English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The following discussion aims at clarifying the formal relation between end and means in terms of constructive type theory. Philosophical tradition offers two opposed conceptions: a Machiavellian, on the one hand, dealing with end and means as to some extent independent items, and a Kantian, on the other, which regards the relation as analytical. The first seems to be both morally and logically unacceptable, but also the second one faces difficulties. I propose to resolve these difficulties along the lines of constructive type theory by considering the end of an action as the type of means which are apt to realise this end.

Fins et moyens. La théorie constructive des types considérée comme guide pour former des modèles en théorie de l'esprit et de l'action