Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (forthcoming)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Prior’s puzzle is standardly taken to be the puzzle of why, given the assumption that that-clauses denote propositions, substitution of “the proposition that P” for “that P” within the complements of many propositional attitude verbs is invalid. I show that Prior’s puzzle is much more general than is ordinarily supposed. There are two variants on the substitutional form of the puzzle—a quantificational variant and a pronominal variant—and all three forms of the puzzle arise in a wide range of grammatical positions, rather than merely in the complements of propositional attitude verbs. The generalized puzzle shows that a range of proposed solutions to the original puzzle fail, or are radically incomplete, and also reveals the connections between Prior’s puzzle and debates over the nature of semantic types and higher-order quantification. I go on to develop a novel, higher-order solution to the generalized form of the puzzle, and I argue that this higher-approach is superior to its first-order alternatives.
|
Keywords | propositional attitudes higher-order logic type theory higher-order quantification |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1111/phpr.12844 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes.Willard van Orman Quine - 1956 - Journal of Philosophy 53 (5):177-187.
‘That’-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification.Tobias Rosefeldt - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333.
Nominalizing Quantifiers.Friederike Moltmann - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (5):445-481.
View all 6 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Ramsification and the Ramifications of Prior's Puzzle.Justin D'Ambrosio - 2021 - Noûs 55 (4):935-961.
How to Solve the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever in Two Questions.Gabriel Uzquiano - 2010 - Analysis 70 (1):39-44.
De Se Puzzles and Frege Puzzles.Stephan Torre & Clas Weber - 2022 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 65 (1):50-76.
Can Worsnip's Strategy Solve the Puzzle of Misleading Higher-Order Apparent Evidence?Paul Silva - 2022 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 65 (3):339-351.
Higher‐Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):314-345.
A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever.Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern - 2008 - Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
The Logic of Opacity.Andrew Bacon & Jeffrey Sanford Russell - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (1):81-114.
How Doxastic Justification Helps Us Solve the Puzzle of Misleading Higher-Order Evidence.Paul Silva - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (S1):308-328.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-01-05
Total views
280 ( #37,594 of 2,499,195 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
76 ( #10,043 of 2,499,195 )
2021-01-05
Total views
280 ( #37,594 of 2,499,195 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
76 ( #10,043 of 2,499,195 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads