Semantic paradox. A comparative analysis of scholastic and analytic views

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F14%3A00431455" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/14:00431455 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.7" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.7</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.7" target="_blank" >10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.7</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Semantic paradox. A comparative analysis of scholastic and analytic views

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Scholastic and analytic definitions of semantic paradoxes, in terms of groundlessness, circularity, and semantic pathology, are introduced and compared with each other. The fundamental intuitions used in these definitions are the concepts of being true about extralinguistic reality, of making statements about one's self, and of compatibility with an underlying semantic theory. The three approaches-the groundlessness view, the circularity view, and the semantic pathology view-are shown to differ not onlyconceptually, but also in their applications. As both a means for showing these differences and as an adequacytest, the so-called two-line puzzles are used, which allows one to address the possibility of making non-paradoxical statements about paradoxical sentences within the same language.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Semantic paradox. A comparative analysis of scholastic and analytic views

Popis výsledku anglicky

Scholastic and analytic definitions of semantic paradoxes, in terms of groundlessness, circularity, and semantic pathology, are introduced and compared with each other. The fundamental intuitions used in these definitions are the concepts of being true about extralinguistic reality, of making statements about one's self, and of compatibility with an underlying semantic theory. The three approaches-the groundlessness view, the circularity view, and the semantic pathology view-are shown to differ not onlyconceptually, but also in their applications. As both a means for showing these differences and as an adequacytest, the so-called two-line puzzles are used, which allows one to address the possibility of making non-paradoxical statements about paradoxical sentences within the same language.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AA - Filosofie a náboženství

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GP13-08389P" target="_blank" >GP13-08389P: Sémantické paradoxy mezi první a druhou scholastikou</a><br>

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2014

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Res Philosophica

ISSN

2168-9105

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

91

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

20

Strana od-do

367-386

Kód UT WoS článku

000341060800005

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—