Amir Jalilighazizadeh; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati; Mohammad Saeedimehr
Abstract
According to the maximalism about truthmaker, every true proposition has a truthmaker. One of the challenges faces maximalism is: what kind of entities are truthmakers of negative propositions? There are many solutions suggested by maximalists. One class of these solutions is based on negative entities. ...
Read More
According to the maximalism about truthmaker, every true proposition has a truthmaker. One of the challenges faces maximalism is: what kind of entities are truthmakers of negative propositions? There are many solutions suggested by maximalists. One class of these solutions is based on negative entities. In the present paper we first briefly explain the problem. Then we indicate some solutions which are based on negative entities and some objections. These solutions are based on views entitled “totality states of affairs”, “polarity”, “absences” and “fundamental negative facts”. According to the solution based on totality states of affairs, in every negative case, in addition to positive facts the totality of them makes another fact, which in turn, plays the role of Truthmaker of negative proposition. According to the polarity solution, objects instantiate the properties into positive and negative manner and negative facts that result from the negative instantiation are considered as Truthmaker of negative propositions. According to the absence solution, the Truthmaker of negative proposition is considered as the absence of Truthmaker belonging to its alternative positive proposition. According to the fundamental negative facts solution, fundamentally there are negative facts the same as positive facts and these facts are Truthmaker of negative propositions.
Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati; Kasra Farsian
Abstract
Dialetheism is the view that some (and not all) contradictions are true. Since in classical logic the principle of impossibility of contradiction (the Law of Non-Contradiction, i.e., LNC) is widely accepted, the challenge between dialetheism and classical logic surely occurs. In this paper we have tried ...
Read More
Dialetheism is the view that some (and not all) contradictions are true. Since in classical logic the principle of impossibility of contradiction (the Law of Non-Contradiction, i.e., LNC) is widely accepted, the challenge between dialetheism and classical logic surely occurs. In this paper we have tried to explain the main problem of dialetheim and also examined Graham Priest’s arguments against LNC and his advocating to paraconsistent logic. Accordingly, Priest’s examples of dialetheic propositions in some systems such as Law, Natual and Formal Languages and Actual world are examined and criticized. The result is that if Priest’s argument be sound dialetheism may be acceptable. Dialetheism is the view that some (and not all) contradictions are true. Since in classical logic the principle of impossibility of contradiction (the Law of Non-Contradiction, i.e., LNC) is widely accepted, the challenge between dialetheism and classical logic surely occurs. In this paper we have tried to explain the main problem of dialetheim and also examined Graham Priest’s arguments against LNC and his advocating to paraconsistent logic. Accordingly, Priest’s examples of dialetheic propositions in some systems such as Law, Natual and Formal Languages and Actual world are examined and criticized. The result is that if Priest’s argument be sound dialetheism may be acceptable.
3. .
Mohsen Shabani Samghabadi; Lotfollah Nabavi; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Philosophy of Logic
Nima Ahmadi; Lotfollah Nabavi; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 8, Issue 2 , Summer and Autumn 2017, , Pages 1-23
Abstract
Contextualism is the main opponent of minimalism. The debate between these two semantical approaches, stem in an old fashion dispute to determine the border between semantics and pragmatics. Contextualists claim that the sentences in the natural language are not truth-evaluable before being enriched ...
Read More
Contextualism is the main opponent of minimalism. The debate between these two semantical approaches, stem in an old fashion dispute to determine the border between semantics and pragmatics. Contextualists claim that the sentences in the natural language are not truth-evaluable before being enriched pragmatically. In contrast, in minimalists’ viewpoint, there is a minimal semantic content that provides the truth-evaluable meaning of sentences in a way that context of utterance has limited effects on it. This contrast is based on the way and extent to which context affects semantic content. In this paper, after introducing these two approaches, the main arguments of contextualists against minimalist are discussed, then we show that minimalistic semantics like Kaplan's LD with objective interpretation of context cannot present any proper model even for sentences containing first-person reference, and on the basis of a subjective interpretation of context, the indexical/non-indexical distinction is not clear and other expressions of natural languages can be indexical, in a broad sense.
Philosophy of Language
Reza Soltani; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 8, Issue 1 , Winter and Spring 2017, , Pages 39-62
Abstract
Kripke in his famous book, Naming and Necessity, introduces the concept of “rigidity” for designation of singular terms; and by using it, he refutes the Descriptive Theory of Meaning. If a term is rigid it means that it designates the same thing in all possible worlds in which it exists. ...
Read More
Kripke in his famous book, Naming and Necessity, introduces the concept of “rigidity” for designation of singular terms; and by using it, he refutes the Descriptive Theory of Meaning. If a term is rigid it means that it designates the same thing in all possible worlds in which it exists. Kripke, in third lecture, extends the concept of “rigidity” to all natural kind terms. This extension has had several interpretations which can be put into two categories: the sameness in designation, and the essentialist approaches. The sameness in designation approach, however, confronts “the trivialization problem”,i.e. not only natural kind terms, but also all general terms are rigid designators since each of them designates a property which remains the same across all possible worlds. An argumentative way has been proposed to refute trivialization problem. This approach is based on considering abundant objects as the designatum of singular terms and parallelism between these words and general terms. In this paper we will criticize this approach and show that it conflicts with some semantic roles of general terms and also our intuition concerning the truth value of sentences containing them.
Philosophy of Language
Hamed Bastin; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 7, Issue 2 , Summer and Autumn 2016, , Pages 1-28
Abstract
In answer to the Putnam problem about extensional non-determination of language terms, Millikan asks if this problem exists by a new definition of representation according to biological evidences, especially the principle of natural selection. The Millikan’s answer to this question is negative ...
Read More
In answer to the Putnam problem about extensional non-determination of language terms, Millikan asks if this problem exists by a new definition of representation according to biological evidences, especially the principle of natural selection. The Millikan’s answer to this question is negative and she believes that the question should be changed to what is that feature, which turns a relation to representation-represented among numerous possible relations between words and objects? Her answer to this question is accorded to a hypothesis that is also the place of disputations and arguments in biology and has its supporters and opponents. Millikan is in the group, which has a historical view to the function and believes that the function of each entity must be defined regarding to what it supposed to do in its appearance history and dedicates the “proper” adjective to such function. The alternative hypothesis believes that the function must be defined regarding to what an entity do at the moment in equivalence to the current status. The key point of presenting the concept of “proper function” by Millikan is a redefinition of representation. In this article, we want to show that the new definition of representation is accorded to the concept of “Functure” as something completely objective, in opposed to the common view of philosophy to the representation, which take it as mental.
Analytical Philosophy
Morteza Mezginejad; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 7, Issue 2 , Summer and Autumn 2016, , Pages 97-116
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is the Horwich arguments in "Meaning, use and truth ", which is published in the Mind journal (1995). In this article, he defends the idea of Wittgenstein, use theory, in contrast to the arguments raised against the approach. Horwich focus specifically on Kripke's criticism. ...
Read More
The main purpose of this article is the Horwich arguments in "Meaning, use and truth ", which is published in the Mind journal (1995). In this article, he defends the idea of Wittgenstein, use theory, in contrast to the arguments raised against the approach. Horwich focus specifically on Kripke's criticism. Kripke in his famous article "Wittgenstein on rules and private language: An elementary exposition " is trying to show that the application cannot provide the meaning. Horwich refuse Kripke argument. For this purpose, he offers both strong and weak interpretation of the premises of Kripke argument and then criticizes both. After review Horwich Criticisms on Kripke we evaluate his criticisms.
Rahman Sharifzadeh; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hojati
Volume 3, Issue 1 , Winter and Spring 2012, , Pages 77-95
Abstract
In this paper, after criticizing Sadra’s solution which is the distinction between Primitive and Common Predications, we will suggest a new solution based on analyzing the concept of ‘informing’ and show that ‘our inability of informing from absolute unknown’ is a feature ...
Read More
In this paper, after criticizing Sadra’s solution which is the distinction between Primitive and Common Predications, we will suggest a new solution based on analyzing the concept of ‘informing’ and show that ‘our inability of informing from absolute unknown’ is a feature of our cognitive state, not absolute unknown itself.
