Argumenta – Journal of Analytic Philosophy

 

The Debate on the Problem of For-Me-Ness: A Proposed Taxonomy

Issue: Issue 15 • Author/s: Alberto Barbieri
Topics: Cognitive science, Epistemology, Philosophy of mind

Several philosophers claim that a mental state is phenomenally conscious only if it exhibits so-called for-me-ness, or subjective character, i.e., the fact that there is something it is like to be in a conscious state not just for everyone but only for the subject who undergoes it. Consequently, they stress, a proper explanation of consciousness requires to address the question of what the nature of for-me-ness is. This question forms what I call the problem of for-me-ness. Although the debate on the problem of for-me-ness has assumed a centre stage…

Kant on the Analyticity of Logic

Issue: Issue 15 • Author/s: Costanza Larese
Topics: Epistemology, Philosophical logic, Philosophy of language, Theoretical philosophy

This paper calls into question the traditional interpretation that logic is, according to Kant, analytic. On the basis of a reconstruction of the salient features of both Kant’s theory of analyticity and conception of pure general logic, it is shown that Kant does not apply the analytic-synthetic distinction to logical judgments at all. Moreover, applying Kant’s definitions beyond his reasons for leaving the matter unsolved leads to the result that many logical judgments are neither analytic nor synthetic.

The Paradox of Infallibility

Issue: Issue 15 • Author/s: Daniel Rönnedal
Topics: Epistemology, Philosophical logic, Philosophy of language

This paper discusses a new paradox, the paradox of infallibility. Let us define infallibility in the following way: (Def I) t is infallible if and only if (iff) everything t believes is true, where t is any term. (Def I) entails the following proposition: (I) It is necessary that for every individual x, x is infallible iff every proposition x believes is true. However, (I) seems to be inconsistent with the following proposition (P): It is possible that there is some individual who believes exactly one proposition, namely that she…

Reconsidering an Ontology of Properties for Quantum Theories [Special Issue]

Issue: Issue 16 • Author/s: Emanuele Rossanese
Topics: Epistemology, Logic, Metaphysics, Ontology, Philosophy of science

Da Costa, Lombardi and Lastiri (2013) have proposed an ontology of properties for non-relativistic quantum mechanics within the structure of the modal-Hamiltonian interpretation of the theory. Recently, this proposal has been developed in order to discuss the nature of entanglement and indistinguishability in such an ontology (Fortin and Lombardi 2022) and to explain how particles emerge from an ontology of properties (Lombardi and Dieks 2016). Oldofredi (2021) has also proposed an ontology of properties for Relational Quantum Mechanics. The aim of my paper is then to discuss an ontology of…

Book Reviews

Issue: Issue 16 • Author/s: Marco Facchin, Andrea Lavazza, Giacomo Zanotti
Topics: book reviews, Cognitive science, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of mind

The Affective and Practical Consequences of Presentism and Eternalism

Issue: Issue 17 • Author/s: Mauro Dorato
Topics: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of science, Theoretical philosophy

In the dispute between presentism and eternalism, the affective dimensions of the debate have been somewhat neglected. Contemporary philosophers of time have not tried to relate these ontological positions with two of the most discussed maxims in the history of ethics—“live in the present” vs. “look at your life under the aspect of the eternity” (sub specie aeternitatis)—that since the Hellenistic times have been regarded as strictly connected with them. Consequently, I raise the question of whether the endorsement of one of these two ontological views can make a practical…

A Note on the Grandfather Paradox

Issue: Issue 17 • Author/s: Brian Garrett
Topics: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theoretical philosophy

In this note, I am critical of some aspects of David Lewis’s resolution of the Grandfather Paradox. In particular, I argue that Lewis gives the wrong explanation of Tim’s inability to kill Grandfather, and that the correct explanation makes essential reference to the self-undermining character of Tim’s grampicide.
1 13 14 15