Magazine et Edition

Volume 14 (2022): Edition 64 (May 2022)

Volume 13 (2021): Edition 61 (November 2021)

Volume 13 (2021): Edition 60 (May 2021)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 59 (December 2020)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 58 (December 2020)
SPECIAL ISSUE: ON THE VERY IDEA OF LOGICAL FORM

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 57 (November 2020)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 56 (May 2020)

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 55 (December 2019)
Special Edition: Chalmers on Virtual Reality

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 54 (December 2019)
Special Edition: III Blasco Disputatio, Singular terms in fiction. Fictional and “real” names

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 53 (November 2019)

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 52 (May 2019)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 51 (December 2018)
SYMPOSIUM ON JASON STANLEY’S “HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS”

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 50 (December 2018)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 49 (November 2018)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 48 (May 2018)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 47 (December 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 46 (November 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 45 (October 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 44 (May 2017)

Volume 8 (2016): Edition 43 (November 2016)

Volume 8 (2016): Edition 42 (May 2016)

Volume 7 (2015): Edition 41 (November 2015)

Volume 7 (2015): Edition 40 (May 2015)

Volume 6 (2014): Edition 39 (November 2014)

Volume 6 (2014): Edition 38 (May 2014)

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 37 (November 2013)

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 36 (October 2013)
Book symposium on François Recanati’s Mental Files

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 35 (May 2013)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 34 (December 2012)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 33 (November 2012)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 32 (May 2012)
New Perspectives on Quine’s “Word and Object”

Volume 4 (2011): Edition 31 (November 2011)

Volume 4 (2011): Edition 30 (May 2011)
XII Taller d'Investigació en Filosofia

Volume 4 (2010): Edition 29 (November 2010)
Petrus Hispanus 2009

Volume 3 (2010): Edition 28 (May 2010)

Volume 3 (2009): Edition 27 (November 2009)
Homage to M. S. Lourenço

Volume 3 (2009): Edition 26 (May 2009)

Volume 3 (2008): Edition 25 (November 2008)

Volume 2 (2008): Edition 24 (May 2008)

Volume 2 (2007): Edition 23 (November 2007)
Normativity and Rationality

Volume 2 (2007): Edition 22 (May 2007)

Volume 2 (2006): Edition 21 (November 2006)

Volume 1 (2006): Edition 20 (May 2006)

Volume 1 (2005): Edition 19 (November 2005)

Volume 1 (2005): Edition 18 (May 2005)

Volume 1 (2004): Edition 17 (November 2004)

Volume 1 (2004): Edition 16 (May 2004)

Volume 1 (2003): Edition 15 (November 2003)

Volume 1 (2003): Edition 14 (May 2003)

Volume 1 (2002): Edition 13 (November 2002)

Volume 1 (2001): Edition 11 (November 2001)

Volume 1 (2002): Edition 11-12 (May 2002)

Volume 1 (2001): Edition 10 (May 2001)

Volume 1 (2000): Edition 9 (November 2000)

Volume 1 (2000): Edition 8 (May 2000)

Volume 1 (1999): Edition 7 (November 1999)

Volume 1 (1999): Edition 6 (May 1999)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition 4 (May 1998)

Volume 1 (1997): Edition 3 (November 1997)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition s2 (November 1998)
Special Edition: Petrus Hispanus Lectures 1998: o Mental e o Físico, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço

Volume 1 (1997): Edition 2 (May 1997)

Volume 1 (1996): Edition 1 (December 1996)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition s1 (June 1998)
Special Edition: Language, Logic and Mind Forum, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2182-2875
Première publication
16 Apr 2017
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 52 (May 2019)

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2182-2875
Première publication
16 Apr 2017
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

3 Articles
Accès libre

Do We Need Propositions?

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 1 - 8

Résumé

Abstract

Trenton Merricks argues that we need propositions to serve as the premises and conclusions of modally valid arguments (Merricks 2015). A modally valid argument is an argument in which, necessarily, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true. According to Mer- ricks, the premises and conclusions of modally valid arguments have their truth conditions essentially, and they exist necessarily. Sentences do not satisfy these conditions. Thus, we need propositions. Merricks’ argument adds a new chapter to the longstanding debate over the exis- tence of propositions. However, I argue that Merricks’ argument does not quite succeed. Merricks has overlooked one viable alternative to pos- tulating propositions. However, this alternative employs the relation of being true-at-a-world, which is difficult to analyze. Thus, the soundness of Merricks’ argument ultimately depends on the comparative merits of accepting propositions as abstract entities, versus accepting truth-at-a- world as an unanalyzed relation between sentences and possible worlds.

Mots clés

  • Propositions
  • modality
  • abstract objects
  • logical validity
  • Trenton Merricks
Accès libre

Personal Identity: The Simple and Complex Views Revisited

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 9 - 22

Résumé

Abstract

Eric Olson has argued, startlingly, that no coherent account can be giv- en of the distinction made in the personal identity literature between ‘complex views’ and ‘simple views’. ‘We tell our students,’ he writes, ‘that accounts of personal identity over time fall into [these] two broad categories’. But ‘it is impossible to characterize this distinction in any satisfactory way. The debate has been systematically misdescribed’. I argue, first, that, for all Olson has said, a recent account by Noonan provides the coherent characterization he claims impossible. If so we have not been wrong all along in the way he says in what we have been telling our students. I then give an account of the distinction between the reductionist and non-reductionist positions which makes it differ- ent from the complex/simple distinction. The aim is to make clear sense of the notion of a not simple but non-reductionist position — which seems an eminently reasonable possibility and something it may also be useful to tell our students about.

Mots clés

  • Simple view
  • complex view
  • personal identity
  • Olson
  • reductionism
Accès libre

John Searle’s Naturalism as a Hybrid (Property-Substance) Version of Naturalistic Psychophysical Dualism

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 23 - 44

Résumé

Abstract

The article discusses the relationship between John Searle’s doctrine of naturalism and various forms of materialism and dualism. It is argued that despite Searle’s protestations, his doctrine is not substantially differ- ent from the epiphenomenalistic property dualism, except for the admis- sion, in his later works, of the existence of an irreducible non-Humean self. In particular, his recognition that consciousness is unique in having an irreducible first-person ontology makes his disavowal of property du- alism purely verbalistic. As for epiphenomenalism, Searle’s explanation of how consciousness can be efficacious without violating the causal clo- sure of the physical, by analogy with the causal efficacy of the higher level properties of physical objects that are supervenient on the microphysical, confuses causality and constitution (causal and constitutive superve- nience). It is also argued that Searle’s recognition of the existence of an irreducible non-Humean self that is responsible for decision-making sits badly both with his (property dualistic) view that conscious mental states are irreducibly first-personal states of the brain (rather than of the self) and with his (epiphenomenalistic) view that consciousness has no causal power in addition to that of the underlying neurobiology.

Mots clés

  • Consciousness
  • naturalism
  • materialism
  • dualism
  • epiphenomenalism
3 Articles
Accès libre

Do We Need Propositions?

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 1 - 8

Résumé

Abstract

Trenton Merricks argues that we need propositions to serve as the premises and conclusions of modally valid arguments (Merricks 2015). A modally valid argument is an argument in which, necessarily, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true. According to Mer- ricks, the premises and conclusions of modally valid arguments have their truth conditions essentially, and they exist necessarily. Sentences do not satisfy these conditions. Thus, we need propositions. Merricks’ argument adds a new chapter to the longstanding debate over the exis- tence of propositions. However, I argue that Merricks’ argument does not quite succeed. Merricks has overlooked one viable alternative to pos- tulating propositions. However, this alternative employs the relation of being true-at-a-world, which is difficult to analyze. Thus, the soundness of Merricks’ argument ultimately depends on the comparative merits of accepting propositions as abstract entities, versus accepting truth-at-a- world as an unanalyzed relation between sentences and possible worlds.

Mots clés

  • Propositions
  • modality
  • abstract objects
  • logical validity
  • Trenton Merricks
Accès libre

Personal Identity: The Simple and Complex Views Revisited

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 9 - 22

Résumé

Abstract

Eric Olson has argued, startlingly, that no coherent account can be giv- en of the distinction made in the personal identity literature between ‘complex views’ and ‘simple views’. ‘We tell our students,’ he writes, ‘that accounts of personal identity over time fall into [these] two broad categories’. But ‘it is impossible to characterize this distinction in any satisfactory way. The debate has been systematically misdescribed’. I argue, first, that, for all Olson has said, a recent account by Noonan provides the coherent characterization he claims impossible. If so we have not been wrong all along in the way he says in what we have been telling our students. I then give an account of the distinction between the reductionist and non-reductionist positions which makes it differ- ent from the complex/simple distinction. The aim is to make clear sense of the notion of a not simple but non-reductionist position — which seems an eminently reasonable possibility and something it may also be useful to tell our students about.

Mots clés

  • Simple view
  • complex view
  • personal identity
  • Olson
  • reductionism
Accès libre

John Searle’s Naturalism as a Hybrid (Property-Substance) Version of Naturalistic Psychophysical Dualism

Publié en ligne: 20 Jun 2019
Pages: 23 - 44

Résumé

Abstract

The article discusses the relationship between John Searle’s doctrine of naturalism and various forms of materialism and dualism. It is argued that despite Searle’s protestations, his doctrine is not substantially differ- ent from the epiphenomenalistic property dualism, except for the admis- sion, in his later works, of the existence of an irreducible non-Humean self. In particular, his recognition that consciousness is unique in having an irreducible first-person ontology makes his disavowal of property du- alism purely verbalistic. As for epiphenomenalism, Searle’s explanation of how consciousness can be efficacious without violating the causal clo- sure of the physical, by analogy with the causal efficacy of the higher level properties of physical objects that are supervenient on the microphysical, confuses causality and constitution (causal and constitutive superve- nience). It is also argued that Searle’s recognition of the existence of an irreducible non-Humean self that is responsible for decision-making sits badly both with his (property dualistic) view that conscious mental states are irreducibly first-personal states of the brain (rather than of the self) and with his (epiphenomenalistic) view that consciousness has no causal power in addition to that of the underlying neurobiology.

Mots clés

  • Consciousness
  • naturalism
  • materialism
  • dualism
  • epiphenomenalism

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo