L'Auteur dégage et expose d'abord le modèle explicite proposé par Hobbes pour l'analyse des phénomènes sémioti- que, puis le contexte dans lequel ce modèle est élaboré, tout en montrant en quoi cette analyse peut encore intéresser les philosophes du langage contemporains. Il met ensuite en évi- dence les diverses perspectives empruntées par Hobbes dans son analyse, formule les principes sur lesquels elles reposent et décèle les problèmes de cohérence qui en résultent. Il propose enfin une interprétation qui permet de lever (...) certaines contradictions apparentes rencontrées dans l'analyse du mo- dèle proposé par Hobbes en réexaminant le contexte initial de cette analyse et les catégories ontologiques fondamentales qu'elle met en cause.The Author extricates and exposes at first the explicit model proposed by Hobbes to analyse semiotical phenomena, and the context in which this model is developped, showing by the way how this model, in many respects, might still be interesting for contemporary philosophers of language. Then, he reconstructs the approaches adopted by Hobbes, formulates the basic principles on which they rest, and identifies some problems of coherence resulting from the whole approach. He proposes, at last, an interpretation which enables us to solve some apparent contradictions met in the analysis of the model proposed by Hobbes by exploring anew the initial context of this model and the basic ontological categories which are implicated in Hobbes' semiotical analysis. (shrink)

There exist two known types of ultrafilter extensions of first-order models, both in a certain sense canonical. One of them comes from modal logic and universal algebra, and in fact goes back to Jónsson and Tarski :891–939, 1951; 74:127–162, 1952). Another one The infinity project proceeding, Barcelona, 2012) comes from model theory and algebra of ultrafilters, with ultrafilter extensions of semigroups as its main precursor. By a classical fact of general topology, the space of ultrafilters over a discrete space is (...) its largest compactification. The main result of Saveliev The infinity project proceeding, Barcelona, 2012), which confirms a canonicity of this extension, generalizes this fact to discrete spaces endowed with an arbitrary first-order structure. An analogous result for the former type of ultrafilter extensions was obtained in Saveliev. Results of such kind are referred to as extension theorems. After a brief introduction, we offer a uniform approach to both types of extensions based on the idea to extend the extension procedure itself. We propose a generalization of the standard concept of first-order interpretations in which functional and relational symbols are interpreted rather by ultrafilters over sets of functions and relations than by functions and relations themselves, and define ultrafilter models with an appropriate semantics for them. We provide two specific operations which turn ultrafilter models into ordinary models, establish necessary and sufficient conditions under which the latter are the two canonical ultrafilter extensions of some ordinary models, and obtain a topological characterization of ultrafilter models. We generalize a restricted version of the extension theorem to ultrafilter models. To formulate the full version, we propose a wider concept of ultrafilter models with their semantics based on limits of ultrafilters, and show that the former concept can be identified, in a certain way, with a particular case of the latter; moreover, the new concept absorbs the ordinary concept of models. We provide two more specific operations which turn ultrafilter models in the narrow sense into ones in the wide sense, and establish necessary and sufficient conditions under which ultrafilter models in the wide sense are the images of ones in the narrow sense under these operations, and also are two canonical ultrafilter extensions of some ordinary models. Finally, we establish three full versions of the extension theorem for ultrafilter models in the wide sense. The results of the first three sections of this paper were partially announced in Poliakov and Saveliev On two concepts of ultrafilter extensions of first-order models and their generalizations, Springer, Berlin, 2017). (shrink)

Konstantin Leont'ev is one of those Russian thinkers about whom much has been said and written both in Russia and abroad. Interest in his works has increased steadily in the past five years: collections of his works are being published, special conferences are being held, and articles and monographs are being written. In the process it turns out that a thinker who died a hundred years ago is perceived in Russia as "our contemporary," as a clairvoyant and a prophet, but (...) also in large measure as a teacher to whom many are inclined to turn in their searches for intellectual world-view and ideological orientations. (shrink)

We are now, after some delay, beginning actively to discuss a theme—or is it still a problem?—that has become traditional for Western sociology and political science—namely, totalitarianism. If we start from the firmly established view that construes totalitarianism as a social structure in which the state devours and exercises maximum control over all spheres of the social life of individuals, i.e., a structure based on maximum coercion , we can, it would seem, simply make concrete extrapolations of the existing theoretical (...) model to the countries and regions we have chosen to study. But it seems to me that there are still a number of not fully worked out aspects in the methodology employed to study totalitarianism, and in applied studies this leads either to a pan-totalitarian view of history or to the localization of totalitarianism in a few countries . I think that this situation cannot be "harmonized" in the traditional manner by distinguishing between a "broad" and a "narrow" meaning of the term ‘totalitarianism.’ Hence, rather than trying to "not notice" the methodological problem, I propose dealing with it in all theoretical seriousness. (shrink)