The purpose of this work is to characterize the problem of semantic presuppositions generated by definite descriptions in subject-position in the light of a reassessment of the semantic framework of the Russell/Strawson controversy and analyze what would be the early and the later Wittgenstein's solution to such a problem. In the first part, the Russell/Strawson controversy is characterized. On the basis of Strawson's account, a general concept of semantic presupposition against which other theories may be tested is constructed. This allows the formulation of the problem above mentioned. Further analysis of the accounts involved reveals that Frege's concept of a 'semantic prerequisite' generated by definite descriptions in subject-position is an instance of the general concept. But Frege also held the view that simple proper names do not generate semantic prerequisites. The Fregean referential dualism suggests that the Russell/Strawson controversy, as far as only these authors' accounts are involved, is undecidable at the purely semantic level. This is the semantic framework against which Wittgenstein's philosophies are tested in the second part. The "Tractatus" adopts a modified version of the Russellian Theory of Descriptions. Even so, the Tractarian account seems to be ultimately equivalent to Russell's. Further analysis reveals that the doctrine of simple signs in isolation, but not its conjunction with the picture theory, is consistent with the general concept of semantic presupposition. The "Investigations " adopts the programmatic principle of searching for the use of the words. But the question about the 'referring use' of descriptions in a specific language-game is consistent with, and in the spirit of, the "Investigations". The framework of the question involves the appeal to the Kripkean notions of 'semantic referent' and 'speaker's referent'. The analysis of the referring use in the language-game of reporting an event reveals that the later Wittgenstein tends to reject the semantic concept of presupposition. Further analysis reveals that he would tend to reject Russell's Theory of Descriptions and most of the variants of the pragmatic concept. The analysis seems to confirm that the Russell/Strawson dispute is idle at the purely semantic level. Even so, the later Wittgenstein's account of language is such that it is possible to imagine some particular language-games in which relationships occur that bear some analogies with the one of semantic presupposition.

The aim of the present study is to develop a solution to the problem of skepticism about the external world ("skepticism", for short), inspired primarily by Hume's "skeptical solution" to the problem of skepticism about induction, but also by epistemological externalism and Wittgenstein's discussion of skeptical doubts in On Certainty. The author accepts certain elements in P. F. Strawson's interpretation of Hume and Wittgenstein, but rejects the "psychological" argument against skepticism which Strawson ascribes to the two philosophers. The problem of skepticism is understood as that of showing that we can know what we in common sense claim to know about external objects, despite skeptical arguments to the contrary. A "moderate" skepticism is accepted, according to which it is possible that we are globally mistaken in our beliefs about external objects, and it is argued that there is in fact no conflict between this moderate skepticism and common sense. A distinc-tion is drawn between two types of "strong" skepticism, which does conflict with common sense: prescriptive skepti-cism, the recommendation to abandon our common sense ways of forming beliefs, by suspend-ing judgement or in other ways; and theoretical skepti-cism, the thesis that we can have no rational grounds for our beliefs about external objects. An argument against prescriptive skepticism is devel-oped, according to which each of three possible forms of prescriptive skepticism is unacceptable. An externalist argument against theoreti-cal skepticism is developed, according to which it is suffi-cient for knowledge that one is in fact not globally mis-taken, whether or not one has grounds for believing this to be the case. It is argued that this variant of externalism constitutes a form of natu-ralistic epistemology, and that it as such fills a gap in Quine's argument for the natu-ralization of epistemology. An interpretation of On Certainty is defended, according to which Wittgen-stein accepts a form of moderate skepticism and presents an argu-ment against strong skep-ticism similar to Hume's.

