Giovanni Gonella

The article introduces a novel variety of epistemic luck, termed ‘conceptual luck.’ Informally, a singular belief <α is Φ> is conceptually lucky when the agent avoids a misidentification mistake by chance in forming it. Unlike the so-called veritic luck— i.e., luck that a belief happens to be true —, conceptual luck primarily concerns the agent’s deployment of singular concepts in belief-formation, not the belief’s truth value. The article characterises this form of luck and argues that, although distinct from veritic luck, conceptual luck is knowledge-undermining. To support this claim, it presents cases where conceptual luck occurs without veritic luck, and the agent is intuitively judged too lucky to achieve knowledge; then, it introduces a general procedure for generating such cases. To reinforce the conclusion, the article also develops a first principles argument grounded in the idea that knowledge is a mental state constitutively involved in explaining intentional action. It further explores the implications of conceptual luck for globalised safety principles, its implication for direct coordination for singular thoughts, and other additional objections.

In the article, I discuss a form of semantic variance in singular terms and concepts that has been largely overlooked in current debates. I call this phenomenon aboutness-fragility: according to certain theories of reference that allow for reference failure, a singular thought <α is Φ> (or its verbal report `α is Φ') formed by uptaking some selected informational stream may refer to an object in the actual circumstance of thought formation, yet fail to do so in nearby scenarios where the informational stream remains unchanged. I identify some theories which are open to aboutness-fragility, and examine its implications. In particular, I argue that any theory allowing aboutness-fragility must be revised to prevent it, since the phenomenon disrupts the tight connection between reference, knowledge-transmission, and communication. To offer a case study, I focus on Imogen Dickie's theory of reference for proper names (Dickie (2015)), which holds that proper-name aboutness-relations are context-sensitive and depend on an agent's contextually variable activity of filtering information. In this regard, I show that, when this context sensitivity is pushed to its limits, it yields aboutness-fragility. I conclude that Dickie's account — like any theory open to this phenomenon — requires revision.

This article explores the mereological foundation of truthmaker semantics. Building upon Kit Fine’s abstract theory of part in Fine [J Philos 107(11):559–589, 2010], we engage in an exploration of the mereological assumptions that determine the construction of truthmaker semantics. Our approach yields semantics for a diverse range of logics, including substructural logics such as the associative Lambek calculus, as well as the logics of analytic containment. Furthermore, we elucidate the philosophical implications that arise from this pioneering approach.