Marián Zouhar

Disagreements about matters of personal taste are a rather resilient kind of phenomenon that calls for an unorthodox solution. Hybrid taste-expressivism seems to provide such a solution because it explains taste disagreements in non-doxastic terms. According to it, utterances of taste sentences play a dual role—on the one hand, they are used to express propositions in which objects are ascribed taste properties and, on the other hand, they are used to manifest evaluations of the objects contained in the propositions. The non-doxastic nature of taste disagreements is derived from the latter. My aim is to cast some doubt on the prospects of the hybrid taste-expressivist account. Although I admit that this explanation is on the right track in treating taste disagreements as non-doxastic, hybrid taste expressivism does not seem to be general enough. There are some instances of taste disagreement that are not amenable to this kind of explanation. I provide an alternative explanation that retains the non-doxastic nature of taste disagreements, but does not suffer from its limited explanatory power.

It is possible to construct situations (with a suitable kind of setting) in which one speaker utters ‘This is tasty’ and another speaker responds with ‘That’s not true’. The aim of this paper is to motivate the idea that typical (broadly) expressivist accounts of taste disagreements are not in a position to explain such situations (although some of them can successfully explain disagreements in which another kind of dissent phrase—like ‘Nuh-uh’—is employed). This is because utterances of ‘That’s not true’ are typically used to ascribe falsehood to propositions. Taste expressivism has it, however, that when one utters ‘This is tasty’, one typically manifests her evaluative attitude (which is non-propositional) toward something rather than describes what attitude she bears toward the thing. Another aim of the paper consists in proposing an alternative account of taste disagreements. It is close to taste expressivism when it comes to the explanation of disagreements in which speakers respond with ‘Nuh-uh’ to utterances of ‘This is tasty’, but departs from it in situations in which they respond with ‘That’s not true’. The account is developed within a contextualist framework according to which taste utterances express contextually enriched propositions that contain judges who evaluate things as tasty or not.

It is sometimes claimed that intuitions are an indispensable part of the evidential support provided for, or against, philosophical theses concerning a wide rangeof topics. This view is ingeniously argued for by George Bealer. His approach is based on a close connection between the modal nature of philosophy and theindispensability of intuitions as sources of modally-oriented evidence. This paper is aimed at a critical assessment of this approach. It is claimed that philosophy,though being modal at bottom, need not rely on (modal) intuitions as sources of evidence. In particular, it is shown (i) that at least some of Bealer’s crucial philosophical arguments do not rest on intuitions as evidence and (ii) that one may find modal philosophical claims of considerable importance that do not require modal intuitions for support. As a result, (modal) intuitions need not be considered indispensable for gaining philosophical knowledge, even when philosophy is understood along Bealer’s lines.

Th e present paper examines three kinds of theories concerning the rigidity of general terms—extensionalist, essentialist and intensionalist theories. It is argued that both essentialist and intensionalist theories cannot deal successfully with a number of problems and that the notions of rigidity they propose for general terms lack suffi cient explanatory power. A version of the extensionalist theory, supplemented with a hierarchy of intensions, is defended. Th e theory has surprising consequences, e.g., that ‘tiger’ and some other natural kind terms are, contrary to the widespread opinion, non-rigid

According to S. Kripke, an expression is rigid provided it refers to the same object in all possible worlds in which the object exists. On the other hand, H. Putnam claims that an expression is rigid provided it refers to the same object in all possible worlds in which it refers to anything at all. The paper shows that the two notions of rigidity are not equivalent because Putnam's rigidity is much broader than Kripke's; unlike Putnam's rigidity, Kripke's is interwoven with essentialism; and identity statements between rigid designators in Putnam's sense need not be necessarily true.

The paper deals with the understanding of proper names. Though the theme goes across various disciplines – e.g. semantics, epistemology, psychology – the paper examines only selected semantic and cognitive aspects of the problem. The question runs: How should we comprehend the thesis of understanding a proper name as knowing what the name refers to? What kind of knowledge is involved here? The question is posed within the direct reference theory framework enriched by the notion of singular proposition and the compositionality principle. The distinction between an expression and an utterance of it is accepted and the original question is split up accordingly. As for expressions , to understand a proper name is to grasp a meaning axiom along the lines of D. Davidson and J. McDowell. As for utterances of expressions, to understand an utterance of a proper name is to know a piece of information concerning the referent of the name; ideally, it is a fact that can be expressed by an identity statement claiming that the referent of the name under discussion is identical with the individual about which the speaker has a mental file at her disposal

Cieľom state je navrhnúť systematickú a vyčerpávajúcu klasifikáciu definícií. Táto klasifikácia vychádza z typológie, ktorú vypracoval Richard Robinson vo svojej knihe o definíciách, no v rôznych aspektoch ju ďalej dopracováva. Nová klasifikácia je založená na dvoch kritériách, a to kritériu predmetnosti a kritériu ilokučnej sily. Podľa kritéria predmetnosti možno definovať výrazy, pojmy, resp. objekty ; podľa kritéria ilokučnej sily možno zase rozlíšiť definície, ktoré opisujú existujúci systém, a definície, ktoré transformujú daný systém na nový systém. Napokon sa podľa týchto dvoch kritérií vyhodnocujú niektoré známe druhy definícií.