There is something it is like for me to hear a seagull crying, something it is like to see a boat in the distance, and something it is like to suffer a slight headache. Each of these local conscious experiences have their own phenomenal character. The experiences are phenomenally unified just in case there is also something it is like to enjoy these and all the other local experiences I have at the relevant time together. For there is also something (...) it is like to be me overall: my global conscious experience has a phenomenal character. But what is it like to be me overall? What is the relationship between the phenomenal characters of local experiences and the phenomenal character of the global experience to which they contribute? This paper argues that our concepts of local and global conscious experiences allow for three completely different conceptions of how the former combine into the latter. It also argues that this shows that our concepts of local conscious experiences, global conscious experiences, and of their relationship are much more permissive than we might have thought. (shrink)

This paper explains what an infinite regress argument is. Part 1 contains some examples of infinite regress arguments. Part 2 presents a schema for all such arguments an defines an infinite regress argument as one that approximates to the schema. Part 3 tests the schema on the examples. Part 4 contrasts my account of infinite regress arguments with that given by Passmore and shows that Passmore's theory succumbs to objections. Part 5 distinguishes an infinite regress argument from an infinite regress (...) and defines an infinite regress. Part 6 explains the dyslogistic force of 'infinite regress'. (shrink)

In his commentary on my paper, “Means-Ends Epistemology”, David Chart constructs a Riddle of Induction with the following feature: Means-ends analysis, as I formulated it in the paper, selects “all emeralds are grue” as the optimal conjecture after observing a sample of all green emeralds. Chart’s construction is rigorous and correct. If we disagree, it is in the philosophical morals to be drawn from his example. Such morals are best discussed by elucidating some of the larger epistemological issues involved. “Means-ends (...) Epistemology” sought a normative theory of hypothesis selection. I defined what it means for an inductive method to reliably and efficiently find a correct hypothesis from a set of alternative hypotheses. (In fact, I investigated a number of standards of empirical success for inductive methods.) Call such methods optimal. We may take optimal inferences to be those made by optimal methods. This defines a relation Optimal-Inference(h,e,H): “given the set of alternative hypotheses H, and evidence e, hypothesis h is an optimal inference”. One fundamental difference between the means-ends approach and traditional confirmation theory is that the latter has sought a two-place relation between theory and evidence alone, something like “hypothesis h is highly confirmed given evidence e”. From my point of view, posing the problem of induction as discerning the right relation between theory and evidence is elliptical because it leaves unspecified the set of alternative hypotheses under investigation (as well as other relevant factors, such as the scientist’s background knowledge, observational means, cognitive capacities and epistemic values). Chart’s Riddle highlights the fact that depending on the space of alternative hypotheses, means-ends analysis may select a different hypothesis on the same evidence: “all emeralds are green” in my Goodmanian Riddle, and “all emeralds are grue” in his. To my mind, his example.. (shrink)

I have no comment to make on the aesthetic merits of these verses. I have put them at the head of my discussion because they happen to introduce a cluster of concepts connected with forgiveness: pride, love, hate, God, friendship, goodwill, eternity, offence, condemnation, resentment, blame. We may think that some, but not all, of these have essential connections with the concept in which we are interested. And we may, of course, think that the list is incomplete. Other obvious candidates (...) spring to mind: pity, for example, repentance, compassion, punishment and pardoning. (shrink)

Taken together with my previous articles [77], [80] devoted to the history of finite random sums and to Laplace's theory of errors, this paper sheds sufficient light on the whole work of Laplace in probability. Laplace's theory of probability is subdivided into theory of probability proper, limit theorems and mathematical statistics (not yet distinguished as a separate entity). I maintain that in its very design Laplace's theory of probability is a discipline pertaining to natural science rather than to mathematics. I (...) maintain also the idea that the so-called Laplacian determinism was no hindrance to applications of his theory of probability to natural science and that one of his utterances in this connection could have well been made by Maxwell's contemporaries. Two possible reasons why the theory of probability stagnated after Laplace's work are singled out: the absence of new fields of application and, also, the insufficient level of mathematical abstraction used by Laplace. For all his achievements, I reach the general conclusion that he did not originate the theory of probability as it is now known. (shrink)

