The Christian philosopher Muto Kazuo contributed substantially to the predominantly Buddhist “Kyoto School of Philosophy.” Through critical exchange with its representatives, he opened up new perceptions of Christian faith, enabled mutual understanding between Buddhism and Christianity, and challenged the Western dialectical method.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:In Memoriam: Jan Van Bragt (1928–2007)James W. HeisigEarly on the morning of Easter Thursday, April 12, 2007, Jan Van Bragt passed away quietly at the age of seventy-eight.1 During the previous year his health had begun to deteriorate, until in the final days of 2006 he was obliged to leave Kyoto and take up residence with his religious congregation in Himeji. On February 21, he was hospitalized (...) with lung cancer and was operated on some weeks later. After a brief period in a semi-comatose state, he regained consciousness but was never to speak again.Jan was born in Flemish Belgium and entered the Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at age eighteen. Six years later, he was ordained a priest. After receiving his master’s degree in philosophy, he entered the doctoral program and at the same time lectured at the congregation’s seminary. Five years later he received his doctoral degree in philosophy from the University of Leuven with a thesis on Hegel and immediately set sail for Japan, landing in December 1961.Jan undertook eighteen months of training in the language and then spent another eighteen months working as an assistant pastor at the Sakai Catholic Church near Osaka. In 1965, he was accepted as a research student at Kyoto University, where he spent the next six years studying with Takeuchi Yoshinori and Nishitani Keiji. In 1971, he was named provincial superior of the congregation in Japan, a post he held for five years until he was unexpectedly requested to serve as the first acting director of the newly established Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture.For the next fifteen years Jan brought the fledgling institute to maturity, galvanizing the young and inexperienced staff into a community of scholars devoted to exploring the largely unknown and uncharted waters of interreligious dialogue in Japan. Among his first projects was the intermonastic exchange that brought leading Buddhist monks and nuns from Japan to European monasteries and vice versa. At a concluding symposium in Japan he served as chair, juggling Japanese, Flemish, German, French, and English with the skill and poise for which we all remember him. After a flurry of publications on the project, he left the project to others to carry on—as it has to this day, having reached a second generation, most of whom no longer know the inaugural role that he played.Jan was also a key figure in the Japan Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies, founded in 1982. In addition to bringing the central office of the society to the [End Page 141] Nanzan Institute, he served as president from 1989 to 1997. During his years at the Nanzan Institute, he was in demand around Japan as a lecturer or partner in dialogue. For many years he traveled around the world in the same capacity and was invited to teach in Canada, Belgium, the United States, and the Philippines. From 1985 to 1990, he served as a member of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. In his thinking and writing, his study and reading, as well as in his moral concerns, Jan straddled any number of civilizations, histories, literatures, and cultures. In the end, however, it was in Japan that he felt most at home, where he found a loom on which to weave the things of life into a single view of the world.At his funeral, Jan Swyngedouw, a fellow Flemish missionary and longtime colleague at the Nanzan Institute, delivered a thoughtful and touching tribute to a man who had always shied away from honors and recognition, preferring to let others stand on his shoulders and even accept the credit that was rightly his. Swyngedouw told of going through Jan’s library (the philosophical portion of which he graciously donated to the Centro Studi Asiatico in Osaka) and being struck by the number of volumes on mysticism. Like all of us, he knew of Jan’s academic interest in the Christian mystics as a bridge between religions, but as he read through comments in the margins he came to realize what most of us had never noticed: how deeply Jan’s own spirituality was rooted in... (shrink)

Mysticism Buddhist and Christian. Encounters with Jan van Ruusbroec. Paul Mommaers and Jan Van Bragt. Crossroad, New York 1995. 302 pp. $29.95. ISBN 0-8245-1455-6.

This paper shows how propositional dynamic logic can be interpreted as a logic for multi-agent belief revision. For that we revise and extend the logic of communication and change of [9]. Like LCC, our logic uses PDL as a base epistemic language. Unlike LCC, we start out from agent plausibilities, add their converses, and build knowledge and belief operators from these with the PDL constructs. We extend the update mechanism of LCC to an update mechanism that handles belief change as (...) relation substitution, and we show that the update part of this logic is more expressive than either that of LCC or that of doxastic/epistemic PDL with a belief change modality. It is shown that the properties of knowledge and belief are preserved under any update, and that the logic is complete. © 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. (shrink)

Notice: This PDF version was distributed by request to members of the Friends of the SEP Society and by courtesy to SEP content contributors. It is solely for their fair use. Unauthorized distribution is prohibited. To learn how to join the Friends of the..

