نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه فلسفه، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
در دیدگاه رایج درباره رابطه میان مقوالت زبانی و مقوالتی وجودشناختی که از ارسطو به ما رسیده است، مقوالت نحوی تطابق کاملی با مقوالت متافیزیکی دارند و مدلول لفظی که موضوع جمله است جزو مقوله وجودی متفاوتی نسبت به مدلول لفظ محمول است. این دیدگاه به عدم تقارن وجودشناختی موضوع و محمول شناخته میشود و در منطق ارسطو به یک شکل و در منطق فرگه به شکل دیگری تأیید میشود؛ اما تقارن وجودی موضوع و محمول نیز طرفدارانی دارد. اگر مدلول موضوع و محمول ازلحاظ وجودی باهم
تفاوت اساسی نداشته باشند، میتوان زبانی خنثی داشت که در آن بتوان جای موضوع و محمول را در هر جمله بامعنایی عوض کرد؛ اما همانطور که در این مقاله نشان میدهیم چنین زبانی ازنظر نحوی به تناقض میانجامد و ناسازگار است. همچنین ازنظر سمانتیکی در این زبان تعمیمهای علمی بیمعنا و هر جمله وجودی صادق خواهد بود؛ بنابراین زبان خنثی کفایت الزم را ندارد و بر اساس آن نمیتوان از تقارن موضوع-محمول دفاع کرد
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
A Critical Examination of the Traditional Theory of Original Research Subject-Predicate Asymmetry
نویسنده [English]
- Hooman Mohammad Ghorbanian
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]
According to the asymmetrical view that has its roots in Aristotelian philosophy, there is a close correspondence between syntactic categories and ontological categories, and the reference of the subject term and predicate term belong to different ontological types of objects. This asymmetry is defended by Frege and his philosophy of language in a different way. On the other hand, some believe in a symmetrical interpretation of subject and predicate relation. Suppose
there was no ontological difference between the subject and predicate. In that case, we could have neutral language in which we can change the position of the subject and predicate terms without any change in the proposition's meaning. However, as we show in this paper, this language would be syntactically inconsistent and produce some contradictions. Moreover, the scientific generalizations would become nonsense in semantic analysis, and all the existential sentences would be true. Therefore, the neutral language does not have the expected adequacy, and the symmetry of the subject and predicate could not be defended accordingly
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Grammatical Categories
- Logical Categories
- Metaphysical Categories
- Subject-Predicate Symmetry
- Neutral Language
Black, M. (1968). Models and Metaphors - Studies in Language and Philosophy (4th Printing ed.). Cornell University Press.
David, Marian, (n.d). "The Correspondence Theory of Truth", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/truthcorrespondence/>.
Dummett, M. (1993). Frege: Philosophy of Language, Second Edition (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.Frege, G (1918) “thought” in Beaney, M. (1997). The Frege Reader (1st ed.). Blackwell Publishing.Frege, G., & Beaney, M. (1997). The Frege Reader (1st ed.). Blackwell Publishing.Frege, G., & Hermes, H. (1979). Gottlob Frege: Posthumous Writings. Blackwell.
Frege, G., Geach, P. T., & Black, M. (1951). On Concept and Object. Mind, 60(238), 168–180.Geach, P. T. (1980). Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories (Contemporary Philosophy)(Subsequent ed.). Cornell University Press.Hacking, I. (1968). A Language without Particulars. Mind, 77(306), 168–185.Heintz, John. (1973) "IV. SUBJECT-PREDICATE SYMMETRY: EXPLAINING VARIABLES AWAY". Subjects and Predicables: A Study in Subject-Predicate Asymmetry, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2019, pp. 57-75.Horwich, P. (1999). Truth (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.Lukasiewicz, J. (2021). Aristotle’s Syllogistic From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic (Oxford University Press Academic Monograph Reprints) (2nd ed.). Oxford Univ Press.Lycan, W. G. (2022). Philosophy of Language (text only) 2nd(Second) edition by W. G. Lycan (2nd Edition). Routledge.MacBride, Fraser, Mathieu Marion, María José Frápolli, Dorothy Edgington, Edward Elliott, Sebastian Lutz, and Jeffrey Paris, (n.d)."FrankRamsey",TheStanfordEncyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/ramsey/>.McKeon, R. (2022). The Basic Works of Aristotle. Random House.Ramsey, F. P. (1925). Universals. _Mind_ 34 (136):401-417.Russell, B. (1911). On the Relations of Universals and Particulars.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 12, 1–24.Sider, T. (2010). Logic for Philosophy (Illustrated ed.). Oxford University Press.Strawson, P. F. (1990). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics (University Paperbacks; Up). Routledge.Strawson, P. F. (2017). Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. Taylor & Francis.Unlu, Hikmet (2020). Aristotle on Ontological Priority. _Acta Philosophica_ 1 (29):137-158.Wittgenstein, L., Bazzocchi, L., & Hacker, P. (2021). Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus: Centenary Edition (Anthem Studies in Wittgenstein). Anthem Press.Yeakel, Daniel, (2016). “Existence Hedges and Neutral Free Logic,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, cxvi (3): 379–386.
)