Any theory of truth must find a way around Curry’s paradox, and there are well-known ways to do so. This paper concerns an apparently analogous paradox, about validity rather than truth, which JC Beall and Julien Murzi call the v-Curry. They argue that there are reasons to want a common solution to it and the standard Curry paradox, and that this rules out the solutions to the latter offered by most “naive truth theorists.” To (...) this end they recommend a radical solution to both paradoxes, involving a substructural logic, in particular, one without structural contraction. In this paper I argue that substructuralism is unnecessary. Diagnosing the “v-Curry” is complicated because of a multiplicity of readings of the principles it relies on. But these principles are not analogous to the principles of naive truth, and taken together, there is no reading of them that should have much appeal to anyone who has absorbed the morals of both the ordinary Curry paradox and the second incompleteness theorem. (shrink)

The perhaps most important criticism of the nontransitive approach to semantic paradoxes is that it cannot truthfully express exactly which metarules preserve validity. I argue that this criticism overlooks that the admissibility of metarules cannot be expressed in any logic that allows us to formulate validity-Curry sentences and that is formulated in a classical metalanguage. Hence, the criticism applies to all approaches that do their metatheory in classical logic. If we do the metatheory of nontransitive logics in a nontransitive (...) logic, however, there is no reason to think that the argument behind the criticism goes through. In general, asking a logic to express its own admissible metarules may not be a good idea. (shrink)

Nontransitive responses to the validity Curry paradox face a dilemma that was recently formulated by Barrio, Rosenblatt and Tajer. It seems that, in the nontransitive logic ST enriched with a validity predicate, either you cannot prove that all derivable metarules preserve validity, or you can prove that instances of Cut that are not admissible in the logic preserve validity. I respond on behalf of the nontransitive approach. The paper argues, first, that we should reject the detachment principle for (...) naive validity. Secondly, I show how to add a validity predicate to ST while avoiding the dilemma. (shrink)

For semantic inferentialists, the basic semantic concept is validity. An inferentialist theory of meaning should offer an account of the meaning of "valid." If one tries to add a validity predicate to one's object language, however, one runs into problems like the v-Curry paradox. In previous work, I presented a validity predicate for a non-transitive logic that can adequately capture its own meta-inferences. Unfortunately, in that system, one cannot show of any inference that it is invalid. Here I (...) extend the system so that it can capture invalidities. (shrink)

Rejecting the Cut rule has been proposed as a strategy to avoid both the usual semantic paradoxes and the so-called v-Curry paradox. In this paper we consider if a Cut-free theory is capable of accurately representing its own notion of validity. We claim that the standard rules governing the validity predicate are too weak for this purpose and we show that although it is possible to strengthen these rules, the most obvious way of doing so brings with it (...) a serious problem: an internalized version of Cut can be proved for a Curry-like sentence. We also evaluate a number of possible ways of escaping this difficulty. (shrink)

In recent years there has been a revitalised interest in non-classical solutions to the semantic paradoxes. In this paper I show that a number of logics are susceptible to a strengthened version of Curry's paradox. This can be adapted to provide a proof theoretic analysis of the omega-inconsistency in Lukasiewicz's continuum valued logic, allowing us to better evaluate which logics are suitable for a naïve truth theory. On this basis I identify two natural subsystems of Lukasiewicz logic which (...) individually, but not jointly, lack the problematic feature. (shrink)

This paper argues that the Fixed Point Lemma implies that contradiction is derivable within primitive recursive arithmetic (PRA). Since PRA is consistent, this is regarded as a paradox to be resolved. The argument is inspired by the v-Curry paradox, but we utilize only a syntactic notion of derivability, not a semantic notion such as validity. The new paradox could be blocked by excluding certain formulae from the scope of the Fixed Point Lemma, but this would effectively (...) concede that the unrestricted Lemma is false. The resolution of the paradox thus remains an open question. (shrink)

Curry's paradox for "if.. then.." concerns the paradoxical features of sentences of the form "If this very sentence is true, then 2+2=5". Standard inference principles lead us to the conclusion that such conditionals have true consequents: so, for example, 2+2=5 after all. There has been a lot of technical work done on formal options for blocking Curry paradoxes while only compromising a little on the various central principles of logic and meaning that are under threat. -/- Once (...) we have a sense of the technical options, though, a philosophical choice remains. When dealing with puzzles in the logic of conditionals, a natural place to turn is independently motivated semantic theories of the behaviour of "if... then...". This paper argues that the closest-worlds approach outlined in Nolan 1997 offers a philosophically satisfying reason to deny conditional proof and so block the paradoxical Curry reasoning, and can give the verdict that standard Curry conditionals are false, along with related "contraction conditionals". (shrink)

This paper targets a series of potential issues for the discussion of, and modal resolution to, the alethic paradoxes advanced by Scharp (2013). I aim, then, to provide a novel, epistemicist treatment to Curry's Paradox. The epistemicist solution that I advance enables the retention of both classical logic and the traditional rules for the alethic predicate: truth-elimination and truth-introduction.

In 1942 Haskell B. Curry presented what is now called Curry's paradox which can be found in a logic independently of its stand on negation. In recent years there has been a revitalised interest in non-classical solutions to the semantic paradoxes. In this article the non-classical resolution of Curry’s Paradox and Shaw-Kwei' sparadox without rejection any contraction postulate is proposed. In additional relevant paraconsistent logic C ̌_n^#,1≤n<ω, in fact,provide an effective way of circumventing triviality of (...) da Costa’s paraconsistent Set Theories〖NF〗n^C. (shrink)

This book is devoted to the presentation of the new quantum mechanical formalism based on the probability representation of quantum states. In the 20s and 30s it became evident that some properties in quantum mechanics can be assigned only to the quantum mechanical system, but not necessarily to its constituents. This led Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) to their remarkable 1935 paper where they concluded that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory of nature (EPR paradox). In order to (...) avoid the contradiction which arises from instantaneous action at a distance mentioned above we introduce an extension of the canonical relativity by using measure algebra of physical events in Minkowski space-time. The canonical QM formalism is extended by additional new postulate of EPRB nonlocality for continuous and discrete observables, chapter I. The postulate of EPRB nonlocality is supported by new quantum mechanical formalism based on the probability representation of quantum states. Chapter II is devoted to the new quantum mechanical formalism based on the probability representation of quantum states. Chapter III is devoted to the Einstein's 1927 gedanken experiment resolution. Chapter IV is devoted to the EPR paradox resolution. Chapter V is devoted to the EPR-B paradox resolution. Chapter VI is devoted to the Schrödinger's cat (measured spin) paradox resolution. Chapter VII is devoted to the Bell inequalities revisited. Remind that the canonical arguments which were presented by many authors, namely, that violations of Bell type inequalities signal us that the classical Kolmogorovian model of probability is inapplicable to quantum phenomena. We claimed that the canonical assumption, under which Bell type inequalities were derived, is not supported by real physical nature of the EPRB experiments. The fundamental physical nature violations of the canonical Bell type inequalities explained by Postulate of EPR-Nonlocality and Heisenberg noise-disturbance uncertainty relations. (shrink)

In this chapter, I articulate the structure of a general concept of autonomy and then reply to possible objections with reference to Ulysses arrangements in psychiatry. The line of argument is as follows. Firstly, I examine three alternative conceptions of autonomy: value-neutral, value-laden, and relational. Secondly, I identify two paradigm cases of autonomy and offer a sketch of its concept as opposed to the closely related freedom of action and intentional agency. Finally, I explain away the autonomy paradox, to (...) which the previously identified pair of paradigm cases seems to give rise in the context of mental disorder. By addressing this paradox, we learn two valuable lessons. The first is about the relationships between the three conceptions of autonomy above. The second is about the relationship between autonomy and mental disorder. (shrink)

The following essay reconsiders the ontological and logical issues around Frege’s Basic Law (V). If focuses less on Russell’s Paradox, as most treatments of Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (GGA)1 do, but rather on the relation between Frege’s Basic Law (V) and Cantor’s Theorem (CT). So for the most part the inconsistency of Naïve Comprehension (in the context of standard Second Order Logic) will not concern us, but rather the ontological issues central to the conflict between (BLV) and (CT). These (...) ontological issues are interesting in their own right. And if and only if in case ontological considerations make a strong case for something like (BLV) we have to trouble us with inconsistency and paraconsistency. These ontological issues also lead to a renewed methodological reflection what to assume or recognize as an axiom. (shrink)

In a lengthy review article, C. Anthony Anderson criticizes the approach to property theory developed in Quality and Concept (1982). That approach is first-order, type-free, and broadly Russellian. Anderson favors Alonzo Church’s higher-order, type-theoretic, broadly Fregean approach. His worries concern the way in which the theory of intensional entities is developed. It is shown that the worries can be handled within the approach developed in the book but they remain serious obstacles for the Church approach. The discussion focuses on: (1) (...) the fine-grained/coarse-grained distinction, (2) proper names and definite descriptions, (3) the paradox of analysis and Mates’ puzzle, and (4) the logical, semantical, and intentional paradoxes. (shrink)

Scott Soames argues that interpreted in the light of Quine's holistic verificationism, Quine's thesis of underdetermination leads to a contradiction. It is contended here that if we pay proper attention to the evolution of Quine's thinking on the subject, particularly his criterion of theory individuation, Quine's thesis of underdetermination escapes Soames' charge of paradoxicality.

