Advertisement

Why Care beyond the Square? Classical and Extended Shapes of Oppositions in Their Application to “Introspective Disputes”

  • Sascha Benjamin FinkEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Universal Logic book series (SUL)

Abstract

So called “shapes of opposition”—like the classical square of opposition and its extensions—can be seen as graphical representations of the ways in which types of statements constrain each other in their possible truth values. As such, they can be used as a novel way of analysing the subject matter of disputes. While there have been great refinements and extensions of this logico-topological tool in the last years, the broad range of shapes of opposition are not widely known outside of a circle of specialists. This ignorance may lead to the presumption that the classical square of opposition fits all disputes. A broader view, which takes expanded shapes of opposition into account, may come to a more nuanced appraisal of possible disputes. Once we take other shapes of opposition into account, some alleged disputes may turn out to be Scheindisputes. In order to do the wide range of linguistic expressions justice and to differentiate Scheindisputes from real ones, a broader view is advised. To illustrate this point, I discuss the notion of “introspective disputes”. These are commonly reconstructed as obeying the square, but are more aptly reconstructed with a more complex octagon. If we reconstruct these disputes based on Buridan’s octagon, it becomes obvious that “introspective disputes” are likely Scheindisputes.

Keywords

Octagon of opposition Buridan’s octagon Oblique terms Genetive constructions Introspection Philosophy of mind Scheindisputes 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Primary 03B65; Secondary 91F20 

References

  1. 1.
    P. Abaelardus, Dialectica (After the Parisian Manuscript MS. Lat. 14.614) (Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Comp. N. V., Assen, 1970/before 1125)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.M. Armstrong, The Nature of Mind (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Bayne, M. Spener, Introspective humility. Philos. Issues 20 (1), 1–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.-Y. Béziau, New light on the square of oppositions and its nameless corner. Log. Investig. 10, 218–233 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.-Y. Béziau, D. Jacquette (eds), Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Buridan, Summulae de Dialectica (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul (Scribner, New York, 1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained (Little, Brown, Boston, 1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.I. Dretske, Naturalizing the Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Goff, A priori physicalism, lonely ghosts and cartesian doubt. Conscious. Cogn. 21 (2), 742–746 (2012). Standing on the Verge: Lessons and Limits from the Empirical Study of Consciousness, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381001100033X
  11. 11.
    E.A. Hacker, The octagon of opposition. Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 16 (3), 352–353 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Hirstein, Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind’s Privacy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Horgan, J. Tienson, The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality, in Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. by D.J. Chalmers (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature: A Critical Edition (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1739–40/2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. James, The Principles of Psychology (Holt, New York, 1890/1957)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    U. Kriegel, The phenomenologically manifest. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 6 (1), 115–136 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.M. Levin, Induction and Husserl’s theory of eidetic variation. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 29 (1), 1–15 (1968), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2105814 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Levine, Qualia: Intrinsic, relational or what?, in Conscious Experience, ed. by T. Metzinger (Schöningh, Paderborn, 1995), pp. 277–292Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Luzeaux, J. Sallantin, C. Dartnell, Logical extensions of Aristotle’s square. Log. Univers. 2 (1), 167–187 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Metzinger, The problem of consciousness, in Conscious Experience, ed. by T. Metzinger (Schöningh, Paderborn, 1995), pp. 3–40Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Metzinger, Being No One (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.E. Moore, Sense Data (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1953), Chap. II, pp. 28–40Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Moretti, Geometry for modalities? Yes: Through n-opposition theory. Aspects Univers. Log. 17, 102–145 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Moretti, The Geometry of Logical Opposition, PhD thesis, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J.K. O’Regan, A. Noë, A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 939–1031 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Peacocke, Sense and Content (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J.J. Prinz, The ins and outs of consciousness. Brain Mind 1 (2), 245–256 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Read, John Buridan’s theory of consequence and his octagons of opposition, in Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition, ed. by J.-Y. Béziau, D. Jacquette. Studies in Universal Logic (Springer, Basel, 2012), pp. 93–110Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Roberts, The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey (State University of New York Press, New York, 1993)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Russell, H. MacColl, The existential import of propositions. Mind 14 (55), 398–402 (1905). http://www.jstor.org/stable/2248428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Schwitzgebel, Why did we think we dreamed in black and white? Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 33, 649–660 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    E. Schwitzgebel, Do people still report dreaming in black and white? An attempt to replicate a questionnaire from 1942. Percept. Mot. Skills 96, 25–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. Schwitzgebel, The unreliability of naive introspection. Philos. Rev. 117 (2), 245–273 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. Schwitzgebel, Perplexities of Consciousness (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    E. Schwitzgebel, C. Huang, Y. Zhou, Do we dream in color? cultural variations and skepticism. Dreaming 16, 36–42 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Searle, The Rediscovery of Mind (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    C. Siewert, The Significance of Consciousness (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    H. Smessaert, L. Demey, Logical geometries and information in the square of oppositions. J. Log. 23, 527–565 (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    A.D. Smith, The Problem of Perception (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Tye, Visual qualia and visual content, in The Contents of Experience, ed. by T. Crane (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992), pp. 158–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    R.A. Wilson, Intentionality and phenomenology. Pac. Philos. Q. 84, 413–431 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Zahavi, Self-Awareness and Alterity (Northwestern University Press, Evanston, 1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    D. Zahavi, Subjectivity and Selfhood: Investigating the First-Person Perspective (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute III: Philosophy, Program for Philosophy-Neurosciences-CognitionOtto-von-Guericke University MagdeburgMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations