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 discusses some recent work on the notion of possibility in Wittgenstein's Tractatus assessed by means of an interpretation of the notion put forward in Cerezo 2005. It argues that the proper way to understand the notion of possibility in the Tractatus must pay equal attention both to the picture theory and the truth-functions theory. From this perspective, through an examination of Peach's proposal (2007) it shows that the role played by the notion of logical space in the determination of sense needs to be emphasized. In addition, the paper considers some consequences of the Tractarian notion of possibility, namely, the strong contingency of the world that it involves, which is revealed by the thinkability of logical space as empty envisaged by Wittgenstein in T 2.013, and also discusses the recent debate between Reinhardt (2005) and Geach (2006) on this issue.

In this volume, María Cerezo examines Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as a response to some of Frege's and Russel's logical problems. In analyzing the tractarian conditions for the possibility of language, she explains the two main theories of the proposition in Tractatus : the truth-functions theory and the picture theory. Cerezo shows that Wittgenstein initially separates the account of the structure of a proposition from the explanation of its expression. However, contrary to his intention, the combination of these theories creates new difficulties, since the requirements of each theory cannot be fully respected by the others. Cerezo also argues that Wittgenstein's theory of language cannot be fully understood unless attention is paid to his theory of expression and his doctrine of projection by the metaphysical subject.

_ Source: _Volume 53, Issue 2-4, pp 194 - 220 This paper offers an interpretation of Anselm of Canterbury’s semantic doctrines in _De Grammatico_, paying special attention to five distinctions present in the dialogue: _dicitur in eo quod quale/dicitur in eo quod quid, esse ut in subiecto/esse non ut in subiecto, significare/appellare, significare ut unum/significare non ut unum_ and _significare per se/significare per aliud_. It elucidates the theoretical role of these distinctions, showing that they are introduced with different purposes and that conflation between them must be avoided. Three specific features of this interpretation are the following: an analysis of the distinction between _significare_ and _appellare_ in relation to the orders of intellection and predication, an account of the difference between predication _in eo quod quid/in eo quod quale_ and essential and accidental predication, and an analysis of the thesis that ‘_grammaticus_’ not only signifies _per se qualitas_, but also _per se habere_.