’s work is so similar to Lotze, that it seems questionable to call his outlook ‘Platonism’. Therefore, attributing ‘Platonism’ to Frege may be a slight misnomer. This paper’s entirety is mostly a synthesis of a variety of articles related to Frege, Lotze, and their respective outlooks and the original works of Frege and Lotze that I use to support the view that the term ‘Platonism’ is a slight issue when predicated to Frege. As such, I include an overview of Frege’s treatment in other work that highlights the usage of the term ‘Platonism’ and how broad its uses tend to be utilized (Balaguer 2006; Burge 1992). In sum, it is observed that the general label ‘Platonism’ becomes less appropriate when we consider Lotze in the picture and contrast Lotze alongside Mr. Frege. Overall, this paper is just an explanatory one of Mr. Frege, the Platonist, and the issues of applying the term ‘Platonism’ onto him as his views are seemingly more of a segue from Lotze. Keywords: Frege, Lotze, number, objectification, Platonism, validity. (shrink)

This reply is a refutation of Santiago Vrech’s article “The End of the Case? A Metaphilosophical Critique of Thought Experiments” (2022) which argues that thought experiments used in argumentation cannot hold in All Possible Worlds (APW) modality, and thus should end. Cases are used to justify or refute a philosophical theory, but should not have the power to refute an entire theory, especially ad infinitum. Significant variations in intuitions, he argues, invalidate cases and are not proven. I argue some variation (...) is acceptable and expected, and his bar of criteria is too high—APW validity is unnecessary. Vrech’s three arguments are faulty and/ or too weak, and his thought experiment is of questionable value. Experimental and armchair philosophy (or philosophers) are misnomers, misleading and false dichotomy. (shrink)

This paper argues for a reinterpretation of Aristotle's concept of an enthymeme and also his wider informal logic in terms of arguments that are defeasible. They are represented by forms of argument that are called argumentation schemes, considered to be similar to forms of argument found in deductive logic, but different from the foregoing in virtue of their being defeasible. Indeed, the most interesting schemes have been put forward as a helpful way of characterizing structures of human reasoning that have (...) proved troublesome to model deductively. The paper sheds new light on Aristotle's topics and how to dene `enthymeme'. If the traditional denition of an enthymeme in logic accepted for over two thousand years is a misnomer, the question is raised whether we ought to redene it as a defeasible argumentations scheme or leave things as they are. (shrink)

This paper raises argument and attempts clarification. The argument advanced is that the notion of Spiritocentric Humanism a theory, philosophical system and method propounded by Professor Godfrey O. Ozumba of the University of Calabar is a misnomer or a miscoinage, inappropriate and a terminological inexactitude, considering that Humanism as a philosophical system is essentially humanocentric. The thesis advanced in conclusion is that if Spiritocentric Humanism is “a philosophy onto eternity” as Ozumba contends, it is to the extent of its (...) goal, a philosophy that is more spiritual than humanistic. Consequently, the paper suggests that Ozumba’s espousal can still be termed “Integrative Humanism” without it synonymously being characterized as “Spiritocentric Humanism”, if it has to be considered as a variant of authentic humanistic philosophy. (shrink)

While the philosophers of science discuss the General Relativity, the mathematical physicists do not question it. Therefore, there is a conflict. From the theoretical point view “the question of precisely what Einstein discovered remains unanswered, for we have no consensus over the exact nature of the theory 's foundations. Is this the theory that extends the relativity of motion from inertial motion to accelerated motion, as Einstein contended? Or is it just a theory that treats gravitation geometrically in the spacetime (...) setting?”. “The voices of dissent proclaim that Einstein was mistaken over the fundamental ideas of his own theory and that their basic principles are simply incompatible with this theory. Many newer texts make no mention of the principles Einstein listed as fundamental to his theory; they appear as neither axiom nor theorem. At best, they are recalled as ideas of purely historical importance in the theory's formation. The very name General Relativity is now routinely condemned as a misnomer and its use often zealously avoided in favour of, say , Einstein's theory of gravitation What has complicated an easy resolution of the debate are the alterations of Einstein's own position on the foundations of his theory”, (Norton, 1993). Of other hand from the mathematical point view the “General Relativity had been formulated as a messy set of partial differential equations in a single coordinate system. People were so pleased when they found a solution that they didn't care that it probably had no physical significance” (Hawking and Penrose, 1996). So, during a time, the declaration of quantum theorists:“I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality. All that one can ask is that its predictions should be in agreement with observation.” (Hawking and Penrose, 1996)seemed to solve the problem, but recently achieved with the help of the tightly and collectively synchronized clocks in orbit frontally contradicts fundamental assumptions of the theory of Relativity. These observations are in disagree from predictions of the theory of Relativity. (Hatch, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). The mathematical model was developed first by Grossmann who presented it, in 1913, as the mathematical part of the Entwurf theory, still referred to a curved Minkowski spacetime. Einstein completed the mathematical model, in 1915, formulated for Riemann ́s spacetimes. In this paper, we present as of General Relativity currently remains only the mathematical model, darkened with the results of Hatch and, course, we conclude that a Einstein ́s gravity theory does not exist. (shrink)

This has been published by the Archdiocese of Calcutta in the Roman Catholic The Herald which has been in continuous circulation from 1839. This weekly paper is the mouthpiece of this Roman Catholic Archdiocese and is indexed by the Vatican. The importance of this short piece is that it clears the misconception about the so-called fire-sacrifice which is found in all text books and scholarly papers globally. There is no such thing as a fire-sacrifice. The author draws a parallel with (...) the 'havan' or 'homa' with the Holy Eucharist. For the author the fire is God, as for Roman Catholics, the bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Christ during the Paschal Mystery. Further, the author clearly states the similarities between Ignatius's Spiritual Exercises and Tantric 'nyasas'. These are unique observations within comparative religious studies. The Truth is One and sages call it by various names and so while the paths to this Truth are different, the destination is the same. (shrink)

Down through the ages, logic has adopted many strange and awkward technical terms: assertoric, prove, proof, model, constant, variable, particular, major, minor, and so on. But truth-value is a not a typical example. Every proposition, even if false, no matter how worthless, has a truth-value:even “one plus two equals four” and “one is not one”. In fact, every two false propositions have the same truth-value—no matter how different they might be, even if one is self-contradictory and one is consistent. It (...) is not such a big surprise that every true proposition, no matter how worthless, has a truth-value. Every proposition, whether valuable or worthless, has a truth-value.But it is a little strange that every two true propositions, no matter how different they might be, have the same truth-value. The Pythagorean Theorem has the same truth-value as the proposition that one is one. It is a stretch to think of truth-values as values in any of the normal senses of the word ‘value’. (shrink)