Lucas R Vollet
I received my doctorate in philosophy in 2016 from the Federal University of Santa Catarina-(Brazil), with a work on Kant (Kant and Conjectural Empiricism), advised by Professor Dr. Werner Euler and with a period abroad with Professor Dr. Paul Guyer (Brown University). My advisor during the Master's and undergraduate studies was Darlei Dallagnol.
My publications have appeared in Husserl Studies, Studia Kantiana, Aurora, Cognitio (PUC-SP), Kant-e-prints, among others.
The angles of reflection in my articles mix the study of continental and analytical philosophers.
Supervisors: Prof.Dr. Werner Euler, Prof. Dr. Darlei Dagnoll, and Prof. Dr. Paul Guyer
Address: Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
My publications have appeared in Husserl Studies, Studia Kantiana, Aurora, Cognitio (PUC-SP), Kant-e-prints, among others.
The angles of reflection in my articles mix the study of continental and analytical philosophers.
Supervisors: Prof.Dr. Werner Euler, Prof. Dr. Darlei Dagnoll, and Prof. Dr. Paul Guyer
Address: Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
less
InterestsView All (9)
Uploads
Papers by Lucas R Vollet
production about necessary truth to the modern scientific model
required a philosophical investigation of its foundations, which Kant
undertook in the last decades of the 18th century. Centuries later,
the analysis of this fine operation still reveals perspectives of our
self-understanding as beings capable of representing the solvability
of problems about truth in a knowable unity. Long before he opened
the debate on technical and formal conditions of knowledge (in
cognitive science and modern semantics), Kant showed the reflexive
capacity of human beings to represent these conditions
transcendentally as a problem that is not undecidable for itself.
Because of the clarity of the original problem and the scope of his
reading of the consequences of that problem, Kant remains ground
zero for a problematization of human being as the being whose
presence in the world sets the parameters for what is possible and
what is necessary – a discussion that permeates the human and
natural sciences and will be of fundamental use to the debate over
artificial intelligence, which will tend to intensify in the years ahead.
objects without their yielding one and the same thing under lower and higher conditions of instantiation (depending on the function used to identify it). But even Russell could not avoid a crisis. It is not possible to reconcile semantic coordination for a set of non-classical extension of instantiation and encoding (possible instances, counterfactual truth values, etc.) while preserving the classical properties of signification. This article covers these moments with a rough diagnosis: modern semantics has a reflexive ceiling. It is unable to model the contingent features of an "object" without oversizing itself to deal with various constraints on that object adapted to various strategies of intensional and modal specification. In order to model idealized conditions of assertability (Putnam), one must filter the sentences that pass Tarskian test using non-sematic parameters – like the parameter of coherence of a scientific paradigm. It cannot keep that model without stopping being semantic. We conclude with a response to attempts to give semantic status to complex scientific reasoning, and a suggestion as to how to locate the philosophical origin of this claim.
production about necessary truth to the modern scientific model
required a philosophical investigation of its foundations, which Kant
undertook in the last decades of the 18th century. Centuries later,
the analysis of this fine operation still reveals perspectives of our
self-understanding as beings capable of representing the solvability
of problems about truth in a knowable unity. Long before he opened
the debate on technical and formal conditions of knowledge (in
cognitive science and modern semantics), Kant showed the reflexive
capacity of human beings to represent these conditions
transcendentally as a problem that is not undecidable for itself.
Because of the clarity of the original problem and the scope of his
reading of the consequences of that problem, Kant remains ground
zero for a problematization of human being as the being whose
presence in the world sets the parameters for what is possible and
what is necessary – a discussion that permeates the human and
natural sciences and will be of fundamental use to the debate over
artificial intelligence, which will tend to intensify in the years ahead.
objects without their yielding one and the same thing under lower and higher conditions of instantiation (depending on the function used to identify it). But even Russell could not avoid a crisis. It is not possible to reconcile semantic coordination for a set of non-classical extension of instantiation and encoding (possible instances, counterfactual truth values, etc.) while preserving the classical properties of signification. This article covers these moments with a rough diagnosis: modern semantics has a reflexive ceiling. It is unable to model the contingent features of an "object" without oversizing itself to deal with various constraints on that object adapted to various strategies of intensional and modal specification. In order to model idealized conditions of assertability (Putnam), one must filter the sentences that pass Tarskian test using non-sematic parameters – like the parameter of coherence of a scientific paradigm. It cannot keep that model without stopping being semantic. We conclude with a response to attempts to give semantic status to complex scientific reasoning, and a suggestion as to how to locate the philosophical origin of this claim.