Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A Kantian Analysis of the Contemporary Views on Nothings and Absences

Year 2024, , 98 - 117, 15.12.2024
https://doi.org/10.58634/felsefedunyasi.1558873

Abstract

This paper aims at contributing to contemporary literature on nothings and absences from a Kantian perspective. To achieve its aim, the article is structured in two main sections. The first investigates nihil privativum’s metaphysical-epistemological, cognitive, and linguistic aspects, shedding light on its enduring relevance and multifaceted nature. The analysis begins by elucidating nihil privativum’s negativity, highlighting the distinctions between its material and formal senses, and explores the epistemological intricacies of accessing knowledge concerning nothings and absences. Engaging with contemporary perspectives within the framework of Kant’s philosophy, it demonstrates the enduring applicability of Kantian framework in addressing contemporary philosophical debates. Furthermore, the section delves into the linguistic dimension of nihil privativum, examining the distinctions between various forms of nothings and absences and the classification of terms denoting contradictory nothings. The second section begins with exploring the cognitive aspect of nihil privativum, yet this time as a general and abstract concept, unveiling the step-by-step process involved in its formation. The second section ends by an analysis of the linguistic aspect of ‘nihil privativum’ as a rigid general term, arguing for its rigidity as a general abstract term by logical necessity, which is shown through two thought experiments within the discourse of possible worlds. The paper concludes that in the material sense, nothings and absences are not perceivable, in their formal sense they are conceptually representable, and as a general and abstract term ‘nihil privativum’ is rigid, containing all particular nihil privativa in its extension and designating the property of ‘being non-existent or absent’ in all possible worlds.

References

  • Birgül, O. G. (2021). Non-existence: On the representability of nothings. Synthesis Journal for Philosophy, 1(1), 69-87.
  • Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2017). Touching voids: On the varieties of absence perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 355–366.
  • Devitt, M. (2005). Rigid application. Philosophical Studies, 125, 139–165.
  • Devitt, M. (2009). Buenos Aires Symposium on Rigidity: Responses. Análisis Filosófic, 29, 239–251
  • Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language (2nd edn.). MIT Press.
  • Donnellan, K. (1983). Kripke and Putnam on natural kind terms. İçinde C. Ginet & S.
  • Shoemaker (Eds.), Knowledge and mind (ss. 84–104). Oxford University Press.
  • Dretske, F. (1969). Seeing and knowing. University of Chicago Press.
  • Dretske, F. (2004). Seeing, believing and knowing. İçinde R. Schwartz (Ed.), Perception (ss. 337–353). Blackwell.
  • Esterman, M., & Yantis, S. (2010). Perceptual expectation evokes category-selective cortical activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20(5), 1245–1253.
  • Farennikova, A. (2013). Seeing absence. Philosophical Studies, 166(3), 429–454.
  • Farennikova, A. (2019). Would you buy absence art? İçinde D. Shottenkirk, M. Cu- roda, & S. S. Gouveia (Eds.), Perception, cognition and aesthetics (ss. 255–278). Routledge.
  • Frege, G. (1960). Foundations of arithmetic. (J. L. Austin, Çev.). Harper & Brothers. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. George Allen and Unwin.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
  • Gow, L. (2021a). Empty space, silence, and absence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 51(7), 496–507.
  • Gow, L. (2021b). A new theory of absence experience. European Journal of Philosophy, 29(1), 168–181.
  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175.
  • Kant, I. (1992). Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. (D. Walford & R. Meerbote, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on metaphysics. (K. Ameriks & S. Naragon, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (1998). The critique of pure reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (2012). Natural science. (E. Watkins, Ed. & O. Reinhardt, Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. MIT Press.
  • Kukso, B. (2006). The reality of absences. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 21-37.
  • LaPorte, J. (2000). Rigidity and kind. Philosophical Studies, 97, 293–316.
  • LaPorte, J. (2013). Rigid designation and theoretical identities. Oxford University Press.
  • López de Sa, D. (2008). Rigidity for predicates and the trivialization problem. Philosophers’ Imprint, 8(1), 1–13.
  • Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Freeman.
  • Orlando, E. (2014). General terms and rigidity: Another solution to the trivialization problem. Manuscrito, 37(1), 51–84.
  • Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent. Clarendon Press. Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (1989). Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent. Philosophia Verlag.
  • Roberts, T. (2016). A breath of fresh air: Absence and the structure of olfactory perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97(3), 400–420.
  • Salmon, N. (2005). Are general terms rigid? Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 117–134.
  • Schwartz, S. (1980). Formal semantics and natural kind terms. Philosophical Studies, 38, 189-198.
  • Schwartz, S. (2020). Against rigidity for general terms. İçinde A. Bianchi (Ed.), Language and reality from a naturalistic perspective: Themes from Michael Devitt (ss. 249–267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47641-0
  • Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford University Press.
  • Sorensen, R. (2008a). Empty quotation. Analysis, 68(1), 57–61.
  • Sorensen, R. (2008b). Seeing dark things. Oxford University Press.
  • Sorensen, R. (2009). Hearing silence: The perception and introspection of absences. İçinde M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays (ss. 126–145). Oxford University Press.
  • Sullivan, A. (2007). Rigid designation and semantic structure. Philosophers’ Imprint, 7(6), 1–22.

