ФОРМАЛЬНЫЙ РЕАЛИЗМ: PRO ET CONTRA

.
.
. 2015.
4 (32)
1.16
DOI: 10.17223/1998863 /32/12
.
: PRO ET CONTRA
,
-
.
:
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
[1–4],
-
–
,
[5–9].
,
,
.
-
,
,
.
–
,
-
,
.
,
.
: 1)
,
; 2)
-
(
)
.
,
»,
,«
-
,
–
) –
(
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
: pro et contra
103
,
,
.
the access problem –
-
(
-
.
).
,
.
(
)
,
,
,
.
.
[10].
,
)
.
,
«
»
-
.
–
.
.
. …
,
:
,
?
?
,
,
,
,
,
,
?» [11. C. 257–258].
4
«
» [12]
,
«
» [13].
.
,
,
(
,
-
,
,
,
.
,
).
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
: «
.
104
».
.
,
.
«
» [1]
-
,
:
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
?
,
,
.
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
» [1. . 42–43].
:«
.
,
,
,
,
,
» [1. . 43].
,
,
.
-
,
-
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
)?
,
«
» [14]. .
.
.
[14. P. 209].
-
,
-
: pro et contra
.
105
:
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
,
.
.
,
,
.
» [14. P. 207].
,
«
»,
.
,
-
.
,
(
,
)
,
-
),
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
-
,
,
(
).
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
.
,
.
-
,
.
.
–
,
.
(
,
).
,
,
-
,
.
,
.
-
:
–
,
-
;
–
,
.
.
106
(
,
,
)
,
.
.
«
,
» .
-
:
(
)
,
» [15. C. 18].
,
.
-
,
.
.
.
.
:
«…
…
,
,
…
» [16. P. 164–165].
,
,
–
,
(
),
,
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
L
L1.
–
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
[17–19],
.
-
,
[8–9],
, ,
,
,
,
-
.
,
,
,
(truth-teller) –
,–
.
,
,
-
: pro et contra
107
,
.
,
-
.
«
»
«
»
:
,
,
‘
-
’
» [20. C. 447].
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
–
-
,
,
(
«
»;
,
,
),
-
,
(
«
»;
).
«
,
-
» [2]
,
:
,
,
(
’)
.
,
-
.
,
, ‘
’
, «
.
?
?» [2. . 54].
».
,
-
.
108
,
-
.
:
(s |- ),
s –
,
s
,
–
(
)
s.
,
:«
,
s,
,
,
s»,
.
,
.
«
s»
,
,
,
s.
«
»,
.
,
,
,
,
)
(
,
-
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,«
-
».
,
-
: «
».
,
,
,
.
.
-
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
: pro et contra
109
,
-
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
-
[21].
(
,
),
,
.
,
-
,
[22].
,
-
,
,
.
.
–
;
–
;
–
.
,
,
.
«
-
»,
-
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
«
,
‘
:
’
?» [3].
,
.
:
,
,
,
(
,
),
-
,
(
),
.
,
,
‘
’,
–
-
.
110
‘
’,
,
,
,
,
‘
,
’,
‘
‘Sk
’,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’ (Buridan's Sophisms) (
S1 S2,
–
’ (
‘Sk
,
,
’),
–
,
,
‘
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
)» [3. C. 73–74].
,
«
»,
-
,
,
.
-
,
,
.
.
:
S1, S2, S3…,
,
:
k>1, Sk
k>2, Sk
k>3, Sk
,
(S1)
(S2)
(S3)
.
, Sn
, ( ) Sn+1
.
(b)
Sn+1
(a),
.
.
.
,
,
k>n Sk
, (b)
Sn
.
k>n+1 Sk
Sn+1,
,
!
Sn
.
Sn,
!
-
-
,
,
Sn
,
,
(22.
P. 251–252).
,
,
Sn
Sn+1
,
Sn+1
Sn+2
,
Sn
.
Sn+1
,
Sn
,
(
Sn+2, Sn+1
,
Sn
Sn+2,
) Sn+1
Sn+2,
-
,
: pro et contra
111
,
« »
.
,
.
,
»:
S1
S2,
-
.
,
«
,
»
,
,
.
S1
,
,
,
S1
, ,
,
,
S2
S2
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
S1
,
,
,
S1
.
.
,
S1
,
S1
-
,
S2
,
(
),
,
».
«
S1,
.
S1
, S1
.
.
,
,
,
S2
S2
,
S1
, S1
,
,
.
, S1
,
.
.
S2,
, S1
-
«
» [4].
,
,
, ,
-
.
,
.
.
:
.
-
…» [4. C. 121].
.
–
,
.
.
-
:
.
:
,
,
,
,
,
-
.
112
.
» [4. C. 121].
,
,
,
«
»,
», «
-
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
«
-
»,
.
,
(
–
.
-
),
,
«
.
» [5]
«
» [9].
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
1.
.,
//
.
.
.
. 38–45.
2.
.
.
.
. 2012.
2 (18).
.
-
,
//
. 53–57.
3.
? //
4.
.
:
.
.
.
:
,
.
//
.
5.
.
.
.
. 2013.
. 2013.
‘
.
. 2014.
2 (49).
’
4. . 64–77.
8. . 108– 24.
:
.
-
-
, 2008.
6.
.
//
. 2009. 2 (70). . 11–23.
7.
.
//
.
