In the first part of the paper, I argue that explicating systems which fall under the simple theory of types are limited in explicating our conceptual scheme. Such limitation is avoided if one utilizes, instead, a ramified type theory, especially the one developed by Pavel Tichý. In the third part of the paper, I explain the role of so-called constructions and derivation systems within such a framework, elucidating how deduction demonstrates properties of objects., V první části příspěvku tvrdím, že vysvětlující systémy, které spadají pod jednoduchou teorii typů, jsou omezeny na vysvětlování našeho konceptuálního schématu. Tomuto omezení se vyhýbáme, pokud místo toho využijeme teorii rozvětveného typu, zejména teorii vyvinutou Pavlem Tichým. Ve třetí části práce vysvětluji roli takzvaných konstrukcí a derivačních systémů v takovém rámci, objasňujícím, jak dedukce demonstruje vlastnosti objektů., and Jiří Raclavský
Explikácia patrí medzi kľúčové metódy analytickej filozofie. V tejto práci predstavujem návrh explicitného odlíšenia metódy explikácie od jej výsledku. V nadväznosti na prácu Rudolfa Carnapa sa snažím jeho explikačný projekt rozvinúť. Poukazujem na otvorené problémy Carnapovych kritérií adekvátnej explikácie; ukazujem, v čom sa explikácie od definícií líšia, aká je ich logická forma a ktoré explicitné kroky sú typické pre metódu explikácie. Napokon, približujem dôvody, pre ktoré je možné explikáciu (t.j. výsledok explikovania) chápať ako reláciu nahradenia medzi významovou charakterizáciou a definíciou určitého druhu., Explication belongs among the core methods of analytic philosophy. In the paper I propose to distinguish explicitely between the method of explication and its outcome. Building on the explication project of Rudolf Carnap, I attempt to elaborate upon his work. I point out the open issues arising from Carnap's criteria of adequate explication. I present the aspects in which explications differ from definitions, a logical form of explications as well as the explicit steps that are characteristic for the method of explication. Finally, I consider reasons to conceive explication (in the sense of a product of explicating) to be a relation between meaning characterization and an appropriate definition., and Lukáš Bielik.
Marián Zouhar in his article “Evidencia v analytickej filozofii” (“Self-Evidence in Analytical Philosophy”), published in the pages of this journal (Filosofický časopis, 62, 2014, No. 3, p. 323-375), points to reasons why we might call into doubt the self-evident status of intuitions in (analytical) philosophy. In this contribution I distinguish between diff erent theses that are the subject of M. Zouhar’s arguments. Since there are mutually non-equivalent claims at stake, it is only natural that arguments concerning them require the application of non-identical assumptions (premises). I attempt to show that (whether explicitly or implicitly) the assumptions of several arguments which M. Zouhar draws upon, are themselves problematic, or in certain cases require more clarification. Finally I point to the fact that the criteria of adequate richness, precision and transparency, which M. Zouhar applies to intuitions, are clearly not met by other kinds of givens which are standardly considered self-evident in philosophy and the methodology of science.