The category of heroic action is important in both everyday life and the wider social context. This article argues that interest in the notion of heroic actions and heroic defeats also brings out an important set of sociological problems, such as disagreements on identity, norms, and rational choice explanations. Illustrations are provided from recent analyses of union militancy in Britain and Italy, and of the student movement in Beijing. Different versions of the critique of rational choice theory often take norm-guided (...) action as a point of departure. Another version of this critique is represented by theories of new social movements and identity maintenance. The article suggests that rational choice theory is more useful than some of its opponents would have it; yet the general argument favors a mixed motivation approach. The discussion points out some of the strengths and limitations of different explanatory perspectives, and some of the links between them. (shrink)

Levinas did not present any new ethical theories; he did not even give any normative recommendations. But his phenomenological investigations help us to understand how the idea of ethics emerges and how we try to cope with it. The purpose of this paper is to suggest some implications from a reading of Levinas on how ethical challenges are handled within a management perspective. The paper claims that management, both in theory and in practice, is necessarily egocentric and thus ethically biased. (...) Therefore, ethics, defined as the idea that it is possible to do otherwise than pursue one's own interest, must have its source outside the scope of management. Levinas identifies this source as the call for responsibility from the Other, beyond the reach of managerial control. He also suggests how this idea of ethics is put into practice, especially in economic life: the existence of money makes it both possible and necessary to compare unique and incomparable others. Management tools may be used in the service of always more justice, as it also may be used for the opposite purpose. Instead of trying to draw a normative conclusion from Levinas, we may distinguish between two ways of experiencing reality: one through language and knowledge, covering both descriptive and normative knowledge, including business ethics, and the other through the particular events of encounters, from where this knowledge is continuously questioned through the call for responsibility, and thereby may provide possibilities for continuous improvements towards always more justice. (shrink)

Reverse Mathematics (RM hereafter) is a program in the foundations of mathematics where the aim is to identify the minimal axioms needed to prove a given theorem from ordinary, i.e., non-set theoretic, mathematics. This program has unveiled surprising regularities: the minimal axioms are very often equivalent to the theorem over the base theory, a weak system of ‘computable mathematics’, while most theorems are either provable in this base theory, or equivalent to one of only four logical systems. The latter plus (...) the base theory are called the ‘Big Five’ and the associated equivalences are robust following Montalbán, i.e., stable under small variations of the theorems at hand. Working in Kohlenbach’s higher-order RM, we obtain two new and long series of equivalences based on theorems due to Bolzano, Weierstrass, Jordan, and Cantor; these equivalences are extremely robust and have no counterpart among the Big Five systems. Thus, higher-order RM is much richer than its second-order cousin, boasting at least two extra ‘Big’ systems. (shrink)

There are two main routes to a concept of (generalized) quantifier. The first starts from first‐order logic, FO, and generalizes from the familiar ∀ and ∃ occurring there. The second route begins with real languages, and notes that many so‐called noun phrases, a kind of phrase which occurs abundantly in most languages, can be interpreted in a natural and uniform way using quantifiers.

We characterize the generalized quantifiers Q which satisfy the scheme $QxQy\phi \leftrightarrow QyQx\phi$ , the so-called self-commuting quantifiers, or quantifiers with the Fubini property.

By a valid inference is here understood an inference that succeeds in its aim to justify its conclusion given that its premisses are already justified. For an inference to be valid it is thus not enough that the sentence asserted in the conclusion is a logical consequence of the sentences asserted in the premisses. A proof is understood as a succession of valid inferences that is closed (i.e. all its assumptions are discharged and all its free variables are bound by (...) some of the inferences). On the other hand, in mathematics the justification of an assertion has traditionally been taken to consist in a proof of it, which gives rise to an explanatory circle.In an attempt to avoid this circle, I have in previous works tried to explain the notion of ground for an assertion without referring to valid inferences. However, it turns out that the resulting notion of ground has unwanted consequences like the notion of proof in the so-called BHK-interpretation of intuitionistic logic. For instance, one is guaranteed a ground or a proof of an implication A → B as soon as there is in fact no ground or proof of A, regardless of whether one really knows this fact, and hence without having a real justification of the assertion of the implication.In the absence of a non-circular explanation of the notions of valid inference and proof, I suggest that we should try to formulate a number of principles of how these two epistemic notions depend on each other. A more careful explanation of the validity of an inference results in what I call a heuristic idea about the validity of inference, which is used as a guide to formulate precise principles. One such principle generalizes Gentzen’s idea that his introduction rules define the meaning of the logical constants. Another principle generalizes a previously noted property of Gentzen’s elimination rules that I have called that of satisfying the inversion principle. It results in a notion that I call non-creativity, which implies validity. (shrink)

