Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T16:39:06.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gappy Propositions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Seyed N. Mousavian
Seyed N. Mousavian*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, ABT6G 2E7, Canada Iranian Institute of Philosophy, Tehran, 11336-14816, Iran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

After introducing Millianism and touching on two problems raised by genuinely empty names for Millianism (section I), I provide a brief exposition of the Gappy Proposition View (GPV) and of how different versions of this view can reply to the problems in question (section II). In the following sections I develop my reasons against the GPV. First, I will try to argue that apparently promising arguments for the claim that gappy propositions are propositions are not successful (section III). Then, I will develop two arguments against GPs via demonstrating two odd consequences of the GPV: (a) that there can be an atomic proposition which contains other propositions that are not the semantic contents of any part of the sentence expressing that atomic proposition, and (b) that propositional structures are propositions (section IV). And finally, I will attempt to show that if any of these views can provide a successful defense of Millianism, it can do so without GPs, given some slight changes (section V). I will conclude that GPs should be avoided (section VI).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 125 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

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

Adams, F. and Stecker, R.. 1994. ‘Vacuous Singular Terms.’ Mind & Language 9: 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, F. Stecker, R. & Fuller, G.. 1997. ‘The Semantics of Fictional Names.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 128–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Fred and Dietrich, Laura. 2004. ‘What's in a(n Empty) Nameヨ’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, Fred and Fuller, Gary. 2007. ‘Empty Names and Pragmatic Implicatures.’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37: 449–62.Google Scholar
Almog, Joseph Perry, John and Wettstein, Howard eds. 1989. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Almog, Joseph. 1991. ‘The Subject-Predicate Class I.’ Noûs 25: 591–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, John and Perry, John. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boër, Steven E. 2007. Thought-Contents: On the Ontology of Belief and the Semantics of Belief Attribution. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David. 1993. ‘Empty Names.’ Noûs 27: 449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David. 2005. ‘Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names.’ Noûs 39: 449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David and Saul, Jennifer. 2002. Simple Sentences, Substitutions, and Mistaken Evaluations. Philosophical Studies 111: 1–41.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph. 1947/1956. Meaning and Necessity. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Romane. 1980. ‘Not Every Act of Thought Has a Matching Proposition.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy: 509-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. 1975. ‘Hyperintensional Logic,’ Studia Logica 34: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M.J. 1985. Structured Meanings: The Semantics of Propositional Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Everett, Anthony. 2003. ‘Empty Names and ‘Gappy’ Propositions.’ Philosophical Studies 116: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1962. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. ‘Demonstratives.’ In Themes from Kaplan, Joseph Almog et al., eds. 481-564.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1970. ‘General Semantics,’ Synthese 22: 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy. Thomason, R.H. ed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mousavian, Seyed N. 2008. Empty Names and Neo-Russellianism. PhD thesis. University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Mousavian, Seyed N. 2010. Neo-Meinongian Neo-Russellians. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91: 229–59.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1903/1996. The Principles of Mathematics. London: Allen & Unwin. Reprinted by Norton, W.W..Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1987/2005. ‘Existence.’ In Philosophical Perspectives 1: Metaphysics Tomberlin, James ed. Reprinted in Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning. Salmon 2005: 9–50.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1990/2007. ‘A Millian Heir Rejects the Wages of Sinn.’ In Propositional Attitudes: the Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind, Anderson and Owens, eds. Reprinted in Content, Cognition, and Communication. Salmon 2007: 3–32.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 2005. Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 2007. Content, Cognition, and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1987. ‘Substitutivity.’ In On Being and Saying: Essays for Richard Cartwright, Thomson, J.J. ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 99–132.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1988. ‘Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.’ In Propositional Attitudes. Salmon and Soames, eds. 1988: 197–239.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1995. ‘Beyond Singular Propositionsヨ’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 25: 515–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2005. Reference and Description: The Case against Two-Dimensionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, North, Alfred and Russell, Bertrand. 1925. Principia Mathematica. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar