Erkenntnis 46 (1):33-47 (1997)
Logical structure may explain the necessity and a priori knowability of such truths as that if A is red then A is either red or green. But this explanation cannot be extended to sentences that, while necessary and knowable a priori, do not wear the appropriate logical structure on their sleeves – sentences like ''''if A is a point and A is red, then A is not green,'''' or ''''if A is a sphere, then A is not a cube.'''' The real origin of these sentences'' necessity and a priori knowability is a relationship between the meanings of their component atomic sentences – a relationship which cannot be systematically reduced to logical structure by translating those atomic sentences into any kind of ''''ideal'''' language. Moreover, this kind of relationship is one to which any atomic sentences are susceptible if they have a classifying, or comparison-implying, content. Arguably, then, all atomic sentences are capable of being related to others in ways that are necessary and knowable a priori.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy Epistemology Ethics Logic Ontology|
|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
Truth-Makers.Kevin Mulligan, Peter Simons & Barry Smith - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44 (3):287 - 321.
In Defence of Logical Nominalism: Reply to Leftow.Richard Swinburne - 2010 - Religious Studies 46 (3):311-330.
Logical Rules and the a Priori: Good and Bad Questions.Jaroslav Peregrin - 2007 - In Jean-Yves Béziau & Alexandre Costa-Leite (eds.), Perspectives on Universal Logic. pp. 111--122.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #271,913 of 2,172,038 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #325,337 of 2,172,038 )
How can I increase my downloads?