Maria Jose Frapolli

The book offers a proposal on how to define truth in all its complexity, without reductionism, showing at the same time which questions a theory of truth has to answer and which questions, although related to truth, do not belong within the scope of such a theory. Just like any other theory, a theory of truth has its structure and limits. The semantic core of the position is that truth-ascriptions are pro-forms, i.e. natural language propositional variables. The book also offers an explanation of the syntactic behaviour of truth-terms, and the pragmatic roles of truth-acts. The theory of truth we present is a technical proposal, relatively uncontaminated by radical philosophical discussion. It makes indeed philosophical points, but it is intended to be a conceptual analysis, as neutral as possible, of the aspects that may serve as a point of departure for more philosophically-laden destinations. Like the Fregean account of quantifiers, which is prior to and, to a large extent, independent of the metaphysical debate about existence and its forms, or the Kaplanian view on demonstratives, that is neutral regarding the debate about individuals and the possibilities we have to actually “reach” them in a referring act, we intend our proposal about truth to be a sophisticated and explicative setting that helps to situate other debates about truth accurately, far from the distorted and sometimes strongly ideological discussions that have turned the topic into a paradigm of philosophical impasse.

The aim of this paper is to discuss Kripkc?s reasons for declaring the existence of both necessary a posteriori as well as contingent a priori statements, thus breaking the traditional extensional coincidence of the two pairs of concepts:necessary?contingent and a priori?a posteriori. As I shall argue, there is no reason, from Kripke?s work at least, to reject the usual picture of the topic The appeal ot his arguments rests on the ambiguity with which his expressions are used and on the introduction o\ new senses for old notions. This does not mean, however, that all Knpke?s and Putnam?s intuitions on singular terms and natural kind nouns are wrong. Once Kripke?s ideas are properly uudeistood, they are much moreharmless then they are presented to be and they do not pose a threat to traditional relations relations between modal and epistemological categories.

Frank Plumpton Ramsey, Cambridge mathematician and philosopher, was one of the most brilliant people of his generation. He lived in an extraordinarily stimulating milieu, surrounded by figures such as Russell, Whitehead, Keynes, Moore, and Wittgenstein. Ramsey's highly original papers on the foundations of mathematics, probability, economics, philosophy of science and the theory of knowledge were very influential in the 20th century and are still widely discussed in the 21st. Perhaps two of Ramsey's achievements outshine all the rest. One is his treatment of the theoretical terms of scientific theories and the other is his deflationary account of truth. In 'Theories' he showed that, for any theory, it is always possible to offer an empirically equivalent one that does not contain theoretical terms by re-expressing it in what later became known as 'Ramsey sentences'. His account of truth was rediscovered in the 1960s and is now known as the 'prosentential' theory of truth. This collection of eleven new papers, specially written to commemorate his centenary, answers a crying need for more secondary literature on Frank Ramsey. Nearly all the aspects of Ramsey's work are examined: his logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, metaphysics, epistemology, pragmatism, economics, and the mutual influences between Ramsey and Wittgenstein. The book will be eagerly welcomed by those working in many branches of analytic philosophy and beyond.

Este artículo debate algunas de las cuestiones que el Profesor Puntel discute en su conferencia “‘verdad’ como concepto ontológico-semántico” (2007). La conferencia de Puntel toca numerosos aspectos de la noción de verdad; de entre ellos, hemos aislado dos conjuntos temáticos. El primero tiene que ver con cuestiones preliminares acerca de la verdad que el Prof. Puntel discute antes de presentar su posición. El segundo está relacionado con la posición particular que Puntel defiende y en concreto con su crítica a las teorías pro-oracionales. El primer asunto tiene relevancia porque las cuestiones preliminares en teoría de la verdad constriñen el desarrollo posterior de la teoría de manera determinante; el segundo aspecto tiene relevancia porque la crítica de Puntel encierra ciertos malentendidos de fondo que desdibujan su propia posición y le impiden tener el alcance que el Prof. Puntel le atribuye.

El artículo ofrece una caracterización de las constantes lógicas, [CL], analizando el significado de las expresiones que son sus contrapartidas en el lenguaje natural. [CL] recoge los rasgos sintácticos, semánticos y pragmáticos individualmente necesarios y conjuntamente suficientes para que una expresión sea una constante lógica. Se obtendrá la siguiente conclusión: que la lista de las expresiones que habitualmente se consideran constantes lógicas no comparten rasgos relevantes desde el punto de vista del significado que justifiquen su tratamiento como un grupo homogéneo. Sólo algunos usos del condicional, de la negación y de ciertos cuantificadores son constantes lógicas genuinas