Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:46:39.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Opacity in the Attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Evan Fales
Evan Fales*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Philosophical logic has its problem-children; and among these the Principle of Substitutivity of codesignating expressions — the linguistic spawn of Leibniz's law—has achieved a place of prominence. It has become increasingly apparent that a certain style of linguistic analysis, which seeks to impose formal regimentation ruled by the constraints of classical quantification theory, does not yield results with the kind of uniformity and elegance one should hope for from a satisfyi.ng theory. The root of the difficulty, I believe, bears upon the answers to fundamental questions concerning the nature of cognitive agents and the purposes which their use of language is designed to further. If this is the case, one might expect to find some of the trouble surfacing at precisely those points where the language is used to convey information about the cognitive activities associated with the use of language by such agents. So it is.

The central problem of this essay is the interpretation of referential expressions in statements involving propositional attitudes, with the focus on belief contexts. But I shall begin by placing the discussion within a broader theoretical framework.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1978 , pp. 725 - 752
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliography:

[1] Boer, Steven E. and Lycan, William G. “Knowing Who.” Philosophical Studies 28 (1975), 299–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Cohen, L., Jonathan “Criteria of lntensionality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 42 (1968), 123-42.Google Scholar
[3] Crittenden, Charles “Thinking About Non-Being.” Inquiry 16 (1973), 290–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Donnellan, Keith “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” The Philosophical Review 75 (1966), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Donnellan, Keith “Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions.” In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert eds., Semantics of Natural Language, 2d ed., 356-79. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Kaplan, David “Quantifying ln.” reprinted in Linsky, Leonard ed., Reference and Modality, 112-44. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
[7] Kripke, Saul “Naming and Necessity.” In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert eds., Semantics of Natural Language, 2nd ed., 253–355. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Lemmon, E. J. “Sentences, Statements, and Propositions.” In Williams, B. and Montifiore, A. eds., British Analytical Philosophy, chapter 4, 87–107. New York: Humanities Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[9] Linsky, Leonard Referring. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.Google Scholar
[10] Loar, Brian “Reference and Propositional Attitudes.” The Philosophical Review 81 (1972), 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Margolis, Joseph “On Names: Sense and Reference.” American Philosophical Quarterly 5 (1968), 206-11.Google Scholar
[12] Partee, Barbara Hall “Opacity, Coreference, and Pronouns.” In Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert eds., Semantics of Natural Language, 2nd ed., 415-41. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Quine, W. V. O. “Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes.” Reprinted in Linsky, Leonard ed., Reference and Modality, 101-11. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
[14] Quine, W. V. O. Word and Object. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M. I. T. Press, 1960.Google Scholar
[15] Quine, W. V. O. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Scheffler, Israel “On Synonymy and Indirect Discourse.” Philosophy of Science 22 (1955), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Urmson, J. O. “Criteria of lntensionality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplmentary Volume 42 (1968), 107-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Vision, Gerald “Referring to What Does Not Exist.” Canadian journal of Philosophy 3 (1973-4), 619-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Woods, John The Logic of Fiction. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.Google Scholar