This paper addresses the mereological problem of the unity of structured propositions. The problem is how to make multiple parts interact such that they form a whole that is ultimately related to truth and falsity. The solution I propose is based on a Platonist variant of procedural semantics. I think of procedures as abstract entities that detail a logical path from input to output. Procedures are modeled on a function/argument logic, but are not functions. Instead they are higher-order, fine-grained structures. (...) I identify propositions with particular kinds of molecular procedures containing multiple sub-procedures as parts. Procedures are among the basic entities of my ontology, while propositions are derived entities. The core of a structured proposition is the procedure of predication, which is an instance of the procedure of functional application. The main thesis I defend is that procedurally conceived propositions are their own unifiers detailing how their parts interact so as to form a unit. They are not unified by one of their constituents, e.g., a relation or a sub-procedure, on pain of regress. The relevant procedural semantics is Transparent Intensional Logic, a hyperintensional, typed λ-calculus, whose λ-terms express four different kinds of procedures. While demonstrating how the theory works, I place my solution in a wider historical and systematic context. (shrink)

According to contextualist theories in metaethics, when you use a moral term in a context, the context plays an ineliminable part in determining what natural property will be the semantic value of the term. Furthermore, on subjectivist and relativist versions of these views, it is either the speaker's own moral code or her moral community's moral code that constitutes the reference-fixing context. One standard objection to views of this type is that they fail to enable us to disagree in ordinary (...) conversations. In this chapter, I develop a new response to this objection on the basis of Kai von Fintel and Anthony Gillies' notion of proposition clouds. I argue that, because we live in a multicultural society, the conversational contexts we face will fail to disambiguate between all the things we could mean. This is why we can at best put into play proposition clouds when we make moral utterances. All the propositions in such clouds are then available for rejection and acceptance on the behalf of our audiences. The norms of conversation then guide us to make informative contributions to the conversation - accept and reject propositions in a way that leads to co-ordination of action and choice. (shrink)

According to a prominent account of epistemic possibility endorsed by John Hawthorne and Jason Stanley (“H-S Account”), a proposition q is epistemically possible for a subject just in case what the subject knows doesn’t obviously entail not-q. I argue that H-S Account is false by its own lights by first showing that H-S Account entails a different account of epistemic possibility—q is epistemically possible for a subject just in case not-q is not obvious to that subject (“Obvious Account”)—and then (...) showing that H-S Account is false on the basis of Obvious Account. Obvious Account is good news for fallibilists. H-S Account is in tension with fallibilism, which requires that fallibilist adherents of H-S Account do extra work to relieve the tension. Obvious Account, however, does not require any of this work; it is straightforwardly compatible with fallibilism. Obvious Account also has implications for the truth of concessive knowledge attributions (CKAs)—statements of the form: ‘I know p, but possibly q’, where q obviously entails not-p. Obvious Account allows some CKAs to be true, whereas H-S Account does not. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to explore, in a temporal perspective, Wittgenstein’s concept of proposition, developed at the end of 1929 and beginning of 1930. To comprehend this concept it is crucial to understand the way he articulates hypotheses and genuine propositions. Through this distinction Wittgenstein seeks to safeguard, in that period, the pictorial concept of proposition and, more importantly, the complete determination of sense. The way Wittgenstein articulates hypothesis and genuine proposition has some important temporal (...) aspects. The temporal perspective will be central for the understanding of the requirement of the instantaneity of verification and to how Wittgenstein will regard the transtemporality of sense. The final part of this paper will be dedicated to some ideas present in section 102 of the BT (MS 111), where Wittgenstein locates a false analogy that, according to the temporal interpretation here proposed, would lead to the abandonment of the idea of genuine propositions. (shrink)

Peter H. Hare (1935-2008) developed informed, original views about the proposition: some published (Hare 1969 and Hare-Madden 1975); some expressed in conversations at scores of meetings of the Buffalo Logic Colloquium and at dinners following. The published views were expository and critical responses to publications by Curt J. Ducasse (1881-1969), a well-known presence in American logic, a founder of the Association for Symbolic Logic and its President for one term.1Hare was already prominent in the University of Buffalo's Philosophy Department (...) in 1969 when I was appointed. Soon after, he became Chair. As his Associate Chair from 1971to 1975, I spent many hours with him in Buffalo and on professional trips.. (shrink)

Richard Gaskin presents a work in the philosophy of language.

