Ever since the publication of 'Truth' in 1959 Sir MichaelDummett has been acknowledged as one of the most profoundly creative and influential of contemporary philosophers. His contributions to the philosophy of thought and language, logic, the philosophy of mathematics, and metaphysics have set the terms of some of most fruitful discussions in philosophy. His work on Frege stands unparalleled, both as landmark in the history of philosophy and as a deep reflection on the defining commitments of the (...) analytic school.This volume of specially composed essays on Dummett's philosophy presents a new perspective on his achievements, and provides a focus for further research fully informed by the Dummett's most recent publications. Collectively the essays in philosophy of mathematics provide the most sustained discussion to date of the role of Dummett's diagnosis of the root of the logico-mathematical paradoxes in his case for an intuitionist revision of classical mathematics. The themes of other essays include a fundamental challenge to Dummett's Fregean understanding of predication, and a criticism of his case for logical revision outside of mathematics. (shrink)
MichaelDummett's approach to the metaphysical issue of realism through the philosophy of language, his challenge to realism, and his philosophy of language itself are central topics in contemporary analytic philosophy and have influenced the work of other major figures such as Quine, Putnam, and Davidson. This book offers an accessible and systematic presentation of the main elements of Dummett's philosophy. This book's overarching theme is Dummett's discussion of realism: his characterization of realism, his attack on (...) realism, and his invention and exploration of the anti-realist position. This book begins by examining Dummett's views on language. Only against that setting can one fully appreciate his conception of the realism issue. With this in place, Weiss returns to Dummett's views on the nature of meaning and understanding to unfold his challenge to realism. Weiss devotes the remainder of the book to examining the anti-realist position. He discusses anti-realist theories of meaning and then investigates anti-realism's revisionary consequences. Finally, he engages with Dummett's discussion of two difficult challenges for the anti-realist: the past and mathematics. (shrink)
RESUMO O objetivo deste artigo é o de ilustrar a oposição dos comunitaristas ao contratualismo, a partir da análise de um caso específico: a crítica de Michael Sandel ao voluntarismo contido na teoria de Rawls. Sandel chama de "voluntarismo" a tese pela qual princípios políticos e morais se legitimam a partir de um exercício da vontade individual, sob a forma da "escolha" ou do "consentimento". Esta tese, como procuraremos argumentar, está na base do contratualismo moderno, embora somente em Rawls (...) ela atinja sua formulação mais perfeita. Sandel propõe como alternativa ao voluntarismo o que ele chama de "cognitivismo", inspirado na visão de mundo dos antigos. Segundo o cognitivismo, os princípios políticos e morais são derivados de fins ou "bens" que são mais descobertos do que propriamente escolhidos. ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to illustrate the opposition between communitarianism and contratualism, from the analysis of a specific case: Michael Sandel's criticism of voluntarism in the theory of Rawls. For Sandel "voluntarism" is the thesis according to which political and moral principles are legitimate from an exercise of individual will, such as "choice" or "consent". We shall argue that this thesis is the grounding basis of modern contractualism, although only with Rawls it reaches its purest form. Sandel suggests as an alternative to voluntarism what he calls "cognitivism", inspired in the ancient understanding of the world. According to cognitivism, the legitimation of political and moral principles streams from ends or "goods" which are discovered rather than chosen. (shrink)
MichaelDummett, Frege and other philosophers. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1991. xii + 330pp. £35. ISBN W.Balzer and C.U.Moulines, Structuralist theory of science:focal issues, new results, Berlin; de Gruyter, 1996. xi + 295 pp.DM 210. ISBN 3-11-014075-6 Henry Prakken, Logical tools for modeling legal argument a study of defeasible reasoning in law.Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic, 1997, xiii + 314pp.£75.00/$125.00 J.Srzednicki and Z.Stachniak Lesniewski’s Systems.Protothetic.Nijhoff International Philosophy Series, 54, Dordrecht, Boston and London:Kluwer, 1998. xiv + 310 pp, £99. ISBN 0-7923-4504-5.
Two claims the present author has made about Frege's philosophy are defended against MichaelDummett's criticisms (The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy and ?Objectivity and Reality in Lotze and Frege?, this journal, 1982). The claim that Frege was concerned primarily with epistemological problems rather than with the theory of meaning, and the claim (this journal, 1978) that the ascription of Wirklichkeit to Thoughts is evidence of Frege's realism, are clarified and defended. Dummett's own characterization of Frege's realism is (...) considered and rejected. (shrink)
First, we argue that Dummett, in his accusing Husserl of psychologism, does not pay sufficient attention to the phenomenological framework of Husserl's philosophy. This framework must be taken into account for understanding why Husserl is not a psychologist in the theory of meaning. Second, it is shown that the thoughts required by Evans' theory of understanding indexical utterances are not to be identified with mental events as understood by psychologism. We then emphasize what Husserl's and Evans' explanation of the (...) mind share, and finally argue that Dummett's anti-psychologism is based on a psychologistic view of consciousness which is not questioned by Dummett. (shrink)
In Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together, Michael Bratman refines, systematizes, and defends his “planning theory” of shared agency, various elements of which were sketched in a series of earlier essays on the topic. The book is analytically rigorous and fairly technical at points, but organized and written with extraordinary clarity. It represents a valuable contribution to the literature on shared intention and joint activity, and is essential reading for philosophers working in that area.Bratman takes as his (...) central foils Margaret Gilbert and John Searle, both of whom argue that there is a fundamental discontinuity between individual agency and shared agency in that the resources needed to explain the latter extend beyond those that enable us to explain the former. According to those theorists, an adequate account of shared agency requires appeal to “some new and fundamentally different kind of practical element” : an irreducible “joint commitment” on Gilbert’s .. (shrink)
The paper is an attempt to react as direct and as close as possible on Dummett’s 2007 paper by addressing his overall theses about bridging the gulfs between philosophers and physicists and between analytical and continental philosophy on the one hand and, on the other hand, picking up a couple of more detailed issues Dummett raises about physics and its philosophy.
The author evaluates susan haack's criticisms of michaeldummett's logical intuitionism and concludes that haack fails to discredit dummett's position. Haack argues that dummett's version fails since (1) he rejects inductive evidence; (2) cannot distinguish ultimately between truth- and assertibility-Conditions; and (3) recognizes that his arguments, Regrettably, Establish antirealism (i.E., Subjective idealism) for all areas. The author shows that dummett accepts inductive evidence for the set of decidable cases, Distinguishes between truth- and assertibility-Conditions by accepting (...) that a sentence may be assertible but not true, And that haack's conclusion regarding (3) rests on her misreading. ((please note that an important quote was omitted on p. 338 and the errata appears in a later issue of "philosophical studies".(). (shrink)
Philosophy, that most misunderstood of intellectual pursuits, is often mocked; and no part of philosophy is as often mocked as metaphysics. The image of the ‘speculative metaphysician’ dreaming up abstract pictures of the world has been held up for ridicule by poets, playwrights, novelists, journalists as well as by other philosophers. The Logical Positivists in the first half of the 20th Century rejected all metaphysical speculations as ‘meaningless’ since they could not be verified by scientific experiment; in the later part (...) of the century, Wittgenstein criticised systematic metaphysics as being a kind of intellectual disease resulting from our reading false pictures of the world into the grammar of our language. The common suspicion underlying many of these attacks is that ultimately, all metaphysics is a kind of nonsense, and that metaphysicians don’t really know what they are talking about. This suspicion is not new. Nicolas-Sébastien Chamfort commented in 1796, ‘I am tempted to say of metaphysicians what Scaliger used to say of the Basques: they are said to understand one another, but I don’t believe a word of it.’ Some contemporary philosophers may agree. (shrink)