Rechtzeitig zum Abschluss der Gesamtausgabe der Werke von Edith Stein liefert die vorliegende Studie einen fundierten Verstehensschlussel zum Denken der bekannten Philosophin, Husserl-Schulerin, Frauenvertreterin, Judin, Christin und Ordensfrau. Der Autor kann ihn nicht nur in Steins Christlicher Philosophie nachweisen, sondern auch in ihrer eng mit ihrer geistigen Suche verknupften Biographie. Die Originalitat Edith Steins tritt hierbei deutlich zutage, und zwar auch und gerade in ihrem theologischen Ansatz, der spurbar durch ihre Herkunft aus dem Judentum gepragt ist. So liefert dieses Buch (...) ein prazises Grundprofil der Intellektualitat, Geistigkeit und Spiritualitat dieser grossen Personlichkeit. Denn Edith Stein war weit mehr als nur die Protagonistin einer vergangenen Wendezeit. Ihre Glaubensgeschichte ist eine moderne, ihre Bedeutung fur das christlich-judische Gesprach der Gegenwart ist bei weitem noch nicht voll erschlossen, und in der Debatte um das Verhaltnis von Glaube und Vernunft hat sie ebenso Massstabe gesetzt wie in der Religionstheologie. Vor allem aber hat sie mit der Betonung der bleibenden Individualitat und Freiheit des Einzelnen bei gleichzeitiger Berufung zu einem Leben in Verantwortung und Gemeinschaft eine religios begrundete Maxime formuliert, die auch heute noch tragfahig sein kann. Ausgang und Ziel dieser Theologie ist der Glaube an den dreifaltigen Gott, der sich nach biblischer Uberlieferung als der Ich bin, der Ich bin offenbart. Das schlussfolgernde Denken, so die Uberzeugung Edith Steins, kann einen ersten Hinweis auf die Existenz Gottes geben. (shrink)

The translation of Being and time is in different ways connected with the understanding of Heidegger’s hermeneutical destruction of the basic philosophic concepts. The translator of Being and Time is further faced with complex theoretical questions, such as the relation between Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Heidegger’s hermeneutical phenomenology. The article aims to recognize the importance of Husserl’s phenomenological investigations for the genesis of several central concepts in Being in Time.

It seems that, for Husserl, the fact of human freedom is more fundamental than the transcendental subjectivist constitution of the world, or in other words, this constitution has to be seen in this light and further critically elucidated on the ground of the movement of phenomenological epoch as methodical freedom. This, however, also implies a certain practical doctrine and self-trial of Europe. After all, Europe is but this freedom of individuality and responsible personality, which is the only way it can (...) come to an agreement on the interpersonal, intercultural and international level. If this proves to be the authentic meaning of Husserl's disclosure of Lebenswelt, then this immediately paves the way for the philosophical investigation of the present condition of Europe, affirming us in the sense of responsible individuality and mutual discussion. (edited). (shrink)

The translation of Being and time is in different ways connected with the understanding of Heidegger’s hermeneutical destruction of the basic philosophic concepts. The translator of Being and Time is further faced with complex theoretical questions, such as the relation between Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and Heidegger’s hermeneutical phenomenology. The article aims to recognize the importance of Husserl’s phenomenological investigations for the genesis of several central concepts in Being in Time.

Interpretative horizons, which determine the position of a concept within a given philosophical context open up a broader issue of linguistic expression and culture. Begriffsgeschichte therefore cannot be limited to a special philosophical discipline, since its relevance comes to the front primarily on the interdisciplinary level of humanities, in general. (edited).

Plato’s definition of philosophy as a mania in the first place distances philosophy from prudence of the so called common sense and places it between the enthusiastic madness of poets and clairvoyants on the one hand, and ironic concealment on the other, which in this very madness prove to be parts of the same question: How can that which is unhidden be revealed in the hidden? Erotic enthusiasm of philosophy is a special sort of madness. It is the paradoxical closeness (...) that is rendered possible by distance. Approaching the distant is recollection. Recollection is by no means a reproduction of anything, but a thought of that which is always preconceived in previous intelligibility, so that it is always being concealed in it. Out of this, the wondering and amazement brings back the unforgettable in Plato’s philosophy, the unusual measures of poetry and of our own oblivion. (shrink)

Plato's definition of philosophy as a mania (in Phaedrus) in the first place distances philosophy from prudence of the so-called common sense and places it between the enthusiastic madness of poets and clairvoyants on the one hand, and ironic concealment on the other, which in this very madness prove to be parts of the same question: How can that which is unhidden be revealed in the hidden? Erotic enthusiasm of philosophy is a special sort of madness. It is the paradoxical (...) closeness that is rendered possible by distance. Approaching the distant is recollection. Recollection is by no means a reproduction of anything, but a (loving) thought of that which is always preconceived in previous intelligibility (disclosure of everything), so that it is always being concealed in it. (edited). (shrink)