2010. 341. . 48–55.
8.
.
«
» //
. 2011. 3 (50). . 37–53.
9.
.
.
:
.
, 2011.
10. Katz J.J. The Metaphysics of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
.
.
: pro et contra
113
11.
.
//
.
.
.:
..
, 2007. . 2. . 229–327.
12.
.
//
.
: 4 . .:
, 1976. . 1.
13. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on the Metaphysics. Chicago, 1961.
14. Kordig C.R. Self-Reference and Philosophy // American Philosophical Quarterly. 1983.
Vol. 20, No. 2. Apr. P. 207–216.
15.
.
,
//
,
,
.
:
.
, 2006. . 16–62.
16. Tarski A. The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages // Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956. P. 152–278.
17. Bolander T. Self-Reference and Logic // News. 2002. 1. P. 9–43.
18. Beall Jc. A Neglected Deflationist Approach to the Liar // Analysis. 2001. 61.2, April.
P. 126–129.
19. Anderson A.P. St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus // The Paradox of the Liar. New Haven and London, 1970. P. 1–11.
20.
.
.
//
.
.
:
. ., 1986. . 449–482.
21. Frege G. Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.
22. Yablo S. Paradox without Self-reference // Analysis. 1993. 53. P. 251–252.
Ladov Vsevolod A. National Research Tomsk State University (Tomsk, Russian Federation)
DOI: 10.17223/1998863 /32/12
FORMAL REALISM: PRO ET CONTRA
Keywords: realism, anti-realism, relativism, ontology, epistemology, logic, paradox, selfreference, truth
This article is devoted to consideration of critical arguments against formal realism presented in
contemporary Russian philosophical literature. Author tries to answer the arguments by means of
more accurate representation and correction of content of formal realism. The article consist of six
section: Introduction; The first critical argument; The second critical argument; The third critical
argument; The fourth critical argument; Conclusions.
References
1. Nayman, E.A. & Syrov, V.N. (2012) Some reasons about justification of formal realism. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State
University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2(18). pp. 38–45. (In Russian).
2. Lobovikov, V.O. (2013) Problema nepolnoty formal'no opredelennykh sistem norm pozitivnogo prava, pervaya teorema Gedelya o nepolnote i yuridicheskie fiktsii kak vazhnyy komponent
yuridicheskoy tekhniki [The problem of incomplete formally defined systems of positive law, the first
of Godel's theorems of incompleteness and legal fiction as an important component of legal technique]. Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2(49). pp. 53–57.
3. Nekhaev, A.V. (2014) About crooks and thieves: Does Yablo’s paradox self-reference, or
doesn’t? Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya –
Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 4. pp. 64–77
(In Russian).
4. Ignatenko, A.S. (2013) Realism and Constructivism as Alternative Ontological Foundations of
Philosophy of Language. Filosofskie nauki – Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 8. pp. 108–
24. (In Russian).
5. Ladov, V.A. (2008) Illyuziya znacheniya: Problema sledovaniya pravilu v analiticheskoy
filosofii [Illusion of values: the rule-following problem in analytic philosophy]. Tomsk: Tomsk State
University.
6. Ladov, V.A. (2009) Formal'nyy realizm [Formal realism]. Logos. 2 (70). pp. 11–23.
7. Ladov, V.A. (2010) Logical foundation of formal realism. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal. 341. pp. 48–55. (In Russian).
8. Ladov, V.A. (2011) Uroki “Lzhetsa” [The lessons of the “Liar”]. Filosofiya nauki. 3(50).
pp. 37–53.
9. Ladov, V.A. (2011) Formal'nyy realism [Formal realism]. Tomsk: Tomsk State University.
10. Katz, J.J. (1990) The Metaphysics of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
114
.
11. Plato. (2007) Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Works in 4 vols]. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg: St.
Petersburg State University. pp. 229–327.
12. Aristotle. (1976) Sochineniya: v 4 t. [Works. In 4 vols]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka.
13. Thomas Aquinas. (1961) Commentary on the Metaphysics. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
14. Kordig, C.R. (1983) Self-Reference and Philosophy. American Philosophical Quarterly.
20(2). pp. 207–216.
15. Russell, B. (2006) Matematicheskaya logika, osnovannaya na teorii tipov [Mathematical
logic, based on the theory of types]. In: Surivtsev, V.A. (ed.) Logika, ontologiya, yazyk [Logic,
ontology, language]. Tomsk: Tomsk State University. pp. 16–62.
16. Tarski, A. (1956) The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In: Corcoran, J. (ed.)
Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 152–278.
17. Bolander, T. (2002) Self-Reference and Logic. FNews. 1. pp. 9–43.
18. Beall, Jc. (2001) A Neglected Deflationist Approach to the Liar. Analysis. 61.2. pp. 126–129.
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8284.00281
19. Anderson, A.P. (1970) St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus. In: Martin, R.L. (ed.) The Paradox of the
Liar. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. pp. 1–11.
20. Wright, G.H. fon. (1986) Logiko-filosofskie issledovaniya: Izbrannye trudy [Logicophilosophical Study: Selected Works]. Translated by V. Smirnov, P. Bystrov, A. Karpenko. Moscow:
Progress. pp. 449–482.
21. Frege, G. (1980) Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
22. Yablo, S. (1993) Paradox without Self-reference. Analysis. 53. pp. 251–252. DOI:
10.2307/3328245