En este artículo, exploro la posibilidad de aplicar los métodos y resultados de la Agregación de Juicios al problema del desacuerdo lógico. Es decir, desarrollo y evalúo maneras en que individuos que desacuerdan lógicamente pueden generar una lógica colectiva. Pruebo una versión de la paradoja discursiva, donde el voto por mayoría en un grupo de lógicos estructurales puede generar lógicas subestructurales, y luego elaboro un resultado de imposibilidad más general. Más adelante, analizo diferentes maneras de evitar la paradoja, (...) en particular aquellas que apelan a restricciones de dominio. Finalmente, analizo brevemente la aplicación de estos resultados al debate sobre paradojas semánticas. (shrink)

En este artículo, ofrezco una caracterización del desacuerdo lógico. Segúnmi noción, los desacuerdos meramente verbales en lógica son inusuales.La mayoría de los desacuerdos lógicos son simplemente desacuerdosdescriptivos sobre el mundo o sobre el significado de los conectivos, mientrasque otros son desacuerdos evaluativos sobre la noción de validez.

Bazzocchi disposes the text of the Tractatus in a user-friendly manner, exactly as Wittgenstein's decimals advise. This discloses the logical form of the book by distinct reading units, linked into a fashioned hierarchical tree. The text becomes much clearer and every reader can enjoy, finally, its formal and literary qualities.

Bazzocchi disposes the text of the Tractatus in a user-friendly manner, exactly as Wittgenstein's decimals advise. This discloses the logical form of the book by distinct reading units, linked into a fashioned hierarchical tree. The text becomes much clearer and every reader can enjoy, finally, its formal and literary qualities.

ResumenEl presente escrito explora los alcances de la existencia de desacuerdos, particularmente si a partir de estos se sigue una posición escéptica respecto a la posibilidad de conocer, centrado en aquellos tópicos que son foco de controversia o falta de consenso. Un presupuesto de esta discusión es que, ante la ausencia de consenso sobre p, se sigue que no se conoce p o que se debe suspender el juicio sobre p. Se asume que la falta de consenso evidencia algún problema (...) con el contenido de cierta creencia, pues en su defecto p sería creído por todos y cada uno. La posición denominada justificacionism abre la posibilidad de que existan desacuerdos razonables, y por lo tanto eventualmente irresolubles. Se considera el alcance del fenómeno de la post verdad en estas discusiones, lo que permite distinguir entre desacuerdos profundos (desacuerdos sobre ciertos presupuestos teóricos) y desacuerdos gratuitos (desacuerdos sin mayor justificación de porque se rechaza o se suspende el juicio respecto a p), lo que hace necesario rechazar que todo desacuerdo es válido por defecto.Palabras clave: desacuerdo; escepticismo; racionalidad; intuición; post-verdad. (shrink)

En este artículo introductorio al número especial “Desacuerdos Profundos: Precisiones y Exploraciones”, se presentan los artículos que comprenden este número brindando contexto a sus distintas temáticas, las cuales van desde la naturaleza de los desacuerdos profundos y su resolución, hasta sus conexiones con debates filosóficos y fenómenos sociales.

Disagreements about scientific ontology have frequently been reconstructed as the result of a dispute between rival epistemic stances. In this paper, (i) we characterize some of these disagreements as deep disagreements. In addition, we show that deep disagreements about scientific ontology can arise not only from the adoption of different epistemic stances, but also between positions that fall within the same stance. The development of this point allows us, in turn, to establish a distinction between types of deep disagreement and (...) to explore the possibility that there are differences of degree between them. (shrink)

Los objetivos de este trabajo son dos: primero, integrar al debate de la racionalidad de las posiciones en desacuerdo la noción de paridad epistémica en términos de “horizonte de paridad”; segundo, argumentar que tanto el punto de vista firme como el conciliador o el escéptico son eficaces en el manejo de nuestrasatribuciones de conocimiento. La alternancia de estas posiciones es una actitud racional y estas dependen de si el desacuerdo es en primera, segunda o tercera persona. Se concluye (...) que la racionalidad de las elecciones acerca de las posiciones en desacuerdo descansa sobre la fuerza de nuestro carácter a la hora de emprender determinadas discusiones, ya sea con otros pares o con nosotros mismos. (shrink)

Este artículo hace parte de un proyecto de investigación que, en general, busca determinar si algunos desacuerdos pueden ser comprendidos como un campo de argumentación en el que los disensos no se resuelven a pesar de que no necesariamente hay malentendidos lingüísticos o conceptuales y en virtud de la naturaleza de la constitución de algunos fenómenos sociales humanos. En este artículo se arguye que para comprender en qué sentido hablan de lo mismo dos personas que discrepan, para comprender un sentido (...) en el que el malentendido no sustituye al desacuerdo, para eso, no son suficientes y más bien habría que disolver las siguientes oposiciones: Primero, la oposición entre la interpretación de cada uno y el objeto sobre el cual se ejerce la interpretación; y, segundo, entre la concepción que cada uno defi ende y el concepto al que los discrepantes se refieren. Con este fi n se disponen dos partes, en la primera se exponen tres explicaciones del desacuerdo que constituyen los antecedentes de esta discusión y en la segunda se expone la cuestión de si los querellantes hablan de lo mismo. (shrink)

Desacuerdos, deliberación y razones públicas. Resumen de Tesis de Doctorado en Filosofía de Daniel Busdygan.

En primer lugar, se presenta el fenómeno de los desacuerdos básicos entre pares epistémicos (esto es, desacuerdos acerca de la naturaleza de la evidencia o el método apropiado para evaluarla) y se argumenta que son relevantes y merecen atención. En segundo lugar, se discute el argumento estándar a favor del conciliacionismo. Finalmente, se defiende que las razones típicas para conciliar no se aplican en los desacuerdos básicos entre pares, de manera que en estos casos está permitido ser obstinado.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein: three parallel tree-structured editions. (1) Tree-structured arrangement of the German text, edited by David G. Stern, Joachim Schulte and Katia Saporiti. (2) Tree-structured arrangement of the English translation by Ogden and Ramsey, edited by David G. Stern. (3) Tree-structured arrangement of the English translation by Pears and McGuinness, edited by David G. Stern.

El pensamiento crítico parece ser la piedra de toque de la relevancia de la filosofía, aquello que nos permite mejorar nuestro modo de razonar. El propósito de este artículo es desarrollar una opinión extraordinariamente poco popular que nos parece, sin embargo, obviamente verdadera: El pensamiento crítico no es patrimonio exclusivo de la filosofía; probablemente ni siquiera es la filosofía la disciplina de la que cabe esperarse la contribución más crucial al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. Sin embargo, la tesis principal de (...) este trabajo no es negativa. Por el contrario, argumentamos aquí que hay ámbitos en los que la filosofía hace contribuciones genuinas y cruciales para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. El ejemplo que nosotros exploramos pertenece al ámbito del desacuerdo y del pensamiento conjunto. Para ello, proponemos pasar de una perspectiva exclusivamente individualista del pensamiento crítico a una perspectiva que incluya también la interacción con otros. La filosofía, defendemos, aporta herramientas útiles para pensar con otros, para que nuestros desacuerdos sean fructíferos, “cuidados”. En este sentido, como en otros, la filosofía sí contribuye al desarrollo del pensamiento crítico. El alcance de esta contribución, pensamos, solo puede verse cuando se presta atención a los detalles. (shrink)

El problema de los desacuerdos jurídicos puede ser planteado de diferentes modos. En una de sus versiones, el problema viene dado porque el positivismo asume que los conceptos jurídicos son criteriológicos, por lo que el desacuerdo entre juristas carece de sentido al ser una disputa meramente verbal. Plunkett y Sundell han ofrecido una respuesta novedosa a esta crítica que sostiene que no hace falta compartir un concepto para discrepar con sentido. En este trabajo analizaré esa respuesta y ofreceré una (...) serie de críticas contra ella. (shrink)

Perhaps the most important work of philosophy written in the twentieth century, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus first appeared in 1921 and was the only philosophical work that Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) published during his lifetime. Written in short, carefully numbered paragraphs of extreme compression and brilliance, it immediately convinced many of its readers and captivated the imagination of all. Its chief influence, at first, was on the Logical Positivists of the 1920s and 30s, but many other philosophers were stimulated by its philosophy (...) of language, finding attractive, if ultimately unsatisfactory, its view that propositions were pictures of reality. Perhaps most of all, Wittgenstein himself, after his return to philosophy in the late 1920s, was fascinated by its vision of an inexpressible, crystalline world of logical relationships. The posthumous publication of other writings has, therefore, only served to reawaken interest in the Tractatus and to illuminate its more neglected aspects. David Pears and Brian McGuinness revised their translation in the light of Wittgenstein's own suggestions and comments in his correspondence with C.K. Ogden about the first translation. In addition, this edition contains the introduction by Bertrand Russell which appeared in the original English translation. (shrink)

Los últimos textos de Martha Nussbaum representan un esfuerzo por presentar una versión del enfoque de las capacidades que se enmarque dentro del liberalismo político rawlsiano. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar que esta vinculación es defectuosa porque, en primer lugar, los desacuerdos morales profundos entre los ciudadanos son disueltos por medio de una petición de principio y porque, en segundo término, la estabilidad política no se halla suficientemente garantizada.Martha Nussbaum's latest works attempt to give a version of the (...) capability approach that could be consistent with rawlsian political liberalism. The main purpose of this article is to show that this connection is flawed because, first, the deep moral disagreement among citizens are dissolved by a petitio principii and, in second term, because political stability is not enough sustained. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, to study strategic disagreements, i.e., those situations in which one of the parties uses an expression that allows it to restructure the debate and, in this way, obtain some strategic advantage to advance its political agenda. The paper examines this type of disagreement in a specific context: the parliamentary debates in the Spanish Congress of Deputies during the VIII Legislature. Second, to show that strategic disagreements constitute antagonistic conflict dynamics, i.e., situations in (...) which one or both parties are denied a morally adequate treatment of their points of view. In this way, strategic disagreements prevent the development of the dynamics necessary to manage the conflict in a cooperative way. (shrink)

Este artículo estudia las observaciones tardías de Wittgenstein sobre los des-acuerdos morales. Primero, examina las prácticas de justificación y dar razones en los desacuerdos morales. Argumenta que, para Wittgenstein, las razones morales son descripciones que se utilizan para justificar una evaluación moral. Segundo, explica que la idoneidad y el carácter concluyente de las razones y justificaciones morales dependen de su atractivo para quienquiera que se presenten, no de cómo es el mundo. Tercero, muestra que las observaciones de Wittgenstein sobre el (...) carácter inconcluyente de las razones y justificaciones mora-les no implican un compromiso con el relativismo moral. Finalmente, muestra como las observaciones de Wittgenstein pueden usarse en futuras investigaciones para desarrollar una nueva imagen de los desacuerdos morales profundos. -/- This paper studies Wittgenstein’s later observations on moral disagreements. First, it examines the practice of reason-giving and justification in moral disagreement. It argues that, for Wittgenstein, moral reasons are descriptions which are used to justify a moral evaluation. Second, it explains that the adequacy and conclusiveness of moral reasons and justifications are dependent on their appeal to whomever they are given, not on how the world is. Third, it shows that Wittgenstein’s remarks on the inconclusiveness of moral reasons and justification do not entail a commitment to moral relativism. Lastly, it shows how Wittgenstein’s observations can be used in future investigations to develop a new picture of deep moral disagreements. (shrink)

This reissue of his collection of early essays, Logico-Linguistic Papers, is published with a brand new introduction by Professor Strawson but, apart from minor ...