This article reports findings of a hermeneutic phenomenological study that explored the clinical learning experience for Malawian undergraduate student nurses. The study revealed issues that touch on both nursing education and practice, but the article mainly reports the practice issues. The findings reveal the emotions that healthcare workers in Malawi encounter as a consequence of practising in resource-poor settings. Furthermore, there is severe nursing shortage in most clinical settings in Malawi, and this adversely affects the performance of nurses because of (...) the excess workload it imposes on them. The results of the study also illustrate loss of professional pride among some of the nurses, and the article argues that such a demeanour is a consequence of burnout. However, despite these problems, the study also reveals that there are some nurses who have maintained their passion to care. (shrink)

What is a logical constant? In which terms should we characterize the meaning of logical words like “and”, “or”, “implies”? An attractive answer is: in terms of their inferential roles, i.e. in terms of the role they play in building inferences. More precisely, we favor an approach, going back to Dosen and Sambin, in which the inferential role of a logical constant is captured by a double line rule which introduces it as reflecting structural links (for example, multiplicative conjunction reflects (...) comma on the right of the turnstyle). Rule-based characterizations of logical constants are subject to the well known objection of Prior’s fake connective, tonk. We show that some double line rules also give rise to such pseudo logical constants. But then, we are able to find a property of a double line rules which guarantee that it defines a genuine logical constant. Thus we provide an alternative answer to Belnap’s requirement of conservatity in terms of a local requirement on double line rules. (shrink)

Prior’s Tonk is a famously horrible connective. It is defined by its inference rules. My aim in this article is to compare Tonk with some hitherto unnoticed nasty connectives, which are defined in semantic terms. I first use many-valued truth-tables for classical sentential logic to define a nasty connective, Knot. I then argue that we should refuse to add Knot to our language. And I show that this reverses the standard dialectic surrounding Tonk, and yields a novel (...) solution to the problem of many-valued truth-tables for classical sentential logic. I close by outlining the technicalities surrounding nasty connectives on many-valued truth-tables. (shrink)

When logicians work with multiple-conclusion systems, they use a metalinguistic comma ‘,’ to aggregate premises and/or conclusions. In this note, I present an analogy between this comma and Prior’s infamous connective tonk. The analogy reveals that these expressions have much in common. I argue that, indeed, the comma can be seen as a structural incarnation of tonk. The upshot is that, whatever story one has to tell about tonk, there are good reasons to tell a similar story (...) about the comma in typical multiple-conclusion systems, and vice versa. (shrink)

There is a long tradition (See e.g. [9, 10]) starting from [12], according to which the meaning of a connective is determined by the introduction and elimination rules which are associated with it. The supporters of this thesis usually have in mind natural deduction systems of a certain ideal type (explained in Section 3 below). Unfortunately, already the handling of classical negation requires rules which are not of that type. This problem can be solved in the framework of multiple-conclusion Gentzen-type (...) systems (also first introduced in [12]), where instead of introduction and elimination rules there are left introduction rules and right introduction rules. (shrink)

If correct, Christopher Peacocke’s [20] “manifestationism without verificationism,” would explode the dichotomy between realism and inferentialism in the contemporary philosophy of language. I first explicate Peacocke’s theory, defending it from a criticism of Neil Tennant’s. This involves devising a recursive definition for grasp of logical contents along the lines Peacocke suggests. Unfortunately though, the generalized account reveals the Achilles’ heel of the whole theory. By inventing a new logical operator with the introduction rule for the existential quantifier and the elimination (...) rule for the universal quantifier, I am able to show that Peacocke’s theory only avoids verificationism to the extent that it does not satisfy manifestationism. (shrink)

Many logical systems are such that the addition of Prior's binary connective tonk to them leads to triviality, see [1, 8]. Since tonk is given by some introduction and elimination rules in natural deduction or sequent rules in Gentzen's sequent calculus, the unwanted effects of adding tonk show that some kind of restriction has to be imposed on the acceptable operational inferences rules, in particular if these rules are regarded as definitions of the operations concerned. In this (...) paper, a number of simple observations is made showing that the unwanted phenomenon exemplified by tonk in some logics also occurs in contexts in which tonk is acceptable. In fact, in any non-trivial context, the acceptance of arbitrary introduction rules for logical operations permits operations leading to triviality. Connectives that in all non-trivial contexts lead to triviality will be called non-trivially trivializing connectives. (shrink)

Connectives such as Tonk have posed a significant challenge to the inferentialist. It has been recently argued that the classical semanticist faces an analogous problem due to the definability of “nasty connectives” under non-standard interpretations of the classical propositional vocabulary. In this paper, we defend the classical semanticist from this alleged problem.

In “The Runabout Inference Ticket” AN Prior (1960) examines the idea that logical connectives can be given a meaning solely in virtue of the stipulation of a set of rules governing them, and thus that logical truth/consequence.

Recent literature on dialogical logic discusses the case of tonk and the notion harmony in the context of a rule-based theory of meaning. Now, since the publications of those papers, a dialogical version of constructive type theory (CTT) has been developed. The aim of the present paper is to show that, from the dialogical point of view, the harmony of the CTT- rules is the consequence of a more fundamental level of meaning characterized by the independence of players. We (...) hope that the following paper will contribute to a better understanding of the dialogical notion of meaning.La bibliografía reciente sobre lógica dialógica, estudia el caso de tonk y la noción de armonia en el contexto de una teoría del significado basado en reglas. Ahora bien, desde la publicación de tales textos, la teoría dialógica ha sido vinculada con la Teoría Constructiva de Tipos (CTT). El objetivo principal del presente artículo es mostrar que, desde un punto de vista dialógico, la armonía de las reglas de la CTT es consecuencia de un nivel más fundamental de significado caracterizado por la independencia de los jugadores. Esperamos que el presente trabajo contribuya a una mejor comprensión de la nocion dialógica de significado. (shrink)

There are still on-going debates on what exactly is wrong with Prior’s pathological “tonk.” In this article I argue, on the basis of categorical inferentialism, that two notions of inconsistency ought to be distinguished in an appropriate account of tonk; logic with tonk is inconsistent as the theory of propositions, and it is due to the fallacy of equivocation; in contrast to this diagnosis of the Prior’s tonk problem, nothing is actually wrong with tonk if (...) logic is viewed as the theory of proofs rather than propositions, and tonk perfectly makes sense in terms of the identity of proofs. Indeed, there is fully complete semantics of proofs for tonk, which allows us to link the Prior’s old philosophical idea with contemporary issues at the interface of categorical logic, computer science, and quantum physics, and thereby to expose commonalities between the laws of Reason and the laws of Nature, which are what logic and physics are respectively about. I conclude the article by articulating the ideas of categorical logical positivism and pluralistic unified science as its goal, including the unification of realist and antirealist conceptions of meaning by virtue of the categorical logical basis of metaphysics. (shrink)

Which concept is the more primitive when it comes to the functioning of the logical constants: representation or inference? Via a discussion of Arthur Prior’s famous mock connective “tonk” and a couple of responses to Prior by J. T. Stevenson and Nuel Belnap, it is argued that early Wittgenstein’s answer is neither. Instead, he takes representation and inference to be equally basic and mutually dependent notions. The nature and significance of this mutual dependence is made clear by an investigation (...) into the Tractarian notion of a proposition. It is further argued that even if Wittgenstein later abandoned the Tractarian conception of what a proposition is, he never gave up the idea that inference and representation play interdependent and equally fundamental roles in logic. (shrink)

Recent literature on dialogical logic discusses the case of tonk and the notion harmony in the context of a rule-based theory of meaning. Now, since the publications of those papers, a dialogical version of constructive type theory has been developed. The aim of the present paper is to show that, from the dialogical point of view, the harmony of the CTT-rules is the consequence of a more fundamental level of meaning characterized by the independence of players. We hope that (...) the following paper will contribute to a better understanding of the dialogical notion of meaning. (shrink)

This paper consider Prior's connective Tonk from a particular bilateralist perspective. I show that there is a natural perspective from which we can see Tonk and its ilk as perfectly well-defined pieces of vocabulary; there is no need for restrictions to bar things like Tonk.

Unrestricted inferentialism holds both that any collection of inference rules can determine a meaning for an expression and meaning constituting rules are automatically valid. Prior's infamous tonk connective refuted unrestricted inferentialism, or so it is universally thought. This paper argues against this consensus. I start by formulating the metasemantic theses of inferentialism with more care than they have hitherto received; I then consider a tonk language — Tonklish — and argue that the unrestricted inferentialist's treatment of this language (...) is only problematic if it is mistakenly assumed that Tonklish can be homophonically translated into English. Next, I discuss the proper, non-homophonic, translation of Tonklish into English, rebut various objections, and consider several variants of Tonklish. The paper closes by highlighting the philosophical advantages that unrestricted inferentialism has over its competitors once the terrors of tonk have been tamed. (shrink)

All through the literatura, the question about what is a logical constant has recieved many answers, from model-theoretic aproaches,, to answers that focus in the inferential practice as meaning,,. Detractors of the second tradition presented many ineludible incovenients, in particular, the logical constant named ‘tonk’. Inferentialist tryed many solutions, in particular they presented the concept of ‘harmony’. The goal of this paper is to show that the different criteria of ‘harmony’ used in the proof-theoretic semantics to determine what is (...) and what is not a logical constant fail to be necessary or sufficient. I will show the philosophical reasons that make this concept appear and then i will describe the different ways in wich the literatura understads the concept of ‘harmony’. Then I will show that they subgenerate or overgenerate connectives with some counterexamples. Finaly, I will explain some philosophical reasons that should delimitate where to go towards a satisfactory definition of ‘harmony’. (shrink)

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

In this short paper I note that a key metatheorem does not hold for the bilateralist inferential framework: harmony does not entail consistency. I conclude that the requirement of harmony will not suffice for a bilateralist to maintain a proof theoretic account of classical logic. I conclude that a proof theoretic account of meaning based on the bilateralist framework has no natural way of distinguishing legitimate definitional inference rules from illegitimate ones (such as those for tonk). Finally, as an (...) appendix to the main argument, I propose an alternative non-bilateral formal solution to the problem of providing a proof-theoretic account of classical logic. (shrink)

Bilateralists hold that the meanings of the connectives are determined by rules of inference for their use in deductive reasoning with asserted and denied formulas. This paper presents two bilateral connectives comparable to Prior's tonk, for which, unlike for tonk, there are reduction steps for the removal of maximal formulas arising from introducing and eliminating formulas with those connectives as main operators. Adding either of them to bilateral classical logic results in an incoherent system. One way around this (...) problem is to count formulas as maximal that are the conclusion of reductio and major premise of an elimination rule and to require their removability from deductions. The main part of the paper consists in a proof of a normalisation theorem for bilateral logic. The closing sections address philosophical concerns whether the proof provides a satisfactory solution to the problem at hand and confronts bilateralists with the dilemma that a bilateral notion of stability sits uneasily with the core bilateral thesis. (shrink)

Many philosophers still believe that metaphysically analytic sentences exist, where a sentence is understood to be metaphysically analytic if and only if it is true solely in virtue of its meaning. I provide two arguments against this claim and hence conclude that metaphysically analytic sentences do not exist. Still, some philosophers, however, hold out hope that epistemically analytic sentences exist, where a sentence is epistemically analytic if and only if an agent's understanding the sentence suffices for the agent to be (...) justified in believing that this sentence is true. One such philosopher is Paul Boghossian, whose so-called analytic theory of the a priori is intended to show how epistemically analytic sentences can explain our a priori knowledge of the truths about logic. His theory, however, relies on the dubious Argument by Implicit Definition. I provide an objection to this argument and hence conclude that Boghossian's analytic theory of the a priori fails to vindicate the notion of epistemic analyticity. Still, I concede that just because Boghossian's attempt to do so fails, it does not follow that the notion of epistemic analyticity cannot, in another way, be vindicated. (shrink)

I argue that ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ as commonly employed are ‘tonkish’ terms (as defined by Arthur Prior and Michael Dummett), licensing inferences from truths to falsehoods; indeed, that they are mega-tonkish terms, since their use is governed by different and competing sets of introduction and elimination rules, delivering different and inconsistent results. Thus ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ do not have determinate extensions, which means that generalizations about conspiracy theories or conspiracy theorists do not have determinate truth-values. Hence (...) conspiracy theory theory – psychological or social scientific research into conspiracy theorists and what is wrong with them – is often about as intellectually respectable as an enquiry into bastards and what makes them so mean. (shrink)

The best-known syntactic account of the logical constants is inferentialism. Following Wittgenstein’s thought that meaning is use, inferentialists argue that meanings of expressions are given by introduction and elimination rules. This is especially plausible for the logical constants, where standard presentations divide inference rules in just this way. But not just any rules will do, as we’ve learnt from Prior’s famous example of tonk, and the usual extra constraint is harmony. Where does this leave identity? It’s usually taken as (...) a logical constant but it doesn’t seem harmonious: standardly, the introduction rule only concerns a subset of the formulas canvassed by the elimination rule. In response, Read [5, 8] and Klev [3] amend the standard approach. We argue that both attempts fail, in part because of a misconception regarding inferentialism and identity that we aim to identify and clear up. (shrink)

Most literature on vagueness deals with the phenomenon as applied to predicates. On the contrary, even the idea of vague connectives seems to be taken as an oxymoron. The goal of this article is to propose an understanding of vague logical connectives based on vague quantifiers. The main idea is that the phenomenon of vagueness translates to connectives in terms of the property of Abnormality. I also argue that Prior’s Tonk can, according to this approach, be considered a vague (...) connective. In order to do so, I provide a sound and complete interpretation for it, based on Strict-Tolerant semantics, in which Tonk has a non-normal truth-table. (shrink)

I examine Paul Boghossian's recent attempt to argue for scepticism about logical rules. I argue that certain rule- and proof-theoretic considerations can avert such scepticism. Boghossian's 'Tonk Argument' seeks to justify the rule of tonk-introduction by using the rule itself. The argument is subjected here to more detailed proof-theoretic scrutiny than Boghossian undertook. Its sole axiom, the so-called Meaning Postulate for tonk, is shown to be false or devoid of content. It is also shown that the rules (...) of Disquotation and of Semantic Ascent cannot be derived for sentences with tonk dominant. These considerations deprive Boghossian's scepticism of its support. (shrink)

Es gibt ein Ziel, auf das alle philosophische Einzelforschungen hinarbeiten und zu dessen Erreichung sie zusammenwirken: das Ziel, die Welt zu verstehen. (Edith Stein) Edith Stein ist eine Philosophin, die auf Grund der Weite des Horizonts, in dem sie denkt, in kein Raster passt. Die Beitrage dieses Bandes, die auf eine Tagung anlasslich der Prasentation des Edith Stein-Lexikons an der FernUniversitat in Hagen im November 2017 zuruckgehen, machen das systematische und ideengeschichtliche Profil in Steins Denken transparent. Die versammelten namhaften Stein-Forscherinnen (...) und -forscher aus verschiedenen europaischen Landern zeigen die immer wieder uberraschende Aktualitat von Steins phanomenologischem Ansatz, der bis in Grundfragen der Anthropologie und Bioethik auch heute fruchtbar gemacht werden kann. "Verschiedene Grundbegriffe und -phanomene Edith Steins werden im Rahmen des vorliegenden Tagungsbandes vorgestellt und diskutiert. Dabei entsteht eine Synopse ihres Denkens und zugleich wird dessen Kern immer genauer sichtbar. Es gibt Beitrage zur Phanomenologie, zur Anthropologie, zur Religionsphilosophie und zur Frage, wie wir heute Stein lesen konnen." (Aus dem Vorwort) Mit Beitragen von Beate Beckmann-Zoller, Angela Ales Bello, Christof Betschart, Tonke Dennebaum, Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, Martin Hahnel, Marcus Knaup, Ugo Perone, Harald Seubert, Claudia Mariele Wulf. (shrink)

In the paper, Priorś well-known \'tonk\' argument is examined and taken as a basis for general considerations regarding the logical status of implicit definition, and the semantical status of the \'tonk\'-like expressions. Further, the whiff of logical vanity attendant upon Priorś conclusions is dispelled by employing a new theory of concept. In particular, the authors argue that: a) Priorś \'tonk\' argument discredits neither the concept of analytical validity nor the role of implicit definition. The arguments underlying the (...) authors\' view draw from both syntactical and semantical considerations of the alleged \'tonk\' connective. b) Decisive criticism of the very concept of implicit definition of logical connectives can be, anstead, based on Tichýś view of formal axiomatics as a case of\'the Fallacy of Subject Matter\'. c) The semantical analysis of the so-called śtrictly empty\' concepts, as introduced by Materna in his theory of concept, renders a viable account of the mysteries and confusions surrounding Priorś witty and inspiring \'tonk\' example. (shrink)

Inferentialism claims that expressions are meaningful by virtue of rules governing their use. In particular, logical expressions are autonomous if given meaning by their introduction-rules, rules specifying the grounds for assertion of propositions containing them. If the elimination-rules do no more, and no less, than is justified by the introduction-rules, the rules satisfy what Prawitz, following Lorenzen, called an inversion principle. This connection between rules leads to a general form of elimination-rule, and when the rules have this form, they may (...) be said to exhibit “general-elimination” harmony. Ge-harmony ensures that the meaning of a logical expression is clearly visible in its I-rule, and that the I- and E-rules are coherent, in encapsulating the same meaning. However, it does not ensure that the resulting logical system is normalizable, nor that it satisfies the conservative extension property, nor that it is consistent. Thus harmony should not be identified with any of these notions. (shrink)