In this ambitious exploration of humanity and civilizations throughout history, major historical events and processes in the history of mankind are looked at in order to understand the "currents" of history. Jaroslav Krejc analyzes the whole history of civilization and considers historical events such as feudalism and the development of science. By bringing both sociological and historical insights to this broad subject, and particular attention to different types of knowledge (such as religion and its impact state law labor and (...) ownership), the book offers insights into the future of civilization and shifting global power. (shrink)
If a firm provides incentives by promoting those who have performed well in a job, it may transfer them to a job to which they are not well suited and agents are promoted to their levels of incompetence. Tournaments are an alternative to reputation as a means of ensuring that firms reward good performance when performance is unverifiable.
Inferentialism, which I am going to present in detail in the following sections, is the view that meanings are, roughly, roles that are acquired by types of sounds and inscriptions in virtue of their being treated according to rules of our language games, roughly in the sense in which wooden pieces acquire certain roles by being treated according the rules of chess. The most important consequences are that (i) a meaning is not an object labeled (stood for, represented ...) by (...) an expression; and that (ii) meaning is normative in the sense that to say that an expression means thus and so is to say that it should be used so and so. The founding father of inferentialism is Brandom (1994; 2000). (However, nothing in this paper hinges on the fact that the version of inferentialism defended here is identical with Brandom's). This position provokes two kinds of objections. First there are general objections towards the very normativity of meaning, which do not target especially inferentialism; these I have addressed elsewhere 1. Besides this, there are objection targeted more specifically at inferentialism. Probably the most discussed specimen of such objections is the objection - repeatedly raised especially by Jerry Fodor and Ernest LePore and others - to the effect that though meanings should be compositional, the compositionality of inferential roles is unattainable. This is the kind of objection I am going to deal with here 2. (Hand in hand with this objection then go various allegations of circularity of inferentialism, which we will also discuss.) To do this, I will exploit the long-standing comparison of language to chess, as it seems particularly helpful for making the inferentialist account of language plausible3. This comparison, to be sure, has its limits beyond which it may become severely misleading; but as long as we keep them in mind, it can serve us very well. (shrink)
While according to the inferentialists, meaning is always a kind of inferential role, proponents of other approaches to semantics often doubt that actual meanings, as they see them, can be generally reduced to inferential roles. In this paper we propose a formal framework for considering the hypothesis of the.
There may be various reasons for claiming that meaning is normative, and additionally, very different senses attached to the claim. However, all such claims have faced fierce resistance from those philosophers who insist that meaning is not normative in any nontrivial sense of the word. In this paper I sketch one particular approach to meaning claiming its normativity and defend it against the anti-normativist critique: namely the approach of Brandomian inferentialism. However, my defense is not restricted to inferentialism in any (...) narrow sense for it encompasses a much broader spectrum of approaches to meaning, connected with the Wittgensteinian and especially Sellarsian view of language as an essentially rule-governed enterprise; and indeed I refrain from claiming that the version of inferentialism I present here is in every detail the version developed by Brandom. (shrink)
Many philosophers ponder the question of the a priori status of logical rules like modus ponens. In this paper I argue that the way in which such questions are usually posed is misguided. I argue that to accept modus ponens is nothing else than to have an implication; hence that to ask how do we know that implication obeys modus ponens does not make sense. To ask whether modus ponens is a priori is to ask whether having implication is a (...) priori. I argue that as one is not born with a language (but perhaps only with a predisposition to acquire a certain kind of language, namely one posessing logical vocabulary and hence displaying logical structure), logical rules can be a priori only in the sense that we tend to acquire language governed by such rules. (shrink)
That behind the overt, syntactic structure of an expression there lurks a covert, semantic one, aka logical form, and that anyone interested in what the expression truly means should ignore the former and go for excavating the latter, has become a common wisdom. It is this wisdom I want to challenge in this paper; I will claim that it is a result of a mere confusion, that the usual notion of semantic structure, or logical form, is actually the result of (...) certain properties of our tools of linguistic analysis being unwarrantedly projected into what we analyze. (shrink)
After putting forward his celebrated deflationary theory of truth (Horwich, 1998a), Paul Horwich added a compatible theory of meaning (Horwich, 1998b). I am calling also this latter theory deflationism (although it may be a slightly misleading name in that, as Paul himself notes, his theory of meaning is deflationary more in the sense of being forced by the deflationary theory of truth than of being particularly deflationary in itself). In contrast, what I call inferentialism is the theory of meaning which (...) I am going to advocate here – the view, in a nutshell, that meaning is a matter of inferential role. Various versions of this theory have been defended by Wilfried Sellars, Robert Brandom and a couple of other philosophers including myself. And the thesis I wish to present in this paper – to put it as a provocation right off – is that Paul is an inferentialist led astray. Both deflationism and inferentialism can be seen as elaborations of what can be called the use theory of meaning; for both seem to agree that. (shrink)
In a memorable paper, Donald Davidson (1986, p. 446) insists that "there is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers and linguists have supposed". I have always taken this as an exaggeration, albeit an apt exaggeration that might be philosophically helpful. Now when it comes to predication, what I would have expected to hear from the same author would be along the lines of "there is no such thing as predication ... (...) ". But instead of this I hear something very different (Davidson, 2005, p. 77): [I]f we do not understand predication, we do not understand how any sentence works, nor can we account for the structure of the simplest thought that is expressible in language. At one time there was much discussion of what was called the "unity of proposition"; it is just this unity that a theory of predication must explain. The philosophy of language lacks its most important chapter without such a theory, the philosophy of mind is missing its crucial first step if it cannot describe the nature of judgment; and it is woeful if metaphysics cannot say how a substance is related to its attributes. I find myself at odds with just about everything written in this paragraph; and what is worse, my disagreement stems from a notion of language which I believe I have acquired also by reading Davidson. Reading this passage, I desperately sought for an indication that it was leading up to some catch, and not meant to be taken at face value. But, alas, I am afraid there is none. To avoid misunderstanding: I see nothing wrong in understanding predication as a clearly delimited linguistic phenomenon. We put together one kind of expression, which we have come to call the subject, with a different kind of expression, called the predicate, possibly.. (shrink)
Abstrakt. Když se řekne Ludwig Wittgenstein, vybaví se člověku, který to jméno už někdy slyšel, nejspíše termín jazyková hra. Tento termín si Wittgenstein vybral, aby se v rámci své pozdní filosofie distancoval od určitého druhu názorů na jazyk (druhu, kterého byly i jeho vlastní ranější filosofické názory). Chtěl jeho pomocí zdůraznit různorodost lidských aktivit, které se opírají o jazyk. Avšak ač to Wittgenstein úplně explicitně neříká, zdá se mi že je tu něco podstatného, co je podle něj pro jazykové hry (...) charakteristické, a to je role pravidel v rámci jejich konstituce. Tomu napovídá rozsah pozornosti, kterou Wittgenstein věnuje fenoménu pravidla ve Filosofických zkoumáních. Podle mne tedy můžeme říci, že jazyková hra je v typickém případě hrou - více či méně - 'řízenou' pravidly. Způsob, jakým se jazyková hra 'řídí' pravidly, se však v některých zásadních ohledech liší od způsobu, jakým se pravidly řídí hry, ke kterým občas naše jazykové hry přirovnáváme (šachy, fotbal ap.) Pravidla jazykových her jsou implicitní, vágní a do jisté míry otevřená. Přitom pravidla hry nám obvykle otevírají nějaký nový prostor - a v případě jazykových her je to prostor, kterému se dá říkat prostor smysluplnosti. Myslím ovšem, že skutečnou roli pravidel v rámci jazykových her Wittgenstein v rámci Filosofických zkoumání trochu zamlžuje; a cílem tohoto textu bude ji vyjasnit. (shrink)
ONTOLOGIE (aneb Z čeho všeho se skládá svět) RELATIVISMUS A POSTMODERNA (aneb Má každý svou pravdu?) EPISTEMOLOGIE (aneb Jak můžeme o světě něco vědět?) FILOSOFIE JAZYKA (aneb Co je to jazyk a co je to význam?) STRUKTURALISMUS (aneb Co je to jazyk a co je to význam? podruhé) FILOSOFIE MYSLI (aneb Co to je mysl a kdo všechno jí může disponovat?) FILOSOFIE JAKO ANALÝZA MYSLI (aneb Jak nám naše mysl dává žít v našem světě?) FILOSOFIE VĚDY (aneb Jak svět poznávat (...) spolehlivě a systematicky?). (shrink)
Inferentialism is the conviction that to be meaningful in the distinctively human way, or to have a 'conceptual content', is to be governed by a certain kind of inferential rules. The term was coined by Robert Brandom as a label for his theory of language; however, it is also naturally applicable (and is growing increasingly common) within the philosophy of logic.
