The liar: What paradox?

Most philosophers believe that the Liar Paradox is semantical in character, and arises from difficulties in the predicate true. The author argues that the paradox is pragmatic, not semantic, and arises from violations of essential conditions that define statement-making speech acts. The author shows that his solution to the paradox will not only handle the classical Liar sentences that are necessarily or intrinsically paradoxical, but also sets of Kripke-sentences that are contingently paradoxical.     

The Fragility of Moral Principles

According to a widely accepted conceptual model, principles play essential roles in moral reasoning: it is asserted that they hold universally and cannot be avoided in the justification of human action and belief. This paper challenges that view. It argues that, though some principles play such substantive roles, most do not. They can be characterized instead as being fragile or defeasible, i.e., they are capable of being weakened, voided or undone. The claim is made that it is the pressures exerted by particular cases of moral dilemmas that are the sources of such fragility. The paper contains detailed examples illustrating how the process of defeasibility, including a retreat into moral vacuity, arises from such pressures.     

Interpretation and Meaning

The article describes and attempts to resolve a problem that arises for interpreters, translators, teachers, linguists, literary critics, and lawyers. Professional interpreters, for example, see themselves as the impartial transmitters of messages. Their dilemma notably arises in legal contexts when judges and prosecutors use language that is technical and belongs to a political system whose traditions are unfamiliar to defendants. In an effort to explain what such concepts as 'habeas corpus' and 'taking the fifth amendment' mean to Spanish-speaking monoglots, for example, interpreters may become independent voices sending a nuanced version of the original message to its recipients. In such cases, and for other reasons, they may breach the principle of impartiality. The dilemma arises through a seeming incompatibility between two principles essential to impartial interpretation: the need neutrally to transmit a message and the need to communicate the content of a message in such a way as to make it comprehensible to an alien auditor. The author argues that these principles are not necessarily inconsistent. Thus whether an interpreter has deviated from the ideal of impartiality can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.     

Faces

In the philosophical and psychological literature of the twentieth century, the concept of a surface plays a pervasive and important role, mostly in connection with theories of perception. The author argues that the concept has interesting logical and ontological uses as well. The focus of the paper is on the question of whether surfaces are real ingredients in the world, and the argument of the paper is that, under certain construals, they are.     

A comparison of the effects of vicariously instigated classical conditioning and direct classical conditioning procedures

Two groups of Ss received either two or 16 paired classical conditioning trials beyond the peak CR. A third group received the same stimuli as in the 16 postpeak condition but in an unpaired and random order. The stimuli in all three groups were delivered directly to S. Subsequently, all three groups, including a fourth which was not given any prior direct classical conditioning, were exposed to vicariously instigated classical conditioning. This consisted of havingS observe someone (model) employed byE who received the same CS as was delivered during direct conditioning. The CS was paired with the feigned arm movement of the model, simulating a reaction to shock. This vicarious classical conditioning procedure when compared to direct classical conditioning resulted in smaller GSR magnitudes for both the CRs and UCRs. Previous experience with direct classical conditioning seems to have had an attenuating effect on GSR magnitude during the vicarious situation. A postexperimental questionnaire tended to support the results, and the relationship between the present study and current classical conditioning theory is discussed.     

Effects of UCS intensity and postpeak acquisition trials on classical conditioning of the SCR

The present study examined the effects of UCS intensity and number of postpeak acquisition trials on classical conditioning and extinction of the SCR. A 2 × 3 design was employed in which subjects received either a 1, 2, or 4 mA shock UCS and either two or 16 acquisition trials beyond the peak CR. While conditioning was demonstrated during acquisition, there was no relationship between strength of conditioning and intensity of UCS. The phenomenon of stronger resistance to extinction following fewer acquisition trials (e.g., two past the peak CR) than with many (e.g., 16 past the peak CR) was demonstrated only for the groups that were conditioned with the 4 mA UCS. Resistance to extinction varied positively with UCS intensity, but only for the subjects who received two postpeak acquisition trials. Sixteen trials beyond the peak CR resulted in the UCS intensity having little or no effect on resistance to extinction.     

The paradox of the first person singular pronoun

The author attempts to provide a characterization of statements which will avoid the twin perils of identifying them with sentences per se or with such non‐observable entities as “propositions”, “meanings” etc. In providing a positive account of the sorts of things statements are, he distinguishes between the utterances of sentences, and. sentences per se, and maintains that statements are to be identified with those utterances made in certain kinds of circumstances. In the light of this analysis, it is then argued that who or what the speaker refers to in the course of making a statement does not form part of the circumstances which determine what statement he is making, nor does it form part of the circumstances which determine whether he is making the same or different statements by the words he uses.     

Wittgenstein and the Dream Hypothesis

The paper deals with Wittgenstein’s treatment of radical skepticism. He holds from his earliest work to his last that skepticism is senseless and therefore no rebuttal, such as G.E. Moore offered, is necessary.