One of the most prospective directions of study of C.G. Jung’s synchronicity phenomenon is reviewed considering the latest achievements of modern science. The attention is focused mainly on the quantum entanglement and related phenomena – quantum coherence and quantum superposition. It is shown that the quantum non-locality capable of solving the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox represents one of the most adequate physical mechanisms in terms of conformity with the Jung’s synchronicity hypothesis. An attempt is made on psychophysiological substantiation of synchronicity within (...) the context of molecular biology. An original concept is proposed, stating that biological molecules involved in cell division during mitosis and meiosis, particularly DNA may be considered material carriers of consciousness. This assumption may be formulated on the basis of phenomenology of Jung’s analytical psychology. (shrink)

This paper’s main thesis is that in virtue of being believable, a believable novel makes an indirect transcendental argument telling us something about the real world of human psychology, action, and society. Three related objections are addressed. First, the Stroud-type objection would be that from believability, the only conclusion that could be licensed concerns how we must think or conceive of the real world. Second, Currie holds that such notions are probably false: the empirical evidence “is all against this idea…that (...) readers’ emotional responses track the real causal relations between things.” Third, responding with a full range of emotions to a novel surely requires that it be believable. Yet since we know the novel is fiction, we do not believe it. So in what does its believability consist? (shrink)

The semantic paradoxes are a family of arguments – including the liar paradox, Curry’s paradox, Grelling’s paradox of heterologicality, Richard’s and Berry’s paradoxes of definability, and others – which have two things in common: first, they make an essential use of such semantic concepts as those of truth, satisfaction, reference, definition, etc.; second, they seem to be very good arguments until we see that their conclusions are contradictory or absurd. These arguments raise serious doubts concerning the (...) coherence of the concepts involved. This article will offer an introduction to some of the main theories that have been proposed to solve the paradoxes and avert those doubts. Included is also a brief history of the semantic paradoxes from Eubulides to Tarski and Curry. (shrink)

Beall and Murzi :143–165, 2013) introduce an object-linguistic predicate for naïve validity, governed by intuitive principles that are inconsistent with the classical structural rules. As a consequence, they suggest that revisionary approaches to semantic paradox must be substructural. In response to Beall and Murzi, Field :1–19, 2017) has argued that naïve validity principles do not admit of a coherent reading and that, for this reason, a non-classical solution to the semantic paradoxes need not be substructural. The aim of this (...) paper is to respond to Field’s objections and to point to a coherent notion of validity which underwrites a coherent reading of Beall and Murzi’s principles: grounded validity. The notion, first introduced by Nicolai and Rossi, is a generalisation of Kripke’s notion of grounded truth, and yields an irreflexive logic. While we do not advocate the adoption of a substructural logic, we take the notion of naïve validity to be a legitimate semantic notion that points to genuine expressive limitations of fully structural revisionary approaches. (shrink)

This study asserts that W.V.O. Quine’s eliminative philosophical gaze into mereological composition affects inevitably his interpretations of composition theories of ontology. To investigate Quine’s property monism from the account of modal eliminativism, I applied to his solution for the paradoxes of de re modalities’ . Because of its vital role to figure out how dispositions are encountered by Quine, it was significantly noted that the realm of de re modalities doesn’t include contingent and impossible inferences about things. Therefore, for him, (...) all the intrinsic forces and elements of entities such as powers and causal or teleological dispositions for ontology demand to be seen necessarily as bound variables from a monist perspective. Although his denial of analyticity and the elimination of dispositional field of ontology, S. Mumford criticizes the monist perspective of Quine’s paradoxical approach to superveniences. Because superveniences create problems while determining type-type identities from a monist mereological perspective. It is observed that Quine faces with a reduction again in terms of his dispositional monism despite his critiques to repulse vagueness from the ontology in his well-known article Two Dogmas of Empiricism. -/- . (shrink)

Stephen Barker presents a novel approach to solving semantic paradoxes, including the Liar and its variants and Curry’s paradox. His approach is based around the concept of alethic undecidability. His approach, if successful, renders futile all attempts to assign semantic properties to the paradoxical sentences, whilst leaving classical logic fully intact. And, according to Barker, even the T-scheme remains valid, for validity is not undermined by undecidable instances. Barker’s approach is innovative and worthy of further consideration, particularly by (...) those of us who aim to find a solution without logical revisionism. As it stands, however, the approach is unsuccessful, as I shall demonstrate below. (shrink)

Dellsén (2016a) argues that understanding requires neither justification nor belief. I object that ridding understanding of justification and belief comes with the following costs. (i) No claim about the world can be inferred from what we understand. (ii) We run into either Moore’s paradox or certain disconcerting questions. (iii) Understanding does not represent the world. (iv) Understanding cannot take the central place in epistemology. (v) Understanding cannot be invoked to give an account of scientific progress. (vi) It is not (...) clear how misunderstanding arises. (shrink)

This paper presents a range of new triviality proofs pertaining to naïve truth theory formulated in paraconsistent relevant logics. It is shown that excluded middle together with various permutation principles such as A → (B → C)⊩B → (A → C) trivialize naïve truth theory. The paper also provides some new triviality proofs which utilize the axioms ((A → B)∧ (B → C)) → (A → C) and (A → ¬A) → ¬A, the fusion connective and the Ackermann constant. An (...) overview over various ways to formulate Leibniz’s law in non-classical logics and two new triviality proofs for naïve set theory are also provided. (shrink)

This work studies some problems connected to the role of negation in logic, treating the positive fragments of propositional calculus in order to deal with two main questions: the proof of the completeness theorems in systems lacking negation, and the puzzle raised by positive paradoxes like the well-known argument of Haskel Curry. We study the constructive com- pleteness method proposed by Leon Henkin for classical fragments endowed with implication, and advance some reasons explaining what makes difficult to extend this (...) constructive method to non-classical fragments equipped with weaker implications (that avoid Curry's objection). This is the case, for example, of Jan Lukasiewicz's n-valued logics and Wilhelm Ackermann's logic of restricted implication. Besides such problems, both Henkin's method and the triviality phenomenon enable us to propose a new positive tableau proof system which uses only positive meta-linguistic resources, and to mo- tivate a new discussion concerning the role of negation in logic proposing the concept of paratriviality. In this way, some relations between positive reasoning and infinity, the possibilities to obtain a ¯first-order positive logic as well as the philosophical connection between truth and meaning are dis- cussed from a conceptual point of view. (shrink)

Creativity pervades human life. It is the mark of individuality, the vehicle of self-expression, and the engine of progress in every human endeavor. It also raises a wealth of neglected and yet evocative philosophical questions: What is the role of consciousness in the creative process? How does the audience for a work for art influence its creation? How can creativity emerge through childhood pretending? Do great works of literature give us insight into human nature? Can a computer program really be (...) creative? How do we define creativity in the first place? Is it a virtue? What is the difference between creativity in science and art? Can creativity be taught? -/- The new essays that comprise The Philosophy of Creativity take up these and other key questions and, in doing so, illustrate the value of interdisciplinary exchange. Written by leading philosophers and psychologists involved in studying creativity, the essays integrate philosophical insights with empirical research. -/- CONTENTS -/- I. Introduction Introducing The Philosophy of Creativity Elliot Samuel Paul and Scott Barry Kaufman -/- II. The Concept of Creativity 1. An Experiential Account of Creativity Bence Nanay -/- III. Aesthetics & Philosophy of Art 2. Creativity and Insight Gregory Currie 3. The Creative Audience: Some Ways in which Readers, Viewers and/or Listeners Use their Imaginations to Engage Fictional Artworks Noël Carroll 4. The Products of Musical Creativity Christopher Peacocke -/- IV. Ethics & Value Theory 5. Performing Oneself Owen Flanagan 6. Creativity as a Virtue of Character Matthew Kieran -/- V. Philosophy of Mind & Cognitive Science 7. Creativity and Not So Dumb Luck Simon Blackburn 8. The Role of Imagination in Creativity Dustin Stokes 9. Creativity, Consciousness, and Free Will: Evidence from Psychology Experiments Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, and C. Nathan DeWall 10. The Origins of Creativity Elizabeth Picciuto and Peter Carruthers 11. Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: a Contradiction in Terms? Margaret Boden -/- VI. Philosophy of Science 12. Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention Dean Keith Simonton -/- VII. Philosophy of Education (& Education of Philosophy) 13. Educating for Creativity Berys Gaut 14. Philosophical Heuristics Alan Hájek. (shrink)

There are propositions constituting the content of fictions—sometimes of the utmost importance to understand them—which are not explicitly presented, but must somehow be inferred. This essay deals with what these inferences tell us about the nature of fiction. I will criticize three well-known proposals in the literature: those by David Lewis, Gregory Currie, and Kendall Walton. I advocate a proposal of my own, which I will claim improves on theirs. Most important for my purposes, I will argue on this basis, (...) against Walton’s objections, for an illocutionary-act account of fiction, inspired in part by some of Lewis’s and Currie’s suggestions, but (perhaps paradoxically) above all by Walton’s deservedly influential views. (shrink)

In the 1951 Gibbs lecture, Gödel asserted his famous dichotomy, where the notion of informal proof is at work. G. Priest developed an argument, grounded on the notion of naïve proof, to the effect that Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem suggests the presence of dialetheias. In this paper, we adopt a plausible ideal notion of naïve proof, in agreement with Gödel’s conception, superseding the criticisms against the usual notion of naïve proof used by real working mathematicians. We explore the connection between (...) Gödel’s theorem and naïve proof so understood, both from a classical and a dialetheic perspective. (shrink)

As is well-known, the formal system in which Frege works in his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik is formally inconsistent, Russell?s Paradox being derivable in it.This system is, except for minor differences, full second-order logic, augmented by a single non-logical axiom, Frege?s Axiom V. It has been known for some time now that the first-order fragment of the theory is consistent. The present paper establishes that both the simple and the ramified predicative second-order fragments are consistent, and that Robinson arithmetic, Q, (...) is relatively interpretable in the simple predicative fragment. The philosophical significance of the result is discussed. (shrink)

Motivated by H. Curry’s well-known objection and by a proposal of L. Henkin, this article introduces the positive tableaux, a form of tableau calculus without refutation based upon the idea of implicational triviality. The completeness of the method is proven, which establishes a new decision procedure for the (classical) positive propositional logic. We also introduce the concept of paratriviality in order to contribute to the question of paradoxes and limitations imposed by the behavior of classical implication.

Within the (Haskell Curry) notion of a formal system we complete Tarski's formal correctness: ∀x True(x) ↔ ⊢ x and use this finally formalized notion of Truth to refute his own Undefinability Theorem (based on the Liar Paradox), the Liar Paradox, and the (Panu Raatikainen) essence of the conclusion of the 1931 Incompleteness Theorem.

The aim of this dissertation is to offer and defend a correspondence theory of truth. I begin by critically examining the coherence, pragmatic, simple, redundancy, disquotational, minimal, and prosentential theories of truth. Special attention is paid to several versions of disquotationalism, whose plausibility has led to its fairly constant support since the pioneering work of Alfred Tarski, through that by W. V. Quine, and recently in the work of Paul Horwich. I argue that none of these theories meets the correspondence (...) intuition---that a true sentence or proposition in some way corresponds to reality---despite the explicit claims by each to capture this intuition. I distinguish six versions of the correspondence theory, and defend two against traditional objections, standardly taken as decisive against them, and show, plainly, that these two theories capture the correspondence intuition. Due to the importance of meeting this intuition, only these two theories stands a chance of being a satisfactory theory of truth. I argue that the version of the correspondence theory incorporating a simple semantic representation relation is preferable to its rival, for which the representation relation is complex. I present and argue for a novel version of this correspondence theory according to which truth is a correspondence property sensitive to semantic context. One consequence of this context-sensitivity is that an ungrounded sentence does not express a proposition. In addition to accounting for the similarity between the Liar and Truth-Teller sentences, this theory of truth is immune to the Liar Paradox, including empirical versions. It is argued that the Liar Paradox is devastating to all of the other theories above, and even formal theories of truth designed to solve it, such as the revision and vagueness theories. Customized versions of the Liar Paradox besetting this theory are handled by its context-sensitivity, and by enforcing the distinction between truth and truth value. This same pair of considerations also yields solutions to Lob's Paradox and Grelling's Paradox. Arguments similar to those given to defend this correspondence theory show that with one minor alteration, Kripke's fixed point theory may be used to model this correspondence notion of truth. (shrink)

In 1922, Thoralf Skolem introduced the term of «relativity» as to infinity от set theory. Не demonstrated Ьу Zermelo 's axiomatics of set theory (incl. the axiom of choice) that there exists unintended interpretations of anу infinite set. Тhus, the notion of set was also «relative». We сan apply his argurnentation to Gödel's incompleteness theorems (1931) as well as to his completeness theorem (1930). Then, both the incompleteness of Реапо arithmetic and the completeness of first-order logic tum out to bе (...) also «relative» in Skolem 's sense. Skolem 's «relativity» argumentation of that kind сan bе applied to а vету wide range of problems and one сan spoke of the relativity of discreteness and continuity or, of finiiteness and infinity, or, of Cantor 's kinds of infinities, etc. The relativity of Skolemian type helps us for generaIizing Einstein 's principle of relativity from the invariance of the physical laws toward diffeomorphisms to their invariance toward anу morphisms (including and especiaIly the discrete ones). Such а kind of generalization from diffeomorphisms (then, the notion of velocity always makes sense) to anу kind of morphism (when 'velocity' mау оr maу not make sense) is an extension of the general Skolemian type оГ relativity between discreteness and continuity от between finiteness and infinity. Particularly, the Lorentz invariance is not valid in general because the notion of velocity is limited to diffeomorphisms. [п the case of entanglement, the physical interaction is discrete0. 'Velocity" and consequently, the 'Lorentz invariance'"do not make sense. Тhat is the simplest explanation ofthe argurnent EPR, which tums into а paradox оnJу if the universal validity of 'velocity' and 'Lогелtz invariance' is implicitly accepted. (shrink)

This book tells the story of modern ethics, namely the story of a discourse that, after the Renaissance, went through a methodological revolution giving birth to Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s new science of natural law, leaving room for two centuries of explorations of the possible developments and implications of this new paradigm, up to the crisis of the Eighties of the eighteenth century, a crisis that carried a kind of mitosis, the act of birth of both basic paradigms of the two (...) following centuries: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. The new science of natural law carried a fresh start for ethics, resulting from a mixture of the Old and the New. It was, as suggested by Schneewind, an attempt at rescuing the content of Scholastic and Stoic doctrines on a new methodological basis. The former was the claim of existence of objective and universal moral laws; the latter was the self-aware attempt at justifying a minimal kernel of such laws facing skeptical doubt. What Bentham and Kant did was precisely carrying this strategy further on, even if restructuring it each of them around one out of two alternative basic claims. The nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics of the Enlightenment attacked both not on their alleged failure in carrying out their own projects, but precisely on having adopted Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project. What counter-enlightenment has been unable to spell out is which alternative project could be carried out facing the modern condition of pluralism, while on the contrary, if we takes a closer look at developments in twentieth-century ethics or at on-going discussions on practical issues, we might feel inclined to believe that Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project is as up-to-date as ever. -/- Table of Contents -/- Preface I. Fathers of the Reformation and Schoolmen 1.1. Luther: passive justice and the good deeds; 1.2. Calvin: voluntarism and predestination; 1.3. Baroque Scholasticism; 1.4. Casuistry and Institutiones morales -/- II Neo-Platonists, neo-Stoics, neo-Sceptics 2.1. Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, neo-Epicurean and neo-Cynic Humanists; 2.2. Oeconomica and the art of living; 2.3. Neo-Stoics; 2.4. Neo-Sceptics; 2.5. Moralistic literature -/- III Neo-Augustinians 3.l. The Jansenists on natura lapsa, sufficient grace, pure love; 3.2. Nicole on the impossibility of self-knowledge; 3.3. Nicole on self-love and charity; 3.4. Nicole against civic virtue, for Christian civility; 3.5. Malebranche on general laws and necessary evil; 3.6. Malebranche on Neo-Augustinianism and Platonism. -/- IV Grotius, Pufendorf and the new moral science 4.1. Grotius against Aristotle and the sceptics; 4.2. Mersenne and Gassendi; 4.3. Descartes on ethics as the last branch of philosophy’s tree; 4.4. Hobbes on scepticism and the new moral science; 4.5. Spinoza on the new moral science as a descriptive science;4.6. Locke on voluntarism and probabilism; 4.7. Pufendorf on natural law as an exact science; 4.8. Pufendorf on physical and moral entities; 10. Pufendorf on self-preservation -/- V The empiricist version of the new moral science: from Cumberland to Paley 5.1. Cumberland against Hobbesian voluntarism; 5.2. Cumberland and theological consequentialism; 5.3. Cumberland on universal benevolence and self-love; 5.4. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 5.5. Hutcheson on natural law and moral faculties; 5.6. Gay, Brown, Paley and theological consequentialism. -/- VI The rationalist version of the new moral science: from Cudworth to Price 6.1. The Cambridge Platonists; 6.2. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 6.3. Butler and a third way between voluntarism and scepticism; 6.4. Price and the rational character of moral truths; -/- VII Leibniz’s compromise between the new moral science and Aristotelianism 1.Leibniz against voluntarism; 2.Leibniz against the division between the physical and the moral good; 3.Leibniz on la place d’autrui and theological consequentialism; 4.Thomasius, Wolff, Crusius -/- VIII French eighteenth-century philosophers without the new moral science 8.1. The genealogy of our ideas of virtue and vice; 8.2. Maupertuis and moral arithmetic 8.3. The philosophes and the harmony of interests; 8.4. Rousseau on corruption, self-love, and virtue; 8.5. Sade on the merits of vice -/- IX Experimental moral science: Hume and Adam Smith 9.1. Mandeville’s paradox; 9.2. Hutcheson on the law of nature and moral faculties; 9.3. Hume on experimental moral philosophy and the intermediate principles; 9.4. Hume’s Law; 9.5. Hume on the fellow-feeling; 9.6. Hume on natural and artificial virtues and disinterested pleasure for utility; 9.7. Adam Smith’s anti-realist metaethics; 9.8. Adam Smith on self-deception and the paradox of happiness; 9.9. Adam Smith on sympathy and the impartial spectator; 9.10. Adam Smith on the twofold criterion for moral judgement and its paradox; 9.11. Reid on the refutation of scepticism and the self-evidence of duty -/- X Kantian ethics 10.1. Kantian metaethics: moral epistemology; 10.2. Kantian metaethics: moral ontology; 10.3. Kantian metaethics: moral psychology; 10.4. Kantian normative ethics; 10.5. Kant on the impracticability of applied ethics; 10.6. Kantian moral anthropology; 10.7. Civilisation and moralisation; 10.8. Theology on a moral basis and the origins of evil; 10.9. Fichte and the transformation of theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy XI Bentham and utilitarianism 11.1. Bentham’s linguistic theory; 11.2. Bentham’s moral ontology, psychology, and theory of action; 11.3. The principle of greatest happiness; 11.4. The critique of religious ethics; 11.5. The new morality; 11.6. Interest and duty; 11.7. Virtues; 11.8. Private ethics and legislation -/- XII Followers of the Enlightenment: liberal Judaism and Liberal Theology 12.1. Mendelssohn; 12.2. Salomon Maimon; 12.3. Haskalā and liberal Judaism; 12.4. Liberal Theology. -/- XIII Counter-Enlighteners 13.1.Romanticism and the fulfilment of individuality as the Summum Bonum; 13.2. Hegel on history as the making of liberty; 13.3. Hegel on the unhappy consciousness and the beautiful soul; 13.4. Hegel on Morality and Sittlichkeit; 13.5. Marx on ideology, alienation, and praxis; 13.6. Schopenhauer on compassion; 13.7. Kierkegaard on faith beyond ethics. -/- XIV Followers of the Enlightenment: intuitionists and utilitarian 14.1 Whewell‘s criticism of utilitarianism; 14.2 Whewell on morality and the philosophy of morality; 14.3 Whewell on the Supreme Norm; 14.4 Whewell on the conflict between duties; 14.5 Mill and the proof of the principle of utility; 14.6 Mill’s eudemonistic utilitarianism; 14.7 Mill on rules -/- XV Followers of the Enlightenment: neo-Kantians and positivists 15.1. French spiritualism; 15.2. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.3. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.4. Comte’s positivism and the invention of altruism; 15.5. Social Darwinism; 15.6. Wundt and an ethic of humankind -/- XVI Post-enlighteners: Sidgwick 16.1. Criticism of intuitionism; 16.2. On ethical egoism; 16.3. Criticism of utilitarianism -/- XVII Post-enlighteners: Durkheim 17.1. Sociology as physics of customs; 17.2. Morality as physics of customs and as practical science; 17.3. On Kantian ethics and utilitarianism; 17.4. The variability of moralities;17.5. Social solidarity as end and justification of morality; 17.6. Secular morality as “sociodicy”; XVIII Post-enlighteners: Nietzsche 18.1. On the Dionysian; 18.2. On the deconstruction of the world of values 18.3 On the twofold genealogy of moralities; 18.4. On ascetics and nihilism; 18.5. Normative ethics of self-fulfilment -/- Bibliography / Index of names / Index of concepts -/- . (shrink)

The story of eternity is not as simple as a secularization narrative implies. Instead it follows something like the trajectory of reversal in Kant’s practical proof for the existence of god. In that proof, god emerges not as an object of theoretical investigation, but as a postulate required by our practical engagement with the world; so, similarly, the eternal is not just secularized out of existence, but becomes understood as an entailment of, and somehow imbricated in, the conditions of our (...) practical existence. -/- The sections that follow discuss some of those central figures in modern European philosophy whose views prominently feature some consideration of eternity. I start with Kant in section I. Kant’s critique of speculative theology is well-known, and this hostility would appear to make it unlikely that the eternal, with all its theological baggage, would feature prominently in Kant’s critical philosophy. But in fact Kant’s transcendental idealism endorses no fewer than three different concepts of the eternal, including what turns out to be the most historically influential idea: that practical reason involves a kind of eternal, non-temporal action. Kant shifts this notion of a non-temporal act from its original theological context of god’s actus purus to a practical context, setting the stage for Schelling’s and Kierkegaard’s later development of this theme. Before detailing this trajectory however, section II is devoted to Hegel, the philosopher whose radical historicism is perhaps more than any other thinker responsible for making “the nineteenth century preeminently the historical century.”4 Hegel is not fertile soil for the concept of the eternal, but his historicism does turn out, at a crucial moment in the philosophy of nature, to presuppose a certain conception of eternity as an eternal present. Perhaps more importantly for the further development of eternity in nineteenth century thought however is that both Schelling and Kierkegaard situate their views of the eternal in the context of a collective rejection of Hegel. Section III discusses Schelling, who returns to Kant’s conception of non-temporal choice, seeing human capacities for free eternal self-creation as rivaling god’s. Such powers are required, Schelling argues, to resist the sublimation of the individual human person into the blankness of the Absolute. Section IV briefly consider Schopenhauer’s view that the in-itself of everything is an endlessly striving will. Section V concerns Kierkegaard who is strongly committed to the eternal, and indeed criticizes Hegel for compromising his conception of the eternal by thinking it temporally; but he is obsessed by the paradoxical question of our practical “access” to the eternal within a particular temporal moment: the decisive moment, imbued with significance that can turn life around and create a new person, pushing Schelling’s concerns even further. The remaining, shorter sections, present briefer accounts of more recent figures who make important use of some conception of the eternal: Nietzsche’s eternal return (section VI), Agamben’s (1942-) theory of sovereignty (section VII) and finally Alain Badiou’s unapologetic attempt to resuscitate eternity as the condition of revolutionary political change (Section VIII). I end with a concluding meditation (Section IX). (shrink)

Aim of the paper is to analyze Priest’s dialetheic solution to Curry’s paradox. It has been shown that a solution refuting ABS, accepting MPP and consequently refuting CP meets some difficulties. Here I just concentrate on one difficulty: one obtains the validity of MPP just using FA in the metalanguage, an invalid rule for a dialetheist.

I argue that Quine’s rejection of Carnap’s “radical” (FLPV; TDE 39) and “phenomenalistic” (FSS 15-16) reductionism—as it is manifest in the Aufbau—may be understood in terms of a broader historical context. In particular, it may be understood as a rejection of a contemporary variant of the second horn of Meno’s Paradox. As a result, Quine’s motivation to adopt naturalism may be understood independently of his pragmatic concerns. According to Quine, it was simply unreasonable (i.e. paradoxical) to adopt a Carnapian (...) phenomenalistic/mentalistic (non-naturalistic) approach to epistemology. Armed with what could only be his invigorated faith in the naturalistic method, he was then, as I see it, equipped to break what we may characterize as the physicalistic version of the naturalistic circle. This is a repudiation that, I show, entails his rejection of “attenuated” (FLPV; TDE 41) reductionism and concomitantly, his rejection of “analyticity,” if not “certainty” altogether. As a result, Quine could simultaneously dismiss what we may characterize as the Humean version of the naturalistic circle. Meanwhile, the practicality of an admittedly fallible science could be unashamedly embraced, although not just for the sake of its practicality—as Quine himself seems to misleadingly indicate throughout his work—but instead, as just noted, to avoid the seemingly Platonic paradox of Aufbauian reductionism. (shrink)

A pluralistic approach to folk psychology must countenance the evaluative, regulatory, predictive, and explanatory roles played by attributions of intelligence in social practices across cultures. Building off of the work of the psychologist Robert Sternberg and the philosophers Gilbert Ryle and Daniel Dennett, I argue that a relativistic interpretivism best accounts for the many varieties of intelligence that emerge from folk discourse. To be intelligent is to be comparatively good at solving intellectual problems that an interpreter deems worth solving.

Counterfactuals are somewhat tolerant. Had Socrates been at least six feet tall, he need not have been exactly six feet tall. He might have been a little taller—he might have been six one or six two. But while he might have been a little taller, there are limits to how tall he would have been. Had he been at least six feet tall, he would not have been more than a hundred feet tall, for example. Counterfactuals are not just tolerant, (...) then, but bounded. This paper presents a surprising paradox: If counterfactuals are tolerant and bounded, then we can prove a flat contradiction using natural rules of inference. Something has to go then. But what? (shrink)

Enligt ett realistiskt synsätt kan ett påstående vara sant trots att det inte ens i princip är möjligt att veta att det är sant. En sanningsteoretisk antirealist kan inte godta denna möjlighet utan accepterar en eller annan version av Dummetts vetbarhetsprincip: (K) Om ett påstående är sant, så måste det i princip vara möjligt att veta att det är sant. Det kan dock förefalla rimligt, även för en antirealist, att gå̊ med på̊ att det kan finnas sanningar som ingen faktiskt (...) vet (har vetat, eller kommer att veta) är sanna. Man kan därför tänka sig att en antirealist skulle acceptera principen (K) utan att därför gå med på den till synes starkare principen: (SK) Om ett påstående är sant, så måste det faktiskt finnas någon som vet att det är sant. Ett mycket omdiskuterat argument – som ytterst går tillbaka till Alonzo Church, men som först publicerades i en uppsats av Frederic Fitch i Journal of Symbolic Logic 1963 – tycks emellertid visa att principen (K) implicerar principen (SK). Anta nämligen att (K) är sann, medan (SK) inte är det. Men om (SK) är falsk, så finns det ett påstående som är sant men som ingen faktiskt vet är sant. Anta nu att p är ett sådant påstående. Låt Kp betyda att någon vet att p är sant. Det galler alltså̊ att p är sant samtidigt som Kp inte är det. Betrakta nu påståendet (p ∧ −Kp). Enligt antagandet är detta påstående sant. Enligt (K) måste det då vara möjligt att någon vet att (p ∧ −Kp). D.v.s., det måste vara möjligt att påståendet K(p ∧ −Kp) är sant. Men i så fall är det också̊ möjligt att påståendet Kp ∧ K−Kp är sant, vilket i sin tur implicerar att det är möjligt att Kp ∧ −Kp är sant, vilket ju är absurt. Således kan inte (K) vara sann samtidigt som (SK) är falsk. Vi tycks således kunna sluta oss till att (K) implicerar (SK). I uppsatsen diskuterar jag några olika sätt att undgå̊ Church-Fitch paradoxala slutsats. Ett tillvägagångssätt är att ersätta kunskapsoperatorn med en hierarki av kunskapspredikat. Ett annat är baserat på distinktionen mellan faktisk och potentiell kunskap och ett förkastande av den vanliga modallogiska formaliseringen av principen (K). Den senare typen av lösning betraktas både från ett realistiskt och ett icke-realistiskt perspektiv. Utifrån denna analys kommer jag fram till slutsatsen att vi, vare sig vi är realister eller antirealister rörande sanning, kan sluta oroa oss för vetbarhetsparadoxen och ändå uppskatta Church-Fitchs argument. (shrink)

RENÉ DESCARTES E O MÉTODO CARTESIANO -/- RENÉ DESCARTES AND THE CARTESIAN METHOD -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva - CAP-UFPE, IFPE-BJ e UFRPE. E-mails: [email protected] e [email protected] WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399. -/- INTRODUÇÃO -/- Antes de abordar a metafísica tal qual Descartes a propõe como uma sólida “fundamentação” das ciências e, também, antes de falar das ciências construídas para a busca desse fundamento, é necessário analisar o método cartesiano, salve que é a alma desse presente artigo. Não se trata apenas de (...) relatar os preceitos do método ao seu modelo matemático, e sim, também, para entender porque o método em si necessita de uma fundamentação alicerçada na metafísica. Mas isso é a maneira pelo qual o projeto revolucionário de Descartes substituiu a autoridade da tradição pela autoridade da razão. -/- I – UM PROJETO REVOLUCIONÁRIO -/- No se pode deixar atingir-se, lendo o Discurso do Método, pelo caráter revolucionário que Descartes queria conferir ao seu projeto. É notável, e vale salientar o cuidado que Descartes toma na primeira parte, sublinhando o que seu projeto tem de singular: “Assim, meu propósito não é ensinar aqui o método que cada um deve seguir para bem conduzir sua razão, mas somente mostrar de que modo procurei conduzir a minha” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 5). Ainda mais notável é o fato escolhido por Descartes e destacado na segunda parte, a da casa que deve ser derrubada para reconstruí-la: -/- É verdade que não vemos demolirem-se todas as casas de uma cidade só com o propósito de refazê-las de outra forma e de tornar as ruas mais belas, mas não é incomum vermos muitos mandarem derrubar as suas para reconstruí-las, e até, por vezes, a isso são obrigados quando elas correm o risco de cair por si mesmas e os alicerces não estão muito firmes (DESCARTES, 1996. pp. 17-18). -/- Descartes enfatiza explicitamente a oposição entre tal abordagem e a estratégia reformista de “redigitar” a sua casa, organizando-a, reparando-a aqui e ali. Certamente ele está combatendo a ideia revolucionária na política, o design ambicioso daqueles que querem perturbar o Estado, porque nesta área a destruição tornaria a reconstrução futura impossível. Mas o que é insano sobre “uma cidade inteira” torna-se possível quando se trata de cada um de sua própria casa. -/- O que é possível torna-se necessário, quando a casa ameaça entrar em colapso, uma vez que seus alicerces são vulneráveis. Casa vacilante, que seria inútil só querer reparar, é assim que Descartes considera o todo “opiniões” que lhe foram transmitidas em sua educação. Essas opiniões são, acima de tudo, incertas: pode haver alguma verdade nelas, mas provavelmente também há o lado falso, e essa mistura indissociável faz com que todas sejam falsas, a verdade só tem valor para nós se pudermos distinguir com certeza do erro. -/- O julgamento negativo de Descartes de tudo o que ele tem, como escreve, “recebido em dívida”, pressupõe, é claro, uma crítica do conteúdo dessas opiniões e, acima de tudo, uma crítica aos princípios sobre os quais eles descansam. Mas isso não é o suficiente para fazer as pessoas entenderem a escolha inicial de uma abordagem revolucionária, de preferência ao empreendimento reformista, que seria criticar, uma após a outra, as opiniões recebidas, e consolidar, pouco a pouco, a sua “Casa”. Mais do que o conteúdo peculiar das opiniões recebidas, é o próprio fato que elas são recebidas, em uma aquisição desordenada e perigosa, o que importa. E se temos que revolucionar o conhecimento, se temos que destruir essas opiniões antes de substituí-las por outras é, antes de mais nada, uma questão de substituir conquista controlada da desordem e chance de sua aquisição, em vez de se limitar a correções que só aumentariam essa confusão. -/- Nisso, a decisão primeira de Descartes ultrapassa as circunstâncias históricas do seu aparecimento, e conserva em todos os tempos o valor de um modelo para o pensamento: a filosofia nasce de uma ruptura, não com esta ou aquela tradição, mas com a tradição como tal. -/- II – DESCARTES E A TRADIÇÃO -/- A tradição é um pensamento sem sujeito: pensamento que ninguém pensa, não pensa. Descartes se opõe ao requisito essencial, para toda ciência, de ser a matéria de um sujeito: não há ciência até que toda verdade seja reconhecida em seu poder de sugerir notícias, de acordo com uma sequência que deve ser reconhecida, para que eu (Descartes) possa reivindicar, de forma legítima, a ciência universal. Quando Descartes expressa essa afirmação, em seu próprio texto, em seus textos de juventude, o que nos parece ser a marca de uma excessiva arrogância, expressa, antes, uma condição inscrita na própria natureza do conhecimento. -/- O projeto revolucionário está assim ligado à uma ideia que Descartes enuncia no início da segunda parte do Discurso do Método: “[...] não há tanta perfeição nas obras compostas de várias peças, e feitas pelas mãos de vários mestres, como naquelas em que apenas um trabalhou” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 15). Certamente, por “perfeição, Descartes entende menos a magnitude e a riqueza essa ordem e consistência. Ele reconhece que algumas áreas são, irremediavelmente, entregues à imperfeição. Este é o caso do Estado e das instituições políticas em geral: resultados não intencionais de uma multidão de ações históricas entrelaçadas, nossas instituições nunca correspondem a um projeto consciente, e não seria razoável empreender sua reforma de acordo com tal projeto. Descartes não ignora as virtudes da cooperação para a execução de atividades materiais complexas. Porque as aptidões corporais dos homens são distintas e capazes de se especializar, os indivíduos podem interferir uns com os outros e se harmonizar visando a colaboração do todo. -/- Não obstante, as obras de pensamento, as ciências em particular, não conseguem encontrar a perfeição de que são susceptíveis por serem construídas por sucessivas sedimentações históricas, de acordo com a descoberta uma das outras, fazendo com que todas essas descobertas, a ciência, não seria obra de ninguém. Se o exercício de uma atividade manual nos impede de praticar outra (porque as mesmas mãos dificilmente podem se exercitar ao mesmo tempo para cultivar os campos e tocar a cítara), o conhecimento de uma verdade nos ajuda a encontrar outras verdades. Finja que esse conhecimento é apenas uma contribuição fragmentada para uma síntese coletiva da qual o princípio nos escapa, é desconsiderar sua fecundidade, isto é, o que faz dele um verdadeiro conhecimento. -/- O que Descartes está lutando, essa necessidade de que todos participem de uma instituição já iniciada e que ninguém pode dominar, essa herança de aceitar, enriquecer e transmitir é o que chamamos de tradição: então ele escreve o Discurso do Método não em latim, linguagem de transmissão histórica do conhecimento, mas em francês, linguagem “vulgar”. Certamente, Descartes luta contra a tradição científica e filosófica em vigor em seu tempo, a herança já enfraquecida do pensamento de Aristóteles, transmitida durante a Idade Média pelas Universidades (o que denominamos de “escolasticismo”), mas ele luta acima de tudo em sua pretensão de manter seu valor de ser, precisamente, uma tradição. Esta não é uma luta em nome da “novidade” ou da “modernidade”, que são sempre definidas em relação a uma tradição, mas uma luta em nome da verdade, o que é mais antiga do que qualquer tradição. -/- III – A LIGAÇÃO ENTRE AUTORIDADE E A VERDADE -/- Descartes assim fórmula seu projeto, na segunda parte do Discurso do Método: [...] mas, quanto às opiniões que até então eu aceitara, o melhor que podia fazer era suprimi-las de uma vez por todas, a fim de substituí-las depois, ou por outras melhores, ou então pelas mesmas, quando eu as tivesse ajustado ao nível da razão (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 18). -/- Que uma opinião poderia ter sido recebido por ele em sua vida, sem ter sido ajustada ao nível da razão, significa que foi considerada a sua verdade, sem que ele tenha que se pronunciar sobre o julgamento do que declarava verdadeiro. Então foi um preconceito, que ele achava que era verdade apenas para tê-lo recebido, isto é, por causa de sua fonte. Que a afirmação de uma opinião como verdadeira é validada por sua fonte, e isso corresponde ao que denominamos como “argumento de autoridade”: é verdade porque Platão, ou Aristóteles, disseram isso. Agora é possível, é claro, descobrir verdades lendo Platão ou Aristóteles, desde que essas descobertas sejam não apenas para conferir Platão, Aristóteles, ou qualquer outro autor (“autoritário”), mas para encontrar a si mesmo com as verdades em questão. Parece, portanto, que a revolução cartesiana visa romper o elo entre as concepções de verdade e autoridade. -/- -/- Todavia, olhando mais de perto, veremos que esse não é o caso. Quebrar o elo entre autoridade e verdade é ser crítico, enquanto Descartes encara sim o “espírito da dúvida”. Ser crítico é estar interessado apenas no conteúdo das ideias e ser perfeitamente indiferente à sua fonte. Descartes, como supracitado, não se compromete a criticar suas antigas opiniões uma após a outra, o que seria o passo mais oposto ao princípio de autoridade, quanto mais indiferente à questão da fonte. O que Descartes propõe é bem diferente: ele propõe substituir, com todas as autoridades que estão fora dele (em seu exterior), pela autoridade que está nele (em seu interior), e que muitas vezes é até confundida, veremos isso. Agora é sobre “ajustar as opiniões ao nível da razão”: a razão, isto é, a razão de Descartes, tal qual o fala e presente em cada um, deve ser autoritária em matéria de verdade, deve ser o tribunal diante do qual tudo aparece. É uma interiorização do argumento de autoridade, não é uma rejeição deste argumento. -/- A interiorização da autoridade explica o lugar central da certeza na filosofia de Descartes. O que importa na verdade é a certeza de possuí-la, e essa certeza é uma ato de confiança em relação às fonte autorizada da verdade: tudo que é “ajustado ao nível da razão” será certo, se a razão for o que é autoritário. -/- Duas questões orientadoras sucessivas inspirarão a investigação da certeza: -/- 1 – A primeira consistirá em estabelecer o que ele realmente tem certeza, delimitando o domínio da certeza autêntica daquilo que é garantido pela autoridade da razão. 2 – A segunda consistirá em se perguntar se ele está certo em ter certeza sobre algo, porque a autoridade internalizada deve se questionar. -/- A primeira questão, considerada isoladamente, leva à ideia cartesiana de método. O conjunto das duas questões, a passagem da primeira para a segunda, depois da segunda para a primeira, constitui a metafísica de Descartes. -/- IV – O QUE É A RAZÃO ? -/- O que significa ter razão em um tribunal? As primeiras linhas do Discurso do Método definem a razão como sendo um senso comum, isto é, a faculdade de distinguir a verdade da mentira, o que nos diferencia dos animais. Em outras palavras, a razão é o poder, não para racionar, mas degenerar, pensando na medida em que se pronuncia sobre qualquer objeto que se apresente. Separado em um sentido de outras faculdades do pensamento, este poder está envolvido em qualquer operação de pensamento: a memória supõe um julgamento sobre o passado, o desejo um julgamento sobre o que procurar, o amor um julgamento sobre o que é digno de ser amado... Nesse sentido, a razão se confunde com o próprio pensamento. É até confuso, para todos, consigo mesmo, pois ninguém pode julgar sua razão sem voltar a agir: mesmo aqueles que estão acostumados a reclamar do que foi dado a eles nunca reivindicam, nota Descartes, uma razão de melhor qualidade: pois isso equivaleria a desqualificar essa afirmação conforme a expressam. -/- Coextensiva com o pensamento, a razão está em nós como uma luz natural. Como a luz do Sol que ilumina a variedade das coisas no mundo sem perder sua identidade, permanecendo a mesma luz, o pensamento julgador mantém sua unidade sem nunca se quebrar ou se perder, seja qual for os objetos aos quais se aplica: seja o que for que eu julgue, é sempre eu quem julgo. A ciência deve ser difundida mediante essa ideia, isto é, como um certo modo de julgar, ou pensar, e não dá diversidade de seus objetos. -/- -/- Rejeitar as opiniões recebidas, e julgadas boas porque foram recebidas, é recuperar o poder soberano de julgar aquilo que até então passou despercebido. Colocar a razão no tribunal não é uma novidade, mas uma revolução no sentido estrito, isto é, um retorno. A razão é o senso comum, o poder, não apenas para julgar, mas julgar bem, para distinguir o verdadeiro do falso. Julgar mal, tomar o falso pela verdade, não deve ser dotado de um “poder de julgar mal”, é errado usar nosso poder para julgar bem. A diferença entre o bem e o mal não está no poder, mas no uso desse poder, na maneira de usá-lo, de proceder quando se julga, em uma palavra, o método. É necessário romper com uma aquisição sem método de conhecimento, de acordo com as influências sofridas, e conferir a si mesmo um método firme, que será como o procedimento do tribunal da razão. E como nossa capacidade de comer é saudável por si só, esse método não deve ser tomado como uma técnica destinada para melhorá-lo, para torná-lo mais eficaz, e sim como uma higiene projetada para preservá-lo. -/- Mas onde encontrar as regras desse método? Em um domínio, precisamente, onde