Logic, it is often held, is primarily concerned with reasoning; and the conviction that logic and reasoning are two sides of the same coin nowadays usually equates with the conviction that logic spells out some directives for the "right" maintenance of beliefs. In this paper I put forward an alternative view, based on seeing rules of logic rules as constitutive rules, not instructing us how to reason, but rather providing us with certain vehicles or in terms of which to reason. (...) This also emphasizes the social nature of beliefs: they are entities forged in a social mold, formed by rules originating from social argumentative practices. Because of this fact, I suggest, trying to understand logic by means of studying (rules of) the kinematics of beliefs of a solitary individual is essentially misguided. (shrink)
The perennial question – What is meaning? – receives many answers. In this paper I present and discuss inferentialism – a recent approach to semantics based on the thesis that to have ( such and such ) a meaning is to be governed by ( such and such ) a cluster of inferential rules . I point out that this thesis presupposes that looking for meaning requires seeing language as a social institution (rather than, say, a psychological reality). I also (...) indicate that this approach may be seen as a new embodiment of the old ideas of structuralism. (shrink)
Though, at first sight, logical formalization of natural language sentences and arguments might look like an unproblematic enterprise, the criteria of its success are far from clear and, surprisingly, there have only been a few attempts at making them explicit. This paper provides a picture of the enterprise of logical formalization that does not conceive of it as a kind of translation from one language (a natural one) into another language (a logical one), but rather as a construction of a (...) 'map' of (a piece of) the 'inferential landscape' of the natural language. The criteria that appear to govern the enterprise are labeled as those of reliability, ambitiousness, transparency and parsimony. These criteria, it is argued, do not provide for an excavation of a ready-made logical structure, but rather help us achieve a "reflective equilibrium" between the normative authority of logic and the answerability of logic to a natural language. (shrink)
In this paper we first propose an exact definition of the concept of inferential role, and then go on to examine the question whether subscribing to inferentialism necessitates throwing away existing theories of formal semantics, as we know them from logic, or whether these could be somehow accomodated within the inferentialist framework. The conclusion we reach is that it is possible to make an inferentialist sense of even those common semantic theories which are usually considered as incompatible with inferentialism, such (...) as the standard semantics of second-order logic. (shrink)
There are various approaches to truth and knowledge (in fact, cataloguing them has become something of a philosophical industry of its own); and in many cases, their explanations are taken to underlie the explanation of other crucial concepts, like language, reason etc. Especially in recent years, some of the approaches have come to be based on reducing semantics to pragmatics. An outstanding example of such a pragmatist approach is that of Bob Brandom, who bases the explication of both truth and (...) knowledge on his consideration of normative pragmatics. A less explicitly pragmatist approach to truth and knowledge was offered by Donald Davidson (who is surely not a pragmatist in the narrow sense of the word, but may be thought about as one in the wider sense proposed by Brandom, 2002, in which pragmatism means starting from the practical rather than the theoretical). In this paper I would like to point out that the discrepancy between these two approaches may be smaller than it would prima facie seem. To show this, I first turn my attention briefly to the general problem of theoretically accounting for human minds. (shrink)
Is logic, feasibly, a product of natural selection? In this paper we treat this question as dependent upon the prior question of where logic is founded. After excluding other possibilities, we conclude that logic resides in our language, in the shape of inferential rules governing the logical vocabulary of the language. This means that knowledge of (the laws of) logic is inseparable from the possession of the logical constants they govern. In this sense, logic may be seen as a product (...) of natural selection: the emergence of logic requires the development of creatures who can wield structured languages of a specific complexity, and who are capable of putting the languages to use within specific discursive practices. (shrink)
Today, a steadily growing number of philosophers regard Wilfrid Sellars as a principal pillar not just of American analytic philosophy, but of twentieth century philosophy in general. But not so long ago, things were different: though Sellars has held the acclaim of a first-rate philosopher for a couple of decades, it is only recently that he has achieved the nimbus of a philosopher whom you must read. It is largely due to his outstanding disciples and followers, from Paul Churchland (...) and Ruth Millikan to Richard Rorty, Jay Rosenberg and Robert Brandom. In many respects, Wilfrid Sellars is a philosopher who somehow eludes the context of his contemporaries. In comparison with brilliant essayists such as Quine or Rorty, he writes in an old fashioned, slightly convoluted style, which is liable to confuse an unprepaired reader. Surrounded by philosophers who see philosophy as shrinking to a residual enterprise, such as merely the logical analysis of language, he does not shy away from claiming that "the aim of philosophy is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term". In contrast to the extreme specialists for whom even logical analysis is a theme too broad to entertain, his strategy is, in deVries' words, "to approach philosophical problems not as independent, individual cases, in principle amenable to piecemeal treatment, but as always constituted within a larger context and requiring not resolution by the establishment of some particular thesis, but the development of a more insightful or more adequate model that permits us to see how the particular phenomenon or puzzle fits within a larger, coherent whole" (p. 15). For all these reasons, it is highly challenging to grasp the bulk of Sellars’ teaching. It cannot be mastered piecemeal because its faraway components often mutually underpin each other in a way that is bound to escape his novice readers.. (shrink)
In this paper I would like to indicate that this interpretation of Gödel goes far beyond what he really proved. I would like to show that to get from his result to a conclusion of the above kind requires a train of thought which is fuelled by much more than Gödel's result itself, and that a great deal of the excessive fuel should be utilized with an extra care.
One of the recent trends in the philosophy of language and theory of meaning is the inferentialist project launched by Robert Brandom (1994, 2000, 2008), elaborating on the approach of Wilfrid Sellars (1953, 1954, 1956, 1974). According to this project, language is to be seen as essentially a rule-governed activity, providing for meaningful utterances in a way analogous to the way in which the rules of chess provide for making one's pawns, bishops or rooks attack one's opponent, checking his king (...) or castling (see Peregrin, 2008). Inferentialism is also a theory of the nature of human reason and consequently of the nature of man, hence an ambitious project. Independently of how realistic these ambitions are, it is of a profound interest that many of the ideas of contemporary general semantic inferentialism were already tabled and discussed within the philosophy of law. Some of them were used to account for the semantics of legal discourse just like they are now used to account for discourse more generally and hence their current employment can be seen as mere generalization; others were submitted to illustrate the fact that legal discourse is specific rather than continuous with the ordinary one. In this paper we would like to survey two such discussions; before presenting the example of the former kind, we will mention one of the latter kind. We will try to show how the legal theorists anticipated current discussions in the field of the philosophy of language and that given the current constellation of the debate, philosophy of language may learn many things from the philosophy of law. (shrink)
Frege has proposed to consider names as denoting objects, predicates as standing for concepts and sentences as denoting truth values. He was, however, aware that such denotation does not exhaust all what is to be said about meaning. Therefore he has urged that in addition to such denotation (Bedeutung) an expression has sense (Sinn). The sense is the "way of presentation" of denotation; hence the expressions Morning Star and Evening Star have identical denotations, but different senses. Carnap has proposed to (...) replace Frege's distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung by the distinction between intension and extension. Extension is, according to Carnap, what is shared by every two expressions which can be truthfully declared equivalent; where equivalence means a bit different things for different grammatical categories. In the formalism of the classical logic, the equivalence of two terms T1 and T2 is expressed by the formula T1=T2, that of two sentences ↔ ↔ S1 and S2 is by the formula S1↔ ↔S2, and that of two unary predicates P1 and P2 by the formula.. (shrink)
When Bob Brandom, six years after publishing his opus magnum Making it explicit (hereafter MIE)1, produced his slender Articulating reasons2, many people expected that finally they would have a concise introduction to his philosophical views. Their expectations, however, were to be dashed: Articulating reasons is a heterogeneous collection of texts elaborating on some of the topics of MIE and hardly digestible without the background of MIE3. As yet, Brandom has produced nothing that could be taken as introductory. His subsequent books (...) are either collections of essays addressing topics contained in or connected with MIE (Tales of the mighty dead4, Reason in Philosophy5 or the not yet published Perspectives on Pragmatism6), or engaged with Brandom's new philosophical doctrine, viz. analytic pragmatism, which is the case of Between Saying and Doing7. The last one, of course, is not unrelated to MIE, but it emphasizes different aspects of the enterprise; hence it is unlikely to pave the way to MIE for a perplexed reader. Until recently I was convinced that no readable introduction to Brandom's views therefore existed. Now I see I was mistaken. Though I knew that there was a book devoted to Brandom, by Jeremy Wanderer, I suspected it was more of a scientific biography than an introduction to the inferentialism of MIE; but in fact it is precisely the book I was missing: a congenial and comprehensible introduction to the ideas of Brandom's MIE. Hurrah!, a book my students, desperately wrestling with MIE, can be referred to! (shrink)
Tarskian model theory is almost universally understood as a formal counterpart of the preformal notion of semantics, of the “linkage between words and things”. The wide-spread opinion is that to account for the semantics of natural language is to furnish its settheoretic interpretation in a suitable model structure; as exemplified by Montague 1974.
Abstrakt. Běžně se má za to, že pravidla hrají v rámci myšlení jenom marginální úlohu. Myšlení je přece proces, který je svou podstatou svobodný, ne-mechanický a kreativní – a tudíž nikoli řízený nějakými pravidly. Často se má dokonce za to, že je to právě absence pravidel, která dělá z lidského myšlení to, čím je, a co člověka principiálně odlišuje od stroje. V ostrém kontrastu k tomuto pohledu stojí Wittgensteinův výrok, že vlastně nemůžeme překročit hranice logiky – že nemůžeme myslet tak, (...) aby to bylo s pravidly logiky v rozporu. Jak mohl Wittgenstein tvrdit něco, co zní tak očividně nesmyslně? V přednášce se chci podívat na roli, kterou v rámci myšlení hrají pravidla, z poněkud jiného pohledu, než jak to bývá běžné. Nemyslím, že by existovala nějaká pravidla, která by obecně vedla naše myšlenkové pochody; jsem však přesvědčen, že jistý druh pravidel hraje z hlediska myšlení skutečně klíčovou roli – jsou to ta, která konstituují 'prostor významů', o něž se naše myšlení standardně opírá. (shrink)
ABSTRACT : For many centuries, a predominant view of meaning was that the meaning of a word is some kind of chunk of mind-stuff (“idea”) glued to the word and animating it. However, while the traditional view was that we must first understand meaning, which enables us to understand language and hence our linguistic practices, a new approach to semantics that has emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, and which I see as marking the future of meaning, (...) suggests that it is our linguistic practices on which we must concentrate from the beginning. In this paper I suggest a specific understanding of these practices, yielding the conclusion that meanings are reasonably seen as creatures of our activity of setting up certain systems of rules, thus opening up new kinds of virtual spaces which we can “enter”. Meaning is what emerges within the intricately orchestrated space that we have somehow managed to bring into being by means of accepting the rules which are in charge of our language games, especially the game of giving and asking for reasons. (shrink)
