首页> 外文期刊>Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology >Philosophical Issues from Kripke’s ‘Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic’
【24h】

Philosophical Issues from Kripke’s ‘Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic’

机译:克里普克(Kripke)的“模态逻辑的语义考虑”中的哲学问题

获取原文
           

摘要

In ‘Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic’, Kripke articulates his project in the discourse of “possible worlds”. There has been much philosophical discussion of whether endorsement of the Kripke semantics brings ontological commitment to possible worlds. However, that discussion is less than satisfactory because it has been conducted without the necessary investigation of the surrounding philosophical issues that are raised by the Kripke semantics. My aim in this paper is to map out the surrounding territory and to commence that investigation. Among the surrounding issues, and my attitudes to them, are these: (1) the potential of the standard distinction between pure and impure versions of the semantic theory has been under-exploited; (2) there has been under-estimation of what is achieved by the pure semantic theory alone; (3) there is a methodological imperative to co-ordinate a clear conception of the purposes of the impure theory with an equally clear conception of the content the theory; (4) there is a need to support by argument claims about how such a semantic theory, even in an impure state, can fund explanations in the theory of meaning and metaphysics; (5) greater attention needs to be paid to the crucial advance that Kripke makes on the precursors of possible-worlds semantics proper (e.g. Carnap 1947) in clearly distinguishing variation across the worlds within a model of modal space from variation across such models and, finally, (6) the normative nature of the concept of applicability, of the pure semantic theory, is both of crucial importance and largely ignored.
机译:克里普克在“模态逻辑的语义考虑”中用“可能世界”的话语阐明了他的项目。关于对克里普克语义学的认可是否对可能的世界带来了本体论的承诺,已经进行了很多哲学讨论。但是,该讨论并不令人满意,因为进行该​​讨论时没有对Kripke语义所引起的周围哲学问题进行必要的研究。我在本文中的目的是绘制出周围的领土并开始进行调查。在周围的问题中,以及我对这些问题的态度是:(1)语义理论的纯净和不纯净版本之间标准区分的潜力尚未得到充分利用; (2)仅凭单纯的语义理论就已经低估了什么; (3)在方法论上必须将不纯理论的目的的清晰概念与理论内容的同样清晰的概念相协调; (4)有必要通过论证来支持这样的语义理论,即使在不纯的状态下,如何能为意义和形而上学的解释提供资金; (5)需要更加注意Kripke在可能世界语义学的先驱者(例如Carnap 1947)上做出的至关重要的进步,以清楚地区分模态空间模型中整个世界的变异与此类模型之间的变异,最后,(6)纯粹语义理论的适用性概念的规范性质既至关重要,又被很大程度上忽略了。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号