P. M. S. Hacker

Two conceptions of language have dominated philosophical reflection over the last century on the nature of language and linguistic understanding. The first is the calculus conception, advanced in various forms by Frege, Russell, the early Wittgenstein, Carnap, Dummett and Davidson. The second is the anthropological conception of language advanced in various forms by the later Wittgenstein, Strawson, and Grice. The purpose of the paper is to compare and contrast the two conceptions. The calculus conception assigns priority to the notions of truth and truth-condition, and to the assertoric mode. The anthropological conception assigns priority to use, meaning and explanations of meaning, and is indifferent to mode. The disagreements between the two conceptions are explored, and the further consequences of each conception are described

It is sometimes argued that Wittgenstein's conception of grammar and the role he allocated to grammar (in his sense of the term) in philosophy changed between the Big Typescript and the Philosophical Investigations. It is also held that some of the grammatical propositions Wittgenstein asserted prior to his writing of the Philosophical Investigations are theses, doctrines, opinions or dogmatism, which he abandoned by 1936/37. The purpose of this paper is to show these claims to be misunderstandings and misinterpretations. On all important matters, his conception of grammar and of grammatical investigations, of grammatical statements or propositions and of grammatical clarification did not change between the Big Typescript and the Investigations. Grammatical propositions (e.g. the meaning of a word is its use; a sample in an ostensive definition belongs to the means of representation; belief is not a mental state) are no more theses, doctrines or opinions than is “a bachelor is an unmarried man.” Nor are they in any way dogmatic

The McNaughton rules for determining whether a person can be successfully defended on the grounds of mental incompetence were determined by a committee of the House of Lords in 1843. They arose as a consequence of the trial of Daniel McNaughton for the killing of Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel’s secretary. In retrospect it is clear that McNaughton suffered from schizophrenia. The successful defence of McNaughton on the grounds of mental incompetence by his advocate Sir Alexander Cockburn involved a profound shift in the criteria for such a defence, and was largely based on the then recently published scientific thesis of the great US psychiatrist Isaac Ray, entitled A Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence of Insanity. Subsequent discussion of this defence in the House of Lords led to the McNaughton rules, still the basis of the defence of mental incompetence in the courts of much of the English-speaking world. This essay considers one of these rules in the light of the discoveries of cognitive neuroscience made during the 160 years since Ray’s treatise. A major consideration is the relationship between the power of self-control and irresistible impulse as conceived by Cockburn on the one hand, and by cognitive neuroscience on the other. The essay concludes with an analysis of the notion of free will and of the extent to which a subject can exert restraint in the absence of particular synaptic connections in the brain.

If someone commits the mereological fallacy, then he ascribes psychological predicates to parts of an animal that apply only to the (behaving) animal as a whole. This incoherence is not strictly speaking a fallacy, i.e. an invalid argument, since it is not an argument but an illicit predication. However, it leads to invalid inferences and arguments, and so can loosely be called a fallacy. However, discussions of this particular illicit predication, the mereological fallacy, show that it is often misunderstood. Many misunderstandings concern the use of this illicit predication in the course of discussions of understanding the mind/body problem. Our aim here is to provide an accessible overview through discussing common misconceptions of the fallacy. We also discuss how conceptual investigations of the relation between living organisms and their parts fit within the framework of modern evolutionary theory, i.e. inclusive fitness theory

La antropología filosófica de L. Wittgenstein está siendo discutida intensamente desde diferentes puntos de vista. El libro reflexiona alrededor de la propuesta de P. M. S. Hacker de su trabajo ‘El enfoque antropológico y etnológico de Wittgenstein’. El autor se interroga si cuando adoptamos una visión antropológica ubicamos nuestra posición externamente, para ver las cosas objetivamente. Para ello, se analiza el problema vinculado a la gramática y su constitución conceptual. Plantea hasta que punto compartimos los conceptos que usamos en nuestro enfoque antropológico. V. Sanfélix entiende que L. Wittgenstein ha ido desarrollando un historicismo sin historia y una etnología sin etnografía e indica que la utilidad de esta “etnología fantástica” ayuda a ganar una visión sinóptica de la gramática de nuestros conceptos. A. Tomasini Bassols reflexiona alrededor la plataforma sobre la que elabora la antropología filosófica y si se puede sostenerse que la obra de Wittgenstein contiene una antropología filosófica. L. Hertzberg examina el modo como Hacker analiza los conceptos. Repasa la distinción “analítico/sintético” y el “historicismo sin historia”. M. Holguín razona acerca de la “historia natural”. Desde su punto de vista, Hacker justifica los calificativos de aproximación “antropológica” o “etnológica” con el fin de describir una nueva perspectiva que le permite abordar los problemas conceptuales. W. Jacorzynski reconsidera el enfoque etnológico de Wittgenstein y se para a considerar el análisis conductual, la regularidad/uniformidad, la historicidad (“sin historia”), la autonomía y la arbitrariedad de la gramática. J. Sádaba profundiza acerca del esquema general desde donde se interpreta nuestra actividad existencial sin que por ello se proponga describir historiográficamente los recorridos de la humanidad. J. Padilla Gálvez ubica el programa antropológico en una fenomenología epistemológica que se caracteriza por el estudio del análisis del lenguaje usado y conjetura que el proyecto fenomenológico quedaría corto si analiza exclusivamente la gramática ya que esta carece de perspicuidad. Por esta razón, el programa requiere de un análisis amplio cuyo proyecto se complemente con la “representación perspicua”.

In worlds that lack life, there is no value. For all that, there is no mystery about 'the existence of values in a world of facts'. The world does not consist of facts, rather true descriptions of the world consist of statements of fact. It is as much a fact concerning the world that there are things that are of value to living things, that human beings value things and possess valuable characteristics, perform valuable deeds, stand in valuable relationships to others, as it is a fact that there is life on earth.

This paper explains the absence of the problem of other minds in ancient philosophy and links its rise in early modern philosophy with the distinction between primary and secondary qualities and the consequent veil of ideas. The futile struggles of early modern philosophers with the problems is delineated. So too are the incoherent theories of modern neuroscientists and psychologists. The sources of the manifold confusions are pinned down to use and misuse of the concept of mind, to misunderstandings about the nature of the human ability to say how things are subjectively with oneself, to misconstruals of the nature of introspection and self-knowledge, and to the misguided picture of the “inner” and the “outer”. Philosophical misunderstandings about knowledge of other minds has masked the genuine limitations on our knowledge and understanding of our fellow human beings. Some of these rest on ignorance, others on the constitutional indeterminacy of the mental.