On Vendler’s freedom of choice

In this short essay, we will provide some contemporary remarks to Vendler (1962 and 1974). We will propose that his characterization of the Free Choice Item any can be properly explained if we take into account an alternative semantics framework. We will assume with Menéndez-Benito (2010) that it is a universal indeterminate pronoun, and with Aloni (2007) that it involves an exhaustification operator to explain its behavior. We will show that, if we take into account this approach, we will be able to explain what Vendler called freedom of choice, lack of existential import, lawlike propositions, among other characteristics. In addition, we will try to do some linguistics in philosophy, and try to explain how a proper understanding of FCI may help to better understand some reference related problems. Finally, we will show that if we take into account a speech act theory, as the one proposed by Searle (1985), we may account for some of the FCI particular behavior with regard to free choice.

The Kierkegaardian Existentialism of Richard Linklater's Before Trilogy

This article examines the Kierkegaardian existentialism set in motion by Richard Linklater's Before trilogy: Before Sunrise (1995), Before Sunset (2004), and Before Midnight (2013). In doing so, it asserts the efficacy of cinema as a medium of existential import, one that is particularly suited to give form to Søren Kierkegaard's project. The identification of three existential stages of life – the aesthetic, ethical, and religious – is perhaps Kierkegaard's most notable contribution to philosophy. This article contends that Linklater's aesthetic strategy – namely, his distinctive use of long dialogic takes and open endings – grapples with these existential categories: the aesthetic and ethical existence-spheres, as well as the border zone of irony that rests between them. By mapping the shifting utility of the long take and open endings throughout the trilogy, the article charts the differing existential states of the trilogy's enduring couple, Jesse and Céline, as well as the ensuing complications that arise from their clash. In particular, the Before trilogy demonstrates the difficulty of reconciling aesthetic desire and ethical responsibility. Focusing on this dilemma, the article goes on to discuss how the differing existential states of Jesse and Céline prevent a proper appropriation of the ethical requirement into their lives, and that this existential disparity is what eventually surfaces the dysfunction of their romantic union.

An Extension of the Rules of Valid Syllogism to Rules of Conclusive Syllogisms with Indefinite Terms

One extends to indefinite terms the Classical Syllogistics and the Rules of Valid Syllogism (RofVS). The valid syllo-gisms are generalized to conclusive syllogisms, made of conclusive pairs of categorical premises and their logical consequences (LCs), which all may contain indefinite terms: the positive, S,P,M, terms, and their complementary sets in the universe of discourse, U, i.e., the negative terms. A “pattern and type” classification, splits the 32 conclusive syllogisms into four types, Barbara, Darapti or Darii and Disamis – each containing eight syllogisms, which follow only three “patterns of inclusion and intersection”, namely either S⊆M⊆P (Barbara), or, M⊆S, M⊆P (Darapti), or M S≠Ø, M⊆P (Darii). (The Disamis type syllogisms follow the Darii pattern, but switch the roles played by the P and S terms.) By using only four Rules of Conclusive Syllogisms (RofCS), (and abandoning the RofVS “two negative prem-ises are not allowed” and “the middle term has to be dis-tributed in at least one premise”), one can make the RofCS into a “theory” "almost equivalent" with the formulas which describe all the conclusive syllogisms, including existential import syllogisms (to which the RofVS do not make any reference). Very importantly, each precise LC of the Barba-ra, Darapti and Darii patterns pinpoints a unique partitioning subset of U: S=S M P and P'=S' M' P' for Bar-bara’s pattern - which entails two LCs; M=M S P for Darapti’s pattern; S M P≠Ø for Darii’s pattern. The middle term’s elimination from the LC, initiated by Aristo-tle, simplifies, but weakens the LC.

About the set theory model of categorical syllogisms

One discusses valid syllogisms (VS), sorites, “distribution conservation”, empty setconstraints (ESC), and one compares the Classic Categorical Syllogistic (CCS) with a SetTheoretical Model (STM). A valid categorical argument (VCA) is a pair of categoricalpremises (PCP) together with its entailed logical consequence (LC). CCS defines a VS as aVCA which satisfies the supplementary conditions that the PCP be formulable using only the“positive” S,P,M terms, and that the LC - obtained via existential import (ei) or not - be one ofthe A(S,P), O(S,P), E(S,P) or I(S,P) statements. Therefore, in CCS, the P term has to be thepredicate of the LC. Both the CCS moods and figures notation, and the STM PCP matrixnotation use the convention that in a PCP one firstly lists the P-premise. STM interprets theS,P,M terms as sets, and also allows the “negative” terms, non-S, non-P, non-M, (denoted byS',P',M' – the complementary sets in a universal set U to S,P,M, respectively), to appear in thePCPs and LCs. To characterize a VCA, STM does not use syllogistic figures, the condition ofP term being the predicate of the LC, the automatic removal of the middle term from anyentailed LC, nor the rules of valid syllogisms (RofVS). In STM any LC pinpoints to just oneand only one of the eight subsets partitioning U, as either being definitely not empty, (Dariitype LC), or, as being the only one subset possibly non empty of either one of the sets S,P,S',P',(Barbara/Barbari type LC), or of one of the sets M,M' (Darapti type ei LC). A tree like methodimmediately finds the LC of a any VCA.