Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3):337--355 (1977)
|Abstract||In this paper I offer an account of the meaning of must and can within the framework of possible worlds semantics. The paper consists of two parts: the first argues for a relative concept of modality underlying modal words like must and can in natural language. I give preliminary definitions of the meaning of these words which are formulated in terms of logical consequence and compatibility, respectively. The second part discusses one kind of insufficiency in the meaning definitions given in the first part, which arise from the ex falso quodlibet paradox of logical consequence. In stepwise fashion, I make an attempt to avoid most of the consequences of this paradox for the meaning definitions of must and can.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel A. Kaufman (2007). Family Resemblances, Relationalism, and the Meaning of 'Art'. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (3):280-297.
Gustavo Fernández Díez (2000). Five Observations Concerning the Intended Meaning of the Intuitionistic Logical Constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (4):409-424.
Corine Besson, Understanding the Logical Constants and Dispositions. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication (2010).
Jim Edwards (2007). Response to Hoeltje: Davidson Vindicated? Mind 116 (461):131-141.
R. G. Swinburne (1975). Analyticity, Necessity and Apriority. Mind 84 (334):225-243.
A. L. Herman (1991). Jivacide, Zombies and Jivanmuktas: The Meaning of Life in the Bhagavad Git. Asian Philosophy 1 (1):5 – 13.
Patrizio Contu (2006). The Justification of the Logical Laws Revisited. Synthese 148 (3):573 - 588.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads235 ( #866 of 549,060 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #6,012 of 549,060 )
How can I increase my downloads?