The book is about logical analysis of natural language. Since we humans communicate by means of natural language, we need a tool that helps us to understand in a precise manner how the logical and formal mechanisms of natural language work. Moreover, in the age of computers, we need to communicate both with and through computers as well. Transparent Intensional Logic is a tool that is helpful in making our communication and reasoning smooth and precise. It deals with all kinds (...) of linguistic context in a fully compositional and anti-contextual way. (shrink)

This paper defendsintensional essentialism: a property (intensional entity) is not essential relative to an individual (extensional entity), but relative to other properties (or intensional entities). Consequently, an individual can have a property only accidentally, but in virtue of having that property the individual has of necessity other properties. Intensional essentialism is opposed to various aspects of the Kripkean notion of metaphysical modality, eg, varying domains, existence as a property of individuals, and its category of properties which are both empirical and (...) essential with respect to particular individuals and natural kinds. The key notion of intensional essentialism isrequisite. A requisite is explicated as a relation-in-extension between two intensions (functions from possible worlds and moments of time)X, Y such that wherever and wheneverX is instantiatedY is also instantiated. We predict three readings of the sentence. Every wooden table is necessarily wooden , one involving modalityde re and the other two modalityde dicto. The first reading claims that no individual which is a wooden table is necessarily wooden. The claim is backed up by bare particular anti-essentialism. The two other interpretations claim that it is necessary that whatever is a wooden table is wooden. However, as we try to show, one is logically far more perspicuous thanks to the concept of requisite and thus preferable to more standardde dicto formalizations. (shrink)

The boundary between analytic and synthetic sentences is well definable. Quine’s attempt to make it vague is based on a misunderstanding: instead of freeing semantics from shortcomings found, e.g. in Carnap’s work, Quine actually rejects semantics of natural language and replaces it by behavioristically articulated pragmatics. Semantics of natural language as a logical analysis is however possible and it can justify hard and fast lines between analyticity and syntheticity.

Propositional and notional attitudes are construed as relations (-in-intension) between individuals and constructions (rather than propositrions etc,). The apparatus of transparent intensional logic (Tichy) is applied to derive two rules that make it possible to export existential quantifiers without conceiving attitudes as relations to expressions (sententialism).

Problems are defined as abstract procedures. An explication of procedures as used in Transparent Intensional Logic and called constructions is presented and the subclass of constructions called concepts is defined. Concepts as closed constructions modulo α- and η-conversion can be associated with meaningful expressions of a natural or professional language in harmony with Church’s conception. Thus every meaningful expression expresses a concept. Since every problem can be unambiguously determined by a concept we can state that every problem is a concept (...) and every concept can be viewed as a problem.Kolmogorov’s idea of a connection between problems and Heyting’s calculus is examined and the non-classical features of the latter are shown to be compatible with realistic logic using partial functions. (shrink)

There is a distinctive kind of command, namely commands to answer specific questions. An imperative sentence denoting such a command has an interrogative sentence corresponding to it-a sentence denoting the respective question. LetImp, Int, andQ be such an imperative sentence, the interrogative sentence corresponding to it, and the question denoted by the interrogative sentence, respectively. LetQ be an empirical question, i. e., and ((ητ)ω)-object. LetP be an ((ητ)ω)-construction constructingQ. Then the analysis ofImp has the form (QL).LetQ be an analytical question, (...) i. e., a molecular extensional η-construction. LetQ=C, whereC is a ℊ-object (over the extended base). Then the analysis ofImp has the form (QL′). The imperative sentences whose analyses have the form (QL) or (QL′) can be called ‘question-like imperative sentences’ or simply ‘QL-imperative sentences’. No imperative sentence whose analysis differs from (QL) and (QL\t') can be associated with a question. Therefore, no transformation of such an imperative sentence should result in a correct interrogative sentence. Fulfilling an order which is determined by a QL-imperative sentenceImp, one simultaneously gives the right answer to the questionQ (which is associated withImp). One who does not fulfil this order either wrongly answersQ or does not answerQ at all. (shrink)

Quine claims that a) considering meaning as a separate object leads to mentalism and b) to overcome mentalism we have to accept an empirical analysis. The paper shows that a) is wrong and not accepting mentalism we can apply a logical, i.e., not empirical approach.

The goal of this paper is a philosophical explication and logical rectification of the notion of concept. We take into account only those contexts that are relevant from the logical point of view. It means that we are not interested in contexts characteristic of cognitive sciences, particularly of psychology, where concepts are conceived of as some kind of mental objects or representations. After a brief recapitulation of various theories of concept, in particular Frege’s and Church’s ones, we propose our own (...) theory based on procedural semantics of Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL) and explicate concept in terms of the key notion of TIL, namely construction viewed as an abstract, algorithmically structured procedure. (shrink)

[Is “logical analysis of natural language” possible?].

