María Cerezo

Organicism refers to a stance advocated within the disciplines grouped under the name “philosophy of organismal biology”. It holds that organisms are autonomous entities that are functionally integrated and irreducible to their most basic components (e.g., genes) and the relationships among them. Unlike reductionist approaches, organicism argues that principles of organization and emergence are essential for understanding organisms and capturing their ontological singularity. Recently, notwithstanding, these principles have come under scrutiny. Beyond considering specific issues with each principle individually, it has also been questioned whether they can adequately differentiate between biological and non-biological systems. In this paper, we examine some of the main criticisms that the principles of emergence and organization have received. We argue that the critics are right in considering that these principles do not seem sufficient to capture the specific ontological singularity of organisms. We propose that certain metaphysical concepts within contemporary analytic metaphysics can help to address this deficiency. Specifically, we argue that the notion of grounding or fundamentality can more effectively capture the intuitions organicists hold regarding organisms, adequately accounting for the autonomous and primary nature attributed to them.

This paper explores the presence of grounding relations within a causal dispositional framework. In particular, we examine the relationship between a cause and the dispositions whose manifestations give rise to a causal process (Mumford & Anjum, 2011). To determine whether this relation qualifies as a grounding relation, we evaluate two key criteria: (i) the satisfaction of the standard features typically attributed to grounding—irreflexivity, asymmetry, and transitivity—and (ii) the fulfillment of the negative criterion that grounding relations are neither identity nor causal relations.

This paper explores the presence of grounding relations within a causal dispositional framework. In particular, we examine the relationship between a cause and the dispositions whose manifestations give rise to a causal process (Mumford & Anjum, 2011). To determine whether this relation qualifies as a grounding relation, we evaluate two key criteria: (i) the satisfaction of the standard features typically attributed to grounding—irreflexivity, asymmetry, and transitivity—and (ii) the fulfillment of the negative criterion that grounding relations are neither identity nor causal relations.

In this paper, we address the question whether the persistence of biological species raises some difficulty for the thesis of the metaphysical equivalence between three-dimensionalism (3D) and four-dimensionalism (4D). We argue that even if one assumes that ‘species’ is a homonymous term that refers to two entities (_evolverons_ or synchronic species and _phylons_ or diachronic ones), 3D/4D metaphysical equivalence still holds. In doing so, we challenge Reydon’s strong association between a synchronic view of species and a 3D theory of persistence, and between the diachronic view of species and a 4D theory of persistence (2008). Finally, we show how this debate on persistence of species helps to illustrate some misunderstandings behind contemporary analytic metaphysics of change and persistence.

Raymond Bradley has put forward an essentialist interpretation of the ontology of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-philosophicus and aims to develop the model dimension that is implicit therein. Among other theses, Bradley maintains that tractarian names can be interpreted as Kripkean rigid designators; this idea enables him to approach the Tractus from the perspective of possible worlds semantics. I reassess Bradley's thesis by examining the tractarian notion of name and the Kripkean concept of rigid designator in Naming and Necessity, and consider whether an interpretation of tractarian names as rigid designators is possible. I also discuss similarities and differences between the two theories of meaning.

The Post-genomic Era includes features both from a methodological and epistemic point of view and from an ontological perspective. Firstly, it incorporates new methods of high-throughput sequencing of DNA and RNA, and the development of complete genomes that allow a precise reference of the molecular results obtained. In addition, from an ontological perspective, the centre of gravity of the molecular processes is placed on the expression of genes, and the way in which such expression is regulated; these features turn the attention towards the study of Gene Regulatory Networks, and in particular to the role of RNA. This new molecular-biological perspective based on new methodologies and approaches is affecting the existing Molecular Genetics Theory including the definition of gen and Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. An important philosophical challenges posed by this new situation is the question whether there is a sophistication of the present theory or a New Theory of Molecular Genetics and whether there is an incommensurability between this theory and the accepted theory. In this work we evaluate these changes in the light of Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution in order to propose an alternative between a moderate and a strong view. According to the moderate one, the Post-genomic changes do not properly involve a paradigm shift or, if they do, they constitute a minor revolution. The strong view considers that, the anomalies disclosed in the Molecular Genetics Theory at conceptual and methodological level and the Post-genomic changes they lead to suppose a scientific paradigm shift.

This paper examines the analysis of judgements of belief that Wittgenstein offers in 5.54-5.5423 of the Tractatus. We offer an interpretation of these paragraphs wich also pays attention to 5.5423, usually forgotten. In our opinion, this interpretation fits with Wittgenstein's doctrines, and makes clear that such non-genuine propositions are nonsense. These are not, as has sometimes been proposed, the propositions of psychology. In the second part of the article we give a detailed discussion of interpretations of these paragraphs which have been offered previously.

Raymond Bradley ha ofrecido una interpretacion esencialista de la ontologia deI Tractatus Logico Philosophicus de Wittgenstein (R. Bradley, The Nature of All Being, 1992), en la que pretende desarrollar las dimensiones modales que en su opinión estan implícitas en el Tractatus. EI proposito de este trabajo es revisar la interpretación bradleyana de los nombres tractarianos corno designadores rígidos, examinando la noción tractariana de nombre y la kripkeana de designador rigido en Naming and Necessity, con un doble objetivo: contestar a la cuestión de si es posible interpretar los nombres tractarianos corno designadores rígidos, y alumbrar algunas semejanzas y diferencias entre ambas teorias deI significado.Raymond Bradley, in his book The Nature of All Being, has put forward an essentialist interpretation of the ontology of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logicophilosophicus and aims to develop the modal dimensions that, in his opinion, are implicit in that work. The aim of this paper is to reassess Bradley’s interpretation of tractarian names as rigid designators, by examining the tractarian notion of name and the kripkeanconcept of rigid designator in Naming and Necessity, with a view to answering the question as to whether an interpretation of tractarian names as rigid designators is possible, and to bringing to light some similarities and diffirences between the two theories of meaning.

The aim of this paper is rather modest: we do not intend to reconstruct Aristotle’s theory of truth (although we are convinced that there is such a thing), and we will not try to settle the issue concerning Bivalence in Aristotle. We merely want, on the one hand, to argue for the consistency between the main Aristotelian texts on truth and a possible rejection of Bivalence; and on the other hand, to investigate the conditions of a possible counterexample to Bivalence. The motivation for this research is also very specific. We are interested in the apparent violation of Bivalence introduced by vague predicates, and in particular we want to respond to a family of arguments put forward by T. Williamson in support of the idea that allowing for exceptions to Bivalence would be incoherent. We have focused on these arguments for two reasons. On the one hand, what is allegedly threatened by a denial of Bivalence is no less than the very “nature of truth or falsity”. On the other hand, Aristotle is explicitly mentioned as one of the defendants of this “natural” conception of truth, and we are reminded about the connection between Aristotle’s theory and Tarski’s semantic conception. These arguments, therefore, give us an occasion to explore Aristotle’s analysis of the nature of truth and falsity, and to examine its connection with the Tarskian conception of truth. In particular, we would like to question the assumption, which has become a commonplace in the field of analytical philosophy, that Aristotle’s notion of truth can be encoded in the pair of disquotational biconditionals that derive from Tarski’s “T schema”.

I discuss the interest-relative account of vagueness and argue for a distinction between relational vague predicates and non-relational vague predicates depending on the kind of properties expressed by them. The strategy rests on three arguments arising from the existence of clear cases of a vague predicate, from contexts in which a different answer is required for questions about whether a vague predicate applies to an item, and whether such an item satisfies the interest of an agent, and from cases where an object changes up to the point of becoming P, where P is a vague predicate. In the second part of the paper, I distinguish between relational properties and non-relational properties, and I argue for the view that some vague predicates can express non-relational properties, comparative relational properties and interest-relative properties. On the basis of these arguments, I conclude that vagueness cannot be reduced to interest-relativity.

Raymond Bradley ha ofrecido una interpretacion esencialista de la ontologia deI Tractatus Logico Philosophicus de Wittgenstein (R. Bradley, The Nature of All Being, 1992), en la que pretende desarrollar las dimensiones modales que en su opinión estan implícitas en el Tractatus. EI proposito de este trabajo es revisar la interpretación bradleyana de los nombres tractarianos corno designadores rígidos, examinando la noción tractariana de nombre y la kripkeana de designador rigido en Naming and Necessity, con un doble objetivo: contestar a la cuestión de si es posible interpretar los nombres tractarianos corno designadores rígidos, y alumbrar algunas semejanzas y diferencias entre ambas teorias deI significado.Raymond Bradley, in his book The Nature of All Being, has put forward an essentialist interpretation of the ontology of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logicophilosophicus and aims to develop the modal dimensions that, in his opinion, are implicit in that work. The aim of this paper is to reassess Bradley’s interpretation of tractarian names as rigid designators, by examining the tractarian notion of name and the kripkeanconcept of rigid designator in Naming and Necessity, with a view to answering the question as to whether an interpretation of tractarian names as rigid designators is possible, and to bringing to light some similarities and diffirences between the two theories of meaning.