Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:54:09.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formalization in Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Sven Ove Hansson
Sven Ove Hansson*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Group, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, E-mail: soh@infra.kth.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The advantages and disadvantages of formalization in philosophy are summarized. It is concluded that formalized philosophy is an endangered speciality that needs to be revitalized and to increase its interactions with non-formalized philosophy. The enigmatic style that is common in philosophical logic must give way to explicit discussions of the problematic relationship between formal models and the philosophical concepts and issues that motivated their development.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 162 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alchourrón, Carlos 1993, Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals, Deontic logic in computer science (Meyer, John-Jules Ch. and Wieringa, Roel J., editors), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 43–84.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, Carlos, Gärdenfors, Peter, and Makinson, David 1985, On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 50, pp. 510–530.Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard B. 1965, The concepts of obligation and duty, Mind, vol. 73, pp. 374–393.Google Scholar
Brogan, Albert P. 1919, The fundamental value universal, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, vol. 16, pp. 96–104.Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector Neri 1981, The paradoxes of deontic logic: The simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop, New studies in deontic logic (Hilpinen, Risto, editor), Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 37–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Hector Neri 1984, Philosophical refutations, Principles of philosophical reasoning (Fetzer, James H., editor), pp. 227–258.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. and Sosa, Ernest 1966, On the logic of ‘intrinsically better’, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 3, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar
Davis, John W. 1966, Is there a logic for ethics?, Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Føllesdal, Dagfinn and Hilpinen, Risto 1970, Deontic logic: An introduction, Deontic logic: Introductory and systematic readings (Hilpinen, Risto, editor), Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Gabbay, Dov 1985, Theoretical foundations for nonmonotonic reasoning in expert systems, Logics and models of concurrent systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 439–457.Google Scholar
Glaister, S. M. 1997, Recovery recovered, manuscript.Google Scholar
Goble, Lou 1989, A logic of better, Logique et Analyse, vol. 32, pp. 297–318.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson 1951, The structure of appearance .Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1990, Defining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in terms of ‘better’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 31, pp. 136–149.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1991a, Belief contraction without recovery, Studia Logica, vol. 50, pp. 251–260.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1991b, The revenger's paradox, Philosophical Studies, vol. 61, pp. 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1993, Money-pumps, self-torturers and the demons of real life, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 71, pp. 476–485.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1999a, Recovery and epistemic residues, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 8, pp. 421–428.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 1999b, A textbook of belief dynamics, Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven Ove 2000, The structure of values and norms, Cambridge University Press, in press.Google Scholar
Jennings, R. E. 1985, Can there be a natural deontic logic?, Synthese, vol. 65, pp. 257–273.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans 1973, Free choice permission, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 74, pp. 57–74.Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan 1980, A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Wolfgang 1981, Ist Gut, Ethik, Grundlagen, Probleme und Anwendungen, Akten des fünften internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums (Morscher, Edgar and Stranzinger, Rudolf, editors), Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Wien, pp. 165–171.Google Scholar
Lenzen, Wolfgang 1983, On the representation of classificatory value strucures, Theory and Decision, vol. 15, pp. 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Sten 1993, A semantic approach to nonmonotonic reasoning: inference operations and choice, manuscript.Google Scholar
Livesey, Steven J. 1986, The Oxford calculatores, quantification of qualities, and Aristotle's prohibition of metabasis, Vivarium, vol. 24, pp. 50–69.Google Scholar
Makinson, David 1993, General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning, Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Gabbay, Dov et al., editors), vol. III, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 35–110.Google Scholar
Makinson, David 1997, On the force of some apparent counterexamples to recovery, Normative systems in legal and moral theory, Festschrift for Carlos E. Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin, (Valdès, E. G., editor), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 475–481.Google Scholar
Makinson, David 1999, On a fundamental problem of deontic logic, Norms, logics and information systems. New studies in deontic logic and computer science (McNamara, Paul and Prakker, Henry, editors), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 49, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan 1985, Galilean idealization, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 16, pp. 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, G. H. 1978, Formalization, possible worlds and the foundations of modal logic, Erkenntnis, vol. 12, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph 1975, Permissions and supererogation, American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 12, pp. 161–168.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas 1968, Topics in philosophical logic .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Alf 1941, Imperatives and logic, Theoria, vol. 7, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
Rott, Hans 1993, Belief contraction in the context of the general theory of rational choice, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 58, pp. 1426–1450.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand [1914] 1969, Our knowledge of the external world.Google Scholar
Seeskin, Kenneth R. 1978, Formalization in Platonic scholarship, Metaphilosophy, vol. 9, pp. 242–251.Google Scholar
Stenius, Erik 1982, Ross' paradox and well-formed codices, Theoria, vol. 48, pp. 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timur, M. 1955, Better as the value-fundamental, Mind, vol. 64, pp. 52–60.Google Scholar
Dalen, Dirk von 1974, Variants of Rescher's semantics for preference logic and some completeness theorems, Studia Logica, vol. 33, pp. 163–181.Google Scholar
Kutschera, Franz von 1975, Semantic analyses of normative concepts, Erkenntnis, vol. 9, pp. 195–218.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg Henrik 1951, Deontic logic, Mind, vol. 60, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg Henrik 1968, An essay in deontic logic and the general theory of action, Acta Philosophica Fennica, vol. 21, pp. 1–110.Google Scholar
Wolénski, Jan 1980, A note on free choice permissions, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, vol. 66, pp. 507–510.Google Scholar