حکمت و فلسفه

This paper, nu1in!J aims al n1alaflg a wnpariJon behveen ana!Jtic n1etapl91irians' and A vianna'J views on miver. To this end, first! lht ,my'or vitlul arr brief!J 111n.9ed among ana!Jti, ,mtapl{ysicians. Then, .Asicmna's vitll!I about dijftrtnl typu ofl(niVtr.tals art studied: ldnds, properhu, and rrlatio,11. Hopefull it will clan, u1hm Avianna stands in lht tHmnt debate on 11nivtrials.

Thr aim of this paper is to disems Anenna's detective justifia1tion ef induction. The paper inlroducu Avicr1111a's theoy of indsaian as a postfa/Jifiraliouist theory of bis time, and tben promds to discrm to distinaion hr bas ,nude brtween indsatian and experien«. The paper thm discesses the theory andfot1ues 011 some of the problems irlated to.Aiianna 's dain, thour belief in 1-e gemmliz(ltion is haIrd on a ded11ctiw stmdure, and diffennh"atu it from 'tkized f-e. The paper md1 HP with a 1ho1J cotJJpanS011 of 1vht1t .Acicenna, F-f11me and Ayer say on the kindj1utification i11 q11eslio11

kripke bas proposed a number of counteretxamples to the classic thesis, which ays that the class of necmary fropositions roincidn with the cla1ss of a priori ones. These counteretxamples involve some necessary a posten'ori trutbs as well as contingent a priori ones. Om cfbis exmnplu far the loller is the 1ta11dard metre example. In thi1 paper, after presenting a brief sketch of Kripke'1 proposal, I'll exan,ine the main ohjution1 to it and argue !hat all of them co,t!d be replied to. At the end, ho,vever,argue that the standard metre example enjoy1 much Im philosopbical significance than it appears to,and,considering the sprit,it of the clauic tbesis, it faill to rif,1tt tbiI tbesis.

The concept of causality is fundamental to our understanding of the world. the idea of causality was made popular, in Western Philosophy, by David Hume; one of the best-know British empiricists. This paper examines critically the Human idea of causality-that of a necessary/physical connection - in juxtaposition to an Africa theory. The thesis that the causal relation, when correctly defined, is as directly observable as many other facts and that the alleged of Humean denial of a causal tie is a myth.