Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Manuscrito]]> http://www.scielo.br/rss.php?pid=0100-604520120001&lang=en vol. 35 num. 1 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.br/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.br <![CDATA[<b>The six requirements of premises of scientific proof in Aristotle (Posterior Analytics A 2)</b>]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452012000100001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Discuto neste artigo os seis requisitos que Aristóteles propõe para as premissas das demonstrações científicas em Segundos Analíticos I 2, 71b20-33. Pretendo mostrar que os seis requisitos não respaldam a interpretação "axiomatizante". Ao contrário, os seis requisitos podem ser entendidos consistentemente de acordo com uma interpretação segundo a qual o traço mais fundamental da demonstração científica consiste na explicação pela causa apropriada.<hr/>I discuss in this paper the six requirements Aristotle advances at Posterior Analytics A-2, 71b20-33, for the premisses of a scientific demonstration. I argue that the six requirements give no support for an intepretation in terms of "axiomatization". Quite on the contrary, the six requirements can be consistently understood in a very different picture, according to which the most basic feature of a scientific demonstration is to explain a given proposition by its appropriate cause. <![CDATA[<b>Frege's characterisation of logic in terms of assertoric force</b>]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452012000100002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Segundo a caracterização padrão da lógica nos escritos fregeanos, a palavra "verdadeiro" indica a essência da lógica, assim como a palavra "bom" indica a essência da ética e a palavra "belo" a essência da estética. Num escrito póstumo de 1915, porém, Frege afirma que é a força assertórica, e não a palavra "verdadeiro", que indica a essência da lógica. Prima facie, esta correção está em conflito com a crítica fregeana à concepção psicologista da lógica. Pois, segundo esta crítica, a lógica não é a ciência das leis "do ser tomado como verdadeiro", mas a ciência das leis "do ser verdadeiro", ao passo que a força assertórica expressa o ser tomado como verdadeiro. Em escritos anteriores, tentei resolver este conflito por uma reconstrução da concepção fregeana da verdade baseada na tese fregeana de que verdade é expressa na linguagem natural pela "forma da sentença assertórica". A meta do presente trabalho é defender esta interpretação contra as objeções recentemente feitas por Marco Ruffino.<hr/>According to the standard characterization of logic in Frege's writings, the word "true" indicates the essence of logic, as the word "good" indicates the essence of ethics and the word "beautiful" the essence of aesthetics. In a posthumous writing from 1915, however, Frege says that it is the assertoric force, and not the word "true", which indicates the essence of logic properly. Prima facie, this correction is in conflict with Frege's criticism of the psychologist conception of logic. For according to this criticism, logic is not the science of the laws of "being taken as true", but the science of the laws of "being true", while the assertoric force expresses being taken as true. In previous writings, I tried to resolve this conflict by a reconstruction of Frege's conception of truth that is based on his thesis that truth is expressed in natural language by the "form of the assertoric sentence". The goal of this paper is to defend this interpretation against the objections recently made by Marco Ruffino. <![CDATA[<b>The relation between the general maxim of causality and the principle of uniformity in hume's theory of knowledge</b>]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452012000100003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ABSTRACT When Hume, in the Treatise on Human Nature, began his examination of the relation of cause and effect, in particular, of the idea of necessary connection which is its essential constituent, he identified two preliminary questions that should guide his research: (1) For what reason we pronounce it necessary that every thing whose existence has a beginning should also have a cause and (2) Why we conclude that such particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects? (1.3.2, 14-15) Hume observes that our belief in these principles can result neither from an intuitive grasp of their truth nor from a reasoning that could establish them by demonstrative means. In particular, with respect to the first, Hume examines and rejects some arguments with which Locke, Hobbes and Clarke tried to demonstrate it, and suggests, by exclusion, that the belief that we place on it can only come from experience. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Hume does not proceed to show how that derivation of experience could be made, but proposes instead to move directly to an examination of the second principle, saying that, "perhaps, be found in the end, that the same answer will serve for both questions" (1.3.3, 9). Hume's answer to the second question is well known, but the first question is never answered in the rest of the Treatise, and it is even doubtful that it could be, which would explain why Hume has simply chosen to remove any mention of it when he recompiled his theses on causation in the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Given this situation, an interesting question that naturally arises is to investigate the relations of logical or conceptual implication between these two principles. Hume seems to have thought that an answer to (2) would also be sufficient to provide an answer to (1). Henry Allison, in his turn, argued (in Custom and Reason in Hume, p. 94-97) that the two questions are logically independent. My proposal here is to try to show that there is indeed a logical dependency between them, but the implication is, rather, from (1) to (2). If accepted, this result may be particularly interesting for an interpretation of the scope of the so-called "Kant's reply to Hume" in the Second Analogy of Experience, which is structured as a proof of the a priori character of (1), but whose implications for (2) remain controversial. <![CDATA[<b>A note on Kant's formal logic</b>]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452012000100004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en O artigo apresenta um problema que surge da combinação da teoria kantiana dos juízos analíticos com a sua adesão oficial à silogística. Argumenta-se em seguida que o problema só pode ser inteiramente solucionado pelo reconhecimento de que a lógica com a qual Kant de fato operava não é consistente nem com a silogística, nem com a lógica clássica, consistindo, de fato, em uma espécie de lógica inclusiva.<hr/>The paper presents a problem arising from Kant's theory of analytic judgments in conjunction with his official allegiance to the syllogistic. It is then argued that this problem can only be solved by the acknowledgement that the logic with which Kant operated was consistent neither the syllogistic nor with classical logic, consisting, in effect, in a species of inclusive logic. <![CDATA[<b>Predication and conceptual extension in Kant</b>: <b>problems</b>]]> http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452012000100005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en O artigo examina a noção de extensão conceitual em Kant, a fim de determinar uma visão de predicação que possa integrar, de forma coerente, compromissos teóricos básicos da lógica geral como ele a concebia e os fundamentos de sua lógica transcendental. Após um breve panorama das diversas caracterizações da noção no corpus kantiano, distingo três modelos interpretativos acerca da mesma na literatura. Tais modelos são criticados e suas perspectivas de integrar os compromissos de Kant de modo inteiramente satisfatório são rejeitadas. Finalmente, esboço um tratamento alternativo da concepção kantiana de extensão conceitual, o qual respeita os critérios de adequação que guiaram o exame dos modelos anteriores. Ele aponta, por sua vez, para uma reavaliação da noção kantiana de conteúdo conceitual.<hr/>The article examines Kant's notion of conceptual extension in order to determine a conception of predication that could integrate, in a coherent fashion, basic theoretical commitments of general logic as he conceived it and the central tenets of his transcendental logic. After a brief overview of the several characterizations of thatnotion in the Kantian corpus, I distinguish three interpretative models concerning it in the literature. Such models are criticized and their prospects of integrating Kant's commitments in a fully satisfactory way are rejected. Finally, I sketch an alternative account of Kant's notion of conceptual extension, which respects the criteria of adequacy that guided the examination of the former models. It points, on its turn, to a revaluation of Kant's notion of conceptual content.