Traditionally, the central threat to the defensibility of the range of practices and attitudes constitutive of moral criticism has been seen to be posed by the Causal Thesis, the view that all actions have antecedent causes to which they are linked by causal laws of the kind that govern other events in the universe. In such a world, agents lack the sort of underived origination and agency required for the appropriateness of moral criticism. However, Peter Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” marks a move away from a metaphysical conception of agency and conditions of the appropriateness of moral criticism. On Strawson’s account, the problem of moral responsibility is centrally a normative problem, a problem about the moral norms that govern interpersonal relationships, and the conditions of appropriateness of the range of attitudes and sentiments occasioned by the agents’ fulfillment or non-fulfillment of these norms. In this dissertation I argue that the success of normative conceptions of conditions of appropriateness of moral criticism is contingent of the amelioration of the tension between two strategies in “Freedom and Resentment.” Naturalist interpretations hold that sentiments and practices constitutive of moral criticism are natural features of human psychological constitution, and therefore neither allow nor require justification. Rationalist interpretation, by contrast, are based on an analysis of conditions under which moral criticism can be justifiably modified or suspended. Both of these strategies, I argue, are false. The naturalistic interpretation is false not because of its inability to offer a plausible account of the conditions of justifiability of reactive attitudes, but rather because of its inability to offer a principled account of the way moral norms are grounded. The rationalistic interpretation, in turn, not only relies on an implausible psychological account of conditions of responsible agency, but puts an unacceptable emphasis on the agent’s intention. A plausible interpretation of the normative strategy requires emphasizing not only the significance of attitudes and feelings, but also the role reasons play in constituting moral norms and justifying moral criticism / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2010-07-05 16:42:43.601

No description available.

The problem which spurred this thesis has three components. First, there are entities which we may call stuff – alluded to by uncountable nouns; these entities seem to have a duality for behaving like both (i) an object or a discrete middle size substance – which are supposed to be non-repetitive and independent, and as well as (ii) a concept or a universal – which are repetitive but dependent (on some independent substances). Second, a dichotomy persists between the two aspects of the duality: what is non-repeatable cannot be repeatable and, conversely what is repeatable cannot be non-repeatable. Third, there is a background of how we conventionally do logic, and our present trend of doing – or rather, doing away with – metaphysics. The thesis then came up with four chapters. Chapter 1 deals with the question – how can, or how do we deal with stuff predication following the conventional guidelines? – where by stuff predication I mean any predication involving stuff. I also tried there to find out some clues from Frege’s works. Chapter 2 dives into some related issues pertaining to language, grammar and the notion of constitution. Chapter 3 examines critically two types of theories or views (one of them has been recently championed by Michael Dummett and P.F. Strawson; the other by David Armstrong) arguing how repetitive entities differ from the non-repetitive ones. My counter argument is that those arguments are either fallacious or not even complete. Chapter 4 takes an Aristotelian perspective following the lead of E.J. Lowe. The thesis has a pessimistic tone at the end: the conventional method is quite inadequate as it misses some subtleties pertaining to stuff, nor could Lowe’s Aristotle take us too far. Nevertheless, one cannot – I hope – miss some deeper insights glimpsing into this work. Particularly, Chapter 3 opens up some new venues to think about: our thoughts about our own arguments and proofs may need some revamping.

Zugl.: Siegen, Univ., Diss., 2002

abstract: Panpsychist double aspect theory, the most promising version of panpsychism, holds that the mental and the physical are mutually irreducible properties, or features, of ultimate matter, therefore they both are ontologically fundamental and ubiquitous. This version of panpsychism involves the following two notions: anti-reductivism and anti- emergentism. The former states that mental phenomena are not recordable in terms of physics. The latter implies that mental phenomena do not causally arise only from a certain macroscale physical condition, and the mental and the physical do not constitute an ontological hierarchy. From these notions, it follows that any macroscale mental phenomenon is the result of a combination of ultimate mental properties. Yet this idea creates the combination problem: how higher level mentality, e.g., human or animal consciousness, arises from lower level mentality, the ultimate mental "particles." Panpsychist double aspect theory purports to find the proper location of mind in the world without being vulnerable to typical mind-body problems. Nevertheless, since this version of panpsychism explains the ontological structure of higher level mentality as analogous to the atomic structure of a molecular physical entity, the combination problem arises. In Chapter 1, I explain the general conception of panpsychism. Chapter 2 shows the plausibility of panpsychist double aspect theory and how the combination problem arises from this version. I discuss the history and implications of the combination problem in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I introduce some alternative versions of panpsychism that do not raise the combination problem, and point out their implausibility. The intelligibility of mental combination is explained in Chapter 5. The moral of these chapters is that our epistemic intuition that mind is not composed of "smaller" minds fails to undermine the possibility that mind is structurally complex. In Chapter 6, I argue that C. Koch and G. Tononi's integrated information theory (IIT) is a form of panpsychism, and that the IIT can serve as a model for solving the combination problem. However, I am not committed to the IIT, and I point out theoretical weaknesses of the IIT besides the combination problem. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Philosophy 2013

