Andrei Nekhaev

The article contains answers to the critical remarks made in the course of the discussion about the possibilities of applying a modernized version of Katz’s semantic platonism in solutions to the problem of rule-following. Ladov points out that my interpretation of Katz’s semantic platonism is not quite correct in relation to Katz’s original works. He specifically emphasizes that my interpretation of Katz’s semantic platonism places undue focus on the syntactic treatment of the decomposition principle. In the answer, I take apart the most significant differences between Katz’s original position and my interpretation, pointing to the line of drift of his views from Fregean views of sense to more or less radical token-type views of language structures. Andrushkevich makes a remark of historical-philosophical character, drawing attention to the fact that I unjustifiably qualify the problem of rule-following exclusively as a metaphysical one, ignoring its important epistemological aspects. In the answer, I establish a distinction between so-called R-facts, which provide knowledge about the rule R itself, and C-facts, which give us only knowledge about whether someone correctly follows the rule R in cases where he intends to follow it. I then show that before we can decide what kind of knowledge we need to follow the rule, we must figure out what kinds of facts there are in our world, since all knowledge of this kind will ultimately be supervenient on them. In parallel, I take apart another important plot in the discussions of the rule following problem. In particular, drawing on Lane’s work, I argue that the problem of rule following arises already at the level of the notion of repetition of a sign, and that the solution to this problem can only be metaphysical, since it involves the investigation of identity criteria for special objects of arbitrary nature such as words. Finally, I examine the critical comments made by Borisov and Sulaev regarding the my Reihenornamente example. In the opinion of my critics, the ‘-••-••-’ sampling I have given can be continued in many ways other than the way I suggested in my article. In my response, I establish and explain the distinction between two types of tasks that could be formulated with respect to the entire set of Reihenornamente examples: (1) to continue the sampling using the series of ‘•’ and ‘-’ symbols it contains without breaking the pattern already given in the sampling, and (2) to continue the sampling using the series of ‘•’ and ‘-’ symbols it contains, but in such a way that the sampling together with its continuation forms some pattern out of the infinite set of possible patterns. In the answer, I emphasize that in my example Reihenornamente task (2) was not assigned, but only task (1). I separately explain that the conditions of task (1) can be translated into the language of metaphysics as follows: the ‘-••-••-’ sampling contains C-facts about the pattern and these are all the C-facts you should use to construct a continuation for the sampling using the symbols ‘•’ and ‘-’ without breaking the pattern already given in it. Based on these additional clarifications, I make the assertion that for the ‘-••-••-’ sampling there is only one correct sequence that continues the sampling in a way that does not break the pattern given in it.

Kripke’s skeptical arguments about the meaning of linguistic expressions are usually seen as the starting point of a discussion around the rule-following problem. Kripke believed that no one (including God) is able to produce a fact that allows one to establish whether one really meant by ‘+’ the addition function in the simple arithmetic calculation ‘57+68=125’. Many of Kripke’s critics, however, believe that semantic dispositionalism can offer effective ways to avoid his skeptical arguments. A number of proponents of semantic dispositionalism (Simon Blackburn, Carl Ginet, Tomoji Shogenji, Adam Podlaskowski, Jared Warren, etc.) propose that we expand the number of our dispositions and diversify their character in significant ways. The proposal is that we are hold not only with simple dispositions concerning the computation of particular pairs of small numbers, but also with special composite dispositions containing algorithms for applying the results of such computations to any pairs of really huge numbers. This article provides a critique of semantic dispositionalism and its proposed responses to the skeptical challenge from the rule-following problem. The proposal of semantic dispositionalism runs into a new skeptical objection, the so-called privilege argument. It shows that, in concrete examples of computations with ‘+’ for pairs of really huge numbers, proponents of semantic dispositionalism cannot establish a distinction for two fundamentally different cases: (i) cases where we incorrectly follow the addition rule, and (ii) cases where we correctly follow some other rule. An alternative option of answering this new skeptical challenge is Jerrold Katz’s semantic platonism, in which semantic structures are based on syntax, the formal aspect of grammar responsible for such a property as the correctness of the construction of linguistic expressions. According Jerrold Katz, rule-following occurs not because one by ‘+’ means the addition function that one derives from his previous experience with ordered triples of numbers, but because of the existence of a syntactic relation between two abstract objects – the sense of the expression ‘57+68’ and the number ‘125’. For proponents of semantic platonism, the problem of rule-following is not the existence of infinitely large extensions of linguistic expressions (like in the examples of our calculations with '+'), but the explanation of how exactly abstract meanings are ‘grasped’. This process is based on the principle of decomposition. The ‘graspable’ abstract meanings of a certain type of expressions ‘e’, forming autonomous structures of some language L, are not infinite objects, but quite finite syntactic combinations of this type of expressions ‘e’ in the language L. In the course of one’s language learning one becomes familiar with such combinations, so that later, if necessary, when encountering a type of expression ‘e’ in practice, one has an idea of what one should, can, or has reason to do in all such cases (in particular, so that one can notice and correct one’s own and others’ mistakes in the use of expressions of type ‘e’). Proponents of semantic platonism is believed that it should be enough to successfully avoid the skeptical challenge of the rule-following problem.

The relevance of this study is due to the need to analyze foreign scientific literature in the field of philosophy of law, revealing trends in the evolution and development of natural law theories. Despite the significant number of publications on the theory of natural law its key theses and arguments are discussed by post-soviet scientists in isolation from modern discussions by foreign jurists. The subject of the research in the paper is the reconstruction and rational interpretation of the arguments of natural law theories forming the doctrine of the so-called New Classical Natural Law (NCNL) and presented in the works of John Finnis and Germain Grisez. The purpose of this study is an attempt to reveal the logical structure of the natural law argumentation, especially the answers to the Question «Why would it be rational for agents to respect other people’s natural rights?». The paper uses traditional methods typical of philosophical and legal research, including methods of logical and linguistic analysis, historical reconstruction and rational interpretation. The novelty of this paper is due to a new approach to the disclosure of arguments and the logical structure of the reasoning of proponents of the theory of natural law. Clarification of the nature, advantages and disadvantages of such an argument can become the main one for further philosophical and legal research.

The Russell–Tarski hierarchical approach regards self-reference as a unified source of the emergence for a broad family of various semantic paradoxes. The Russell–Tarski hierarchical approach became the object of numerous critical attacks after the appearance of infinite forms of paradoxes without self-reference at the end of the 20th century. The “Infinite Liar” proposed by the American logician Stephen Yablo, in particular, is usually seen as the most powerful and convincing counterargument against the Russell–Tarski hierarchical approach. The “Infinite Liar” does not contain selfreference. Each of the sentences of this infinite sequence does not speak of itself, but always only of all the following sentences, and the logical construction of this paradox is obviously isomorphic to the hierarchical structure as such. However, the truth-values of individual sentences in the “Infinite Liar” are based on recursive functions. The “Infinite Liar” by Yablo provides analytical possibilities for constructing the original computational semantics that excludes any kind of recursion in determining the truth-value, and it demonstrates effectiveness of the basic principles of the Russell–Tarski hierarchical approach in the struggle against new forms of semantic paradoxes. The “Infinite Liar” sentences are transformed into a modified computational algorithm for the Post machine. The analysis shows that for any initial state of the tape and the starting position of the cell marking mechanism, the “Infinite Liar” algorithm is quite feasible for the Post machine. The absence of a Post machine nonresultative stop in performing the “Infinite Liar” is explained by the fact that the computational algorithm of such a program has the form of a monotonous hierarchical structure in which every arbitrary sentence Sn of an infinite sequence fixes the meaning of strictly following sentences Sn+1, Sn+2, . . ., Sn+m, which completely excludes any form of recursive definitions. The disappearance of monotony in the hierarchical structure of the so-called “Dietary Infinite Liar” almost instantly leads to a nonresultative stop of the Post machine at any initial state of the tape and the starting position of the cell marking mechanism. The difference in performing demonstrated by the Post machine when executing the programs of the “Infinite Liar” and the “Dietary Infinite Liar” is a clear evidence of the effectiveness of the basic principles of the Russell–Tarski hierarchical approach in the struggle against new forms of semantic paradoxes. That is why the ban of sentences (or their sequences) with self-reference remains the most popular of standard ways in the struggle against semantic paradoxes.