The author defends the view that the notion of concept, if used in the logical tradition, should be explicated procedurally . He argues that Tichý’s Transparent Intensional Logic is an apt tool for such an explication and derives the respective definition. Some consequences of this definition concern the notions of emptiness, simple concepts, empirical concepts and algorithmic concepts.

It is shown that: classicality is connected with various criteria some of which are fulfilled by TIL while some other are not; some more general characteristic of classicality connects it with philosophical realism whereas anti-realism is connected with non-classical logics; TIL is highly expressive due to its hyperintensionality, which makes it possible to handle procedures as objects sui generis. Thus TIL is classical in obeying principles of realism and non-classical in transcending some principles taught by textbooks of classical logic.

On the one hand, Pavel Tichý has shown in his Transparent Intensional Logic (TIL) that the best way of explicating meaning of the expressions of a natural language consists in identification of meanings with abstract procedures. TIL explicates objective abstract procedures as so-called constructions. Constructions that do not contain free variables and are in a well-defined sense ´normalized´ are called concepts in TIL. On the second hand, Kolmogorov in (Mathematische Zeitschrift 35: 58–65, 1932) formulated a theory of problems, using NL (...) expressions. He explicitly avoids presenting a definition of problems. In the present paper an attempt at such a definition (explication)—independent of but in harmony with Medvedev´s explication—is given together with the claim that every concept defines a problem. The paper treats just mathematical concepts, and so mathematical problems, and tries to show that this view makes it possible to take into account some links between conceptual systems and the ways how to replace a noneffective formulation of a problem by an effective one. To show this in concreto a wellknown Kleene’s idea from his (Introduction to metamathematics. D. van Nostrand, New York, 1952) is exemplified and explained in terms of conceptual systems so that a threatening inconsistence is avoided. (shrink)

Buzaglo (as well as Manders (J Philos LXXXVI(10):553–562, 1989)) shows the way in which it is rational even for a realist to consider ‘development of concepts’, and documents the theory by numerous examples from the area of mathematics. A natural question arises: in which way can the phenomenon of expanding mathematical concepts influence empirical concepts? But at the same time a more general question can be formulated: in which way do the mathematical concepts influence empirical concepts? What I want to (...) show in the present paper can be described as follows. The problem articulated by Buzaglo deserves some semantic refinements. Following explications are needed: What is meaning? (In particular: What are concepts?) What are questions? (Or, equivalently: Semantics of interrogative sentences.) -/- Further, a useful notion will be the notion of problem. Taking over the notion of conceptual system from Materna (Conceptual Systems. Logos, Berlin, 2004) and using Tichý’s Transparent intensional logic (TIL) I can try to solve the problem of the relation between mathematical and empirical concepts (not only for the case of expanding some mathematical concepts). (shrink)

In the paper we offer a logical explication of the frequently used, but rather vague, notion of point of view. We show that the concept of point of view prevents certain paradoxes from arising. A point of view is a means of partial characterisation of something. Thus nothing is a P and at the same time a non-P, because it is a P only relative to some point of view and a non-P from another point of view. But there is (...) a major, complicating factor involved in applying a logical method that is supposed to provide a formal and rigorous counterpart of the intuitively understood notion: ‘point of view’ is a homonymous expression, and so there is not just one meaning that would explain points of view. Yet we propose a common scheme of the logical type of the entities denoted by the term ‘point of view’. It is an empirical function: when applied to the viewed object in question, it results in a evaluating proposition about the object. If there is an agent applying the criterion, the result is the agent’s attitude to the respective object. The paper is organised into two parts. In Part I we first adduce and analyse various examples of typical cases of applying a point of view to prevent paradox. These cases are examined according to the type of the viewed object: a) the viewed object is an individual and b) the viewed object is a property or an office. In Part II we then show that the method described in Part I can be applied also to the analyses of agents’ attitudes. We explain how an agent can believe of something that it is a P and at the same time a non-P: the agent applies different viewpoint criteria to the viewed object. The inversion of perspective consisting in the perspective shifting from the believer on to the reporter in the case of attitudes de re, and from the reporter to the believer in the case of attitudes de dicto, is also analyzed. We show that there is no smooth logical traffic back and forth between such attitudes unless some additional assumptions are added, and prove that they are not equivalent. By way of conclusion, we explicate the notion of conceptual point of view and analyze cases of viewpoints given by conceptual distinction. We show, finally, that the proposed scheme of the type of point of view can be preserved, this time, however, in its extensional version. (shrink)

