Overcoming von Wright's anxiety

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
THEORIA Pub Date : 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1111/theo.12519
Andrew Halpin
{"title":"Overcoming von Wright's anxiety","authors":"Andrew Halpin","doi":"10.1111/theo.12519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the anxiety expressed by von Wright over the status of the deontic permission, <jats:italic>P</jats:italic>, as an independent normative category, given the interdefinability between <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>O</jats:italic> at the foundation of deontic logic. Two concerns are noted: the reducibility of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> to <jats:italic>O</jats:italic>, and the inadequacy of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> to convey a full permission in a social setting. Drawing on resources from the Hohfeldian analytical framework, the relational and aggregate features of permission are explored, and an aggregate conception of permission, P, is recognized. With the assistance of insights from Demey and Smessaert on duals, Hansson on formalization, and Soames on interdefinability, it is concluded that the interdefinability thesis can be defended without threatening the independent status of <jats:italic>P</jats:italic>. Additional grounds for reaching this conclusion are provided from a detailed analysis of the relationship between <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> and P. Some implications of the more expansive notion of permission, P, are considered with regard to the resources of deontic logic and their application.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12519","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines the anxiety expressed by von Wright over the status of the deontic permission, P, as an independent normative category, given the interdefinability between P and O at the foundation of deontic logic. Two concerns are noted: the reducibility of P to O, and the inadequacy of P to convey a full permission in a social setting. Drawing on resources from the Hohfeldian analytical framework, the relational and aggregate features of permission are explored, and an aggregate conception of permission, P, is recognized. With the assistance of insights from Demey and Smessaert on duals, Hansson on formalization, and Soames on interdefinability, it is concluded that the interdefinability thesis can be defended without threatening the independent status of P. Additional grounds for reaching this conclusion are provided from a detailed analysis of the relationship between P and P. Some implications of the more expansive notion of permission, P, are considered with regard to the resources of deontic logic and their application.
克服冯-赖特的焦虑
本文探讨了冯-赖特对作为一个独立规范范畴的 "允准"(P)的地位所表达的焦虑,因为 "允准"(P)与 "允准"(O)之间的互定性是 "允准 "逻辑的基础。冯-赖特指出了两个值得关注的问题:P 与 O 之间的可还原性,以及 P 不足以在社会环境中传达完整的许可。借助霍菲尔德分析框架的资源,我们探讨了许可的关系特征和集合特征,并确认了许可的集合概念 P。在德米和斯梅萨特关于二元性、汉森关于形式化以及索姆斯关于可定义性的见解的帮助下,我们得出结论,可定义性论题可以在不威胁 P 的独立地位的情况下得到辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信