Semantic theories based on a hierarchy of types have prominently been used to defend the possibility of unrestricted quantification. However, they also pose a prima facie problem for it: each quantifier ranges over at most one level of the hierarchy and is therefore not unrestricted. It is difficult to evaluate this problem without a principled account of what it is for a quantifier to be unrestricted. Drawing on an insight of Russell’s about the relationship between quantification and the structure of (...) predication, we offer such an account. We use this account to examine the problem in three different type-theoretic settings, which are increasingly permissive with respect to predication. We conclude that unrestricted quantification is available in all but the most permissive kind of type theory. (shrink)

My intention is not to get into specific, detailed historical observation about the ways that led the term ‘democracy’ to take on its current meaning, in science as much as in politics, but rather to establish a comparison between the models that political science proposes and interprets as important for the existence of democracy and those that science illustrates as indicators of scientific knowledge constructed in a democratic form. The debate about the contemporary meaning of democracy has generated an extraordinary (...) diversification of models of democracy: from technocratic conceptions of government to conceptions of social life that include widespread political participation. And it is exactly for this reason that the assumption of a specific point of view on the question we are dealing with inevitably brings with it the choice of a model suitable to describe democratic form as a form of politics without further explanation, that is, as a political system with which science measures itself as a cultural category. In this sense, we can consider the passage from the concept of democracy to that of politics and generally of science to be a peaceful one, since politics has been appointed with that set of behaviours and democratic practices (including science) that political culture demands for the social benefit. This demand can be met only on condition that structural obstacles are removed and new cultural and epistemological mediators are introduced. (shrink)

Plural expressions found in natural languages allow us to talk about many objects simultaneously. Plural logic — a logical system that takes plurals at face value — has seen a surge of interest in recent years. This book explores its broader significance for philosophy, logic, and linguistics. What can plural logic do for us? Are the bold claims made on its behalf correct? After introducing plural logic and its main applications, the book provides a systematic analysis of the relation between (...) this logic and other theoretical frameworks such as set theory, mereology, higher-order logic, and modal logic. The applications of plural logic rely on two assumptions, namely that this logic is ontologically innocent and has great expressive power. These assumptions are shown to be problematic. The result is a more nuanced picture of plural logic's applications than has been given thus far. Questions about the correct logic of plurals play a central role in the final chapters, where traditional plural logic is rejected in favor of a "critical" alternative. The most striking feature of this alternative is that there is no universal plurality. This leads to a novel approach to the relation between the many and the one. In particular, critical plural logic paves the way for an account of sets capable of solving the set-theoretic paradoxes. (shrink)

Questo saggio, risultato del lavoro seminariale svolto presso la Fondazione Centro Studi Campostrini, avanza una proposta teoricasulla base di un’ipotesi. L’ipotesi è che quando usiamo il vocabolariodella credenza diciamo qualcosa di specifico e irriducibile adaltre nozioni. Alla ricerca del nucleo di irriducibilità e specificitàdella credenza Giuseppe Di Salvatore scarta tutte quelle forme dicredenza che dipendono in maniera più o meno diretta da unaconsiderazione in termini di conoscenza o da un’implicazione dellaverità. Se alcuni tipi di giustificazione della credenza possono essereutili (...) a individuarne l’irriducibilità, solo le credenze primitive, unacomplessa nozione di “credenza soggettiva” e un originale modellofiduciario della credenza fungono da buoni candidati per difenderela specificità della credenza. Dopo la discussione di alcune tesi diLudwig Wittgenstein e il ricorso a fonti eterogenee, da William Jamesa Henry Habberley Price fino a Niklas Luhmann, l’autore proponela nozione originale di “credenza progressiva” come il migliorcandidato che confermi l’ipotesi di partenza. In essa una precisaidea di rischio e la fiducia, al cui dibattito è dedicata un’ampiaattenzione, contribuiscono a delineare la credenza progressivainsieme ad alcuni suoi aspetti soggettivi, così profilandola comeuna postura sperimentale. Il saggio si completa con una riflessionesulla peculiarità della questione filosofica della credenza religiosa,la quale viene approcciata nella sua preliminare generalità, quindiconfrontata con la credenza progressiva. (shrink)

This case study extends the findings of Pickering et al. 2009 to the domain of conversational humor. We find that, as was the case in humorous narratives, conversational humor is not marked by higher pitch or volume, increased speech rate, or significant pauses. Unlike narrative humor, conversational humor is not produced at a lower pitch and slower rate than non-humorous parts of the text. We find that smiling and laughter tend to occur with humor.

