Becoming to Belong: An Essay on Agency and Democratic Rights

My project develops what I call a dignity oriented model of human agency, and a related approach to human rights; especially democratic rights. I also juxtapose my model of agency against those offered by the liberal and post-modern approaches, and the political positions which flow from these approaches. In the first Chapter, I characterize our dignity as flowing from an individuals agency to engage in self-authorship by defining themselves through redefining the socio-historical boundaries within which they exist. The socio-historical boundaries are those which can be changed through the applications of what I refer to as individuals expressive capabilities. These expressive capabilities can be amplified or constrained depending on the innate capacity of the individuals in question and the particular socio-historical boundaries which constrain them. My argument is that the more ones expressive capabilities are amplified the more individuals can be said to have lived a dignified life. In the next Chapter, I argue that amplifying human dignity would involve realizing two human rights. The first is a right to participate in the democratic authorship of political and legal institutions, and the laws which flow from these. The second is a right for all individuals to enjoy an equality of expressive capabilities, except where inequalities flow from their morally significant choices. These rights would enable us to lead lives of dignified self-authorship. In Chapter Three, I deepen my philosophical account of agency by trying to illustrate how the innate human capacity to develop novel statements in semantic communities is one of the most prominent expressive capabilities which enable us to redefine the boundaries which constrain us. In Chapter Four and Chapter Five, I develop criticisms of the liberal and post-modern approaches to agency. I suggest that both of them offer unique and important insights that can help us understand what is required to amplify human dignity. None the less, I claim neither approach can satisfy our contemporary need for a model of agency and politics which is both philosophically generalizable, and yet sensitive to the actual constraints facing individuals. Finally, in Chapters Six through Eight, I critically analyze several major theoretical traditions and decisions in the Canadian, American, and European legal systems. I suggest that we should adopt my dignity oriented approach to agency as a normative guide for how to best reach a just outcome in cases involving democratic rights: including the Sauv, Williams, and Hirst decisions. In particular, I suggest we should adopt a two step test when determining how to decide a case involving democratic rights. The first is to ask how best to amplify the dignity of the individuals involved. The second is to ask how to ascribe equal value to the democratic rights of the individuals involved. Finally, I conclude by summarizing my argument and offering some suggestions for the future. In particular, I account for why I devote so little attention to realizing the second of the rights I argue for: the right to equality of expressive capabilities

Pseudo-contractions as Gentle Repairs

Updating a knowledge base to remove an unwanted consequence is a challenging task. Some of the original sentences must be either deleted or weakened in such a way that the sentence to be removed is no longer entailed by the resulting set. On the other hand, it is desirable that the existing knowledge be preserved as much as possible, minimising the loss of information. Several approaches to this problem can be found in the literature. In particular, when the knowledge is represented by an ontology, two different families of frameworks have been developed in the literature in the past decades with numerous ideas in common but with little interaction between the communities: applications of AGM-like Belief Change and justification-based Ontology Repair. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between pseudo-contraction operations and gentle repairs. Both aim to avoid the complete deletion of sentences when replacing them with weaker versions is enough to prevent the entailment of the unwanted formula. We show the correspondence between concepts on both sides and investigate under which conditions they are equivalent. Furthermore, we propose a unified notation for the two approaches, which might contribute to the integration of the two areas

Naturalism and Process Ontology for Rhetorical Theory and Methodology: Reconsidering the Ideological Tautology

Rhetorical Theory and Criticism primarily features modes of close reading that reconstructs the meaning of a text by constructing meaning through contingent textual moments within a theoretical perspective, typically ideological criticism. The dominant mode of ideological critique projects ideology as an anterior and universal cause; this projection strips individual and group agency from within various systems by totalizing them under one system. I strive to answer how we can preserve descriptive acuity while opening and exploiting contingent gaps to make scholarship more efficacious for social justice. Chapter one explores the inevitability of infinite regress in response to problems of vagueness endemic to the philosophical enterprise. Chapter two explores Bergson’s Retrospective Illusion: strict modes of ontological necessity in a transcendental reasoning pattern produce tautological ontologies in which an effect becomes projected backwards as universal but, ultimately, illusory cause. Chapter three maps out Bergson’s solution to the “Retrospective Illusion” and names it the “Prospective Illusion.” In short, chains of sufficient reasoning are projected out towards tendencies in becoming such that universals are always in construction and never fully actual. Ontologies founded upon spatial necessity are replaced by a process ontology closely attuned to scientific process that folds space and time topologically into tendential becoming. Chapter four applies both illusions to rhetorical theory in its ideological and new materialist modes to argue for the usefulness of both models in breaking rhetorical theory out of its tacit methodological reliance upon reconstructive close reading and by re-evaluating some of rhetorical theory’s ontological assumptions. The project concludes with prospective directions in methodology

Access Restrictions to and with Description Logic Web Ontologies

Access restrictions are essential in standard information systems and became an issue for ontologies in the following two aspects. Ontologies can represent explicit and implicit knowledge about an access policy. For this aspect we provided a methodology to represent and systematically complete role-based access control policies. Orthogonally, an ontology might be available for limited reading access. Independently of a specific ontology language or reasoner, we provided a lattice-based framework to assign labels to an ontology’s axioms and consequences. We looked at the problems to compute and repair one or multiple consequence labels and to assign a query-based access restriction. An empirical evaluation has shown that the algorithms perform well in practical scenarios with large-scale ontologies

Learning Ontology Relations by Combining Corpus-Based Techniques and Reasoning on Data from Semantic Web Sources

The manual construction of formal domain conceptualizations (ontologies) is labor-intensive. Ontology learning, by contrast, provides (semi-)automatic ontology generation from input data such as domain text. This thesis proposes a novel approach for learning labels of non-taxonomic ontology relations. It combines corpus-based techniques with reasoning on Semantic Web data. Corpus-based methods apply vector space similarity of verbs co-occurring with labeled and unlabeled relations to calculate relation label suggestions from a set of candidates. A meta ontology in combination with Semantic Web sources such as DBpedia and OpenCyc allows reasoning to improve the suggested labels. An extensive formal evaluation demonstrates the superior accuracy of the presented hybrid approach

Standpoint Logic: A Logic for Handling Semantic Variability, with Applications to Forestry Information

It is widely accepted that most natural language expressions do not have precise universally agreed definitions that fix their meanings. Except in the case of certain technical terminology, humans use terms in a variety of ways that are adapted to different contexts and perspectives. Hence, even when conversation participants share the same vocabulary and agree on fundamental taxonomic relationships (such as subsumption and mutual exclusivity), their view on the specific meaning of terms may differ significantly. Moreover, even individuals themselves may not hold permanent points of view, but rather adopt different semantics depending on the particular features of the situation and what they wish to communicate. In this thesis, we analyse logical and representational aspects of the semantic variability of natural language terms. In particular, we aim to provide a formal language adequate for reasoning in settings where different agents may adopt particular standpoints or perspectives, thereby narrowing the semantic variability of the vague language predicates in different ways. For that purpose, we present standpoint logic, a framework for interpreting languages in the presence of semantic variability. We build on supervaluationist accounts of vagueness, which explain linguistic indeterminacy in terms of a collection of possible interpretations of the terms of the language (precisifications). This is extended by adding the notion of standpoint, which intuitively corresponds to a particular point of view on how to interpret vague terminology, and may be taken by a person or institution in a relevant context. A standpoint is modelled by sets of precisifications compatible with that point of view and does not need to be fully precise. In this way, standpoint logic allows one to articulate finely grained and structured stipulations of the varieties of interpretation that can be given to a vague concept or a set of related concepts and also provides means to express relationships between different systems of interpretation. After the specification of precisifications and standpoints and the consideration of the relevant notions of truth and validity, a multi-modal logic language for describing standpoints is presented. The language includes a modal operator for each standpoint, such that \standb{s}\phi means that a proposition $\phi$ is unequivocally true according to the standpoint $s$ --- i.e.\ $\phi$ is true at all precisifications compatible with $s$. We provide the logic with a Kripke semantics and examine the characteristics of its intended models. Furthermore, we prove the soundness, completeness and decidability of standpoint logic with an underlying propositional language, and show that the satisfiability problem is NP-complete. We subsequently illustrate how this language can be used to represent logical properties and connections between alternative partial models of a domain and different accounts of the semantics of terms. As proof of concept, we explore the application of our formal framework to the domain of forestry, and in particular, we focus on the semantic variability of `forest'. In this scenario, the problematic arising of the assignation of different meanings has been repeatedly reported in the literature, and it is especially relevant in the context of the unprecedented scale of publicly available geographic data, where information and databases, even when ostensibly linked to ontologies, may present substantial semantic variation, which obstructs interoperability and confounds knowledge exchange