This volume presents two Leibnizian writings, the Specimen of Philosophical Questions Collected from the Law and the Dissertation on Perplexing Cases. These works, originally published in 1664 and 1666, constitute, respectively, Leibniz's thesis for the title of Master of Philosophy and his doctoral dissertation in law. Besides providing evidence of the earliest development of Leibniz's thought and amazing anticipations of his mature views, they present a genuine intellectual interest, for the freshness and originality of Leibniz's reflections on a striking variety (...) of logico-philosophical puzzles drawn from the law. The Specimen addresses puzzling issues resulting from apparent conflicts between law and philosophy (the latter broadly understood as comprising also mathematics, as well as empirical sciences). The Dissertation addresses cases whose solution is puzzling because of the convoluted logical form of legal dispositions and contractual clauses, or because of conflicting priorities between concurring parties. In each case, Leibniz dissects the problems with the greatest ingenuity, disentangling their different aspects, and proposing solutions always reasonable and sometimes surprising. And he does not refrain from peppering his intellectual acrobatics with some humorous comments. bbbbbb. (shrink)

El trabajo se propone, en primer lugar, analizar el desacuerdo sin falta como elemento central en los juicios de gusto, y examinar tres posiciones: contextualismo deíctico, no deíctico y relativismo. En segundo lugar, mostrar cómo el contextualismo deíctico y el relativismo dan cuenta de dicho fenómeno, pero solo el segundo puede hacerlo y acomodarse a un fenómeno central en esos desacuerdos: la retractación.

In this article I present an answer to the problem of deep disagreements posed by Robert Fogelin (1985). According to this author, there are disagreements that cannot be resolved rationally because they refer to “framework propositions”. I argue that, making certain distinctions, Fogelin’s conclusion is less serious than initially thought. The first distinction is between resolving and overcoming di-sagreements. From the fact that disagreements cannot be resolved, it does not follow that they cannot be overcome in other ways. Thus, together (...) with resolu-tion, the parties can overcome disagreements through means such as negotia-tion, mediation, arbitration or suspension of judgment. The second distinction is between theoretical and practical disagreements. As I argue, while for theo-retical disagreements the fact that they cannot be resolved implies that the only way to overcome them is by suspending judgment, for practical disagreements it is not possible to suspend judgment, but there are other ways to “manage di-sagreements”. Having made these distinctions, I conclude by pointing out that the fact that certain disagreements are deep does not prevent them from being overcome, which reflects a pluralistic view of the argumentation that should be further explored. (shrink)

Conciliatory views on disagreement claim that one should “split the difference” between the epistemic peers’ opinions. Nevertheless, when they apply to the disagreement on conciliatory positions themselves, they give incoherent instructions. A semi-conciliatory position is one that accepts that the peers’ opinions are part of the whole body of evidence relevant in these situations. If one adopts this kind of view, all cases that seems to favor conciliatory views can be explained, and without compromising with the anti–intuitive consequences conciliatory positions (...) have. In particular, a semi-conciliatory view is not condemned to give incoherent instructions when applied to disagreement about it. (shrink)

Las teorías relativistas acerca de las atribuciones de conocimiento sostienen que el valor de verdad de una atribución de conocimiento está determinado por el contexto de evaluación de la atribución. Me ocuparé de dos de las principales críticas que se le han formulado al relativismo. Por un lado, Jason Stanley niega que el relativismo pueda dar cuenta de la factividad del conocimiento. Por otra parte, Manuel García Carpintero sostiene que el relativismo se compromete con una inaceptable imagen sobre las normas (...) que rigen la práctica asertiva. Responderé ambas objeciones. Presentaré primero un modo de dar cuenta de la factividad no evaluado por Stanley. La respuesta a García Carpintero, por su parte, supondrá distinguir en qué sentido la verdad es, y en que otro no es, una norma de la aserción.Relativist’s theories about knowledge attributions maintain that the truth value of such assertions is partially fixed by the assessment context. I will answer two of the main objections that it has received. On the one side, Jason Stanley denies that relativism can explain the factivity of knowledge. On the other side, Manuel García Carpintero believes that relativism is commited to an unacceptable picture of assertion. The answer to Stanley’s objection involves a way of explaining factivity that he has not evaluated. The answer to García Carpintero involves distinguishing in what way truth is, and in what way it isn’t, a norm of assertion. (shrink)

Scientific disagreements constitute valuable resources for reflecting on epistemic peer disagreements. In this essay I engage in the debate whether epistemic peers who disagree should be conciliatory or steadfast by examining how scientists actually react in the so called nature-nurture debate. The main conclusion of the analysis is that, when taking into consideration concrete epistemic practices with peers responding to different epistemic perspectives, scientists have good reasons to be steadfast. At the same time, the theoretical conceptualizations of the epistemology of (...) peer disagreement illuminates certain aspects of the nature-nurture debate, such as its long persistence. Therefore, this article contributes both to the debate over the epistemology of disagreement and to the understanding of a never-ending controversy in the life sciences. (shrink)

This paper explores disagreements due to active ignorance as a kind of deep di-sagreement. It recovers Fogelin’s notion of “deep disagreement”, which stressed the limits of argumentation to build consensus and to dissipate deep disagree-ments; and it discusses his contention that deep disagreements cannot be sol-ved through rational resolution. The paper examines a disagreement that has practical implications and involves subjects asymmetrically situated in a web of power relations and builds on that case to conclude that disagreements due to ignorance (...) are not impervious to rational resolution. Specifically, it argues that practices of “epistemic activism” (Medina 2019) count as rational and reasona-ble mechanisms of resolution of deep disagreements due to active ignorance. (shrink)

In this article, we defend the existence of disagreements in areas of discourse that involve anagent’s perspective, as the semantic theory known as “Radical Relativism” putsit. In the face of the idea that such disagreements exist and can only be explainedby a radical relativist semantics, contextualist theorists have offered arguments to deny their existence or to provide an explanation of them which does not imply departing from the standard semantic theory. These arguments will be our targetof criticism. We raise the (...) debate in terms of the distinction between semantic andpragmatic aspects of disagreement, and we defend a simple vision of disagreement, which we believe the relativist must have in mind if he wants to argue that disagreements belonging to areas that involve an agent’s perspective can count as evidence in his favor. (shrink)

This paper studies Wittgenstein’s later observations on moral disagreements. First, it examines the practice of reason-giving and justification in moral disa-greement. It argues that, for Wittgenstein, moral reasons are descriptions which are used to justify a moral evaluation. Second, it explains that the adequacy and conclusiveness of moral reasons and justifications are dependent on their appeal to whomever they are given, not on how the world is. Third, it shows that Wittgenstein’s remarks on the inconclusiveness of moral reasons and jus-tification (...) do not entail a commitment to moral relativism. Lastly, it shows how Wittgenstein’s observations can be used in future investigations to develop a new picture of deep moral disagreements. (shrink)

In this paper, we address the connection between deep disagreements and the rise of affective polarization. Many contemporary approaches to deep disagreement conceive it in atomistic terms, and their practical approaches only explore the consequences of their particular theories. In contrast, we offer a re-lational approach to the phenomenon, consistent with the recent political turn in analytic philosophy. Specifically, we argue that the notion of deep disagree-ment must be approached by taking into account the practical goal of detecting and intervening (...) on social injustices related to situations of deep disagreement. In this line, we briefly discuss both an operationalization of the notion and a way to take care of our disagreements. (shrink)

Physical dimensions like “mass”, “length”, “charge”, represented by the symbols [M], [L], [Q], are not numbers, but used as numbers to perform dimensional analysis in particular, and to write the equations of physics in general, by the physicist. The law of excluded middle falls short of explaining the contradictory meanings of the same symbols. The statements like “m tends to 0”, “r tends to 0”, “q tends to 0”, used by the physicist, are inconsistent on dimensional grounds because “m”, “r”, (...) “q” represent quantities with physical dimensions of [M], [L], [Q] respectively and “0” represents just a number—devoid of physical dimension. Consequently, due to the involvement of the statement “q tends to 0'', where q is the test charge” in the definition of electric field leads to either circular reasoning or a contradiction regarding the experimental verification of the smallest charge in the Millikan–Fletcher oil drop experiment. Considering such issues as problematic, by choice, I make an inquiry regarding the basic language in terms of which physics is written, with an aim of exploring how truthfully the verbal statements can be converted to the corresponding physico-mathematical expressions, where “physico-mathematical” signifies the involvement of physical dimensions. Such investigation necessitates an explanation by demonstration of “self inquiry”, “middle way”, “dependent origination”, “emptiness/relational existence”, which are certain terms that signify the basic tenets of Buddhism. In light of such demonstration I explain my view of “definition”; the relations among quantity, physical dimension and number; meaninglessness of “zero quantity” and the associated logico-linguistic fallacy; difference between unit and unity. Considering the importance of the notion of electric field in physics, I present a critical analysis of the definitions of electric field due to Maxwell and Jackson, along with the physico-mathematical conversions of the verbal statements. The analysis of Jackson’s definition points towards an expression of the electric field as an infinite series due to the associated “limiting process” of the test charge. However, it brings out the necessity of a postulate regarding the existence of charges, which nevertheless follows from the definition of quantity. Consequently, I explain the notion of undecidable charges that act as the middle way to resolve the contradiction regarding the Millikan–Fletcher oil drop experiment. In passing, I provide a logico-linguistic analysis, in physico-mathematical terms, of two verbal statements of Maxwell in relation to his definition of electric field, which suggests Maxwell’s conception of dependent origination of distance and charge ) and that of emptiness in the context of relative vacuum. This work is an appeal for the dissociation of the categorical disciplines of logic and physics and on the large, a fruitful merger of Eastern philosophy and Western science. Nevertheless, it remains open to how the reader relates to this work, which is the essence of emptiness. (shrink)

En las protestas realizadas durante el 2022 y el 2023 en Perú, la prensa mayoritaria señaló la presencia de azuzadores jugando un rol causal significativo en la participación de los otros protestantes. Por otro lado, evidencia empírica sobre nuestras intuiciones acerca de desacuerdos morales (Khoo y Knobe 2018), parece señalar que la diferencia en el trasfondo cultural de los participantes en un desacuerdo moral influye en nuestra percepción sobre si ambas partes podrían estar defendiendo, en sus propios términos, algo (...) simultáneamente correcto. En este artículo, defiendo la idea de que la propuesta de cierto tipo de azuzadores tenía como efecto comunicativo el impedir que pensemos en los participantes del conflicto como defendiendo posturas simultáneamente válidas. (shrink)

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus first appeared in 1921 and was the only philosophical work that Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) published during his lifetime. Written in short, carefully numbered paragraphs of extreme compression and brilliance, it immediately convinced many of its readers and captured the imagination of all. Its chief influence, at first, was on the Logical Positivists of the 1920s and 1930s, but many other philosophers were stimulated by its philosophy of language, finding attractive, even if ultimately unsatisfactory, its view that propositions (...) were pictures of reality. Perhaps most of all, its own author, after his return to philosophy in the late 1920s, was fascinated by its vision of an inexpressible, crystalline world of logical relationships. C.K. Ogden's translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus has a unique provenance. As revealed in Letters of C.K. Ogden (1973) and in correspondence in The Times Literary Supplement , Wittgenstein, Ramsey and Moore all worked with Ogden on the translation, which had Wittgenstein's complete approval. The very name Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was of Ogden's devising; and there is very strong feeling among philosophers that, among the differing translations of this work, Ogden's is the definitive text - and Wittgenstein's version of the English equivalent of his Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. (shrink)

In questo articolo si analizzano congiuntamente l'origine delle idee e il loro uso regolativo. A questo scopo si comincia considerando la connessione tra uso logico della ragione e definizione della ragione in generale come facoltà dei principi. Si considera poi come la rappresentazione di un incondizionato derivi necessariamente dall'uso logico, e come quindi questo implichi necessariamente un uso reale della ragione. Si considera poi come le varie rappresentazioni dell'incondizionato diano origine alle idee trascendentali. Infine, si considera l'uso regolativo delle idee (...) alla luce della pratica di inferire dal quale derivano. (shrink)

