Maria Jose Frapolli

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first we outline a version of non-descriptivism, ‘minimal expressivism’, leaving aside certain long-standing problems associated with conventional expressivist views. Second, we examine the way in which familiar expressivist results can be accommodated within this framework, through a particular interpretation that the expressive realm lends to a theory of meaning. Expressivist theories of meaning address only a portion of the classical problems attributed to this position when they seek to explain why the expressions they deal with have a given meaning. A position can nevertheless be termed ‘expressivist’ – in the minimal sense that we favor – based simply on the following key features of the meaning of these expressions: they can be used as functions of propositions, and they are not used to describe the way the world is

The purpose of this paper is to show that, pace (Field, 2009), MacFarlane’s assessment relativism and expressivism should be sharply distinguished. We do so by arguing that relativism and expressivism exemplify two very different approaches to context-dependence. Relativism, on the one hand, shares with other contemporary approaches a bottom–up, building block, model, while expressivism is part of a different tradition, one that might include Lewis’ epistemic contextualism and Frege’s content individuation, with which it shares an organic model to deal with context-dependence. The building-block model and the organic model, and thus relativism and expressivism, are set apart with the aid of a particular test: only the building-block model is compatible with the idea that there might be analytically equivalent, and yet different, propositions.

Frank Plumpton Ramsey (1903–30) made seminal contributions to philosophy, mathematics and economics. Whilst he was acknowledged as a genius by his contemporaries, some of his most important ideas were not appreciated until decades later; now better appreciated, they continue to bear an influence upon contemporary philosophy. His historic significance was to usher in a new phase of analytic philosophy, which initially built upon the logical atomist doctrines of Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein, raising their ideas to a new level of sophistication, but ultimately he became their successor rather than remain a mere acolyte.

El propósito de este artículo es mostrar que las llamadas "teorías de la identidad psiconeural" no tienen la estructura lógica de una teoría genuina de la identidad. Un operador de identidad genuino es un operador de segundo orden, o de órdenes superiores, que convierte predicados n-ádicos en predicados n-1-ádicos. Si las teorias de la identidad psiconeural no son, en realidad, teorías de la identidad, entonces la críticas habituales que usan la Ley de Leibniz y otros rasgos que se relacionan con la identidad no tienen ningún efecto. Así, dos serán las conclusiones: (i) que las llamadas "teorías de la identidad psiconeural" deben de reformularse, de manera que expresen claramente su contenido, y (ii) que las críticas utizadas hasta ahora contra ellas no consiguen su objetivo.The aim of this paper is to show that the so-called "theories of psichoneural identity" do not possess the logical structure of a genuine theory of identity. The identity operator is a second- or higher-order operator that converts n-adic predicates into n-1-ádic ones. If the so-called "theories of psichoneural identity" are not theories of identity at all, then two conclusions follow: (i) these theories of the mind-body relation should state their contents in a more appropiate way, and (ii) the usual criticisms against them, which bear on some features that all idetity theories must hold, as for instance Leibniz Law, leave them untouched.

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.

To be a proposition is to possess propositional properties and to stand in inferential relations. This is the organic intuition, [OI], concerning propositional recognition. [OI] is not a circular characterization as long as those properties and relations that signal the presence of propositions are independently identified. My take on propositions does not depart from the standard approach widely accepted among philosophers of language. Propositions are truth-bearers, the arguments of truth-functions (‘not’, ‘or’, ‘and’, ‘if’), the arguments of propositional-attitude verbs (‘know’, ‘believe’, ‘doubt’, ‘assume’, ‘reject’) and the kind of entity capable of standing in inferential relations (which are basically implication and incompatibility). The aim of this paper is to argue for [OI]. In doing so, I will show that even what is probably the most repeated argument against non-descriptivism, the so-called Frege-Geach Argument (FGA), presupposes something like [OI], a presupposition that Geach shares with his critics. Despite the huge success of FGA, a thorough analysis of the actual scope of this argument has yet to be given. I will provide such an analysis in section 3 below. In this paper, I argue that [OI] is a meta-theoretical principle which is neutral with respect to specific metaphysical debates about the nature of propositions, as well as specific proposals about the semantics of declarative sentences.

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.

This monograph is a defence of the Fregean take on logic. The author argues that Frege ́s projects, in logic and philosophy of language, are essentially connected and that the formalist shift produced by the work of Peano, Boole and Schroeder and continued by Hilbert and Tarski is completely alien to Frege's approach in the Begriffsschrift. A central thesis of the book is that judgeable contents, i.e. propositions, are the primary bearers of logical properties, which makes logic embedded in our conceptual system. This approach allows coherent and correct definitions of logical constants, logical consequence, and truth and connects their use to the practices of rational agents in science and everyday life.

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.

This volume comprises a lively and thorough discussion between philosophers and Tyler Burge about Burge's recent, and already widely accepted, position in the theory of meaning, mind, and knowledge. This position is embodied by an externalist theory of meaning and an anti-individualist theory of mind and approach to self-knowledge. The authors of the eleven papers here expound their versions of this position and go on to critique Burge's version. Together with Burge's replies, this volume offers a major contribution to contemporary philosophy

The background of this paper is what I call “pragmatic inferentialism,” a view that I attribute to Robert Brandom. Here, I develop Brandom’s view and argue that it is a kind of subject naturalism, in Price’s sense, and that the charge of idealism sometimes addressed against it is unwarranted. Regarding, I show that pragmatic inferentialism finds support from evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Regarding, I present what I call “level 0 expressivism,” which I take to be the semantic counterpart of some aspects of evolutionary psychology and developmental psychology. Besides, I resort to Brandom’s defense of Hegel’s conceptual realism. The conclusion of the paper is a vindication of objective truth in the inferentialist framework.

Hintikka’s semantic approach to meaning, a development of Wittgenstein’s view of meaning as use, is the general theme of this chapter. We will focus on the analysis of quantified sentences and on the scope of the principle of compositionality and compare Hintikka’s take on these issues with that of Frege. The aim of this paper is to show that Hintikka’s analysis of quantified expressions as choice functions, in spite of its obvious dissimilarities with respect to the higher-order approach, is actually very close to the Fregean stance on compositionality and context dependence. In particular, we will defend that the Fregean approach to quantifiers is unavoidably linked to the idea that quantified expressions are context-dependent, and therefore should not be conceived under the traditional inside-out model for analysis.

The book offers a characterization of the meaning and role of the notion of truth in natural languages and an explanation of why, in spite of the big amount of proposals about truth, this task has proved to be resistant to the different analyses. The general thesis of the book is that defining truth is perfectly possible and that the average educated philosopher of language has the tools to do it. The book offers an updated treatment of the meaning of truth ascriptions from taking into account the latest views in philosophy of language and linguistics.

Mostraremos que el desacuerdo entre pesimistas y optimistas sobre la resolución racional de los desacuerdos profundos no se ubica en el nivel del contenido, de lo que están diciendo, sino en uno diferente. Para mostrar por qué es así, proponemos detenernos en el funcionamiento lógico-semántico del término clave en este desacuerdo: “racional”. Iniciaremos con el repaso de algunos argumentos que pesimistas y optimistas han esgrimido en su discusión, y comprobaremos la diferencia de estándares ya mencionada (sección 1); luego, nos detendremos en las particularidades lógico-semánticas de “racional”, y explicitaremos lo que hacen los hablantes cuando realizan movidas lingüísticas con él (sección 2); y para finalizar, volveremos sobre el desacuerdo entre pesimistas y optimistas, y mostraremos por qué, a pesar de la diferencia, permanece como un desacuerdo genuino y es importante seguir inmiscuidos en esta discusión. El análisis lógico-semántico nos mostrará que “racional” no es usado para describir un estándar de racionalidad independiente de cualquier contexto, sino para expresar ciertas actitudes respecto de lo que decimos o hacemos. A pesar de la diferencia de estándares, pesimistas y optimistas siguen inmiscuidos en un desacuerdo genuino porque discrepan acerca de ciertas actitudes que hay que adoptar con respecto a, en este caso específico, los DP.

We propose a new approach to conditional donkey sentences that allows us to face successfully the often called proportion problem. The main ingredients of the proposal are van Benthem’s generalized quantifier approach to conditionals (van Benthem, 1984), and Barwise’s situation semantics (Barwise, 1989). We present some experimental data supporting our proposal.Proponemos una nueva aproximación a las oraciones condicionales burro, que nos permite hacer frente con éxito al llamado problema de la proporción. Los principales elementos de la propuesta son la aproximación de van Benthem a los condicionales como cuantificadores generalizados (van Benthem, 1984), y la semántica de situaciones de Barwise (Barwise, 1989). Presentamos algunos resultados experimentales que respaldan nuestra propuesta.