La société contemporaine connaît de nombreux conflits qui tendent à mettre à mal le vivre-ensemble harmonieux. Le pluralisme qui caractérise les sociétés contemporaines est souvent considéré comme étant l’origine de ces conflits. C’est pourquoi le libéralisme consensualiste cherche une sorte d’entente permanente entre les différentes oppositions au sein de la société afin de résorber ces conflits et ainsi d’éviter l’explosion sociale qui demeure une menace incessante. Seulement le consensualisme ne semble pas être si efficace pour mettre fin aux conflits sociaux (...) qui s’accroissent de plus en plus. Pire, l’on a l’impression qu’au lieu d’être une voie d’apaisement social, le consensualisme constitue plutôt une source supplémentaire de conflits. C’est la raison pour laquelle le consensus falsifiable apparaît de nos jours comme une alternative plus adaptée aux réalités des sociétés contemporaines pour atténuer ces conflits. (shrink)

A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Second Edition, offers increased flexibility with topic coverage, allowing for choice in how to utilize the textbook in a course. The author has made this edition more accessible to better meet the needs of today's undergraduate mathematics and philosophy students. It is intended for the reader who has not studied logic previously, but who has some experience in mathematical reasoning. Material is presented on computer science issues such as computational complexity and database queries, with additional (...) coverage of introductory material such as sets. Increased flexibility of the text, allowing instructors more choice in how they use the textbook in courses. Reduced mathematical rigour to fit the needs of undergraduate students. (shrink)

For people to contribute to discourse, they must do more than utter the right sentence at the right time. The basic requirement is that they add to their common ground in an orderly way. To do this, we argue, they try to establish for each utterance the mutual belief that the addressees have understood what the speaker meant well enough for current purposes. This is accomplished by the collective actions of the current contributor and his or her partners, and these (...) result in units of conversation called contributions. We present a model of contributions and show how it accounts for a variety of features of everyday conversations. (shrink)

The intention of the present essay is to urge a reconsideration of the Realism-Phenomenalism-Issue, mainly and primarily in regard to the interpretation of scientific hypotheses; secondarily also relating to the basic problems of epistemology.

Social robots serve people as tutors, caretakers, receptionists, companions, and other social agents. People know that the robots are mechanical artifacts, yet they interact with them as if they were actual agents. How is this possible? The proposal here is that people construe social robots not as social agents per se, but as depictions of social agents. They interpret them much as they interpret ventriloquist dummies, hand puppets, virtual assistants, and other interactive depictions of people and animals. Depictions as a (...) class consist of three physical scenes with part-by-part mappings between them: (a) a base scene (the raw physical artifact), (b) the depiction proper (the artifact construed as a depiction), and (c) the scene depicted (the scene people are to imagine). With social robots, evidence shows people form the same three scenes plus mappings: They perceive the raw machinery of a robot, construe it as a depiction of a character, and, using the depiction as a guide, engage in the pretense that they are interacting with the character depicted. With social robots, people also recognize three classes of agents – the characters depicted, the intended recipients of the depictions (those who view or interact with the robots), and the authorities responsible for the robots (the designers, makers, and owners). Construing social robots as depictions, we argue, accounts for many phenomena not covered by alternative models. (shrink)

Using Figurative Language presents results from a multidisciplinary decades-long study of figurative language that addresses the question, 'Why don't people just say what they mean?' This research empirically investigates goals speakers or writers have when speaking figuratively, and concomitantly, meaning effects wrought by figurative language usage. These 'pragmatic effects' arise from many kinds of figurative language including metaphors, verbal irony, idioms, proverbs and others. Reviewed studies explore mechanisms - linguistic, psychological, social and others - underlying pragmatic effects, some traced to (...) basic processes embedded in human sensory, perceptual, embodied, cognitive, social and schematic functioning. The book should interest readers, researchers and scholars in fields beyond psychology, linguistics and philosophy that share interests in figurative language - including language studies, communication, literary criticism, neuroscience, semiotics, rhetoric and anthropology. (shrink)

PAUL OPPENHEIM and HILARY PUTNAM Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis 1. Introduction 1.1. The expression "Unity of Science" is often encountered, ...

Idealism has always struggled against the hedonistic trends in philosophy which see the goal of existence in the happiness of the individual and which identify happiness with pleasure. Idealism insists that happiness is a subjective concept which makes man dependent upon chance and accident. Happiness, it holds, does not lead beyond the particular interests of the individual, whereas the progress of mankind, reason in history, demands the subordination of particular interests to the whole. So long as happiness is defined as (...) the state of satisfaction of the isolated individual, it must remain an abstract concept. It expresses the condition that the satisfaction of one individual within an antagonistic society is only possible at the expense of another. The essential relationships between men cannot be permeated with happiness when the life process of society is driven on by work for the sake of profit and mere self-preservation» when the destiny of the individual is shaped by the blind mechanism of the market. Only brief moments of immediate pleasure are possible. To the extent that hedonism holds firmly to the subjective demand for happiness in the face of the demands of a reified world, it expresses a materialist protest. This protest, however, is itself imprisoned within the antagonistic society, in that it is concerned with the satisfaction of the isolated individual.But the concept of happiness points beyond the isolation of the subject. His personal pleasure and satisfaction is not necessarily happiness, his immediate interest is not necessarily his real interest. The content of happiness is to be approached through a consideration of its truth. The needs and satisfactions of the individual are not given once and for all, but are determined by the social relationships in which they arise. Until now they have borne the stigma of universal injustice and lack of freedom. The disciplining of the masses for the modern labor process has brought with it corporal and spiritual atrophy, suppression, and incapacity for happiness. Real happiness presupposes a transformed organization of society, in which the realization of individual potentialities will no longer be diverted by internalization and no longer made meaningless by competition. In its real form, happiness is identical with freedom. It ceases to be merely a subjective feeling and becomes the real constitution of mankind.Les doctrines hédonistes de la philosophie, qui voyaient dans le bonheur le but de l’existence individuelle et qui confondaient le bonheur avec le plaisir, ont toujours été combattues par l’idéalisme. On leur opposait que le bonheur est un principe subjectif, qui soumet les hommes à l’arbitraire et au hasard. Le bonheur ne saurait être l’essentiel, car le bonheur ne mène pas au delà des intérêts particuliers des individus. Le progrès de l’humanité, la raison dans l’histoire exigent la subordination des intérêts particuliers à l’universel. Si longtemps que le bonheur est déterminé comme l’état de satisfaction de l’individu isolé, il reste un concept abstrait. Il dénote un état de fait : dans la société antagoniste, la satisfaction de l’individu n’est possible qu’aux dépens des autres. Le travail en vue du profit et de l’intérêt strictement personnel est constitutif du procès social, la destinée de l’individu dépend des mécanismes aveugles du marché : dans ces conditions toutes les relations entre les hommes ne peuvent être fondées sur le bonheur. Pour celui-ci ne subsistent que le loisir et la jouissance immédiate. Dans la mesure où l’hédonisme maintient la prétention subjective au bonheur, face aux exigences de l’universalité devenue chose, il représente une protestation matérialiste. Mais la protestation reste elle-même liée à la société contradictoire dès lors qu’elle s’arrête à la satisfaction de l’individu isolé. Le concept de bonheur dépasse l’isolement du sujet. La joie, le consentement de celui-ci n’est pas encore bonheur, son intérêt immédiat n’est pas encore son intérêt authentique. Il est légitime de poser à propos du contenu du bonheur la question de vérité. Besoins et satisfactions des individus ne sont point encore données ultimes, ils sont constitués par les rapports sociaux dans lesquels ils apparaissent. Jusqu’à ce jour dans l’histoire, les besoins portent la marque de la non-liberté et de l’injustice générales. Pour former les masses à la discipline moderne du travail, on les a mutilées physiquement et psychiquement, on les a condamnées à refouler leurs désirs. Onlesarendues dans une large mesure incapables de jouissance. Le bonheur réel suppose une forme autre de la société dans laquelle l’accomplissement des possibilités individuelles ne sera plus détourné par l’intériorisation, ni privé de sens par la concurrence. En sa figure véritable, le bonheur est identique à la liberté, il cesse d’être un état affectif purement subjectif et devient la constitution réelle de l’humanité. (shrink)

The commonly accepted interpretations ofFermat's method of extreme values tell us that this is a curious method, based on an approximate equality and burdened with several contradictions withinFermat's writings. In this article, both a philological approach taking into account that there is only one manuscript written inFermat's own handwriting and a mathematical approach taking into account that brilliant mathematicians usually are not so very confused when talking about their own central mathematical ideas are combined. A new hypothesis is put forward (...) which renders the mathematics clear and coherent and which does not need the assumption thatFermat was confused. Probably a number of words have been added byCarcavy in two ofFermat's papers. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to make clear that the widely recognized formulations of the principle of induction do not express the most fundamental rule of induction; that the current view concerning the probability of induction must be revised in terms of a frequency theory of probability; that on this basis the problem of induction in its traditional form is a pseudo-problem; and that the principle of induction must be interpreted as a pragmatic or operational maxim.

In this rejoinder to the critical comments elicited by my essay “Existential Hypotheses,” I propose to deal first with the challenge coming from the avowedly different philosophical outlook of Professor Churchman. My other critics, Professors Frank, Hempel, Nagel and Ramsperger, on the whole, share my basic conception of the tasks of philosophy of science and epistemology, even if they dissent in one important respect or another from the special solution I suggested. But since I discern even in Professor Nagel's remarks (...) a pragmatist or instrumentalist strain akin to the major contentions of Professor Churchman, it will be well to begin with a defense and further clarification of my underlying point of view. Only after this restatement of my platform will I undertake to defend semantic realism against the specific criticisms advanced by the last four authors. (shrink)

Excerpt from Essay in PhysicsIn many respects this book does not follow present trends in physics and may therefore prove controversial. I cite those eminent names only in order to express my thanks and not in any degree as invoking their authority in support of the propositions and arguments put forward. These scientists have of course not been asked to sponsor this book either as a whole or in any part. If it is to be criticized as heterodox it must (...) stand on its own feet and speak for itself.About the PublisherForgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.comThis book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

Preface -- Acknowledgments -- A note on examples -- 1. The coin toss -- 2. Deviance -- 3. Omission -- 4. Imprecision -- 5. Indirectness -- 6. Figurativeness -- 7. Language play -- 8. THE social media -- 9. The art of language -- 10. The end game -- Epilogue: A clearing revealing an eclipse -- References -- Index.

I am pleased to receive the reigns of Metaphor and Symbol from Ray Gibbs, who has served as Editor for no less than 19 years. Ray has guided the journal successfully over this time, an era of great...