Frege made a derivative of the distinction that he made between the meanings of senses (Sinn) and references (Bedeutung) on judgments, and named the judgments which he treats as hollow functions; ‘Unsaturated’ (ungesättigt) phrases and the phrases which completed an argument as, ‘Saturated’ (gesättigt) phrases. Saturated phrases consist of first and second level concepts and are considered to be meaningful expressions with an accurate value. Frege became the founder of modern symbolic logic with the language of formal logic he developed (...) in ‘Concept Writing’, and based all this formal analysis on the distinction of ‘function (Funktion) – argument (Argument)’ and ‘concept – coverage’. The philosopher, who makes sense of the judgments as their ‘thoughts’; determines the logical value accuracy of the reference on the basis of this distinction, has adopted a contradictory acceptance in terms of both considering the judgments as a condition of being able to receive a truth value and reducing them to the senses of the sentences. Then, if the thoughts were indeed the sense of the sentences, as Frege thought, then it would not be possible to speak of sentences that were meaningful but lacked truthfulness. That is why, to overcome this distress, we propose to change the definition of thought in Frege's theory and to consider it as function values, not the sense of sentences. Likewise for us, thoughts are not the senses of the sentences, nor are they references. Contrariwise, thoughts are the function value of the sentences. To put it in a different way, if a sentence lacks function value, it can be meaningful but not true or false, and if the sentence has a function value, it can be true or false. Thus, for us, thoughts are neither the expression of the sentence in the language nor the logical value of the sentence; thoughts are function values that can be true or false. (shrink)

1. cilt. Giriş, inceleme, tıpkıbasım -- 2. cilt. Tenkitli metin.

In this study, Kripke's claim, that within the framework of the possible worlds argument, the identification of mental processes by being reduced to physical events doesn't have an imperative base is addressed. Theories of physicalism and identity aims to explain the mental processes in a thoroughly physical way, thus trying to reduce it to the physical one, through brain events. According to Kripke, there must be an imperativeness for the identification of mental states with physical states. According to him, however, (...) it is not possible to show that physical events necessarily reveal mental processes. According to Kripke, in order to be imperatively correct for one statement, it must be correct in all possible worlds. Kripke uses the concept of "rigid designator" to describe this situation. According to Kripke, the thesis of identity between rigid designators must be metaphysically imperative correct. This situation does not apply to mental events. So then, the aim of this article is to reveal why the thesis of identity proposed in the explanation of physical and mental situations in terms of Kripke is not valid. (shrink)

This study sought to determine cardiologists’ degrees of ethical awareness and preferred courses of action for ethical dilemmas frequently encountered in clinical settings. For this evaluation, an online survey was created and sent to cardiologists affiliated with various academic posts in Ankara, Turkey. The survey included ten cases with various ethical considerations selected from our book, “Clinic Ethics with Cases from Cardiology.” Four possible action choices were defined for each case. Participants were asked to choose one or more of these (...) preferences. In addition, a fictional change was made in each case’s context without changing the original ethical issue, and participants were asked whether an attitude different from the first chosen one was preferred. The participation ratio was 49/185 (26%), consent ratio 47/185 (25,4%), and completion ratio 44/185 (23,7%). Nine of the ten scenario changes did not change participants’ preferred action. For most questions, action preferences were concentrated between the two options. Although legal regulations did not reduce ethical dilemmas, they clarified physicians’ action preferences. Similarly, as an obscure moral issue gained prominence, physicians were forced to draw clearer lines in their actions. External factors such as healthcare emergencies can change physicians’ ethical dilemma-solving attitudes. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

The fortress of Kelefa on the western side of the Mani peninsula in southern Greece is one of a series of fortifications constructed or refurbished to defend the Ottomans' maritime frontier against Venice in the late seventeenth century. This chapter addresses whether the castle is indeed of Ottoman construction, or whether it is in fact an earlier, Frankish, structure that was merely restored by the Ottomans. It outlines what The Chronicle of the Morea says and how it can be interpreted. (...) It looks at what light later literary and other sources can throw on the problem, discussing Evliya Çelebi in the process. It identifies Grand Magne with a fortress which others have claimed is of Ottoman construction and dates from the seventeenth rather than the thirteenth century. The chapter also provides a sketch of the Mani as part of the Ottoman frontier zone in the Mediterranean region. (shrink)