While most theoreticians of meaning in the first half of the twentieth century subscribed to a representational theory (viewing meanings as entities stood for by the expressions), the second half of the century was marked by the rise of various versions of use-theories of meaning. The roots of this ‘pragmatist turn’ are detectable in the writings of the later Wittgenstein, the Oxford speech act theorists (Austin, Grice) and the American neopragmatists (Quine, Sellars). Though it is now rather popular (and sometimes (...) even fashionable) to invoke the use-theory of meaning, it is by far not so popular to inquire what such a theory really is. In this paper we try to give at least a part of the answer, whereby we find out that the usual conception of such a theory is unsatisfactory. We propose that for an improvement we must, together with Wittgenstein and Sellars, conceive language as a (tool of a) rule-based activity, which enables us to replace the concept of disposition, usually constituting the backbone of the use-theory, by the concept of propriety. The resulting normative version of the use-theory then becomes the investigation of the rules which expressions acquire vis-`a-vis the rules of the relevant language games – especially of the rules of inference. (shrink)
Formal semantics is an enterprise which accounts for meaning in formal, mathematical terms, in the expectation of providing a helpful explication1 of the concept of the meaning of specific word kinds (such as logical ones), or of words and expressions generally. Its roots go back to Frege, who proposed exempting concepts, meanings of predicative expressions, from the legislation of psychology and relocating them under that of mathematics. This started a spectacular enterprise, fostered at first within formal logic and later moving (...) into the realm of natural languages, and featuring a series of eminent scholars, from Tarski and Carnap to Montague and David Lewis. Partly independently of this, Frege set the agenda for a long-term discussion of the question of what a natural language is, his own contribution being that language should be seen not as a matter of subjective psychology, but rather as a reality objective in the sense in which mathematics is objective. His formal semantics, then, was just an expression of this conception of language. And many theoreticians now take it for granted that formal semantics is inseparably connected with a Platonist conception of language. Moreover, the more recent champions of formal semantics, Montague and David Lewis, took for granted that natural language is nothing else than a structure of the very kind envisaged by the theories of formal logicians. While Montague claims quite plainly that there is no substantial difference between formal and natural languages ("I reject the contention," he says, 1974, p. 188, "that an important theoretical difference exists between formal and natural languages"), Lewis states that it is fully correct to say that a linguistic community entertains a language in the form of a mathematical structure ("we can say", states Lewis, 1975, p.. (shrink)
Is it still possible to add a new column? Still of course, it can be form example 0, 0, 0; or 1, 1, 1. Now suppose that the table is very large. Can we still do the same? Well it seems that still the answer must be positive, though now it need not be so easy to find a new column. Here is an easy method: make the first number of the new column different from that in the first row (...) of the first column of the original table, make the second number in the second column different from that in the second row of the second column, etc. Hence the number in the n th row of the new column is different from that in the n th row of the n th column; and hence the new column is different from each column of the original table. (shrink)
The entire development of modern logic is characterized by various forms of confrontation of what has come to be called proof theory with what has earned the label of model theory . For a long time the widely accepted view was that while model theory captures directly what logical formalisms are about , proof theory is merely our technical means of getting some incomplete grip on this; but in recent decades the situation has altered. Not only did proof theory expand (...) into new realms, generalizing the concept of proof in various directions; many philosophers also realized that meaning may be seen as primarily consisting in certain rules rather than in language-world links. However, the possibility of construing meaning as an inferential role is often seen as essentially compromised by the limits of proof-theoretical means. The aim of this paper is to sort out the cluster of problems besetting logical inferentialism by disentangling and clarifying one of them, namely determining the power of various inferential frameworks as measured by that of explicitly semantic ones. (shrink)
Zdá se, že není nic přirozenějšího, než se spolu s Russellem domnívat, že „máme-li smysluplně hovořit a ne pouze vydávat zvuky, musíme slovům, která užíváme, dávat nějaký význam; a významem, který svým slovům dáváme, musí být něco, s čím jsme přišli do styku“. Naše slova přece musí, aby byla skutečně smysluplná, něco představovat! Od toho se odvíjí běžná poučka, která nám říká, že slova jazyka jsou symboly, to jest (podle Encyklopedie Britannica), „prvky komunikace, které mají představovat osobu, předmět, skupinu, proces (...) nebo ideu“. Problém je ovšem v tom, že není zdaleka zřejmé, co to vůbec znamená něco představovat; a co to tedy znamená být symbolem. V běžném jazyce hovoříme o představování například tehdy, když říkáme, že herec na jevišti divadla představuje dánského prince Hamleta, nebo že krabička sirek, kterou použijeme namísto ztracené šachové figurky, představuje černou věž. Jak vůbec může dojít k tomu, aby něco (nebo někdo) představovalo něco (nebo někoho) jiného? Jednou ze možností jistě je, že to někdo vyhlásí a jiní to přijmou. V programu divadla se například napíše, že se hraje Hamlet, diváci si to přečtou a vědí, že člověk, který pobíhá po jevišti s lebkou, představuje onoho dánského prince. Člověk, který zjistí, že mu chybí šachová figurka, vezme krabičku sirek a prohlásí „Tato krabička bude představovat černou věž“. To je čirá konvence: lidé se o tom, že něco bude představovat něco jiného, jednoduše dohodnou. K takové dohodě sice není potřeba, aby s ní ti, kdo ji přijímají, nahlas vyslovovali souhlas; je k ní nicméně potřeba, aby ji někdo vyhlásil a někdo jiný jeho vyhlášení porozuměl a přijal ho. Z toho ovšem plyne, že o takto konvenční druh představování se jazyk opírat nemůže; alespoň ne obecně. Brání tomu fakt, že k ustanovení takové konvence už jazyk potřebujeme – potřebujeme tedy již nějaká slova, která něco 'představují', mít. Když již nějaký jazyk máme, není problém zavést konvencí další jazyk – jak je to ale s tím prvním jazykem? (Nebylo by možné, abychom konvenci ustanovili za pomoci nějakých pouze 'předjazykových' komunikačních prostředků? Nemůžeme konvenci, na jejímž základě nějaký typ zvuku představuje velryby, ustanovit třebs pomocí pouhého ukazování na velryby? Problém je zřejmě v tom, že rámec, který by byl potřeba k tomu, aby mohlo být to či ono gesto interpretováno jako ukázání, které ustanovuje, co bude daný zvuk představovat, by musel sestávat z tak komplexních komunikčaních praktik, že je opět stěží představitelný jinak než v podobě jazyka.) Samozřejmě, že konvence není tou jedinou cestou, jak může dojít k tomu, že něco představuje něco jiného.. (shrink)
Some twenty years ago, semanticists of natural language came to be overwhelmed by the problem of semantic analysis of belief sentences (and sentences reporting other kinds of propositional attitudes): the trouble was that sentences of the shapes X believes that A and X believes that B appeared to be able to have different truth values even in cases when A and B shared the same intension, i.e. were, from the viewpoint of intensional semantics, synonymous 1 . Thus, taking intensional semantics (...) for granted, belief sentences appeared to violate the principle of intersubstitutivity of synonyms. The verdict of the gurus of intensional semantics was that hence intensional semantics is inadequate, or at least insufficient for the purposes of analysis of propositional attitudes; and that we need a kind of a ‘hyperintensional semantics’. (shrink)
Existují filosofové, jejichž díly se lidé zabývají prostě proto, že mají pocit, že v nich najdou něco moudrého či užitečného. Existují ale i filosofové, jejichž díla jsou mnohými lidmi brána ne(jen) jako zdroj poučení, ale i jako jakási hádanka, která se dá luštit. Ze starověkých filosofů se tohoto druhu popularity dostalo například Herakleitovi, kterému bylo dokonce už tehdy přezdíváno skoteinos, temný. V našem století je příkladem filosofa takovéhoto druhu Wittgenstein: mezi těmi, kdo se prokousávají jeho spisy, je zjevně nemalá část (...) těch, kteří to dělají prostě proto, že jeho dílo vidí jako vyzývavý hlavolam, na kterém lze bystřit ostrovtip. I Donald Davidson se zdá být autorem tohoto typu - ač jeho spisy nejsou ani fragmentární, jako ty Herakleitovy, ani nejsou nesouvislými ‘pásmy’, jako spisy pozdního Wittgensteina. K tomuto faktu jistě přispívá zvláštní, podivně lapidární způsob, kterým se Davidson někdy vyjadřuje; my se však pokusíme ukázat, že hlavním důvodem je fakt, že nám věci, o kterých píše, předvádí z perspektivy, kterou pro čtenáře není snadné zaujmout. I přesto (a částečně ovšem asi naopak právě proto) se Davidson pozvolna propracovává na pozici pravděpodobně nejuznávanějšího filosofa USA (jakkoli se asi stěží někdy stane filosofem nejpopulárnějším). Ještě v roce 1980 bylo, domnívám se, pro mnohé překvapením, když se Richard Rorty na některých místech svého kontroverzního filosofického bestselleru Filosofie a zrcadlo přírody1 stylizuje do role pouze jakéhosi Davidsonova epigona. Davidson totiž na první pohled nepůsobí dojmem filosofa, který by aspiroval na místo v učebnicích dějin filosofie: na rozdíl od svých souputníků Quina, Putnama či Rortyho se zabývá relativně úzkým okruhem témat a na to, co se děje ve filosofii kolem něj, příliš nereaguje (na přímé dotazy často odpovídá ve stylu ‘já tomu moc nerozumím’). Od doby, co na něj Rorty takto spektakulárně poukázal, nicméně stoupá na vrcholky filosofického pantheonu ještě strměji než předtím. Dnes je pravděpodobně nejpříkladnějším představitelem toho, co nazývám postanalytickou filosofií: filosofie, která navazuje na to dobré, co přinesla analytická filosofie (na její střízlivou racionalitu, na její důraz na argumentování a odůvodňování, i na její snahu pečlivě ověřovat rozumnost všech těch otázek, na které se má odpovídat), a přitom neváhá opustit to z analytické tradice, co se dnes už zdá přežité či nesprávné (přemrštěný scientismus, apriorní despekt k jiným způsobům filosofického myšlení)2.. (shrink)
In a remarkable early paper, Wilfrid Sellars warned us that if we cease to recognize rules, we may well find ourselves walking on four feet; and it is obvious that within human communities, the phenomenon of rules is ubiquitous. Yet from the viewpoint of the sciences, rules cannot be easily accounted for. Sellars himself, during his later years, managed to put a lot of flesh on the normative bones from which he assembled the remarkable skeleton of the early paper; and (...) his followers too. However, what they say is somewhat divergent; and therefore my aim in this paper is to concentrate on the very concept of rule and analyse it in the context of the question what it is about us humans that makes us special. (shrink)
Logic is usually considered to be the study of logical consequence – of the most basic laws governing how a statement’s truth depends on the truth of other statements. Some of the pioneers of modern formal logic, notably Hilbert and Carnap, assumed that the only way to get hold of the relation of consequence was to reconstruct it as a relation of inference within a formal system built upon explicit inferential rules. Even Alfred Tarski in 1930 seemed to foresee no (...) kind of consequence other than one induced by a set of inference rules: "Let A be an arbitrary set of sentences of a particular discipline. With the help of certain operations, the so-called rules of inference, new sentences are derived from the set A, called the.. (shrink)
According to the standard definition, a first-order theory is categorical if all its models are isomorphic. The idea behind this definition obviously is that of capturing semantic notions in axiomatic terms: to be categorical is to be, in this respect, successful. Thus, for example, we may want to axiomatically delimit the concept of natural number, as it is given by the pre-theoretic semantic intuitions and reconstructed by the standard model. The well-known results state that this cannot be done within first-order (...) logic, but it can be done within second-order one. Now let us consider the following question: can we axiomatically capture the semantic concept of conjunction? Such question, to be sure, does not make sense within the standard framework: we cannot construe it as asking whether we can form a first-order (or, for that matter, whatever-order) theory with an extralogical binary propositional operator so that its only model (up to isomorphism) maps the operator on the intended binary truth-function. The obvious reason is that the framework of standard logic does not allow for extralogical constants of this type. But of course there is also a deeper reason: an existence of a constant with this semantics is presupposed by the very definition of the framework1. Hence the question about the axiomatic capturability of concunction, if we can make sense of it at all, cannot be asked within the framework of standard logic, we would have to go to a more abstract level. To be able to make sense of the question we would have to think about a propositional ‘proto-language’, with uninterpreted logical constants, and to try to search out axioms which would fix the denotations of the constants as the intended truth-functions. Can we do this? It might seem that the answer to this question is yielded by the completeness theorem for the standard propositional calculus: this theorem states that the axiomatic delimitation of the calculus and the semantic delimitation converge to the same result.. (shrink)
In recent decades, many theories of formal semantics of natural language have undergone what can be called a dynamic turn: they have moved from treating language as a static system to considering it 'in action' and to taking meanings as crucially involving 'context-change potentials'. The theories, however, usually concentrate much more on the hows of the turn than on its whys and as a result, the conceptual foundations of dynamic semantics are much less elaborated than its technical side. This book, (...) based on a conference held in Prague in September 2001, is a contribution to filling this gap: it consists of papers addressing, from various sides, the foundational questions of the dynamic theories of meaning. It includes contributions of writers who are commonly held as authorities concerning the turn, who, however, here concentrate more on the why's than on the how's of dynamic semantics. Hence the book should be of interest both for those who want to know what the turn is about, and for those who are not satisfied with knowing the technical side of dynamic semantics and want to know its point. (shrink)
Normativity is one of the keywords of contemporary philosophical discussions. It is clear that philosophy has to do not only with theories, but also with norms (especially in ethics); but more and more current philosophers are busy arguing that, in addition, those parts of philosophy where norms are prima facie not in high focus, such as philosophy of language or philosophy of mind, have kinds of "normative dimensions". However, not everybody subscribes to this enthusiasm for normativity. Within philosophy, there is, (...) for example, an ongoing fierce discussion between 'normativists' and 'anti-normativists' about the normativity of meaning1 . A similar, thought I think both much broader and much deeper discussion concerning normativity has been launched within the context of philosophical and scientific accounts for human societies. Should we, explaining how a society works, merely state the facts concerning the behavior of the members of the society in the way natural scientists describe the behavior of ants in an anthill, or how they describe the 'behavior' of particles in an atom, or do we, over and above this, need to take a recourse to some 'normative facts'? This dispute, of course, partly reincarnates of traditional debate about the differences between Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften as we know it from Dilthey, Schleimermacher or Max Weber; in this very specific form it, however, acquires a rather 2 transparent shape, in which it seems it might be resolvable by critical scrutiny . The current dispute is fuelled by the anti-normativists' rejection of normativism as the general claim that to account for human societies (and their products, such as meanings), we need to account for something over and above ordinary, causal, scientific facts; whereas the 'normativists' argue that to have a truly explanatory account of human societies, human languages or human practices we cannot make do stating what there is – that in some sense we need to say something about what ought to be.. (shrink)
Saul Kripke ’s book Naming and Necessity (which first appeared in 1972 as a paper within a volume on natural language semantics1) is felt, by many linguists and philosophers, as a milestone of the semantic analysis of natural language. Prior to it, many semanticists took for granted that the meaning of any expression must be a two-level matter, consisting of something of the kind of what Frege called Sinn and Bedeutung or what Carnap christened as intension and extension. The first (...) of the components is what the speaker knows when she understands the expression (and the knowledge of which is independent of any knowledge of facts external to the language in question), while the second amounts to some kind of chunk of the real world which gets denoted or referred to by the expression. Thus, the intension of the king of France is what you get to know as soon as you come to understand the phrase, and the extension is what (if anything) happens to be picked out by the intension in the actual world in the actual moment. This is to say that an expression gets to into the contact with its extension only via the intension (which we can imagine also as a kind of a criterion for picking up the thing). Intension, then, is what amounts to the meaning of the expression in the intuitive sense of the word2. Now Kripke’s considerations challenged this very two-level structure of meaning: he argued that especially proper names get their semantics via a direct, inmediated contact with the world – that their meaning does not mediate their contact with a thing, but directly is the thing. This may be not so surprising in case of proper names (after all, it is even disputable whether they can be counted to the language – for you cannot find them in dictionaries), but Kripke went on to argue that the same holds also for some other expressions, especially natural kind terms such as “cow” or “water”. Kripke’s argumentation is concise and flattening; and it has been provoking a lot of discussions.. (shrink)
It is now often taken for granted that facts are entia non grata, for there exists a powerful argument (dubbed the slingshot), which is backed by such great names as Frege or Gödel or Davidson (and so could hardly be wrong), that discredits their existence. There indeed is such an argument, and it indeed is not wrong on the straightforward sense of wrong. However, in how far it knocks down any conception of facts is another story, a story which is (...) anything but simple and perspicuous. In his book, Stephen Neale takes pains to excavate the origins of the argument and the presuppositions which it needs to be usable for the purpose of exorcising facts. In the introduction of the book, Neale expresses his conviction that his analysis of the slingshot will not only compromise its usability for the purpose of discrediting facts, but also save representationalist conceptions of language and mind from the attacks of the antirepresentationalist philosophers like Davidson and Rorty. „Representational philosophy,“ he claims, „survives the Davidson-Rorty onslaught because non-truth-functional logics and ontologies of facts, states of affairs, situations and propositions survive not only the actual arguments deployed against them, but also the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments that can be constructed.“ However, what he does take his analyses to show is that „the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments demonstrate conclusively that the logical and ontological theories originally targeted must satisfy non-trivial conditions if they are to avoid logical or ontological collapse.“ (P. 12) The book starts with the discussion of the philosophy of Donald Davidson, who appears to have brought the slingshot argument to the current prominence within philosophical discussions. Here we encounter the first variant of the slingshot: Consider two sentences φ and ψ and a proper name d. Consider the definite descriptions ‘the object x such that (x = d and φ)’ and ‘the object x such that (x = d and ψ)’.. (shrink)
A few decades ago, only isolated groups of philosophers counted the phenomenon of normativity as one of their principal interests. Rules and norms have always, of course, been in the purview of moral philosophers, who often took them as exceedingly abstract entities, if not directly metaphysical. Philosophers from the border territories of philosophy and social sciences, on the other hand, were interested in more concrete norms, namely those that emerge and survive within human societies. Philosophers of law stood between these (...) two extremes, studying law as a matter of socially instituted norms which, however, might be seen as a projection of something more esoteric. The research programs of these groups of philosophers had little overlap. And for philosophers of mind, of language, or of science (with the exception of a few philosophers of social sciences, such as Peter Winch), norms were at most only of marginal interest. This situation has changed hugely over recent decades. I think the catalyst was the interest in rules and norms within the philosophy of language, which was kindled by the ongoing reception of the later Wittgenstein. Other philosophers, like Michael Dummett and Wilfrid Sellars, also deserve part of the credit. Via philosophy of language, interest in norms invaded sections of philosophy of mind, too, and the previously isolated studies of various types of norms slowly became interconnected, if not directly integrated. No wonder that more and more general studies of the nature of rules and norms are now reaching the light of day. Andrei Marmor's Social Conventions is one of the most recent contributions. Marmor sees a social convention as a specific kind of norm characterized especially by its arbitrariness. More precisely, a rule is conventional, according to the author, iff (i) some people follow it; (ii) they have a reason to follow it; and (iii) there is an alternative rule that they could have followed for the same reason. The point of departure for Marmor's analysis is David Lewis's theory of convention F1F, which, however, he considers too narrow and hence extends it considerably. Lewis's idea is that norms result from certain spontaneous processes by which society reacts to coordination problems.. (shrink)
"Syntaktika sa obmedzuje výlučně na skúmanie samotných výrazov ... Sémantika sa sústreďuje najmä na skúmanie vzťahov medzi jazykovými výrazmi a predmetmi, na ktoré sa tieto výrazy vzťahujú a na tie vlastnosti a vzťahy výrazov, ktoré súvisja a ich vzťahmi k týmto predmetom." (P. Cmorej: Úvod do logickej syntaxe a sémantiky, IRIS, Bratislava, 2001, s. 19.).
In his sharp critique of contemporary theoretical linguistics, Pavel Tichý speaks about a scandal (The Scandal of Linguistics , From the Logical Point of view 3/92, 70-80). As a matter of fact, I am not quite unsympathetic with such a sharp criticism of linguistics; but the view of language and of linguistic theory presented in Tichý's essay seem to me to be so misguiding, that I doubt that his advice presented in the essay could really help linguistics "to get out (...) off ground". (shrink)
Ve svém článku Matematika a skúsenosť (2009) předkládá Ladislav Kvasz pohled na matematiku, který je do jisté míry 'pragmatistický' či 'naturalistický' a mně osobně je velmi sympatický. Jenom si myslím, že je škoda, že je naturalistický právě jenom "do jité míry". Mám pocit, že Kvasz stále ještě zůstává jednou nohou stát v matematickém platonismu (který je samozřejmě svým způsobem naprosto přirozený) a směrem k naturalismu se zatím rozkročil jenom tou druhou. Ale myslím, že dlouho takto rozkročen stát nelze (ostatně i (...) kolos rhódský to nakonec nevydržel a už dávno odpočívá někde na dně moře), a tak bych ho chtěl pohnout k tomu, aby své těžiště přesunul zcela na tu či onu stranu. Abych se vyhnul nechtěným konotacím spojeným s termíny, jako jsou platonismus, pragmatismus a naturalismus, budu ona dvě stanoviska, mezi kterými podle mého názoru kolega Kvasz kolísá, nazývat realismem a antirealismem1: realismem budu rozumět zhruba řečeno názor, že matematická realita je daná nezávisle na nás a my ji jazyky matematiky jenom popisujeme, zatímco antirealismus budu říkat stanovisku, že tyto jazyky matematickou realitu v nějakém smyslu toho slova spoluutvářejí. (shrink)
Abstrakt. Co je to myšlenka? Všichni se asi shodneme na tom, že každý z nás lidí si myslí různé věci, že všichni máme všelijaké myšlenky, a že právě toto naše myšlení je tím, co nás lidi odlišuje od ostatních tvorů a věcí, na které můžeme v našem světě narazit. Co to ale taková myšlenka je, jak vypadá a co dělá? A jak vůbec lze na takto položenou otázku odpovídat; je to věc empirického výzkumu, nebo snad něčeho jiného (třeba fenomenologické introspekce)? (...) V tomto článku hájíme tezi, že empirické zkoumání mysli (na rozdíl od zkoumání mozku) podstatným způsobem předpokládá pojmovou analýzu, která je doménou filosofie. (shrink)