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / La noción de pluralismo ha tenido una amplia recepción no solo en la literatura especializada en filosofía, sino que en la mayoría de las disciplinas que reflexionan sobre lo humano. Desde el último cuarto del siglo XX, una afirmación estándar en los ámbitos filosófico y jurídico es recalcar que es indispensable la aceptación y valoración de la diversidad humana. Aunque no siempre es claro qué exactamente se reclama, pero sí es incontrovertible su necesidad. Asimismo, el debate político cotidiano se nutre de este concepto, emplazando al ordenamiento jurídico a reconocer las distintas identidades que forman parte de la sociedad contemporánea, situada en contextos complejos de interacción y desarrollo cultural. Pocos autores reconocen sus sospechas frente a la valoración de la diversidad humana, pero no han despejado la oscuridad conceptual que aqueja al término pluralismo. En lo que sigue, intentaré desarrollar parte de los antecedentes que sirvieron de fundamento al entendimiento del pluralismo en la primera década del siglo XXI. Circunscribiré mi investigación a las contribuciones al pluralismo en las obras de sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) y sir P. F. Strawson (1919-2006); los dos pensadores de la Universidad de Oxford que alcanzaron mayor repercusión y prestigio internacional durante el siglo XX, como representantes de la tradición analítica en filosofía. Esta elección descansa en razones tanto de corte conceptual como institucional. Conceptuales, pues existe un parecido de familia que comparten sus posiciones en su rechazo al privilegio epistémico del pensamiento monista de la ciencia defendido desde principios del siglo XIX y su celebración de la diversidad de lo humano, como un aspecto normativamente deseable para nuestra civilización. Por el otro lado, mi formación académica en filosofía se inició en torno a tradición filosófica anglosajona, gozando del privilegio de estudiar con un heredero directo de sir P. F. Strawson, y cuya reflexión ha tenido por foco la legitimidad filosófica de las distintas formas en que se manifiesta la diversidad de lo humano. / Elaborada en el marco del Proyecto de Investigación FONDECYT Nº 1050348 “Pluralismo, igualdad jurídica y diversidad valorativa”.

[pt] A dissertação tem como objetivo apresentar uma defesa do princípio de nãocontradição, uma defesa sustentada por dois argumentos. No primeiro argumento, coloca-se em destaque a relação entre a validade do princípio de não-contradição e a determinação do sentido das expressões linguísticas, em particular, a determinação do sentido dos termos gerais usados como predicados em frases singulares. Utilizar uma frase para dizer de um objeto que ele possui e, sob o mesmo aspecto, não possui uma mesma característica resultaria na indeterminação do sentido, a saber, que nada seria dado a entender pela frase. O segundo argumento pretende estabelecer uma relação entre uso de instâncias do princípio de não contradição e a capacidade de identificar objetos particulares. Para se referir determinadamente a um único particular, de tal maneira que seja possível pensar sobre este como sendo um sujeito de predicações, é preciso que se identifique esse particular através de um termo sortal e não simultaneamente através de um sortal oposto. Mais especificamente: tentar se referir a algo como sendo e não sendo de um certo tipo resultaria na indeterminação da referência, viz. não haveria identificação de um único objeto. / [en] The dissertation aims to present a defense of the principle of noncontradiction, a defense supported by two arguments. In the first argument, it is emphasized the relation between the validity of the principle of non-contradiction and the determination of the sense of linguistic expressions, in particular, the determination of the sense of general terms used as predicates in singular sentences. To say of an object that it has and, in the same respect, does not have a certain characteristic would result in the indetermination of sense, namely that nothing would be understood by the sentence. The second argument seeks to establish a relation between the use of instances of the principle of non-contradiction and the ability to identify particular objects. To refer specifically to a single individual, in such a way that it can be thought of as a subject of predication, it is necessary to identify this individual by means of a sortal term and not simultaneously through an opposite sortal. More precisely: trying to refer to a thing as being and not being of a certain sort would result in the indetermination of the reference, viz. no single object would be identified.

仲輝. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2011. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 155-164) / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstracts in Chinese and English. / Zhong Hui.