Justin D'Ambrosio
Australian National University
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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes.Willard van Orman Quine - 1956 - Journal of Philosophy 53 (5):177-187.
Question‐Directed Attitudes.Jane Friedman - 2013 - Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):145-174.
‘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.
Alonzo Church.[author unknown] - 1997 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):153-153.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

That Solution to Prior’s Puzzle.Hüseyin Güngör - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179:1-21.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

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 Puzzle About Fickleness.Elise Woodard - 2022 - Noûs 56 (2):323-342.
The Logic of Opacity.Andrew Bacon & Jeffrey Sanford Russell - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (1):81-114.
The Puzzle of the Laws of Appearance.Adam Pautz - 2020 - Philosophical Issues 30 (1):257-272.


Added to PP index

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?


My notes