David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Topics 21 (2):113-148 (1993)
According to many actualists, propositions, singular propositions in particular, are structurally complex, that is, roughly, (i) they have, in some sense, an internal structure that corresponds rather directly to the syntactic structure of the sentences that express them, and (ii) the metaphysical components, or constituents, of that structure are the semantic values — the meanings — of the corresponding syntactic components of those sentences. Given that reference is "direct", i.e., that the meaning of a name is its denotation, an apparent consequence of this view is that any proposition expressed by a sentence containing a name that denotes a contingent being S is itself contingent — notably, the proposition [S does not exist]. Assuming that an entity must exist to have a property, necessarily, [S does not exist] must exist in order to be true. It seems to follow that, necessarily, [S does not exist] is not true and, hence, that S is not contingent after all. Past approaches to the problem — notably, those of Prior and Adams — lead to highly undesirable consequences for quantified modal logic. In this paper, several solutions to this puzzle are developed that preserve actualism, the structured view of propositions, the direct theory of reference, and the intuition that [S does not exist] is indeed possible without the adverse consequences for QML of previous solutions.
|Keywords||actualism quantified modal logic singular propositions Arthur Prior|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Christopher Menzel (2015). Logic, Essence, and Modality Bob Hale. Necessary Beings: An Essay on Ontology, Modality, & the Relations Between Them. Oxford University Press, 2013. ISBN: 978-0-19-966262-3 ; 978-0-19-874803-8 ; 978-0-19-164834-2 . Pp. Ix + 298. [REVIEW] Philosophia Mathematica 23 (3):407-428.
Benjamin Mitchell-Yellin & Michael Nelson (forthcoming). S5 for Aristotelian Actualists. Philosophical Studies.
Similar books and articles
Harry Deutsch (1994). Logic for Contigent Beings. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:273-329.
Christopher Menzel (1991). The True Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (4):331 - 374.
Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe (1996). The Doctrine of Descent in Jerónimo Pardo: Meaning, Inference, Truth. In I. Angelelli & M. Cerezo (eds.), Studies on the History of Logic. Walter de Gruyter
Dale Jacquette (2006). Propositions, Sets, and Worlds. Studia Logica 82 (3):337 - 343.
Paul Thom (1982). Conversion of Propositions Containing Singular or Quantified Terms in Pseudo-Scotus. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):129-149.
Aviv Hoffmann (2003). A Puzzle About Truth and Singular Propositions. Mind 112 (448):635-651.
Patrick Toner (2006). Contingently Existing Propositions? Philosophical Studies 129 (3):421 - 434.
Jonathan L. Kvanvig (1989). Adams on Actualism and Presentism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (2):289-298.
Kit Fine (1980). First-Order Modal Theories. II: Propositions. Studia Logica 39 (2-3):159-202.
Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Stoics (Part One). In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press
Susanne Bobzien (1986). Die stoische Modallogik (Stoic Modal Logic). Königshausen & Neumann.
Edward N. Zalta (1993). A Philosophical Conception of Propositional Modal Logic. Philosophical Topics 21 (2):263-281.
Gregor Damschen (2010). Are There Ultimately Founded Propositions? Universitas Philosophica 54 (54):163-177.
Added to index2011-11-26
Total downloads65 ( #62,427 of 1,790,308 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #75,792 of 1,790,308 )
How can I increase my downloads?