dor_id: 4115524

506.#.#.a: Público

590.#.#.d: Cada artículo es evaluado mediante una revisión ciega única. Los revisores son externos nacionales e internacionales.

510.0.#.a: Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Revistes Cientifiques de Ciencies Socials Humanitais (CARHUS Plus), Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (CLASE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS), Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex), SCOPUS, Journal Storage (JSTOR), The Philosopher’s Index, Ulrich’s Periodical Directory

561.#.#.u: http://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/

650.#.4.x: Artes y Humanidades

336.#.#.b: article

336.#.#.3: Artículo de Investigación

336.#.#.a: Artículo

351.#.#.6: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

351.#.#.b: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía

351.#.#.a: Artículos

harvesting_group: RevistasUNAM

270.1.#.p: Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx

590.#.#.c: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

270.#.#.d: MX

270.1.#.d: México

590.#.#.b: Concentrador

883.#.#.u: http://www.revistas.unam.mx/front/

883.#.#.a: Revistas UNAM

590.#.#.a: Coordinación de Difusión Cultural, UNAM

883.#.#.1: https://www.publicaciones.unam.mx/

883.#.#.q: Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM

850.#.#.a: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

856.4.0.u: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/373/362

100.1.#.a: Alchourrón, Carlos E.

524.#.#.a: Alchourrón, Carlos E. (1981). Prescriptions and Norms: Castañeda´s Theory. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 13 No 38, 1981; 3-27. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115524

245.1.0.a: Prescriptions and Norms: Castañeda´s Theory

502.#.#.c: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

561.1.#.a: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

264.#.0.c: 1981

264.#.1.c: 2018-11-23

506.1.#.a: La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, fecha de asignación de la licencia 2018-11-23, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico alberto@filosoficas.unam.mx

884.#.#.k: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/373

001.#.#.#: critica:oai:ojs2.132.248.184.97:article/373

041.#.7.h: spa

520.3.#.a: This paper is about H.N. Castañeda’s theory of practical thinking. His theory includes a deontic logic and a logic for practitions (the conceptual kernel of prescriptions and intentions). Castañeda presents both logics in an axiomatic form justified by a correlative semantic approach. In this paper I wish to argue that many theorems of the syntactic presentations are semantically invalid; and, moreover, that many semantically valid expressions do not appear in the corresponding calculi because they are not even formulable in them. This lack of correlation gives rise to many specific problems. In particular, it is shown that the formulas used by Castañeda to solve some classical deontic paradoxes are invalid according to his own standards, and that the paradoxes reappear in his logic because there are some valid formulas that the author has never made explicit. Although Castañeda rejects Hume’s thesis that ought-judgments are not implied by premises among which there are no ought-judgments, his semantic explanation of deontic propositions and practitions supports Hume’s thesis. In the last part of the paper it is argued that Castañeda’s acceptance of Kant’s principle that ought implies can does not agree with the author’s main conception of deontic propositions. For this acceptance he is led to reconstruct conflicts of obligation in an unnecessary and artificial way. These difficulties result from the fact that Castañeda has built not one but at least two different deontic logics based upon two different logics for practitions. All of these logics are supported by powerful and important intuitions, but it is necessary to introduce some modifications in order to eliminate the conflicting features of the theory as a whole.[C.E.A.] Resumen

773.1.#.t: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 13 No 38 (1981); 3-27

773.1.#.o: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

046.#.#.j: 2021-09-28 00:00:00.000000

022.#.#.a: ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

310.#.#.a: Cuatrimestral

300.#.#.a: Páginas: 3-27

264.#.1.b: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

758.#.#.1: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1981.373

handle: 0089bdae357491c8

856.#.0.q: application/pdf

file_creation_date: 2010-10-12 19:53:45.0

file_modification_date: 2010-10-31 21:14:12.0

file_creator: IIFs

file_name: f09214a14773d9d4f0277dbe3e26803cd9374236737bd8afaa8468707c174a13.pdf

file_pages_number: 25

file_format_version: application/pdf; version=1.6

file_size: 308531

245.1.0.b: Prescripciones y normas: la teoría de Castañeda

last_modified: 2021-11-09 23:50:00

license_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es

license_type: by-nc-nd

No entro en nada

No entro en nada 2

Artículo

Prescriptions and Norms: Castañeda´s Theory

Alchourrón, Carlos E.

Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM

Licencia de uso

Procedencia del contenido

Cita

Alchourrón, Carlos E. (1981). Prescriptions and Norms: Castañeda´s Theory. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 13 No 38, 1981; 3-27. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115524

Descripción del recurso

Autor(es)
Alchourrón, Carlos E.
Tipo
Artículo de Investigación
Área del conocimiento
Artes y Humanidades
Título
Prescriptions and Norms: Castañeda´s Theory
Fecha
2018-11-23
Resumen
This paper is about H.N. Castañeda’s theory of practical thinking. His theory includes a deontic logic and a logic for practitions (the conceptual kernel of prescriptions and intentions). Castañeda presents both logics in an axiomatic form justified by a correlative semantic approach. In this paper I wish to argue that many theorems of the syntactic presentations are semantically invalid; and, moreover, that many semantically valid expressions do not appear in the corresponding calculi because they are not even formulable in them. This lack of correlation gives rise to many specific problems. In particular, it is shown that the formulas used by Castañeda to solve some classical deontic paradoxes are invalid according to his own standards, and that the paradoxes reappear in his logic because there are some valid formulas that the author has never made explicit. Although Castañeda rejects Hume’s thesis that ought-judgments are not implied by premises among which there are no ought-judgments, his semantic explanation of deontic propositions and practitions supports Hume’s thesis. In the last part of the paper it is argued that Castañeda’s acceptance of Kant’s principle that ought implies can does not agree with the author’s main conception of deontic propositions. For this acceptance he is led to reconstruct conflicts of obligation in an unnecessary and artificial way. These difficulties result from the fact that Castañeda has built not one but at least two different deontic logics based upon two different logics for practitions. All of these logics are supported by powerful and important intuitions, but it is necessary to introduce some modifications in order to eliminate the conflicting features of the theory as a whole.[C.E.A.] Resumen
Idioma
spa
ISSN
ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

Enlaces