Resume Mandelbrojt entend ici promouvoir la création d’un enseignement qui corresponde à l’état des mathématiques du XXe siècle dont il indique la genèse. Il accompagne cet objet d’une attention particulière aux avancées les plus abstraites du calcul des probabilités. La proposition comporte une leçon de philosophie des hautes mathématiques de son temps adressée à un auditoire attentif mais peu spécialisé. Il en résulte une pièce exceptionnelle d’épistémologie des mathématiques.

After preparing the way with comments on evanescent quantities and then Newton’s interpretation of his second law, this study of Proposition II (Book I)— Proposition II Every body that moves in some curved line described in a plane and, by a radius drawn to a point, either unmoving or moving uniformly forward with a rectilinear motion, describes areas around that point proportional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force tending toward that same point. —asks and answers (...) the following questions: When does a version of Proposition II first appear in Newton’s work? What revisions bring that initial version to the final form in the 1726 Principia? What, exactly, does this proposition assert? In particular, what does Newton mean by the motion of a body “urged by a centripetal force”? Does it assert a true mathematical claim? If not, what revision makes it true? Does the demonstration of Proposition II persuade? Is it as convincing, for example, as the most convincing arguments of the Principia? If not, what revisions would make the demonstration more persuasive? What is the importance of Proposition II, to the physics of Book III and the mathematics of Book I? (shrink)

The word pro-tasis is etymologically a near equivalent of pre-mise, pro-position, and ante-cedent—all having positional, relational connotations now totally absent in contemporary use of proposition. Taking protasis for premise, Aristotle’s statement (24a16) A protasis is a sentence affirming or denying something of something…. is not a definition of premise—intensionally: the relational feature is absent. Likewise, it is not a general definition of proposition—extensionally: it is too narrow. This paper explores recent literature on these issues.

Part of rethinking philosophy today, the author believes, is to rethink our logical concepts. The author questions the ontological existence of the proposition as the content of sentential utterances—written or spoken—as it was originally proposed by John Searle. While a performative is an utterance where the speaker not only utters a sentential or illocutionary content such as a statement, but also performs the illocutionary force such as the act of stating, the author reasserts John Austin’s constative as the general (...) label (genus) of specific utterances (species) that can be rendered true or false such as a statement, assertion, description, and prediction. In the remainder of the paper, the author tries to show that it is a category mistake for someone to assert a statement or to state an assertion. (shrink)

Contextualism about many expressions faces a common objection: in some discourses it appears that there is no single interpretation which can explain how a speaker is justified in making her assertion and how a hearer with different information or standards is justified in negatively evaluating what the speaker said. According to the Multiple Proposition Strategy , contextualists may attempt to explain these competing features pragmatically in terms of different propositions in play. In this paper I argue against the Multiple (...) Proposition Strategy, first focusing on epistemic modals and then generalising the results to other expressions. I show how when purportedly contextualist terms are embedded in belief reports, we get similar problems but that the Multiple Proposition Strategy does not provide a satisfactory explanation of such cases. I suggest, therefore, that we reject the Multiple Proposition Strategy in favour of a theory that explains the unembedded and embedded cases in similar ways. (shrink)

Proposition 28 from Proclus'Elements of Theologyis consistently cited as saying that every producing causefirstbrings about effects that are like it andtheneffects that are unlike it. This is a theorem to which Proclus is indeed committed, but I argue that it is not what Proclus is claiming here. At this stage of his general argument, he merely argues that every cause produces things that are like it, without saying anything about other products than the immediate ones. The standard interpretation of (...) proposition 28 is therefore wrong. This becomes clear if one pays close attention to the argumentative structure of theElements of Theologyand to the proof given for proposition 28. (shrink)

An account of the distinction between singular and general propositions should reflect the core ideas that have motivated the distinction. Those core ideas can be appreciated independently of many commitments regarding the metaphysics of propositions, but theorists with differing views on the latter have given quite different explanations of what it is for a proposition to be singular or general. Many of those explanations turn out not to reflect the core ideas adequately after all, either by misclassifying certain propositions (...) or by failing to be sufficiently informative. A more satisfactory account can be formulated by more directly elaborating on the background ideas motivating the distinction. The resulting account not only does better than its competitors, but is compatible with various views on the metaphysics of propositions. (shrink)

The paper contains a critical analysis of pluripropositionalism (or: multiple proposition approach), the view defended in recent years by authors such as Eros Corazza, Kepa Korta and John Perry.

Charles Sanders Peirce proposed two different solutions to the Liar Paradox. He proposed the first in 1865 and the second in 1869. However, no one has yet noted in the literature that Peirce rejected his 1869 solution in 1903. Peirce never explicitly proposed a third solution to the Liar Paradox. Nonetheless, I shall argue he developed the resources for a third and novel solution to the Liar Paradox.In what follows, I will first explain the Liar Paradox. Second, I will briefly (...) rehearse Peirce's 1865 solution and his reasons for rejecting it.1 Third, I will review his 1869 solution and his reasons for rejecting it in 1903. Lastly, I will propose a novel solution to the Liar Paradox by drawing upon Peirce's later.. (shrink)

The concept of a proposition is important in several areas of philosophy and central to the philosophy of language. This collection of readings investigates many different philosophical issues concerning the nature of propositions and the ways they have been regarded through the years. Reflecting both the history of the topic and the range of contemporary views, the book includes articles from Bertrand Russell, Gottlob Frege, the Russell-Frege Correspondence, Alonzo Church, David Kaplan, John Perry, Saul Kripke, Hilary Putnam, Mark Richard, (...) Scott Soames, and Nathan Salmon. (shrink)

Trenton Merricks presents an original argument for the existence of propositions, and defends an account of their nature. He draws a variety of controversial conclusions, for instance about supervaluationism, the nature of possible worlds, truths about non-existent entities, and whether and how logical consequence depends on modal facts.

Teachers strive to help students grasp significant propositions beyond merely knowing their content. The phenomenal theory holds that grasping a proposition requires corresponding phenomenal experiences, such as visualizing or perceiving its referents. We argue against this theory and propose an alternative: One grasps that p if and only if one mentally processes p in a way that enables relevant counterfactual reasoning about it. This account not only explains intuitive cases of grasping without phenomenal experiences but also clarifies the precise (...) epistemic role of such experiences. Finally, we demonstrate the practical value of our account by showing how it can be applied to assess students’ grasp of philosophical propositions. (shrink)

Propositions play a central role in contemporary semantics. On the Russellian account, propositions are structured entities containing particulars, properties and relations. This contrasts sharply with the sets-of-possible-worlds view of propositions. I’ll discuss how to extend the sets-of-worlds view to accommodate fine-grained hyperintensional contents. When this is done in a satisfactory way, I’ll argue, it makes heavy use of entities very much like Russellian tuples. The two notions of proposition become inter-definable and inter-substitutable: they are not genuinely distinct accounts of (...) how propositions represent what they represent. Semantic theorists may move freely between the two conceptions of what propositions are. Nevertheless, the two approaches give different accounts of the metaphysical nature of propositions. I argue that the sets-of-worlds view provides an adequate account of the nature of propositions, whereas the Russellian view cannot. (shrink)

The first proposition of the Principia records two fundamental properties of an orbital motion: the Fixed Plane Property (that the orbit lies in a fixed plane) and the Area Property (that the radius sweeps out equal areas in equal times). Taking at the start the traditional view, that by an orbital motion Newton means a centripetal motion – this is a motion ``continually deflected from the tangent toward a fixed center'' – we describe two serious flaws in the Principia's (...) argument for Proposition 1, an argument based on a polygonal impulse approximation. First, the persuasiveness of the argument depends crucially on the validity of the Impulse Assumption: that every centripetal motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Yet Newton tacitly takes the Impulse Assumption for granted. The resulting gap in the argument for Proposition 1 is serious, for only a nontrivial analysis, involving the careful estimation of accumulating local errors, verifies the Impulse Assumption. Second, Newton's polygonal approximation scheme has an inherent and ultimately fatal disability: it does not establish nor can it be adapted to establish the Fixed Plane Property. Taking then a different view of what Newton means by an orbital motion – namely that an orbital motion is by definition a limit of polygonal impulse motions – we show in this case that polygonal approximation can be used to establish both the fixed plane and area properties without too much trouble, but that Newton's own argument still has flaws. Moreover, a crucial question, haunted by error accumulation and planarity problems, now arises: How plentiful are these differently defined orbital motions? Returning to the traditional view, that Newton's orbital motions are by definition centripetal motions, we go on to give three proofs of the Area Property which Newton ``could have given'' – two using polygonal approximation and a third using curvature – as well as a proof of the Fixed Plane Property which he ``almost could have given.''. (shrink)

Propositions are often aligned with truth-conditions. The view is mistaken, since propositions discriminate where truth conditions do not. Propositions are hyperintensional: they are sensitive to necessarily equivalent differences. I investigate an alternative view on which propositions are truthmaker conditions, understood as sets of possible truthmakers. This requires making metaphysical sense of merely possible states of affairs. The theory that emerges illuminates the semantic phenomena of samesaying, subject matter, and aboutness.

