Hooman Mohammad Ghorbanian
Volume 5, Issue 2 , September 2014, , Pages 105-123
Abstract
Semantic stipulations, i.e. the principles which are the main constructors of the meanings of words, have different forms for each category of words. Kripke`s theory is the most suitable model which identifies the appearance of the stipulations. In general, semantic stipulations are some usages of a ...
Read More
Semantic stipulations, i.e. the principles which are the main constructors of the meanings of words, have different forms for each category of words. Kripke`s theory is the most suitable model which identifies the appearance of the stipulations. In general, semantic stipulations are some usages of a word that has been accentuated. So, as long as the stipulations remains fixed, discoveries and inventions do not change the meaning of a word. Also, to justify the way which any meaning engender from semantic stipulations and how the meanings of the words in one sentence affect each other, radial model is very suitable one. Radial model, unlike those models which concentrate on the conceptual and obstruct definitions of words, shows a dynamic way of producing meanings.
Human Mohammad Ghorbanian
Volume 2, Issue 1 , March 2011, , Pages 127-148
Abstract
Lewis Carroll in “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles?” questioning one the most important basis of logic and by narrating a fanciful dialog asks why we should move from premises to the conclusion. Is logic itself enough to justify the use of logic or we need something beyond logic to do that. ...
Read More
Lewis Carroll in “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles?” questioning one the most important basis of logic and by narrating a fanciful dialog asks why we should move from premises to the conclusion. Is logic itself enough to justify the use of logic or we need something beyond logic to do that. In this article two main approaches have been considered. First, logical approach which Bertrand Russell is its most important member and second, social-internalism approach which Peter Winch advocates. These two main philosophers have referred several times to Carroll’s article. According to Russell, analyzing logic is suffice to explain why consequent will infer from premises, and on the other hand, Winch and his followers thinkevery inference has a root in historic understanding of life and if this understanding fails, logic will falls apart too. I will make some objections to both of these. At the end, I propose that the solution is to return to formal logic. If formal logic understood well, there won’t be any need to seek for another logic to teach us how to use logic. Valid formal inferences are what logic consists of and if someone violates these inferences, he is out of the boundaries of logic.