According to a main idea of Gentzen the meanings of the logical constants are reflected by the introduction rules in his system of natural deduction. This idea is here understood as saying roughly that a closed argument ending with an introduction is valid provided that its immediate subarguments are valid and that other closed arguments are justified to the extent that they can be brought to introduction form. One main part of the paper is devoted to the exact development of (...) this notion. Another main part of the paper is concerned with a modification of this notion as it occurs in Michael Dummett’s book The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. The two notions are compared and there is a discussion of how they fare as a foundation for a theory of meaning. It is noted that Dummett’s notion has a simpler structure, but it is argued that it is less appropriate for the foundation of a theory of meaning, because the possession of a valid argument for a sentence in Dummett’s sense is not enough to be warranted to assert the sentence. (shrink)

This volume examines the notion of an analytic proof as a natural deduction, suggesting that the proof's value may be understood as its normal form--a concept with significant implications to proof-theoretic semantics.

I see the question what it is that makes an inference valid and thereby gives a proof its epistemic power as the most fundamental problem of general proof theory. It has been surprisingly neglected in logic and philosophy of mathematics with two exceptions: Gentzen’s remarks about what justifies the rules of his system of natural deduction and proposals in the intuitionistic tradition about what a proof is. They are reviewed in the paper and I discuss to what extent they succeed (...) in answering what a proof is. Gentzen’s ideas are shown to give rise to a new notion of valid argument. At the end of the paper I summarize and briefly discuss an approach to the problem that I have proposed earlier. (shrink)

The main question addressed in this chapter is how to analyze the modal ingredient in the concept of logical consequence or logical validity of an inference, here expressed by saying that the truth of the conclusion of a logically valid inference should follow by necessity of thought from the truth of the premisses. It is claimed that this modal ingredient is not taken care of by Tarski’s requirement, later developed in model theory, that for all interpretations of the non-logical terms (...) of the sentences, the conclusion is true if the premisses are. Instead we must bring in reasoning or the notion of proof in the analysis, and it is shown how one may develop a notion of proof or validity of an argument based on the constructive meaning of the logical constants. It is proposed that from a constructive point of view, a sentence is a consequence of a set of premisses if and only if there is a proof in the sense explained of the sentence from the set of premisses. Knowledge of such a proof compels us to hold the conclusion true given that we hold the premisses true. (shrink)

Ethics in business and economics is often attacked for being too superficial. By elaborating the conclusions of two such critics of business ethics and welfare economics respectively, this article will draw the attention to the ethics behind these apparently well-intended, but not always convincing constructions, by help of the fundamental ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. To Levinas, responsibility is more basic than language, and thus also more basic than all social constructions. Co-operation relations in organizations, markets and value networks are generated (...) from personal relations and personal responsibilities. It is not sufficient to integrate ethics in an impersonal, rational system, neither in business organizations nor in the world economy. Ethics has its source not in rationality, but in the personal. (shrink)

The aim of Reverse Mathematics (RM for short) is to find the minimal axioms needed to prove a given theorem of ordinary mathematics. These minimal axioms are almost always equivalent to the theorem, working over the base theory of RM, a weak system of computable mathematics. The Big Five phenomenon of RM is the observation that a large number of theorems from ordinary mathematics are either provable in the base theory or equivalent to one of only four systems; these five (...) systems together are called the ‘Big Five’. The aim of this paper is to greatly extend the Big Five phenomenon as follows: there are two supposedly fundamentally different approaches to RM where the main difference is whether the language is restricted to second-order objects or if one allows third-order objects. In this paper, we unite these two strands of RM by establishing numerous equivalences involving the second-order Big Five systems on one hand, and well-known third-order theorems from analysis about (possibly) discontinuous functions on the other hand. We both study relatively tame notions, like cadlag or Baire 1, and potentially wild ones, like quasi-continuity. We also show that slight generalizations and variations of the aforementioned third-order theorems fall far outside of the Big Five. (shrink)

It has been common in contemporary logic and philosophy of logic to identify the validity of an inference with its conclusion being a (logical) consequence of its premisses.

This is a reply to H. Ben-Yami, 'Generalized quantifiers, and beyond' (this journal, 2009), where he argues that standard GQ theory does not explain why natural language quantifiers have a restricted domain of quantification. I argue, on the other hand, that although GQ theory gives no deep explanation of this fact, it does give a sort of explanation, whereas Ben-Yami's suggested alternative is no improvement.

This article provides an introduction to Kaplan-style semantics. The formal semantics usually employs the notion of a model, which, besides supplying the sets utterance contexts, circumstances and a domain M 0 of individuals, and also interprets the nonlogical atomic expressions of the language. Standard compositionality applies only to character: Funct makes immediate sense, since character assigns a semantic value directly to expressions. For semantic functions taking contextual arguments, the notion of compositionality must be revised. Notions of contextual compositionality apply directly (...) to the functional version of the setup that starts with the function char, and defines the other semantics from it. The point of evaluation semantics is indeed basic: if it is compositional, so is the content semantics, and the character semantics. (shrink)