Resumo em Inglês:

This paper aims at clarifying the nature of Frege's system of logic, as presented in the first volume of the Grundgesetze . We undertake a rational reconstruction of this system, by distinguishing its propositional and predicate fragments. This allows us to emphasise the differences and similarities between this system and a modern system of classical second-order logic.

Resumo em Espanhol:

Fodor ha argumentado a favor de un par de tesis que pueden caracterizarse como constituyendo un dilema: Por un lado, si adoptamos una teoría funcional para los conceptos explicamos semánticamente los casos Frege pero caemos en el holismo semántico. Por otro lado, si adoptamos una teoría causal/informacional evitamos el holismo pero no explicamos los casos Frege semánticamente. Fodor (por ej, 1994, 1998 y 2008) intenta evitar la segunda parte del dilema argumentando que los casos de Frege pueden tener una explicación sintáctica y no semántica. En este trabajo intentaré ofrecer una salida alternativa al dilema fodoriano. Propondré una explicación semántica de los casos Frege que incorpora tanto elementos de una teoría causal como de una de rol funcional. Afirmaré que el contenido cognitivo o estrecho de un concepto (el tipo de contenido aparentemente exigido por los casos Frege) es el conjunto de contenidos causales/informacionales de las representaciones que figuran en su rol funcional. Considero que individuar a las representaciones en los roles por medio de sus contenidos causales permite evitar el holismo (evitando el proceso de ramsificación típicamente empleado para individuar a los roles) y que identificar el contenido cognitivo con contenidos causales/informacionales de las representaciones en los roles permite evitar el referencialismo de las propuestas causales (podemos distinguir sentido de referencia en términos causales).

Resumo em Inglês:

Fodor argues for two theses that can be characterized as forming a dilemma: On one side, if we endorse a functional theory of concepts, we explain Frege cases in semantic terms but we cannot avoid semantic holism. On the other side, if we endorse a causal/informational approach, we avoid semantic holism but we cannot explain Frege cases in semantic terms. Fodor (e.g., 1994, 1998 y 2008) avoids the dilemma claiming that we can give a syntactic, non-semantic explanation of Frege cases. In this paper, I want to offer an alternative answer to the fodorian dilemma. I will offer a semantic explanation of Frege cases that incorporates both causal and functional elements. I will claim that the cognitive content of a concept (the kind of content apparently motivated by Frege cases) is the set of causal/informational contents of the representations that figure in its functional role. I believe that individuating representations in functional roles by their causal content helps to avoid holism (avoiding the process of ramsification typically used to individuate roles) and that identifying cognitive or narrow content with causal contents makes possible to endorse a causal theory while avoiding referentialism (whose rejection is motivated by Frege cases).

Resumo em Espanhol:

La proposición "Dios elige lo mejor" constituye una verdad incuestionable para Leibniz, y una premisa fundamental en su explicación de la existencia del mundo, tanto como en su teodicea. Leibniz sintió la necesidad de clarificar su carácter modal, dada la importancia de tal cuestión en relación con la libertad divina. Sin embargo, en el abordaje de este problema, se vio conducido a infringir los criterios de su propia teoría modal, con el fin de justificar la contingencia de tal proposición. Este trabajo intenta mostrar que la posición principal sostenida por Leibniz, en torno a la modalidad de esta proposición, constituye una suerte de excepción en el marco de su doctrina modal, y que esta ambigüedad refleja las razones profundas de las oscilaciones constatables en sus escritos sobre esta temática.

Resumo em Inglês:

The proposition "God chooses the best" is for Leibniz an undeniable truth, as well as a fundamental premise in both his explanation of this world's existence and his theodicy. Leibniz thought it was necessary to clarify its modal status, in virtue of this matter's connection with God's freedom. Nevertheless, while dealing with this problem, he was led to violate his own modal theory's principles, in order to sustain the contingency of that proposition. This paper intends to show that Leibniz's main view regarding the modality of this proposition represents a sort of exception in the framework of his modal conception, and that this uncertainty reveals the profound reasons of his numerous textual hesitations on the subject.

Resumo em Português:

Discuto, de um ponto de vista fenomenológico, a distinção entre asserções e normas. Sublinho os limites da análise canónica husserliana para dar uma correcta descrição do sentido e conteúdo da intencionalidade normativa. Baseado em algumas ideias de Kelsen, traço uma distinção clara entre juízos e normas, criticando algumas tendências que provêm do próprio Husserl, as quais consideram as normas como uma intencionalidade fundada em actos objectivantes. No entanto, tomando distância relativamente a Kelsen, Kaufmann e Cossio, enfatizo que a proposição de dever (Sollsatz) não pode ser uma boa transcrição do conteúdo de sentido das normas, baseado na distinção fenomenológica entre a matéria intencional e a qualidade dos actos intencionais. Finalmente, proponho a minha própria explicação, baseada no conceito de 'força ductiva'. Mostro que há, mesmo dentro da esfera jurídica, uma variedade de forças ductiva, que vão da simples coerção até conselho e a recomendação. Para terminar, sublinho a centralidade do conceito de "força ductiva" para uma fenomenologia do mundo social.

Resumo em Inglês:

I discuss, from a phenomenological point of view, the distinction between judgments and norms. I stress the limits of the husserlian canonical analysis in order to rightly account for the sense and content of normative intentionality. Based on some Kelsian insights, I draw a clear distinction between judgments and norms, criticizing some classical trends coming from Husserl himself that consider norms as a kind of intentionality founded upon objectifying acts. However, taking distance from Kelsen, Kaufmann, and Cossio, I stress that the ought-proposition (Sollsatz) cannot be a good rendering of the sense-content of norms, based on the phenomenological distinction between the intentional matter and the quality of intentional acts. Finally, I propose my own account based on the concept of 'ductive force'. I stress that the ductive force of norms cannot be identified with simple coercion. I show that there is, even inside the juridical sphere, a variety of ductive forces, going from sheer coercion to council and recommendation. Finally, I stress the centrality of the concept of "ductive force" for a phenomenology of the social world.

Resumo em Espanhol:

Este artículo plantea tres objeciones a la propuesta de Richard Moran acerca de la relación entre razones y responsabilidad. En primer lugar, mostraré que la relación entre razones y responsabilidad que presenta Moran es problemática, por dos razones: primero, las creencias alienadas del agente pueden ser parte del razonamiento; y segundo, las llamadas razones de estado no cumplen el Principio de Transparencia, pero no eximen de responsabilidad. En segundo lugar, argumentaré que la propuesta atribucionista de Moran postula una relación demasiado exigente entre estados mentales y razonamiento. Tercero, señalaré la dificultad de la propuesta de Moran para recoger la intuición de que tanto la autoría como la responsabilidad se presentan en grados.

Resumo em Inglês:

This article presents three objections to Richard Moran's proposal concerning the relation between reasons and responsibility. First, I will show that the relation between reasons and responsibility suggested by Moran is problematic, for two reasons. On the one hand, alienated beliefs can play a role in the reasoning process. On the other hand, state-given reasons do not meet the Transparency Condition, but they do not exempt the agent either. Second, I will argue that the relation between attitudes and reasons that Moran postulates is too demanding. Third, I will point out that Moran's account cannot accommodate the intuition that both responsibility and authorship come in degrees.