Truthteller sentences (e.g. “This sentence is true”) and sentences of the no-no paradox (e.g. “The following sentence is false” and “The previous sentence is false”), in contrast to Liar-like sentences (e.g. “This sentence is false”), have an excess of consistent unique truth values. This circumstance makes it possible to consider such sentences as examples of genuine semantic pathologies. The way to treat them can be found in the anaphoric prosentential theory of truth. This form of non-redundancy deflationism takes the notion of truth not as an ordinary predicate describing a certain real property, but as an anaphoric operator, which makes it possible to meaningfully substitute prosentences with its own antecedents. The anaphoric prosentential theory of truth interprets truthteller sentences and sentences of the no no paradox as prosentences that lack propositional content. To treat semantic pathologies without imposing the ban on the use of any so called “groundless” sentences, anaphoric existentialism should be supplemented with metalinguistic analysis. This way will make it possible to show that truthteller sentences and sentences of the no-no paradox actually do not ascribe any unique truth values, but they establish certain types of relations between the semantic content of such prosentences. The use of the words “is true” and “is false” has no purpose to tell us which unique truth values are possessed by these prosentences, but informs that between their possible antecedents there is a certain relation R; the relation determines whether or not these prosentences have the same value. Truthteller sentences can be consistent assumed only “is true”; sentences of the no-no paradox can take in only «is false». Therefore, the metalinguistic analysis of prosententional semantic content can serve as an effective way to eliminate excess of consistent unique truth values for truthteller sentences and sentences of the no-no paradox, and it does not require the ban of any so-called “groundless” sentences.

The article is a critical essay of Evgeny Borisov’s research, which examines the logical structure and meaning of infinite semantic paradoxes (in particular, Yablo’s paradox). According to his view, the strict formalization of the infinite sequence of sentences in Yablo’s paradox requires selfreferential circularity descriptions. This view is based on Priest’s argument that a uniform representation of the content for Yablo’s paradoxical sentences can only be given by means of the two-place predicate of satisfaction. But it guarantees the existence of a fixed point for each sentence of Yablo’s paradox. Thus, we need to agree that Yablo’s paradox does involve circularity of a self-referential kind. However, Borisov believes that Priest’s argument is not sufficient for such a conclusion. His disagreement with Priest’s conclusion is based on the consideration of Sorensen’s and Beall’s metalanguage arguments. According to Sorensen, the specific properties of our formal (technical) descriptions are not inherited by the objects of such descriptions. On the contrary, Beall states that finite beings such as ourselves can know nothing about the actual infinity by demonstration. We cannot know how Yablo’s paradox could be represented in an arithmetic language without the help of descriptions. Priest’s argument shows that any such description is circular. It means that any entity generated by self-referential circularity description is itself circular. Comparing Sorensen’s and Beall’s arguments, Borisov states his own skeptical argument. He claims that the need to use circular descriptions is not a reliable evidence of the circularity of Yablo’s paradox. An alternative to Borisov’s skeptical views is the dilemmic argument that Yablo’s paradox either does involve circularity of a selfreferential kind or is not an example of a genuine semantic paradox. This view is based on the arguments of Cook and Ketland. According to Cook, we can unwind any finite semantic paradox to an infinite structure. Unwinding is a paradoxicality-preserving operation for replacing a sentence which says of itself with an infinite sequence of sentences which say of their successors. It shows that Yablo’s paradox is just an original example of circulus vitiosus. Ketland claims that Yablo’s paradox can be strictly formalized as an infinite conjunction of sentence tokens without using the predicate of truth (or satisfaction). It allows showing that Yablo’s infinite sequence is not a genuine semantic paradox, but rather a ω-paradox.

The paper criticizes pessimistic views on survival into teletransporter. It is considered, in particular, the recent attempt of Alexey Kardash and Konstantin Morozov to defend the pessimists’ views by means of the criterion of mereorganic continuity. This defence faces two serious problems. Firstly, it is based on a fundamentally flawed description of the mechanics of teleportation. Under the guise of teletransportation, the procedure discussed is quite different — replication (creation of a perfect copy for some original object from suitable matter). Secondly, the prohibition on the survival of objects by instantaneous replacement of all their parts derived from the criterion of mereorganic continuity cannot be component of any consistent (yet plausible) mereology.

The article examines the issue of a necessary connection between the phenomena of law and morality. A new classification of contemporary legal philosophy theories based on a distinction between «dietary» and «calorie» views on the question of the extent that the substantive content of law needs to be consistent with the moral requirements for it to be legal is proposed and justified. It offers a critical analysis of «dietary» views based on the assertion that the law can have any content, including absolutely immoral content (the so-called «separability thesis»).

The article examines the issue of a necessary connection between the phenomena of law and morality. According to legal positiv- ism, morality is not a criterion of the legitimacy for legal norms. The law can have any content including absolutely immoral (the so-called “separability thesis”). Law issues are not connected with discussing the moral merits of a possible judicial decision. They are only closely related to studying various purely legal phenomena like precedents, judicial discretion, legislatures, etc. The ascriptive legal statements theory proposed by the Oxford School of Law (Herbert Hart, Joseph Raz, and others) serves as the core of contemporary legal positivism. This theory is based on the notion of defeasibility for legal responsibility without any moral reasoning. There, phenomena of law are interpreted as purely linguistic, not social constructions. Analysis of pure law language should provide all the needful tools to extract hidden meaning from any legal norm. This analysis does not require going beyond the legal language since it does not describe any real situations in the world, but merely expresses legal requirements, allowing to legally qualify some observed events. It completely eliminates any references to moral principles from the analysis of legal language. However the critical reconstruction theory of ascriptive legal statements shows limitations of the legal positivism’s analytical approach to the phenomena of law. The example of a fictitious legal collision offered demonstrates limitations of the legal positivism approach to the understand- ing of law phenomena. This collision is a complex conceptual mix of Frankfurt-style examples and imaginary situations in the Trolley Problem widely known in analytical ethics. It clearly demonstrates the possible paradox of a law judgment in situations where conditions for the recognition and cancellation of legal liability are the property of two different (not necessarily openly contradictory) legal norms. It can serve as a strong argument in favor of contemporary theories of natural law (Lon Fuller, John Finnis, Ronald Dworkin, and others), which questioned the possibility of creating a theory of pure law. They considered it senseless and impossible to draw any strict border between moral and legal norms. Immoral law cannot have the particular property of creating a moral obliga- tion to follow such like a law. Law cannot be built on legality only, and the answers to all significant legal questions should be found in moral theories.

This article is devoted to thirtieth anniversary of the first publication in 1982 Saul Kripke's book "Wittgenstein on rules and private language". Radical skeptical interpretation of the work 'late' Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed by Saul Kripke in this book is considered one of the most famous "puzzle" of modern philosophy of language, which has become a source of much debate and discussion on the nature of the linguistic sign and its meaning. This article examines some of the consequences of a radical version of skeptical 'rule-following' paradox by Saul Kripke, which remain in force and effect for finite functions and limited linguistic registers 'Ad finitum'. Thereby questioned the widely held view among analytic philosophers that the skeptical core for Saul Kripke's 'rule-following' paradox is argument 'Ad infinitum' (an inherent source of skepticism for our intention to follow the rule is concluded in itself situation of mastering for us endless function on the limited set of examples), and thus any direct or even moderate solutions of this paradox would be focused to its elimination. Thus proved that including for the field of finite functions and languages described theirs the skeptical force of 'rule-following' paradox itself completely saves. Moreover, undertaken in this article analysis detects a very quaint phenomenon to the field of language registers 'Ad finitum' - the effect of 'replication' (in the using of a linguistic phrase is always a n-th set of empirically equivalent but logically incompatible and even non-identical languages which it belongs). Study of the phenomenon of replication leads to a number of important remarks on many critics of Saul Kripke's skeptical paradox, in particular the famous Oxford philosopher Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker. Thus the concept of 'community speakers' has been called by Saul Kripke for skeptical solution to paradox of him own cannot be eliminated by the concept of 'share' and 'shareable' languages proposed for this aim by Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker. Despite the criticism the skeptical paradox 'rule-following' by Saul Kripke is still the center of attention and remains influential in modern philosophy of language and the meaning theory.

The article contains a reconstruction of the rapid psychological change argument by Scott Campbell. According to the standard psychological approach, the identity of a person is tied to persistence one’s memories, beliefs, wants and intentions. A person stays the same person if one holds strongly psychologically connected and continuous over time. the structure of rapid psychological change argument is compared with the argument of incredibly long-lasting psychological change by David lewis. It is concluded that the main goals of critical attacks of these arguments are the temporal mismatch of psychological connectedness and continuity as well as the reductionist claim that all the facts what matters for survival can be described in an impersonal way.