Building on the papers and discussions in this project, my concluding comments indicate fruitful lines of further inquiry into the common and distinctive features of the Christian and Islamic political inheritances and their contemporary appropriation in the two communities. Topics for further exploration include: the hermeneutic approaches to diversity within the authoritative traditions of Christianity and Islam; the extent and nature of the service rendered by political rule to the natural and soteriological goods of moral community; the theological/anthropological underpinnings of (...) the moral limitations and ambiguities of political order and justice; and alternative political modes of accommodating religious plurality in society. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:This volume collects seven articles of Carlo Paolazzi, O.F.M., previously published in journals and congress proceedings between 1996 and 2004, each of them dealing with the Writings of Francis. The essays are not arranged chronologically but move from more general to more specific studies on the Writings of Francis of Assisi. The titles of the essays included are: 1) The Birth of the Writings and Constitution of the Canon (...) ; 2) Francis, Theology and the Letter to brother Anthony ; 3) Anthony cites Francis: the Epilogue of the Sunday Sermons and the Early Rule XVI ; 4) The Writings between Francis and his secretaries: a Knot to be Untied ; 5) Concerning the Autographs of brother Francis: Doubts, Verifications and Confirmations ; 6) Concerning the Authenticity of the Writings of Francis to the "Poor Ladies" ; 7) The Lesser Brothers and Books: Concerning the Exegesis of "the books necessary to fulfill their office" and "Those who do not know how to read" . Each of the essays displays a careful methodology and appreciation for the evangelical content of the texts.The first essay deals with the establishment of the "canon" of Francis's writings in which the author demonstrates that the writings are born and develop from Francis's relationship with the Word of God. In this context, "writing" takes on the character of an "essential moment" in Francis's relationship with the Word , with God and with the brotherhood. This explains for Paolazzi, the passion with which Francis recommends the writings to those to whom they are addressed.The second and third essays are related to Anthony of Padua and the writings. The second essay deals with the content and authenticity of the Letter to Anthony, included by Kajetan Esser in the canon of Francis's writings. Paolazzi argues that the expression, "Brother Anthony my bishop" goes back to Francis himself. He suggests that Anthony's request for permission to teach reflects the concern of the novice who had permission from his minister to have a breviary, but was uncomfortable and needed Francis's explicit permission , a characteristic of the tension in the brotherhood upon Francis's return from Egypt in 1220. The conditions Francis places on the teaching of Anthony reflect Francis's concern that the Word of God not be approached purely from an intellectual perspective, but rather as a Word which must transform life. The third essay attempts to demonstrate that the Epilogue to Anthony's Sunday Sermons integrates sections of chapter 17 of the Early Rule. Paolazzi concludes this careful lexical study with the affirmation that Anthony had the Early Rule's exhortation to preachers in chapter 17 before his eyes as he concluded his Opus Evangeliorum .In the fourth essay Paolazzi tackles the question of the role played by secretaries in the production of the Writings of Francis. Scholars, including Esser, have suggested that because of his health and/or because of his status as "illiterate," Francis depended on secretaries to put his thoughts on paper. Paolazzi approaches the question by citing a saying attributed to Francis from the Mirror of Perfection . That this saying goes back to the historical Francis Paolazzi concludes based on both the content and the fact that it reflects Francis's literal approach to the Gospel. The saying states that Francis wanted no one to call him good, father or master because of the teaching of Christ in the Gospel who said that only God should be addressed with these titles . He then studies the usage and appearance of these three terms in the Writings of Francis, which confirm a consistent usage in accord with this saying. This demonstrates that the Writings reflect the "speech" of Francis and not simply his conceptual thought. Paolazzi considers that "in the Writings religious thought and the verbal lexicon of evangelical inspiration respond one to.. (shrink)