Almost forty years ago Richard Montague proposed to analyse natural language with the same tools as formal languages. In particular, he gave formal semantic analyses of several interesting fragments of English in terms of typed logic. This led to the development of Montague grammar as a particular style of formal analysis of natural language.

Discourse Representation Theory is a specific name for the work of Hans Kamp in the area of dynamic interpretation of natural language. Also, it has gradually become a generic term for proposals for dynamic interpretation of natural language in the same spirit. These proposals have in common that each new sentence is interpreted in terms of the contribution it makes to an existing piece of interpreted discourse. The interpretation conditions for sentences are given as instructions for updating the representation of (...) the discourse. (shrink)

Guarded actions are changes with preconditions acting as a guard. Guarded action models are multimodal Kripke models with the valuations replaced by guarded actions. Call guarded action logic the result of adding product updates with guarded action models to PDL (propositional dynamic logic). We show that guarded action logic reduces to PDL.

Presuppositions of utterances are the pieces of information you convey with an utterance no matter whether your utterance is true or not We rst study presupposition in a very simple framework of updating propo sitional information with examples of how presuppositions of complex propositional updates can be calculated Next we move on to presupposi tions and quanti cation in the context of a dynamic version of predicate logic suitably modi ed to allow for presupposition failure In both the propositional and (...) the quanti cational case presupposition failure can be viewed as error abortion of procedures Thus a dynamic assertion logic which describes the preconditions for error abortion is the suitable tool for analysing presupposition.. (shrink)

Dynamic epistemic logic is the logic of the effects of epistemic actions like making public announcements, passing private messages, revealing secrets, telling lies. This paper takes its starting point from the version of dynamic epistemic logic of [2], and demonstrates a tool that can be used for showing what goes on during a series of epistemic updates: the dynamic epistemic modelling tool DEMO [7, 9]. DEMO allows modelling epistemic updates, graphical display of update results, graphical display of action models, formula (...) evaluation in epistemic models, and translation of dynamic epistemic formulas to PDL [22] formulas. DEMO is written in Haskell. This paper intends to demonstrate its usefulness for visualizing the model transformations that take place during epistemic updating. (shrink)

In [11] it is shown how propositional dynamic logic (PDL) can be interpreted as a logic of belief revision that extends the logic of communication and change (LCC) given in [7]. This new version of epistemic/doxastic PDL does not impose any constraints on the basic relations and because of this it does not suffer from the drawback of LCC that these constraints may get lost under updates that are admitted by the system. Here, we will impose one constraint, namely that (...) the agent’s plausibility relations are linked. Linkedness is a natural extension of local connectedness to the multi-agent case and it assures that we know the agent’s preferences between all relevant alternatives. Since the belief updates that are used in [11] may not preserve linkedness, we limit ourselves to a particular kind of belief change that does preserve it. Our framework has obvious connections to coalition logic [17] and social choice theory [19]. We show how we can use it to model consensus seeking in plenary Dutch meetings. In Dutch meetings, a belief update is done for all agents in the meeting if a majority beliefs the proposition that is under discussion. A special case of these meetings is judgement aggregation, and we apply our framework to the discursive dilemma in this field [15]. (shrink)

When is an argument to be called one-sided? When is putting forward such an argument fallacious? How can we develop a model for critical discussion, such that a fallaciously one-sided argument corresponds to a violation of a discussion rule? These issues are dealt with within ‘the limits of the dialogue model of argument’ by specifying a type of persuasion dialogue in which an arguer can offer complex arguments to anticipate particular responses by a critic.

We implement the extension of the logical consequence relation to a partial order ≤ on arbitary types built from e (entities) and t (Booleans) that was given in [1], and the definition of monotonicity preserving and monotonicity reversing functions in terms of ≤. Next, we present a new algorithm for polarity marking, and implement this for a particular fragment of syntax. Finally, we list the reseach agenda that these definitions and this algorithm suggest. The implementations use Haskell [8], and are (...) given in ‘literate programming’ style [9]. (shrink)

• Wat wil ik doen/maken/cre¨eren (in het klein, in het groot . . . )? • Welke richting kies ik? • Wat is belangrijk? Wat minder belangrijk? Je kunt helderheid voor jezelf cre¨eren (weer: in het klein, in het groot) door de dingen die je wilt doen te rangschikken in volgorde van belangrijkheid.

The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities . However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them (...) to improve their language if necessary. In order to discourage them from nitpicking and from arriving at excessively high levels of precision, the parties are also provided with devices with which to examine whether the ambiguity corrections or ambiguity criticisms have been appropriate. A formal dialectical system is proposed, in the Hamblin style, that satisfies these and some other philosophical desiderata. (shrink)

According to a dialectical approach to argumentation, a single argument can be seen as a dialogical "Why? Because!" sequence. Does this also apply to multimodal arguments? This paper focuses on multimodal arguments with a predominantly visual character and shows that dialogues are helpful for identifying and reconstructing arguments in multimodal communication. To include nonverbal arguments in dialectical argumentation theory, it is proposed to regard dialogue as mode-fluid. The account of multimodal argument as dialogue will be compared with Champagne and Pietarinen’s (...) account of visual argument as movement. (shrink)

Adam Smith's religion drove his prescriptions for a virtuous humanity and a free and flourishing society. Jan Van Vliet examines how the practical implications of these strike a common chord with Scripture.

Let R be a relational variable of arity m, and let ¯ x be an m-tuple of variables. Let φ be a first order formula that is positive in R, i.e., all occurrences of R in φ are in the scope of an even number of negations. Then λRλ¯.

‘all A are B’ ; A ⊆ B ‘no A are B’ ; A ⊆ B ‘some A are not B’ ; A ⊆ B ‘some A are B’ ; A ⊆ B (equivalently: A ∩ B = ∅). A knowledge base is a list of triples (Class1, Class2, Boolean) where (A, B, ) expresses that A ⊆ B, and (A, B, ⊥) expresses that A ⊆ B.

This talk shows how propositional dynamic logic (PDL) can be interpreted as a logic for multi-agent knowledge update and belief revision, or as a logic of preference change, if the basic relations are read as preferences instead of plausibilities. Our point of departure is the logic of communication and change (LCC) of [9]. Like LCC, our logic uses PDL as a base epistemic language. Unlike LCC, we start out from agent plausibilities, add their converses, and build knowledge and belief operators (...) from these with the PDL constructs. We extend the update mechanism of LCC to an update mechanism that handles belief change as relation substitution, and we show that the update part of this logic is more expressive than either that of LCC or that of epistemic/doxastic PDL with a belief change modality. Next, we show that the properties of knowledge and belief are preserved under any update, unlike in LCC. We prove completeness of the logic and give examples of its use. If there is time, we will also look at the preference interpretation of the system, and at preference change scenarios that can be modelled with it. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show the pervasive, though often implicit, role of arguments in negotiation dialogue. This holds even for negotiations that start from a difference of interest such as mere bargaining through offers and counteroffers. But it certainly holds for negotiations that try to settle a difference of opinion on policy issues. It will be demonstrated how a series of offers and counteroffers in a negotiation dialogue contains a reconstructible series of implicit persuasion dialogues. The paper (...) is a sequel to van Laar and Krabbe, in which we showed that for some differences of opinion it may be reasonable to shift from persuasion dialogue, aimed at a resolution of the difference on the merits, to negotiation dialogue, aimed at compromise, whereas in the present paper we show that such a shift need not amount to the abandonment of argumentation. Our main aim in this paper as well as in the previous one is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation. (shrink)

When interlocutors start to talk at cross purposes it becomes less likely that they will be able to resolve their differences of opinion. Still, a critic, in the confrontation stage of a discussion, should be given some room of manoeuvre for rephrasing and even for revising the arguer’s position. I will distinguish between licit and illicit applications of this form of strategic manoeuvring by stating three soundness conditions.

Logics of communication should provide accounts of changes in the state of information of a group of discourse participants, on the basis of message exchanged within the group. We will give an overview of the way this is done in dynamic epistemic logic, focussing on a number of different types of informative actions with their epistemic effects, and presenting a number of new results. At the end of the talk we will indicate the relevance of this work for semantics and (...) pragmatics of natural language. (shrink)

Negotiation is not only used to settle differences of interest but also to settle differences of opinion. Discussants who are unable to resolve their difference about the objective worth of a policy or action proposal may be willing to abandon their attempts to convince the other and search instead for a compromise that would, for each of them, though only a second choice yet be preferable to a lasting conflict. Our questions are: First, when is it sensible to enter into (...) negotiations and when would this be unwarranted or even fallacious? Second, what is the nature of a compromise? What does it mean to settle instead of resolve a difference of opinion, and what might be the dialectical consequences of mistaking a compromise for a substantial resolution? Our main aim is to contribute to the theory of argumentation within the context of negotiation and compromise formation and to show how arguing disputants can shift to negotiation in a dialectically virtuous way. (shrink)

No index information on NPs, except for pronouns. Otherwise, virtually the same as a datatype declaration for a fragment of dynamic Montague grammar. The module Cat imports the standard List module. Lists will be employed to implement a simple feature agreement mechanism.

In this paper we forge a connection between dynamic epistemic logics of belief revision on one hand and studies of collective judgement and multi-agent preference change on the other. Belief revision in the spirit of dynamic epistemic logic uses updating with relational substitutions to change the beliefs of individual agents. Collective judgement in social choice theory studies the collective outcomes of individual belief changes. We start out from the logic of communication and change (LCC), which is basically epistemic propositional dynamic (...) logic (PDL) extended with update action modalities. We show how epistemic PDL can be made to handle belief operators. Our new version of epistemic/doxastic PDL does not impose any constraints on the basic relations. Because of this it does not suffer from the drawback of LCC that constraints on epistemic relations, such as transitivity and reflexivity, may get lost under updates that are admitted by the system. After introducing the base system without constraints, we study the effects of imposing a single constraint, namely the constraint that the agent’s preference relations are linked. Linkedness is a natural extension of local connectedness to the multi-agent case. It assures that if Alice prefers y to x and Bob prefers z to x, then both Alice and Bob can make up their minds when given a choice between y and z. Since general belief changes may not preserve linkedness, we propose a recipe for belief change that does preserve it. Finally, we show that the resulting framework can be used to model consensus seeking procedures. We focus on the case of plenary Dutch meetings. In Dutch meetings, a belief change (or rather: preference change) is performed for all agents in the meeting if a majority believes (or: is in favour of) the proposition that is under discussion. A special case of these meetings is judgement aggregation, and we apply our framework to the discursive dilemma in.. (shrink)

Punishment of offenders is one of the most universal features of human behavior. Across time and cultures it has been common for people to punish offenders, and one can easily find examples of punishment among ancient hunter-gatherers, in holy scriptures, in popular culture, and in contemporary courts of law. Punishment is not restricted to criminal offenders, but emerges within all spheres of our social life, including corporations, public institutions, traffic, sports matches, schools, parenting, and more. Punishment strongly influences what we (...) think, how we feel, and what we do. The Moral Punishment Instinct asserts that people possess a hard-wired tendency to aggress against those who violate the norms of their group. We have evolved this instinct because of its power to control behavior by curbing selfishness and free-riding, thereby providing incentives to stimulate the mutual cooperation that ancient hunter-gatherers needed in order to survive in challenging natural environments. In this book, Jan-Willem van Prooijen methodically describes how punishment originates from moral emotions, stimulates cooperation, and shapes the social life of human beings. Guided by a host of recognizable and relatable examples, this book illuminates how the moral punishment instinct manifests itself among a variety of modern human cultures, children, tribes of hunter-gatherers, and even non-human animals-all while accounting for the role of this instinct in religion, war, racial bias, restorative justice, gossip, torture, and radical terrorism. (shrink)

Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfairstrategiesvis-à-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s (...) systematic refusal to take other parties seriously? What if one party continually forgoes any form of critical testing and instead resorts to threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? Or should one pay one’s opponent back in the same coin? To gain some grasp of these issues, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies arefair,i.e.balanced, transparent,andtolerant.We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end, we stress the importance — especially for those whose opinions carry little weight — of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies are widespread. (shrink)

Kripke has argued that definitions of units of measurements provide examples of statements that are both contingent and a priori. In this paper I argue that definitions of units of measurement are intended to be stipulations of what Kripke calls "theoretical identities": a stipulation that two terms will have the same rigid designation. Hence such a definition is both a priori and necessary. The necessity arises because such definitions appeal to natural kind properties only, which on Kripke's account are necessary.

Dishonesty is ubiquitous in our world. The news is frequently filled with high-profile cases of corporate fraud, large-scale corruption, lying politicians, and the hypocrisy of public figures. On a smaller scale, ordinary people often cheat, lie, misreport their taxes, and mislead others in their daily life. Despite such prevalence of cheating, corruption, and concealment, people typically consider themselves to be honest, and often believe themselves to be more moral than most others. This book aims to resolve this paradox by addressing (...) the question of why people are dishonest all too often. What motivates dishonesty, and how are people able to perceive themselves as moral despite their dishonest behaviour? What personality and interpersonal factors make dishonesty more likely? And what can be done to recognize and reduce dishonesty? This is a fascinating overview of state-of-the-art research on dishonesty, with prominent scholars offering their views to clarify the roots of dishonesty. (shrink)

Mijn wetenschappelijke bijdrage sluit aan bij het stuk van Jan Willem Klop in deze zelfde afscheidsbundel, dat ik van Jan Willem onder embargo te lezen heb gekregen. Je zult je herinneren dat Jan Willem in de CWI lezing ter gelegenheid van zijn eredoctoraat kort refereerde aan de Thue Morse reeks. Noem deze reeks M . Jan Willem gaf de versie die start met 1. Noem het resultaat van omwisselen van nullen en enen in de Thue Morse reeks M . De (...) reeks M is wat je krijgt als je het Thue Morse proces start met 0. (shrink)

We carry out the Karttunen-Stalnaker pragmatic account of presupposition projection within a state-of-the art version of dynamic epistemic logic. It turns out that the basic projection facts can all be derived from a Gricean maxim ‘be informative’. This sheds light on a recent controversy on the appropriateness of dynamic semantics as a tool for analysing presupposition.

Three key ways of updating one’s knowledge are (i) perception of states of affairs, e.g., seeing with one’s own eyes that something is the case, (ii) reception of messages, e.g., being told that something is the case, and (iii) drawing new conclusions from known facts. If one represents knowledge by means of Kripke models, the implicit assumption is that drawing conclusions is immediate. This assumption of logical omniscience is a useful abstraction. It leaves the distinction between (i) and (ii) to (...) be accounted for. In current versions of Update Logic (Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Logic of Communication and Change) perception and message reception are not distinguished. This paper proposes an extension of Update Logic that makes this distinction explicit. The logic deals with three kinds of updates: announcements, changes of the world, and observations about the world in the presence of witnesses. The resulting logic is shown to be complete by means of a reduction to epistemic propositional dynamic logic by a well known method. (shrink)

This is indeed a very nice draft that I have read with great pleasure, and that has helped me to better understand the completeness proof for LCC. Modal fixed point logic allows for an illuminating new version (and a further extension) of that proof. But still. My main comment is that I think the perspective on substitutions in the draft paper is flawed. The general drift of the paper is that relativization, (predicate) substitution and product update are general operations on (...) models, and that it is important to check whether given logical languages are closed under these operations. FO logic is closed under relativization, predicate substitution and product constructions (such as those involved in relative interpretation). The minimal modal logic is closed under relativization, which explains the reduction of epistemic logic (withhout common knowledge) + public announcement to epistemic logic simpliciter (as observed in Van Benthem, [2]). The reduction breaks down as soon as one adds common knowledge. The minimal modal logic is also closed under substitution, which explains the reduction of epistemic logic plus (publicly observable) factual change to epistemic logic simpliciter, via the following reduction axioms (I use !p := φ for the operation of publicly changing the truth value of p to φ): [!p := φ]p ↔ φ [!p := φ]q ↔ q (p and q syntactically different ) [!p := φ]¬ψ ↔ ¬[!p := φ]ψ [!p := φ](ψ1 ∧ ψ2) ↔ [!p := φ]ψ1 ∧ [!p := φ]ψ2 [!p := φ][i]ψ ↔ [i][!p := φ]ψ Unlike the case of relativisation, this can be extended to the case of epistemic logic with common knowledge, by means of: [!p := φ]CGψ ↔ CG[!p := φ]ψ We get the following.. (shrink)

How does the analysis and evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic discussion. Argumentation cannot be presented without conveying the pretence that it is dialectically reasonable, as well as, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion it can be profitable to engage in bluff with respect to such claims. However, it will be argued that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even (...) within an eristic discussion. (shrink)