The article presents a critical analysis of views on the problem of personal identity which are proposed by two great English philosophers — John Locke and Derek Parfit. Lockean personality is considered as a basic metaphysical structure, subject to moral responsibility for all actions performed on its behalf. Parfitian personality, in contrast, denies any identical essence through time as an extremely improbable metaphysical structure, instead assuming an existential chain of one life’s stages with psychological continuity. As an alternative to these views, a several of additional arguments are considered to support the physicist view of human nature.

The article discusses the personality and legacy of Derek Parfit. he entered the history of modern metaphysics and moral philosophy as a proponent of radical neo-lockean view on the issues of personal identity. denying our basic metaphysical and moral intuitions (identity for the person and moral responsibility), the so-called «Oxford buddhist» was a tireless preacher of hyper-rational altruism. his original ideas and admirable arguments outlined only in few works were and remain at the center of philosophical discussions.

The article presents a critique of aesthetic realism. The core of this theory contains three theses: (AR) aesthetic properties are the sources of aesthetic experience; (PA) perceptual acquaintance with the objects of aesthetic evaluation is a sine qua non condition for making an judgment; (DM) aesthetic properties are describable. Arguments of faultless disagreement, esse is percipi, and zombie art cast doubt on theses (AR) and (DM). Based on this critique, an alternative nominalist theory of aesthetic experience is proposed, in which the perceptual properties of the object are considered as sufficient condition of aesthetic experience.

The article contains a critical analysis of Wittgenstein’s theory of logical symbolism. According to an influential interpretation, Wittgenstein presented in the Tractatus a new method of solving paradoxes. This method seems a simple and effective alternative to Russell’s type theory. Wittgenstein’s theory of logical symbolism is based on the requirement of clear notation and the context principle: the type of a symbol only “shows” itself in the way we use the signs of our language. The function sign φ(φx) does not express any paradox, because the syntactic rules for its use, written in clear notation, should “show” us that φ(φx) = ψ(φx). Many researchers (Davant, Ishiguro, Mounce, Ruffino, Friedlander, Jolley, Livingston, Ladov, et al.) follow this interpretation. However, the difficulty of such a view on Wittgenstein’s theory of logical symbolism is that there hides the fallacy of petitio principii. Indeed, in examples of a functional sign of the form φ(φx), we are interested not only in the question of whether the functions φ are different symbols, but also in how this functional sign φ(φx) itself excludes the symbolization of the same object by different ways. This interpretation is contrasted with the idea that Wittgenstein’s theory of logical symbolism is in fact a modified analogue of Russell’s simple theory of types. The reciprocality principle becomes the core of Wittgenstein’s theory: the combinatorial potential of the “prototype” of a functional sign is identical to the combinatorial potential of the “prototype” of an argument. According to Wittgenstein, only describing the combinatorial potential of linguistic expressions (symbols) can vanish the illusion of paradoxes. The function cannot be its argument, because the function sign φ(φx) already contains the “prototype” of its argument, “showing” us that φ(φx) = φx. The correctness of this interpretation does not exclude the possibility that the differences between Russell and Wittgenstein are in fact nothing more than façon de parler.

The article critically examines the heuristic capacity and methods of using separate tools of Wittgenstein’s philosophical grammar to treat various semantic pathologies (paradoxes of Liar, Truth-Teller, etc.). According to Wittgenstein, philosophical confusion associated with the analysis of such semantic pathologies arises on the grounds of our intuitive faith that we are able to express in language any property that interests us. For instance, we believe that the property “to have a length of exactly one metre” can be meaningfully attributed to any extended object. However, such a faith is fundamentally wrong, since an object like a standard metre, which plays an exclusive role as the criterion of length in our measuring practices based on the metric system, is an example of an extended object about which one can say neither that it is one metre long, nor that it is not one metre long. A correct understanding of the language-game concept shows that the criterion by which we form a set of objects that meet the standards established by the criterion cannot be described in the same way as objects of this set. Language-games using predicates of truth and falsehood are similar to our practice of measuring length using the metric system. In cases of Liar and Truth-Teller sentences, we encounter resembling examples of philosophical confusion. Beyond the context of their usage, “This sentence is false” and “This sentence is true” sentences seem to us paradoxes. But, according to Wittgenstein’s philosophical grammar, a correct method of treating such “paradoxical” sentences demands to find the lack- ing context for their usage, i.e. pay attention to the language-game in which they are emplloyed. Like in the case of the standard metre, we can claim that the sentence “This sentence is false” (“This sentence is true”) is neither false (true), nor not false (true). In an analogous way, Liar and Truth-Teller sentences should be interpreted as peculiar standards of falsehood and truth that we use in our language-games to judge about the truth value of other sentences.

