Properties, plurals and paradox
It has been argued that an objectual semantics for plurals falls victim to Russell’s paradox, and that a nominalistic semantics should therefore be preferred (Boolos 1984); similar considerations have sometimes been extended to other types of abstract reference, in particular to property talk. We suggest that this line of argument is mistaken: deeply entrenched features of ordinary language guarantee that property and plural talk do give rise to paradoxes. In the case of properties, the grammar of English is untyped, which makes it straightforward to generate a paradox. In the case of plurals, it is badly typed, which means that paradoxes can be generated, but in complicated ways. In both cases, the problem is not to avoid paradoxes but to model them. We conclude that an objectual semantics is entirely in order, but that it must be developed within a trivalent semantics suited to a paradoxical object language.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Curry's Revenge: The Costs of Non-Classical Solutions to the Paradoxes of Self-Reference.Greg Restall - 2007 - In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Paradoxes of Intensionality.Dustin Tucker & Richmond H. Thomason - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):394-411.
Plurals and Complexes.K. Hossack - 2000 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (3):411-443.
The Logic and Meaning of Plurals. Part II.Byeong-uk Yi - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):239-288.
The Principle of Uniform Solution (of the Paradoxes of Self-Reference).Nicholas J. J. Smith - 2000 - Mind 109 (433):117-122.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #140,703 of 2,146,235 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #227,266 of 2,146,235 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.