It is futile to say that scholars have worn themselves out in an attempt to give a name to the pagan philosopher with whom Macarius Magnes argues in the Apocriticus. The first to take up the question, Crusius, a follower of Wagenmann, Hauschildt, Harnack and Goulet, identified him as Porphyry. This identification was refuted by Möller, Salmon, Zahn and Frassinetti, who thought of Julian the Apostate; and by Duchesne and Crafer, followed, in part by Pezzella, who proposed Hierocles. Following the (...) studies by Corsaro, who, advised by Borzì, argued with good reason the impossibility of giving a precise name to the pagan philosopher, the vexata quaestio seemed to come to an end. In a recent intervention, Digeser reproposed the identification of Hierocles, going back, in large part, and not without some original notions, to the arguments of Duchesne and Crafer. It is the intent of this contribution to demonstrate the insufficient credibility of this identification. (shrink)

Liberal theory seems to be caught in an impasse. On the one hand, since it has social order as its object, it appears to be committed to resolving the problem of disagreement between the various conceptions; on the other, insofar as it is philosophical theory, it seems destined to cause conflict. How, then, can liberalism offer a solution which guarantees the duration in time of a society, without, however, proposing a theory that would merely be one among others? And how (...) can it do this without adopting reductionist strategies, and by trying to remain faithful to the idea that a society should be ordered by a conception of justice? This is the paradox of liberal political philosophy. And this same paradox is the theme that Rawls confronts in Political Liberalism. (shrink)

A realist approach to learning is what I propose here. This is based on a non-epistemic dimension whose presence is a necessary assumption for a concept of learning of a life-world as complementary to learning within a life-world. I develop my approach in opposition to Jürgen Habermas' pragmatic approach, which seems to lack of something from a realist point of view.

After analysing Habermas's philosophical evolution from his theory of interests to his late pragmatic realism, I will focus on the problems of this last conception, trying to draw a plausible way out which avoids both naturalistic reductionism and a too weak form of realism.

Sentences that exhibit sensitivity to order (e.g. 'John and Mary arrived at school in that order' and 'Mary and John arrived at school in that order') present a challenge for the standard formulation of plural logic. In response, some authors have advocated new versions of plural logic based on fine-grained notions of plural reference, such as serial reference (Hewitt 2012) and articulated reference (Ben-Yami 2013). The aim of this article is to show that sensitivity to order should be accounted for (...) without altering the standard formulation of plural logic. In particular, sensitivity to order does not call for a fine-grained notion of plural reference. We point out that the phenomenon in question is quite broad and that current proposals are not equipped to deal with the full range of cases in which order plays a role. Then we develop an alternative and unified account, which locates the phenomenon not in the way in which plural terms can refer, but in the meaning of special expressions such as 'in that order' and 'respectively'. (shrink)

Plural logic is widely assumed to have two important virtues: ontological innocence and determinacy. It is claimed to be innocent in the sense that it incurs no ontological commitments beyond those already incurred by the first-order quantifiers. It is claimed to be determinate in the sense that it is immune to the threat of non-standard interpretations that confronts higher-order logics on their more traditional, set-based semantics. We challenge both claims. Our challenge is based on a Henkin-style semantics for plural logic (...) that does not resort to sets or set-like objects to interpret plural variables, but adopts the view that a plural variable has many objects as its values. Using this semantics, we also articulate a generalized notion of ontological commitment which enables us to develop some ideas of earlier critics of the alleged ontological innocence of plural logic. (shrink)

In linguistics, the dominant approach to the semantics of plurals appeals to mereology. However, this approach has received strong criticisms from philosophical logicians who subscribe to an alternative framework based on plural logic. In the first part of the article, we offer a precise characterization of the mereological approach and the semantic background in which the debate can be meaningfully reconstructed. In the second part, we deal with the criticisms and assess their logical, linguistic, and philosophical significance. We identify four (...) main objections and show how each can be addressed. Finally, we compare the strengths and shortcomings of the mereological approach and plural logic. Our conclusion is that the former remains a viable and well-motivated framework for the analysis of plurals. (shrink)