• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.85-100
• /
• 2004

이 논문은 부사어에 의해서 수신되는 행위 문장이 어떻게 논리적으로 분석되어야 하는가에 대한 데이빗슨의 주장을 비판적으로 검토하고자 한다. 데이빗슨은 행위 문장이 부사어에 수식될 때, 그 문장은 원래의 행위 문장에 의해서 함축됨을 보일 수 있도록 해석되어야 한다는 데 착안하여 자신의 사건 존재론을 근거로 행위 문장을 사건을 양화하는 문장으로 해석되어야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 그러한 해석은 데이빗슨 자신이 의도한 목적을 충분히 충족시키지 못하고, 또한 행위 문장이 양화하는 사건이 문장 전체가 아닌 일부가 가리킨다는 반직관적인 주장이라는 점에서 불만스럽다. 그러나 무엇보다 데이빗슨의 해석이 갖는 문제점은 행위 문장을 수신하는 부사어의 용법이 다양함에도 불구하고 그러한 사실을 간과한 것이다. 따라서 이 글은 바와이즈와 페리에 의해서 제시된 상황 존재론에 의거하여 다양한 부사어에 대한 해석의 가능성을 제시하여, 부사어에 의해서 수식되는 행위 문장을 해석하는 몇 가지 방법을 제시한다.

• Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology
• /
• 1994.11a
• /
• pp.96-110
• /
• 1994

인간은 사고하는 존재, 그리고 언어를 사용하는 존재라는 사실은 바로 인간이 지향적 주체라는 것을 보여주는 두가지 특징적 측면이다. 즉 심성내용과 의미는 지향적 대상의 두 축이라고 할 수 있다. 그런데 데이빗슨은 자비(charity) 혹은 합리성(rationality)이라는 동일한 원리에 기초하여 내용과 의미의 통일적 이론을 모색한 철학자이다. 이 논문에서는 데이빗슨의 내용과 의미의 이론을 반(反)데카르트적 관점으로 해석함으로써 데이빗슨 철학이 갖는 비트겐슈타인적 경향을 검토한다. 즉 데이빗슨의 내용과 의미론을 비트겐슈타인적 시각에서 조명하고 둘 사이에 어떤 연속성과 차이가 있는지를 논의함으로써, 데카르트 전통의 지향성 개념을 모색하는 새로운 지향성 개념을 모색하는 것이 이 논문의 목표이다.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.4
• /
• pp.109-123
• /
• 2000

데이빗슨은 "Slingshot 논변"이라는 그의 유명한 논변을 이용하여 진리 대응론을 비판한다. 그의 논변은 타당하지만, 다음 두 전제들에 의존한다. (1) 논리적으로 동치인 문장들은 같은 사실에 대응한다. (2) 참인 문장은 그 문장 내의 한 단칭어가 공지시적 단칭어에 의해 대체될 때 대응하는 사실이 변하지 않는다. 이 논문에서 필자는 두 번째 전제가 설득력이 없음을, 특히, Slingshot 논변의 구성을 위해 필수적인 통일성 문장들에 대해서 설득력이 없음을 주장한다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society for Cognitive Science Conference
• /
• 2002.05a
• /
• pp.194-200
• /
• 2002

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.131-154
• /
• 2013

Michael Williams, in his paper, rejects the wide-accepted view that Donald Davidson's radical interpretation is a truth conditional account of meaning, and suggests a claim that robust truth in fact does not play any role in Davidson's interpretation and thus interpretation can be in accord with the deflationary theory of truth. In this paper, I will first research the right understanding on the explanatory relations in radical interpretation between truth and meaning, and on that ground, will evaluate the adequacy of Williams' suggestion. My diagnosis is that the acceptability of Williams' idea depends on how we regard the several factors which are crucial for interpretation. Especially I will argue that whether truth condition is regarded as deflationary or inflationary makes difference to the way of understanding radical interpretation, hence the room for taking radical interpretation as deflationary can be in two different ways. Furthermore I will show the same argument can be applied to Williams' another claim that Paul Horwich's use theory of meaning is similar to Davidson's account.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.359-387
• /
• 2015

As is well known, the consequence argument(shortly, CA) is intended as showing the incompatibility of free will and determinism. Recently, professor Choi Hoon tries to show there is a way in which Davidson's anomalous monism(shortly, AM) can be interpreted to counter CA. But I do not agree with his interpretation. So, in this paper, I will try to show why in the following way. In order to counter CA, it must be possible for AM to deny at least one of the premises of CA or to deny ${\beta}$ rule which guarantees the validity of CA or to show that free will is compatible with determinism in spite of the soundness of CA. In this paper, I will show that AM can do neither.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.147
• /
• pp.59-76
• /
• 2018

What are the conditions make a being x a moral agent? Can an artifact be moral agent? A moral agent is considered to be a rational being capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. This study critically analyzed Davidson's position on the condition of the rational being and argued that the network of beliefs with propositional attitude and the beliefs as their background cannot be a requisite for the rational being. Later, it proves that the conditions proposed by $Proke{\check{s}}ov{\acute{a}}$ are merely paratactically listed superficial elements. The moral agent in this study includes the rational agent and it is proven that the strong first person viewpoint is the necessary and sufficient condition for rational agent and moral agent. In conclusion, it suggested a the sketch of moderate skepticism which sets the tentative limit on the agent potential in an artifact by suggesting conditions for moral agent instead of intense skepticism that strongly denies the potential as the moral agent.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.16-37
• /
• 2015

As a result of analyzing the forming and the transformations of Seokjojeon Hall garden by linking it to the changes of Deoksugung Palace influenced by the social atmosphere, the Seokjojeon garden can be classified into four phases. The first phase starts from 1896 to 1914. Gyeongungung was built in the late 19th century(1896-1897) as an official palace and Junghwajeon Hall and Seokjojeon Hall was built for Gojong. J.M.Brown was in charge of the construction of Seokjojeon in the beginning but H.W.Davidson saw the end also set up the garden. In the process of forming the garden the incorporating of Dondeokjeon Hall and the demolishing of the west wing corridors of Junghwajeon Hall occurred. At this phase of the garden a statue of an eagle was put up in the garden but was soon taken down. The shape of the garden was quiet simple with a central axial pathway, a round assorted flower bed placed in front of Seokjojeon Hall. The second phase starts from 1915 to 1932 which lasted for 17 years. At the last years of the Great Han Empire the duties of Gungnaebu(宮內府) was transferred to Leewangjik(李王職) in 1911 and a research on the existing buildings was done by Jujeonkwa(主殿課) in 1915. According to the research drawings, the garden still maintained the axial pathway formed in the previous phase but the garden had an asymmetric form. The flower bed was formed in a round shape and an open-knot technique and boundary plantation was applied to the garden. The third phase starts from 1933 to 1937 and is the period when Seokjojeon Hall was made public. By the year of 1932 many buildings of Deoksugung Palace had been demolished in the preparation of the opening of Seokjojeon Hall as a permanent exhibition hall. The central axial pathway still remained in the new garden and added a pond with a turtle statue in the center. The fourth phase starts from 1938 until the liberation from Japan and is the period when Deoksugung Palace became a park. Yi Royal-Family Museum was built and linked to Seokjojeon Hall with a bridge and the garden transformed into a sunken garden. The garden adopted a fountain and a pagora. Despite the minor changes in the after years the garden still posses most of its form from the fourth phase. As we can see the current garden of Seokjojeon Hall is not the same as the initial garden and therefor the importance of this study lies in the fact that modifications to the statements regarding to Seokjojeon Hall garden should be made.