@article {kolar_p1994:391,
	title = {O definici a pojmu toho, co nen{\'\i}},
	journal = {Organon F},
	volume = {1},
	number = {1},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {4-16},
	type = {State},
	abstract = {In the paper, Prior{\textquoteright}s well-known {\textquoteright}tonk{\textquoteright} argument is examined and taken as a basis for general considerations regarding the logical status of implicit ({\textquoteright}inferential{\textquoteright}) definition, and the semantical status of the {\textquoteright}tonk{\textquoteright}-like expressions. Further, the whiff of logical vanity attendant upon Prior{\'s} conclusions is dispelled by employing a new theory of concept. In particular, the authors argue that: a) Prior{\textquoteright}s {\textquoteright}tonk{\textquoteright} argument discredits neither the concept of analytical validity nor the role of implicit definition. The arguments underlying the authors{\textquoteright} view draw from both syntactical and semantical considerations of the alleged {\textquoteright}tonk{\textquoteright} connective. b) Decisive criticism of the very concept of implicit definition of logical connectives can be, anstead, based on Tich{\'y}{\textquoteright}s view of formal axiomatics as a case of {\textquoteright}the Fallacy of Subject Matter{\textquoteright}. c) The semantical analysis of the so-called {\textquoteright}strictly empty{\textquoteright} concepts, as introduced by Materna in his theory of concept, renders a viable account of the mysteries and confusions surrounding Prior{\textquoteright}s witty and inspiring {\textquoteright}tonk{\textquoteright} example.},
	url = {http://www.klemens.sav.sk/fiusav/doc/organon/1994/1/4-16.pdf},
	author = {Kol{\'a}{\v r}, Petr and Materna, Pavel}
}