V kontextu české filosofie, kde není nouze o vzdělané a chytré lidi, ale kde se to nijak nehemží skutečnými individualitami, představuje Petr Vopěnka zcela zvláštní případ. Je matematik nejenom vzděláním, ale v matematice i leccos dokázal. Jeho knihy o filosofii matematiky, zejména jeho tetralogie Rozprav s geometrií1, jsou velice vyhraněné: Vopěnka v nich předkládá svůj originální obraz a příliš se nestará o to, aby ho konfrontoval s tím, co si o tom myslí jiní. Jak sám připouští, i historické osoby, o (...) kterých ve svých knihách píše, mu slouží spíše jako kompars, na jehož pozadí rozehrává svá barvitá líčení ‚dobrodružství poznání‘. Vopěnka ve svých knihách protestuje proti tomu, že moderní věda do obrazu světa, který buduje, vůbec nevpustila tak zásadní determinanty našeho přirozeného světa, jakými jsou neostrost či existence horizontu, který činní náš obraz světa v jistém smyslu ‘nehomogenní‘. Proti tomu se samozřejmě nabízí námitka, že to je v podstatě věci, že vědecký obraz světa je svou podstatou ostrý a homogenní. Že chtít po něm, aby byl jiný, pramení pouze z nepochopení jeho povahy a hlavně jeho role: neboť svět vykreslovaný vědou má být světem pouze v metaforickém slova smyslu, je jenom jakýmsi ‚orientačním plánkem‘, který nám má pomoci orientovat se ve světě ‚přirozeném‘. (Tím ovšem nechci říci, že by tohle nepochopení nebylo fakticky dosti rozšířené.) Vopěnka však ukazuje, že vědu, zejména matematiku, by bylo možné dělat i jinak, než jak se to považuje za víceméně samozřejmé: že je možné vytvořit matematizovaný obraz světa, ze kterého nejsou neostrost či horizont vymeteny. (I tento obraz si samozřejmě zachovává jistý druh ostrosti a homogenity, která z něj činí něco kvalitativně odlišného od přirozeného světa, avšak k přirozenému světu má blíže než ten standardní.) Tento jeho návrh je velice originální a pozoruhodný a je škoda, že mu není věnována větší pozornost a není předmětem soustavnější diskuse, ve které by se ověřila jeho nosnost. Originalita.. (shrink)
Within human communities, the phenomenon of rules is ubiquitous. We have the allimportant rules that are codified by our law; we have rules that are not authoritatively written down, but are usually followed (like the rule that if somebody helps me, I should be prepared to help him in turn); we have traffic rules; and the rules of various games and sports. Yet, from the scientific viewpoint, rules are not easy to account for. How is their emergence to be explained (...) (in a way compatible with evolution), and how is their existence to be construed, especially in cases when they are not written down? Are we to consider a rule as primarily a linguistic object; or are we to reduce it to some regularity of behavior? Neither of these two forms of existence holds much allure. Firstly, insofar as some rules clearly exist without being recorded, there is no linguistic object with which they can be identified. (After all, we talk about the encoding of the law, which seems to suggest that the law articulates something existing independently of the code.) And secondly, reducing the existence of a rule to a plain regularity of behavior would extinguish any distinction between billiard balls 'following the rules' of mechanics and human subjects following the rules of their society. Hence it would seem that, though there must be more to rules than regularities, at least some rules must be capable of existing exclusively 'within' human conduct – being, as Willfrid Sellars (1949, 299) put it, written "in flesh and blood, or nerve and sinew, rather than in pen and ink". (shrink)
The beginning of this century hailed a new paradigm in linguistics, the paradigm brought about by de Saussure's Cours de Linguistique Genérále and subsequently elaborated by Jakobson, Hjelmslev and other linguists. It seemed that the linguistics of this century was destined to be structuralistic. However, half of the century later a brand new paradigm was introduced by Chomsky's Syntactic Structures followed by Montague's formalization of semantics. This new turn has brought linguistics surprisingly close to mathematics and logic, and has facilitated (...) a direct practical exploitation of linguistic theory by computer science. (shrink)
Th is review article discusses Rebecca Kukla and Mark Lance’s (2009) book on normative speech act theory and Joseph Heath’s (2008) book on rule following, putting them into the context of the general problem of normativity of human discursive practices (and human practices in general). Th e upshot of the discussion is that while Heath’s book advances our understanding of the normative dimension of human life, prominently including human language, Kukla and Lance’s one presents a deeply interesting attempt at a (...) framework for the study of discourse taking normativity of language at face value. (shrink)
Ve své knížce Fenomenologie a kultura slepé skvrny předkládá Ivan Blecha tři eseje, jejichž společným jmenovatelem je konfrontace různých aspektů postmodernistické filosofie s filosofií fenomenologickou. Proti obratu k jazyku a z něj často vyvozovaného pluralismu nebo dokonce relativismu staví Blecha tezi, že svět, ve kterém člověk žije, je determinován způsobem, kterým v kadlubu své intencionální mysli konstituuje věci ze svého bezprostředního prožívání, a že tudíž tento svět není v žádném podstatném slova smyslu ani tvarován jazykem, ani otevřen žádným velkým pluralistickým (...) variacím. V prvním textu, ‘Znak, stopa, fenomén’ se Blecha zamýšlí především nad tím, co nazývá lingvistickou klauzurou (a co je podle něj přesvědčením společným francouzským poststrukturalistům kolem Derridy i americkým postanalytickým filosofům kolem Rortyho), totiž že člověk nemá bezprostřední přístup ke světu, ale jedině k jazyku, takže veškeré poznávání je jenom interpretace. Ve druhém, ‘Kant, pragmatický anti-realismus a Husserlova fenomenologie’ se zabývá tím, do jaké míry je opodstatněné relativistické domýšlení Kanta. V posledním, který je nazván tak jako celá knížka, pak polemizuje především s názory Wolfganga Welsche, které ústí do cílevědomého epistemického pluralismu. Myslím, že ty nejzákladnější otázky, které Blecha ve své knize klade, totiž otázka po nutnosti a mezích plurality a po tom, do jaké míry je nám chápání světa zprostředkováváno jazykem, jsou velice důležité a také velice zajímavé. Blecha se s nimi navíc snaží vypořádat, aniž by se obrnil hantýrkou, která by jeho obranu fenomenologie učinila srozumitelnou zase jenom pro fenomenology; a jeho kniha tím představuje výzvu k zajímavé diskusi. Do filosofů na druhé straně barikády se pouští s odkrytým hledím, a i když je, jak se budu snažit ukázat, sem tam v něčem dezinterpretuje, je jeho kniha ukázku toho, jak by se podle mne s konkurenčními filosofickými směry polemizovat mělo. Co se mi jeví jako dezinterpretace, se objevuje hned na počátku prvního eseje.. (shrink)
Recent results of Partee, Rooth, Krifka and other formal semanticians confirm that topic-focus articulation (TFA) of sentence is relevant for its semantics. The essential import of TFA, which is more apparent in case of a language with relatively free word order such as Czech than in case of English, has been traditionally intensively studied by Czech linguists. In this paper we would like to indicate the possibility of the account for TFA in terms of the theory of generalized quantifiers, drawing (...) on the results of both these groups of theoreticians. The basic intuition which we accept as our point of departure is the intuition of topic as the “semantic subject” and focus as the “semantic predicate”; we point out that the role of topic is to specify the entity the sentence is “about” (thereby triggering a presupposition), while that of the focus is to reveal a characterization of this entity, and usually a characterization that is in some sense exhaustive. Then we show that it may be plausible to consider topic and focus as arguments to an implicit generalized quantifier, which may get overridden by an explicit focalizer. (shrink)
Filosofové odedávna snili o jazyce, který by byl z hlediska řešení těch problémů, se kterými se potýkají (případně všech lidských problémů vůbec), vhodnější než jazyk, jímž nás obdařila příroda. Mnozí z nich si představovali, že filosofické problémy vznikají zčásti nebo zcela v důsledku toho, že přirozený jazyk není dostatečně přesným prostředkem vyjádření našich idejí a myšlenek - a že by se tedy vše spravilo, kdyby byl k dispozici jazyk, jehož výrazivo by bylo s našim myšlením - případně s naším světem (...) - v dokonalém souladu. Podle tohoto názoru je tím, co filosof (ale i vědec) potřebuje, jakási „abeceda lidských myšlenek“, která by nám umožnila „pomocí spojení jejích písmen a analýzy slov, která se z nich skládají, objevit a posoudit všechno ostatní“ (Leibniz) K tomu, aby se taková „abeceda“ dala vytvořit, ovšem zbývala jedna ‘maličkost’: bylo třeba posbírat a zinventarizovat všechny naše myšlenky a ideje, zjistit, pro které vyjádření nemáme, případně které vyjadřujeme nějak ‘nevhodně’, a tyto nedostatky a nesrovnalosti odstranit. Problém byl ovšem v tom, že nikdo neměl nejmenší ponětí, jak tohle udělat: a Leibnizův projekt calculu philosophicu, stejně tak jako jiné podobné nápady, zůstal navždy pouhou utopií. (shrink)
In recent years, I have published a number of papers addressing various aspect of inferentialism. These papers, I believe, do provide for a relatively multifaceted picture of (my version of) this enterprise; though still a picture that is in some respects patchy. This has made me start working on this book – it should bring my ideas of various aspects and dimensions of inferentialism to a desirable synthesis. Building the individual chapters, I usually start from taking parts of my published (...) papers as basic building blocks, putting them togethether and then trying to make them fit together with each other, and with the rest of the book, seamlessly. As a result, material from the older papers gets upgraded so that the chapters no longer contain many pieces of the papers in their original form. As inferentialism is a new and unsettled matter, I am not only putting forward some new ideas, but in some cases I also have to put together new frameworks to enable me to articulate these ideas intelligibly in the first place. I think that doing this with a reasonable outcome is not possible without some feadback. I do get some from my colleagues, but I will be grateful to anybody who would like to comment on anything presented here. (shrink)
The relationships between logic and natural language are multiverse. On the one hand, logic is a theory of argumentation, proving and giving reasons, and such activities are primarily carried out in natural language. This means that logic is, in a certain loose sense, about natural language. On the other hand, logic has found it useful to develop its own linguistic means which sometimes in a sense compete with those of natural language. This has led to the situation where the systems (...) of logic can be taken as interesting "models" of various aspects of natural language. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The alliance of logic and linguistics has flowered especially from the beginning of the seventies, when scholars like Montague, Lewis, Cresswell, Partee and others showed how semantics of natural language can be explicated with the help certain suitable logical calculi and the corresponding model theory. (Montague went so far as to claim that in view of this, there is no principal difference between natural and formal languages - but this is, as far as I can see, rather misguiding.) Since that time, the interdisciplinary movement of formal semantics (associating not only linguists and logicians, but also philosophers, computer scientists, cognitive psychologists and others) has yielded a rich repertoire of formal theories of natural language, some of them (like Hintikka's game-theoretical semantics or the dynamic logic of Groenendijk and Stokhof) being based directly on logic, others (like the situation semantics of Barwise and Perry or DRT of Kamp) exploiting different formal strategies. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Moreover, although the enterprise of formal semantics (i.e. of modeling natural language semantics by means of certain formal structures) seems to be the principal point of contact between linguistics and logic, there are also other cooperative enterprises. One of the most fruitful ones seems to be the logical analysis of syntax, which has resulted from elaboration of what was originally called categorial grammar. (However, even this enterprise can be seen as importantly stimulated by Montague.) Â Â Â Â Â Â Â All in all, the region in which logic and theoretical linguistics overlap has grown both in size and fertility.. (shrink)
Clauses (1) and (2) guarantee the inclusion of all 'intuitive' natural numbers, and (3) guarantees the exclusion of all other objects. Thus, in particular, no nonstandard numbers, which would follow after the intuitive ones are admitted (nonstandard numbers are found in nonstandard models of Peano arithmetic, in which the standard natural numbers are followed by one or more 'copies' of integers running from minus infinity to infinity).
Není tomu tak dávno, co se ti, kdo vzývali termín "analytická filosofie", v naší zemi jevili jako příslušníci nějaké divné sekty, kteří smysl termínu "filosofie" jakýmsi úchylným způsobem překrucují. Není-li však člověk zrovna Valihrachem, nemůže o tom, co slova znamenají, svévolně rozhodovat; a faktem je, analytická filosofie tvoří podstatnou část toho, co se ve světě pod hlavičkou "filosofie" učí a provozuje. (Já bych řekl, že dokonce většinu, ale statistické údaje samozřejmě k dispozici žádné nemám.) Během posledních zhruba deseti let se (...) ovšem situace podstatně změnila a analytický způsob filosofování se u nás začíná široce etablovat. Existují již překlady celé řady klasických děl (Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, ...) i těch novějších (Quine, Davidson, ...), a vznikla i celá řade původních prací. Co dosud scházelo bylo nějaké systematické historické pojednání o tom, jak tento filosofický směr vznikl, jak se vyvíjel a jak dospěl k tomu druhu otázek, který si předsevzal řešit. Tuto mezeru se nyní pokouší zaplnit kniha docenta filosofické fakulty olomoucké univerzity Lubomíra Valenty Problémy analytické filosofie. (shrink)
This paper discusses the relationship between the concept of reference and that of inference; the point is to indicate that contrary to the usual view it may be good to see the former as “parasitic” on the latter, not the other way around. The paper is divided into two parts.
The contemporary popularity of the prefix post has found its expression also in the realm of analytic philosophy - there arises something which has come to be called postanalytic philosophy. We put forward that this branch of the analytic movement, germinating in the writings of the late Ludwig Wittgenstein, of Willard Van Orman Quine and Willfrid Sellars, and coming to full blossom with Nelson Goodman, Donald Davidson, Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty, springs first and foremost from the repudiation of the (...) doctrine of logical atomism as entertained by Bertrand Russell and the early Wittgenstein. The dismantling of this doctrine means especially the denial of the following four points: (1) the atomistic character of language; (2) the sharp boundary between analytic and contingent statements; (3) the sharp boundary between 'given' and 'inferred' knowledge; and also (4) the essential cummulativity of knowledge. Postanalytic philosophy is thus essentially holistic; and we put forward that in fact postanalytic philosophy equals analytic philosophy minus logical atomism. (shrink)
Ve svém článku ‘Je elementární logika totéž co predikátová logika prvního řádu?’ (Pokroky matematiky, fyziky a astronomie 42, 1997, 127-133) klade Jiří Fiala nesmírně zajímavou otázku, zda je opodstatněné ztotožňovat elementární logiku s predikátovou logikou prvního řádu; s pomocí argumentů propagovaných již delší dobu finským logikem a filosofem Jaako Hintikkou (viz již jeho Logic, Language-Games and Information, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1973; nejnověji jeho The Principles of Mathematics Revisited, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996) naznačuje, že by tomu tak být nemuselo. Myslím, (...) že uváděná argumentace stojí za bližší rozbor. Hintikka v podstatě říká: Kvantifikované formule predikátové logiky jsou svou podstatou o vybírání prvků z univerza; například ∀x∃yR(x,y) neříká nic jiného než to, že ke každému x můžeme vybrat y, které je k němu ve vztahu R. Obecněji říká Hintikka to, že každá formule je vlastně zápisem určité hry (ve smyslu matematické teorie her), jejíž některé tahy spočívají ve vybírání individuí. Na základě tohoto se pak ptá: je nějaký rozumný důvod, proč se omezovat jenom na hry toho typu, které jsou vyjádřitelné formulemi standardního predikátového počtu? Proč připouštět jen hry s úplnou informací (tj. ty, při kterých jsou při každém tahu k dispozici všechny tahy předchozí), proč vylučovat hry jiné; tudíž proč připouštět jen lineárně uspořádané kvantifikátory, a nepřipustit i kvantifikátory uspořádané třeba jen částečně? Hintikkova argumentace je příkladem argumentace typu formule logiky prvního řádu jsou ve skutečnosti o tom a o tom, tudíž ... . Uveďme pro ilustraci jiný nedávný příklad stejného argumentačního schématu, který pochází od Johana van Benthema (Exploring Logical Dynamics, CSLI, Stanford, 1997). Ten říká: Kvantifikátory jsou v podstatě modality, kvantifikované formule jsou tedy formule modální a jsou tudíž o existenci nějakých alternativ: formule ∀xP(x) říká, že P(x) je nutné, neboli že P(x) platí v každém „dosažitelném možném stavu věcí“, zatímco formule ∃xP(x) říká, že P(x) je možné, neboli že platí alespoň v jednom takovém stavu věcí.. (shrink)
Clauses (1) and (2) guarantee the inclusion of all 'intuitive' natural numbers, and (3) guarantees the exclusion of all other objects. Thus, in particular, no nonstandard numbers, which would follow after the intuitive ones are admitted (nonstandard numbers are found in nonstandard models of Peano arithmetic, in which the standard natural numbers are followed by one or more 'copies' of integers running from minus infinity to infinity)1. What is problematic about this delimitation? I suspect that its hypothetical proponent would see (...) its weakest point in the unexplained concept of successor. However, we logicians know better (or at least some of us are convinced that we do): it is clause (3) which harbours the neuralgic spot, by dint of resisting any reasonable logical formalization to the point of appearing utterly void! There is, of course, no problem with regimenting (1) - we only need an individual constant 0 and a unary predicate constant N (the one whose meaning we are interested in) and we postulate.. (shrink)
Atomists explain properties of wholes as compositions of properties of their parts; in particular properties of complex expressions as composed of properties of their parts. Especially, semantic atomists explain meanings of complex expressions as composed of meanings of their parts. Holists deny themselves this way: they insist that at least in some cases properties of wholes are more basic than, or not reducible to, properties of their parts; in particular, semantic holists claim that meanings of (at least some) wholes are (...) more basic than meanings of parts. Now as atomists have composition as the way of getting themselves from the meanings of parts to the meanings of wholes, holists need something to get them from the meanings of wholes to those of their parts. What is usually invoked in this context is the concept of intersubstitutivity, which is, however, not always wholly clear. (shrink)
During the first half of the present century a number of outstanding philosophers realized that language theory could profitably be viewed as far more than merely a means of studying one among the many human faculties, or merely sharpening the tool we use to philosophize - they realized that there is a sense in which philosophy of language comprises (almost) the whole of philosophy. This was the famous linguistic turn: philosophers came to accept that everything that is is in a (...) sense through language, and that to study what there is is to study what our words mean.1 The enigma of the language-world relationship was brought to the centre of philosophical discussion early in this century by Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Austin and others. Their original point was that we cannot take the representing capacities of language at face value, that in order to treat of things - which cannot be done save with the help of words - we must first treat of words and make sure which of them are really capable of treating of things. Thus the philosophers undergoing the linguistic turn slowly gave up asking what is consciousness (matter, evil etc.)? in favour of asking what is the meaning of 'consciousness' ('matter', 'evil' etc.)? This simple turn seemed to have tremendous consequences for philosophy. By replacing the question what is consciousness? by the question what is the meaning of 'consciousness'? we seem to lose nothing (any meaningful answer to the former question seems to be recoverable from an answer to the latter), and yet it seems to take us from the weird realms of mind to the commonplace domain of language, from the troublesome immersing into people's heads to straightforward observing how they use words. It also seems to guard against the "bewitchment of our reason by language" (Wittgenstein) caused by words which are only seemingly meaningful: such questions as what does the word 'ether' stand for? can be answered simply by nothing, whereas the question what is ether? presupposes that there is something as ether (as.... (shrink)
Metaphysics is usually understood as the investigation of being qua being and of its ultimate categories. Given this characterization, it may be hard to grasp why anyone might wish to oppose metaphysics, why anyone might claim that metaphysics ”leads the philosopher into complete darkness” (Wittgenstein, 1958, p.18)? What could be so misleading about the investigation of the most abstract vestiges of being? One source of disparagement towards metaphysics, of course, stems from the relativist conviction that there is no absolute being, (...) and hence nor are there any ultimate categories of being. Another ‘reason’ for some philosophers of this century (notably Carnap) to reject metaphysics appeared to consist in their reinterpretation of the word ”metaphysics”, in effect, simply as ”nonsensical philosophy”. However neither of these reasons seems to be the Wittgensteinian one. The way I propose to envisage this reason takes us back to Plato with his distinction between Being and Becoming (echoed, in one or another form, within the conceptions of so many subsequent philosophers). It is the distinction between the ‘higher’ realm of ideas with its crisp, eternal truths, and the ‘lower’ realm of appearances in which anything appears only as a fuzzy and transient reflection of something from the higher realm. The original message harbored in this Platonistic picture is clearly that the vast and hardly graspable flux of appearances shelters something firm and invariable, something potentially fully capturable by human reason which can then use it as a prism to comprehend and understand the everchanging phenomena. However, as I will claim, the picture of a ‘higher’ reality behind phenomena is dangerous in that it can delude a philosopher into feeling that he can solve empirical questions by a quasiempirical investigation of a non-empirical realm: a ‘metaphysical reality’. (shrink)
Když jsem v roce 1992 začínal na filosofické fakultě UK přednášet teorii sémantiky, cítil jsem intenzivní potřebu poskytnout studentům nějaký učební text. O překotném vývoji tohoto interdisciplinárního oboru, který odstartovalo v sedmdesátých letech úspěšné “zkřížení logiky s lingvistikou” Richardem Montaguem a dalšími a který se nezpomalil dodnes, totiž v češtině neexistovaly prakticky žádné zprávy (s čestnou výjimkou přístupu tzv. transparentní intenzionální logiky, který byl dílem českého emigranta Pavla Tichého a o kterém u nás psal Pavel Materna). Přehledové publikace, jaké jsou (...) potřeba pro někoho, kdo se chce v dané problematice zorientovat, se ovšem v té době i po světě teprve začínaly objevovat: v roce 1990 vyšla kniha An Introduction to Semantics Gennara Chierchii a Sally McConell-Ginnetové a v roce 1991 vydala skupina holandských logiků pod kolektivním pseudonymem L.T.F. Gamut dvousvazkovou knihu Language and Meaning. Za této situace jsem se pokusil co nejrychleji sepsat učební text, který by moji studenti i jiní zájemci o sémantiku mohli použít; a protože o jeho vydání paradoxně projevila větší zájem filosofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity v Brně (kde jsem já osobně nikdy neučil; ale zájem o sémantiku tam neúnavně podněcoval a vydání mého textu tam zprostředkoval kolega Materna) než filosofická fakulta mojí domovské Karlovy univerzity, vyšel tento text v Brně, a to pod názvem Úvod do teoretické sémantiky. (shrink)
Philosophy is usually considered to be searching out the most general, and hence also the most necessary and the most eternal, truth; its central part, ontology, is often assumed to be fastening upon whatever might be "the form of the world". And because our world is the world as formed by the way we comprehend it and by the way we cope with it by means of our language, it is often assumed that its form must be brought out by (...) the analysis of the interrelations between the meanings of our words and our statements. This is why many philosophers, and analytic philosophers in particular, say that philosophy consists in the analysis of meaning. However, to maintain that philosophy is in this way interlocked with necessary truth and with meaning is no longer a simple matter. Both these concepts are being constantly challenged. Is there, after all, something like necessary truth (pace Quine) to be captured by philosophy? Can we still maintain that there is a meaning (pace not only Quine, but also Austin, Wittgenstein and other sceptics), which can constitute the subject to philosophical analyses? And if these concepts should become endangered species, then what about philosophy? (shrink)
It is a common wisdom that whereas consequence or entailment is a semantic concept, provability is a syntactic concept. However, what exactly does this mean? What is provability? In the traditional, intuitive sense, to prove something is to demonstrate its truth, and indeed the Latin word for proof is demonstratio. Hence in this sense, we cannot prove something unless it is true. Now in the course of his well known proof of the incompleteness of arithmetic, Gödel showed that provability within (...) the axiomatic system of Peano arithmetic (PA) can be reconstructed as a number-theoretic predicate Pr and he showed that within the system there exists a statement G so that.. (shrink)
Imagine a Paleolithic hunter, who has failed to hunt down anything for a couple of days and is hungry. He has an urgent desire, the desire to eat, which he is not able to fulfill – his desire is frustrated by the world. Now imagine our contemporary bank clerk, who went to work forgetting his wallet at home and is hungry too. He too is not able to fulfill his urgent desire to eat because it is frustrated by the world. (...) From the viewpoint of the two individuals the situation is very similar. However, it differs in at least one crucial respect. While the hunter cannot eat because there is no food available to him anywhere near (at least as far as he can find out), the clerk can easily find tons of food - it is enough to visit a nearest supermarket. The reason why he cannot get the food is not that it would be physically impossible, but because taking food from store's shelves without paying is forbidden. This story reminds us that many of the barriers that constrain our lives and make us find our way merely within the space delimited by them are no longer barriers in the literal sense of the word - they are no longer produced by the conspiracy of the causal laws that form our physical niche. Rather they are produced by the conspiracy of attitudes of our fellow humans - they are deliberate rules, rather than inexorable natural laws. In this way evolution is canalized not by the environment relatively independent of it, but rather by the ploy of the organisms it itself has brought into being. I think that realizing the full import of this autocatalyctic situation may lead us, on the one hand, to the appreciation of certain philosophical doctrines, pervasive especially after Kant, regarding normativity as the hallmark of the human, while, on the other hand seeing how they get enlightened by scientific doctrines regarding the development of the human race its continuities/discontinuities with its animal cousins. (shrink)
Existuje překvapivě málo knih, které by se pokoušely o syntetizující pohled na analytickou filosofii. Je ovšem pravda, že ve druhé polovině našeho století se soubor filosofů, kteří se k analytické filosofii hlásí nebo kteří k ní bývají řazeni, stává natolik různorodý, že se jakákoli syntéza stává problematickou; překvapivě málo syntetizujících prací existuje ale i o ‘klasické’ analytické filosofii, to jest o analytické filosofii období zhruba od konce devatenáctého století do poloviny století dvacátého. Dejnožkova kniha je jednou z těch mála, které (...) se o něco takového pokouší, a to je třeba přivítat. Dejnožka se ovšem nesnaží podat všestranný rozbor názorů klasiků analytické filosofie; soustředí se pouze jeden aspekt jejich učení, totiž na jejich ontologii. Hned v úvodu své knihy k tomu vysvětluje, jaké opodstatnění může mít hovořit o ontologii u takového druhu filosofie, která se programově distancuje od metafyziky. Podle něj je tomu tak, že i když se někteří analytičtí filosofové někdy více či méně úspěšně vyhýbali otázkám metafyzickým (to jest otázkám po nejzákladnějších kategoriích bytí), ontologickým otázkám (to jest otázkám po povaze bytí jako takového) se v podstatě vyhnout nelze. A Dejnožka se snaží ukázat, že klasikové analytické filosofie se těmito otázkami zabývali mnohdy velice do hloubky. To je patrné zejména u Frega a Russella, kterým autor věnuje největší pozornost; avšak k těm, kteří podle Dejnožky berou ústřední otázku ontologie za svou, řadí Dejnožka i Wittgensteina i Quina (jimž se však věnuje na pouze velice omezeném prostoru - každému asi na dvanácti stránkách). (shrink)
The paper addresses foundational questions concerning the dynamic semantics of natural language based on dynamic logic of the Groenendijko-Stokhofian kind. Discussing a series of model calculi of increasing complexity, it shows in detail how the usual semantics of dynamic logic can be seen as emerging from the account for certain inferential patterns of natural language, namely those governing anaphora. In this way, the current ‘dynamic turn’ of logic is argued to be reasonably seen not as the product of changing the (...) focus of logic from the relation of entailment to „a structure of human cognitive action“ (van Benthem), but rather as merely another step in our long-term effort to master more and more inferential patterns. (shrink)
Podíváme-li se na rané Platónovy dialogy, vidíme, že o co v nich jde především, je předvedení toho, že pojmy mají relativně jasné hranice, že zdánlivému chaosu užívání slov vládne jistý pevný řád, který si člověk dokáže i explicitně uvědomit, je-li k tomu vhodným způsobem veden. Snaha o zdůraznění a znázornění tohoto na první pohled neviditelného 'řádu v chaosu' pak podle mého názoru postupně vedla i ke konstituci Platónovy mytologie říše idejí, které, ač neviděny, hrají z hlediska viditelného světa klíčovou roli. (...) Skrytý řád přítomný ve zjevném chaosu je vykreslen jako participace (methexis) věcí zjevného světa na idejích světa neviditelného. A již Aristotelés poukázal na to, že tato mytologie, jakkoli může být její spektakulárnost užitečná v kontextu nedoceňování existence řádu, může být naopak velice zavádějící, jestliže ji začneme brát jako více než právě mytologii; konkrétně jestliže začneme zapomínat, že 'platónský svět idejí' dává smysl pouze jako nástroj porozumění či výkladu toho světa, ve kterém žijeme, a začneme ho vidět jako něco skutečnějšího, než je svět zjevný. Zdá se mi tedy, že platonismus se ve filosofii dostává ke slovu jako antidotum vždy tehdy, když dochází k absolutizaci 'chaotického aspektu' světa (to jest když je svět vykládán jako něco, co jakýkoli řád postrádá - ať už to má podobu herakleitovského absolutizace pomíjivosti, romantického zdůraznění nevázanosti a iracionality, či postmoderní akcentuace různorodosti a nesouměřitelnosti). Na druhé straně platonismus sám svádí k absolutizaci 'řádu' (před Platónem zosobňovaným zejména parmeninovským popřením jakékoli proměnlivosti, a později pak nabývají podob třeba racionalistického výkladu světa jako vtěleného rozumu nebo moderního scientistichého názoru, podle kterého je mírou všech věcí věda). Existují ideje ve své 'platónské říši' doopravdy? Odpověď na tuto otázku je ovšem podstatným způsobem ovlivněna tím, jak rozumíme termínu "existovat" (nemluvě o slově "doopravdy").. (shrink)
Can we base the whole of logic solely on the concept of incompatibility? My motivation for asking this is two-fold: firstly, a technical interest in what a minimal foundations of logic might be; and secondly, the existence of philosophers who have taken incompatibility as the ultimate key to human reason (viz., e.g., Hegel's concept of determinate negation). The main aim of this contribution is to tackle two related questions: Is it possible to reduce the foundations of logic to the mere (...) concept of incompatibility? and Does this reduction lead us to a specific logical system? We conclude that the answers, respectively, are YES and a qualified NO (qualified in the sense that basing semantics on incompatibility does make some logical systems more natural than others, but without ruling out the alternatives.) A search for the bare bones of logic generally leads one to the relation of inference (or consequence). This way is explored meticulously by Koslow (1992). He defines an implication structure as, in effect, an ordered pair , where S is a set and | f Pow(S)HS fulfilling certain (relatively simple) restrictions. And obviously if we reduce incompatibility to inference, which is achievable by the well known ex contradictione quodlibet principle, we reach a logic based on incompatibility. The kind of logic flowing most straightforwardly from this setting is the intuitionist one. However, there is also the approach taken by R. Brandom and A. Aker (2008), who have set up a logic based directly on incompatibility. They define an incompatibility structure as an ordered pair such that S is a set and z f Pow(S) (again fulfilling certain restrictions). The authors introduce logical operators in such a way that they reach classical logic. Does this mean that inference 'naturally' leads to intuitionist logic, whereas incompatibility leads to the classical one? Myself, I have argued that it is indeed intuitionist logic that is the logic of inference (see Peregrin, 2008).. (shrink)
S pojmem možného světa se můžeme setkat již ve scholastice. Na úsvitu novověké filosofie ho G. Leibniz použil, když se pokoušel odpovědět na otázku, proč Bůh dopouští tolik zjevného neštěstí: jeho odpovědí bylo, že Bůh nám dává žít v nejlepším z těch světů, které jsou možné.
Theories of language in the twentieth century tend towards one of two radically different models. One paradigm holds that expressions ‘stand for’ entities and their meanings are the entities stood for by them. According to the other, expressions are rather tools of interaction and their meanings are their functions within the interaction, their aptitudes to serve it in their distinctive ways.
It seems that the theories of language of the present century can be classified into two basic groups. The approaches of the first group perceive language as a mathematical structure and understand any theory of language as a kind of application of mathematics or logic. Their ideological background is furnished by logical positivism and analytical philosophy (esp. by Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein and their followers); and their practical output is Chomskian formal syntax and subsequent formal semantics. The approaches of the other (...) group do not approve of formalization and consider a theory of language closer to psychology than to mathematics. The specific position within this group is occupied by the so-called structuralists (de Saussure, Hjelmslev, Derrida). (shrink)
V knize konfrontuji běžné pojetí jazyka, podle kterého je význam záležitostí vztahu slovo-věc, se strukturalistickým pohledem, podle kterého význam nemůže existovat bez toho, aby byly výrazy určitým způsobem provázány mezi sebou. Ukazuji, že takový strukturalismus není jen věcí Ferdinanda de Saussura, ale že se vyskytuje (pod jménem holismus) i v základech (post)analytické filosofie Quina, Davidsona, Sellarse a Brandoma. Ukazuji také, že není neslučitelný s formálně-logickým přístupem k významu, jaký byl rozpracován Carnapem, Montaguem a dalšími.
Putnamův myšlenkový experiment Ve svém velice slavném článku The Meaning of ‘Meaning‘1 Hilary Putnam předkládá dilema, které nedávno na stránkách Filosofického časopisu Tomáš Hříbek rekapituloval následujícím způsobem2: Tradiční pojetí (1) Porozumění slovu je psychologický stav. významu (2) Mluvčí, kteří se nacházejí v tomtéž psychologickém stavu, rozumějí slovu tímtéž způsobem. (3) Tito mluvčí tudíž míní tímtéž slovem totéž (tj. souhlasí v intenzi). (4) Protože souhlasí v intenzi, souhlasí v extenzi.
Je potěšením stát na břehu a vidět lodě, jak vyplouvají na moře; je potěšením stát v okně hradu a pozorovat bitvu a její zápletky dole; avšak žádné potěšení se nevyrovná tomu, když stojíme na vyvýšené půdě pravdy ... a vidíme chyby, omyly, zmatení a bouře v údolí pod námi.
In considering the very possibility of deviant logic, we face the following question: what makes us see an operator of one logical system as a deviant version of an operator of another system? Why not see it simply as a different operator? Why do we see, say, intuitionist implication as an operator 'competing' with classical implication? Is it only because both happen to be called implications?1 It is clear that if we want to make cross-systemic comparisons, we need an 'Archimedean (...) point' external to the systems compared. Some logicians and philosophers, including Quine (1986), come close to saying that no such Archimedean point is available, and hence that there can be no deviant logics, for if two operators are governed by different axioms, then they are simply two different operators (or, if you prefer, operators with different meanings). From this viewpoint, intuitionist implication is no less different from classical implication than, say, intuitionist or classical conjunction. This conclusion is indeed plausible if we consider logical calculi simply as algebraic structures2; however, things are different if we see them as a means of accounting for something that is already 'there' before we establish the structures and is to be explicated by them. From such a perspective, two operators of different systems may be variants of the same operator in virtue of the fact that they are both means of capturing the same pretheoretical item. What might these items be? Sometimes it seems that logicians tacitly assume that there are some mythical archetypes of implication, conjunction etc., located somewhere in some Platonic heaven or somehow underlying the a priori structures of our mind, which logic tries to capture (for better or worse). However, when it comes to the comparison of the concrete outcomes of our logical efforts, say the classical and the intuitionist implications with the archetypal Implication, the latter can never be materialized so distinctly as to be of any help. A more constructive proposal is that the operators are related to elements or constructions of our language.. (shrink)
Když Bůh stvořil Adama, pošeptal mu do ucha: Ve všech kontextech jednání budeš brát v potaz pravidla, byť by to mělo být jenom pravidlo, že se máš pídit po pravidlech, která bys mohl brát v potaz. Přestaneš-li brát v potaz pravidla, budeš chodit po čtyřech.
There have been, I am afraid, almost as many answers to the question what is logic? as there have been logicians. However, if logic is not to be an obscure "science of everything", we must assume that the majority of the various answers share a common core which does offer a reasonable delimitation of the subject matter of logic. To probe this core, let us start from the answer given by Gottlob Frege (1918/9), the person probably most responsible for modern (...) logic: the subject matter of logic is "truth", and especially its "laws"1. How should we understand the concept of "laws of truth"? The underlying point clearly is that the truth/falsity of our statements is partly a contingent and partly a necessary, lawful matter: that "Paris is in France" is true is a contingent matter, whereas that "Paris is in France or it is not in France" is true is a necessary matter (let us, for the time being, leave aside the Quinean scruples regarding the delimitation of necessarily true statements). Logic,then, should focus on the statements that are true as a matter of law (i.e. necessarily), or, more generally, the truth of which "lawfully depends" on some other statements (i.e. which are true as a matter of law provided these other statements are true). This renders Fregean laws of truth as, in general, a matter of "lawful truth-dependence" - i.e. of entailment or inference (again, let us now disregard any possible difference between these two concepts). This yields a conception of logic as a theory of entailment or inference, a conception which looms behind many other specifications of the subject matter of logic and which, I think, is ultimately correct. However, we can also see the logician – and this is the view we will stick to here – as trying to separate true sentences from false ones; or, equivalently, to map sentences onto truth and falsity. Let us first consider the case of a non-empirical language with a single, definite truth valuation – like the language of Peano arithmetic.. (shrink)
Pavel Materna je logikem a filosofem, na kterého se, domnívám se, mimořádně hodí anglický přívlastek single-minded, který bohužel nemá v češtině skutečný ekvivalent. Materna již dávno přijal za svůj ten pojmový rámec, který stojí v základě systému transparentní intenzionální logiky (TIL) vyvinuté Pavlem Tichým, a tento rámec se mu stal měřítkem všech věcí, jsoucích že jsou a nejsoucích že nejsou. Ani jeho poslední kniha Concepts and Objects, která vyšla v ediční řadě vydávané Filosofickou společností Finska, není v tomto směru výjimkou: (...) ani ona není ničím jiným než jistou formou rozpracování a aplikace TIL. Tato kniha se ale přece jenom, zdá se mi, od předchozích Maternových publikací poněkud liší, a to způsobem, který je třeba přivítat. Zatímco v minulosti se Maternova soustředěnost na TIL často projevovala i jeho neochotou zabývat se názory s TIL nekompatibilními a hovořit i k lidem, který tento systém za svůj neberou, v knize Concept and Object se Materna více než kdy předtím pokusil vymezit TIL oproti jiným logickým a filosofickým systémům a u mnohých problémů, kterými se v knize zabývá, se pokusil jasněji než kdy předtím vyjádřit, proč je podle něj ten přístup, který on volí, lepší než přístupy jiné. První.. (shrink)
mezi "metafyzickým realismem" a "relativismem" (Putnam, 1980, 1990, 1994; Lewis, 1984; Rorty, 1972, 1993). Je jazyk, jak tvrdí "realisté", pouze prostředkem kopírování na nás zcela nezávislého světa, nebo se, jak mají za to "relativisté", nějak podílí na utváření tohoto světa?. Z hlediska 'selského rozumu' se to může zdát být jasné: svět přece jasně je na nás nezávislý a představovat si, že ho my, naším jazykem, můžeme nějak "utvářet", se zdá být absurdní. Méně absurdní se ale tahle myšlenka stává, když si (...) uvědomíme, že to, čemu říkáme svět , se skládá z kategorizovaných objektů s různými druhy vlastností a vztahů , a že to, jaké kategorie máme či co považujeme za vlastnost či vztah může být - do nějaké míry - věcí našeho jazyka. (shrink)
While the traditional view was that in order to understand language and our linguistic practices we must explain meaning, the 'pragmatic turn' emerging within the writings of various philosohpers of the second half of the twentieth century caused a basic change of the perspective: the tendency is to concentrate directly on explaining the linguistic practices and leave the need for explaining meaning to emerge (or, as the case may be, not to emerge) subsequently. I argue that after this turn we (...) should explain the peculiar kinds of 'meaningfulness' that characterizes our expressions in terms of what Sellars called "pattern governed behavior". Furthermore, I argue that the turn should not make us discard meanings, but only to reappraise them: to see them as the roles of expressions vis-à-vis the rules that govern our language games. (shrink)
Suppose for a moment, that J.R.R. Tolkien, the famous author of the cult fantasy saga Lord of the Rings, did not publish anything of his writings during his lifetime; suppose that after his death the manuscripts of all his writings are lying on his table. Where, then, is the Middlearth, the glorious land of hobbits, dwarfs, elfs and human heroes, situated? We might be tempted to say that it is within our world, namely inside the pile of the papers on (...) the writer’s table - for it exists solely through the letters written on these papers. However, to say this would be wrong (or at least strongly misleading) - surely we do not expect that should the heroes of the book walk in a straight line long enough, they would cross the boundaries of the book and appear in Mr. Tolkien’s room. Middlearth is, of course, not within our world - despite existing solely due to certain things which are within it. Now the situation is not substantially different actually, when Middlearth does not exist solely through a single pile of papers, but rather through millions of printed copies of Tolkien’s books and through the minds of millions of their readers. Again, the land exists exclusively through the existence of entities which are parts of our world (albeit that they are now scattered throughout the whole Earth), but this does not mean that the land itself is a part of our world. The point of this anecdotal excursion is now that this relationship between our world and Middlearth is, in a sense, similar to the relationship between our physical space of things and „the space of reasons“ (Sellars, 1956, §36); or between „the causal story“ and „the justificatory story“ (Rorty, 1991, 148). Like Middlearth, the space of reasons exists exclusively due to us, humans, and our minds (and perhaps also of some of our artifacts), and in this sense we might be tempted to situate it in our world, to see it as a certain, perhaps scattered, compartment of the world of things within which we live; but just as in the case of Middlearth, this might be dangerously misguiding.. (shrink)
Nová kniha Petra Koláře, Pravda a fakt (Filosofia, Praha, 2002) je věnována tématu, kterým se Kolář částečně zabýval již ve své předchozí knize: teoriím pravdivosti a zejména teorii korespondenční. Diskuse o tom, jak explikovat pojem pravdy či pravdivosti se analytickou filosofií táhnou od jejích počátků, a rozdmychány byly zejména výsledky Tarského matematických analýz tohoto pojmu1. Kolář v první části knihy probírá a srovnává hlavní kategorie těch teorií, které jsou výsledky těchto diskusí (některé z nich samozřejmě tak či onak existovaly dávno (...) před Tarskim): dělí je na korespondenční, koherenční, pragmatistické, minimalistické, redundanční a sémantické (tou poslední je de facto původní Tarského varianta). Způsobu, jak Kolář tyto teorie vykládá, lze, myslím, vytýkat skutečně pramálo: jeho výklad je systematický, jasný a názorný. Také shrnutí na koncích jednotlivých kapitol jsou velice užitečná a dokumentují autorovu pedagogickou pečlivost. Přesto bych si k této části dovolil mít dvě drobné a jednu zásadnější připomínku. Zaprvé se mi nezdá příliš adekvátní, jak Kolář používá termíny deflacionismus a minimalismus: za deflacionistickou prohlašuje každou teorii, která rezignuje na explikaci pojmu pravdy, takže mu do této kolonky spadne jak horwichovský minimalismus, tak davidsonovský názor, že pojem pravdy nelze explikovat ne proto, že by byl triviální, ale naopak proto, že je příliš fundamentální (tady se dere na jazyk termín maximalismus). To se ale těžko slučuje s Davidsonovým výslovným odmítáním deflacionismu2. Zdá se mi, že termín deflacionismus je spíše víceméně synonymní s termínem minimalismus a ty oba se mi zdají do velké míry krýt i s redundanční teorií. Druhou drobnou výhradou je, že mi připadá škoda, že Kolář v rámci pojednávání pragmatistických teoriích zcela pominul současný pragmatismus. Škoda to je pro to, že pragmatismus v současné době zažívá velký revival a i různé pragmatistické teorie pravdivosti se proto dostávají na pořad dne (včetně například kontextu matematiky). Za.... (shrink)
The aim of this paper is to summarize some recent considerations of the nature of language and linguistic theory which seem to challenge the usefulness and adequacy of such a division and to indicate that these considerations may provide for a new paradigm. I attempt to show that these considerations indicate that the Carnapian boundary between syntax and semantics is, in the case of natural languages, misconceived; while that between semantic and pragmatics is more stipulated than discovered.
The topic of this paper is the question whether there is a logic which could be justly called the logic of inference. It may seem that at least since Prawitz, Dummett and others demonstrated the proof-theoretical prominency of intuitionistic logic, the forthcoming answer is that it is this logic that is the obvious choice for the accolade. Though there is little doubt that this choice is correct (provided that inference is construed as inherently single-conclusion and complying with the Gentzenian structural (...) rules), I do not think that the usual justification of it is satisfactory. Therefore, I will first try to clarify what exactly is meant by the question, and then sketch a conceptual framework in which it can be reasonably handled. I will introduce the concept of 'inferentially native' logical operators (those which explicate inferential properties) and I will show that the axiomatization of these operators leads to the axiomatic system of intuitionistic logic. Finally, I will discuss what modifications of this answer enter the picture when more general notions of inference are considered. (shrink)
V letošním roce uplynulo 90 let ode dne, kdy se v Brně narodil geniální německý logik a matematik Kurt Gödel; člověk, který způsobil v moderní matematické logice převrat hlubší než byl ten, k jakému došlo v moderní fyzice díky lidem jako byli Einstein, Heisenberg a Bohr. Během svého života, stráveného z větší části nejprve ve Vídni a potom v Princetonu v USA, publikoval celou řadu prací, které měly pro matematickou logiku zcela zásadní význam; oním skutečným mezníkem, který mu zajistil trvalé (...) místo nejen v Pantheonu logiků a matematiků, ale i mezi velikány lidského myšlení vůbec, však byl jeho důkaz “neúplnosti formální aritmetiky”. (shrink)
Kniha, jako je tato, nemůže být tak docela dílem jediného člověka. Dovést ji do podoby koherentního celku bych nedokázal bez pomoci svých kolegů, kteří po mně text četli a upozornili mě na spoustu chyb a nedůsledností, které se v něm vyskytovaly. Můj dík v tomto směru patří zejména Vojtěchu Kolmanovi, Liboru Běhounkovi a Martě Bílkové. Za připomínky k různým částem rukopisu jsem vděčen i Pavlu Maternovi, Milanu Matouškovi, Prokopu Sousedíkovi, Vladimíru Svobodovi, Petru Hájkovi a Grahamu Priestovi. Kniha vznikla v rámci (...) projektu podpořeného grantem AV ČR číslo A0009001/00. (shrink)
Ve FČ 4/2000 demonstroval Petr Koťátko svůj soustavný kritický zájem o mé práce tentokrát polemikou s názory, které jsem vyslovil ve své knize Význam a struktura (OIKOYMENH, Praha, 1999). Nad mým chápáním významu jakožto ‘zhmotnění’ inferenční role si Koťátko klade otázku „co je za takovými formulacemi, a především: co je zde reálně navíc v porovnání s funkcí, kterou strukturám (včetně inferenčních) běžně přiznáváme, aniž bychom se deklarovali jako strukturalisté“. Nemohu než konstatovat, že o tom, co za nimi je, je moje (...) kniha. Nevím ovšem, jakou roli strukturám přiznává Koťátko a ti ostatní, za které mluví – mojí zkušeností je, že inferencialismus, který v knize obhajuji (ať už úspěšně nebo ne), je pro většinu lidí zabývajících se jazykem dost těžko stravitelnou věcí (viz například moji diskusi s Pavlem Maternou ve FČ 5/2000). (shrink)