In 1910 Bertrand Russell abandoned the theory of propositions that he advocated in 1903 in The Principles of Mathematics because of the problem of the unity of the proposition. This is the problem of explaining how the constituents of a proposition are bound together into a unified, representational whole. This problem has largely been ignored by contemporary advocates of Russellian propositions. I argue that this problem is the result of the Fregean distinction between content and force, the arguments (...) for the content-force distinction are inconclusive and there is independent linguistic evidence against the content-force distinction. For these reasons I think that Frege's distinction between content and force should be abandoned; this is the main negative conclusion of the dissertation. ;The main positive component of the dissertation is an account of structured propositions that individuates propositions in terms of force or mood. On the account I defend, propositions are types of representational actions or states. The proposition expressed by 'Jones loves Smith', for example, is a type of representational state, tokens of which are particular assertions that Jones loves Smith or belief-states that Jones loves Smith. The proposition expressed by 'Does Jones love Smith?', on the other hand, is a type of interrogative action or state, tokens of which are instances of asking whether Jones loves Smith or wondering whether Jones loves Smith. This account solves the problem of the unity of proposition by locating the unifying element in a proposition in an act of the subject. In addition, this account provides an empirical foundation for semantics. A semantic theory, on this view, is a theory of what speakers do with sentences in contexts. To say that a sentence S expresses a proposition p in context c is to record a fact about the literal and direct illocutionary act that could be performed using S in c. (shrink)

_From Naming to Saying _explores the classicquestion of the unity of the proposition, combining an historical approach with contemporary causal theories to offer a unique and novel solution. Presents compelling and sophisticated answers to questions about how language represents the world. Defends a novel approach to the classical question about the unity of the proposition. Examines three key historical theories: Frege’s doctrine of concept and object, Russell’s analysis of the sentence, and Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning. Combines an (...) historical approach with discussion and defense of a contemporary causal theory of the unity of the proposition. Establishes a view compatible with, though not dependent on, a causal theory of meaning. (shrink)

Much of the attention of ethics scholars has focused on balancing self interest with the interests of others, equating self-interest with profit, or at least its acquisition, and presenting a dilemma to both companies and the stakeholder groups that socially responsible business practices might serve. We are in significant agreement with Porter and Kramer’s silver bullet to correct decision making based solely on increasing profit: the creation of “shared value.” However, we suggest three significant points of deviation from this thesis, (...) resulting from our discomfort with features of the mental model(s) that Porter and Kramer use to structure their argument. (shrink)

Propositional quantifiers are quantifiers binding proposition letters, understood as variables. This Element introduces propositional quantifiers and explains why they are especially interesting in the context of propositional modal logics. It surveys the main results on propositionally quantified modal logics which have been obtained in the literature, presents a number of open questions, and provides examples of applications of such logics to philosophical problems.

Propositions are the things we believe, intend, desire, and so on, but discussions are often less precise than they could be and an important driver of this deficiency has been a focus on the objects but a neglect of the attitudinal relations we bear to them. In what follows, we will offer some thoughts on what it means for a proposition to be the object of an attitude and we will argue that an important part of the story lies (...) with the attitude relations rather than the propositions. As we will see there are infinitely many relations we might bear to a proposition, but the propositional attitude relations are special amongst them. Accounting for what makes them special will be an important component in the discussion that follows. We will argue that once one appreciates certain facts about propositional attitude relations, various claims that metaphysicians often make regarding propositions themselves begin to look undermotivated. In fact, many views on the metaphysical nature of propositions come to look like plausible candidates for being that to which our propositional attitudes relate us. As will emerge, we will see that the principle role of propositions in the theory of mind is simply to keep track of how our attitudinal states represent things as being. But, we argue, in order to do this work, very few constraints must be placed on the nature of propositions themselves. In particular, contra much of the recent work on the metaphysics of propositions, they need not represent nor must they be structured. In light of these observations, we conclude by sketching our own favored minimalist view of propositions. (shrink)

A criminal offense requires two elements. First, it requires proof of misconduct that is specifically prohibited by law. Second, it requires proof of sufficient intention or recklessness to warrant assignment of moral culpability for the act. For example, a person who kills another person intentionally is typically guilty of murder, while a person who kills recklessly or in the heat of passion in response to provocation may be guilty of manslaughter, and a person who kills accidentally is not guilty of (...) any crime. Even if the elements of the offense have been proven by the prosecution, the actor may not be punishable if the defense proves that his conduct was either justified or excused. (shrink)

Cet article propose une méthode pour mener une enquête de terrain en philosophie en s’inspirant des contributions de Martha Nussbaum. Il s’appuie sur une recherche en cours pour montrer comment conceptualiser un sujet de recherche avec les émotions. Cette méthode s’inspire aussi des outils méthodologiques utilisés dans les travaux des sciences humaines et sociales. Enfin, l’article présente un questionnement sur les raisons de faire du terrain en philosophie.

A proposition is associated in classical mechanics with a subset of phase space, in quantum logic with a projection in Hilbert space, and in both cases with a 2-valued observable or test. A theoretical statement typically assigns a probability to such a pure test. However, since a pure test is an idealization not realizable experimentally, it is necessary — to give such a statement a practical meaning — to describe how it can be approximated by feasible tests. This gives (...) rise to a search for a formal representation of feasible tests, which leads via mixed tests (weighted means of pure tests) to vague tests (convex sets of mixed tests). A model is described in which the latter form a continuous lattice; the pure and mixed tests are the maximal elements and the feasible tests form a basis. Each type of test has its own logic; this is illustrated by the passage from mixed tests to pure tests, which corresponds to the transition from L to classical logic. (shrink)

Propositional contingentism is the view that what propositions there are is a contingent matter—certain propositions ontologically depend on objects which themselves only contingently exist. Possible worlds are, loosely, complete ways the world could have been. That is to say, the ways in which everything in its totality could have been. Propositional contingentists make use of possible worlds frequently. However, a neglected, but important, question concerns whether there are any notions of worlds which are both theoretically adequate and consistent with propositional (...) contingentism. Some notion of a possible world is adequate if the systematic connection between, at least, possibility and truth at some possible world holds. Here, I argue that no adequate notion of a possible world is available to at least those who subscribe to one natural formulation of propositional contingentism. I also show that this result contrasts with a simple and adequate definition of a possible world available to the necessitist—those who hold that necessarily everything necessarily exists. (shrink)

This book explores how our minds represent things in the world, asking whether these representations necessarily have the structure of propositions about the world. The hope is that this will lead towards a more complete understanding of the puzzle of intentionality -- how it is that our minds make contact with the world.

This book makes a stimulating contribution to the philosophy of language and philosophy of mind. It begins with a spirited defence of the view that propositions are structured and that propositional structure is 'psychologically real'. The author then develops a subtle view of propositions and attitude ascription. The view is worked out in detail with attention to such topics as the semantics of conversations, iterated attitude ascriptions, and the role of propositions as bearers of truth. Along the way important issues (...) in the philosophy of mind are addressed. Though intended primarily for professional philosophers and graduate students the book will also interest cognitive scientists and linguists. (shrink)

According to propositional contingentism, it is contingent what propositions there are. This paper presents two ways of modeling contingency in what propositions there are using two classes of possible worlds models. The two classes of models are shown to be equivalent as models of contingency in what propositions there are, although they differ as to which other aspects of reality they represent. These constructions are based on recent work by Robert Stalnaker; the aim of this paper is to explain, expand, (...) and, in one aspect, correct Stalnaker's discussion. (shrink)

Reprinted in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, Wadsworth 2015, 6th edition, eds Michael Rea and Louis Pojman. What is propositional faith? At a first approximation, we might answer that it is the psychological attitude picked out by standard uses of the English locution “S has faith that p,” where p takes declarative sentences as instances, as in “He has faith that they’ll win”. Although correct, this answer is not nearly as informative as we might like. Many people say that there (...) is a more informative answer. They say that, at the very least, propositional faith requires propositional belief. More precisely, they say that faith that p requires belief that p or that it must be partly constituted by belief that p. This view is common enough; call it the Common View. I have two main aims in this paper: (i) to exhibit the falsity of the Common View and the paucity of reasons for it, and (ii) to sketch a more accurate and comprehensive account of what propositional faith is. (shrink)

Wang Yangming's ``this flower'' proposition from the Chuanxi lu(傳習錄) --- ``Before you look at these flowers, they and your mind are both in a state of silent vacancy; as you come to look at them, their colors at once show up clearly. From this you know that these flowers are not outside your mind'' --- has long been subject to two opposing misreadings: either assimilated to Berkeleyan subjective idealism, or treated as a mystical intuition beyond the reach of philosophical (...) analysis. This paper argues that both misreadings stem from a common error: interpreting the proposition as an ontological claim about the existence of flowers, thereby obscuring its genuine epistemological core, namely that the manifestation of perceptual objects depends on the mind's active generative activity rather than on a unidirectional projection from the external world onto the mind. Drawing on predictive coding theory, this paper argues for a systematic structural analogy between Wang Yangming's proposition and the predictive coding framework at the level of perceptual mechanism: the mind corresponds to the generative model; ``silent vacancy'' corresponds to the non-activation of the flower-specific prediction loop; sensory contact corresponds to the triggering of prediction error; and ``colors showing up clearly'' corresponds to the stabilization of perceptual representation upon prediction error minimization. The paper also explicitly examines the genuine differences between the two frameworks --- in particular, the fundamental divergence between the innate normativity of liangzhi and the fallible, learnable generative model --- and precisely delimits the scope of the proposed analogy. The central thesis is that Wang Yangming's ``this flower'' proposition describes a perceptual generative mechanism that is coherent and precise within the framework of contemporary cognitive science---a reading that displaces both the idealist and the mystical misreadings and recovers the proposition as a genuine contribution to the epistemology of perception, while pointing toward a structural convergence between two traditions whose ultimate significance remains an open philosophical question. (shrink)

Le chef-d’oeuvre de Tillich, Le courage d’être, propose une théologie de l’affirmation de soi en Dieu en remettant en question les symboles traditionnels du théisme. Mais la foi qu’il propose, qualifiée d’« absolue », est dépourvue de symboles concrets pour ce courage d’être. Or, dans un autre texte, Tillich souligne l’inconvénient de la théologie critique qui démythologise les symboles chrétiens et il met en avant l’intérêt de la psychologie analytique (Jung) pour la théologie. Nous montrons dans cet article qu’une reprise (...) différenciée de l’archétype du Soi jungien permet de le rapprocher du « Dieu au-delà de Dieu » de la foi absolue. Sur cette base nous proposons un prolongement concret de cette foi avec l’interprétation jungienne des symboles présents dans nos rêves. (shrink)

메를로-퐁티의 철학은 그의 철학적 기술들(descriptions)에서 발견되는 미학적 관점, 언어적 관점, 정치적 관점 등의 세부 논의를 제외하면 크게 신체의 현상학적 관점과 살의 존재론적 관점으로 구분할 수 있다. 그런데 그것이 무엇이건 특정한 철학이 취하는 인식론적, 존재론적 틀 속에는 그러한 틀에 부합하는 윤리적 해석이 또한 내재할 수밖에 없으며, 이는 메를로-퐁티의 철학도 마찬가지이다. 따라서 비록 그가 윤리학을 구체적으로 이야기하고 있지 않다고 하더라도 메를로-퐁티의 철학을 윤리학적 관점으로 해석하고, 그의 철학을 윤리학의 범위로 확장하고자 하는 노력들이 그의 철학이 갖는 현상학적 특징과 존재론적 특징에 의해 폄하될 필요는 없을 (...) 것이다.BR 본 텍스트는 아직은 메를로-퐁티 철학에 대한 주요 논의로 인정되고 있지 않은 지각과 살 철학에 대한 윤리학적 해석 가능성을 넓히기 위해 다음과 같은 문제의식으로부터 출발한다. 그 문제의식이란 메를로-퐁티 철학에 대한 동시대의 윤리학적 해석 방향은 그 본래의 취지와는 달리 그의 철학을 일방향적으로 해석하는 흐름을 띤다는 것이며 이는 첫째, 상호신체성에 치중한 신체 윤리학의 구도 잡기와 둘째, 존재의 원소로 해석되는 살에 대한 이해에 공통적으로 자리한 하나의 역설, 즉 가역적 과정에 요구되는 상관항들의 필요를 배제한 체 살 일원론적 상황만을 강조할 수밖에 없는 신체-살에 대한 일반적 해석에 기인하는 것으로 보인다.BR 본 논문은 이러한 문제점을 구체화하고, 메를로-퐁티 윤리학이란 그의 존재론에 담긴 가역성을 그 원리로 가질 때 닫힌 체계가 아닌 열린 해석의 체계로 이루어져야 하며 이를 위해서는 신체와 살 각각의 개념에 상이한 해석의 가능성이 담겨야 한다는 점을 주장한다. (shrink)

This paper argues that attitudinal objects, entities of the sort of John's judgment, John's thought, and John's claim, should play the role of propositions, as the cognitive products of cognitive acts, not the acts themselves.