以下のようにCAPEワークショップが開催されます。奮ってご参加ください。
————–
「非古典メレオロジー研究会」
日時：12月20日（火）14:45-16:15
場所：京都大学文学部校舎1階会議室
発表者：藤川直也（首都大学東京 准教授）
発表タイトル：Plurality in Fictional Discourses
言語：英語
要旨：
A fiction may describe a plurality without specifying the `dossier’ of each of its individual (atomic) constituents enough to distinguish them from each other. In particular, it may be the case that a fiction gives the exactly same characterization to each of the constituents of a plurality, as is described in Everett (2013). For example, `we are told in Tess of the d’Urbervilles that 16 policemen came to arrest Tess but we are not given any more specific descriptions of any of these policemen’ (Everett, 2013, p. 191). Let us call a plural fictional character without specification of each of its constituents a plurality with indiscernible constituents. In this paper, I develop a theory of pluralities with indiscernible constituents, based on nuclear Meinongianism (cf. Parsons, 1980) and non-idempotent mereology (cf. Cotnoir, 2015). Nuclear Meinongianism of fictional characters claims that a fictional character in a fictional story S is a nonexistent object x which has all nuclear properties x is characterized as having by S. According to non-idempotent mereology, a mereological sum can have one and the same object as its two or more different parts.  Combining these two theories, I propose that `16 policemen’ in Tess of  d’Urbervilles refers to a mereological sum which has one and the same nonexistent policeman as its 16 different parts.

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開かれます。皆様の参加をお待ちしております。

日時：2016年11月11日(金) 18:00–19:30
場所：京都大学 文学部校舎１階 会議室
話者：Syraya Chin-Mu Yang(国立台湾大学)
言語：英語

題目：
Semantic Considerations on Contingentist Quantified Modal Logic
概要：
Timothy Williamson has defended necessitism, the thesis that necessarily
everything is necessarily something: ‘(NE) － □∀x□∃y x = y’. By contrast,
contingentism, a negation of necessitism, accepts the contingency of being
－ there are things which exist contingently. Williamson rightly remarks
that ‘common sense has no authority to decide between necessitism and
contingentism; it is a more theoretical dispute’. And so, he claims that
necessitism can be justified in a framework for quantificational, or
higher-order, modal logic, which originated from the proof theoretic work
of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Typically, the well-known Barcan Formula (BF) －
∀x□φ(x)→□∀x φ(x), and its converse (CBF) － □∀xφ(x) →∀x□φ(x), have been
taken as the characteristic formulas for the necessitist quantified modal
logic. In contrast, the contingentist’s quantified modal logics by and
large repudiate BF and CBF.

I will examine some intrinsic semantic problems with the contingentist’s
treatments in the framework of possible worlds semantics. Special attention
will be paid to the difficulties with variable domains. I show that
sticking to the legitimacy of the Being Constraints, the use of names as
rigid designators in modal contexts will render truth value gaps in
variable domains and by the same reasoning we may not have appropriate
assignments of free variables in de re modal contexts. However, I show that
this can be solved if we opt for a mid-way, i.e. equinumerous domains. We
will not appeal to constant domains, nor will we accept variable domains,
but simply assume that all domains have the same cardinality, though not
the same set of objects. A semantic treatment will be proposed so that both
BF and CBF can be validated, but the thesis of necessitism will no longer
hold.

A genuine threat will be noted, that is, the intended interpretation of de
re sentences may not express the imposed de re modality. Two options to
deal with this problem will be suggested. (i) The appeal to the rigidity of
names based on a substitutional interpretation of quantifiers in
alphabetical-expansion models However, when modal contexts are involved, we
may be forced to rephrase universal sentences in terms of a conjunction
with an infinite number of conjuncts and to re-interpret a formula with an
existence quantifier in terms of an infinitary conjunction. We then need an
infinitary language and take as the required underlying system a certain
version of infinitary logic. Alternatively, we may suspense with names and
put forth some special semantic treatment to express the rigidity of
variables. We would have a much more complicated, or even ad hoc,
semantics, and the price could be too high to pay.

Clearly, for the contingentist, the moral is: there is no loyal road to the
theorization of metaphysical modality in terms of quantified modal logic.
Perhaps, Williamson is right when he points out that the contingentist
‘must take a more instrumental attitude to the model theory’. (2014: 714).
Then why not accept the necessitist’s quantaified modal logic?

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開催されます。皆様のご参加をお待ちしております。

日時：2016年11月14日(月) 16:30–18:00

講師：Dr.Yuri Cath (La Trobe University)
日時：2016年10月27日（木） 16:30-18:00
場所：京都大学 文学部校舎地下１階 大会議室
地図：http://www.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ja/access/campus/yoshida/map6r_y/ (構内MAP8番の建物）
言語：英語

題目：
Knowing What It Is Like, Choice, and Consent

要旨：
Can I know what it is like to deliver a stand-up comedy routine, give birth to a child, or go to war, without having had those experiences myself? Is it possible to gain this ‘what it is like’ (WIL)-knowledge by reading stories or talking with the experienced? Philosophers often hold a pessimistic attitude towards this possibility on the grounds that one can only know what it is like to have an experience if one has had an experience of that same type oneself (Lewis 1998, Paul 2014). And endorsements of this pessimistic attitude can also be found in novels, films, and pop music. But, I shall argue, a puzzle now arises because there are also countless examples of everyday practices and judgments that testify to our holding an optimistic attitude towards this same possibility. In this paper I discuss how this puzzle can be illuminated and potentially dissolved by appealing to recent work in epistemology on knowledge-wh and in the philosophy of mind on empathy. I also show how my solution to this puzzle can help us to evaluate recent arguments by Paul (2014, 2015) concerning WIL-knowledge and transformative choices, and discussions in applied ethics concerning WIL-knowledge and informed consent (Bayne and Levy 2005, Dodds and Jones 1989, Oakley 1992).

以下の要領でCAPEレクチャーが開かれます。みなさまぜひご参加下さい。