Rationis Defensor pp 209233  Cite as
Mathematical and Empirical Concepts
Abstract
Buzaglo (as well as Manders (J Philos LXXXVI(10):553–562, 1989)) shows the way in which it is rational even for a realist to consider ‘development of concepts’, and documents the theory by numerous examples from the area of mathematics. A natural question arises: in which way can the phenomenon of expanding mathematical concepts influence empirical concepts? But at the same time a more general question can be formulated: in which way do the mathematical concepts influence empirical concepts? What I want to show in the present paper can be described as follows.

What is meaning? (In particular: What are concepts?)

What are questions? (Or, equivalently: Semantics of interrogative sentences.)
Further, a useful notion will be the notion of problem. Taking over the notion of conceptual system from Materna (Conceptual Systems. Logos, Berlin, 2004) and using Tichý’s Transparent intensional logic (TIL) I can try to solve the problem of the relation between mathematical and empirical concepts (not only for the case of expanding some mathematical concepts).
Keywords
Actual World Mathematical Concept Free Variable Conceptual System Simple ConceptNotes
Acknowledgment
The present paper has been supported by the Grant Agency of Czech Republic, project No 401/07/0451.
References
 Anderson, C.A. 1998. Alonzo Church’s contributions to philosophy and intensional logic. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4(2): 129–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bealer, G. 1982. Quality and concept. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bolzano, B. 1837. Wissenschaftslehre, vol. I, II. Sulzbach: v. Seidel.Google Scholar
 Buzaglo, M. 2002. The logic of concept expansion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
 Carnap, R. 1947. Meaning and necessity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
 Chierchia, G. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se. In Contextual expressions, ed. J. van Benthem and P. van Emde Boas. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
 Church, A. 1956. Introduction to mathematical logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
 Church, A. 1993. A revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. Alternative (1). Noûs 27: 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cresswell, M.J. 1975. Hyperintensional logic. Studia Logica 34: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cresswell, M.J. 1985. Structured meanings. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
 Duží, M., and P. Materna. 2004. A procedural theory of concepts and the problem of the synthetic a priori. Korean Journal of Logic 7: 1–22.Google Scholar
 Harrah, D. 2002. The logic of questions. In Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. 8, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 1–60. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Jespersen, B. 2003. Why the tuple theory of structured propositions isn’t a theory of structured propositions. Philosophia 31: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lewis, D. 1972. General semantics. In Semantics of natural language, ed. D. Davidson and G. Harman, 169–218. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Manders, K. 1989. Domain extension and the philosophy of mathematics. Journal of Philosophy LXXXVI(10): 553–562.Google Scholar
 Materna, P. 1998. Concepts and objects, vol. 63. Helsinky: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
 Materna, P. 2004. Conceptual systems. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
 Materna, P. 2008. The notion of problem, intuitionism and partiality. Logic and Logical Philosophy 17: 287–303.Google Scholar
 Materna, P. 2009. Concepts and recipes. Acta Analytica 24: 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Moschovakis, Y.N. 1994. Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. In Lecture notes in logic, vol. 2, ed. J. Väänänen and J. Oikkonen, 210–249. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
 NewtonSmith, W.H. 1981/1996. The rationality of science. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Tichý, P.1968. Smysl a procedura. Filosofický časopis 16: 222–232. Translated as Sense and procedure in Tichý, P. 2004. Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen and C. Cheyne, 77–92. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 1969. Intensions in terms of Turing machines. Studia Logica 26: 7–25. Reprinted in P. Tichý. 2004. Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen and C. Cheyne, 93–109. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 1978. Questions, answers and logic. American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 275–284. Reprinted in P. Tichý. 2004. Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen and C. Cheyne, 293–304. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 1988. The foundations of Frege's logic. Berlin: New York, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 1994. The analysis of natural language. Reprinted in P. Tichý. 2004. Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen and C. Cheyne, 801–841. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 1995. Constructions as the subjectmatter of mathematics. In The foundational debate: Complexity and constructivity in mathematics and physics, ed. W. DePauliSchimanovich, E. Köhler and F. Stadler, 175–185. Dordrecht/Boston/London/Vienna: Kluwer. Reprinted in Tichý, P. 2004. Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen and C. Cheyne, 873–885. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
 Tichý, P. 2004. In Collected papers in logic and philosophy, ed. V. Svoboda, B. Jespersen, and C. Cheyne. Prague/Dunedin: Filosofia, Czech Academy of Sciences/University of Otago Press.Google Scholar