In this paper I argue that the notion of interpretation presented by Alberto Moretti in “La unidad proposicional” (and other texts) poses some philosophical and metaphilosophical problems. After presenting the key ideas that characterize the interpretative practice as Moretti describes it, I criticize its incompatibility with naturalism —one that understands interpretational practices in terms of natural capacities with phylogenetic and ontogenetic histories— and Moretti’s commitment to ineffabilism regarding the foundations of interpretative practices. I argue that if we abandon the idea that intentional capacities always involve conceptual content, a central commitment of Moretti’s interpretationist strategy, we can make room for a soft naturalistic understanding of interpretational capacities that is also pluralistic about the conditions for a practice to be linguistic and non-ineffabilist about its origins.
{"title":"Las prácticas de hablar, nombrar e interpretar: Observaciones sobre el interpretacionismo de Alberto Moretti","authors":"Glenda L Satne","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.427","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I argue that the notion of interpretation presented by Alberto Moretti in “La unidad proposicional” (and other texts) poses some philosophical and metaphilosophical problems. After presenting the key ideas that characterize the interpretative practice as Moretti describes it, I criticize its incompatibility with naturalism —one that understands interpretational practices in terms of natural capacities with phylogenetic and ontogenetic histories— and Moretti’s commitment to ineffabilism regarding the foundations of interpretative practices. I argue that if we abandon the idea that intentional capacities always involve conceptual content, a central commitment of Moretti’s interpretationist strategy, we can make room for a soft naturalistic understanding of interpretational capacities that is also pluralistic about the conditions for a practice to be linguistic and non-ineffabilist about its origins.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"77-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41410383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I propose that Quine’s Carrollian argument in “Truth by Convention” does not refute an especially genuine variety of conventionalism about logic. I also argue that the basic Carrollian lesson about conventionalism is that the introduction of accepted conventions or theses about what is logically correct cannot by itself create the corresponding inferential dispositions. Based on my discussion of the Carrollian regress, I finally indicate that there are at least certain Carrollian limits to the way in which the “logical laws” could be “replaced” and, contrary to some of Alberto Moretti’s considerations, that there are also other not strictly Carrollian limits to the replaceability of logical laws.
{"title":"Sobre el regreso de Carroll, el convencionalismo y los fundamentos de la lógica","authors":"Mario Gómez Torrente","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.429","url":null,"abstract":"I propose that Quine’s Carrollian argument in “Truth by Convention” does not refute an especially genuine variety of conventionalism about logic. I also argue that the basic Carrollian lesson about conventionalism is that the introduction of accepted conventions or theses about what is logically correct cannot by itself create the corresponding inferential dispositions. Based on my discussion of the Carrollian regress, I finally indicate that there are at least certain Carrollian limits to the way in which the “logical laws” could be “replaced” and, contrary to some of Alberto Moretti’s considerations, that there are also other not strictly Carrollian limits to the replaceability of logical laws.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"111-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49612304","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I am interested in considering Moretti’s conclusion, according to which there is a dissolution of the problem of the unity of the proposition in terms of the notion of interpretation, which seems to obviate the traditional solution based on referential relations, but which, nevertheless, either requires that kind of foundation or makes room for transcendental approaches that go beyond it. I mostly agree with this conclusion but I think it is appropriate to develop some considerations that separate me to some extent from some of his. In particular, I will focus on the distinction between saying and showing, and on Moretti’s interesting extension of this distinction, usually formulated for sentences, to situations of enunciation. Against his position, I will maintain that the impossibility of saying what the enunciation shows is less radical than the impossibility of saying what a sentence shows.
