Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Investigations 32 (1):65-78 (2009)
|Abstract||Stephen Schiffer holds that propositions are pleonastic entities. I will argue that there is a substantial difference between propositions and fictional characters, which Schiffer presents as typical pleonastic entities. My conclusion will be that if fictional characters are typical pleonastic entities, then Schiffer fails to show that propositions are pleonastic entities.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stuart Brock (2010). The Creationist Fiction: The Case Against Creationism About Fictional Characters. Philosophical Review 119 (3):337-364.
Amie Thomasson (2001). Ontological Minimalism. American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):319 - 331.
Iris Einheuser (2009). Some Remarks on “Language-Created Entities”. Acta Analytica 24 (3):185-192.
Andrea Sauchelli (2012). Fictional Objects, Non-Existence, and the Principle of Characterization. Philosophical Studies 159 (1):139-146.
Alberto Voltolini (2003). How Fictional Works Are Related to Fictional Entities. Dialectica 57 (2):225–238.
Amie L. Thomasson (2003). Fictional Characters and Literary Practices. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):138-157.
Thomas Hofweber (2006). Schiffer's New Theory of Propositions. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):211–217.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #39,349 of 740,510 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,510 )
How can I increase my downloads?