AN APOLOGY OF CARNAP

This paper is focused on dismissive metaontological views about ontology. The paper's first section deals with radical dismissivism: a view which I interpret as Carnap's (1956). The second section approaches moderate dismissivism: a view which I interpret as Hirsch's (2011). My first claim is stated in section three: that there are significant differences between the mentioned authors. However, current literature on metaontology, not only does not emphasize such differences, but also insinuates that they do not exist. The authors I have in mind here are Eklund (2007, 2009) and Bennett (2009). In the fourth section, I compare Carnap's radical dismissivism with Hirsch's moderate dismissivism. My second claim is stated in section five: that Carnap's radical dismissivism is more persuasive than Hirsch's moderate one.

IS SELF-DECEPTION PRETENSE?

I assess Tamar Gendler's (2007) account of self-deception according to which its characteristic state is not belief, but imaginative pretense. After giving an overview of the literature and presenting the conceptual puzzles engendered by the notion of self-deception, I introduce Gendler's account, which emerges as a rival to practically all extant accounts of self-deception. I object to it by first arguing that her argument for abandoning belief as the characteristic state of self-deception conflates the state of belief and the process of belief-formation when interpreting David Velleman's (2000) thesis that belief is an essentially truth-directed attitude. I then call attention to the fact that Velleman's argument for the identity of motivational role between belief and imagining, on which Gendler's argument for self-deception as pretense depends, conflates two senses of 'motivational role'-a stronger but implausible sense and a weaker but explanatorily irrelevant sense. Finally, I introduce Neil Van Leeuwen's (2009) argument to the effect that belief is the practical ground of all non-belief cognitive attitudes in circum-stances wherein the latter prompt action. I apply this framework to Gendler's account to ultimately show that imaginative pretense fails to explain the existence of voluntary actions which result from self-deception.

PASSIONS AND EVIL IN KANT'S PHILOSOPHY

In this paper, I aim at relating passions to evil in Kant's philosophy. I begin by explaining the difference between affects and passions in the textAnthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Kant claims that both affects and passions are illnesses of the mind, because both affect and passion hinder the sovereignty of reason. I show that passions are worse than affects for the purpose of pure reason. Second, I relate affects and passions to the degrees of the propensity to evil in theReligion. I analyze the idea of an ethical community as a way to overcome the evil, which goes beyond political and anthropological solutions suggested by Kant.

Crítica al psicologismo y concepción de subjetividad en frege

La remisión del problema relativo al como de la captación de pensamientos a la psicología por parte de Frege ha llevado a que se imponga entre los críticos la idea de que toda consideración subjetiva está ausente en este autor. La crítica fregueana al psicologismo, sin embargo, se concentra en una crítica a la concepción psicologista de subjetividad y, correlativamente, implica una concepción de subjetividad novedosa en el contexto de la filosofía alemana de la segunda mitad del s. XIX que, como la husserliana, es no-naturalística e intencional.

THE LOGICAL SYSTEM OF FREGE'S GRUNDGESTZE: A RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION

This paper aims at clarifying the nature of Frege's system of logic, as presented in the first volume of the Grundgesetze . We undertake a rational reconstruction of this system, by distinguishing its propositional and predicate fragments. This allows us to emphasise the differences and similarities between this system and a modern system of classical second-order logic.

UMA TEORÍA CAUSAL PARA LOS CASOS FREGE

Fodor ha argumentado a favor de un par de tesis que pueden caracterizarse como constituyendo un dilema: Por un lado, si adoptamos una teoría funcional para los conceptos explicamos semánticamente los casos Frege pero caemos en el holismo semántico. Por otro lado, si adoptamos una teoría causal/informacional evitamos el holismo pero no explicamos los casos Frege semánticamente. Fodor (por ej, 1994, 1998 y 2008) intenta evitar la segunda parte del dilema argumentando que los casos de Frege pueden tener una explicación sintáctica y no semántica. En este trabajo intentaré ofrecer una salida alternativa al dilema fodoriano. Propondré una explicación semántica de los casos Frege que incorpora tanto elementos de una teoría causal como de una de rol funcional. Afirmaré que el contenido cognitivo o estrecho de un concepto (el tipo de contenido aparentemente exigido por los casos Frege) es el conjunto de contenidos causales/informacionales de las representaciones que figuran en su rol funcional. Considero que individuar a las representaciones en los roles por medio de sus contenidos causales permite evitar el holismo (evitando el proceso de ramsificación típicamente empleado para individuar a los roles) y que identificar el contenido cognitivo con contenidos causales/informacionales de las representaciones en los roles permite evitar el referencialismo de las propuestas causales (podemos distinguir sentido de referencia en términos causales).

LA TESIS DE LA ELECCIÓN DIVINA DE LO ÓPTIMO: UNA EXCEPCIÓN EN LA TEORÍA MODAL DE LEIBNIZ

La proposición "Dios elige lo mejor" constituye una verdad incuestionable para Leibniz, y una premisa fundamental en su explicación de la existencia del mundo, tanto como en su teodicea. Leibniz sintió la necesidad de clarificar su carácter modal, dada la importancia de tal cuestión en relación con la libertad divina. Sin embargo, en el abordaje de este problema, se vio conducido a infringir los criterios de su propia teoría modal, con el fin de justificar la contingencia de tal proposición. Este trabajo intenta mostrar que la posición principal sostenida por Leibniz, en torno a la modalidad de esta proposición, constituye una suerte de excepción en el marco de su doctrina modal, y que esta ambigüedad refleja las razones profundas de las oscilaciones constatables en sus escritos sobre esta temática.

JUÍZOS E NORMAS PARA UMA FENOMENOLOGIA DOS ACTOS TÉTICOS E DOS ACTOS NOMOTÉTICOS

Discuto, de um ponto de vista fenomenológico, a distinção entre asserções e normas. Sublinho os limites da análise canónica husserliana para dar uma correcta descrição do sentido e conteúdo da intencionalidade normativa. Baseado em algumas ideias de Kelsen, traço uma distinção clara entre juízos e normas, criticando algumas tendências que provêm do próprio Husserl, as quais consideram as normas como uma intencionalidade fundada em actos objectivantes. No entanto, tomando distância relativamente a Kelsen, Kaufmann e Cossio, enfatizo que a proposição de dever (Sollsatz) não pode ser uma boa transcrição do conteúdo de sentido das normas, baseado na distinção fenomenológica entre a matéria intencional e a qualidade dos actos intencionais. Finalmente, proponho a minha própria explicação, baseada no conceito de 'força ductiva'. Mostro que há, mesmo dentro da esfera jurídica, uma variedade de forças ductiva, que vão da simples coerção até conselho e a recomendação. Para terminar, sublinho a centralidade do conceito de "força ductiva" para uma fenomenologia do mundo social.

RESPONSABILIDAD, AUTORÍA Y VOLUNTAD: LA PROPUESTA DE MORAN

Este artículo plantea tres objeciones a la propuesta de Richard Moran acerca de la relación entre razones y responsabilidad. En primer lugar, mostraré que la relación entre razones y responsabilidad que presenta Moran es problemática, por dos razones: primero, las creencias alienadas del agente pueden ser parte del razonamiento; y segundo, las llamadas razones de estado no cumplen el Principio de Transparencia, pero no eximen de responsabilidad. En segundo lugar, argumentaré que la propuesta atribucionista de Moran postula una relación demasiado exigente entre estados mentales y razonamiento. Tercero, señalaré la dificultad de la propuesta de Moran para recoger la intuición de que tanto la autoría como la responsabilidad se presentan en grados.

HILBERT BETWEEN THE FORMAL AND THE INFORMAL SIDE OF MATHEMATICS

Abstract: In this article we analyze the key concept of Hilbert's axiomatic method, namely that of axiom. We will find two different concepts: the first one from the period of Hilbert's foundation of geometry and the second one at the time of the development of his proof theory. Both conceptions are linked to two different notions of intuition and show how Hilbert's ideas are far from a purely formalist conception of mathematics. The principal thesis of this article is that one of the main problems that Hilbert encountered in his foundational studies consisted in securing a link between formalization and intuition. We will also analyze a related problem, that we will call "Frege's Problem", form the time of the foundation of geometry and investigate the role of the Axiom of Completeness in its solution.

DISAGREEING OVER EVALUATIVES: PREFERENCE, NORMATIVE AND MORAL DISCOURSE

Abstract Why would we argue about taste, norms or morality when we know that these topics are relative to taste preferences, systems of norms or values to which we are committed? Yet, disagreements over these topics are common in our evaluative discourses. I will claim that the motives to discuss rely on our attitudes towards the standard held by the speakers in each domain of discourse, relating different attitudes to different motives -mainly, conviction and correction. These notions of attitudes and motives will allow me to claim that different domains of evaluative discourse have a different distribution of disagreements driven by them.

A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH

In 'An undermining diagnosis of relativism about truth', Horwich claims that the notion of relative truth is either explanatorily sterile or explanatorily superfluous. In the present paper, I argue that Horwich's explanatory demands set the bar unwarrantedly high: given the philosophical import of the theorems of a truth-theoretic semantic theory, Horwich's proposed explananda, what he calls acceptance facts, are too indirect for us to expect a complete explanation of them in terms of the deliverances of a theory of meaning based on the notion of relative truth. And, to the extent that there might be such an explanation in certain cases, there is no reason to expect relative truth to play an essential, ineliminable role, nor to endorse the claim that it should play such a role in order to be a theoretically useful notion.

PROLEGÓMENOS PARA UNA TEORÍA FORMAL DE ESTRUCTURAS (DESPUÉS DE N.DA COSTA)

Resumen El articulo tiene por objetivo la reconstrucción alternativa del concepto de estructura, motivado por los articulos (1) y (3), como una generalización abstracta de lo que es un objeto matemático. Primero, mostramos su construcción, que tiene que ver con la teoría de tipos y orden en lógica, dando a lugar a propiedades y varios ejemplos interesantes. Luego avanzamos hacia una semántica concreta, para su análisis, y para permitirnos operar sobre ellas, sabiendo de este modo, lo que es "lo verdadero en ella". Obtenido ello, mostraremos los resultados de reducción de orden y de individuos, pero vistos en este contexto, así formalizando completamente en nuestra teoría de tipos la discusión de (1) (Ver también (2) y (3)) sobre estos temas.

TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGICS OF FORMAL INCONSISTENCY

Abstract In this paper we present a philosophical motivation for the logics of formal inconsistency , a family of paraconsistent logics whose distinctive feature is that of having resources for expressing the notion of consistency within the object language in such a way that consistency may be logically independent of non-contradiction. We defend the view according to which logics of formal inconsistency may be interpreted as theories of logical consequence of an epistemological character. We also argue that in order to philosophically justify paraconsistency there is no need to endorse dialetheism, the thesis that there are true contradictions. Furthermore, we show that mbC , a logic of formal inconsistency based on classical logic, may be enhanced in order to express the basic ideas of an intuitive interpretation of contradictions as conflicting evidence.

Inferential Rationality and Internalistic Scarecrows

Abstract In a recent paper, Manuel Pérez Otero attempted to turn the tables on Paul Boghossian's claim that content externalism is incompatible with the 'a priority of our logical abilities'. In reply, Boghossian argued that Pérez Otero's criticism misses the main point of his argument through concentrating on the semantics of singular (as opposed to general) terms. I elaborate on Boghossian's reply by showing that even taken on its own terms Pérez Otero's paper fails to engage with internalism through systematically misrepresenting what a truly internalistic account of the semantics of singular terms should be.