David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Note: The content of this paper is now part of Chapter 4 of 'Abstract Objects and The Semantics of Natural Language', Oxford UP 2013) Propositions have played a central role in philosophy of language since Frege. Propositions are generally taken to be the objects of propositional attitude, the meaning of sentences, the primary bearers of truth and falsehood, and the kinds of things that quantifiers in sentential position range over. As objects of propositional attitudes, propositions can be shared by different agents and moreover can be represented in one language or another. Thus, propositions are generally taken to be mind- and language-independent entities. In this paper, I want to argue that the notion of a proposition, because of a range of philosophical problems as well as problems of linguistic adequacy, should be replaced by a different notion, for almost all the roles for it has been invoked. The objects that are involved in propositional attitudes, that act as primary truth bearers, and that quantifiers in sentential position range over, I want to argue, are not propositions, but what I call attitudinal objects (or kinds of them). Attitudinal objects are entities like ‘John’s belief that S’, ‘John’s claim that S’, and ‘John’s desire to do X’. Like propositions, attitudinal objects intuitively have truth conditions essentially – or, in the case of objects like desires, corresponding conditions of satisfaction. But unlike propositions, attitudinal objects are mind-dependent and possibly act-dependent, dependent on an attitude and possibly speech act of a particular agent. Nonetheless, attitudinal objects (or kinds of them), I will argue, can serve the roles of propositions. Attitudinal objects can be shared in the sense that attitudinal objects with the same content are exactly similar (or ‘the same’), and moreover two agents may share a kind of attitudinal object, a kind whose instances are exactly similar attitudinal objects. Attitudinal objects are closely related to mental events and speech acts. However, there are fundamental ontological differences between events or acts and attitudinal objects..
|Keywords||propositional attitudes Clausal Complements|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter De Marneffe (2003). An Objection to Attitudinal Hedonism. Philosophical Studies 115 (2):197 - 200.
Risto Hilpinen (2007). On the Objects and Interpretants of Signs: Comments on T. L. Short's. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (4).
Friederike Moltmann (2004). Properties and Kinds of Tropes: New Linguistic Facts and Old Philosophical Insights. Mind 113 (449):1-41.
Thomas Blackson (2012). Extrinsic Attitudinal Pleasure. Philosophical Studies 159 (2):277-291.
Kristie Miller (2008). Thing and Object. Acta Analytica 23 (1):69-89.
Steven E. Boër (2009). Propositions and the Substitution Anomaly. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (5):549 - 586.
Friederike Moltmann (2012). Two Kinds of First-Person-Oriented Content. Synthese 184 (2):157 - 177.
Added to index2009-08-31
Total downloads92 ( #12,241 of 1,096,839 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #53,739 of 1,096,839 )
How can I increase my downloads?