Volume 14 (2022): Edition 66 (December 2022) Special Edition: Varieties of Context-Sensitivity in a Pluri-Propositionalist Reflexive Semantic Framework
Volume 14 (2022): Edition 65 (November 2022)
Volume 14 (2022): Edition 64 (May 2022)
Volume 13 (2021): Edition 63 (December 2021) Special Edition on Nothing to Come by Correia & Rosenkranz
Volume 13 (2021): Edition 62 (December 2021) Ethics and Aesthetics: Editions at Their Intersection
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 5-2 (November 1998) Special Edition: Petrus Hispanus Lectures 1998: o Mental e o Físico, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço
Volume 1 (1998): Edition 5-1 (June 1998) Special Edition: Language, Logic and Mind Forum, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço
Can a collective be an agent in its own right? Can it be the bearer of moral and other properties that we have traditionally reserved for individual agents? The answer, as one might expect, is ‘In some ways yes, in other ways no.’ The way in which the answer is ‘Yes’ has been described recently by Copp; I intend to discuss his position and defend it against objections. This describes a fairly weak form of autonomy that I will claim does not require the abandonment of methodological individualism or our commonplace intuitions about individual responsibility. I will also discuss, and reject, a stronger conception of autonomy suggested especially by the work of Pettit that would result in methodological individualism.
A traditional view is that all necessary truths are analytic. A frequent objection is that certain claims of color incompatibility – e.g., ‘Nothing is both red and green all over’ – are necessarily true but not analytic. I argue that this objection to the traditional view fails because such color incompatibility claims are either analytic or contingent.
‘Quantified pure existentials’ are sentences (e.g., ‘Some things do not exist’) which meet these conditions: (i) the verb EXIST is contained in, and is, apart from quantificational BE, the only full (as against auxiliary) verb in the sentence; (ii) no (other) logical predicate features in the sentence; (iii) no name or other sub-sentential referring expression features in the sentence; (iv) the sentence contains a quantifier that is not an occurrence of EXIST. Colin McGinn and Rod Girle have alleged that standard first-order logic cannot adequately deal with some such existentials. The article defends the view that it can.
Miller (2005) and Miller (2008) argue that the branching picture of time is incompatible with the possibility of backwards time travel. In this paper I show that Miller’s conclusion is based on a hidden assumption which, while generally plausible, is unwarranted if time travel is possible. Branching time is, after all, compatible with time travel as Miller characterises it.
Can a collective be an agent in its own right? Can it be the bearer of moral and other properties that we have traditionally reserved for individual agents? The answer, as one might expect, is ‘In some ways yes, in other ways no.’ The way in which the answer is ‘Yes’ has been described recently by Copp; I intend to discuss his position and defend it against objections. This describes a fairly weak form of autonomy that I will claim does not require the abandonment of methodological individualism or our commonplace intuitions about individual responsibility. I will also discuss, and reject, a stronger conception of autonomy suggested especially by the work of Pettit that would result in methodological individualism.
A traditional view is that all necessary truths are analytic. A frequent objection is that certain claims of color incompatibility – e.g., ‘Nothing is both red and green all over’ – are necessarily true but not analytic. I argue that this objection to the traditional view fails because such color incompatibility claims are either analytic or contingent.
‘Quantified pure existentials’ are sentences (e.g., ‘Some things do not exist’) which meet these conditions: (i) the verb EXIST is contained in, and is, apart from quantificational BE, the only full (as against auxiliary) verb in the sentence; (ii) no (other) logical predicate features in the sentence; (iii) no name or other sub-sentential referring expression features in the sentence; (iv) the sentence contains a quantifier that is not an occurrence of EXIST. Colin McGinn and Rod Girle have alleged that standard first-order logic cannot adequately deal with some such existentials. The article defends the view that it can.
Miller (2005) and Miller (2008) argue that the branching picture of time is incompatible with the possibility of backwards time travel. In this paper I show that Miller’s conclusion is based on a hidden assumption which, while generally plausible, is unwarranted if time travel is possible. Branching time is, after all, compatible with time travel as Miller characterises it.