Propositions

Against hyperintensional accounts of propositional contents, such as truthmaker semantics, impossible worlds semantics, structured propositions, and Fregean senses, Williamson has defended the Claim that such contents are to be taken as sets of possible worlds, resorting to guises while explaining away putative counterexamples as by-products of fallible cognitive heuristics. The workings of same-saying raise issues for the general applicability of the strategy: one can multiply ad libitum examples of co-intensional sentences saying different things, where guises won’t help the Claim, because (...) they make no relevant cognitive difference. Besides, this is not even a catastrophe for possible worlds semantics. (shrink)

This book argues that oppression is the social expression of literal, nonmetaphorical, irrationality: a failure at basic tasks of logic. Moral philosophy allows individuals to make their own ethical decisions. Colonialism denies the freedom to engage in moral philosophy by imposing interpretive frameworks that replace reasoning with propositional attitudes. The book draws on South Asian moral philosophy—rendered invisible through colonization—to show how oppression stems from "interpretation": the confusion of thoughts (propositions) with attitudes toward thoughts. In contrast, Indigenous traditions prioritize "explication," (...) the logic based exploration of propositions. The book locates the origin of interpretation in the Linguistic Account of Thought (LAT), which equates what can be thought with culturally encoded propositional attitudes. LAT was rejected in ancient South Asia, challenged in China, and acclaimed in the West, where it underwrites a colonizing epistemic framework. Interpretation is not only oppressive: it appropriates Indigenous capital and epistemic labor. LAT contrasts with Linguistic Externalism (LE), thought as the disciplinary use of semantic expression. While LAT promotes anthropocentric, communitarian ethics, LE allows Indigenous people to acknowledge diverse persons including the Earth, treating learning as logic-based inquiry rather than cultural competence. The book explores LAT's basis for genocide and White Supremacy's 2000-year institutionalization of Secularism2 (defining the Western as secular, the BIPOC as religious). It illustrates how originally free people adopt colonization by cooperating with the colonizer, hoping for good outcomes, gambling away procedural justice and explication. Colonization stems not from stated values but from the metaethical choice to interpret, creating a rational obligation to decolonize. Drawing from Western, Chinese, and Indian traditions while making contributions to the philosophies of AI, science, race, reason, religion, language, thought, and translation, this book makes visible the Indigenous foundations of moral philosophy and all inquiry, along with the colonial origins of irrationality. (shrink)

This paper investigates the necessary functional architecture underlying complex cognitive states such as belief, desire, hope, and fear, specifically those characterized as Meaningful Propositional Attitudes About Something Not Itself (MPAASNI). MPAASNI are defined as states possessing directed propositional content, susceptibility to systematic processing, and an internal stance conferring functional significance within a system. We identify three fundamental functional capacities required for such states: Reference (R), providing directed content; Inference (I), providing systematic processing and relation of contents; and Preference (P), providing (...) the internal stance, weighting, and functional significance. The core contribution of this paper is the articulation and defense of the Trialectics, defined as the specific functional mode of operation characterized by systematic and constitutive mutual conditioning among R, I, and P. Through rigorous, descriptive conceptual analysis, we argue that this Trialectic functioning—this deep functional integration where each capacity's state and operation conditions and is conditioned by the others—is not merely one possible arrangement but constitutes a necessary condition for the possibility of any system exhibiting MPAASNI. The necessity is demonstrated by showing that the functional integration inherently required by the definition of MPAASNI logically entails the mutual conditioning described by the Trialectics. This framework, derived non-empirically, applies to attitudes directed towards both tangible and non-tangible domains and posits a fundamental structure necessary for intentionality, rationality, and other sophisticated cognitive phenomena dependent on meaningful propositional attitudes. (shrink)

In my book Alien Structure: Language and Reality (OUP, 2024) I discuss the possibility of what I call alien languages and alien metaphysical structure. An alien language is a language with alien semantic structure. It is semantically different from familiar languages, in a broadly structural way, and through having kinds of resources not found in familiar languages. The world has alien metaphysical structure if its structure is best represented by an alien language. Here I illustrate what is at issue, discussing (...) different varieties of “alienness”. I also provide crucial distinctions and clarifications, and discuss how one can argue for the existence of alien languages and motivate the thesis that there is alien metaphysical structure. (shrink)

This new edition of Wittgenstein's book, strictly following the author's recommendations, allows a more immediate comprehension of the text and dissolves several false problems that had deceived readers and scholars for a century. The faithful interpretation of decimal numbers (which alone, according to Wittgenstein, "give perspicuity and clarity to the book") shows that the Tractatus stems from a home-page containing seven cardinal propositions and develops level by level, by perfectly coherent reading units. Indeed, "the Tractatus must be read in accordance (...) with the numbering system, and that demands that the reader follows the text after the manner of a logical tree, which is the way in which the book was composed and in which Wittgenstein arranged his philosophical remarks" (Peter Hacker, The Philosophical Quarterly). (shrink)

Is knowledge a uniform kind? If not, what relation do the different kinds of knowledge bear to one another? Is there a central notion of knowledge which other kinds of knowledge must be understood in terms of? In this paper, I use Aristotle’s theory of homonyms as a framework to make progress on these questions. I argue that knowledge is not a uniform kind but rather a core-dependent homonym. To demonstrate this, I focus on knowledge by acquaintance. I argue that (...) the principles that govern propositional knowledge cannot govern knowledge by acquaintance. I then develop analogue principles for knowledge by acquaintance and show why, despite their different modal profiles, knowledge by acquaintance is nevertheless a form of knowledge. I then show that the analysis of propositional knowledge fundamentally depends on knowledge by acquaintance. (shrink)

Dummett, Hanks, Künne, and Bobzien have all stated or implied that when Frege wrote ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’, Frege believed that the sense of a sentence-question was not a thought. I present the passage of ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’ which is relevant to the evaluation of that proposition. I then present and evaluate an argument which I assume to be the best argument based on that passage for that proposition. I argue that the argument is likely to be unsound. I (...) also address the question whether Frege believed that sentence-questions could be true or false and discuss what Frege did say and what he should have said about logical-alternative questions. (shrink)

Propositional contingentism is the thesis that there might have been propositions which might have not have been something. Serious actualism is the thesis that it is impossible for a property to be exemplified without there being something which exemplifies it. Both are popular. Likewise, the dominant view in the metaphysics of modality is that metaphysical possibility and necessity can be understood – in some sense – in terms of possible worlds, i.e. total ways the world could have been. Here, I (...) argue that, given some minimal assumptions, the conjunction of propositional contingentism and serious actualism entails that worlds are modally fragile – every world is ontologically dependent on every proposition. I then show that such a consequence is inconsistent with the claim that propositions true at all possible worlds are necessary. (shrink)

Let serious propositional contingentism (SPC) be the package of views which consists in (i) the thesis that propositions expressed by sentences featuring terms depend, for their existence, on the existence of the referents of those terms, (ii) serious actualism—the view that it is impossible for an object to exemplify a property and not exist—and (iii) contingentism—the view that it is at least possible that some thing might not have been something. SPC is popular and compelling. But what should we say (...) about possible worlds, if we accept SPC? Here, I first show that a natural view of possible worlds, well-represented in the literature, in conjunction with SPC is inadequate. Though I note various alternative ways of thinking about possible worlds in response to the first problem, I then outline a second more general problem—a master argument—which generally shows that any account of possible worlds meeting very minimal requirements will be inconsistent with compelling claims about _mere possibilia_ which the serious propositional contingentist should accept. (shrink)

When do two sentences say the same thing, that is, express the same content? We defend two-component (2C) semantics: the view that propositional contents comprise (at least) two irreducibly distinct constituents: (1) truth-conditions and (2) subject-matter. We contrast 2C with one-component (1C) semantics, focusing on the view that subject-matter is reducible to truth-conditions. We identify exponents of this view and argue in favor of 2C. An appendix proposes a general formal template for propositional 2C semantics.

General Introduction: In [1] a Calculus of Qualia (CQ) was proposed. The key idea is that, for example, blackness is radically different than █. The former term, “blackness” refers to or is about a quale, whereas the latter term, “█” instantiates a quale in the reader’s mind and is non-referential; it does not even refer to itself. The meaning and behavior of these terms is radically different. All of philosophy, from Plato through Descartes through Chalmers, including hieroglyphics and emojis, used (...) referential terms up until CQ. This paper in this series of papers address equations vs. qualations (which contain non-referential terms), proofs, and logic. An example of an equation is x+2=4, which uses exclusively referential terms, even if some of them are numbers. A Qualation is like an equation except it uses actual non-referential terms (qualia), like █ ≠ ▲, and can be clearly non-trivial, like ¬((█ ≠ ▲) ∧ (▲ ≠ ■) → (█ ≠ ■)). (see below). This has implications for assertions, proofs, truth, etc. Incompleteness and truth are addressed in a different paper in this series. (shrink)

Propositions are defined by abstraction from an equivalence relation on sentences. The equivalence is synonymy. The resulting view, Propositional Abstractionism, has roots in Frege’s work, and considerable advantages over competitors. The key to the advantages is that Propositional Abstractionism puts language first. Consequently, in metaphysics, granularity debates benefit from linguistic evidence; in logic, abstraction is a safeguard against higher-order paradoxes; in epistemology, questions of knowledge of propositions can be approached as questions about semantic competence. These benefits form a package that (...) make Propositional Abstractionism a compelling hypothesis. (shrink)

Slurs are incendiary terms so much that many ordinary speakers and theorists deny that sentences containing them can ever be true, and utterances where they occur embedded within normally "quarantining" contexts, like conditionals and indirect reports, are still typically offensive. At the same time, however, many speakers and theorists also find it obvious that sentences containing slurs can be true; and there are clear cases where embedding does inoculate a speaker from the slur's offensiveness. I argue that four standard accounts (...) of the "other" element that differentiates slurs from their more neutral counterparts semantic content, perlocutionary effect, presupposition, and conventional implicature all fail to account for this puzzling mixture of intuitions about truth, and for this mixture of projection and quarantining. Instead, I propose that slurs make two distinct, coordinated contributions to a sentence's conventional communicative role: predication of group membership and endorsement of a derogating perspective on the group. Predication of group membership is "at issue" by default, but different semantic and conversational contexts can alter the relative prominence and scope of the two contributions. (shrink)

The article critically examines Wolfgang Künne's theory of propositions through a speech-pragmatic lens, drawing on John R. Searle's concept of constitutive rules. Three approaches to understanding propositions are presented, arguing that propositions are not just abstract entities but are significantly shaped by the language and social structures within which they operate. The preferred approach posits that propositions are linguistic constructs, emphasizing the interdependence between language and the nature of propositions.

Philosophers often debate the existence of such things as numbers and propositions, and say that if these objects exist, they are abstract. But what does it mean to call something 'abstract'? And do we have good reason to believe in the existence of abstract objects? This Element addresses those questions, putting newcomers to these debates in a position to understand what they concern and what are the most influential considerations at work in this area of metaphysics. It also provides advice (...) on which lines of discussion promise to be the most fruitful. (shrink)

This paper takes a stand on Hamblin semantics and its relation to the semantics-to-pragmatics interface. Biased questions, where the speaker finds one of the options more likely and expects the confirmation that p is true, raise a concern about the limits of Hamblin semantics. I argue that biased questions have modified Hamblin semantics, while unbiased questions have unconstrained Hamblin semantics. The optional bias feature explains compositionally. It is triggered by likelihood presuppositions ranging Hamblin sets and highlighting the preferred alternative(s). Biased (...) effects are exceptionally possible in alternative and wh-questions, but only in polar questions, they can be encoded lexically and grammatically. I argue that Hamblin semantics covers all core types of questions, while some of its applications for non-questions are problematic. (shrink)

In this chapter, my aim is to present an account of Immanuel Kant’s transcendental idealism that centers his view of propositions as mental acts. As I intend to show, Kant’s strategy in the Critique of Pure Reason is only intelligible under the assumption that the fundamental bearers of truth are mental entities.

The collective monograph "Ontology of Stative Situations - Linguistic Modeling. A Contrastive Bulgarian-Russian Study" includes research carried out within the project of the same name "Ontology of stative situations – linguistic modeling. A contrastive Bulgarian-Russian study", supported by the "Scientific Research" Fund of the Ministry of Education and Science in Bulgaria (№ КП-06-РУСИЯ / 23) and from the Russian Fund for Fundamental Research (No. 20-512-18005).

This book offers an in-depth and updated examination of the nature of haecceity—that primitive entity which explains why something is distinct from other things. -/- The book begins by exploring different conceptions of haecceity throughout history. The discussion of various figures across history is important for getting clear on the nature of haecceity and its role in individuation. The next part of the book examines different views about the nature of haecceity. The author defends a view on which haecceities have (...) objects that instantiate them as constituents. Following that, the book considers arguments for and against the existence of haecceities, the epistemology of haecceity, and the distinction between qualitative and non-qualitative properties. -/- About Haecceity will appeal to scholars and advanced students working in metaphysics, philosophy of language, epistemology, logic, and history of philosophy. (shrink)

Expressivism, broadly construed, is the view that the function of utterances in a given area of discourse is to give expression to our sentiments or other (non-cognitive) mental states or attitudes, rather than report or describe some range of facts. This view naturally seems an attractive option wherever it is suspected that there may not be a domain of facts for the given discourse to be describing. Familiarly, to avoid commitment to ethical facts, the ethical expressivist suggests that ethical utterances (...) (e.g., “Gratuitous torture is wrong”, “What John did was morally good”) do not serve to ascribe ethical properties to objects, actions, persons, or states of affairs. Instead, they simply function to give voice to certain of our sentiments (or ‘pro/con’ attitudes). Along similar lines, philosophers have entertained versions of expressivism about the aesthetic, the modal, the mental, what is funny, even about theoretical science and knowledge ascriptions. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage est une réédition numérique d’un livre paru au XXe siècle, désormais indisponible dans son format d’origine.