Online research in philosophy

The blame for the semantic and set-theoretic paradoxes is often placed on self-reference and circularity. Some years ago, Yablo [1985; 1993] challenged this diagnosis, by producing a paradox that's liar-like but does not seem to involve circularity. But is Yablo's paradox really non-circular? In a recent paper, Beall [2001] has suggested that there are no means available to refer to Yablo's paradox without invoking descriptions, and since Priest [1997] has shown that any such description is circular, Beall concludes that Yablo's paradox itself is circular. In this paper, we argue that Beall's conclusion is unwarranted, given that (i) descriptions are not the only way to refer to Yablo's paradox, and (ii) we have no reason to believe that because the description involves self-reference, the denotation of that description is also circular. As a result, for all that's been said so far, we have no reason to believe that Yablo's paradox is circular.

Students of politics cleave to a welter of conflicting conceptions of their subject. We all know that these conceptions shape the questions researchers put to politics, as well as the assumptions on which they make their inquiries. But we lack any attempt to list and classify these conceptions. This research note does just that, listing and classifying 29 1/2 definitions of politics I have found in the scholarly literature. I present the definitions and divide them into seven classes: power-seeking definitions, power-distributing definitions, struggle-and-competition definitions, collective decision and -action definitions, group- and social order-production definitions, authority-asserting definitions, and shaping -values and -arrangements definitions. Among those listed are the Weberian, Marxist, feminist, collective-choice, and conservative definitions of politics.

In this report we develop the basic properties of a set of functions analogous to the circular and hyperbolic functions, but based on L p circles. The resulting identities may simplify analysis in L p spaces in much the way that the circular functions do in Euclidean space. In any case, they are a pleasing example of mathematical generalization.

Gupta"s and Belnap"s Revision Theory of Truth defends the legitimacy of circular definitions. Circularity, however, forces us to reconsider our conception of meaning. A readjustment of some standard theses about meaning is here proposed, by relying on a novel version of the sense–reference distinction.

The paradox of analysis has been a problem for analytic philosophers at least since Moore’s time, and it is especially significant for those who seek an account of analysis along classical lines. The present paper offers a new solution to the paradox, where a theory of analysis is given where (1) analysandum and analysans are distinct concepts, due to their failing to share the same conceptual form, yet (2) they are related in virtue of satisfying various semantic constraints on the analysis relation. Rather than distinguish between analysandum and analysans by appeal to epistemic considerations, the paper appeals to semantic considerations in giving a candidate account of the identity conditions for concepts. The distinctness of analysandum and analysans then serves to block the paradox in a straightforward way.

This original and enticing book provides a fresh, unifying perspective on many old and new logico-philosophical conundrums. Its basic thesis is that many concepts central in ordinary and philosophical discourse are inherently circular and thus cannot be fully understood as long as one remains within the confines of a standard theory of definitions. As an alternative, the authors develop a revision theory of definitions, which allows definitions to be circular without this giving rise to contradiction (but, at worst, to “vacuous” uses of definienda). The theory is applied with varying levels of detail to a circular analysis of concepts as diverse as truth, predication, necessity, physical object, etc. The focus is on truth, and hope is expressed that a deeper understanding of the Liar and related paradoxes has been provided: “We have tried to show that once the circularity of truth is recognized, a great deal of its behavior begins to make sense. In particular, from this viewpoint, the existence of the paradoxes seems as natural as the existence of the eclipses” (p. 142). We think that this hope is fully justified, although some problems remain that future research in this field should take into account.

Gupta-Belnap-style circular definitions use all real numbers as possible starting points of revision sequences. In that sense they are boldface definitions. We discuss lightface versions of circular definitions and boldface versions of inductive definitions.

I aim to show how and why some definitions can be benignly circular. According to Lloyd Humberstone, a definition that is analytically circular need not be inferentially circular and so might serve to illuminate the application-conditions for a concept. I begin by tidying up some problems with Humberstone's account. I then show that circular definitions of a kind commonly thought to be benign have inferentially circular truth-conditions and so are malign by Humberstone's test. But his test is too demanding. The inferences we actually use to establish the applicability of, e.g., colour concepts are designed to establish warranted assertability and not truth. Understood thus, dispositional analyses are not inferentially circular.

An analysis—in its simplest form—is an assertion aiming to capture a certain intimate link between a given concept (the analysandum) and another, typically more precise and fully explicit concept (the analysans). For instance, the following are classical examples of analyses proposed for the geometric concept of a circle and the epistemic concept of knowledge, respectively: (1) A circle is a locus of points in the same plane equidistant from some common point. (2) Knowledge is justified true belief. In some cases, even a whole theory may be regarded as a constituting an analysis. For example, Russell’s celebrated theory of definite descriptions may be viewed as an analysis of that formal concept which in natural language can be expressed by means of the definite article.1 Analyses are also called philosophical, real, or simply analyzing defi- nitions. This is appropriate, since analyses are implicitly assumed to fulfill the following Definition Constraint: (DC) An analysis must obey the laws governing definitions, where the expression standing for the analysans is viewed as a defi- niens and the expression standing for the analysandum as a corresponding definiendum. 2 1..

Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Logic On a rather popular conception, the paradox of analysis suggests that the intersubstitutivity of analysans and analysandum should be restricted to non-psychological contexts. This is typically taken to be compatible with the idea that two sentences differing only in that one has the analysandum where the other has the analysans express exactly the same proposition. In this note we argue that this should be pondered upon in light of the view that many important ordinary concepts are circular. In particular, we submit that if there are correct analyses grounding circular definitions, then we are bound to further restrict the substitutivity principle, for we must admit that it might fail even in non- psychological contexts. Show Abstract..