Why 0-adic Relations Have Truth Conditions: Essence, Ground, and Non-Hylomorphic Russellian Propositions

In Chris Tillman (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Propositions. London: Routledge (forthcoming)
Authors
Cody Gilmore
University of California, Davis
Abstract
I formulate an account, in terms of essence and ground, that explains why atomic Russellian propositions have the truth conditions they do. The key ideas are that (i) atomic propositions are just 0-adic relations, (ii) truth is just the 1-adic version of the instantiation (or, as I will say, holding) relation (Menzel 1993: 86, note 27), and (iii) atomic propositions have the truth conditions they do for basically the same reasons that partially plugged relations, like being an x and a y such that Philip gave x to y, have the holding conditions they do. The account is meant to be mainly of intrinsic interest, but I hope that it goes some distance toward answering an objection to classical theories of propositions put forward by King (2014), who writes that ‘since the classical conception of propositions as things that have truth conditions by their very natures and independently of minds and languages is incapable of explaining how or why propositions have truth conditions, it is unacceptable’ (2014: 47). Propositions do have their truth conditions ‘by their very natures’ and ‘independently of minds and languages’. But a fact about a given entity can hold by the very nature of that entity without being a fundamental fact. I argue that this is plausibly the case for atomic Russellian propositions and the facts about their truth conditions. A fact about the truth conditions of such a proposition holds by the very nature of the given proposition but is metaphysically grounded in facts about that proposition’s parts and their essences. If my account is correct, then the supposedly intractable problem of explaining why the given propositions have the truth conditions they do reduces to the problem of explaining why relations have the holding essences they do, which few seem to have found worrisome
Keywords Propositions  Essence  Grounding  Relations
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Are Propositions Essentially Representational?Bryan Pickel - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (3).
Propositions as Truthmaker Conditions.Mark Jago - 2017 - Argumenta 2 (2):293-308.
Domains, Plural Truth, and Mixed Atomic Propositions.Jeremy Wyatt - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (S1):225-236.
What is Meaning?Scott Soames - 2010 - Princeton University Press.
Comments on Zimmerman.Elisa Paganini - 2005 - Dialectica 59 (4):459–462.
Comments on Zimmerman.Elisa Paganini - 2005 - Dialectica 59 (4):459-462.
Propositions: Individuation and Invirtuation.Kris McDaniel - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (4):757-768.
Russellova rana metafizika propozicija.Anssi Korhonen - 2009 - Prolegomena 8 (2):159-192.
Truthmaking as an Account of How Grounding Facts Hold.Jack Yip - 2015 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):11-32.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-21

Total downloads
84 ( #72,372 of 2,242,784 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
84 ( #3,695 of 2,242,784 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature