Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (4):757-768 (2015)
AbstractThe pressure to individuate propositions more finely than intensionally—that is, hyper-intensionally—has two distinct sources. One source is the philosophy of mind: one can believe a proposition without believing an intensionally equivalent proposition. The second source is metaphysics: there are intensionally equivalent propositions, such that one proposition is true in virtue of the other but not vice versa. I focus on what our theory of propositions should look like when it's guided by metaphysical concerns about what is true in virtue of what. In this paper I articulate and defend a metaphysical theory of the individuation of propositions, according to which two propositions are identical just in case they occupy the same nodes in a network of invirtuation relations. Invirtuation is here taken to be a primitive relation of metaphysical explanation exemplified by propositions that, in conjunction with truth, defines the notion of true in virtue of. After formulating the theory, I compare it with a view..
Similar books and articles
The Eternal Existence of True Propositions.Mark Steven Roberts - 1987 - Dissertation, University of Dallas
Wittgenstein on Nonsignificant Propositions.Puqun Li - 2001 - Dissertation, University of Ottawa (Canada)
From Metaphysical Pluralism to Alethic Pluralism?Nikolaj Jang Pedersen - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:201-208.
John Buridan and Jerónimo Pardo on the Notion of Propositio.Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe - 2003 - In R. L. Friedman & S. Ebbesen (eds.), John Buridan and Beyond. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. pp. 89--153.
The Necessary a Posteriori: A Response to Tichý. [REVIEW]Curtis Brown - 1984 - Philosophical Studies 45 (3):379 - 397.
Contingency and Divine Knowledge in Ockham.Michael J. Cholbi - 2003 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):81-91.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Hyperintensionality and Normativity.Federico L. G. Faroldi - 2019 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
On the Grounds of Sums: Reply to Saenz.Yannic Kappes - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (4):824-829.
References found in this work
Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.Gideon Rosen - 2010 - In Bob Hale & Aviv Hoffmann (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 109-135.
No Work for a Theory of Grounding.Jessica M. Wilson - 2014 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 57 (5-6):535-579.
Inference to the Best Explanation.Peter Lipton - 1991 - London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
On What Grounds What.Jonathan Schaffer - 2009 - In David Manley, David J. Chalmers & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press. pp. 347-383.