Hristiyan inancı içerisinde merkezi konuma sahip olan mevzulardan birisi de, İsa’nın ölümünden üç gün sonra diriltildiğine yönelik olan inançtır. Hristiyan eskatolojisinin de dayanak noktasını oluşturan bu mevzu, dinler tarihi ya da teoloji gibi disiplinlerin içerisinde tartışıldığı gibi, çeşitli Hristiyan düşünürlerce, din felsefesi disiplini içerisinde de tartışılmıştır. Din felsefesi açısından bakıldığında, konunun merkezi konumda olması, bu mevzunun rasyonel bir zeminde tartışılıp tartışılamayacağını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu bağlamda, özellikle din felsefesi içerisinde birçok Hristiyan düşünür tarafından konu ele alınmış ve farklı çevrelerce de (...) mevzuya yönelik karşı itirazlar dile getirilmiştir. Bu noktada yapılan tartışmaların içeriğine baktığımızda, mucize kavramı önem taşımakla birlikte, Hristiyan düşünürlerin argüman haline getirdikleri ve bir delil olarak öne sürdükleri “Boş mezar” ve “Tanıklıklar gibi birçok farklı husususun din felsefesi açısından tartışıldığını söyleyebiliriz. Ayrıca bazı ateist düşünürlerin bu delillere yönelik itirazları olmakla birlikte, bazı Hristiyan tarihçilerinde konuya ilişkin ciddi itirazları bulunmaktadır. Biz de bu makalemizde, İsa’nın ölümünden sonra dirilişinin rasyonel bir şekilde izahının nasıl olabileceği sorusunu merkeze alıp, konuyu Hristiyan düşünürlerin bakış açısından değerlendirmeye çalıştık. Bu noktada İslam gibi farklı dinlerde ve farklı anlatılarda karşımıza çıkan Hz. İsa figürünü konumuzun dışında tuttuğumuzu ayrıca belirtelim. Çünkü bizim yazımızın konusunu oluşturan kişi Hristiyan inancındaki İsa ve bu din içerisinde önem taşıyan kutsal metinler ve bu metinlerde geçen anlatılar oldu. Bu açıdan bakıldığında yazımız içerisinde, konuya ilişkin doğrudan bir teoloji ya da dinler tarihi çerçevesinde değerlendirme yapmaktan çok, din felsefesi içerisinde bize sunulan tartışmalardan yola çıkarak eleştirilerimizi ve tahlillerimizi dile getirmeye çalıştığımızı ifade edebiliriz. (shrink)

Alvin Plantinga, analitik felsefe düşüncesi içerisinde yetişmiş ve bu gelenek içinde teistik din felsefesinin oluşumuna katkıda bulunmuş bir filozoftur. Ayrıca teizmin savunusu için yaptığı çalışmalarla, çeşitli üniversitelerden aldığı onur ödülleri ve 2017 yılında kazandığı Templeton Prize ödülüyle, haklı bir üne kavuşmuş bir şahsiyettir. Bu çalışmayı yapmamızdaki en önemli amaç, Plantinga’nın dini epistemoloji üzerine yaptığı çalışmaları analiz edip bu düşüncelerinin ardalanına dair bir tespitte bulunmaktır. Bu çalışmada yararlandığımız öncelikli kaynaklar, Plantinga’nın Nicholas Wolterstorff ile birlikte kaleme aldığı “Faith and Rationality” adlı eser (...) ile birlikte son dönem epistemik fikirlerinin çerçevesini belirleyen üç ciltlik “Warrant and Proper Function”, “Warrant: The Current Debate”, “Warranted: Christian Belief” isimli eserler olmuştur. Plantinga’nın ilk dönem epistemoloji çalışmalarının gayesini bir tür olumsuzlama diyebileceğimiz klasik temelciliğin ve evidentializmin eleştirisi oluştururken, ikinci döneminde bu eleştirilerden yola çıkarak Tanrı inancının haklı bir temelde ve güvenceye sahip olduğunu gösterme amacına yönelmiştir. Plantinga’nın teolojik fikirlerini oluşturan Kalvinci ekol, onun dini epistemolojisinin de özünü oluşturmaktadır. Plantinga’nın dini epistemolojisini iki boyutlu olarak değerlendirdiğimizde, içe dönük olarak Hristiyan inancıyla ilgilense de çalışmalarının dışsal yönünü daha genel olarak teizmin Tanrı’sı ve onun rasyonelliği oluşturmaktadır. Açıkçası Plantinga’nın epistemolojik külliyatı bir tür kavram zenginliğini de beraberinde getirmektedir. Çalışmamız içerisinde ele aldığımız kadarıyla uygun işlevsellik, tasarım planı, güvence (warrant) gibi kavramlar onun Tanrı inancının epistemik mahiyetini ortaya koymak için ne derece kararlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Netice itibariyle Tanrı inancının ve onun bilgisinin rasyonel olabileceğini ifade eden Plantinga, her ne kadar Hristiyan inancının belli bir koluna mensup olsa da diğer mezhepleri dışlamaz. Ayrıca Plantinga, birçok çalışmasında belirttiği üzere projesinin Yahudilik, İslam gibi diğer teistik dinlere yönelik olduğunu da belirtmektedir. (shrink)

Introduction: Schools have become a primary setting for providing mental health care to youths in the U.S. School-based interventions have proliferated, but their effects on mental health and academic outcomes remain understudied. In this study we will implement and evaluate the effects of a flexible multidiagnostic treatment called Modular Approach to Therapy for Children with Anxiety, Depression, Trauma, or Conduct Problems on students' mental health and academic outcomes.Methods and Analysis: This is an assessor-blind randomized controlled effectiveness trial conducted across five (...) school districts. School clinicians are randomized to either MATCH or usual care treatment conditions. The target sample includes 168 youths referred for mental health services and presenting with elevated symptoms of anxiety, depression, trauma, and/or conduct problems. Clinicians randomly assigned to MATCH or UC treat the youths who are assigned to them through normal school referral procedures. The project will evaluate the effectiveness of MATCH compared to UC on youths' mental health and school related outcomes and assess whether changes in school outcomes are mediated by changes in youth mental health.Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. We plan to publish the findings in peer-reviewed journals and present them at academic conferences.Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02877875. Registered on August 24, 2016. (shrink)

Using data collected from 280 full-time employees from a variety of organizations, this study examined the effects of employee perceptions of the behavioral integrity (BI) of their supervisors on job tension. The moderating effect of procedural justice (PJ) on this relationship also was examined. Substitutes for leadership theory (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) and psychological contract theory (Rousseau, Empl Responsib Rights J 2:121–139, 1989) were used as the theoretical foundations for the hypothesized relationships. Results indicated a negative relationship between BI and (...) job tension. PJ moderated this relationship such that it was weakened under conditions of high PJ. Implications for research and managers are discussed. (shrink)

Standards of reasonability play an important role in some of the most difficult cases of rape. In recent years, the notion of the ``reasonable person'' has supplanted the historical concept of the ``reasonable man'' as the test of reasonability. Contemporary feminist critics like Catharine MacKinnon and Kim Lane Scheppele have challenged the notion of the reasonable person on the grounds that reasonability standards are ``gendered to the ground'' and so, in practice, the reasonable person is just the reasonable man in (...) a gender neutral guise. These critics call for the explicit employment of a ``reasonable woman'' standard for application to the actions of female victims of rape. But the arguments for abandoning a gender-neutral standard are double-edged and the employment of gendered standards of reasonability is likely to have implications that are neither foreseen by, nor acceptable to, advocates of such standards. Reasonable agent standards can be dropped, in favor of appeals to the notion of a ``reasonable demand (or expectation)'' by the law. However, if reasonable agent standards are to be retained, gendered versions of such standards are not preferable to gender-neutral ones. (shrink)

The title of this and proposed second volume presents the basic idea which unifies the wide variety of topics developed and investigated by the principal authors, major contributing authors, J. M. Dunn and Robert K. Meyer, and eleven other contributors. The other contributors are: J. R. Chidgey, J. A. Coffa, Dorthy L. Grover, Bas van Fraassen, H. Leblanc, Storrs McCall, A. Parks, G. Pottinger, R. Routley, A. Urquhart, and R. G. Wolf. From both the useful analytic table of contents and (...) from the section titles it is clear which contributing author has written each section. Chapter I, "The Pure Calculus of Entailment," suggests how logics of entailment are logics of relevance and necessity. When we explain why a large number of systems are investigated, it will be clear why we write of logics of entailment instead of the logic of entailment. The principal authors build a case in Chapter I, and elsewhere, that a genuinely valid formal inference, viz., a formal entailment, from a formula A to a formula B requires that A be relevant to B in addition to it being impossible that there be an interpretation making A true and B false. So, a claim that A entails B tells us, explicitly or implicitly, that A is relevant to B and that "if A then B" is necessarily true, i.e., A strictly implies B. Consequently since a logic of entailment presents allegedly unfalsifiable claims, i.e., theses, using entailment claims, a logic of entailment presents theses about relevance between antecedents and consequents and necessity. It should be noted that the systems of logic developed are for formal entailments; they may not be logics for material entailments such as: being a cube entails having six surfaces. (shrink)

The subtitle of this text intended for philosophy students’ 2nd course in logic is in no way misleading. It is a lucid introduction to the philosophic activities of uncovering metaphysical presuppositions of logical techniques and altering logical techniques, and hence assessments of deductive validity, to conform to metaphysical presuppositions. They do not, though, assume that techniques for assessing deductive validity are or should be wholly dependent upon metaphysical presuppositions. They write on p. 213 in their section on intensional discourse: "And (...) logic wherever possible ought not to wait upon philosophy, for logic wherever possible ought to be neutral between different philosophical analyses." In their investigations of metaphysical presuppositions and logical techniques, they consider primarily the consequences of existential presuppositions about the use of singular terms, viz., individual variables, individual names, and definite descriptions. They favor freeing use of singular terms from existential presuppositions. The consideration of allowing non-referring names and definite descriptions makes their text one of the first, if not the first, for teaching Free Logic. The gist of Free Logic is not to allow existential generalization of Fb to unless there is an auxiliary premise asserting the existence of b, because use of the name b has been freed from the presupposition that it names something. It is suitable that these authors have a text on Free Logic since Lambert is the major figure in its origin while van Fraassen has established some of the most significant results about Free Logic systems. They go on to consider alternative logical rules to those of Russell for dealing with nonreferring definite descriptions. These alternatives to standard logic are philosophically motivated. They are not simply dumped upon students as rules for symbol manipulation. For instance, on pp. 152-157 they give a succinct analysis of the Russell-Meinong debate when they agree with Meinong that one can talk of the thing that is such and such without accepting that there is such a thing. The treatment of singular terms leads them to discussions of topics such as: What is it for a logic to be extensional and is Free Logic extensional?, the substitution interpretation of quantifiers, and the notion of presupposition. (shrink)

This technical and sophisticated book has a misleading title. In only 140 pages it has chapters entitled: Truth Functions, Sentence Logic, Model Theory, Predicate Logic, Recursive Functions, Formalized Arithmetic, Free-Variable Arithmetic, and Axiomatic Set Theory. Goodstein says little about, let alone studies, the historical development of any of these topics. The history consists of a few references to some of the individuals who have played a role in the development of the field; but not always to the major figures. For (...) instance, his chapter on model theory contains no discussion of the development of classical model theory. Only Herbrand is noted as a developer of model theory. However, even if these eight studies in mathematical logic do not tell much about the development of the topics, they still have considerable value. The first chapter on truth functions and the seventh on free-variable arithmetic are the most intriguing because they contain more of what is not usually presented in logic books. The first two chapters on sentential logic are not the standard textbook treatment. This really is a book for other working logicians and mathematicians. Quickly, Goodstein moves into treating truth functions for any number of truth values as functions in modulo arithmetic and investigates the topic of finding Sheffer functions, viz., a function from which all others for a given number of truth values can be obtained. In the second chapter, he is soon presenting Intuitionistic sentential logic and has some remarks about sentential logics between Intuitionistic logic and classical logic. He also presents sequent calculi. Since the first two chapters contain only 36 pages, this suggests that the book would be suitable as a text only for advanced and sophisticated students. (shrink)

Professor Fitch carefully guides the reader through the first and second chapters demonstrating how theorems of a sentential logic are truths about so-called Q-functions. These Q-functions are given by presenting symbols for twelve basic functions, specifying that finite combinations of these basic symbols give Q-functions, and by giving rules for the introduction of basic symbols into, and the elimination of basic symbols from, combinations of these symbols. The combinators are the basic symbols which are not symbols for "and," "or," "not," (...) and "equals." Truths about Q-functions are the basic and derived introduction and elimination rules. To familiarize readers with introduction and elimination rules, he devotes an introductory chapter to a review of his method of subordinate proof which is used throughout the book. This review is also valuable for stressing the differences between his sentential logic and classical logic on one hand and intuitionistic logic on the other. Rejecting the law of excluded middle he nevertheless maintains double negation. (shrink)

Martin presents fifteen previously unpublished essays which he wrote before 1973. Despite several references to his earlier books such as Truth and Denotation, these essays will be intelligible to those who have not yet read anything by R. M. Martin as long as you can master long formulations in the notation of a formal first-order language. Indeed, these essays can serve as an introduction to the work of Martin. The first three essays present Martin's metaphysical system. Essays 4, 5, and (...) 6 amplify his system by showing how a wide variety of sentences can have their logical form represented in the formal language which displays Martin's ontology. In the remaining nine essays he critically evaluates positions of other philosophers such as Hiz, Carnap, Quine, Fitch, Chisholm, Popper, Sellars, Heyting, Lorenzen, and Putnam, from the perspective of his system. Because his systematic approach unifies all of the papers and because he uses technical terms in the development of his system, it is regrettable that the book offers no index. (shrink)

In his Introduction, Hochberg writes: "Since this book is an attempt to resolve some problems about thought, truth, and reference within the tradition of Logical Atomism, readers of Bergmann and Sellars will find, not surprisingly, familiar themes." He continues a bit later: "What is attempted is the resolution of some issues that preoccupied Russell, Wittgenstein, Moore and their successors, as well as an explication of some links between Logical Atomism and Moore's early assault on idealism. The book is thus a (...) partial study of the ontology and the history of Logical Atomism." Hochberg accomplishes what he attempts. Note that he did not promise an introduction to the ontology and history of Logical Atomism. The book is intended for people who have read early Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, are familiar with some Fregean themes, who have read some secondary literature on Logical Atomism such as Urmson's or Pear's books, and who have read some of G. Bergmann's developments of Logical Atomism. Because the metaphysical analyses of several contemporary philosophers such as Quine, W. Sellars, D. Davidson, and D. Kaplan are criticized, familiarity with such writers, especially Quine, would be very helpful. Nevertheless, although the themes are familiar ones such as: realism vs. phenomenalism; realism vs. nominalism; theories of definite descriptions; coping with Bradley's regress; analyses of objects; analyses of thoughts; and although no sophisticated logic is needed to handle his formalizations, Hochberg demands almost too much concentration from even his intended readers. It is easy to get lost in the numerous alternative analyses and theories Hochberg considers. He seems unable to resist temptations to explore alternative analyses suggested to him by the one he is considering. Consequently, it is difficult to determine what are the analyses actually held by philosophers discussed, what are Hochberg's own analyses and theories, and what are serious alternatives. Because so many subtle and complicated alternatives are juggled it is difficult to uncover the main premisses of Hochberg's arguments for his resolutions. The combined insights and discipline of a seminar or reading group would be helpful in the effort to recognize the main themes and to stay with the work. (shrink)

Despite its brevity, McArthur’s monograph offers a helpful introduction to tense logic to readers who have already been introduced to the syntactical and semantical metatheory of classical logic. Familiarity with substitutional quantification, free-logic, and modal logic will help readers appreciate techniques used and the directions in which topics are developed.

These sixteen essays were written in honor of Frederick B. Fitch. Each part of the volume treats an area of the logical enterprise which had special interest for Fitch. The four parts are entitled, respectively, "Metaphysics and Language," "Basic and Combinatorial Logic," "Implication and Consistency," and "Deontic, Epistemic, and Erotetic Logic.".

This profound metaphysical treatise is carefully and subtly argued. It merits the author recognition as one of the major contemporary philosophers in the United States. Plantinga begins by distinguishing logical necessity from causal necessity, what we will not give up, what is self-evident, and what we can know a priori. In the first chapter he also reviews why classical and contemporary philosophers have distinguished between saying that it is necessary that a proposition is true and saying of an object that (...) it is necessarily such and such. The second and third chapters are primarily a defense of the distinction between de dicto and de re necessity, despite the fact that he shows, to those who claim only to understand de dicto necessity, how assertions of de re necessity can be read as assertions of de dicto necessity. Plantinga mischievously observes in passing that assertions of de dicto necessity can be interpreted as de re assertions of a proposition that it is necessarily true. He defends the legitimacy of asserting necessity de re so that he can say of objects that they have properties essentially. (shrink)

"Professor Mundle's authoritative and acclaimed critique of a way of thinking which still shapes the style of Anglo-Saxon philosophy is here presented in a revised text with a new postscript. Mundle shows how Austin, Ryle and Wittgenstein, among others, not only committed grammatical and logical errors akin to those they themselves detected in others, but misunderstood the relatoins between grammar and philosphy. Professor P.L. Heath contributes a new foreword, and Mundle himself answers his opponents in a subtly provocative manner." --.