The sentences ‘p but I don’t believe p’ (omissive form) and ‘p but I believe that not-p’ (comissive form) are typical examples of Moore’s paradox. When an agent (sincerely) asserts such sentences under normal circumstances, we consider his statements absurd. The Simple Solution (Moore, Heal, Wolgast, Kriegel, et al.) finds the source of absurdity for such statements in a certain formal contradiction (some kind of like ‘p & not-p’), the presence of which is lexically disguised. This solution is facing criticism since it is obvious that the denial of the contradiction allegedly hidden in Moore’s paradox will not become an expression of tautology for us. Hintikka offers another solution to Moore’s paradox. In his view, the source of absurdity is the practical inconceivability of the situation, in which the agent would be able to hold mutually incompatible (inconsistent) beliefs. The sentences ‘p but I don’t believe that p’ and ‘p but I believe that not-p’ sound absurd because they express high-ordered beliefs that no rational agent can hold. A belief expressed in the sentence ‘he believes that p’, in order to be available to the agent, must be compatible with the truth of everything the agent believes. The problem with Hintikka’s solution is that it relies on an epistemic principle that does not correspond to our general intuitions about the notion of belief. According to this principle, there must be a close connection between the sentence ‘p but I don’t believe that p’ and the sentence ‘I believe that is the case is that p but I don’t believe that p’. However, it is not difficult to imagine the context for situations when the agent asserts the sentence ‘p but I don’t believe that p’ when s/he believes that p, but in parallel does not hold any high-ordered belief about his/her belief in p. For example, the agent does not recognize oneself in a photograph after a hard plastic surgery, and when one asks him ‘who is this?’ it would not be absurd for him/her to accept the following description of his/her beliefs ‘I believe that {I am me} but I don’t believe that I believe that {I am me}’. Wittgenstein provides an alternative solution based on a descriptive analysis of the grammar of verbs we use to express, attribute, and understand each other’s psychological states. In his view, the everyday practice of using the verb ‘believe’ demonstrates a characteristic asymmetry in the semantic and logical properties of the usage of this verb in the first person. The expression ‘I believe falsely’ has no real meaning since no one can meaningfully say the sentence ‘Now I believe falsely that p’ on their own behalf. Therefore, the genuine source of absurdity is associated with situations of self-attribution of false belief by the agent. Despite its originality, Wittgenstein’s solution faces objections. For example, in a certain context, it would not be absurd to assert the sentence ‘There are no beliefs, but I don’t believe in it’, unlike the sentence ‘There are no beliefs and I believe that it is so’. The solution proposed by Wittgenstein does not allow us to correct the situation since one could assert quite reasonably and without any absurdity a sentence like ‘In fact, there are no beliefs and now I falsely believe that it is so’. Based on Evans’ principle of epistemic transparency, some researchers (Atlas, Chan, Kwon, et al.) offer another strategy for solving Moore’s paradox, in which peculiar attention is paid to the dependence of understanding and evaluating the meaning of the sentences ‘p but I do not believe that p’ and ‘p but I believe that not-p’ from the immediate context of their usage. The source of absurdity should be looked for in the established practice of the self-referential use of the pronoun ‘I’. In the researchers’ view, Moore’s paradox arises only in the context of situations where the agent asserting such sentences is conscious speaking about oneself. Therefore, there is an obvious structural analogy between the sentences of the Liar family (‘This very sentence is false’, ‘Now I am lying’, etc.) and Moore’s paradox (‘p but I don’t believe that p’, ‘p but I believe that not-p’) – self-reference is constitutive for both families of paradoxical statements.

According to animalism we are identical with human animals. Our death coincides with the cessation of the functioning of an organism. Biological approach to personal identity seems to imply that the corpse causally connected to me (as an organism) is not me. In other words, there is no such an entity as a human animal that later becomes a corpse. It is so-called «the corpse problem». However, there are various views compatible with animalism, for instance the thesis that after death we can survive as corpses or souls. The main task of the article provides a critical analysis of these views.

This article provides a critical analysis of Mark Walker’s type-token theory. This theory purports to describe, explain, and justify the mechanism by which moral and legal responsibility can be attributed to exact and complete duplicates of persons. However, Walker’s defence of the view of persons as abstract entities is met with several metaphysical objections. Alternatively, a new approach to moral and legal responsibility is developed based on principles of agency law, in which the conception of a guilty person does not require identity with the person who committed the culpable act.

In current discussions on the problem of the metaphysical nature of the word, four factions – eliminativism, nominalism, originalism, and the type-token theory – take an active part. For eliminativism, words as separate entities do not exist; they are only a useful cognitive illusion. In the process of communication, competent speakers make sounds and inscriptions through which they are able to infer certain intentional contents of each other’s cognitive states. However, these sounds and inscriptions cannot be regarded as instances of words since they do not possess the phonological and orthographic properties constitutive of words. For nominalism, by contrast, the streams of sounds and ink patterns produced by competent speakers serve as relevant instances of a particular word, or its tokens. What we usually call “words” are collections of such tokens, composed on the basis of similarity relations (phono- logical, orthographic or semantic). For originalism, the streams of sounds and ink patterns created by competent speakers are stages of words, understood as continuants, concrete ob- jects preserving identity over time, individualized by the causal history of their origin. Words are created by competent speakers through the practice of naming and spread through chains of interpersonal contact. The phonological, orthographic and semantic properties possessed by different stages of the same word are generally useless for a proper description of objects such as words. At different times of their existence, words can change any of their properties (pronunciation, spelling, and even reference) while preserving their identity in time. For the type-token theory, words are types, or abstract objects encoding a particular phonographic pattern, which in the process of communication must be instantiated by a competent native speaker by uttering or writing the appropriate token. The type-token theory has several ad- vantages over the views of eliminativism, nominalism and originalism. Firstly, it offers a unified ontology of linguistic structures (since the division into tokens and types extends here to the whole range of linguistic units, including sentences and letters). Secondly, unlike most of its competitors, it is able to present a clear operational criterion for word identity, while being consistent with most of our intuitive notions of intra- and cross-linguistic phenomena (homonymy, synonymy, etc.).

The article presents criticism of Katz’s proto-theory. Based on the principles of semantic Platonism, he offers a new understanding of the relationship between sense and reference. However, his account faces three strong objections: against non-causal ways of accessing abstract Platonic entities (Benacerraf–Field–Cheyne), against intuition as the faculty to a priori knowledge of grammar facts (Horwich–Cheyne–Oliver), and against the medial status of finite intensionals in matters for fixing the reference of linguistic expressions (Kripke–Boghossian–Kush). Without convincing answers to these objections, Katz’s proto-theory cannot be considered as a fit competitor to naturalistic theories of language.

The article contains a critical analysis of the skeptical solution to the rule- following problem. The skeptical solution denies the existence of “superlative” R-facts that would make statements of the form “P means R by ‘+’ ” true. The role of the sources for the meaning of ‘+’ here is played by the patterns of solidarity behavior of members of some community to which P belongs. The correct use of ‘+’ would be one that is approved by the competent majority of this community, and there can be no other sense in which it would be correct or wrong. Boyd’s hypothesis denies the communal character of the ‘+’ meaning. While there are no “superlative” R-facts, there should be C-facts not about the R as the standard that P or its community follows in their practice of using ‘+’, but about whether they do it correctly. The proof of the Boyd hypothesis is based on the example of an imaginary Ω-community, whose agents use a finite set of simple symbols for the needs of their arithmetic: ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘J’. Each symbol denotes a subset of identical, from the Ω-community point of view, numerical values. The symbol ‘A’ is used, for ex- ample, for a subset of the natural numbers 1, 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, etc.; ‘B’ for 2, 11, 20, 29, 38, 47, etc.; ‘C’ for 3, 12, 21, 30, 39, 48, etc. The Ω-community’s arithmetic uses the only local function ⊕ whose range of values forms a finite set of mathematical propositions {α} that are true. The Ω-community’s arithmetic, like our own, is open to many skeptical challenges. Is there a fact that determines the meaning of ‘⊕’? What do agents do when they calculate with ‘⊕’ (say, solve examples ‘A⊕B = ?’, ‘C⊕E=?’, etc.)? Do they Add, Badd or Dadd? To answer them would require a “superlative” R-fact. For the calculation practice with ‘⊕’, it could be a certain R-fact that determines the only possible order for the sequence of numerals ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘J’ such that {α} is true. An analysis of the calculation practice using the local arithmetic function ⊕ shows that for it there are no such R-facts that would determine the only correct standard R – even if the agents in the Ω-community were trained in such calculations on a full set of cases for the application of that function. However, for such practice there are C-facts (independent in their existence from R-facts) that make it possible to distinguish between what seems to be right and what is right. The solitary agent P and the Ω-community are in the same position regarding the knowledge of C-facts. The Ω-community’s point of view has no advantage in matters of C-facts knowledge over the solitary agent P’s point of view. The Ω-community arithmetic shows that if a solitary agent P had the suitable knowledge of C-facts about the practice of calculations with ‘⊕’, it would allow him/her to disagree with the not correct answers of other members of the community even when they would constitute an absolute majority.

In his article Evgeny Borisov offers an original solution to Kripke’s sceptical problem of meaning. Its conceptual core is the point of view of the participant of speech acts. He believes that first-person statements of speech act participants like “I know for certain that the expression ‘e’ is used by me in the meaning of m” cannot carry any epistemic fallacies. As a criticism, I propose to point out that non-factual Cartesian semantics have serious epistemic flaws that make it vulnerable to sceptical attacks and accusations of petitio principii.

In 1993, the American logic S. Yablo was proposed an original infinitive formulation of the classical ≪Liar≫ paradox. It questioned the traditional notion of self-reference as the basic structure for semantic paradoxes. The article considers the arguments underlying two different approaches to analysis of proposals of the ≪Infinite Liar≫ and understanding of the genuine sources for semantic paradoxes. The first approach (V. Valpola, G.-H. von Wright, T. Bolander, etc.) imposes responsibility for the emergence of semantic paradoxes on the negation of the truth predicate. It deprives the ≪Infinite Liar≫ sentences of consistent truth values. The second approach is based on a modified version of anaphoric prosententialism (D. Grover, R. Brandom, etc.). The concepts of truth and falsehood are treated as special anaphoric operators. Logical constructs similar to the ≪Infinite Liar≫ do not attribute any definite truth values to sentences from which they are composed, but only state certain types of relations between the semantic content of such sentences.

The article contains a critique of the current condition of the theory and history of ideas discipline. Orthodox research in the theory and history of ideas are contrasted to the modern social studies of relations between rationality and sociality. The article suggests the necessity of changes in the research practices of the discipline. The changes have to help prevent two typical conceptual traps — epiphenomenalism and reductionism. Special attention is paid to the sources and agents of orthodox influence on research practices in the modern theory and history of ideas. In particular, the article focuses on research practices of German classical philology in the 19th century, which have been widely recognized due to academic activities of such influential schools as Gottfried Hermann’s philology of words, and August Böckh’s philology of things. These research practices became a tool for 19th century philology expansion into the territory of related disciplines, particularly history. Both the active borrowing of these practices and the creation of philology-dependent research associations in cross-border disciplinary areas influenced the formation of the orthodox research canon in the theory and history of ideas. This influence was so strong and extensive that its traces can be found in research practices of many modern disciplinary programs in the theory and history of ideas. In conclusion, the article provides a brief overview of some promising directions for the development of an unorthodox and more socially-oriented approach to the theory and history of ideas

The main goal of the article is to reconstruct the conceptual bases of the original sociological project contained in David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature. The core of Humean sociology is a meticulously designed doctrine of passions. The foci of the Humean doctrine of passions are the questions of influences observed between the emotional component of human nature and the multiple forms of human actions. According to David Hume, the faculty of imagination, which operates on ideas, is not by itself able to supply a set of regular and uniform practices for an agent. The real foundations for any agent’s habitual form of action are always emotions and passions. The influences of emotions and passions on an agent have various natures: emotions as the primary impressions initiate actions performed by an agent, and passions, as secondary impressions, put these activities into a regular and uniform shape. These very passions define the nature and structure of an agent’s habits, avoiding the traditional logical difficulties in solving the riddle of induction. A habit does not arise as a simple result from the multiple performances of these or that actions, but it is formed by predilections of an agent of activity. Against the backgrounds of a burgeoning interest in contemporary social sciences and a variety of practice-oriented theories and concepts, Humean sociology finds a new theoretical practicality, demonstrating the strength of its arguments and the ability to become a new important source of conceptual intuitions in the social sciences.