nosso poder de regulação ou gerenciamento tem sido relativamente preservado, fazendo com que se possa explorar esse domínio, descobri-lo e extrair dele um procedimento universal. Porque o pensamento sendo esta luz que ilumina de igual forma as variedades de tudo que se apresenta a ela, o que torna-se verdadeiro nesse domínio deve ser de todos os outros. Essa área de referência é o domínio da matemática. -/- V – O MODELO MATEMÁTICO -/- Descartes acredita que é no domínio da matemática e, precisamente da geometria, que os antigos fizeram descobertas difíceis e duradouras. A geometria dos antigos e a dos modernos e, especialmente a de François Viète (1540-1603), acrescentou a análise na matemática, o que denominamos de “álgebra”. A descoberta em 1631 da geometria analítica, que relaciona curvas geométricas com equações algébricas, é também o principal título de fama de Descartes como matemático. No entanto, não devemos superestimar a importância que esta descoberta teve para o próprio Descartes. Seu principal interesse era, em sua opinião, metodológico: permitia libertar a mente para simplificar as técnicas de cálculo. -/- Porque na matemática Descartes é compartilhado entre admiração pelo que eles permitem, e desprezo pelo que fazem com ele. A ideia de facilidade é o motivo comum dessa admiração e desprezo. Matemática é fácil, e sua virtude nos mostrar como o conhecimento é fácil, é fácil para o homem saber tudo o que ele pode saber, desde que o mesmo tenha tempo. Todavia, essa facilidade faz com que a atividade habitual dos matemáticos seja um pouco ridícula, a resolução de “problemas matemáticos”, que Descartes considerava como um mero divertimento, é dificilmente digna de consideração. É novamente em nome desse caso que Descartes mais uma vez repreende os antigos matemáticos por terem dado seus resultados mas obstruindo ou ocultando seu método, a fim de impressionar os crédulos, dificultando a aparência do que não é. O método está em contraste com o essencial do que pode ser aprendido com a matemática. -/- -/- Para identificar corretamente este método, é necessário abstrair os próprios objetos matemáticos (números, figuras etc.), que nos faz acreditar que a matemática é uma ciência especial ao lado das outras ciências, o que nos leva a uma divisão em ramos separados da mesma (aritmética, geometria, álgebra etc.). Então aparece uma matemática universal, consistindo no estudo de “vários relatórios ou proporções” que podem ser encontrados entre quaisquer objetos, para que possamos constituí-los em séries contínuas e deduzi-los uns dos outros, e chegar, daqueles que são conhecidos, àqueles que ainda não estão distantes, tão distantes como estão, tão ocultos como parecem ser. -/- Não há nada difícil em tal conhecimento, há apenas o simples e o complexo, e o tempo necessário para alcançar o complexo mediante o simples. Não há nada difícil porque não há nada oculto: se “conhecer” era a perigosa empreitada de se aventurar na dimensão secreta das coisas, seria necessário um gênio e o uso de poderes ocultos. Mas “conhecer” é um exercício do senso comum que direciona sua luz para tudo que pode esclarecer: é, portanto, suficiente para um método. -/- Nós todos sabemos que as primeiras verdades matemáticas são simples. Mas por que elas são? Porque elas nos contam tudo sem reservas, sem nada opaco, sobre tudo que estão falando e tratando: seu objeto é completamente iluminado, não há a necessidade de voltar à ele para aprofundá-lo indefinidamente, devemos passar para outro. Estas são representações estritamente adequadas ao que elas alegam, para representar o que Descartes denominou de ideais claras e distintas: claro, porque percebemos todos os elementos distintos, porque não podemos confundi-los com os outros. -/- Se a primeira verdade é considerada simples, a segunda, por sua vez, não parece ser assim. Seria, sem dúvida, considerada difícil, reservando uma parte do desconhecido se o enfrentássemos de frente. Mas é apenas complexo, isto é, só podemos entendê-lo depois de ter compreendido o primeiro, e depois entender que não há mais nada para entender no primeiro, e sim passar adiante: basta respeitar essa ordem, que é a ordem do nosso entendimento, para que seja também considerado uma ideia claro e distinta. -/- Até onde podemos prosseguir? Até o fim, de acordo com Descartes, até a conclusão do que podemos saber, uma vez que nossa mente, que agora é ordenada por nosso conhecimento, é limitada: limite claro, limite esse que não é misteriosamente abrigado no mundo ou na espessura da realidade. Abaixo desse limite, nosso conhecimento pode ser perfeito se for metódico. Abaixo do limite, nada oculto, nada profundo, tudo toma o seu lugar nas “longas cadeias de razões”; além do limite, nada escondido, apenas o que é não é nossa responsabilidade. -/- Se não há nada escondido, a realidade que conhecemos não vai além do que sabemos sobre ela. Logo, o método não é apenas uma maneira humana de pedir objetos a nossa conveniência: atribuindo-lhes o seu lugar em nossa ordem, tornando-os claros para nós, envolve-os em seu verdadeiro ser. A revolução cartesiana consiste, então, no fato de que as condições de nosso conhecimento definem a verdade do ser conhecido. -/- Não obstante, sempre perpetua-se uma “dificuldade”, que nada mais é do que o tempo. Se não há a necessidade de o gênio saber perfeitamente, leva tempo para ir do simples ao complexo. O homem só pode saber se tem tempo, muito tempo antes dele: essa preocupação para com a necessidade de tempo, retorna com uma obsessão sob a caneta e a perspectiva de Descartes. Essa necessidade, então, de ter tempo diferencia radicalmente, como veremos, o problema do conhecimento e da ação, da conduta a ser mantida na vida, da moralidade, uma vez que “as ações da vida muitas vezes não sofrem demora...”. -/- VI – REGRAS DO MÉTODO: OS QUATRO PRECEITOS -/- Podemos agora compreender os quatro preceitos aos quais, segundo Descartes, o método é reduzido (Discurso, segunda parte). -/- VI.I - Regra de evidência -/- O primeiro era de nunca aceitar coisa alguma como verdadeira sem que a conhecesse evidentemente como tal; ou seja, evitar cuidadosamente a precipitação e a prevenção, e não incluir em meus juízos nada além daquilo que se apresentasse tão clara e distintamente a meu espírito, que eu não tivesse nenhuma ocasião de pô-lo em dúvida (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). -/- Mesmo que sua declaração o duplique, é de fato um mesmo preceito acerca do que deve ser concebido como verdadeiro. Receber com método é esperar até que a coisa se apresente para ele: essa paciência, esse “cuidado”, remove os preconceitos característicos das ideias recebidas antes da hora, a precipitação e a prevenção que fazem parecer obscuro o que é o tempo. Se, nessa apresentação para ele, ele tomou um cuidado de aderir (nada mais) ao que é claro e distinto, é sem reserva que uma “coisa” pode ser recebida, sem poder surgir o risco, a “oportunidade”, de ter que voltar mais tarde: ele teria visto a sua verdade, e está evidência foi o suficiente para que ele pudesse duvidar disso. -/- VI.II - Regra de análise -/- “O segundo, dividir cada uma das dificuldades que examinasse em tantas parcelas quantas fosse possível e necessário para melhor resolvê-las” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). Ora, o que é apresentado como difícil de examinar, na verdade não o é, é apenas complexo, composto de múltiplas parcelas. Quantas parcelas? É a resolução da dificuldade que deve decidir essa questão: quando um matemático consegue estabelecer um teorema “difícil”, ligando-o às proposições mais simples por uma cadeia contínua de deduções, ele sabe que não há mais nada a saber em seu objeto, que contém exatamente tantas divisões quantas forem necessárias para formar está série. Logo, não precisamos nos preocupar com mais nada. -/- VI.III - Regra de ordem -/- O terceiro, conduzir por ordem meus pensamentos, começando pelos objetos mais simples e mais fáceis de conhecer , para subir pouco a pouco, como por degraus, até o conhecimento dos mais compostos; e supondo certa ordem mesmo entre aqueles que não se precedem naturalmente uns aos outros (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). -/- Essa é a ordem, de acordo com os pensamentos de Descartes, o que pode ser visto no fato de que, entre os objetos mais simples e os mais complexos, a distinção está na ordem de facilidade, isto é, os primeiros são os mais fáceis de saber, enquanto o segundo, por sua vez, só pode ser conhecido quando dominamos a totalidade do primeiro. O importante é passar de um para o outro como por graus, numa série contínua, sem estar diante de um hiato como o conhecimento prévio não seria suficiente para deixar claro o novo conhecimento. E desde que está ordem de razões, fixando cada objeto em seu devido lugar, nos entrega em sua totalidade, é também a ordem objetiva, a ordem dos próprios objetos, tanto que não devemos hesitar em supor isso entre eles, mesmo quando o modo como se apresentam não revela ordem. -/- VI.IV - Regra de enumeração -/- “E, o último, fazer em tudo enumerações tão completas, e revisões tão gerais, que eu tivesse certeza de nada omitir” (DESCARTES, 1996. p. 23). Omitir alguma coisa séria destruir o próprio princípio da ordem das razões, uma vez que qualquer objeto só pode ser visto clara e distintamente se todos que o precederam também tiverem sido vistos em seu lugar. Se a dedução atingir este objeto, significa que nada foi omitido até então. Porém, quando a dedução torna-se muito longa, torna-se, também, mais difícil de mantê-la inteira, como deveria, sob o olhar da mente; somos então tentados a confiar apenas em sua memória. O preceito de enumeração não deve ser entendido como uma preocupação retrospectiva (certifique-se de que nada o tenha esquecido), mas no sentido atual, como os meios de manter em mente todas as evidências do passado necessárias para a evidência presente. Dos quatro preceitos do método, é o único a ter um caráter de técnica e não de simples higiene: é aqui que se confronta a única dificuldade real do conhecimento, o fato de que leva tempo, e sua consequência, recorrer à memória, à faculdade pela qual as velhas ideias descartenses foram “concebidas em sua dívida”. -/- -/- VII – O MÉTODO EXIGE UM FUNDAMENTO METAFÍSICO -/- O método permite responder à uma questão: do que tenho certeza? É certo que homens que seguem ideias aceitas também conhecem esse estado psicológico chamado “certeza”. Todavia, entre esse estado psicológico e a verdadeira certeza do conhecimento metódico, há uma diferença de que o primeiro está imune a “oportunidades” de duvidar, já que ele não tem autoconfiança. Toda oportunidade de dúvida que se apresenta transformaria essa “certeza” em incerteza: por isso que é sensato duvidar em princípio das opiniões recebidas, sem esperar, por assim dizer, oportunidades de duvidar, e decretar antecipadamente seu conteúdo incerto, não necessariamente substituí-lo por outro conteúdo, mas aceitar apenas o que lhe fora assegurado. -/- Poderia ser o mesmo com a certeza do conhecimento metódico? Pode ser apresentado a ele como uma oportunidade para duvidar, e seria sábio também duvidá-lo antecipadamente, submetendo-o a uma dúvida de princípio? Seria então uma dúvida muito diferente da anterior. Descartes exclamou que: “Se alguma vez duvidei um dia do que me aperfeiçoei seguramente, tal dúvida deveria permanecer fora da certeza: não a destruiria, nem mesmo a enfraqueceria, a colocaria em suspenso no vazio; ele não sugeriria para mim que eu talvez esteja menos certo do que pensava, mas sim que posso estar errado em ter tanta certeza. Eu vou manter minha certeza enquanto duvidoso, porque não haveria nenhuma esperança para eu encontrar melhor do que ela: minha única esperança seria descobrir que ela é verdadeiramente fundamentada, que eu confio com razão, e não porque eu não posso contrário.” -/- Mas por que uma oportunidade para duvidar dessa maneira? A própria razão, na medida em que é incontestavelmente autoritária, deve levantar essa dúvida por sua própria autoridade. É porque é autoritária que tem o direito de se perguntar sobre o que o autoriza, sobre o que o investe com tal autoridade. Afinal, a certeza de sua autoridade é uma certeza, que não pode ser classificada entre as certezas que ela nos ensina, uma vez que reconhecemos essa autoridade. -/- Por isso, é importante encontrar, para essa certeza, um fundamento para abrigá-lo, de uma vez por todas, desta suspeita sobre si mesmo. A busca por esse fundamento deve ser metódica, mas deve ao mesmo tempo abalar nossa confiança no método, a fim de encontrar o que o justifica. Essa busca paradoxal é o que Descartes denomina de "metafísica". Desdobra-se principalmente nas seis Meditações da Primeira Filosofia de 1641, geralmente chamadas de Meditações Metafísicas. Seu exame pode ser dividido em duas partes: -/- • o primeiro diz respeito à dúvida e ao seu trabalho; • o segundo diz respeito à fundação de certas ciências, ou seja, a existência de um Deus verdadeiro. -/- REFERENCIAL TEÓRICO -/- DESCARTES, R. Discurso do método. Trad. Maria Ermantina Galvão. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1996. ______________. Discurso do método. Coleção Os pensadores, vol. XV. Trad. J. Guinsburg e Bento Prado Jr. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1973. -/- Estimule a criatividade, respeite o direito autoral. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva © 2019. (shrink)

Contents Preface - ix -/- I. Scientific fiction movies: is there any place for God?! 1. A brief introduction about the birth of science fiction - 15 2. Religious beliefs vs Science Fiction - 18 3. Is there any place for God?! - 20 -/- II. The Village (M. Night Shyamalan) and The Giver (Phillip Noyce) or why utopia is (im)possible 1. Some utopian notions. Remembering Thomas More - 29 2. The Village and The Giver. Some remarks on ideal societies (...) - 34 3. Notes about the possible and impossible of utopia - 39 -/- III. The limits of Zombies films are the limits of philosophy? 1. Are zombies real? From folklore to films - 46 2. The mind-body problem and the empty-minded zombies? - 54 3. The fallacy of the question. Zombies films and philosophy with no limit - 61 -/- IV. Lucy - why the brain cannot be a screen 1. Lucy and some other movies - The ten percent of the brain myth - 67 2. The enhancement of humanity -The pos-humanism after Nietzsche – 71 3. About the mind and the brain. Lucy or why the brain cannot be a screen – 74 -/- V. Viktor Navorski and Sir Alfred: the limits of consciousness at the border of chaos 1. About the terminal, Locke and Lipovetsky - 83 2. Being someone at a non-place - 87 3. Reality vs fiction. Merhan Karimi Nasseri as Sir Alfred - 89 -/- VI. Alienation and slavery from Precious or what we do not want to see 1. Cinema as a moment or the exclusive experience of feeling cinema - 97 2. Two movies, only one reality - 101 3. To conclude: the paradox of precious silence or what we don't want to see - 104 -/- VII. Philosophy of time and being in Alice through the looking glass 1. Some initial considerations on Alice - 113 2. The impossible and the possible in Alice’s time - 116 3. About time and subjectivity and subjectivity in time – 120 -/- References - cxxv. (shrink)

