According to what is known as Stalnaker’s hypothesis, the probability of a conditional statement is equal to the conditional probability of the statement’s consequent given the statement’s antecedent. Starting with David Lewis, many have attempted to show that this hypothesis cannot be true for non-trivial probability functions. These attempts, which are known as the triviality results, cannot refute the hypothesis conclusively, because the triviality results usually rest on controversial assumptions such as the closure of conditionalization. In addition to the triviality results, there is one often cited argument against Stalnaker’s hypothesis that does not seem to rest on a controversial assumption. The argument is Alan Hájek’s 1989 reductio argument, which purportedly shows that Stalnaker’s hypothesis leads to outright contradiction. In this paper, I critically evaluate Hajek’s reductio argument and show that it is not a valid argument. His argument is simply an instance of the petitio principii fallacy. On the positive side, I argue that my critical evaluation of Hajek’s argument brings us one step closer to the reconciliation of the analytical and empirical examinations of Stalnaker’s hypothesis.Literatürde Stalnaker hipotezi olarak bilinen iddiaya göre, bir şartlı önermenin olasılığı, o önermenin art bileşenin ön bileşeninine şartlı olasılığına eşittir. David Lewis’in 1976 tarihli makalesinden beri birçok felsefeci bu iddianın sadece basit ve sıradan (trivial) olasılık fonksiyonları için geçerli olduğu, diğer daha işlevli (non-trivial) olasılık fonksiyonlarına uygulanamayacağını göstermeye çalışmışlar ve bu hedef doğrultusunda birçok ispat sunmuşlardır. Ancak sıradanlık sonuçları (triviality results) olarak bilinen bu tür ispatların Stalnaker hipotezini tam olarak reddetmeye yeterli olmadığı anlaşılmıştır. Çünkü bu ispatların büyük bir çoğunluğu koşullamanın kapalılığı (closure of conditionalization) gibi tartışmalı olan varsayımlara dayanmaktadır. Literatürde tartışmalı herhangi bir varsayıma dayalı olmadığı iddia edilen ve sıklıkla gönderme yapılan bir başka argüman daha mevcuttur. Alan Hájek’in 1989 tarihli makalesinde olmayana ergi metodu ile geliştirdiği bu argüman, herhangi tartışmalı bir varsayıma dayanmadan, Stalnaker hipotezinin doğrudan çelişkiye neden olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu makalede Hájek’in argümanının geçerliliği detaylı olarak incelenmekte ve sonuçta söz konusu argümanın petitio principii çıkarsama hatasını barındırdığı ve bu sebeple de geçerli olmadığı tespit edilmektedir. Pozitif katkı olarak ise bu varılan tespitin Stalnaker hipotezinin analitik ve ampirik değerlendirmeleri arasında var olan uyuşmazlığın giderilmesinde bir adım daha ileri gitmemizi sağladığı iddia edilmektidir.

Various approaches have been made for understanding the nature of science and scientific knowledge. The social factors that played some role during the choice of scientific theories (like the theory of evolution) in the nineteenth century popularised the opinion that the scientific knowledge is the subject of a sociological research. During the ongoing discussions, one of the explanation or the justification models that was proposed is known as “the Strong Programme.” The main claim of “the Strong Programme” is that the social factors have a determining role for the choice of scientific theories, rather than the rational and universal criteria one may expect. Hence, those who were behind this view rejected all of the rational analyses made for the sciences and the scientific methods. In this paper, we try to investigate the validity of the claims of “the Strong Programme,” and to clarify whether it is possible to understand the real nature of science without any rational approach. It is argued that it would be insufficient to determine the content of the science merely by the social factors, the natural facts might be meaningful by themselves as well.Bilimin ve bilimsel bilginin doğasını açıklamak için farklı pek çok yaklaşım geliştirilmiştir. Özellikle ondokuzuncu yüzyıldaki bazı bilimsel kuramların (evrim kuramı gibi) tercihinde toplumsal etmenlerin rolünün gözlemlenmesi, bilimsel bilginin toplumbilimsel bir araştırma konusu olduğu kanısını yaygınlaştırmıştır. Bu süreçte ortaya konan açıklama ve gerekçelendirme modellerinden biri de “Strong Programme” (Güçlü Program) olarak anılandır. “Strong Programme” ın temel savı, bilimsel kuramların tercihinde sanıldığı gibi ussal ve evrensel ölçütlerin değil, toplumsal etmenlerin belirleyici olduğu yönündeydi. Dolayısıyla bu görüşü savunanlar, bilim ve bilimsel yöntem için ortaya konan tüm ussalcı çözümlemeleri reddettiler. Bu çalışmada, “Strong Programme”ın ileri sürdüğü savların haklılığı ve sanıldığı gibi usçu bir yaklaşım olmaksızın bilimin gerçek doğasını anlamanın olanaklı olup olmadığı soruşturulmaktadır. Bilimin içeriğinin bütünüyle ve sadece toplumsal etmenlerce belirlenemeyeceği, doğa olaylarının da kendi başlarına anlamlı olabileceği ileri sürülmektedir.

As an oversimplification of economic reductionism, the base/superstructure metaphor is over identified with Marxist theory of the state, and the state has been considered to be corresponding to the latter. This over identification was seen inconvenient by some Marxist theoreticians who have been looking forward to analyse the state through a non-reductionist perspective. In this article, those attempts are compared and contrasted by dividing them into two categories and by using open Marxism as the banner of a distinctive group among non-reductionists. The main theme of this article is to clarify major theses of non-reductionists and to address to the apparent tensions within themselves. Despite their points of differentiations, they share a commonality in their hostility towards ‘traditional historical materialism’ and even towards structural Marxism. The positions mentioned in this article may not be considered as a coherent and consistent non-reductionist theory of the state due to their variations within themselves; however, at least they are successful as contemporary ‘attempts’ of non-reductionist Marxist theory of the state that would pave ground to a more consistent theory. In this article, they are considered to be stimulating as they ground their unease with reductionism on appealing issues.Ekonomik indirgemeciliğin bir yalınlaştırması olan altyapı/üstyapı metaforu Marksist devlet kuramıyla aşırı özdeşleştirilmektedir ve bu bağlamda devletin üstyapıya denk düştüğü düşünülmektedir. Bu aşırı özdeşleştirme, devleti indirgemeci olmayan bir bakış açısıyla çözümlemeye çaba gösteren bazı Marksist kuramcılar tarafından uygunsuz bulunmuştur. Bu makalede, bu çabalar sınıflara ayrılarak karşılaştırılmıştır ve açık Marksizm, indirgemeci olmayan yaklaşımlar içinde farklı bir grubun etiketi olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu makalenin ana teması, indirgemeci olmayan yaklaşımların temel tezlerini ortaya koymak ve bunlar arasındaki görünür gerilimlere dikkat çekmektir. Farklılaştıkları noktalar olmasına karşın ‘geleneksel tarihsel maddecilik’ ve yapısalcı Marksizme karşı tutumları ortaktır. Bu makalede ele alınan yaklaşımlar kendi aralarındaki çeşitliliklerden ötürü açık ve tutarlı bir indirgemeci olmayan devlet kuramı olarak değerlendirilmeyebilir; ancak, bunlar en azından daha tutarlı bir indirgemeci olmayan çağdaş Marksist devlet kuramına doğru evrilecek başarılı ‘çabalar’dır. Bu makalede, bu çabalar sorunları ele almada indirgemeciliğe karşı tedirginliklerini temellendirdikleri ölçüde ufuk açıcı görülmektedir.

According to Thagard, the behavior of practitioners of a field may also be used for demarcation between science and pseudoscience due to its social dimension in addition to the epistemic one. I defended the tendency of pseudoscientists to commit fallacies, and the number of fallacies they commit can be a secondary tool for demarcation problem and this tool is consistent with Thagardian approach. In this paper, I selected the astrology as the case and I revealed nine types of logical fallacies frequently committed by astrologers while introducing their field and/or defending their claims against the scientific inquiries and refutation efforts. I also argued that recognizing these fallacies may help the audience to demarcate between the scientific and the pseudoscientific arguments.Thagard’a göre sözdebilimlerin epistemolojik boyutunun yanı sıra sosyal boyutu da bulunmaktadır ve bilim ve sözdebilim ayrım probleminde bir alanın uygulayıcılarının davranışları da bir araç olarak kullanılabilir. Bu makalede sözdebilimcilerin mantıksal safsata kullanmaya olan eğilimleri ve safsataya başvurma sıklıklarının bilim-sözdebilim ayrımında kullanılabilecek ikincil bir araç olduğu savunulmaktadır. Örnek olarak astroloji sözdebilimi seçilmiş ve astrologların alanlarını tanıtırken ya da savunurken sıklıkla başvurdukları dokuz mantıksal safsataya yer verilmiştir. Ayrıca bu safsataları tanımanın bilimsel ve sözdebilimsel argümanları ayırt edebilmede yardımcı olacağı ileri sürülmüştür.

According to the standard interpretation, counterfactuals fail to satisfy the following inference rules: contraposition, strengthening the antecedent and hypothetical syllogism. Contrary to the standard interpretation, Brogaard and Salerno (2008) argue that counterfactuals do satisfy these inference rules when context features are kept fixed in evaluating arguments with counterfactuals. For them, the main reason behind claiming that counterfactuals fail to satisfy these inference rules is the illicit shift in context when evaluating the arguments in question. If true, Brogaard and Salerno’s claim would have a devastating effect on the counterfactuals literature because almost the entire literature is based on the assumption that counterfactuals do not satisfy those inference rules. Given its importance, Brogaard and Salerno’s claim is examined in this paper. They are right in claiming that contextual features must be kept fixed throughout the evaluation of an argument, but the rest of their claim rests on a faulty reasoning. In the paper, I show that counterfactuals do fail to satisfy contraposition, strengthening the antecedent and hypothetical syllogism even when contextual features are kept fixed throughout the evaluation of an argument in the way Brogaard and Salerno require.Karşıolgusal önermelerin Lewis tarafından geliştirilen standart yorumuna göre, normal şartlı önermeler kullanıldığında geçerli olan bazı çıkarsama kuralları karşıolgusal önermeler kullanıldığında geçersiz olmaktadır. Bu çıkarsama kurallarından öne çıkanlar şunlardır: tersevirme, önbileşen güçlendirme ve varsayımsal kıyas. Brogaard ve Salerno (2008), literatürde genel kabul gören standart yorumun aksine, bu bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarının karşıolgusal önermeler kullanıldığında dahi geçerli olduğunu iddia etmektedirler. Brogaard ve Salerno’ya göre bu çıkarsama kurallarının kullanıldığı argümanları değerlendirirken eğer bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulur ise bu durum açıkça görülecektir. Yani Brogaard ve Salerno'ya göre bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarının karşıolgusal önermeler için geçerli olmadığının düşünülmesi, argümanların değerlendirilmesinde bağlam özelliklerinin farkında olmadan değiştirilmesinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun bu iddiası, eğer doğru ise, çok önemlidir. Çünkü karşıolgusal önermeler üzerine olan literatürün tümü standard yoruma ve onun doğurduğu sonuçların kabulüne dayanmaktadır. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun iddiası doğru ise bu literatürün tümü anlamsızlaşacaktır. Bu makalede Brogaard ve Salerno’nun iddiası detaylı olarak incelenmektedir. Brogaard ve Salerno’nun belirttiği gibi argümanlar değerlendirilirken bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulmalıdır. Ancak bağlama dair özellikler sabit tutulduğunda dahi karşıolgusal önermeler bahsi geçen çıkarsama kurallarını geçersiz kılmaktadır. Yani, Brogaard ve Salerno’nun ana iddiası yanlıştır. Bu makalede bu yanlışlık gösterilmektedir.

The standard inferential scheme of traditional assertoric syllogistic, based on the initial chapters of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, employs single-premissed deductions, i.e., principles of immediate inference, in the reduction of imperfect valid moods to perfect moods. G. W. Leibniz (among others) has attempted to replace this scheme with his own version of syllogistic reduction (the core of which is, again, based on Aristotle’s observations on syllogistic transformation), in which the principles of immediate inference themselves are modelled as (and hence justified by means of) valid syllogisms. This paper examines the place of this modelling, i.e. syllogistic expansion, of immediate inferences in Leibniz’s scheme of syllogistic reduction (which he describes in his Nouveaux Essais and presents in one of his papers on syllogistic), and shows through this examination that the tenability of the whole scheme actually hinges on the interpretation to be given for the categorical propositional forms. Geleneksel asertorik tasım kuramının, Aristoteles’in Birinci Çözümlemeler’inin ilk bölümlerine dayanan standart çıkarım planı, eksik geçerli kipleri tam/mükemmel kiplere indirgemek için bazı tek öncüllü dedüktif çıkarımları, yani dolaysız çıkarım ilkelerini kullanır. G. W. Leibniz, bu planın yerine, özü itibariyle yine Aristoteles’in tasımsal dönüştürme hakkındaki gözlemlerine dayanan, kendi tasımsal indirgeme örneğini koymaya girişenlerden birisidir. Leibniz’in indirgeme planında, dolaysız çıkarım ilkelerinin kendileri, geçerli tasımlar olarak modellenir (ve dolayısıyla onlar yoluyla gerekçelendirilir). Bu çalışma, dolaysız çıkarımların bu modellemesinin, yani tasımsal genleştirmenin, Leibniz’in (Nouveaux Essais’de betimlediği ve tasım hakkındaki yazılarından birinde sunduğu) tasımsal indirgeme planındaki yerini incelemekte ve bu inceleme yoluyla bütün bir indirgeme planının savunulabilirliğinin, aslında, kategorik önerme biçimleri için verilecek yoruma bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir.

In this paper, I try to reveal the nature of the transition problem in Kant’s Opus Postumum. Scientific developments in eighteenth century, particularly the ones in chemistry, forces philosophers to re-evaluate the role of scientific findings in the philosophical debates. In addition to these crucial developments, we observe that the a prioricity for Kant primarily depends on the physical nature of the matter which implies moving forces, but the developments in chemistry add a new dimension to the problem. Once again, Kant, after the publication of the third Critique, starts to think about the possibility of a transition from The Metaphysical Foundation of Natural Science to physics. If we succeed to construct a proper transition, we not only save the sciences from being just aggregation of the empirical data, but we may fill the gap between the knowledge about the matter and the nature as a whole.

In this work I present some of Arendt’s criticisms of Marx and assess whether these criticisms are fair. I claim that Arendt reads Marx erroneously, which results in her failure to grasp certain similarities between Marx and herself, at least on some points. It is important to mention that Arendt’s interest in Marx is part of a wider project she pursues. She believes that Marx’s theory might allow us to establish a link between Bolshevism and the history of Western thought. Marx’s notion of history and progress enables Arendt to support her claim that Marx’s theory involves totalitarian elements. By way of correcting Arendt’s misreading of Marx, my purpose has been to get a better understanding of the theories of Marx and Arendt, as well as to see their incompatible views regarding the nature of human activity and of freedom. Arendt charges Marx of ignoring the most central human activity, that is ‘action’; and of denying human beings a genuine political existence and freedom. Furthermore, according to Arendt, Marx conceives labor as human being’s highest activity and ignores the significance of other two activities, namely work and action. In the last analysis, Marx and Arendt prioritizes distinct human activities as the most central (labor and action, respectively) to human beings; and as a result, they provide us two irreconcilable views of politics, history and freedom.

This study aims to reveal the meaning of sovereignty in the context of Georges Bataille’s critique of capitalist society. In order to determine how Bataille thinks about sovereignty, it firstly touches upon the conception of the capitalist society of the thinker. It draws attention to the nature of the practices here limited to capitalist production and profit/usefulness. This limit causes people to be alienated and enslaved. Then, in the face of the limited, that is, homogeneous structure of capitalist society, this study deals with the heterogeneous structure of existence in Bataille’s view. It points out that the heterogeneous structure of existence is the primary condition of sovereignty and emancipation. It then clarifies the relationship of sovereignty with renunciation by determining the content of sovereignty. From the viewpoint of Bataille, sovereignty becomes visible through non-productive activities and therefore it is in contrast with the homogeneous society that exists with only productive activities. Pure productive activities are the most important activities that enslave humans and cancel sovereignty. According to Bataille, sovereignty dies in the life where concern bows to the future and the production. The way of capturing sovereignty in capitalist society is hidden in actions that give up being productive. Thus sovereignty is defined by the notion of expenditure rather than accumulation. The expenditure means renouncing possession and accumulation. To leave behind the forms of existence which are demanded by the capitalist society is to relinquish them. Consequently, the expenditure and relinquishing appear as two overlapping activities in sovereignty.

This paper attempts to reveal the meaning of Heideggerian self on the basis of time. In the course of this, it examines Heidegger’s following terms: time, the self, the world and Being. In the present paper, the notions of anxiety, death, the call, freedom, transcendence, resolution and temporality (time) constitute a frame for articulating the meaning of the authenticity of Dasein. The road to the authentic self is challenging since it is not something already given; rather, the self is something to be accomplished. Dasein must accomplish it by making life its own. To achieve this, the elaboration of the meaning of “the Being of beings” in the exploration of Dasein must be the first step. For it is Dasein who can give an answer to the question of the meaning of “Being”.

Theatricality, as a methodological basis of Deleuze’s theory, insinuates a new thought of Being/beings by emancipating philosophy from its anthropological orientation. Despite the fact that the phenomenological methodologies attempted to link the transcendental with the empirical domain, the source of reflexivity was still the subject. Deleuze’s ontological repetition maintains the infinite reflection of the transcendental and the empirical domains into each other, yet it posits the symbolic order as the third order where the infinite reflexive expansion between concept and matter becomes immanently transcended. By taking this formulation as its point of departure, this article analyzes how Deleuze’s notion of theatricality operates as the self-reflexive and excessive origin of thought.

In the paper I analyse Anselm’s ontological arguments in favour of God’s existence. The analysis is an explication and formalization of Pavel Tichý’s study‘Existence and God’, Journal of Philosophy, 1979. It is based on Transparent Intensional Logic with its bi-dimensional ontology of entities organized in the ramified hierarchy of types. The analysis goes as follows. First, necessary notions and principles are introduced. They are: (a) existence is not a (non-trivial) property of individuals, but of individual offices to be occupied by an individual; (b) the notion of requisite is defined, which is a necessary relation between an office O and a property R: necessarily, if a happens to occupy O then a has the property R. (c) I demonstrate that an argument of the form “R is a requisite of O, hence the holder of O has the property R” is invalid. In order to be valid, it must be of the form “R is a requisite of O, the office O is occupied, hence the holder of O has the property R.” Finally, (d) higher-order offices that can be occupied by individual offices are defined. Their requisites are properties of individual offices. Then the analysis of Anselm’s arguments is presented. The expression ‘God’ denotes an individual office, a ‘thing to be’, rather than a particular individual. Thus the question whether God exists is a legitimate one. I analyze the expression ‘that, than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Since ‘greater than’ is a relation-in-intension between individual offices here, the expression denotes a second-order office, and its requisites are properties of first-order offices suchas necessary existence. The second of Anselm’s assumptions is that individual office that has the property of necessary existence is greater than any other office lacking this property. From these it follows that the first-order holder of the office denoted by ‘that, than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (that is God) enjoys the property of necessary existence. Thus God exists necessarily, hence also actually. Anselm’s argument is logically valid. If it were also sound, then an atheist would differ from a believer only by the former not believing whereas the latter believing in a tautology, which is absurd. Yet we may doubt the validity of Anselm’s assumption that a necessary existence makes an office greater than any other office lacking this property.

Part I in this two-part series employed a perspectival interpretation to argue that Kant’s epistemology serves as the philosophical grounding for modern revolutions in science. Although Einstein read Kant at an early age and immersed himself in Kant’s philosophy throughout his early adulthood, he was reluctant to admit Kant’s influence, possibly due to personal factors relating to his cultural-political situation. This sequel argues that Einstein’s early Kant-studies would have brought to his attention the problem of simultaneity and the method of solving it that eventually led to the theory of relativity. Despite Einstein’s reluctance to acknowledge his Kantian grounding, a perspectival understanding of Kant’s philosophy of science shows it is profoundly consistent with Einstein’s views on both synthetic apriority and the nature of scientific theory. Moreover, Kant and Einstein share quasi-mystical religious tendencies, relying on an unknowable absolute as the ultimate boundary of our scientific understanding of nature.

In this paper several assumptions concerning omniscience and future contingents on the one side, and omniscience and self-reference on the other, areexamined with respect to a classical and a three-valued semantic setting (the latter pertains especially to Łukasiewicz’s, Kleene’s and Blau’s three-valued logics).Interesting features of both settings are highlighted and their basic assumptions concerning omniscience are explored. To generate a context in which the notion of omniscience does not deviate from some basic intuitions, two special futurity operators are introduced in this article: one for what will definitely take place and another one for what is indeterminate as to whether it will take place. Once these operators are introduced, some puzzles about omniscience in combination with future contingents are removed. An analogous solution to some puzzles concerning omniscience and selfreferentiality is also provided.

Strawson offers three accounts of singular predication: a grammatical, a category and a mediating account. I argue that the grammatical and mediating accounts are refuted by a host of counter-examples and that the latter is worse than empty. In later works Strawson defends only the category account. This account entails that singular terms cannot be predicates; it excludes non-denoting singular terms from being logical subjects, except by means of an ad hoc analogy; it depends upon a notion of identification that is too vague; and it is unnecessarily complicated, relying on analogies where a more uniform explanation should be possible. But I show how the account can be corrected to avoid all these difficulties and to provide an accurate account of singular predication.

The paper concerns mutual relations between two metaphysical positions: “superessentialism,” claiming that all properties of every object are essential, i.e.necessary, and “necessitarianism,” claiming that everything is necessary, i.e. there is only one possible world. The theories of Spinoza and Lewis serve as examples. In section I the two positions are characterized. In section II and III interpretations of Spinoza’s and Lewis’s metaphysics are presented, and it is explained to what extent they can both be considered superessentialists and necessitarians. In section IV the two theories are compared. In section V three possible ways of arguing for superessentialism are presented. It is then shown that the premises of these arguments appear, at least implicitly, in both of the theories. In section VI additional premises are numbered which have to be further assumed to prove necessitarianism. In the final section it is shown how Lewis can claim that there are contingent facts, while being a superessentialist and a necessitarian. It is argued that his claim of contingency is a matter of semantics, not of metaphysics.

In this text the author draws on two contemporary accounts of power—by Michel Foucault and Ernesto Laclau—and, on the basis of thorough analysis and comparison, he argues for “the discursive account of power” (DAP) as a new concept reflecting the novel approach to the theory of power developed by these two philosophers. He opens with a broad methodological outline of contemporary concepts of power, distinguishing between the “classical” and the “modern” approaches. Basing his findings on Laclau’s and Foucault’s work, he then presents DAP as a theory characterized by decentralizing, non-normative, and conflict-based tendencies that does not exhibit many of the limitations that usually characterize both classical and modern concepts of power. In the second part of the article the author presents a detailed methodological analysis of Foucault’s and Laclau’s concepts of power, focusing on three axes: power, discourse, and the subject. The author dedicates the last section to a comparison of both approaches, concluding that DAP is an inspiring project that exceeds the limits of traditional liberal theories of power and politics.

The purpose of this paper is to re-examine the debate about cinematic motion in terms of the necessity for reception conditions in art. I shall argue that Gregory Currie’s rejection of weak illusionism—the view that cinematic motion is illusory—is sound, because cinematic images really move, albeit in a response-dependentrather than garden-variety manner. In §1 I present Andrew Kania’s rigorous and compelling critique of Currie’s realism. I assess Trevor Ponech’s response to Kania in §2, and show that his focus on the cinematic experience is indicative of the direction the debate should take. §3 demonstrates that the issue is underpinned by the question of the role of reception conditions in the experience of art. In §4 I apply my observations on reception conditions to the problem of cinematic motion and conclude that Kania’s objections are unsuccessful due to his failure to acknowledge the necessary conditions for cinematic experience.

Principally under the influence of Saul Kripke (1972), philosophical semantics since the closing decades of 20th century has been dominated by thephenomenon Nathan Salmon (1986) aptly dubbed Direct Reference “mania.” Accordingly, it is now practically orthodox to hold that the meanings of proper names are entirely exhausted by their referents and devoid of any descriptive content. The return to a purely referential semantics of names has, nevertheless, coincided with a resurgence of some of the very puzzles that motivated description theories of names in the first place, to wit: the informativeness of true identity statements of the form ‘a=b’ and the failure of substitutivity salve veritate for co-referential names in propositional attitude ascriptions. I argue that a Metalinguistic Description Theory of proper names, which treats the meaning of an arbitrary proper name as roughly equivalent to the definite description ‘the bearer of NN,’ offers a novel, semantically innocent solution to these puzzles when synthesized with Keith Donnellan’s (1966) insight that descriptions are semantically ambiguous between attributive and referential meanings. The ensuing account is then defended against two well-known Kripkean objections to metalinguisticsemantics: the Circularity Objection and the Paderewski Puzzle.

Aristotle contends that in perception the sense organ is “made like” its object, but only “in a certain way.” Much controversy has surrounded these remarks, primarily about how to understand being “made like.” One camp has understood this to require literal exemplification, such that the sense organs manifest the sensible qualities of their objects. Others have understood likeness to require no physical alteration at all in the sense organs.I accept as a starting point in this paper that understanding perceptual likeness in terms of exemplification is a non-starter. By doing so, however, I also reject the easiest and most direct understanding of what it means for the sense organs to be “made like” their objects. Others who have shared this assumption have suggested that likeness consists in “isomorphism.” Unfortunately, they have not adequately explicated how this notion is to be understood, with the result that Aristotle’s theory of perception remains crucially underdeveloped. I argue that the key is to understand the form of isomorphism at work in Aristotle’s account of thinking.