{"title":"La diferencia entre mostrar y decir y el problema del significado","authors":"C. Caorsi","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.424","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I am interested in considering Moretti’s conclusion, according to which there is a dissolution of the problem of the unity of the proposition in terms of the notion of interpretation, which seems to obviate the traditional solution based on referential relations, but which, nevertheless, either requires that kind of foundation or makes room for transcendental approaches that go beyond it. I mostly agree with this conclusion but I think it is appropriate to develop some considerations that separate me to some extent from some of his. In particular, I will focus on the distinction between saying and showing, and on Moretti’s interesting extension of this distinction, usually formulated for sentences, to situations of enunciation. Against his position, I will maintain that the impossibility of saying what the enunciation shows is less radical than the impossibility of saying what a sentence shows.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"23-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47524494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this comment I refer to some aspects of Moretti´s proposal about the problem of propositional unity, based on his interpretation of Frege’s and Davidson’s ideas. It maintains that, beyond their obvious differences, both conceptions of language and sentence meaning, as much as they ascribe an essentially representational function to language, share a way of understanding the primacy of assertion over all the other types of linguistic utterances. In turn, according to Moretti, assertions reflect the importance of language to understand the constitutive features of human cognitive capacities as well as their limits. After examining Moretti´s interpretation, I articulate a set of questions and objections to the theoretical presuppositions and commitments of the Fregean-Davidsonian approach which arise from various alternative proposals (cognitive, pragmatic, and semantic). These proposals can converge in a vision of linguistic systems that considers their communicative uses to be more basic than their representational functions. Thus, the propositional unity could be better explained as a feature derived from the speaker´s cognitive acts (including their communicative intentions). And the semantic contents of linguistic expressions would ultimately be determined by the factors that intervene in the performance of speech acts, without giving primacy to assertions, and even less to their products, namely, declarative sentences.
{"title":"“Somos criaturas de la lógica y no del silencio”: la unidad proposicional según Alberto Moretti","authors":"Silvia Carolina Scotto","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.426","url":null,"abstract":"In this comment I refer to some aspects of Moretti´s proposal about the problem of propositional unity, based on his interpretation of Frege’s and Davidson’s ideas. It maintains that, beyond their obvious differences, both conceptions of language and sentence meaning, as much as they ascribe an essentially representational function to language, share a way of understanding the primacy of assertion over all the other types of linguistic utterances. In turn, according to Moretti, assertions reflect the importance of language to understand the constitutive features of human cognitive capacities as well as their limits. After examining Moretti´s interpretation, I articulate a set of questions and objections to the theoretical presuppositions and commitments of the Fregean-Davidsonian approach which arise from various alternative proposals (cognitive, pragmatic, and semantic). These proposals can converge in a vision of linguistic systems that considers their communicative uses to be more basic than their representational functions. Thus, the propositional unity could be better explained as a feature derived from the speaker´s cognitive acts (including their communicative intentions). And the semantic contents of linguistic expressions would ultimately be determined by the factors that intervene in the performance of speech acts, without giving primacy to assertions, and even less to their products, namely, declarative sentences.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"47-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44217109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this work, I consider Moretti’s (2016) proposal according to which logical truths consist of two aspects. On the one hand, logical truths are constitutive of the link between language and world, so it is always necessary some logical system. On the other hand, the truths of a specific logical theory are as revisable as the truths of any other scientific theory, either formal or empirical. I propose that this approach is inevitably related to two questions whose possible answers challenge the possibility of changing or revising a logic. The first question is about the feature which different notions of consequence have in common, and in which sense this feature allows them to display their constitutive role in the language-world relationship. The second question points out to the necessity of precising the criteria which led us to substitute a logic.
