How to be direct and innocent: A criticism of Crimmins and Perry's theory of attitude ascriptions
Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (5):529 - 565 (1995)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSebastian Knell (2005). A Deflationist Theory of Intentionality? Brandom's Analysis of de Re Specifying Attitude-Ascriptions. Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):73-90.
Heimir Geirsson (1996). Partial Propositions and Cognitive Content. Journal of Philosophical Research 21:117-128.
Diederik Olders & Peter Sas (2001). Lifting the Church-Ban on Quotational Analysis: The Translation Argument and the Use-Mention Distinction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32 (2):257-270.
Dilip Ninan (2010). De Se Attitudes: Ascription and Communication. Philosophy Compass 5 (7):551-567.
David Braun (2001). Russellianism and Prediction. Philosophical Studies 105 (1):59 - 105.
Alan Hajek (2001). Crimmins, Gonzales and Moore. Analysis 61 (271):208-213.
Ken Taylor (2002). De Re And De Dicto: Against The Conventional Wisdom. Noûs 36 (s16):225-265.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads19 ( #64,458 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