Like Saint Paul, I was “born out of due time” insofar as the study of bioethics is concerned. I spent 15 years in teaching and administration at the Aquinas Institute of Theology, then in Dubuque, Iowa, now on the campus of Saint Louis University. I was given a sabbatical study year in 1972–1973 to refresh my mind and spirit. Though my major study and research emphasis prior to the sabbatical study had been in the field of Church law and religious (...) government, I determined to direct my attention to the study of moral theology and ethics, because at that time there was confusion in this area of discipline, especially insofar as the Catholic community was concerned. With this in mind, I chose the University of Chicago as the locale for my study and was awarded a postdoctoral fellowship. (shrink)

My disagreement with the deflationist treatment of truth affects my attitude to Paul Horwich’s approach to meaning and intentionality. In my response I summarize objections to the deflationist account of truth developed in some detail in chapters 2, 7, and 12, and argue that the notion of intentionality should be treated naturalistically in a broader context than the context of the referential import of the locution “means that”.Minha discordância com a visão deflacionista da verdade afeta minha atitude em relação às (...) propostas deflacionistas de Paul Horwich para a intencio-nalidade. Em minha réplica faço um resumo das objeções ao deflacionismo em relação à verdade, detalhadas nos capítulos 2, 7 e 12, e argumento que a noção de intencionalidade deveria ser tratada naturalisticamente em um contexto mais amplo que o contexto do alcance referencial da locução “significa que”. (shrink)

If I lose my key in Canada, for instance, and I search for it in the United Kingdom, how long will I take to find it? This paper argues that problems in education are caused by non‐professional teachers who are employed when trained teachers move in search of promotion friendly activities or financially rewarding duties. This shift of focus means that policy makers in education act without adequate professional guidance. The problems in education, therefore, result from demands made on mainstream (...) education based on misconceptions about what education can offer. It is argued that the implementation of e‐learning in education faces the risk of developing on the basis of unproven theories. This scenario increasingly sees the replacement of formal education activities in institutions of learning with non‐formal and informal education practices. Given that the contents and influences of non‐formal and informal education are not under the control of the teacher, the experiences that learners bring to education settings are increasingly difficult to manage. The paper proposes that by integrating e‐learning in teacher education and rewarding ‘good teaching’, there is a potential for a successful e‐learning revolution in education. (shrink)

Walter Carnielli argues that my position about knowledge and justification emphasizes individual knowledge, is too demanding, and is anti-psychologistic. In my response I argue that this reflects a misunderstanding of the view of knowledge and justification sketched in my book, and that our views on these issues are much closer than he imagines.Walter Carnielli argumenta que minha posição com respeito ao conhecimento e à justificação enfatiza o conhecimento individual, é demasiadamente exigente e é anti-psicologista. Em minha réplica argumento que isto (...) reflete um mal entendido em relação ao ponto de vista sobre conhecimento e justificação esboçado em meu livro, e que nossas visões dessas questões são muito mais próximas do que ele imagina. (shrink)

Otávio Bueno gives a positive and accurate summary of my defense of Platonism, with special emphasis on the epistemological issues. He criticizes “skeptical nominalism”, and proposes instead an “agnostic nominalism”, which treats mathematical objects as “objects of thought”, and neither rejects nor accepts abstract entities. In my response I argue that the main problem for nominalism is to account for abstract properties and relations, and that treating mathematical objects as objects of thought does not provide a satisfactory solution to that (...) end.Otávio Bueno apresenta um resumo positivo e correto de minha defesa do Platonismo, com ênfase especial nos aspectos epistemológicos. Ele critica o “nominalismo cético” e propõe um “nominalismo agnóstico” que trata os objetos matemáticos como “objetos de pensamento”, sem rejeitar ou aceitar entes abstratos. Em minha réplica argumento que o problema principal para o nominalismo é dar conta das propriedades e relações abstratas, e que tratar os objetos matemáticos como objetos de pensamento não é uma solução satisfatória para esse fim. (shrink)

Danielle Macbeth disagrees with the view that there are logical truths in an ontological sense, and argues that we have no adequate epistemological account of our access to such features of reality. In my response I recall some main aspects of my ontological and epistemological formulation of logic as a science, and argue that neither Quine’s considerations against meaning, nor Benacerraf’s considerations against Gödel’s realism, show the untenability of an approach to logical truth in terms of logical propositions that denote (...) logical states of affairs.Danielle MacBeth discorda da tese que há verdades lógicas em um sentido ontológico e argumenta que não há um tratamento adequado de nosso acesso epistêmico à tais aspectos da realidade. Em minha réplica relembro algumas características principais de minha formulação ontológica e epistemológica da lógica como ciência, e argumento que nem as considerações de Quine contra a noção de significado, nem as considerações de Benacerraf contra o realismo de Gödel, mostram a invalidade de uma concepção de verdade lógica em termos de proposições que denotam estados de coisa lógicos. (shrink)

José Seoane centers his commentary on my critique of the standard formal analysis of proof as an elucidation of the informal notion of proof, and I basically agree with his considerations throughout the paper. In my response I argue that the notion of formal proof is fundamentally an analysis of the notion of logical consequence, rather than an elucidation of the informal notion of proof. O comentário de José Seoane está centrado na crítica da análise formal de prova como elucidação (...) da noção informal de prova, e estou basicamente de acordo com suas considerações. Em minha réplica argumento que a noção de prova formal é fundamentalmente uma análise da noção de conseqüência lógica ao invés de uma elucidação da noção informal de prova. (shrink)

The main issue André Porto raises in his paper concerns the use of dot notation to indicate an infinite set of hypotheses. Whereas I agree that one cannot extract a unique infinite expansion from a finite initial segment, in my response I argue that this holds for finite expansions as well. I further explain how my remarks on infinite proof structures are neither motivated by the impact of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems on Hilbert’s program, nor by a negative view of strict (...) finitism.O problema central que André Porto discute em seu artigo diz respeito ao uso da notação de pontos para indicar um conjunto infinito de hipóteses. Mesmo estando de acordo não ser possível extrair uma expansão infinita a partir de um segmento inicial finito, em minha réplica argumento que isto vale igualmente para expansões finitas. Explico também que minhas observações sobre estruturas de prova infinitas não são motivadas pelo impacto dos teoremas de incompletude de Gödel no programa de Hilbert, e tampouco por uma visão negativa do finitismo estrito. (shrink)

The paper by Jairo José da Silva is mainly concerned with the character of mathematical proof and with the nature of mathematics and its ontology. Although there is a fair amount of agreement in our views, I focus my response on three issues on which we disagree. The first is his view of mathematical proof as generally unconstrained by language and by a previous proof apparatus. The second is his discussion of Brouwer’s views on proof and formalization. The third is (...) his nominalistic account of structuralism.O artigo de Jairo José da Silva explora principalmente o caráter das provas matemáticas e a natureza ontológica da matemática. Apesar de haver bastante concordância em nossos pontos de vista, o foco de minha réplica são três questões em que discordamos. A primeira é sua visão da prova matemática como completamente livre de restrições impostas pela linguagem e por um aparato prévio de prova. A segunda é sua discussão de Brouwer em relação à prova e à formalização. A terceira é sua formulação nominalista do estruturalismo. (shrink)

Ken López-Escobar questions the timeless status of various entities—propositions, numbers, etc.—as well as my characterization of pure propositional logic as an ontological theory. In my response I argue that my characterization of propositional logic does not depend on timeless propositions, or on other abstract truth bearers, but is a characterization in terms of truth relations between any truth bearers. I also discuss his views on numbers as cultural constructs, as well as his use of quantification in propositional logic.Ken López-Escobar questiona (...) o estatuto atemporal de vários entes—pro-posições, números, etc.— assim como minha caracterização da lógica proposicional pura como teoria ontológica. Na réplica argumento que minha caracterização não depende de proposições atemporais, ou de outros portadores de verdade abstratos, mas é uma caracterização em termos de relações de verdade entre quaisquer portadores de verdade. Examino também suas considerações sobre números como construtos culturais, assim como seu uso de quantificação na lógica proposicional. (shrink)

Frank Sautter’s questions are directed at the precise senses of the words ‘invention’ and ‘creation’ used in my remarks on the origin of language, and at the connection between Jørgensen’s and my views on the development of language. In my response I clarify my use of the words ‘invention’ and ‘creation’ vis-à-vis Frank’s suggested interpretations, and examine Jørgensen’s distinction of stages in the development of language in relation to imperatives and the “directive use of language”.As perguntas de Frank Sautter estão (...) direcionadas ao sentido mais preciso das palavras ‘invenção’ e ‘criação’ utilizadas em minhas observações sobre a origem da linguagem, e à relação de meu ponto de vista sobre o desenvolvimento da linguagem ao de Jørgensen. Em minha réplica esclareço meu uso das palavras ‘invenção’ e ‘criação’ comparativamente às diversas interpretações sugeridas por Frank, e examino a distinção de estágios no desenvolvimento da linguagem proposta por Jørgensen em relação aos imperativos e ao “uso direcionado da linguagem”. (shrink)

Paul Gochet raises several interesting issues about my Chapter 13 discussion of productivity, compositionality, the context principle, meaning, and formalization. In my response I concentrate on the question of units of meaning in relation to the context principle, and on the question of infinity and formalization.Paul Gochet levanta várias questões interessantes sobre minhas considerações, no capítulo 13, sobre produtividade, composicionalidade, o princípio do contexto e formalização. Concentro minha réplica na relação das unidades de significação em relação ao principio do contexto (...) e na questão de infinitude e de formalização. (shrink)

In my response to Guillermo Rosado-Haddock I discuss the two main issues raised in his paper. The first is that by allowing Henkin’s general models as a legitimate model-theoretic interpretation of second-order logic, I undermine my defense of second-order logic against Quine’s views concerning the primacy of first-order logic. The second is that my treatment of logical truth and logical properties does not take into account various systems of logic and properties of systems of logic such as the Löwenheim-Skolem property.Em (...) minha réplica à Guillermo Rosado-Haddock discuto as duas questões centrais levantadas em seu artigo. A primeira é que ao permitir modelos gerais de Henkin como uma interpretação legítima da lógica de segunda ordem, desvirtuo minha defesa da lógica de segunda ordem contra a visão de Quine respeito à primazia da lógica de primeira ordem. A segunda é que meu tratamento da verdade lógica e das propriedades lógicas não leva em consideração diversos sistemas de lógica e propriedades de sistemas de lógica tais como a propriedade de Löwenheim-Skolem. (shrink)

In my response to Dirk Greimann I maintain that whereas one can recognize some specific appeals to “parsimony” or “simplicity” in the sciences and in philosophy as correct and legitimate, there is no precise adequate formulation of Ockham’s razor as a general methodological principle, and argue that the formulations he examines in his paper exemplify this imprecision.Em minha réplica à Dirk Greimann mantenho que mesmo sendo possível reconhecer certos apelos à “parcimônia” e à “simplicidade” nas ciências e na filosofia como (...) corretos e legítimos, não há uma formulação precisa e adequada da navalha de Occam como princípio metodológico geral, e argumento que as formulações examinadas em seu artigo exemplificam esta imprecisão. (shrink)

The contention in this paper is that central to Sellars’s famous attempt to fuse the “manifest image” and the “scientific image” of the human being in the world was an attempt to marry a particularly strong form of scientific naturalism with various modified Kantian a priori principles about the unity of the self and the structure of human knowledge. The modified Kantian aspects of Sellars’s view have been emphasized by current “left wing” Sellarsians, while the scientific naturalist aspects have been (...) championed by “right wing” Sellarsians, the latter including William Rottschaefer’s constructive criticisms of my own reconciling interpretation of Sellars. In this paper I focus first on how (1) Sellars’s Kantian conception of the necessary a priori unity of the thinking self does not conflict with his ideal scientific naturalist conception of persons as “bundles” or pluralities of scientifically postulated processes. This then prepares the way for a more comprehensive discussion of how (2) Sellars’s modified Kantian account of the substantive a priori principles that make possible any conceptualized knowledge of a world does not conflict with his simultaneous demand for an ideal scientific explanation and evolutionary account of those same conceptual capacities. Sellars’s own attempted via media synthesis—what I call his “Kantian scientific naturalism”—merits another look from both the left and the right. (shrink)

Norma Goethe addresses my criticisms of the notion of formal proof as a representation of the practice of proving, and in the process revisits large portions of my discussion of proof. I agree with many of her comments, and direct my response to two specific issues. The first concerns the essential features of proof, and the second the distinction between actual proofs and idealized proofs.Norma Goethe tece seus comentários entorno de minhas críticas à noção de prova formal como representação da (...) prática de provar e retoma diversos aspectos da discussão de prova em meu livro. Concordo com muitas de suas considerações e dirijo minha réplica a duas questões específicas. A primeira é sobre as características essenciais das provas, e a segunda sobre a distinção entre provas atuais e provas idealizadas. (shrink)

Javier Legris examines my views on symbolism and logical form in relation to two important distinctions emphasized by Jean van Heijenoort—the distinction between logic as calculus and logic as universal language, and the distinction between absolutism and relativism in logic. I generally agree with his considerations and focus my response on some relevant aspects of classical logic.Javier Legris examina minhas considerações sobre simbolismo e forma lógica em relação à duas distinções enfatizadas por Jean van Heijenoort: a distinção entre lógica como (...) cálculo e lógica como linguagem universal, e a distinção entre absolutismo e relativismo na lógica. Estou basicamente de acordo com suas observações e em minha réplica enfoco alguns aspectos relevantes da lógica clássica. (shrink)

The humanitarian idea underlying this article is to attempt an epidemiological interpretation of the classic Hippocratic triad "Medicine consists of three elements: the disease, the patient and the doctor". In the XIII century, the Syrian doctor Abul-Faraj in his saying: "Look, there are three of us – you, me, and the disease. If you are on my side, it will be easier for the two of us to defeat her. But, if you go over to her side, I alone will (...) not be able to defeat you both" deciphered the magical meaning of these words. For centuries, the fundamental integrity of this formula has been an ethical and professional guarantee of the success of each patient's treatment and the prospect of building a personalized healthcare system. In this particular article, we have searched for new content of three key elements of the textbook aphorism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. An understanding of the role of the doctor – "I" as the whole complex of efforts aimed at fighting the pandemic. Patient status "You" means the whole society during a pandemic, and even is as a long-term message for the physical, mental, social and geopolitical health of future generations. The meaning of "Disease" should be understood from the perspective of the problems of the entire health system and logistical ignorance, which has become an obstacle to achieving ethical integrity in managing epidemic challenges. The paper shows how adherence to the ethical principles of social responsibility, trust, and solidarity should become the moral accompaniment of the entire complex of sanitary, anti-epidemic, economic, legal, and social technologies that can ensure success in the fight against the pandemic and prevent the development of unjustified risks. (shrink)

In §1 I examine Boole’s “principle of wholistic reference” in relation to Frege’s postulation of truth-values as referents for sentences. I also consider in this connection Frege’s interpretation of quantification and his view that functions and concepts must be defined for all objects. I then present my own contrasting views on the reference of sentences. In §2 I discuss Boole’s introduction of the notion of universe of discourse and consider whether one of the issues implicit in John’s paper is a (...) confrontation between absolute interpretations of logic and relativistic interpretations of logic. I conclude with a brief examination of Tarski’s views on this issue. (shrink)

After some preliminary remarks in §1, I argue in §2 that Claudio’s considerations about my treatment of Quine’s Bizet-Verdi counterfactuals do not constitute a difficulty for the structural analysis of such counterfactuals. I discuss some of his other examples and argue that counterfactuals are ambiguous both structurally and contextually. I conclude with an examination of the principle of transitivity for counterfactuals.

Abel Lasalle Casanave’s comments on the rhetorical and dialectical aspects of the discussion of proof in chapters 19 to 21. I center most of my response on two issues raised in his concluding questions; the first being the hermeneutic aspect of the development of mathematics and of mathematical knowledge, and the second “the symbolic conception of mathematics” and the “algebraic mode of thought”.As considerações de Abel Lasalle Casanave dizem respeito aos aspectos retóricos e dialéticos da discussão da noção de prova (...) nos capítulos 19 à 21, e minha réplica está centrada em duas questões levantadas em suas observações finais. A primeira refere-se ao aspecto hermenêutico do desenvolvimento da matemática e do conhecimento matemático; e a segunda à “concepção simbólica da matemática” e ao “modo algébrico de pensar”. (shrink)

In §§1-2 I argue that Marco misidentifies my main objections to the Church and Gödel slingshot arguments and that his defense of these arguments does not overcome those objections. In §3 I discuss his criticisms of my theory of descriptions in relation to Church’s argument.

Guido Imaguire proposes an epistemological formulation of Ockham’s razor in terms of the notion of explanatory reduction. Although in my response I express reservations about some aspects of the specific formulations, I agree with the general epistemological idea.Guido Imaguire propõe uma formulação epistemológica da navalha de Occam em termos da noção de redução explicativa. Apesar de em minha réplica expressar reservas com respeito à alguns aspectos das formulações, concordo com a idéia geral epistemológica.

In §1 I explain that my rejection of possible states of affairs as a basis for an account of falsity is not part of a general rejection of modal notions but is a rejection of possible and impossible entities of any sort. I then show that my account of senses and of propositions is indeed a modal account. In §2 I examine some of Wittgenstein’s ideas about falsity, as presented by Luiz Carlos, in relation to my account of falsity and (...) negation. In §3 I discuss the modal aspects of identification for propositions. (shrink)

The question that I discuss in this paper is whether Frege has a criterion of identity for the objects the True and the False that he introduces as denotation of sentences. My answer is that he does not, either in general or within the system of Basic Laws.

In §1 I examine the connections between my account of logical properties and Tarski’s account of logical notions. In §2 I briefly present some of my views on modality and the basis for my claim that there are intensional as well as extensional relations between properties. In §3 I compare my views on the nature of logic and of mathematics with Gödel’s views.

In his paper John Corcoran examines in detail many issues relating to logical form, and raises some questions about my formulations. In my response I emphasize two main distinctions that may clear up some of the issues. One is the distinction between logical forms, in the sense of logical properties of an abstract character, and logical form, in the sense in which we speak of the logical form of a sentence, or of a proposition. Another is the distinction, emphasized by (...) Boole, between primary propositions , and secondary propositions —which I illustrate through the distinction between predicate negation and sentential negation.Em seu artigo John Corcoran examina em detalhe muitas questões sobre forma lógica e levanta alguns problemas relativos à minhas formulações. Na réplica enfatizo duas distinções principais, que podem esclarecer algumas questões. A primeira é a distinção entre formas lógicas, no sentido de propriedades lógicas de caráter abstrato, e forma lógica, no sentido em que falamos da forma lógica de uma sentença ou de uma proposição. A segunda é a distinção, enfatizada por Boole, entre proposições primárias e proposições secundárias , exemplificada com a distinção entre negação predicativa e negação sentencial. (shrink)

Oscar Esquisabel gives an overview of Chapter 13, tracing connections with several philosophers and traditions in philosophy, especially with the hermeneutic tradition. In my response I address his concluding questions about hermeneutics, and about the relation between senses, meanings, and concepts.Oscar Esquisabel apresenta uma visão geral do capítulo 13, traçando conexões com vários filósofos e tradições filosóficas, especialmente com a tradição hermenêutica. Dirijo minha réplica à suas questões finais sobre hermenêutica e sobre a relação entre sentidos, significados e conceitos.

Mark Wilson argues that in order to make physical first-order properties suitable for inclusion in the bottom levels of a logical hierarchy of properties, their proper treatment must take into account the methods of applied mathematics. I agree that the methods of applied mathematics are essential for studying physical properties, and in my response focus on the nature of the logical hierarchy and on the requirements of classical logic.Mark Wilson argumenta que um tratamento adequado para tornar as propriedades físicas de (...) primeira ordem apropriadas para inclusão nos níveis inferiores de uma hierarquia de propriedades lógicas deve levar em consideração os métodos da matemática aplicada. Concordo que os métodos da matemática aplicada são essenciais para estudar as propriedades físicas, e em minha réplica enfoco a natureza da hierarquia lógica e os requisitos da lógica clássica. (shrink)

In §1 I suggest that although my theory of truth as identification is not a correspondence theory of truth in the sense of these terms used by the logical positivists, it can nevertheless be naturally interpreted as a correspondence theory of truth. In §2 I argue that whereas a correspondence theory of truth need not be a realist theory of truth, any sufficiently elaborate realist theory of truth should be interpretable as a correspondence theory of truth. I illustrate this with (...) Frege’s denotational theory of truth. (shrink)

Marco Ruffino compares the notion of sense developed in my book with Frege’s notion of sense, and argues that whereas there are ontological similarities, my notion faces epistemological and semantic problems. In my response I discuss the various issues he raises, arguing that my notion of sense can confront them at least as well as Frege’s notion.Marco Ruffino compara a noção de sentido desenvolvida em meu livro com a noção de sentido de Frege, argumentando que mesmo havendo semelhanças ontológicas, minha (...) noção está sujeita a problemas epistemológicos e semânticos. Em minha réplica considero os problemas levantados por Marco, argumentando que minha noção de sentido pode confrontá-los pelo menos tão adequadamente quanto a noção de Frege. (shrink)

In §§1-2 I consider some issues that Guillermo raises in connection with Husserl, especially the distinction between the notion of state of affairs and the more general notion of situation of affairs conceived as a common substratum for different states of affairs. After a few remarks about Church’s slingshot argument in §3, I discuss several objections that Guillermo raises to my interpretation of Frege , to Kripke’s notion of rigid designator and to my objections to Tarski’s semantic conception of truth.

In §1 I discuss Dedekind and Frege on the logical and structural analysis of natural numbers and present my view that the logical analysis of the notion of number involves a combination of their analyses. In §2 I answer some of the specific questions that Abel raises in connection with Chapter 9 of Logical Forms.

In §1 I reply to Jairo’s objections to my account of truth and falsity showing that my account of falsity does not imply that false sentences refer to something. In §2 I argue that Jairo’s main objection to my account of propositions as abstract properties is based on a misunderstanding concerning the purpose of this account. In §3 I examine Jairo’s suggestion that contradictory sentences can be said to describe possible states of affairs.

Mr. Bishop's article in C.Q., xlix . 187–92 on Palatine Apollo calls for an answer from me, since I am still alive to give it, though my own study dates from 1910 and was published in J.R.S. for 1914, pp. 193–226. So far away is this publication, and my offprints have for so long been exhausted, that scholars of my generation need to go to university libraries to refer to it, and recent generations do not know it at all. From (...) Lugli's book on Rome they do not gather the details which convinced Boni that I was right, because he omitted some of the most cogent from mention. (shrink)