Hiçlikler ve Yokluklar Üzerine Güncel Görüşlerin Kantçı Bir Analizi

Year 2024, , 98 - 117, 15.12.2024
https://doi.org/10.58634/felsefedunyasi.1558873

Abstract

Bu makale, hiçlikler ve yokluklar üzerine güncel literatüre Kantçı bir perspektiften katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amacı gerçekleştirmek için makale, iki ana bölümde yapılandırılmıştır. İlk bölüm, nihil privativum’un metafizik-epistemolojik, bilişsel ve dilsel yönlerini araştırarak, onun süregelen önemini ve çok yönlü doğasını aydınlatmaktadır. Analiz, nihil privativum’un olumsuzluğunu açıklayarak, onun maddi ve biçimsel anlamları arasındaki ayrımları vurgulamakta ve hiçlikler ve yokluklar hakkında bilgiye erişmenin epistemolojik karmaşıklıklarını keşfetmektedir. Kant felsefesi çerçevesinde güncel perspektiflerle etkileşime giren bu bölüm, Kantçı çerçevenin günümüz felsefi tartışmalarında süregelen uygulanabilirliğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca bu bölüm, nihil privativum’un dilsel boyutuna da değinerek, çeşitli hiçlik ve yokluk biçimleri arasındaki farkları ve çelişkili hiçlikleri ifade eden terimlerin sınıflandırılmasını incelemektedir. İkinci bölüm, nihil privativum’un bilişsel yönünü bu sefer genel ve soyut bir kavram olarak araştırmaya başlayarak, onun oluşum sürecini adım adım ortaya koymaktadır. Bu bölüm, ‘nihil privativum’ teriminin mantıksal zorunlulukla genel soyut bir terim olarak katılığını savunarak, iki düşünce deneyi aracılığıyla olası dünyalar söylemi içinde bunun nasıl gösterildiğine dair bir analizle sona ermektedir. Makale, maddi anlamda hiçliklerin ve yoklukların algılanamaz, biçimsel anlamda ise kavramsal olarak temsil edilebilir olduğu ve ‘nihil privativum’ kavramının genel ve soyut bir terim olarak katı olduğu, tüm tikel nihil privativum örneklerini içeriğinde barındırdığı ve tüm olası dünyalarda ‘var olmama ya da yok olma’ özelliğini işaret ettiği sonucuna varmaktadır.

