Arthur Pap's analysis of necessary propositions
Philosophical Review 59 (3):370-374 (1950)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesArthur Pap (1953). Logic, Existence, and the Theory of Descriptions. Analysis 13 (5):97 - 111.
Douglas Odegard (1967). Arthur Pap and the Paradox of Analysis. Theoria 33 (3):230-245.
Arthur Pap (1955). Belief, Synonymity, and Analysis. Philosophical Studies 6 (1):11 - 15.
Hilary Putnam (1957). Red and Green All Over Again: A Rejoinder to Arthur Pap. Philosophical Review 66 (January):100-103.
Arthur Pap (1949). Synonymity and Logical Equivalence. Analysis 9 (4):51 - 57.
Arthur Pap (1954). Propositions, Sentences, and the Semantic Definition of Truth. Theoria 20 (1-3):23-35.
Arthur Pap (1960). Reply to “Arthur Pap on Meaning Rules”. Philosophical Studies 11 (3):38 - 41.
Arthur Pap (1957). Belief and Propositions. Philosophy of Science 24 (2):123-136.
Arthur Pap (1949). Are All Necessary Propositions Analytic? Philosophical Review 58 (4):299-320.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
