Modalizmas, arba filosofinė teorija, teigianti, kad modalinės sąvokos, tokios kaip galima ir būtina, yra neredukuojamos ir neanalizuojamos, reikšmingai skiriasi nuo galimų pasaulių semantikos, kur modalinės sąvokos interpretuojamos kaip galimų pasaulių kvantifikavimas. Straipsnyje nagrinėjami pagrindiniai modalizmo principai, remiantis šią teoriją plėtojusių Arthuro Prioro, Kito Fine’o ir Graeme’o Forbeso darbais. Tuomet aptariama tokių mąstytojų kaip Davidas Lewisas, kuris teigia, kad antireduktyvizmas modalumų atžvilgiu apskritai nelaikytinas teorine prieiga, bei Josephas Melia, kuris tvirtina, jog modalizmas implicitiškai mėgdžioja galimų pasaulių semantiką, kritika. Straipsnyje įrodinėjama, kad (...) formali modalizmo kalba grindžiama ne kuo kitu, kaip natūralia kalba, ir kad modalizmas nesiremia galimų pasaulių semantika. Be to, pabrėžiama, kad modalizmas siūlo intuityvesnį modalinių sąvokų supratimą, lyginant su galimų pasaulių semantika. (shrink)

Grice’i algne vahetegemine “‘tähendamise’ naturaalse tähenduse” ja “‘tähendamise’mittenaturaalse tähenduse” vahel osutab loomulikule pingele ‘naturaalse’ ja ‘semantilise’vahel — kui ‘semantilise’ puhul on oluline, et see saab olla väär või ekslik,siis ‘naturaalse’ puhul väärus ja ekslikkus välistatakse. Artikli taotluseks on näidata, et juhul kui naturaalset tõlgendada kui ‘vastavalt füüsikaseadustele’, siis on seevastasseis vältimatu, samas kui tõlgenduse ‘nagu bioloogias’ korral oleneb ebakõlasuurus konkreetsest semantikateooriast, mida ollakse valmis omaks võtma. Viimases punktismööndakse, et kuigi loosung ‘ma suudan eksida’ on immuunne naturalistlikurünnaku vastu kujul ‘sa eksid, (...) kui seda väidad’, saab sellele siiski ette heitaekslikku arusaama ekslikkusest, iseäranis juhul, kui see tugineb ettekujutusele privaatsestkogemusest, nagu antud artiklis. Vastusena tavapärasele kriitikale, nagu eisaaks privaatsed kogemused keeles mingit rolli etendada, esitatakse hüpotees, mis (tuginedes lõdvalt Harry Collinsi eristusele) pakub välja võimaluse, et üksnes interaktiivnekeeleline pädevus ei sõltu privaatsetest kogemustest, samas kui kontributiivne pädevus sõltub. Grice's initial distinction between "natural sense of 'means'" and "nonnatural sense of 'means'" indicates a natural tension between 'natural' and 'semantics'-the former cannot be wrong whereas the latter can. The paper argues that if `natural' is understood as 'according to physics' this opposition is principal, whereas if it is understood as 'like in biology' the degree of discord depends on particular theory of 'semantics' one is ready to adopt. In the last section of the paper it is admitted that, although the slogan 'I am able to be wrong' should be immune to a naturalist refutation of the form 'you are wrong saying this', it may be still criticized for introducing a wrong kind of wrongness, e.g. the one that relies on subject's private episodes (the preferred option in this paper). As a reply to a standard critique against any role of private episodes in language, a preliminary hypothesis is put forward that (relying loosely on Harry Collins' distinction) it is only the interactive linguistic expertise that does not depend on private episodes, whereas the contributive linguistic expertise does. (shrink)

Saul Kripke denies that the reference of a proper name is mediated through a sense (an intension, a concept), and claims that it has to be immediate for „rigidity“ of a proper name to be saved. On the other hand, the version of the Identity Theory of predication according to which predication is characterised as intentional identification of the conceptual content of the predicate with the object represented by the subject-concept requires that there be a concept (sense of the term) (...) at the places both of the subject and of the predicate. This paper is an attempt to propose a conception that purports to maintain the Identity Theory of predication with its demand for proper names to have senses and respond to Kripkean arguments while retaining the rigidity of proper names. Two main theses are defended: 1) Whether a term refers rigidly or non-rigidly does not depend on the nature of the term (i. e. whether it is a name or a description), but on the intention of the speaker/writer. Consequently, both names and descriptions can be used both rigidly and non-rigidly. 2) There is a „minimal sense“ to any proper name which can generaly be described as follows: „the person who has been given the name so-and-so“. The expression „has been given the name“ describes a „relation of reason“, which must be strictly distinguished from the relation of reference of the name, in order to avoid a vicious circle in reference determination, something against which Kripke warned. (shrink)

Martin Le Maistre , also known as Martinus Magistri, was one of the nominalists at the university of Paris from the watershed between medieval and postmedieval scholasticism. This influential logician, moral philosopher and theologian wrote a repeatedly edited treatise on logical consequence Tractatus consequentiarum. The present paper focuses on this treatise where Le Maistre, influenced by late-medieval logicians, develops a theory of validity based upon postulating abstract compound entities as sentential meanings.