A bare individual was conceived by Tichý as an individual such as if the property the individual instantiates is non-trivial , it is possible for the individual to lack it ; and for any trivial property that it cannot lack this kind of property. The exact readings of Tichý’s original formulations of are subjected to a detailed analysis to reveal that any of them is refutable by means of Cmorejian objection that there exist contingent properties which are partly essential . (...) To avoid such objection, the present paper attempts to rebuild Tichý’s definitions into viable ones. (shrink)

Pavel Materna proposed valuable explications of concept and conceptual system. After their introduction, we contrast conceptual systems with (a novel notion of) derivation systems. Derivation systems differ from conceptual systems especially in including derivation rules. This enables us to show close connections among the realms of objects, their concepts, and reasoning with concepts.

Two kinds of individuals are distinguished: abstract and concrete. Whereas abstract individuals belong to our conceptual sphere, concrete individuals (i.e. particulars) individuate the world of matter. A subject inquiring the external world projects abstract individuals onto the concrete ones (i.e. pieces of matter). Our theory offers a solution to various ontological and epistemological puzzles concerned with individuals, e.g., the Ship of Theseus, Polish Logician, problems with reidentification, or proper names.

In the first part of continuation of our study we classify and analyze passive forms which belong to four kinds of findings. Further we investigate cases of unsuccessful finding; they do not trivially correspond to kinds of succesful finding. We can distinguish: 1) not-finding for the reason of not-seeking, 2) not-finding for the reason of not finished seeking, 3) not-finding for the reason of stopped seeking whereas a) an instance of the respective seeked intension is not existing, b) an agent (...) was not enough skilful and the question of existence of an instance of the respective seeked intension remains open. (shrink)

Stephen Schiffer’s paradox of meaning shows that both Fregean and Russellian explanations of the individuals in thoughts-propositions are questionable. The author argues that it is Pavel Tichý’s semantical system, which offers a viable middle way between the extremes of the above mentioned approaches, solving the Schiffer’s paradox.

It is sometimes objected that Tichý’s logic is not a logic because it underestimates deduction, providing only logical analyses of expressions. I argue that this opinion is wrong. First of all, to detect valid arguments, which are formulated in a language, there needs to be logical analysis to ascertain which semantical entities are involved. Entailment is defined as an extralinguistic affair relating those constructions. The validity of an argument, composed of propositional constructions, stems from the properties of the constructions. Such (...) properties are displayed by the derivation rules of Tichý’s system of deduction. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to elucidate the notion of propositional function as exposed by Russell within the no-class theory of Principia Mathematica. According to realistic interpretation, propositional functions are metaphysical objects consisting of individuals, objectual variables and attributes. According to nominalistic interpretation, however, they are rather linguistic expressions. I argue that the latter interpretation is more adequate than the former one.

The problem of hyperintensional contexts, and the problem of logical omniscience, shows the severe limitation of possible-worlds semantics which is employed also in standard epistemic logic. As a solution, we deploy here hyperintensional semantics according to which the meaning of an expression is an abstract structured algorithm, namely Tichý's construction. Constructions determine the denotata of expressions. Propositional attitudes are modelled as attitudes towards constructions of truth values. Such a model of belief is, of course, inferentially restrictive. We therefore also propose (...) a model of implicit knowledge, which is the collection of a possible agent's explicit beliefs which are related through a derivation system mastered by the agent. A derivation system consists of beliefs and derivation rules by means of which the agent may derive beliefs different from the beliefs she is actually related to. Conditions imposed on the set of base beliefs and the set of rules capture the limitations of the agent's deriving capabilities. (shrink)

It is already known that Fitch’s knowability paradox can be solved by typing knowledge within ramified theory of types. One of the aims of this paper is to provide a greater defence of the approach against recently raised criticism. My second goal is to make a sufficient support for an assumption which is needed for this particular application of typing knowledge but which is not inherent to ramified theory of types as such.

V první části textu ukazuji, že paradox holiče není analogický Russellově paradoxu, ba že to vůbec není paradox. Poté se stručně věnuji otázce jeho pravděpodobného historického původu i původu jeho známých verzí. V závěru diskutuji zdroj jeho údajné paradoxnosti.

Although finding does not seem to be logically and philosophically so much interesting as seeking, the present study gives exhaustive survey of logical analyses corresponding to kinds of finding . There are four basic groups of findings : I) finding by accidence, II) finding after seeking which is typically relation between an agent and an intension, III) finding after finding an instance of intension to which was an agent related by seeking, IV) finding pejorativelly reported . Only type II) can (...) be considered as a notional attitude because it is a relation to an intension ; moreover, this relation is unique in the sense that agent is related just and only to one exact intension. (shrink)

Ontology of a Musical Work: Platonism vs. "Platonism".

Tato stať je zamýšlena jako úvod do spojité problematiky explikace pravdivosti a sémantic-kých paradoxů, které onu explikaci pronásledují. Tyto paradoxy jsou viděny jako prostředek ukázání, že nedostatečně promyšlená explikace našeho pojmu pravdivosti (významu pravdi-vostního predikátu) je explikací nevyhovující. Poté jsou předvedeny rysy obou klasických přístupů, Russellovy teorie typů a Tarského hierarchie metajazyků. Nakonec jsou podány zá-kladní ideje hlavních názorových škol, které přišly poté.

Zatímco v případě otázek rigidity singulárních termínů panuje obecná shoda, v případě rigidity predikátů tomu tak překvapivě není. Záměrem této statě je opřít distinkci rigidní / nerigidní o jasné pojmy, jmenovitě o pojem reference v určité sémantické teorii. V důsledku toho lze podat rigorózní definici pojmu rigidního designátoru individua. Tato definice je pak přímočaře adaptovatelná pro případ pojmu rigidního designátoru třídy individuí (apod.). Tímto je dosaženo nejen obecnosti, ale i vnitřní jednoty teorie rigidity.

Strawson’s work seems to contain both pragmatic and semantic concepts of presupposition. The former concept has largely been studied by many philosophers and linguists, while the latter has not been properly investigated (van Fraassen being an exception). The present author explicates the semantic concept of existential presupposition in relation to deriving existential statements and distinguishing their de dicto/de re variants (in the rather generalized sense following Tichý).

It is a truism that semantic concepts are relative to language. I distinguish two kinds of them in accordance to their relativity to language L; the relativity is either explicit , or implicit . If language is explicated, the concepts of the former kind can be easily explicated in a plausible way and we resist semantic paradoxes. In the case of the latter concepts, the explication is also accessible and paradox-free. One can find then new interesting facts concerning famous Tarski’s (...) theorem. (shrink)

[”Individuals taking a break” some comments].

[Counterexamples to the causal theory of proper names].