This is a series of lectures on formal decision theory held at the University of Bayreuth during the summer terms 2008 and 2009. It largely follows the book from Michael D. Resnik: Choices. An Introduction to Decision Theory, 5th ed. Minneapolis London 2000 and covers the topics: -/- Decisions under ignorance and risk Probability calculus (Kolmogoroff Axioms, Bayes' Theorem) Philosophical interpretations of probability (R. v. Mises, Ramsey-De Finetti) Neuman-Morgenstern Utility Theory Introductory Game Theory Social Choice Theory (Sen's Paradox of (...) Liberalism, Arrow's Theorem) . (shrink)

Easy to understand philosophy papers in all areas. Table of contents: Three Short Philosophy Papers on Human Freedom The Paradox of Religions Institutions Different Perspectives on Religious Belief: O’Reilly v. Dawkins. v. James v. Clifford Schopenhauer on Suicide Schopenhauer’s Fractal Conception of Reality Theodore Roszak’s Views on Bicameral Consciousness Philosophy Exam Questions and Answers Locke, Aristotle and Kant on Virtue Logic Lecture for Erika Kant’s Ethics Van Cleve on Epistemic Circularity Plato’s Theory of Forms Can we trust our senses? (...) Yes we can Descartes on What He Believes Himself to Be The Role of Values in Science Modern Science Kant’s Moral Philosophy Plato’s Republic as Pol Potist Bureaucracy Schopenhauer on Human Suffering Bertrand Russell on the Value of Philosophy The Philosophical Value of Uncertainty Logic Homework: Theorems and Models Searle vs. Turing on the Imitation Game Hume, Frankfurt, and Holbach on Personal Freedom Manifesto of the University of Wisconsin, Madison Secular Society Michael’s Analysis of the Limits of Civil Protections Bentham and Mill on Different Types of Pleasure Set Theory Homework Aristotle on Virtue Nagel On the Hard Problem Wittgenstein on Language and Thought Camus and Schopenhauer on the Meaning of Life Camus’ Hero as Rebel without a Cause My Little Finger: Camus’ Absurdism Illustrated Are Late-term Abortions Ethical? Does Mathematics Assume the Truth of Platonism? The Self-defeating Nature of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism Generally What is The Good Life? Bentham and Mill regarding types of pleasures Kant’s Moral Philosophy Five Short Papers on Mind-body Dualism Tracy Latimer’s Father had the Right to Kill Her: Towards a doctrine of generalized self-defense Arguments Concerning God and Morality Goldman, Rousseau and von Hayek on the Ideal State J.S Mill on Liberty and Personal Freedom A Kantian Analysis of a Borderline Date-rape Situation Living Well as Flourishing: Aristotle’s Conception of the Good Life Three Essays on Medical Ethics: Answers to Exam Questions on Elective Amputation, Vaccination, and Informed Consent Hobbes, Marx, Rousseau, Nietzsche: Their Central Themes De Tocqueville on Egoism Mill vs. Hobbes on Liberty Exam-Essays on the Moral Systems of Mill, Bentham, and Kant Kant’s Moral System Aristotle on Virtue Plato’s Cave Allegory An Ethical Quandary Superorganisms The Tuskegee Experiment A Rawlsian Analysis Why Moore’s Proof of an External World Fails A Defense of Nagel’s Argument Against Materialism A Utilitarian Analysis of a Case of Theft The Paradox of the Self-aware Wretch: An Analysis of Pascal’s Moral Philosophy Jean-Paul Sartre: Decline and Fall of a Marxist Sell-out A One Page Proof of Plato’s Theory of Forms Plato’s Republic as Pol Potist Bureaucracy The problem of the one and the many Four Short Essays on Truth and Knowledge What is ‘the Good Life?’ The Ontological Argument Different Political Philosophies: Plato, Locke, Madison, Rousseau, Hayek, and Mill on the State What do I know with certainty? Skepticism about skepticism Neuroscience and Freewill Operant Conditioning What makes us special? Are Late-term Abortions Ethical? No Two Papers on Epistemology: Gettier and Bostrom Examination Nietzsche on Punishment God’s Foreknowledge and Moral Responsibility . (shrink)

n Part I of this essay I take a canonical case of political theology, Schmitt’s theory of sovereignty (1985; 1922), and show how Agamben derives his account of sovereignty from an interpretation of Schmitt that relies on the interesting theological premise of an atemporal act or decision, one that is traditionally attributed to god’s act of creation, and that is only ambiguously secularized in the transcendental moment of German Idealism. In Part II I show how this reading of Schmitt can (...) be used to avoid a certain kind of negative political theology associated with deconstruction because Agamben’s reading of Schmitt explains the emergence of certain specific temporal structures associated with the sovereign political decision: the sovereign political decision cannot be represented as having a beginning, and hence recedes phenomenologically into a kind of a priori past; and the sovereign decision cannot be represented as completed, and hence it is experienced as a ‘perpetual expenditure of energy’ that lacks comprehensible relation to a goal. In Part III I defend Agamben’s interpretation of sovereignty as a transcendental act from Negri’s objection that Agamben simply equates without argument Negri’s radically democratic conception of revolutionary constituent power with Schmitt’s conception of sovereignty (1999, p. 13). My defense relies on identifying Agamben’s ‘paradox of sovereignty’ (Agamben 1998, pp. 15ff.) with a ‘paradox of democracy.’ (Mouffe 2000; Whelan 1983) In Part IV I realize a corollary of the identification of the two paradoxes, of sovereignty and democracy: that political borders are the spatial site of the application of the act of political sovereignty, and possess a kind of transcendental spatiality akin to the special temporality associated with sovereignty. I apply this understanding to the privileged special case of the US-Mexico border: the structures implicit in Agamben’s analysis explain some crucial features of this case of walling: its manifest failure to achieve, even in principle, the purpose for which it is allegedly intended; the failure of democratic polity to address those affected by the wall; the appeal to sovereign powers in the legal legitimation of border policy. I defend Agamben’s analysis against other apparently competing views, especially those of Wendy Brown (2010) and argue that the transcendental act of sovereignty comprises a kind of primary political repression that opens up the space for ideological understandings of the wall, but does not itself comprise one. In Part V I address the question whether Agamben’s derived category of ‘bare life’ can also be used in the context of the border, arguing that it can. I conclude with some critical remarks about the limits of Agamben’s view. (shrink)

Many biological investigations are organized around a small group of species, often referred to as ‘model organisms’, such as the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. The terms ‘model’ and ‘modelling’ also occur in biology in association with mathematical and mechanistic theorizing, as in the Lotka–Volterra model of predator-prey dynamics. What is the relation between theoretical models and model organisms? Are these models in the same sense? We offer an account on which the two practices are shown to have different epistemic characters. (...) Theoretical modelling is grounded in explicit and known analogies between model and target. By contrast, inferences from model organisms are empirical extrapolations. Often such extrapolation is based on shared ancestry, sometimes in conjunction with other empirical information. One implication is that such inferences are unique to biology, whereas theoretical models are common across many disciplines. We close by discussing the diversity of uses to which model organisms are put, suggesting how these relate to our overall account. 1 Introduction2 Volterra and Theoretical Modelling3 Drosophila as a Model Organism4 Generalizing from Work on Model Organisms5 Phylogenetic Inference and Model Organisms6 Further Roles of Model Organisms6.1 Preparative experimentation6.2 Model organisms as paradigms6.3 Model organisms as theoretical models6.4 Inspiration for engineers6.5 Anchoring a research community7 Conclusion. (shrink)

The paradox of pain refers to the idea that the folk concept of pain is paradoxical, treating pains as simultaneously mental states and bodily states (e.g. Hill 2005, 2017; Borg et al. 2020). By taking a close look at our pain terms, this paper argues that there is no paradox of pain. The air of paradox dissolves once we recognise that pain terms are polysemous and that there are two separate but related concepts of pain rather than (...) one. (shrink)

This paper presents and motivates a new philosophical and logical approach to truth and semantic paradox. It begins from an inferentialist, and particularly bilateralist, theory of meaning---one which takes meaning to be constituted by assertibility and deniability conditions---and shows how the usual multiple-conclusion sequent calculus for classical logic can be given an inferentialist motivation, leaving classical model theory as of only derivative importance. The paper then uses this theory of meaning to present and motivate a logical system---ST---that conservatively extends (...) classical logic with a fully transparent truth predicate. This system is shown to allow for classical reasoning over the full (truth-involving) vocabulary, but to be non-transitive. Some special cases where transitivity does hold are outlined. ST is also shown to give rise to a familiar sort of model for non-classical logics: Kripke fixed points on the Strong Kleene valuation scheme. Finally, to give a theory of paradoxical sentences, a distinction is drawn between two varieties of assertion and two varieties of denial. On one variety, paradoxical sentences cannot be either asserted or denied; on the other, they must be both asserted and denied. The target theory is compared favourably to more familiar related systems, and some objections are considered. (shrink)

Supererogatory acts—good deeds “beyond the call of duty”—are a part of moral common sense, but conceptually puzzling. I propose a unified solution to three of the most infamous puzzles: the classic Paradox of Supererogation (if it’s so good, why isn’t it just obligatory?), Horton’s All or Nothing Problem, and Kamm’s Intransitivity Paradox. I conclude that supererogation makes sense if, and only if, the grounds of rightness are multi-dimensional and comparative.