{"title":"Rol constitutivo y revisabilidad de la lógica","authors":"Omar Hildebrando Vásquez Dávila","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.433","url":null,"abstract":"In this work, I consider Moretti’s (2016) proposal according to which logical truths consist of two aspects. On the one hand, logical truths are constitutive of the link between language and world, so it is always necessary some logical system. On the other hand, the truths of a specific logical theory are as revisable as the truths of any other scientific theory, either formal or empirical. I propose that this approach is inevitably related to two questions whose possible answers challenge the possibility of changing or revising a logic. The first question is about the feature which different notions of consequence have in common, and in which sense this feature allows them to display their constitutive role in the language-world relationship. The second question points out to the necessity of precising the criteria which led us to substitute a logic.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"197-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47427238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Observer memories involve a representation of the self in the memory image, which is presented from a detached or external point of view. That such an image is an obvious departure from how one initially experienced the event seems relatively straightforward. However, in my book on this type of imagery, I suggested that such memories can in fact, at least in some cases, accurately represent one’s past experience of an event. During these past events there is a sense in which we adopt an external perspective on ourselves. In the present paper, I respond to a critical notice of my book by Marina Trakas. Trakas argues that my account of observer memory unfolded against the background of a problematic preservationist account of episodic memory, and that I failed to adequately account for the presence of self in observer memory. I respond these worries here, and I try to clarify key points that were underdeveloped in the book.
{"title":"Construction, Preservation, and the Presence of Self in Observer Memory","authors":"C. McCarroll","doi":"10.36446/af.2020.371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.371","url":null,"abstract":"Observer memories involve a representation of the self in the memory image, which is presented from a detached or external point of view. That such an image is an obvious departure from how one initially experienced the event seems relatively straightforward. However, in my book on this type of imagery, I suggested that such memories can in fact, at least in some cases, accurately represent one’s past experience of an event. During these past events there is a sense in which we adopt an external perspective on ourselves. In the present paper, I respond to a critical notice of my book by Marina Trakas. Trakas argues that my account of observer memory unfolded against the background of a problematic preservationist account of episodic memory, and that I failed to adequately account for the presence of self in observer memory. I respond these worries here, and I try to clarify key points that were underdeveloped in the book.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"258 ","pages":"287-303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41273530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Karczmarczyck (2020) evalúa y critica algunas tesis centrales defendidas en mi libro Vericuetos de la filosofía de Wittgenstein en torno al lenguaje y el seguimiento de reglas (2018), centrado en las ideas del segundo Wittgenstein. Debato aquí sobre diversos puntos examinados por Karczmarczyck. En particular: (i) rechazo su concepción antirrealista de la intencionalidad, según la cual factores posteriores a una acción pueden determinar que dicha acción sea o no una acción deliberada; (ii) exploro otros aspectos de la contraposición realismo/antirrealismo, vinculándolos con la lectura antirrealista que Kripke, Karczmarczyck y otros autores hacen de Wittgenstein; (iii) explico por qué no es circular mi solución disposicional-teleológica al enigma sobre seguir una regla.
{"title":"Sobre el alcance del antirrealismo de Wittgenstein","authors":"Manuel Pérez Otero","doi":"10.36446/af.2020.377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.377","url":null,"abstract":"Karczmarczyck (2020) evalúa y critica algunas tesis centrales defendidas en mi libro Vericuetos de la filosofía de Wittgenstein en torno al lenguaje y el seguimiento de reglas (2018), centrado en las ideas del segundo Wittgenstein. Debato aquí sobre diversos puntos examinados por Karczmarczyck. En particular: (i) rechazo su concepción antirrealista de la intencionalidad, según la cual factores posteriores a una acción pueden determinar que dicha acción sea o no una acción deliberada; (ii) exploro otros aspectos de la contraposición realismo/antirrealismo, vinculándolos con la lectura antirrealista que Kripke, Karczmarczyck y otros autores hacen de Wittgenstein; (iii) explico por qué no es circular mi solución disposicional-teleológica al enigma sobre seguir una regla.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"273-286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41959577","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Acevedo Suárez, C. y Pérez Giménez, M. A., Filosofía y psicología de la mente infantil: Un ensayo de ingeniería conceptual en la teoría de la atención conjunta, Bogotá, Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2019, 141 pp.","authors":"J. Buffone","doi":"10.36446/af.2020.365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"305-307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46471615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A 40 años de Análisis Filosófico","authors":"Consejo Editorial","doi":"10.36446/af.2020.384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2020.384","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46693924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：