Semantic closure, descriptions and non-triviality
Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (6):549--558 (1999)
| Abstract | It is known that a semantically closed theory with description may well be trivial if the principles concerning denotation and descriptions are formulated in certain ways, even if the underlying logic is paraconsistent. This paper establishes the non-triviality of a semantically closed theory with a natural, but non-extensional, description operator. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDelia Graff (2006). Descriptions with Adverbs of Quantification. Philosophical Issues 16 16:65–87.
Richard Brown (2008). Language, Thought, Logic, and Existence. CALIPSO (Conference Addresses of the Long Island Philosophical Society Online) 1 (2):http://myweb.brooklyn.liu.edu/mc.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2009). Triviality Arguments Against Functionalism. Philosophical Studies 145 (2):273 - 295.
Francesco Pupa (2008). Ambiguous Articles: An Essay On The Theory Of Descriptions. Dissertation, The Graduate Center, CUNY
Arthur B. Cody (1967). Can a Single Action Have Many Different Descriptions? Inquiry 10 (1-4):164 – 180.
Graham Priest (1991). Minimally Inconsistent LP. Studia Logica 50 (2):321 - 331.
Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
Graham Priest (1984). Semantic Closure. Studia Logica 43 (1-2):117 - 129.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #124,537 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
