Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:55:05.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two aspects of propositional unity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Gary Ostertag
Gary Ostertag*
Affiliation:
The Saul Kripke Center, The Graduate Center, CUNY, and Nassau Community College, New York, USA
*
*Email: GOstertag@gc.cuny.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper builds upon familiar arguments against identifying the proposition that Brutus stabbed Caesar with a given sequence containing Brutus, Caesar, and the stabs relation. It identifies a further problem, one that affects not only traditional Russellian accounts of propositions, but also the recent act-theoretic approach championed by Scott Soames and Peter Hanks. The problem is that there is no clear content to the idea that the pair  < Brutus, Caesar> instantiates the stabs relation. It is argued that this further problem presents a decisive objection to the act-theoretic approach to propositions.

Keywords

Benacerraf problemcognitive actpredicationBertrand RussellScott Soamesunity of the proposition
Type
On Act- and Language-Based Conceptions of Propositions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 518 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

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

Benacerraf, Paul. 1965. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” The Philosophical Review 74 (1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Candlish, Stewart. 1996. “The Unity of the Proposition and Russell's Theories of Judgement.” In Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytic Philosophy, edited by Monk, Ray, and Palmer, Anthony, 103–135. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Collins, John. 2011. The Unity of Linguistic Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Peter. 2011. “Structured Propositions as Types.” Mind 120 (1): 11–52. 10.1093/mind/fzr011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jubien, Michael. 2001. “Propositions and the Objects of Thought.” Philosophical Studies 104 (1): 47–62. 10.1007/0-306-48134-0_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1968. “Quantifying In.” Synthese 19 (1/2): 178–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Jeffrey. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monk, Ray, and Palmer, Anthony, eds. 1996. Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schapiro, Stuart. 2009. Classical Logic The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/. (Winter 2012 Edition).Google Scholar
Sainsbury, Mark. 1996. “How Can We Say Something?” In Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytic Philosophy, edited by Monk, Ray, and Palmer, Anthony, 137–153. Bristol: Thoemmes, Reprinted as How Can Some Thing Say Some Thing? Chapter 5 in Sainsbury, Departing from Frege. London: Routledge, 2002.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2010. What is Meaning? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1985. “Converse Relations.” The Philosophical Review 94 (2): 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar