Hamed Ghadiri; mohammad saeedimehr
Volume 9, Issue 1 , October 2018, , Pages 113-136
Abstract
Hilary Putnam (1926-2016) in most of his philosophy focused on the question ‘how does mind/language hook onto the world?’ He followed this question and proposed various opinions in different fields of philosophy. In semantics, he defended semantic externlism and in metaphysics and ontology, ...
Read More
Hilary Putnam (1926-2016) in most of his philosophy focused on the question ‘how does mind/language hook onto the world?’ He followed this question and proposed various opinions in different fields of philosophy. In semantics, he defended semantic externlism and in metaphysics and ontology, he criticized metaphysical realism through two arguments including model-theoretic argument. Here I will show that Putnam’s argument for semantic externalism and his model-theoretic argument, while are different in field, structure, and formulation, have been supported by a common thought concerning the relation between mind/language and the world. To achieve this goal, firstly I will introduce both arguments and propose new formulations for them. Secondly, I will enumerate five similarities between these formulations, and finally, on the basis of these similarities, I will propose the supporting thought formed as an argument. According to this supporting thought, the strict separation between mind and the world leads to indeterminacy of referential relation between them; but our common sense and realistic intuition implies that this relation is determined; therefore, mind and the world are not strictly separated; i.e. are interpenetrated.
Hamed Ghadiri; Davood Hosseini
Volume 4, Issue 1 , March 2013, , Pages 89-108
Abstract
Anselm’s ontological argument is the most famous one which has been controversial since its appearance. One crucial part of the argument is “if [that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived] exists solely in the mind even, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.” ...
Read More
Anselm’s ontological argument is the most famous one which has been controversial since its appearance. One crucial part of the argument is “if [that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived] exists solely in the mind even, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.” According to this part, one can make a comparison between “that than which nothing greater cannot be conceived” when it does not exist and itself when exist. Thus, there is a problem (we dub it self-comparison problem): how can one model this kind of comparison? In this paper we will try to evaluate four attempts to solve the problem–namely those of Milican, Oppenheimer & Zalta, Lewis, and King. In responding to the problem, Milican and Oppenheimer & Zalta have dissolved the problem; Lewis uses possible-worlds semantics to model the comparison; and King, as Lewis, models it but by means of the intentional objects theory. We firstly argue that the problem is genuine and cannot be dissolved, secondly Lewis presupposes his, arguably problematic, possible-worlds metaphysics; and thirdly, King errs in recognizing the relata of the comparison.
