Conceptual Atomism And Justificationist Semantics
Download Conceptual Atomism And Justificationist Semantics PDF/ePub or read online books in Mobi eBooks. Click Download or Read Online button to get Conceptual Atomism And Justificationist Semantics book now. This website allows unlimited access to, at the time of writing, more than 1.5 million titles, including hundreds of thousands of titles in various foreign languages.
Conceptual Atomism and Justificationist Semantics
Conceptual atomism claims that most concepts cannot be decomposed into features, so that the conjunction of the features is equivalent to the concept in question. Conceptual atomism of this type is incompatible with many other semantic approaches. One of these approaches is justificationist semantics. This book assumes conceptual atomism. Justificationist semantics in its pure form, therefore, has to be wrong. Nevertheless, its epistemological approach to questions of evaluations and semantic rules could still stand. The main question is how conceptual atomism can be combined with some justificationist ideas. This new synthesis centres on the representational theory of mind and 'internalist' semantics, but ties these to ideas which stress the epistemic commitments that accompany successful assertions.
Concept and Analysis
The book aims to set out in which respects concepts are properly studied in philosophy, what methodological role the study of concepts has in philosophy's study of the world, why there are several viable methods of analysis and even conceptual analysis has its place here. Many of the considerations in this book nowadays are placed under the headline 'metaphilosophy'. The book starts with some bold theses in favour of a representationalist theory of meaning and concepts which serve as the background for the discussion in the following chapters. In contrast to paradigmatic ordinary language philosophy the book endorses a representationalist theory of meaning and concepts, thus agreeing with many of its critics in philosophy and the cognitive sciences. In contrast to many of these critics and supposedly the majority of cognitive scientists it endorses the viability of conceptual analysis as one method of philosophy. The book reflects on Frege's theory of concepts, because Frege's theory of concepts was one strand that inaugurated analytic philosophy. Frege's theory of sentential unity has barely been superseded, and the problems arising from Frege's understanding of concepts are still alive. Frege's theory and the related problems in Frege's logic as in the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik (most famously the antinomy known as 'Russell's Paradox' going back to Frege's 'Basic Law V') lead over to considering the proper approach to our concept of logic and the issue of psychological and ontological realism in logic and mathematics. The central part of the book starts by reconsidering the approach and the idea of ordinary language philosophy and its understanding of conceptual analysis. Although ordinary language philosophy cannot be the whole of analytic philosophy a proper understanding of conceptual analysis turns out to be one part of analytic philosophy. This part starts with a general discussion of ordinary language philosophy, but proceeds then by a methodological overview and attempts to engage in some ordinary language philosophy concerning epistemological topics.
Universality in Set Theories
The book discusses the fate of universality and a universal set in several set theories. The book aims at a philosophical study of ontological and conceptual questions around set theory. Set theories are ontologies. They posit sets and claim that these exhibit the essential properties laid down in the set theoretical axioms. Collecting these postulated entities quantified over poses the problem of universality. Is the collection of the set theoretical entities itself a set theoretical entity? What does it mean if it is, and what does it mean if it is not? To answer these questions involves developing a theory of the universal set. We have to ask: Are there different aspects to universality in set theory, which stand in conflict to each other? May inconsistency be the price to pay to circumvent ineffability? And most importantly: How far can axiomatic ontology take us out of the problems around universality?