O artigo de Goodman “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals” teve um papel central no debate relativo a análise adequada dos condicionais contrafactuais. A seguir examinarei o artigo de Goodman em detalhe e discutirei algumas objeções e sugestões de Parry em seu artigo “A Reexamination of the Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals”. Restringirei minha discussão ao “problema das condições relevantes”, assim denominado por Goodman, que é o tema principal das críticas de Parry e que considero ser o problema principal para a abordagem (...) de Goodman. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5007 / 1808-1711.2011v15n3p383. (shrink)

I present the realist conception of logic supported by Oswaldo Chateaubriand which integrates ontological and epistemological aspects, opposing it to mathematical and linguistic conceptions. I give special attention to the peculiarities of his hierarchy of types in which some properties accumulate and others have a multiple degree. I explain such deviations of the traditional conception, showing the underlying purpose in each of these peculiarities. I compare the ideas of Chateaubriand to the similar ideas of Frege, Tarski and Gödel. (...) I suggest a view of the logical properties in terms of the Aristotelian notion of focal meaning and I give a formal expression to the type of the entities in the hierarchy proposed by Chateaubriand. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to frame briefly Chateaubriand’s conception of logical forms in the distinction between logic and language as calculus and logic as universal language, devised by Jean van Heijenoort and later generalized by Jaakko Hintikka. The most important reasons to connect Chateaubriand’s conception with this distinction are perhaps Chateaubriand’s criticism of the linguistic approach to logical forms and the role Chateaubriand assigns to symbolism in his own account.O propósito deste artigo é localizar (...) brevemente a concepção de forma lógica de Chateaubriand com relação à distinção entre lógica e linguagem como cálculo e lógica como linguagem universal, introduzida por Jean van Heijenoort e depois generalizada por Jaako Hintikka. Talvez a razão mais importante para conectar a concepção de Chateaubriand com esta distinção sejam suas críticas ao tratamento linguístico das formas lógicas, e o papel que Chateaubriand atribui ao simbolismo em seu próprio tratamento. (shrink)

In Logical Forms Part II, Chateaubriand begins the Chapter on “Propositional Logic” by considering the reading of the ‘conditional’ by ‘implies’; in fact he states that:There is a confusion, as a matter of fact, and it runs deep, but it is a confusion in propositional logic itself, and the mathematician’s reading is a rather sensible one.After a careful, erudite analysis of various philosophical viewpoints of logic, Chateaubriand comes to the conclusion that:Pure propositional logic, as just characterized, belongs to (...) ontological logic, and it does not include a theory of deduction as a human activity. This is a part of epistemological logic, and is more closely connected to the applications of pure propositional logic.An implicit assumption in Chateaubriand’s reasoning appears to be that propositions have a timeless status. I will present arguments for the opposite viewpoint which leads to an analysis of Propositional Logic not covered under Chateaubriand’s monograph and perhaps resolves some conflicts therein; much as the conflict between the Intuitionist and Classical Mathematician on whether every function on the Reals is continuous is resolved by the realization that they are talking about different “entities”.Em Logical Forms II, Chateaubriand inicia o capítulo “Lógica Proposi-cional” considerando a leitura do ‘condicional’ como ‘implica’. De fato, ele diz o seguinte:Na verdade, existe uma confusão, e ela é profunda, mas é uma confusão na lógica proposicional ela mesma, e a leitura de um matemático é bastante sensível.Depois de uma análise cuidadosa e erudita dos vários pontos de vista filosóficos da lógica , Chateaubriand chega à conclusão que:A lógica proposicional pura, tal como aqui caracterizada, pertence à lógica ontológica, e não inclui uma teoria da dedução como atividade humana. Isto é parte da lógica epistemológica, e é mais intimamente conectada às aplicações da lógica proposicional.Uma premissa implícita no raciocínio de Chateaubriand parece ser a de que proposições têm um estatuto atemporal. Eu argumentarei em favor da visão oposta, que leva a uma análise da Lógica Proposicional não abordada no texto de Chateaubriand e que talvez resolva alguns conflitos. Muito do conflito entre Intuicionistas e Matemáticos Clássicos sobre se toda função sobre os números reais é contínua é resolvido pela compreensão de que eles estão falando de “entidades” diferentes. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Chateaubriand’s criticism of the so-called slingshot arguments, particularly of those versions proposed by Church and by Gödel . I concentrate on two critical points made by Chateaubriand, and argue that they are not decisive against these versions of the slingshot. I also discuss Chateaubriand’s hybrid theory of definite descriptions and argue that, despite its intrinsic interest, it cannot avoid the conclusion of the slingshot.