In the paper we offer a logical explication of the frequently used, but rather vague, notion of point of view. We show that the concept of point of view prevents certain paradoxes from arising. A point of view is a means of partial characterisation of something. Thus nothing is a P and at the same time a non-P , because it is a P only relative to some point of view and a non-P from another point of view. But there (...) is a major, complicating factor involved in applying a logical method that is supposed to provide a formal and rigorous counterpart of the intuitively understood notion: ‘point of view’ is a homony-mous expression, and so there is not just one meaning that would explain points of view. Yet we propose a common scheme of the logical type of the entities denoted by the term ‘point of view’. It is an empirical function: when applied to the viewed object in question, it results in a evaluating proposition about the object. If there is an agent applying the criterion, the result is the agent’s attitude to the respective object. The paper is organised into two parts. In Part I we first adduce and analyse various examples of typical cases of applying a point of view to prevent paradox. These cases are examined according to the type of the viewed object: a) the viewed object is an individual and b) the viewed object is a property or an office. In Part II we then show that the method described in Part I can be applied also to the analyses of agents’ attitudes. We thus explain how an agent can believe of something that it is a P and at the same time a non-P: the agent applies different viewpoint criteria to the viewed object. The inversion of perspective consisting in the perspective shifting from the believer on to the reporter in the case of attitudes de re, and from the reporter to the believer in the case of attitudes de dicto, is also analyzed. We show that there is no smooth logical traffic back and forth between such attitudes and prove that they are not equivalent. By way of conclusion, we explicate the notion of conceptual point of view and analyze cases of viewpoints given by conceptual distinction. We show, finally, that the proposed scheme of the type of point of view can be preserved, this time, however, in its extensional version. (shrink)

In [Laurence, Margolis 2003] the authors try - within their polemics against F.Jackson’s views in [Jackson 1998] - to decide the question whether concepts are a priori (in their formulation “to be defined a priori”). Their discussion suffers - as a number of similar articles - from a typical drawback: some problem whose solution requires an exact notion of concept is handled as if the latter were quite clear. The consequence of this ‘conceptual laxity’ is that a) the topic of (...) the discussion is not very clear (what does the phrase ‘concepts must be defined a priori’ mean?); b) the relevance of the Quinean criticism of the “second dogma of empiricism”, i.e., of Quine’s claim that “science sometimes overturns our most cherished beliefs” and therefore there is no sharp boundary between analytic and synthetic is uncritically accepted; c) no distinction is made between the question whether the relation between an expression and its meaning is a priori and the question whether the relation between a concept and the object identified by the concept is a priori. The present article intends to elucidate and then to answer the questions that can be asked when we say something like “concepts are a priori ”. (shrink)

If concepts are explicated as abstract procedures, then we can easily show that each empirical concept is a not an effective procedure. Some, but not all empirical concepts are shown to be of a special kind: they cannot in principle guarantee that the object they identify satisfies the intended conditions.

The terms denotation and reference are commonly used as synonyms. A more fine-grained analysis of natural language as offered by TIL shows that we can distinguish these terms in the case of empirical expressions. The latter are shown to denote non-trivial intensions while their reference is the value of these intensions in the actual world.

The paper is based on transparent intensional logic. A sentence denotes a proposition and expresses a construction in the sense of Tichý´s definition . ‘Belief sentences’ refer to an attitude of some individual to the sense of the dependent clause, i.e., to the respective construction, which eliminates such problems as ‘paradox of omniscience’. In the case of empirical dependent clauses we can observe that at least besides this relation to a construction one can define a relation of the subject to (...) the state-of-affairs, represented by a proposition, i.e., by the denotation of the sentence. To stipulate such a kind of attitudes is justified by such cases where X says that he believes that Chicago is smaller than Prague and Y refers to this X’s belief saying that X believes that Prague is larger than Chicago. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper can be described as follows. The contemporary philosophical logic cannot work without using some terms well-known from mathematics and logic. Among such terms that play an important role in logical and philosophical analyses of language, meaning and the like we can find function, procedure and construction. One problem is that various authors use these terms in various ways, another problem consists in the well-known fact that many philosophers do not have any idea of what those (...) and similar terms could mean. The present paper tries to explain why an exact explication of the three mentioned terms can contribute to understanding and even solving many problems with semantics of natural language, which a philosopher should be interested in. (shrink)

A critical comment to Horwich's deflationary theory of meaning: the deflationary view ignores the fact that the way the subexpressions of an expression are combined is language dependent unlike meaning, which is in a sense 'international'; the link between the grammatical structure and the respective construction is not as direct and simple as it would follow from Horwich's conception.