David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 39 (2):297-307 (2011)
In a 2005 paper Ólafur Páll Jónsson presents a puzzle that turns on intentional identity and definite descriptions. He considers eight solutions and rejects them all, thus leaving the puzzle unsolved. In this paper I put forward a solution. The puzzle is this. Little Lotta wants most of all a bicycle for her birthday, but she gets none. Distracted by the gifts she does receive, she at first does not think about the bike. But when seeing her tricycle, she is reminded of the bike. The question is how we are to analyse these two occurrences of ‘the bike’ in the absence of a unique bike that Lotta wants. So the semantics of ‘the bike’ needs to be spelt out, and it must be made explicit what the complements of Lotta’s attitudes are. My analysis shows that the attributer’s usage of ‘the bike’ blurs the distinction between a second-order and a first-order intension (a property concept and a property, respectively). My solution can be summed up in this two-premise argument. (a) In the state-of-affairs S, the property of being a bike is the extension of the property concept the property such that Lotta wants an instance of it more than any other; (b) in S, Lotta does not think about/is reminded of the property that she wants an instance of more than any other; (c) therefore, in S Lotta does not think about/is reminded of the property of being a bike. This solution requires looking beyond the confines of denotational semantics, which all of Jónsson’s eight solution candidates belong to
|Keywords||Intentional identity Intensional logic Notional attitude Property concept Definite description Jónsson Tichý Geach Edelberg|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ólafur Páll Jónsson (2005). The Bike Puzzle. Mind 114 (456):929 - 932.
O. P. Jonsson (2005). The Bike Puzzle. Mind 114 (456):929-932.
Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern (2008). A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. [REVIEW] Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
Eugene Mills (2012). Lotteries, Quasi-Lotteries, and Scepticism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):335 - 352.
Ahti Pietarinen (2001). Intentional Identity Revisited. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (2):147-188.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2010). How to Solve the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever in Two Questions. Analysis 70 (1):39-44.
M. A. Moffett (2002). A Note on the Relationship Between Mates' Puzzle and Frege's Puzzle. Journal of Semantics 19 (2):159-166.
Berit Brogaard (2007). A Puzzle About Properties. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (3):635-650.
Neil Feit (2008). Belief About the Self: A Defense of the Property Theory of Content. Oxford University Press.
Stefan Wintein (2012). On the Behavior of True and False. Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2001). The New Paradox of the Stone Revisited. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
Henry Simoni (1997). Omniscience and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Know How to Ride a Bike? [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (1):1-22.
Gregory Wheeler & Pedro Barahona (2012). Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less Than Three Questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):493-503.
Dwayne Moore (2010). The Generalization Problem and the Identity Solution. Erkenntnis 72 (1):57 - 72.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads22 ( #64,940 of 1,018,142 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #65,321 of 1,018,142 )
How can I increase my downloads?