Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Many philosophers have suggested that belief predicates are ambiguous between a de dicto and a de re reading. However, the impression of ambiguity is a function of the narrow ranges of examples that philosophers focus on. When we consider our ascriptional practices as a whole, the suggestion that belief predicates are ambiguous is neither plausible nor needed to explain the de dicto/de re distinction. This paper will argue that understanding paradigmatic de dicto and de re ascriptions in terms of disavowals from a more basic sort of ascription is preferable to positing an ambiguity in which each of the two sorts of ascription are conceptually primitive.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
David Sloan Wilson (1995). Language as a Community of Interacting Belief Systems: A Case Study Involving Conduct Toward Self and Others. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):77-97.
Joel Smith (2006). Which Immunity to Error? Philosophical Studies 130 (2):273-83.
Kenneth A. Taylor (2003). Singular Beliefs and Their Ascriptions. In Reference and the Rational Mind. Csli Publications.
Ken Taylor (2002). De Re And De Dicto: Against The Conventional Wisdom. Noûs 36 (s16):225-265.
Richard Holton (1994). Attitude Ascriptions and Intermediate Scope. Mind 103 (410):123-130.
Ari Maunu (2002). A Problem with De Re Belief Ascriptions, with a Consequence to Substitutivity. Philosophia 29 (1-4):411-421.
Ari Maunu (2000). A Simple Solution to the Problem of De Se Belief Ascriptions. Communication and Cognition 33 (3-4):199-226.
Dale Jacquette (1989). Stich Againstde Dicto‐de Reambiguity. Philosophical Psychology 2 (2):223-230.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #90,611 of 739,542 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,542 )
How can I increase my downloads?