Chelebi (Çelebi) Sulṭān is a Ṣūfī poet. Due to poor and limited sources, there is a hardness in finding accurate and sufficient information about him. Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı claimed that this anonymous poet could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī (d. 1539) from Bayramī-Melāmī by relying on the unanimous ghazal recorded in Ḥālet Efendi 800 in Suleymaniye Library. However, the fact that the aforementioned ghazal with simple copy variations published in Eşrefoğlu Rūmī Diwan weakens the credibility of his argument that Chelebi (...) Sulṭān could be Oğlan Sheikh İsmāʿil-i Maʿşūḳī. Though the acknowledgment of this data, Gölpınarlı still insisted on the credibility of his claim that the ghazal belongs to Oğlan Sheikh. Moreover he argued that the claims suggesting that the ghazal belongs to Eşrefoğlu Rūmī (d. 1469) should be questioned. Other than this ghazal, there is one more qasida (ḳasīde) with having gizlidir word after the rhyme associate to Chelebi Sulṭān, and an annotation to this qasida by Āyīne-zāde Meḥmed Şemseddīn-i Sirozī (d. 1688/89). However, neither the qasida and ghazal attributed Chelebi Sulṭān nor the Āyīne-zāde’s annotation provide satisfying information to identify the identity of the poet. Therefore, it can be claimed that Chelebi Sulṭān’s identification is based on weak arguments. No more evidence can develop these estimations into evidence-based arguments. This article tries to provide a virtual framework for the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. In this context, the article firstly discusses Chelebi Sulṭān’s disposition and popularity on Ṣūfī groups by considering the contents of the manuscripts mentioning him. Then, it analyzes whether Chelebi Sulṭān is associated with Ḥurūfīs or not by focusing on the ism-musemmā subject in the two first couplets of the qasida attributed to the Ṣūfī poet. Finally, the article speculates whether the poet called Chelebi Sulṭān in literature could be Misālī (d. 1577), or not, who is one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The subject of Chelebi Sulṭān's connection with Ḥurūfīsm is examined under two titles in the article. The possibility of Chelebi Sulṭān to be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets, was discussed based on the qasida with nedür rhyme. In this regard, there are two assumptions. The first one is that the pseudonym Misālī is mentioned in the qasida, and the second evidence is that there is a qasida with nedür word after rhyme belonging to Chelebi Sulṭān in the two copies of the Misālī Diwan. However, although the mentioned qasida exists in the recent copies, this qasida is not found in the oldest copies of the diwan. Therefore it is possible to conclude that this lack weakens the possibility that Chelebi Sulṭān could be Misālī, one of the Ḥurūfī poets. The second title is related to the issue of the ism-musemmā in the first two couplets of the qasida with nedür word after rhyme. Through this analysis, it was discussed whether Chelebi Sulṭān could be Ḥurūfī or not. At this point, it is revealed that there is a similarity between the two couplets of Chelebi Sulṭān in the qasida with nedür word after rhyme on the issue of ism-musemmā and some other couplets of Ḥurūfī poets (Nesīmī / Ḫalîlî, Misālī, et al.) on the same issue. Besides, the views of a few groups, apart from the Ḥurūfī Poets, that discussed ism-musemmā issue in their poetry, were evaluated. The article refers to the Ṣūfī poet's qasida with nedür word after rhyme while discussing the issue of which groups favored Chelebi Sulṭān more and it also tried to determine which groups read this qasida at that period. To discuss the general content of the manuscript, the manuscript registered in Suleymaniye Library Mihrisah Sultan number 185, the corpus cataloged in Suleymaniye Library, Galata Mevlevihanesi 233, and the manuscript cataloged in Millet Library Ali Emiri Collection (AEArb) 4341, were examined. Thus it can be claimed both Chelebi Sulṭān and his qasida were popular among heterodox groups, as it was observed that the qasida also exists in the works of Ḥurūfī, Alevi-Bektashi, and Bayramī-Melāmī groups. Despite all this, there is no clear conclusion regarding the identity of Chelebi Sulṭān. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that Chelebi Sulṭān was popular among heterodox Ṣūfī groups and that some Ḥurūfī views influenced him. (shrink)