In this paper I discuss Chateaubriand’s notion of senses. His notions retains the spirit of the original Fregean notion, but differ from it in some fundamental ways. I compare both notions, especially concerning the issue of indirect reference, and also concerning their explanatory power in epistemic matters. Finally, I raise some worries concerning the semantic role played by Chateaubriand’s senses, as well as the notion of judgment that his notion of thoughts seems to imply.Neste artigo, discuto a noção (...) de sentido de Chateaubriand. Sua noção retém o espírito da noção Fregeana original, mas difere da mesma em alguns aspectos fundamentais. Eu comparo ambas as noções, especialmente no que diz respeito à questão da referência indireta, e também no que concerne ao seu poder explicativo em questões epistêmicas. Por fim, levanto algumas preocupações sobre o papel semântico desempenhado pelos sentidos de Chateaubriand, bem como a forma dos juízos que a sua noção de pensamento implica. (shrink)

In this paper Chateaubriand’s approach to solve some problems related to the nature of logic is confronted with the traditional approaches. It is shown that his hierarchy of logical types opens up new possibilities to characterize logical properties and logical truths and that it also sheds some new light on the foundations of mathematics.

Chateaubriand’s view of truth as identification is based on the assumption that there is a close parallelism between sentences and definite descriptions with regard to their connection with reality. The paper aims to show that this parallelism does not actually obtain.

In the present paper, I raise some questions referring to Chateaubriand’s discussion of the nature of language, its origin, its development and its functions in human live. These questions arise when his view is compared with the partly similar views defended by Gödel and Jørgensen, among others.No presente trabalho levanto algumas questões referentes à discussão de Chateaubriand sobre a natureza da linguagem, sua origem, seu desenvolvimento e suas funções na vida humana. Essas questões surgem quando seu ponto de (...) vista é comparado aos pontos de vista parcialmente similares defendidos por Gödel e Jorgensen, entre outros. (shrink)

In this paper, Chateaubriand’s account of the productivity of language is put to an historical perspective. Its philosophical significance is assessed. It is shown how it could be expanded to accommodate recent findings of professional linguists.O presente artigo analisa o tratamento da produtividade da linguagem oferecido por Chateaubriand de uma perspectiva histórica. Seu significado filosófico é avaliado. Também se mostra que este tratamento poderia ser expandido de forma a incluir descobertas recentes de lingüistas profissionais.

In this short paper I am concerned with basically two especially important issues in Oswaldo Chateaubriand’s Logical Forms II; namely, the dispute between first- and higher-order logic and his conception of logical truth and related notions, like logical property, logical state of affairs and logical falsehood. The first issue was also present in the first volume of the book, but the last is privative of the second volume. The extraordinary significance of both issues for philosophy is emphasized and, though (...) there is a basic agreement with Chateaubriand’s views, some critical remarks are interspersed.Neste pequeno artigo considero basicamente duas questões particularmente importantes em Logical Forms II de Oswaldo Chateaubriand; a saber, a disputa entre a lógica de primeira e de segunda ordem e sua concepção de verdade lógica e noções relacionadas, como as de propriedade lógica, estado de coisas lógico e falsidade lógica. A primeira questão também estava presente no primeiro volume do livro, mas a última apenas aparece no segundo volume. Enfatizo o significado extraordinário de ambas as questões para a filosofia e, embora haja uma concordância básica com as visões de Chateaubriand, algumas observações críticas são inseridas. (shrink)

In this paper on Oswaldo Chateaubriand’s book Logical Forms I, I am mostly concerned with the critical task of indicating some shortcomings and stressing my disagreements with the distinguished scholar. The most important shortcoming of the book is Chateaubriand’s unfamiliarity with Husserl’s views on logic and semantics, some of which anticipate views propounded by the former – e.g., the distinction between logical law and logical necessity-, whereas others are more subtle than Chateaubriand’s views – e.g., Husserl’s views (...) on the referent of statements. One of the most important contributions of Chateaubriand’s book is his analysis and rejection of all forms of the so-called “slingshot argument”. On the other hand, I disagree with Chateaubriand’s rendering of some of Frege’s views, though some of these are very common among Fregean scholars. Finally, I assess Chateaubriand’s criticism of Kripke’s views as well as those of Tarski. I tend to agree with his criticism of Kripke, but disagree with his assessment of Tarskian semantics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Diacritics 30.3 (2000) 28-39 [Access article in PDF] Chateaubriand and the Politics of (Im)mortality Marie-hélène Huet In the twenty-sixth book of his Mémoires d'outre-tombe, Chateaubriand recounts his 1821 arrival at the French embassy in Berlin. He cites a flattering portrait of him written by the Baroness of Hohenhausen and published in the morning press on March 22: "M. de Chateaubriand is of a somewhat short, yet (...) slender, stature. His oval face has an expression of reverence and melancholy. He has black hair and black eyes that glow with the fire of his mind." 1 At this point, Chateaubriand flatly adds: "Mais j'ai les cheveux blancs; j'ai plus d'un siècle, en outre, je suis mort" ("But I have white hair; I am more than a century old, besides, I am dead") [2:39]. 2 Of course, those startling words, "en outre, je suis mort" do not refer to the year 1821, nor to the time Chateaubriand is writing this account. Rather, they refer to the time we, readers, turn to this specific page of the Mémoires: as you are reading this, Chateaubriand reminds us, I am dead. The words wrest us away from the event he is relating, his arrival in Berlin, to remind us in the most direct terms that our reading of these words necessarily entails the death of their author. Moreover, the French en outre brings us back to the very title of the Mémoires d'outre-tombe: outre-tombe, from beyond the grave.In 1836, Chateaubriand signed a contract with a society of shareholders: in exchange for an immediate payment of 156,000 francs and a life annuity, he sold "the literary ownership of his Mémoires as they existed and as they would exist at his death." 3 Commenting on this transaction, Maurice Levaillant notes: "With this agreement, Chateaubriand bought material security at the price of a concession that he never got over: instead of appearing after a period he had first prescribed as fifty years after his death, his Mémoires would suddenly appear, so to speak, live from his grave" [xv]. As Chateaubriand put it in his avant-propos, the publication would take place "as soon as my bell tolls!" [1:1].The contract for the Mémoires is described as a painful necessity: "No one can know how much I have suffered from having been required to mortgage my grave" [1:1]. The formula "mortgage my grave" is suggestive in that it metonymically shifts the object of economic exchange from the work being sold, that is, the Mémoires, to the grave, which Chateaubriand always associated with literary creation. Indeed, the association between memoirs and tomb that provides the title of the work is echoed and amplified by a constant relation within the text between the grave and the act of writing. [End Page 28]In the avant-propos, a few lines after lamenting the mortgaging of his grave, Chateaubriand also reports that he has secured an islet in the bay of Saint-Malo, the Grand-Bé, to serve as his burial site. 4 Proposing an arrangement rigorously parallel to the desired legal agreement for the Mémoires, he adds that, should he die outside of France: "I wish that my body not be brought back to my homeland until fifty years after an initial burial" [1:3]. A half-century of silent mourning seemed to be the ideal length of time for the public to wait before discovering, and possibly disturbing, both his mortal remains and his immortal work.Not that this intimate relationship between death and writing resulted from the specific circumstances of the Mémoires. Twenty years earlier, in the second preface to the Essai sur les Révolutions, Chateaubriand had already described himself as "a writer who believed he had reached the end of his life, and who, in the destitution of exile, had nowhere to write, but upon his own gravestone" [7]. The tomb stands for death, just as it stands for Chateaubriand's creative works. In an essay... (shrink)

In Logical Forms Chateaubriand introduces a disambiguation technique that might turn out to be highly useful for analyzing important classes of sentences. In particular, he claims that this technique is relevant for analyzing counterfactual suppositions. In this paper I critically examine this claim and conclude that the ambiguity of counterfactuals is contextual rather than structural.

In Logical Forms II Chateaubriand puts the simple question: Why should we accept Ockham’s razor? He blames the principle of reduction as an unjustified dogma of nominalism. In this paper I present a justification for it. Contrary to Russell`s conception of reduction as elimination, I propose the thesis that reduction is explanation.Em Logical Forms II, Chateaubriand levanta a questão: Por que deveríamos aceitar a navalha de Ockham? Ele critica esse princípio de redução como um dogma não justificado do (...) nominalismo. Neste artigo apresento uma justificativa para o princípio. Ao contrário da concepção de Russell de redução como eliminação, eu proponho a tese de que redução é explanação. (shrink)

In this critical study I try to highlight some of the most important issues discussed in Chateaubriand’s excellent book. In particular, I discuss in some detail Chateaubriand’s criticism of one of the icons of analytic philosophy, namely, Quine, as well as some of his own valuable contributions to philosophy in this book – for example, his refutation of the various forms of the slingshot argument and his characterization of logical truth.

In his doctoral dissertation, O. Chateaubriand favored Dedekind’s analysis of the notion of number; whereas in Logical Forms, he favors a fregean approach to the topic. My aim in this paper is to examine the kind of logicism he defends. Three aspects will be considered: the concept of analysis; the universality of arithmetical properties and their definability; the irreducibility of arithmetical objects.

The article aims to understand the notion underlying the term “revolution” in René de Chateaubriand’s Essay on Revolutions, making particular reference not only to the substantial notes of the 1826 re-edition, provided by the author himself, but also to the conceptual constellation surrounding the nascent concept of revolution, in particular “history” and “revolutionary rupture”.

ABSTRACT: In its strongest unqualified form, the principle of wholistic reference is that in any given discourse, each proposition refers to the whole universe of that discourse, regardless of how limited the referents of its non-logical or content terms. According to this principle every proposition of number theory, even an equation such as "5 + 7 = 12", refers not only to the individual numbers that it happens to mention but to the whole universe of numbers. This principle, its history, (...) and its relevance to some of Oswaldo Chateaubriand's work are discussed in my 2004 paper "The Principle of Wholistic Reference" in Essays on Chateaubriand's "Logical Forms". In Chateaubriand's réplica (reply), which is printed with my paper, he raised several important additional issues including the three I focus on in this tréplica (reply to his reply): truth-values, universes of discourse, and formal ontology. This paper is self-contained: it is not necessary to have read the above-mentioned works. The principle of wholistic reference (PWR) was first put forth by George Boole in 1847 when he espoused a monistic fixed-universe viewpoint similar to the one Frege and Russell espoused throughout their careers. Later, Boole elaborated PWR in 1854 from the pluralistic multiple-universes perspective. (shrink)

En este trabajo se examinan las concepciones de Oswaldo Chateaubriand acerca de la naturaleza del lenguaje, así como las relaciones de éste con la lógica y la ontología. En primer lugar, se aborda la tematización del lenguaje como actividad humana. A continuación, se analiza la elucidación que propone Chateaubriand acerca del significado en términos de uso o condiciones sociales de identidad. En tercer lugar, se indaga la fundamentación del lenguaje y del significado en propiedades ontológicas. Finalmente, se plantean (...) observaciones acerca de algunas tesis de Chateaubriand, tales como la distinción entre significado y sentido o el carácter innato de algunos conceptos.In this paper we examine Chateaubriand’s views on language and on its general relation to logic and ontology. We first discuss his account of language as a human activity. Secondly, we analyze Chateaubriand’s explanation of meaning as use or as social identity conditions. Thirdly, we spell out the ontological foundation of language and meaning on ontological properties. Finally, we make observations on some aspects of Chateaubriand’s tenets such as the distinction between meaning and sense and the innateness of some concepts. (shrink)

The historical factors as well as the units of the cultural knowledge which are considered to have provided Chateaubriand’s books, and “The Genius of Christianity” in particular, with the success and the content are the subject of the present article. The following historical reasons which attracted the readers’ attention to the book have been defined: the disappointment of the society with the atheistic ideals of the revolution, the need for religious cult restoring, the authorities’ desire to stop strife in (...) the country and build relationships with Catholic Europe. The semantic content of the work also contributed to its popularity because it responded to the request of finding logic in the religion, had an emotional impact and dealt with the relevant issues of the morality by means of the cultural category of sinfulness. Scientific novelty of the research implies the following: the cultural category of sinfulness objectified in F.R. Chateaubriand’s book “The Genius of Christianity” having been analyzed for the first time as well as the author’s approach to the understanding and cultural information streamlining having been identified. More over cultural-historical factors promoting the book’s prominence among Chateaubriand’s contemporaries have been studied. The author’s using rational way while explaining the basis of the sin, resorting to the strict argumentation and the evidence-based methods, denying religious irrationality have been set. The conducted research has shown the key factors leading to the book’s relevance: the society’s necessity of the religion revival, the authorities’ support of this tendency specified by the political environment. (shrink)

Es razonable pensar que una parte relevante del trabajo del lógico consiste en elucidar ciertos conceptos teóricamente valiosos pero, si se los evalúa desde el punto de vista de la claridad y el rigor, aún insatisfactoriamente caracterizados. Estos procesos elucidatorios pueden modelarse de formas muy variadas; el núcleo de los mismos, no obstante, reside en la construcción de un concepto más riguroso que funge como clarificación o elucidatum de un concepto previo. El concepto matemáticamente preciso de “demostración” puede considerarse un (...) posible elucidatum del respectivo concepto intuitivo. ¿Es un elucidatum adecuado? ¿Bajo qué condiciones lo es? ¿Cómo repercute asumir tal éxito elucidatorio en nuestra concepción filosófica de la demostración? Chateaubriand no plantea, explícitamente, el problema en términos elucidatorios; sin embargo, sugeriremos que enmarcar su reflexión en tal contexto puede proveer una perspectiva novedosa de sus lúcidos análisis.A relevant aspect of a logician’s work consists in elucidating certain concepts that, however theoretically valuable, are yet to be sastifactorily characterized from the point of view of rigor and clarity. Although these elucidatory processes can be modeled on several ways, its nucleus resides in the construction of a more rigorous concept that acts as clarification or elucidatum of a previous concept. The mathematically precise concept of “demonstration” can be considered as a possible elucidatum of the respective intuitive concept. Is it an adecuate elucidatum? How does assuming such an elucidatory success affect our philosophical conception of the demonstration? Although Chateaubriand does not explicitly pose the question in elucidatory terms, I will suggest that framing his reflection in such a context can provide a new perspective of his lucid analysis. (shrink)

" Ces sentiments (amour, poésie, religion, etc.) font entendre au fond de notre âme une musique céleste, qui calme la passion, la douleur, et semble annoncer la mort elle-même par des accords purs et doux, des accords qui accompagnent le retour vers la nature et le tranquille appel du père à ses enfants. " Le but de cet ouvrage n'est autre que de déterminer ce qui se cache derrière ces belles lignes de " De l'Allemagne " que l'on pourrait volontiers (...) croire entachées d'une prolixité un peu facile. Et derrière ces métaphores se cachent en fait beaucoup de choses : la rencontre de la tradition spirituelle - augustinienne notamment - et de la philosophie sensualiste du XVIIIe siècle ; le souci d'une cohérence entre conception du monde et discours théorique sur la musique, entre imagination poétique et perception subjective des formes et productions musicales. Histoire des idées, analyse littéraire et recherche musicale se rejoignent ici pour montrer la richesse de la réflexion et de l'intuition poétique de Joubert (1754-1824), de Mme de Staël (1766-1817), de Chateaubriand (1768-1848) ou de Senancour (1770-1846) sur la musique, mais pour montrer aussi la convergence avec le paysage musical de l'époque et ses compositeurs : Lesueur (1760-1837), Cherubini (1760-1842), Méhul (1763-1817). (shrink)

This article discusses some of Chateaubriand’s views on the connections between the ideas of formalization and infinity, as presented in chapters 19 and 20 of Logical Forms. We basically agree with his criticisms of the standard construal of these connections, a view we named “formal proofs as ultimate provings”, but we suggest an alternative way of picturing that connection based on some ideas of the late Wittgenstein.

Many authors, including Oswaldo Chateaubriand, maintain that “properties” should be structured in logical grades, where the least abstract quantities comprise the lowest ranks of a hierarchy that embraces more abstract and mathematized qualities only at higher levels. But applied mathematicians warns that no quantities can be expected to possess crisp, real world extensions unless they have already been processed with a fair amount of set theoretic machinery beforehand.Muitos autores, incluindo Oswaldo Chateaubriand, sustentam que "propriedades" deveriam ser estruturadas em (...) uma gradação lógica, onde as quantidades menos abstratas ficariam num nível mais baixo de uma hierarquia que abarca qualidades mais matematizadas e abstratas somente em níveis mais elevados. Mas matemáticos aplicados advertem que não se pode esperar de nenhuma quantidade que elas possuam extensões precisas, como do mundo real, a menos que já tenham sido tratados de antemão com uma boa dose de maquinaria conjuntista. (shrink)

A principal aim of Chateaubriand’s Logical Forms II: Logic, Language, and Knowledge is to clarify and defend what Chateaubriand describes as the ontological conception of logic against the standard model-theoretic or “linguistic” view. Both sides to the debate accept that if logic is a science then there must be logically necessary facts that this science discovers, Chateaubriand arguing that because logic is a science, there must be logically necessary facts, and his opponent that because there are no (...) logically necessary facts, logic cannot be a science. I argue that we can go between the horns of this dilemma by showing that, although logic is a science, it does not follow, as Chateaubriand assumes, that there are logically necessary facts. There are truths of logic; there are no “logical truths”.Um dos objetivos principais de Logical Forms II: Logic, Language and Knowledge de Chateaubriand é clarificar e defender o que ele descreve como a concepção ontológica da lógica, contra a visão predominante, modelo-teórica ou “lingüística”. Os dois lados do debate aceitam que, se a lógica é uma ciência, então deve haver fatos logicamente necessários que esta ciência descobre; Chateaubriand argumenta que, porque a lógica é ciência, deve haver fatos necessários que ela descobre, enquanto seus oponentes argumentam que, porque não há fatos logicamente necessários, a lógica não pode ser uma ciência. Eu argumento que podemos tomar uma via intermediária entre estes dois lados do dilema mostrando que, ainda que a lógica seja uma ciência, não se segue, como Chateaubriand assume, que existem fatos logicamente necessários. Existem verdades da lógica; não existem “verdades lógicas”. (shrink)

I. De Descrates à Chateaubriand.--II. Les temps modernes.