Perhaps the most important work of philosophy written in the twentieth century, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus first appeared in 1921 and was the only philosophical work that Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) published during his lifetime. Written in short, carefully numbered paragraphs of extreme compression and brilliance, it immediately convinced many of its readers and captivated the imagination of all. Its chief influence, at first, was on the Logical Positivists of the 1920s and 30s, but many other philosophers were stimulated by its philosophy (...) of language, finding attractive, if ultimately unsatisfactory, its view that propositions were pictures of reality. Perhaps most of all, Wittgenstein himself, after his return to philosophy in the late 1920s, was fascinated by its vision of an inexpressible, crystalline world of logical relationships. The posthumous publication of other writings has, therefore, only served to reawaken interest in the Tractatus and to illuminate its more neglected aspects. David Pears and Brian McGuinness revised their translation in the light of Wittgenstein's own suggestions and comments in his correspondence with C.K. Ogden about the first translation. In addition, this edition contains the introduction by Bertrand Russell which appeared in the original English translation. (shrink)

This book is meant as a part of the larger contemporary philosophical project of naturalizing logico-mathematical knowledge, and addresses the key question that motivates most of the work in this field: What is philosophically relevant about the nature of logico-mathematical knowledge in recent research in psychology and cognitive science? The question about this distinctive kind of knowledge is rooted in Plato’s dialogues, and virtually all major philosophers have expressed interest in it. The essays in this collection tackle this important philosophical (...) query from the perspective of the modern sciences of cognition, namely cognitive psychology and neuroscience. _Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge _contributes to consolidating a new, emerging direction in the philosophy of mathematics, which, while keeping the traditional concerns of this sub-discipline in sight, aims to engage with them in a scientifically-informed manner. A subsequent aim is to signal the philosophers’ willingness to enter into a fruitful dialogue with the community of cognitive scientists and psychologists by examining their methods and interpretive strategies. (shrink)

This article addresses the issue of social conflict from the epistemology of “deep disagreements”. Unlike other types of disagreements, deep ones generate incommensurability and cannot be corrected through rational argumentation, precisely because it can amplify the disagreement and exacerbate the problem. At the base of these divergences lie two irreconcilable epistemological positions: infallibilism and fallibilism. The infallibilist style of argumentation is embodied in attempts to find objective truth through final and conclusive evidence. Such a position induces them to defend their (...) own beliefs through vicious cycles that Carlos Pereda has called "argumentative vertigos", generating different silencing and devaluation strategies based on identity prejudices. Dizzying argumentation can even lead to an epistemic annihilation of the Other as a valid interlocutor. This phenomenon is presented as "epistemicide". In this work, the analysis of the frictions, tensions and disputes that can be activated in the course of the production and validation of knowledge is taken further, to probe the conditions under which devaluation and annihilation may be perpetrated. against himself. I call this phenomenon “autoepistemicide”, and I draw a comparison between this concept and its concomitant in the clinical setting: that of “Gaslighting”. Finally, I extract the most important reflections of the article, opening new horizons for future research. (shrink)

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ is among the most ambitious and influential philosophical works of the early twentieth century, and in recent years it has again occupied a central position in discussions of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Written in an austere and meticulous style, the _Tractatus_ addresses questions in the philosophy of language, logic, and metaphysics, and, according to its author, provides a solution to all the problems of philosophy. This Broadview Edition contains the original English translation by C.K. Ogden and Frank P. (...) Ramsey, annotated and revised by the editor for improved accuracy and clarity. Appendices include important material by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, as well as excerpts from Wittgenstein’s other writings. (shrink)

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus first appeared in 1921 and was the only philosophical work that Ludwig Wittgenstein published during his lifetime. Written in short, carefully numbered paragraphs of extreme compression and brilliance, it immediately convinced many of its readers and captured the imagination of all. Its chief influence, at first, was on the Logical Positivists of the 1920s and 1930s, but many other philosophers were stimulated by its philosophy of language, finding attractive, even if ultimately unsatisfactory, its view that propositions were (...) pictures of reality. Perhaps most of all, its own author, after his return to philosophy in the late 1920s, was fascinated by its vision of an inexpressible, crystalline world of logical relationships. C.K. Ogden's translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus has a unique provenance. As revealed in Letters of C.K. Ogden and in correspondence in The Times Literary Supplement , Wittgenstein, Ramsey and Moore all worked with Ogden on the translation, which had Wittgenstein's complete approval. The very name Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was of Ogden's devising; and there is very strong feeling among philosophers that, among the differing translations of this work, Ogden's is the definitive text - and Wittgenstein's version of the English equivalent of his Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung. (shrink)