Formal Methods and the History of Philosophy

Novaes, Catarina Dutilh

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-77434-3_3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This attempt, like any interdisciplinary attempt, involves some risks. First of all, one needs to find “the right level of granularity” (Dutilh Novaes, 2018, p. 83) because a formalism which is too fine‐grained would just reproduce exactly what is found in the texts we are working on, without being informative, whereas one which is too coarse‐grained would risk ignoring important features. In other words, while formalising a theory discussed in a text we are creating a map and, in order to be useful, a map cannot be identical with the territory it represents; rather, it emphasises certain aspects of the territory, serving as a guide for exploration.…”

Section: Methodology and Aims Of This Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Deontic Concepts and Their Clash in Mīmāṃsā: Towards an Interpretation

Freschi

Pascucci

2021

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article offers an overview of the deontic theory developed by the philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā, which is, and has been since the last centuries BCE, the main source of normative concepts in Sanskrit thought. Thus, the Mīmāṃsā deontics is interesting for any historian of philosophy and constitutes a thought‐provoking occasion to rethink deontic concepts, taking advantage of centuries of systematic reflections on these topics. Some comparison with notions currently used in Euro‐American normative theories and metaethical principles is offered in order to show possible points of contact and deep divergences. In more detail, after an introduction explaining the methodology and aims of our work, we discuss how Mīmāṃsā authors distinguished and defined some fundamental deontic concepts, such as different types of prescriptions and prohibitions. We then discuss how Mīmāṃsā authors approached the problem of conflicts among commands without jeopardising the validity of the normative text issuing them. In the second part of the article we introduce our formal apparatus, which is construed around the main taxonomic and conceptual distinctions used in the first part. Our formal rendering captures the most important features of the Mīmāṃsā theory and can thus serve as a concise and rigorous presentation of it for scholars working in deontic logic.

show abstract

Section: Methodology and Aims Of This Articlementioning

confidence: 99%