Many Many Problems

Supervaluationist solutions to 'the problem of the many' typically rely on two principles. First, the root of the problem is that singular terms can be vague, just as predicates can be. Secondly, the same resolution as the supervaluationist suggests for puzzles with vague predicates will resolve puzzles concerning vague singular terms. In recent years this second principle has been attacked from a number of fronts: it has been claimed that supervaluationist accounts of vague singular terms cannot explain the role of vague singular terms in propositional attitude reports, cannot explain penumbral connections between distinct singular terms, and cannot allow that vague singular terms are directly referential. While some of these arguments are successful against extant supervaluationist theories, I offer some natural modifications to supervaluationism which avoid the challenges.     

The Problem of Many Hands: Climate Change as an Example

In some situations in which undesirable collective effects occur, it is very hard, if not impossible, to hold any individual reasonably responsible. Such a situation may be referred to as the problem of many hands. In this paper we investigate how the problem of many hands can best be understood and why, and when, it exactly constitutes a problem. After analyzing climate change as an example, we propose to define the problem of many hands as the occurrence of a gap in the distribution of responsibility that may be considered morally problematic. Whether a gap is morally problematic, we suggest, depends on the reasons why responsibility is distributed. This, in turn, depends, at least in part, on the sense of responsibility employed, a main distinction being that between backward-looking and forward-looking responsibility.     

The Many Faces of Trauma - Psychic trauma as an inner experience

Abstract

Two types of memory processes, declarative and non-declarative have been identified by cognitive scientists. Cognitive science is currently making a distinction between 1) declarative memory and non-declarative memory. This paper is concerned with one type of non-declarative memory, procedural memory. Declarative knowledge refers to the things we know such as names, places, dates. Procedural knowledge is information associated with a highly practiced schema or action which is usually not conscious when the sequence is activated. The implications of procedural knowledge for psychoanalytic treatment are now beginning to be explored. This paper is a further step in this exploration.

It has been hypothesized that because of the automaticity of learned procedures underlying character pathology, character change can best be accomplished by intervening at the procedural level. This paper suggests that such interventions are optimal when they are noninterpretive and occur within the context of an interactive, mutually regulated, dyadic system. Procedures, when they become accessible to the analyst through empathy and introspection, can be, and in the case discussed below, were addressed within the context of the dyad. The psychotherapy of an adult man with difficulties at the procedural level is utilized to illustrate the importance of noninterpretive interventions that address the procedure in order to engage it in the dyad where it can begin to undergo therapeutic transformation. This paper illustrates the importance of understanding procedural knowledge and how this can provide a valuable additional tool to shape the modes of therapeutic action utilized in psychoanalytic treatment.     

Sets and Classes as Many

In this paper the view is developed that classes should not be understood as individuals, but, rather, as classes as many of individuals. To correlate classes with individuals labelling and colabelling functions are introduced and sets identified with a certain subdomain of the classes on which the labelling and colabelling functions are mutually inverse. A minimal axiomatization of the resulting system is formulated and some of its extensions are related to various systems of set theory, including nonwellfounded set theories.     

One Desire Too Many1

I defend the widely-held view that acting with moral worth does not require a desire for rightness as such. Some have recently come to reject this view, arguing that desires for rightness as such are necessary for avoiding a certain kind of luck thought incompatible with morally worthy action. I show that those who defend desires for rightness as such on the basis of this argument misunderstand the relationship between moral worth and the kind of luck that their argument employs. Consequently, the argument provides no reason to doubt the popular view that a desire for rightness as such is no part of virtue. I conclude by suggesting that a family of worries about merely accidentally right action presuppose one side of the recent debate about objectivism and perspectivism concerning moral rightness.     

Many entities, no identity

The aim of this paper is to argue that some objections raised by Jantzen (Synthese, 2010) against the separation of the concepts of ‘counting’ and ‘identity’ are misled. We present a definition of counting in the context of quasi-set theory requiring neither the labeling nor the identity and individuality of the counted entities. We argue that, contrary to what Jantzen poses, there are no problems with the technical development of this kind of definition. As a result of being able to keep counting and identity apart for those entities, we briefly suggest that one venerable tradition concerning the nature of quantum particles may be consistently held. According to that tradition, known as the Received View on particles non-individuality, quantum particles may be seen as entities having both features: (i) identity and individuality do not apply to them, (ii) they may be gathered in collections comprising a plurality of them.     

The Many Faces of Psychoontology

Psychoontology is a philosophical theory of the cognizing subject and various related matters. In this article. I present two approaches to the discipline—the first proposed by Jerzy Perzanowski, the second by Jesse Prinz and Yoram Hazony. I then undertake to bring these into unity using certain ideas from Husserl and Frege. Applying the functor qua, psychoontology can be described as a discipline concerned with: (a) the cognizing subject qua being—this leads to the question: what kind of being is the subject (is it an object?, simple or complex?, a process?) and what makes him/her/it possible; (b) being qua cognized, this leads to the question: under what conditions can we access the world? Since the notion of being qua cognized might seem peculiar, I present its context and discuss it in detail in the last section.