• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.116
• /
• pp.257-280
• /
• 2010

I try to formalize the system of modal logic and interpret it in view of constructivism through this study. As to the meaning of a sentence, as we saw, Frege endorsed extensions in view of the fact that they are enough to provide for a compositional account for truth, in particular that (1) the assignment of extensions to expressions is compositional ; (2) the assignment of extensions to sentences coincides with the assignment of truth values. But nobody would be willing to admit that a truth value is what a sentence means and that consequently all true sentences are synonymous. So, if what we are after is meaning in the intuitive sense, then extensions would not do. This consideration has later become the point of departure of modal and intensional semantics. So, it is clear that the language of modal logic do not allow for an extensional interpretation. ${\square}$ is syntactically on a par with ${\vdash}$, hence within the extensional framework it would have to denote a unary truth function. This means that if modal logic is to be interpreted, we need a semantics which is not extensional. The first attempt to build a feasible intensional semantics was presented by Saul Kripke. He came to the conclusion that we must let sentences denote not truth values, but rather subsets of a given set. He called elements of the underlying set possible world. Hence each sentence is taken to denote the set of those possible world in which it is true. This lets us explicate necessity as 'truth in every possible world' and possibility as 'truth in at least one possible world'. But it is clear that the system of modal logic is not only an enlargement of propositional logic, as long as the former contains the new symbols, but that it is of an other nature. In fact, the modal logic is intensional, in that the operators do not determine the functions of truth any more. But this new element is not given a priori, but a posteriori from construction by logicist.

• Philosophy of Medicine
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2018

Medicine and philosophy were very closely related in antiquity. The Pre-Socratics were interested in physiological and pathological aspects of human body. Their interests of human body was a part of interests on nature. Plato and Aristotle were fond of proposing their philosophical arguments using medical analogy. Medicine and philosophy were regarded as two disciplines which play a similar role in human being. Ancient philosophers thought that medicine and philosophy were similar on the ground that while philosophy eliminates passion from human soul, medicine eliminates disease from human body. Here, they regarded the similarity of medicine and philosophy only in terms of analogy. More comprehensive and systematic relationship between medicine and philosophy is realized by Galen. He manifestly declared that "The Best Doctor is also a Philosopher", which is also the title of one of his treatise. In this treatise, Galen regarded philosophy is a discipline consisted of physics, logic, and ethics according to the view s of Stoics. As a result, a good doctor for Galen is one who is well versed in physics, logic, and ethics. Furthermore, He regarded Hippocrates as the ideal model of a doctor-philosopher.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.35-61
• /
• 1998

개최들의 개별화를 위한 대표적인 법칙으로 간주되고 있는 라이프니츠의 법칙은 철학에서만 아니라 수학이나 논리학과 같은 순수과학에서도 중요한 법칙으로 사용되고 있다. 그러나 최근에 들어서 라이프니츠의 법칙은 그 논리적 위상과 관련하여 심각한 논란의 대상이 되고 있다. 이러한 논란의 근본적 원인은 칸트나 블랙과 같은 철학자들에 의해 라이프니츠의 법칙이 적용되지 않을 기능성을 보이는 반례가 제시되었고, 많은 철학자들이 이에 동조한 데에서 찾을 수 있다. 라이프니츠의 법칙의 논리적 위상과 관계된 철학자들의 입장은 크게 두 가지로 구분된다. 첫 번째 입장은 블랙 등에 의해 제시된 예들을 라이프니츠의 법칙에 대한 정당한 반례로 간주하는 입장이고, 두 번째 입장은 이러한 예들은 리이프니츠의 법칙에 대한 반례로 간주될 수 없다는 입장이다. 두 번째 입장을 쥐이는 대표적 철학자는 헷킹이다. 헷킹은 시공간에 대한 인습주의에 입각하여 블랙 등에 의해 제시된 예는 완전한 가능성을 나타내는 것이 아니고 라이프니츠의 법칙은 가능세계에 대한 메타 원칙으로 간주되어야 한다고 주장하고 있다. 본고에서 필자는 리이프니츠의 법칙을 옹호하려는 헷킹의 시도는 성공적이지 못하고, 또한 블랙 등에 의해 제시된 예들은 라이프니츠의 법칙에 대안 정당한 반례로 간주되어야 한다는 입장을 개진하고 있다. 필자가 이러한 입장을 취하게 된 것은 헷킹의 입장은 논리적 기능성과 물리적 기능성 사이의 구별을 어렵게 한다는 문제점 이외에도 가능세계 의미론과 관련된 중요한 문제점들을 야기하고 있기 때문이다. 가능세계 의미론과 관련된 문제점은 이러한 시도는 가능세계 의미론에 입각한 양상명제들의 해석의 범위를 제한하게 만들고 De-Re 양상명제에 대한 해석을 위해 필수적인 헤세이티즘의 수용을 불가능하게 한다는 것이다.