Discussion

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Ilya Kasavin
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Sergey Tatevosov
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Evgeny Lednikov
Lomonosov Moscow State University of Fine Chemical Technologies
Igor F. Mikhailov
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Ekaterina Vostrikova
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Alexandre Antonovski
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Issue number: 
No. 2 (Vol. 32)
Pages: 
59-92
Keywords: 
ontology, proper names, logical semantics, abstract objects
References: 

The discussion of professor Nikiforov's statement had three main directions: the socio-philosophical (I.Kasavin, A.Antonovski), the analytical-philosophical (E.Lednikov and I.Michailov), and the formal semantic (E.Vostrikova). The argument in the social part of the discussion addressed the need to provide a wider account of what constitutes an object which would include the social factors. The analytical philosophical criticism tried to accound for Nikiforov's statement in the context of some general lines of criticism typical for analytical philosophy. Finally, the formal semantic perspective on Nikiforov's thesis presented an argument according to which formal semantics, as stated in a number of works of its classical representatives, follows the ontology of natural language and not the ontology preferable for other philosophical purpuses.

Full Text: