Michael Wolff

In diesem Buch wird ein zweihundert Jahre altes Problem gelost: Wie beweist Kant in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft die Vollstandigkeit seiner Urteilstafel? Da diese Tafel, zusammen mit der Kategorientafel (die von ihr abhangt) das Herzstuck von Kants Hauptwerk ausmacht, gilt das Problem von jeher als Kernproblem der Kantinterpretation. Uberraschenderweise kann es durch sorgfaltige immanente Textauslegung gelost werden: Nachweisbar ist, dass das Leitfadenkapitel, also der unmittelbare Kontext der Urteilstafel innerhalb der Kritik, eine dicht geschriebene Argumentationsskizze zu einem strengen Vollstandigkeitsbeweis enthalt, dessen Uberzeugungskraft nichts zu wunschen ubriglasst. Fur die Rekonstruktion dieses Beweises kommt es zunachst auf eine genaue Analyse der Behauptungen an, die Kant mit der Urteilstafel aufstellt. Diese Analyse prasentiert das erste Kapitel. Das zweite bietet dann einen ausfuhrlichen Satz-fur-Satz-Kommentar zu der fur den Vollstandigkeitsbeweis einschlagigen Textpassage und rekonstruiert ihn in allen Details. Das dritte Kapitel schliesslich untersucht den Begriff von 'formaler Logik', den Kant voraussetzt und von dem seine Behauptung abhangt, die in der Urteilstafel vorgenommene Aufzahlung logischer Formen sei vollstandig. Der im Anhang abgedruckte Essay behandelt die bis heute kaum beachtete Auseinandersetzung, die Gottlob Frege in seiner Begriffsschrift von 1879 mit der kantischen Urteilstafel Punkt fur Punkt gefuhrt hat. Freges Kritik an ihr wird im ersten Teil des Anhangs dargestellt und erlautert. Im zweiten Teil wird dann gezeigt, dass diese Kritik in allen Punkten auf grundlegenden Irrtumern und Missverstandnissen beruht. Als besonders schwerwiegender und folgenreicher Irrtum stellt sich Freges Ansicht heraus, die Regeln dessen, was Kant als formale Logik ansah, seien aus dem Axiomensystem der Begriffsschrift ableitbar.

In an earlier article (see J Gen Philos Sei (2010) 41: 341-355) I have compared Aristotle's syllogistic with Kant's theory of "pure ratiocination". "Ratiocinia pura" („reine Vernunftschlüsse") is Kant's designation for assertoric syllogisms Aristotle has called 'perfect'. In Kant's view they differ from non-pure ratiocinia precisely in that their validity rests only on the validity of the Dictum de omni et nullo (which, however, in Kant's view can be further reduced to more fundamental principles) whereas the validity of non-pure ratiocinia additionally presupposes the validity of inferences which Kant calls consequentiae immediatae. I have argued that Kant's view is in some (not in all) essential features in accordance with Aristotle's view concerning perfect syllogisms and certainly leading to a tenable and interesting logical theory. As a result I have rejected not only the interpretation of Aristotle adopted by Theodor Ebert, but also the objections he has raised against Kant's logical theory. As far as Aristotle is concerned, Ebert has attempted to defend his position in the first part of his reply to my article published in J Gen Philos Sei (2009) 40: 357-365, and I have argued against this defence in issue 1 of the J Gen Philos Sei (2010) 41: 199-213 (cf. Ebert's answer in the same issue pp. 215-231). In the following discussion I deal with Eberts defence of his criticism of Kant published in the second part of his reply to my article (see J Gen Philos Sei (2009) 40: 365-372). I shall argue, that Kant's principle 'nota notae est nota rei ipsius' and his use of technical vocabulary stand up to the objections raised by Ebert. His attempts to prove that Kant's logical theory is defective are based on several misinterpretations

In an earlier article (s. J Gen Philos Sci 40:341-355, 2009), I have rejected an interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic which (since Patzig) is predominant in the literature on Aristotle, but wrong in my view. According to this interpretation, the distinguishing feature of perfect syllogisms is their being evident. Theodor Ebert has attempted to defend this interpretation by means of objections (s. J Gen Philos Sci 40:357-365, 2009) which I will try to refute in part [1] of the following article. I want to show that (1) according to Aristotle's Prior Analytics perfect and imperfect syllogisms do not differ by their being evident, but by the reason for their being evident, (2) Aristotle uses the same words to denote proofs of the validity of perfect and imperfect syllogisms („apodeixis”, "deiknusthai" etc.), (3) accordingly, Aristotle defines perfect syllogisms not as being evident, but as "requiring nothing beyond the things taken in order to make the necessity evident", i.e. as not "requiring one or more things that are necessary because of the terms assumed, but that have not been taken among the propositions" (APr. I. 1), (4) the proofs by which the validity of perfect assertoric syllogisms can be shown according to APr. I. 4 are based on the Dictum de omni et nullo, (5) the fact that Aristotle describes these proofs only in rough outlines corresponds to the fact that his proofs of the validity of other fundamental rules are likewise produced in rough outlines, e.g. his proof of the validity of conversio simplex in APr. I. 2, which usually has been misunderstood (also by Ebert): (6) Aristotle does not prove the convertibility of E-sentences by presupposing the convertibility of I-sentences; only the reverse is true

This article defends the view that the logical vocabulary of syllogistic is sufficient for representing the logical form of rules and laws of non-syllogistic (classical or non-classical) predicate logic. This representation requires replacement only of the descriptive vocabulary of syllogistic (i. e. of variables for terms) by non-syllogistic descriptive signs. The validity of rules and laws of modern (classical or non-classical) predicate logic rests on the validity of rules and laws which can without exception be represented in the formal language of syllogistic. Expressions of this language are representations of logical form. Frege's view that relationships between logical subjects and logical predicates can be „reduced“ to relationships between functions and arguments confuses logical and grammatical subjects as well as logical and grammatical predicates.

Using the behavioral agency model, we analyze how two compensation design characteristics, pay-performance sensitivity and duration of CEO compensation, affect corporate social performance. We find that the performance sensitivity of CEO pay is negatively associated with poor social performance but also negatively affects strong social performance. These results suggest that pay-performance sensitivity increases the relevance of potential negative consequences of poor social performance. However, the ‘insurance’ benefits of strong social performance may also become less relevant. With respect to the duration of CEO compensation, we find that it reduces poor social performance. This finding confirms arguments that a long-term compensation time horizon increases the perceived threat that the negative effects of poor social performance will become visible. With our findings, we integrate behavioral agency theory with the traditional stakeholder views.