References

  • Birgül, O. G. (2021). Non-existence: On the representability of nothings. Synthesis Journal for Philosophy, 1(1), 69-87.
  • Cavedon-Taylor, D. (2017). Touching voids: On the varieties of absence perception. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 355–366.
  • Devitt, M. (2005). Rigid application. Philosophical Studies, 125, 139–165.
  • Devitt, M. (2009). Buenos Aires Symposium on Rigidity: Responses. Análisis Filosófic, 29, 239–251
  • Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language (2nd edn.). MIT Press.
  • Donnellan, K. (1983). Kripke and Putnam on natural kind terms. İçinde C. Ginet & S.
  • Shoemaker (Eds.), Knowledge and mind (ss. 84–104). Oxford University Press.
  • Dretske, F. (1969). Seeing and knowing. University of Chicago Press.
  • Dretske, F. (2004). Seeing, believing and knowing. İçinde R. Schwartz (Ed.), Perception (ss. 337–353). Blackwell.
  • Esterman, M., & Yantis, S. (2010). Perceptual expectation evokes category-selective cortical activity. Cerebral Cortex, 20(5), 1245–1253.
  • Farennikova, A. (2013). Seeing absence. Philosophical Studies, 166(3), 429–454.
  • Farennikova, A. (2019). Would you buy absence art? İçinde D. Shottenkirk, M. Cu- roda, & S. S. Gouveia (Eds.), Perception, cognition and aesthetics (ss. 255–278). Routledge.
  • Frege, G. (1960). Foundations of arithmetic. (J. L. Austin, Çev.). Harper & Brothers. Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. George Allen and Unwin.
  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
  • Gow, L. (2021a). Empty space, silence, and absence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 51(7), 496–507.
  • Gow, L. (2021b). A new theory of absence experience. European Journal of Philosophy, 29(1), 168–181.
  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175.
  • Kant, I. (1992). Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. (D. Walford & R. Meerbote, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on metaphysics. (K. Ameriks & S. Naragon, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (1998). The critique of pure reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds. & Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kant, I. (2012). Natural science. (E. Watkins, Ed. & O. Reinhardt, Çev.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. MIT Press.
  • Kukso, B. (2006). The reality of absences. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84(1), 21-37.
  • LaPorte, J. (2000). Rigidity and kind. Philosophical Studies, 97, 293–316.
  • LaPorte, J. (2013). Rigid designation and theoretical identities. Oxford University Press.
  • López de Sa, D. (2008). Rigidity for predicates and the trivialization problem. Philosophers’ Imprint, 8(1), 1–13.
  • Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Freeman.
  • Orlando, E. (2014). General terms and rigidity: Another solution to the trivialization problem. Manuscrito, 37(1), 51–84.
  • Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent. Clarendon Press. Priest, G., Routley, R., & Norman, J. (1989). Paraconsistent logic: Essays on the inconsistent. Philosophia Verlag.
  • Roberts, T. (2016). A breath of fresh air: Absence and the structure of olfactory perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97(3), 400–420.
  • Salmon, N. (2005). Are general terms rigid? Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 117–134.
  • Schwartz, S. (1980). Formal semantics and natural kind terms. Philosophical Studies, 38, 189-198.
  • Schwartz, S. (2020). Against rigidity for general terms. İçinde A. Bianchi (Ed.), Language and reality from a naturalistic perspective: Themes from Michael Devitt (ss. 249–267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47641-0
  • Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford University Press.
  • Sorensen, R. (2008a). Empty quotation. Analysis, 68(1), 57–61.
  • Sorensen, R. (2008b). Seeing dark things. Oxford University Press.
  • Sorensen, R. (2009). Hearing silence: The perception and introspection of absences. İçinde M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays (ss. 126–145). Oxford University Press.
  • Sullivan, A. (2007). Rigid designation and semantic structure. Philosophers’ Imprint, 7(6), 1–22.
There are 38 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Logic, 18th Century Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Osman Gazi Birgül 0000-0003-2089-848X

Publication Date December 15, 2024
Submission Date September 30, 2024
Acceptance Date December 2, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024

Cite

APA Birgül, O. G. (2024). A Kantian Analysis of the Contemporary Views on Nothings and Absences. Felsefe Dünyası(80), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.58634/felsefedunyasi.1558873

Felsefe Dünyası Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.